[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m. in Room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Merkley, Reed, Tester, Murkowski, Capito, 
Hyde-Smith, and Hagerty.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY MR. DAVID BLOOM, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

    Senator Merkley. Ranking Member Murkowski, Administrator 
Regan, Mr. Bloom, welcome. We are delighted to have this 
hearing today.
    Welcome to this Appropriations Hearing on the fiscal year 
2023 President's Budget Request for the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    Administrator Regan, we are in a climate emergency, and 
everyday life, we are feeling the impacts. And out in Oregon we 
feel it through the wildfire season, we are seeing it through 
heat waves, and through drought, through dropping groundwater 
levels, through decreased average snow packs, through warmer, 
smaller streams for our trout and our salmon, and we certainly 
see it offshore where our kelp forests are being decimated by 
an ecosystem driven out of balance by the warmer, more acidic 
ocean waters.
    As we come together today a massive wildfire is threatening 
communities in New Mexico, been doing so for more than a month, 
uprooting lives and communities, as tens of thousands of people 
have been forced to evacuate. And it is shocking how normalized 
deadly months-long fire seasons have become over just a decade.
    As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency has a 
critical role in tackling climate chaos, the Clean Air Act 
charges EPA to protect our communities from greenhouse gas 
pollution, and those same communities are counting on EPA to 
act swiftly and boldly. The impacts are here now, and we don't 
have any time to waste.
    We need to act with urgency to address our country's long 
history of environmental injustice. Everyone in this country 
deserves clean air, clean water, and a stable climate. But we 
know that the burdens of environmental pollution 
disproportionately fall on the shoulders of low-income 
communities, and communities of color.
    And I am very pleased that our fiscal year 2022 
Appropriations Bill took an important step to address this 
injustice, providing historic level of $100 million for EPA's 
Environmental Justice Program.
    This significant increase will support community-driven 
projects to improve local environments and public health, will 
embed environmental justice voices throughout the Agency, 
helping ensure the EPA programs and decisionmaking are 
responsive to on-the-ground stakeholders. Of course, much more 
work remains to make the progress we need to remedy 
environmental justice challenges.
    Administrator Regan, I applaud your continued focus on 
expanding EPA's efforts, as reflected in the fiscal year, 
fiscal year 2023 Budget Request. And I look forward to hearing 
how the Agency has moved to spend last year's fiscal year 2022 
money effectively, efficiently, and for this proposed increase 
that you have in this budget.
    And I want to emphasize the importance of continuing the 
work to ban asbestos from our shelves, more than 60 nations, 
virtually every developed nation, has already recognized 
asbestos as a deadly substance, and has acted to protect 
citizens by banning it. It is time for us to join the rest of 
the developed world, and I appreciate EPA's recent commitment 
to ban the most common form of asbestos, one of the six 
asbestos fibers. It is a welcome progress, but we need to 
absolutely end this dangerous public health threat once and for 
all.
    Today is also an opportunity to hear about how EPA is 
administering the more than $55 billion for water 
infrastructure, Superfund cleanups, and other programs funded 
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill; these resources will 
help communities finally make progress on long-standing 
challenges.
    All across Oregon, I hear from small, underserved 
communities with crumbling water infrastructure that struggle 
to provide reliable, clean drinking water, or maintain 
wastewater systems. We need to prioritize programs that can 
reach these communities who can't come up with financing or 
matching funds equal to the huge price tags that these water 
projects require.
    I look forward to discussing with you how EPA is working to 
ensure the funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, and 
EPA's existing water programs is reaching these underserved 
communities, and how this subcommittee can be a partner in that 
effort.
    These one-time investments can make a real difference 
across the country. But we shouldn't have reached this crisis 
point in our infrastructure in the first place. We need 
enduring, consistent progress in addressing our environmental 
challenges, and for that we need major changes to our annual 
budget. We need to rebuild our environmental protection 
framework which was battered by the decade of budget caps, and 
by short-sighted efforts to deliberately dismantle or damage 
this framework.
    As Congress has charged EPA with additional 
responsibilities to address toxic chemicals, eliminate climate 
warming hydrofluorocarbons, support water infrastructure, and 
the Agency's resources have not kept pace with these expanded 
duties. They have not even remained level. The Agency's 
workforce is down nearly 3,000 staff below its 2010 total, down 
to numbers not seen since the 1980s. And we certainly know that 
the challenges are increasing, not decreasing.
    And as states, tribes, and local partners have faced new 
responsibilities their grant funding has also deteriorated in 
real terms.
    I was disappointed that the fiscal year 2022 budget deal 
did not allow us to accommodate the full scale of need for 
rebuilding the EPA and its grant programs supporting state, 
tribal, and local programs. And I am relieved we were able to 
avoid more of a backslide, but I look forward to the 
conversation today on the fiscal year 2023 request on where we 
can actually make additional progress.
    On far too many of the challenges our communities face 
there is a common theme, we are behind, we are overdue, we are 
late. We need urgency, we need boldness, the impacts are here 
now, there is not a second to waste.
    I want to impress upon you today the urgent need for EPA to 
take bold action on its vital mission of protecting human 
health and the environment.
    And with that, I will turn the microphone over to Ranking 
Member Murkowski.

                  STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good 
morning.
    Administrator, welcome back to the committee; I am glad to 
be talking about EPA's fiscal year 2023 Budget Request. I think 
it is fair to say that it has been a big year for the Agency 
since you testified before us last June. In that time Congress 
passed both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as well as the 
fiscal year 2022 Omnibus.
    As one of the negotiators for that Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill, I am very proud of what we were able to 
include with over $60 billion in needed investments to our 
aging infrastructure through EPA programs.
    The Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act included almost 50 
billion for water infrastructure improvements, 5 billion to 
help clean up contaminated sites, and also 275 million for a 
new grant program under the Save Our Seas Act, to help our 
communities better handle waste and recycling management.
    I have always prioritized funding for EPA programs that 
really do focus on getting tangible results in providing 
cleaner air, cleaner water, and support for our lands across 
the country.
    As you know, because we have had many conversations about 
this, Alaska has some unique needs and challenges on 
infrastructure, and therefore it is just an imperative that we 
continue to work together to ensure that Alaska receives the 
intended benefits from these investments that we have just 
talked about.
    I do appreciate, I am very grateful that representatives 
from the Agency attended a grant symposium that we held in 
Anchorage just last month. It was not only well attended, it 
was extraordinarily well attended by people from across the 
state; about 1,300 people flew into Anchorage, to come, to 
listen to representatives from the agencies.
    And what I got back in terms of feedback was, it was not 
only that I got a glossy brochure on the benefits of certain 
programs, they actually got answers to status on different 
projects. And so very appreciative for that level of 
engagement, but I do hope that a high level of engagement will 
continue as the Agency rolls out this infrastructure funding, 
but also with the congressionally directed spending projects 
that are contained in the fiscal year22 Omnibus.
    I know that many in my state are particularly anxious right 
now as they are awaiting the guidance on CDSs from the Agency 
on how and when they might receive their funding.
    While we have done a lot of great work together on 
infrastructure and other issues I, unfortunately, must note 
that I do have some serious concerns on some of the regulatory 
actions under this administration, and particularly as it has 
to do with waters of the United States.
    I believe that the new WOTUS Rule proposed last year is too 
broad, and it fails to recognize the special characteristics on 
the ground in Alaska, and this continued ambiguity on a 
definition, along with the overreach of the current proposal is 
going to have impact. And it will be a negative impact on 
economic development within Alaska.
    I was happy to be able to host a WOTUS roundtable in 
Alaska. Thank you for making sure that Assistant Administrator 
Fox was there. I think that that was a very good opportunity 
for that kind of back and forth. It is my hope that many of the 
concerns that were voiced by state officials and other Alaskans 
that she heard at that roundtable will be reflected in the 
Final Rule.
    So unsurprisingly, we can't agree on every issue out there, 
but know that I do appreciate your willingness, your continued 
willingness to hear me out on some of these issues. Some of 
them are more controversial than others, but also your 
commitment to work with me on so many of these important 
matters to Alaska.
    One long-standing issue to my state has been the 
contaminated lands that the Federal government conveyed to 
Alaska and to Alaska native communities, decades ago. A large 
percentage of these contaminated lands, as you know, have not 
yet been cleaned up, and the Federal government, for too long, 
has not shown any real willingness or interest to accept the 
responsibility that is theirs, for the remediation of these 
lands.
    And we know, we know because we see it played out all the 
time. If these were--if this was a private entity, some 
business or corporation and they failed to comply with cleanup 
and remediation, they would be out of there, they would be 
sued. Instead, it is the Federal government. And even adding 
further insult to the injury, is knowing that in so many cases 
contaminated lands were conveyed to Alaska Native peoples as a 
settlement for their native claims in--as part of the Native 
Claims Settlement Act.
    So Administrator, I appreciate the openness that you and 
your team have shown so far in engaging on this issue, and for 
agreeing to explore some creative solutions. I think you know, 
I think Assistant Administrator Fox clearly felt, this is a 
matter of environmental justice to our Alaska Native, and to 
our rural communities. And I know that that is important to 
you. I know that is important to this administration.
    So as the Agency looks to expand its role in helping on 
contaminated lands, I am going to be asking for your support in 
having us work together to make some real progress on this 
issue.
    So as we look to the Fiscal 2023 Budget Request, the Agency 
proposes significant new increases across accounts. There are 
some proposed increases in the request that I can support, a 
number that I can't. And I commend the request, though, for 
maintaining strong support for state, and tribal grant, and 
loan programs, along with the other infrastructure investments 
already mentioned. I think that these programs achieve real on-
the-ground improvements for communities nationwide.
    I am also pleased to note that the request prioritizes 
funding for efforts to better understand and tackle PFAS, so 
many communities in my state, and I know in others as well, 
face PFAS contamination and the problems--that poses for 
providing clean water and other services to residents.
    So we need to both prevent new PFAS contamination, as well 
as remediate contaminated areas as soon as possible. So I am 
hoping to hear more on how the budget request will achieve just 
that, and build upon the funding that we provided in the 
infrastructure law to help with PFAS remediation.
    So again, I want to express my appreciation for your 
personal commitment to work with me on many of these issues 
that may be very discreet, very unique to Alaska. I do hope 
that, along with our conversations, our staffs can once again 
set up the All Things Alaska call, so we can kind of go down 
our list as we work through some of these measures.
    So I will have an opportunity to present some questions to 
you throughout, but again, my thanks for being here this 
morning, and for the level of engagement that we have had 
today. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Administrator Regan, we look forward to 
your testimony.

                SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL REGAN

    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you, Chairman Merkley, and Ranking 
Member Murkowski, and members of this committee, I truly 
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 
discuss the bold vision laid out in the United States EPA's 
Proposed fiscal year 2023 Budget Request.
    In this budget request we lay out an ambitious and 
transformative plan for the EPA, with the goal of a healthier 
more prosperous Nation, where all people have equal access to 
clean air, clean water, and healthier communities,
    President Biden's proposed fiscal year 2023 Budget Request 
for EPA provides 11.9 billion to advance key priorities, 
including tackling the climate crisis, delivering environmental 
justice and equity for all, protecting air quality, upgrading 
the Nation's aging water infrastructure, and rebuilding core 
functions at the Agency to support and keep pace with the 
growing economy.
    Over the last year, we have made important progress towards 
many of these goals. And I am proud of the foundation that we 
have laid together throughout our partnerships that have 
underpinned our success.
    But there is still much more work to be done to ensure that 
all children have safe, healthy places to live, learn, and 
play, build a stronger, more sustainable economy, and to 
advance American innovation and ingenuity.
    Put simply, investing in EPA is an investment in the health 
and well-being of all the communities we serve, and in the 
economic vitality of this great nation.
    I have had the privilege to visit many of your communities 
in your states, and see first-hand the environmental and public 
health challenges many of your constituents continue to 
experience. From unprecedented flooding events, to crumbling 
wastewater infrastructure I have even spoken to mothers whose 
children have been lead poisoned. I have met with people who 
are living with toxic waste in their backyards. I have seen 
conditions that are simply unacceptable in the United States of 
America. From investing in our nation's climate resilience, to 
cleaning up contaminated lands, there is no shortage of 
critical work to be done.
    But members of this committee; let me assure you, EPA is up 
to the task. We are eager to work with all of you to deliver 
for our fellow Americans, and to secure our Nation's global 
competitiveness. But we need your support.
    Both the urgency and economic opportunity presented by 
climate change require that we leave no stone unturned. The 
2023 budget invests 773 million towards tackling the climate 
crisis, and reaping the benefits that come with it. Healthier 
communities, good-paying jobs, and increased energy security. 
The communities hit the hardest by pollution and climate change 
are most often communities of color, indigenous communities, 
our rural communities, and economically disadvantaged 
communities.
    For generations many of these communities have been 
overburdened with higher instances of polluted air, water, and 
land. This inequity of environmental protection is not just an 
environmental issue, a justice issue, but it is a civil rights 
issue as well.
    In fiscal year 2023 EPA will expand upon its historic 
investments made in Environmental Justice and Civil Rights, to 
reduce the historically disproportionate health impacts of 
pollution in communities with environmental justice concerns.
    Across the budget, EPA is investing more than 1.4 billion 
to advance environmental justice, clean up legacy pollution, 
and create good-paying jobs in the process. Across the country, 
poor air quality affects millions of people, perpetuating 
harmful health and economic impacts. In fiscal year 2023, the 
Agency will protect our air quality by cutting emissions of 
ozone forming pollutants, particulate matter, and air toxics.
    The President's budget includes 1.1 billion to improve air 
quality and set standards that reduce pollution from both 
mobile and stationary sources.
    A thriving economy also requires clean and safe water for 
all. Although progress has been made, many still lack access to 
healthy water, face inadequate wastewater infrastructure, and 
suffer the effects of lead pipes.
    America's water systems are also facing new challenges, 
including cybersecurity threats, climate change, and emerging 
contaminants such as PFAS. This budget proposes more than four 
billion to upgrade drinking water and wastewater infrastructure 
nationwide, with a focus on underserved communities. These 
investments build on historic resources allocated in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    The fiscal year 2023 President's Budget positions EPA to 
create durable environmental policy that sets our nation on a 
path to win the 21st century. It increases the Agency's 
capacity to allow us to meet the pressing need faced by 
millions of Americans, and fundamentally improve people's lives 
for the better.
    Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today, and 
offer this testimony. And I look forward to our continued 
partnership to achieve these ambitious yet necessary goals.
    And I welcome all of your questions. Thank you all.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Michael S. Regan
    Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members 
of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 
today to discuss the bold vision laid out in the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's proposed fiscal year 2023 Budget request. In this 
Budget request, we lay out an ambitious and transformative plan for the 
Agency with the goal of a cleaner, healthier, and more equitable Nation 
where all people have equal access to safe and clean water, air, and 
communities.
            the fiscal year 2023 president's budget request
    President Biden's proposed fiscal year 2023 Budget request for EPA 
provides $11.9 billion to advance the key priorities outlined in our 
new fiscal year 2022-fiscal year 2026 EPA Strategic Plan, including 
tackling the climate crisis, delivering environmental justice, 
protecting air quality, upgrading the Nation's aging water 
infrastructure, and rebuilding core functions at the Agency. Almost 
half of EPA's Budget request, $5.7 billion, is directed to support 
Tribal, state, and local partners through grants and to directly reach 
communities. Additionally, the Budget includes an increase of more than 
$900 million to fully fund the water programs authorized in the 
Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act (DWWIA). The Budget 
complements the resources provided in the bipartisan Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and will expand the Agency's capacity to 
protect human health and the environment across the Nation.
                      tackling the climate crisis
    Under the continued leadership of the Biden-Harris Administration, 
EPA is prioritizing addressing climate change with the focus and 
resources the crisis demands. President Biden has directed a whole of 
government effort to confront this urgent threat, and EPA will be at 
the center of delivering on this agenda. The fiscal year 2023 Budget 
invests $773 million towards the strategic goal of tackling the climate 
crisis while also uplifting underserved and overburdened communities, 
creating good-paying jobs, and building a cleaner energy economy.
    At EPA, we know both climate mitigation and adaptation are 
essential components of the strategy to reduce the threats and impact 
of climate change. We will invest in programs to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, including an additional $100 million for air quality grants 
to states and tribes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a local and 
regional scale. We will direct an additional $60 million to improve 
knowledge of the impacts of climate change on human health and the 
environment through our research programs--an increase that more than 
doubles EPA's climate change research. We will leverage an additional 
$35 million to implement the American Innovation in Manufacturing Act 
to continue phasing out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and we will invest 
an additional $13 million in wildfire prevention and readiness.
    Tackling the climate crisis depends not only on the Agency's 
ability to mitigate the effects of climate change, but also our 
capacity to adapt and deliver targeted assistance to ensure our 
partners across the Nation are also prepared to meet these challenges. 
As part of a whole-of-government approach, EPA will directly support 
Federal partners, Tribal governments, states, territories, local 
governments, environmental justice organizations, community groups, and 
businesses as they deal with the impacts of climate change. As part of 
this effort, the Budget provides $150 million to expand the 
availability of Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) grants and 
rebates, focusing on school buses, ports, and where conditions 
disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including our 
children. EPA will provide $20 million for climate adaptation efforts 
to strengthen the adaptive capacity of our partners. In addition, the 
Agency will lead through example and prioritize climate resiliency 
investments across EPA-owned facilities. We will invest $35 million to 
pursue aggressive energy, water, and building infrastructure 
improvements to advance the Agency's use of carbon-pollution free 
electricity.
                    elevating environmental justice
    The communities hardest hit by pollution and climate change are 
most often communities of color, indigenous communities, rural 
communities, and economically disadvantaged communities. For 
generations, many of these vulnerable communities have been 
overburdened with higher instances of polluted air, water, and land. 
This inequity of environmental protection is not just an environmental 
justice issue, but also a civil rights concern. Neither an individual's 
skin color nor the wealth of their zip code should determine whether 
they have clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, or healthy 
environments in which their children can play. And yet, the 
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 
regulations, and policies has not always ensured the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income.
    To address these inequities, EPA recognizes that effective 
environmental policy must clean up the legacy pollution that many 
historically overburdened and underserved communities have lived with 
for far too long and ensure equitable practices for the future. A 
foundational component of the Agency's work to address environmental 
justice is the President's Justice40 Initiative, with the goal of 
delivering at least 40 percent of the overall benefits of relevant 
Federal investments to underserved and overburdened communities.
    In fiscal year 2023, EPA will expand upon the historic investments 
made in fiscal year 2022 towards advancing environmental justice and 
civil rights, aimed at reducing the historically disproportionate 
health impacts of pollution in communities with environmental justice 
concerns. Across the Budget, EPA is investing more than $1.45 billion 
to advance environmental justice by cleaning up legacy pollution in 
overburdened and underserved communities and creating good-paying jobs. 
To ensure the success of these investments, we propose creating a new 
Environmental Justice National Program to be led by a Senate-confirmed 
Assistant Administrator to elevate and maximize the benefits of 
environmental justice efforts across EPA. Under this new Program area, 
more than $300 million is included for the Environmental Justice 
program to expand support for community-based organizations, indigenous 
organizations, Tribes, states, local governments, and territorial 
governments in pursuit of identifying and addressing environmental 
justice issues through multi- partner collaborations. This includes 
$150 million in six environmental justice grant programs to support 
states, tribes, and local communities in addressing the impacts of 
environmental harms. Importantly, the Budget includes $25.9 million to 
increase civil rights capacity across the Agency and ensure recipients 
of EPA's financial assistance comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act. The budget would also invest $100 million will support a new 
community air quality monitoring and notification program. The Budget 
proposed additional funds and FTE to increase fenceline inspections in 
communities with disproportionately high pollution exposure.
                      enforcing environmental laws
    Enforcing and ensuring compliance of our Nation's environmental 
laws is central to achieving EPA's mission. The Agency holds, and will 
continue to hold, bad actors accountable for their violations, with a 
particular focus on communities with multiple pollution sources. This 
Budget invests $213 million for civil enforcement efforts, such as 
increasing enforcement efforts in communities with high pollution 
exposure and preventing the illegal importation and use of 
hydrofluorocarbons in the United States. The request also includes $148 
million for compliance monitoring and $7 million to implement a coal 
combustion residuals compliance program.
    We know that overburdened and underserved communities are often 
victims of environmental crime. Accordingly, the Budget sets aside $69 
million for criminal enforcement efforts, including funding for a 
specialized Criminal Enforcement Initiative focused on addressing 
environmental justice issues in partnership with the Department of 
Justice (DOJ).
           ensuring clean and healthy air for all communities
    Poor air quality still affects millions of people across the 
country, perpetuating harmful short- and long-term health and quality 
of life impacts. In fiscal year 2023, the Agency will improve air 
quality for communities by reducing emissions of ozone-forming 
pollutants, particulate matter, and air toxics. The President's Budget 
includes $1.1 billion for the strategic goal of improving air quality 
and reducing localized pollution, reducing exposure to radiation, and 
improving indoor air for communities across the country. The Budget 
dedicates $152 million to the development and implementation of 
national emission standards to reduce air pollution from vehicles, 
engines, and fuels. EPA's work to set these standards provides 
certainty to industry, builds on advances in technology, and reinforces 
market movement towards a cleaner energy system that provides reliable 
and affordable energy.
    The Budget includes $289 million to assist Tribal, state, and local 
air pollution control agencies in the development, implementation, and 
evaluation of programs for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and to establish standards for reducing air toxics. EPA will 
continue to build on its historic progress in protecting human health 
and the environment from the harmful effects of air pollution and work 
to assure clean air for all Americans, with a particular focus on those 
in underserved and overburdened communities.
           achieving clean and safe water for all communities
    Clean and safe water is a foundation for healthy communities and a 
thriving economy, and the Agency is committed to ensuring clean and 
safe water for all, especially for overburdened and underserved 
communities where adequate drinking water and wastewater infrastructure 
has not been a priority. Although immense progress has been made across 
our Nation, many still lack access to safe and clean water and suffer 
the effects of aging infrastructure and legacy lead pipes. America's 
water systems also are facing new challenges, including cybersecurity 
threats, climate change, and emerging contaminants of concern, such as 
PFAS.
    In fiscal year 2023, EPA will continue our work with Federal, 
Tribal, state, and nongovernmental partners to advance water quality 
science, provide clean and safe water for all communities, and protect 
our Nation's waterbodies from degredation. The Budget proposes more 
than $4.1 billion to upgrade drinking water and wastewater 
infrastructure nationwide, with a focus on underserved communities. 
This includes a total of $2.8 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking 
Water State Revolving Funds and $80 million for the Water 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Also 
included is $1.2 billion for grant programs authorized in the Water 
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 (WIIN), the 
America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA), and the Drinking 
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 (DWWIA) and $25 million 
for a new water sector cybersecurity grant program dedicated to help 
utilities and operators protect their systems. EPA requests to fully 
fund all the water programs authorized by DWWIA, including $565 million 
to create 20 new water grant programs, a $240- million increase to the 
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse grant program, and other critical 
water infrastructure investments. To further the President's goal of 
replacing all lead pipes within the next decade, the Budget proposes a 
$160-million increase for grants to reduce lead in drinking water. This 
Budget request will complement the supplemental funds provided by the 
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), totaling $8.4 
billion in EPA's State Revolving Funds for fiscal year 2023.
    In fiscal year 2023, EPA will continue to work across environmental 
programs to advance Agency efforts to tackle Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 
Substances (PFAS) pollution. As part of the President's commitment to 
tackling PFAS pollution and EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap, the fiscal 
year 2023 Budget proposes approximately $126 million for EPA to 
increase its understanding of PFAS and their human health and 
ecological effects; restrict PFAS use to prevent new PFAS pollution 
from entering the air, land, water; and remediate PFAS that have been 
released into the environment.
    From the Chesapeake Bay to Lake Pontchartrain to the Puget Sound, 
the United States is home to water bodies of ecological, cultural, and 
economic significance. The Budget invests $578.6 million to continue 
strong support for EPA's Geographic Water Programs to protect and 
restore these water bodies of special ecological and economic 
importance to the Nation. EPA's Geographic Programs deliver technical 
and financial assistance to solve problems and support healthy 
resilient ecosystems and to maintain, restore, and improve water 
quality, which yields environmental, economic, and recreational 
benefits to their communities.
               safeguarding and revitalizing communities
    Preventing and cleaning up environmental pollution that harms 
communities and poses a risk to public health and safety continue to be 
a top priority for the Administration. The fiscal year 2023 Budget 
enables the Agency to clean up hazardous waste sites in communities 
across the Nation, including those where vulnerable populations, such 
as children, the elderly, and economically-disadvantaged individuals, 
reside. EPA collaborates with Tribal, state, and local partners to 
improve the livelihood of all residents of the United States by 
addressing contaminated sites, including Superfund, brownfields, 
leaking underground storage tanks, and other waste sites and restoring 
them to productive use. Reuse and restoration of these sites directly 
support President Biden's Justice40 initiative.
    The Budget provides $1.15 billion for EPA's Superfund programs to 
continue cleaning up some of the Nation's most contaminated land and to 
respond to environmental emergencies. In fiscal year 2023, EPA will 
begin to use the Superfund chemical tax revenue collected in fiscal 
year 2022, along with the $3.5 billion provided to EPA under IIJA and 
other appropriated resources, to implement the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The 
Budget also includes $215 million for EPA's Brownfields programs to 
provide grants and technical assistance to communities along with 60 
additional Brownfields community specialists. Taken together, these 
investments will ensure EPA is cleaning up sites and fully engaging the 
communities we serve in the process.
    ensuring the safety of chemicals for people and the environment
    Chemicals and toxic substances are ubiquitous in our everyday lives 
and are often released into the environment from their manufacture, 
processing use, or disposal. EPA has significant responsibilities under 
amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to ensure the 
safety of chemicals in or entering commerce and addressing unreasonable 
risks to human health or the environment. The Budget provides $124 
million and 449 FTE to implement TSCA and deliver on the promises made 
to the American people by the bipartisan Lautenberg Act, an increase of 
more than $60 million. These resources will support EPA-initiated 
chemical risk evaluations, issue protective regulations in accordance 
with statutory timelines, and establish a pipeline of priority 
chemicals for risk evaluation.
    The Agency also has significant responsibility under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to screen new 
pesticides before they reach the market and ensure pesticides already 
in commerce are safe. In addition, EPA is responsible for complying 
with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ensuring that federally 
endangered and threatened species are not harmed when the Agency 
registers pesticides. The fiscal year 2023 Budget includes an 
additional $4.9 million to enable the Pesticide program to integrate 
ESA requirements in conducting risk assessments and making risk 
management decisions that protect federally threatened and endangered 
species from exposure to new active ingredients.
        restoring epa's core capacity and following the science
    The Budget strategically increases the capacity of the Agency 
across both mission and mission support functions to position the EPA 
to address both current challenges and prepare for the future. EPA has 
lost nearly 1,000 staff in recent years, hindering the Agency's ability 
to carry out its mission to protect human health and the environment. 
The Budget looks to restore EPA's programmatic capabilities that focus 
on achieving clean air, land, and water and tackling climate change. 
Restoring capacity across the Agency and building a diverse and 
equitable workforce will strengthen our ability to tackle multiple 
priorities, from clean air and water, to cutting edge research at the 
Agency. Underpinning all our work is a commitment to follow the 
science, which is why this budget includes $864 million for the Science 
and Technology account, an increase of more than $100 million above 
current levels that will ensure programs have the best available data 
to inform decisions.
    The Budget increases the Agency workforce by more than 1,900 new 
FTE relative to current levels, for a total of more than 16,200 FTE. 
The Budget will also dedicate resources to continue strengthening the 
Agency's ability to recruit, hire, develop, promote, and retain top 
talent and remove barriers to equal opportunity at management and staff 
levels to strengthen and advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility.
                               conclusion
    The fiscal year 2023 President's Budget positions the EPA to 
advance our important goals of protecting human health and the 
environment, championing environmental justice, and tackling the 
climate crisis. With these investments we can advance a better future 
for all our citizens and ensure the benefits of a cleaner environment 
for future generations.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to submit this 
testimony for the record. I look forward to our continued partnership 
to achieve these ambitious yet necessary goals and welcome any 
questions you may have.

    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for your testimony. 
And we have your lengthier, more detailed written testimony, 
which I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record; so 
ordered.
    So you mentioned climate and the funding for climate; what 
are the most important funding increases for making progress in 
tackling climate chaos, in staff, in research, in grants, what 
is the vision?
    Mr. Regan. You know, thank you for that question. We have a 
very strong vision, and the 2023 budget request covers a range 
of those. On standards we want to focus on the implementation 
of the bipartisan AIM Act which will phase down the consumption 
and production of HFCs, we want to hit that mark of 85 percent 
reduction over the next 15 years, so the Agency requests an 
additional $35 million, and 28 FTE to be sure that we can do 
that.
    We also want to continue to focus on keeping pace with the 
growing economy, and the demands of the market, and the 
employment of our strong unions, by continuing to push on the 
light-duty vehicles, and the heavy-duty vehicles transition to 
a lower carbon transportation economy.
    We want to continue to focus on very innovative and 
transformative technology standards, like the one to reduce 
methane from the oil and gas sector, technology standards that 
allow for artificial intelligence, remote sensing, and just 
fascinating innovation and entrepreneurship that can help 
capture that lost product, while also protecting the planet.
    And then also, we are having some very engaging 
conversations around the power plant sector. The budget 
requests $100 million for air quality grants for states and 
tribes. We believe that states, and tribes, and localities know 
their communities better than the Federal government ever 
could; and on the research side $60 million to improve the 
knowledge of the impacts of climate change on human health.
    So we have got some really, what I would call, pragmatic 
but focused request as it relates to climate change and public 
health.
    Senator Merkley. You can largely sum up the challenge ahead 
as electrifying everything with renewable energy to decrease 
both the massive methane and carbon dioxide releases, and one 
piece of that is electric vehicles; and you have laid out in 
the, or we have laid out in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
5 billion to replace diesel school buses. So it is one piece of 
that initiative.
    And we have in the Omnibus, fiscal year 2022 Omnibus, $92 
million to replace diesel engines through, DERA, the Diesel 
Emission Reduction Act. And so we are starting to see the 
impacts of this, 11 school districts in Oregon are preparing to 
use electric school buses as part of their fleet, but it is 
just the very beginning of this effort. How will this new 
funding speed up the transition to electric vehicles?
    Mr. Regan. It is critical. We are definitely building on 
the success of the DERA program, and we are grateful for those 
resources to do that. DERA for a long time has demonstrated how 
funding support for cutting-edge clean technologies reduce 
exposure to diesel emissions for all people. I am really 
excited, and get really excited to talk about the $5 billion 
for clean school buses.
    There is nothing more important than cleaning up the yellow 
school buses that carry our most precious cargo to and from 
school every day. And so there are approximately 500,000 school 
buses on the road right now, the $5 billion for clean school 
buses is going to be transformational in terms of better 
protection for our children, and our school bus drivers, but it 
sends a very strong signal to the manufacturers as well, that 
there is a market demand for these cleaner vehicles.
    Senator Merkley. Okay. So brass tacks, when will you start 
awarding the School Bus Replacement Grants?
    Mr. Regan. We are going to make an announcement very soon 
about the first tranche of grants, it will be $500 million. 
That is very soon, and we are excited about that. And then the 
second tranche will come a few months after.
    And by the way, we are going to make it as easy as 
possible, we want these resources to be able to go directly to 
these school districts, so we are going to have online access, 
and we are going to have easy forms, and we are also going to 
have built-in technical assistance to these school districts to 
be sure that those districts that need them the most actually 
get the resources.
    Senator Merkley. Is very soon, like June?
    Mr. Regan. Very soon is next couple of weeks we are going 
to make a very important announcement.
    Senator Merkley. Good. Okay, great, great. And then I want 
to turn to the issue of wildfire smoke. We didn't use to talk 
about smoke, but so many of our fires burn so long, and in such 
a fashion that smoke is having a huge impact. It is affecting 
our agriculture. It has affected the grapes, our wine grapes. 
It has affected all kinds of community efforts.
    You know, including like, for example, the furniture 
salesman who says, how do I sell this furniture that, you know, 
everything smells with wildfire smoke? Not to mention what 
people are breathing, and their need for places they can go, of 
the aggravation of asthma, it is just having a significant 
impact. Impact on our children, impact on our adults, the 
problem is getting worse.
    So I am very pleased that in the Omnibus I secured $4 
million to start a new EPA grant program that helps communities 
prepare for, and protect against wildfire smoke.
    So can you tell me? Have grants gone out the door? And is 
this going to help communities better protect themselves and 
their community members?
    Mr. Regan. It absolutely will help us communicate more 
effectively, to moms who want to go out for jobs, or children 
who want to go out and play, and are not really understanding 
what the implications of wildfire smoke may be from thousands 
of miles away.
    So this is going to give EPA a competitive advantage to 
communicate these health disparities to those who need it the 
most. We are currently planning stakeholder engagements this 
summer to inform how we can best assist states, tribes, and 
public preschools, local educational agencies, and we are going 
to issue a competitive grant solicitation targeted for this 
fall, late this fall, that meets the needs of the impacted 
community.
    So we want to do a little bit more homework up front, make 
sure that the impacted community has what it needs in terms of 
communication, and then put that grant process out there.
    Senator Merkley. Great. And I hope you will also replicate 
your emphasis on simplicity. So many of the small communities, 
you know, do not have grant writers, they find that the process 
is so complicated that they give up, and don't apply in the 
first place.
    Mr. Regan. Yeah.
    Senator Merkley. And my team tries to assist them, and 
guide them, how they can effectively apply, but we want to make 
sure that small communities, and small counties, with limited 
staff are able to apply effectively.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. And one of the things that we have 
really focused on with our core budget, and flexibility with 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, EPA providing technical 
assistance, and that is where you see us asking for additional 
resources in our regional offices.
    We know these communities don't have the technical 
capacity, and there are many aspects of that that I have quite 
frankly wanted to replicate, and spending time with Tom Vilsack 
and USDA, having people on the ground to provide that technical 
assistance is invaluable.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator, I might commend to you and your team to do a 
check-in with the school district in Tok, Alaska. They have 
been engaged in a pilot of an EV school bus up there, how these 
buses--or how this bus operates in extreme cold weather 
environments. I am not going to comment on the success, or lack 
of success, but just to recognize that there are some 
considerations, and I think we can learn something from what 
they are doing up there.
    I want to direct my first questions to you regarding waters 
of the United States. And as I mentioned in my opening, there 
is perhaps different impact to a state like Alaska where a 
significant portion of our state is considered to be wetlands. 
So it kind of puts us in a different place than most other 
states, and it impacts economic development, particularly in 
our rural communities that are trying to do very small, perhaps 
very routine projects, and get stopped after this.
    So this was, again, a good roundtable that Assistant 
Administrator Fox was able to engage in. And so I would like 
you to share with me this morning, how you plan to integrate 
the feedback that was heard at that roundtable from Alaska 
constituencies, and more specifically, to the issue of 
compensatory mitigation.
    One of the challenges that we have with compensatory 
mitigation in the state is that we don't have areas that are in 
need of mitigation. For us, we may need some more creative 
solutions allowing the Agency to explore whether its projects, 
like water infrastructure projects, that are desperately needed 
in rural Alaska and Alaska Native villages that will improve 
water quality, just improve life there.
    So what are you planning to do with the feedback that you 
have received? And are you considering these beneficial 
proposals in lieu of what could--what would be determined more 
typical compensatory mitigation?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. I can tell 
you that we were very thoughtful in these regional roundtables, 
and we chose 10 regions that we believe would be more 
reflective of the diversity across the country. And Assistant 
Administrator Fox came back from Alaska with a lot of great 
intelligence.
    We are definitely not just checking boxes or going through 
the motions, these round tables are very instructive for us, 
and will inform how we approach waters of the U.S. As a former 
state regulator, I know the difficulties of ambiguity. I also 
understand the frustrations of an overly complex and 
administratively burdensome rule, that doesn't necessarily 
reflect the needs of North Carolina, or Alaska, but maybe 
advantages a state like Florida.
    And so what we are trying to do is to strike a balance, 
where we meet our legal obligations under the Clean Water Act, 
as a Federal agency and a Federal government, but also provide 
the flexibility and autonomy that we know states need to handle 
some of the conditions that are on the ground.
    And so that is the goal we are trying to achieve. I believe 
that when you look at the current proposed rule, it goes back 
to 2015 which was a--in my opinion--a simpler rule prior to 
some of the changes that were enacted. It will codify some of 
the decisions that the Supreme Court has made. But it will 
retain the permitting exemptions, which are identified in the 
Clean Water Act itself, and a lot of the exclusions that we 
know our farmers and ranchers in states like Alaska will need.
    So we are trying to strike a balance where we get a legally 
sound, durable rule that gives states the flexibility to do 
some of the more innovative things that I think Assistant 
Administrator Fox heard during the Alaska roundtable.
    Senator Murkowski. I am glad to hear you use the word 
``flexibility''. Again, this is not an effort to get around a 
rule, this is just a reality that we don't have a system that 
accommodates what compensatory mitigation might look like in 
other parts of the country. And yet you have extreme need, 
extreme need, when it comes to certain aspects of water, water 
quality, water safety; and so just your commitment to keep 
working on this to ensure that the state's input is considered 
is appreciated.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Murkowski. Let me switch to the contaminated lands, 
and again you have heard me express my concerns and how 
critical an issue this is, and how unacceptable it really is 
that so little progress has been made to date by the Federal 
government.
    We have to do better on this, we must do better on this, 
and again I want to make sure. I am not blaming your Agency, I 
am not blaming the EPA, but I do think that EPA is uniquely 
positioned to help us find a real--and to use your word--a 
durable solution to this problem that has plagued these 
communities in Alaska for so long.
    So thank you for your willingness to engage on this. I 
appreciate what you have done so far, but we are here in the 
committee now, we are talking about providing resources and to 
help drive new initiatives within the Agency. So I would ask 
for your commitment today, to have our two staff sit down 
together by the end of this month, and begin to explore some 
creative solutions to this problem.
    Mr. Regan. You absolutely have my commitment there, and I 
think your staff will find that the Acting Assistant 
Administrator Carlton Waterhouse, who grew up and spent some 
time in Alaska, who was leading our Superfund and Brownfield 
efforts, has some really innovative ideas about how we can 
approach this problem. And he has been doing a great job 
conversing with DOI, DOD, DOE, NOAA.
    So we have got some ideas. We need the resources, we need 
to start putting shoulder to this wheel. And you have my 
commitment, you also have Carlton's commitment, to focus on the 
unique issues that are facing the Alaska natives.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that. And you are 
right, we need to resource it, we just can't talk about it, we 
have been talking about it for too long, and the result has 
been the same, which is, nothing. So I appreciate this 
willingness to work together, and I look forward to what we are 
going to do to change this dynamic.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Senator Tester.
    Senator Tester. Yes. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member. 
Administrator Regan, thanks for being here.
    I want to start out parochial. Last week I talked to you 
about getting people on the ground at Columbia Falls, to talk 
about the issue that they have. My staff tells me that they 
were there yesterday; is that accurate?
    Mr. Regan. It is, yes.
    Senator Tester. Okay. So the Superfund process tends to be 
a little bit--well, we will call it clunky; there is probably a 
better word for it than that, but it is pretty complicated. Are 
there plans to ensure that the public has an opportunity to 
give input on any potential solution, and are there plans for 
the people to be able to give input after the remediation plan 
goes public; both ``pre'' and ``post''?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. This is an area where we, number 
one, we believe in community engagement.
    Senator Tester. Okay.
    Mr. Regan. To your point, this is especially important. So 
we did have a meeting just yesterday, and I think the report 
back to me was it was a great meeting. We are also planning 
monthly activities with the community leading up to any release 
of any proposed plan.
    Senator Tester. Good.
    Mr. Regan. We want to be sure the community has active 
opportunities to contribute to the process.
    Senator Tester. I appreciate that, and look forward to 
making sure that that does happen because it is critically 
important.
    Now I want to talk about waste in place. We have got a 
number of places in Montana. You know this, Butte, Smurfit-
Stone, potentially, Columbia Falls, where Waste in Place is 
used.
    Let us stick with Columbia Falls, we could go to either one 
of them, and Smurfit-Stone is the same kind of thing. We have 
got an area of land that has been contaminated, that is next to 
the Flathead River that flows into Flathead Lake; that is at 
the headwaters, of water that impacts the entire west. Okay?
    If it is Waste in Place, the question becomes why do we 
even do that, number one? And number two, is there adequate 
testing that can be done to make sure that this stuff isn't 
leaching? Because the reason it was brought to the attention of 
the EPA to begin with, is because common sense would tell you 
this stuff is going to leach into a river that runs right 
through it.
    And so the question is, is that when it comes to Waste in 
Place, do you have accurate or adequate testing regime to be 
able to make the determination, or whether it is actually the 
right thing to do?
    Mr. Regan. We do under the Superfund Program and the 
Circular Program we have in place the abilities to do a 
thorough scientific evaluation, and we also have the 
methodologies in place to do the appropriate monitoring if 
Waste in Place is the proposed option.
    Senator Tester. So if Waste in Place is a proposed option 
it doesn't, like I said, it doesn't matter where it is, we have 
got the same kind of situation on Smurfit that is going to be 
dealt with. Can that area ever be developed?
    Mr. Regan. You know, I would have to circle back with the 
experts to determine, number one, what the cleanup levels would 
be around there. And two, what the developmental opportunities 
would be at the point of the closure, and the securing of it, 
and any kind of future economic development opportunities.
    Senator Tester. Because the reason I say that is because 
when I was in Columbia Falls, in particular, but it is the same 
thing with any of these, these places are pretty landlocked. I 
mean, they are in the middle of mountains, and they have got 
water running, and this area had been industrial.
    And I think the hope the hope that I had, the community 
could have a different hope, and I would absolutely yield to 
them on their opinion, but the hope that I had is it would be 
cleaned up to a point where it could be developed. And it would 
be cleaned up to the point where we didn't have to worry about 
a river that is--the headwaters would pollute one of the 
largest lakes in the west, and everything downstream from it.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, I can assure you that any remedy 
chosen is to protect public health, first and foremost, as well 
as the environment. I will circle back with you on the answer 
of future economic development opportunities.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Mr. Regan. But I can tell you, we thoroughly look at what 
is most protected, disturbing, trying to move, and excavate, 
and transport radioactive materials, or looking at a way we can 
contain it to be most protective of public health and the 
environment. So I will circle back with you on the future 
development pieces, but I can assure you, it is designed to 
protect public health.
    Senator Tester. Okay. That is good, because last time I 
checked, as my Native American friends would say, ``Water 
literally is life'', you can live without a lot of things, you 
can't live without clean water.
    Mr. Regan. I agree.
    Senator Tester. I want to thank you and your staff for your 
work on the Kootenai. As you well know, this is an impaired 
watershed with selenium flowing into the United States from 
Canada. I have been trying to get attention to this issue for 
some time, and your regional staff have been very helpful in 
organizing a multi-agency response.
    I am frustrated that negotiations with Canada seem to have 
stalled again, but I want to make sure you have the resources 
and staff that you need to support the State Department in 
those conversations, and from the International Joint 
Commission. In depth, if we ever get to a reference, is there 
anything we can do to help you with the fight?
    Mr. Regan. I think the support that you have given. I 
greatly appreciate it. And we are positioned very well to 
support the State Department, this has been a priority for me. 
As you know, I have also sent the word directly to my 
counterpart in Canada through our international bilaterals as 
well. And so we hope to get it unstuck and continue to make 
progress.
    Senator Tester. And this isn't in your bailiwick, but it 
certainly is in the State Department's. I mean, Canada is a 
huge friend of ours, a great trading partner, and the fact is 
that there is water that flows from United States North, we 
shouldn't be polluting them, and they shouldn't be polluting 
us. And that is really the bottom line.
    I want to talk very, very briefly, in the next 40 seconds, 
and about what we are doing in the area of climate change. Now, 
we have got gasoline, diesel price is 5.50 a gallon. Last week 
I had one of these hearings, it was 5.44, it is 5.50 this week. 
God knows what it is going to be next week. And I think this is 
a real opportunity to get more energy into the marketplace.
    And I would encourage you, as we talk about batteries, and 
buses, which is important, but let us get it so we can have 
batteries and cars that go more than 350 miles. Let us get it 
in over-the-road semis that emit a lot, let us get it in my 
field tractor.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Senator Tester. Let us get that battery technology. I think 
the motor technology is there, the battery technology is not. 
So I would encourage you to do what we can do to get that, and 
get it affordable. If it is affordable, and if it is in the 
marketplace, people will change overnight, and we don't have to 
give subsidies for it. And so I would just encourage you to try 
to push that envelope as much as possible.
    I like tax incentives, they are great, but they don't fix 
the problem. If we have affordable battery technology, that 
fixes the problem.
    Mr. Regan. I agree. And I can tell you I have spent time 
with the executives, and the CEOs, and the presidents of Mack 
Truck, Volvo, and others, the technology is there, it is on the 
horizon, we are looking at the cost effectiveness of it. But 
when we look at our heavy-duty vehicles rules, stages one and 
two, we are just as focused on our longer range vehicles and 
our trucks, as we are on our light-duty vehicles as well. So I 
agree with you.
    Senator Tester. I appreciate that. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member.
    Senator Merkley. Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Regan, for being here today; and you 
know exactly what I am going to talk about, because it is one 
of my very top concerns, as being the Senator for Mississippi, 
and always has been since the day I got here.
    The Yazoo Backwater Area Pump Project, and it is a concern 
to me, but it is definitely a concern to the Mississippi Delta.
    The November 17th, 2021, letter from the EPA Office of 
Water, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, brought this long 
overdue, congressionally authorized flood control project to a 
screeching halt, leaving thousands of Mississippians without 
hope of decent flood control, and more than $10 million in 
taxpayer money totally just flushed down the drain.
    Mr. Administrator, I cannot begin to express my frustration 
and disappointment by your Agency's decisions, which was, by 
all accounts, an abuse of the EPA's authority under the Clean 
Water Act.
    And to my colleagues on this committee, this may be a 
Mississippi issue today, but make no mistake, the same abuse of 
authority may end up in your backyard tomorrow.
    Mr. Administrator, you and other administration officials, 
including the White House Council on Environmental Quality, 
profess that the Yazoo Backwater pumps are a priority, and that 
you are actively looking for a solution. And talk about an 
environmental injustice, this is a true minority community who 
live in true poverty. They cannot afford homeowners' insurance.
    And you heard a testimony, I think, of Mr. Anderson Jones 
that talked about an elderly man that talked about his Senior 
Class Party that he went to with mud on his pants because he 
had to wade through the water. And he said, ``My grandchildren 
are wading through those same waters.'' I will never forget 
that man's testimony.
    What is the status of that process? And are you involving 
local stakeholders? Are the congressionally authorized pumps an 
option under this administration, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And I also 
thank you and the delegation for the invitation to host me in 
Mississippi and Vicksburg, and actually see it firsthand. That 
was really helpful.
    You know, I am going to stay with my commitment to you, 
which is this process is a priority. I think what I agree to, 
and we are meeting that obligation, is I pull the White House 
in. I think there is been a--number one, this issue has been 
there for decades. We can agree that it is not political 
because I think it was the Bush administration that put the 
veto in place, and the Trump administration that had a process 
that was deemed political interference to change the Bush 
administration's decision on this project.
    But that aside, I have asked the White House, the Council 
For Environmental Quality, to convene all of the Federal 
agencies that are involved: U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army, 
USDA, and FEMA, to focus on this project. And we have done just 
that. We have got technical experts from all of those agencies 
reviewing all of the available data. There are no options off 
the table, to your question.
    Green and gray, hard and natural infrastructure solutions 
are on the table. What I can say is our teams have started 
meetings, and there are weekly two-hour meetings occurring over 
the next month to put solutions in front of both leadership at 
EPA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    So we are tracking on that timeline that I committed to you 
on. We have got all of the agencies; we have an interagency 
council actually focused on this problem. I committed to you 
and Senator Wicker that, instead of continuing to kick the 
football down the road, like we have seen for the past 20, 30 
years, we are going to get a solution to this problem.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. During all these meetings, and all 
these hearings that you are having, and all the agencies that 
you say you are bringing in, it should be very clear that the 
letter that was sent, that the pump project is subject to EPA's 
2008 veto of a different Corps plan. You should easily find 
that.
    According to the EPA Assistant Administrator of the Office 
of Water, the 2020 proposed plan is the same plan proposed by 
the Corps in 2007. The 2020 proposed plan would discharge fill 
material into the same disposal site prohibited under EPA's 
2008 veto.
    This is just not true. The facts are, the proposed location 
of the pump station in the new 2020 plan is in a completely 
different county than the 2007 plan's project site. That is a 
big difference. And when I got that, and I saw that you were 
looking at the things in 2007 in a completely different county, 
I was just totally amazed.
    Another fact, the 2020 plan included in the new mitigation 
features to help sustain aquatic habitat, fisheries, and 
mussels during low flow season, the 2007 plan called for 
nothing of that sort. That is a big difference.
    Another fact, the 2020 plan included an adaptive management 
plan in light of the uncertainty related to the effects of 
pumping out surface water within that area, and to allow the 
flexible decisions making when operational adjustments are 
needed. The 2007 plan did not include any of that. So this is a 
big difference. And the list goes on.
    The bottom line is, the 2020 plan is not the 2007 plan, 
given the long list of differences detailed in the Corps' Final 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, how can your 
Agency determine that these two plans are basically one and the 
same?
    Mr. Regan. I think that, you know, the experts--I think you 
we can agree that this issue has been going on since 1940 or 
50s, and EPA, and Army Corps, and Fish and Wildlife, these 
agencies have been having this discussion for 50 years, and 
placing the blame in different categories.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. But it is time to straighten it out
    Mr. Regan. It is. Which is why I am proud to say that for 
the first time in 50 or 60 years, I got the White House to 
convene an interagency council to pull all these agencies 
together so that staff can't hide, people can't hide, we are 
going to take a look, we are going to do the analysis, and we 
are kind of--we are going to come out with a solution.
    And I feel very good about the process that we have 
underway, because it has never been done before. And what you 
are going to find, with the proposed solutions, is for the 
first time in decades you are going to see a U.S. EPA, a USDA, 
you are going to see an Army Corps, and a U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife in the same administration stop bickering, and agree 
on what we believe to be a legally sound, and engineering 
durable solution to the Yazoo pump issue.
    The other thing that we are going to also do, because you 
raised Environmental Justice, is Army Corps' evaluation of the 
Yazoo Pumps Project has never done an evaluation on EJ, never 
provided any data to support that. We are going to do that this 
time around.
    So we want to button this thing up. I want to button this 
thing up, probably not as much as you do, but I want to button 
this thing up, because it is the right thing to do. And I 
believe we can get it done.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Well, if you look at the facts and the 
science, you can get it done. And I am just asking that all of 
this is cleared up, because this is information coming from 
your office that needs to be cleared up, and I truly appreciate 
you trying to find the solution.
    And it has been a long time coming, and I just hope that 
this is a quick resolution to this, and that it is not two or 
three more years down the road, because these people in the 
Mississippi Delta need your help. And it did come to a 
screeching halt after it was congressionally approved.
    So I think you have got a lot of explaining to do. I think 
you have got a lot of corrections to make. And I truly 
appreciate your efforts in this.
    Mr. Regan. Well thank you. And I agree with you, 50, 60, 40 
years, however many years, is way too long. And this is a 
priority for me, and we want to find the solution.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Senator Capito.
    Senator Moore Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Good to see you again. And I 
look forward to our visit together, to West Virginia in June. 
And thank you for agreeing to do that. I appreciate that.
    I am going to follow up on a topic we have talked about, I 
think it is about 13 months now, and that is the EPA's 
involvement in developing the U.S. nationally determined 
contribution target. Since you testified in April we did 
receive some documents. And thank you for that. So your staff 
had also agreed to schedule a briefing.
    So that has not been scheduled yet. So I am asking you to 
please have that briefing scheduled as soon as we can with my 
staff.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Moore Capito. Good.
    Mr. Regan. And it is that briefing on?
    Senator Moore Capito. On the materials that were submitted.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Moore Capito. The other question on those 
materials, there was information that--I think there was a 
feeling that maybe not all of the information was brought 
forward. You had previously said that EPA provided qualitative 
information about our regulatory and voluntary programs, and 
discussed approaches to quantitative analysis.
    So in the materials we didn't see any of that quantitative 
analysis. And I am wondering, did we get all the materials? I 
mean, are you satisfied that you have presented all the 
materials to our staff that we have been requesting?
    Mr. Regan. I am. I posed this question just yesterday, and 
my staff knows how serious I am about being responsive to your 
requests.
    Senator Moore Capito. You knew you would see me, right?
    Mr. Regan. And so to the best of my knowledge, you all have 
all of the materials that we have.
    Senator Moore Capito. Okay. And I look forward to the 
briefing. I think that will help us understand more some of the 
data. I think there were some questions as to how the data was 
presented.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Moore Capito. I did ask you, and this is a 
question, and there have been a couple articles about, you are 
asking for a thousand more employees in this budget. How many 
people are presently full-time at EPA?
    Mr. Regan. We have--let me get you an accurate number 
here--we have right now 14,000--about 14,824 employees.
    Senator Moore Capito. Okay. So the thousand would take you 
up to 16,200, so you are not even at your full capacity right 
now?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, our fiscal year 2023 budget request would 
support right around 16,000.
    Senator Moore Capito. Right, so you are still, you are 
still shy. You are still not hiring into the max that you have 
from last year quite yet? You must not be, because a thousand 
would be 15,200, so you are 600 people shy of your max.
    Mr. Regan. We are still hiring.
    Senator Moore Capito. Are all of those people back in the 
office and working post-pandemic?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. Our return to work strategy was, it began 
February 28th, our political appointees, and senior Agency 
leadership returned. Beginning March 28, our managers, and our 
non-bargaining staff returned. So we are still--we worked 
extensively with our unions, still working with our unions. But 
you know, we are, in the coming weeks, all of our EPA employees 
will be fully phased into, what we are calling our new 
schedules.
    Senator Moore Capito. Yeah. And your new schedule for some 
people includes fully remote work, right?
    Mr. Regan. Well, yes.
    Senator Moore Capito. According to an article, yeah, that I 
read.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Senator Moore Capito. And then also, coming in one day 
every two weeks, another----
    Mr. Regan. Yes we have a range of flexibilities----
    Senator Moore Capito. So this is not actually everybody 
coming in, it can be a blended system, correct?
    Mr. Regan. Correct.
    Senator Moore Capito. Okay. You know, I had a meeting 
yesterday with some energy folks, and you have been, in your 
confirmation, and I think every time you have been in front of 
all of our committees, and I think you have exhibited this. In 
certain instances you have pledged to have all stakeholder 
involvement to listen to everybody before making a decision, 
knowing that you are not going to please everybody in the room.
    And there was a general feeling within this as related to 
pipelines, and natural gas development, that they had made 
numerous requests to EPA to be a stakeholder, to have their 
positions heard.
    And I think we all see what is happening in Europe, we know 
that the reliance on our own natural--our own energy resources, 
in an all-of-the-above energy plan, and we are feeling--I think 
most of us in energy states feeling as though that is not 
really moving forward through the administration with some of 
the pipelines that have been canceled. I have an MVP pipeline 
in West Virginia that has had some huge difficulties, even 
though it is 95 percent complete.
    I just want to ask for your pledge again, that folks in the 
energy industry have an ability to come, knock on your door, 
and actually have their side of the story heard. I think they 
are doing a lot to reduce their emissions in half on the 
methane side, and other side, I know you are getting ready to 
do a Methane Rule.
    I sense some frustration with them. Do you publish who you 
meet with? And have you had meetings with folks in that 
industry around the Methane Rule?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, we are fully transparent with who I meet 
with, and who staff meets with. And yes, I have met with 
leadership from the power sector, the oil and gas sector. I was 
down in Houston at a CERA Conference meeting with executives 
around all of the potential for methane capture, and the like.
    And so if there is a frustration, I would love to get that 
from you and your staff. But it is my understanding, and 
personal experience, that we are meeting with all of our 
stakeholders.
    Senator Moore Capito. Well, I will circle back with them 
and make sure that that your door is open and that you are 
willing to meet with them.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Senator Moore Capito. Maybe it is just not this 
particular--these were a whole variety of different people, and 
I was sort of frustrated by that.
    On the Justice40 issue, I have tried to, like, dig deep 
into that to see--it is pledged that 40 percent of the funding 
that is going, is going to go to justice communities. Are you 
quantifying that? I mean, is there a website that we can go to 
that is going to show me where and how this pledge of 40 
percent is actually being translated into different 
communities, in Alaska, or West Virginia, or Mississippi?
    Mr. Regan. Yeah I think that--so the Justice40 Initiative, 
obviously, is being quarterbacked out of the White House and 
so----
    Senator Moore Capito. So who would we go to at the White 
House?
    Mr. Regan. The Center for Environmental Quality, Brenda 
Mallory's job.
    Senator Moore Capito. Right. Okay.
    Mr. Regan. And as agencies, we all participating in pilot 
projects to demonstrate how to do this. So let me give you a 
couple examples. With the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the $5 
billion for Superfund and Brownfield, as we put that money out, 
you know, we have got more than 50 or 60 percent--I will get 
you the right number--that goes to disadvantaged communities. 
When we look at our----
    Senator Moore Capito. Are you using the screening tool that 
the CEQ put together?
    Mr. Regan. No we have our own screening tool.
    Senator Moore Capito. Is it different than CEQ?
    Mr. Regan. I think there are some differences, and EPA has 
had an Environmental Justice screening tool for decades. We 
also are very well versed in environmental justice, we are one 
of the agencies that has been doing this for a number of years, 
and some of this is actually built into our programs.
    Like with the State Revolving Loan Funds, 49 percent of our 
dollars have to go to disadvantaged communities. So EPA has 
some built-in infrastructure that really does a good evaluation 
of where our resources actually go. So we are using ourselves 
as pilot projects for the Justice40 Initiative, as some of that 
has been built out.
    Senator Moore Capito. And then you feed that up to CEQ?
    Mr. Regan. That is right.
    Senator Moore Capito. Are you satisfied you are reaching 
the 40 percent?
    Mr. Regan. I am very satisfied with the focus that my 
Agency has given to environmental justice, and equity issues, 
and when I look across my programs, numbers matter to me, data 
matters, fairness, and equity, and transparency matters. With 
our State Revolving Loan Fund Program, with our Brownfields and 
Superfund, we are doing an excellent job making sure that the 
people that need these resources the most, are actually getting 
the resources.
    Senator Moore Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Capito.
    Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome, Mr. Administrator. Good to see you. I am 
looking forward to hosting Deputy Administrator McCabe, in our 
Region 1, Administrator David Cash from Rhode Island to 
celebrate the success of the Southern New England Program, or 
the SNEP program as we call it.
    I once had the privilege to work as chairman of the 
subcommittee, along with my ranking member, Senator Murkowski, 
to create the SNEP program.
    Thank you, Lisa.
    And it is doing a lot of great work in Southern New 
England, the estuaries, and the Narragansett Bay, and all 
throughout Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Can 
you speak to the importance of these geographic programs in 
terms of your overall mission?
    Mr. Regan. Oh. Well I listen there. They are national 
treasures, they are invaluable, and we are thankful to Congress 
for the resources that we received in the 2022 budget to help 
accentuate the value there, not just from an ecosystems' 
protection standpoint, but that many of these geographic 
programs provide drinking water for so many millions of 
Americans.
    The $15 million in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
specifically for the Southern New England Program, will 
definitely surge the efforts to protect water quality and 
ecological health for diverse habitats.
    But you know, I think that the program, this specific 
program ensures that the strategies that we are putting in 
place are comprehensive, durable, and sustainable. So the short 
answer is invaluable, we have it as a high priority, the budget 
reflects that priority, and we are doing the most with the 
resources that we are applying.
    Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Mr. Administrator. One of 
the aspects why this program is so important is that the 
Narragansett watershed, actually most of it is in 
Massachusetts. So Narragansett Bay is in Rhode Island, so if we 
get funding for Narragansett Bay, that is nice, but if we are 
not dealing with the source of pollution in Massachusetts and 
elsewhere, and this program's flexibility, given the Regional 
Director the ability to fund projects in Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, that ultimately enhance the 
quality of the Narragansett Bay, it is just first rate. So 
thank you for your support.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Reed. Environmental justice is a critical issue. In 
this pandemic we saw the impacts, dramatically, of disparities 
between racial and ethnic groups, in terms of so many different 
programs, and Environmental Quality is one of those programs.
    I was pleased to see the President included it in the '23 
budget EPA's State Environmental Justice Cooperative Agreement 
Program. In my Department Of Environmental Management, excuse 
me, is working to set up its own justice program. Can you talk 
about how you are going to help develop these local 
Environmental Justice programs?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. And I believe it is critical that 
they are developed at the local levels, and I believe it is 
critical that the communities are involved. And I thank you for 
your leadership in this space.
    Senator Reed. Sure.
    Mr. Regan. And what Rhode Island is doing. We are excited 
about what Rhode Island is doing. I know my team has recently 
connected with your staff to think through how to stand this 
up. And we want to be sure that that the state is aware of the 
Environmental Justice Cooperative Agreement Grant Program, 
because we believe it will be instrumental in not only setting 
up the program in Rhode Island, but pulling some of the best 
management practices from programs that we have seen all across 
the country.
    And so we are excited, we are engaged, and if there is 
anything that we can do to help with that success, we stand 
ready.
    Senator Reed. Well, thank you. I am going to sort of put on 
my hat, in my service as committee member, and ask you about 
cybersecurity challenges in your department. Unfortunately, no 
area of life today is immune from cybersecurity, and that is 
something that has sensitivity in national security agencies, 
but I don't know of the same sensitivity in quote-unquote, 
``domestic agencies''.
    But can you just comment, from your perspective, as to your 
cybersecurity issues?
    Mr. Regan. There are. We are laser focused on this, this 
has been a high priority for me since becoming administrator, 
because as a state regulator I recognize the vulnerabilities 
when I was director in North Carolina, 180,000, I believe, 
independent water systems in this country, most states don't 
really have a good understanding of the cyber-protective 
measures that are in place, and how vulnerable they are.
    Senator Reed. Yes.
    Mr. Regan. And so, yes, in this budget we are requesting 
15.5 million for EPA's activities to help enhance the states' 
cybersecurity: 25 million to create a new grant program that 
helps water systems establish and build necessary capabilities, 
35 million for technical assistance, and then 50 million to 
support a new grant program for the resilience and 
sustainability of public water systems serving more than 10,000 
people. This is a priority for us, and we are laser-focused on 
it.
    Senator Reed. Well, I appreciate it, because there are--we 
have in Rhode Island a major water system, the Providence Water 
System, which through the foresight of my ancestors many, many 
years ago, they bought a large part of Scituate, which is a 
community to the west, and they are supplying most of the 
state.
    But we have small systems that are being operated by three 
or four people, and they do not have the sophistication to deal 
with, you know, any type of cyber attack. So I think you this 
is a good start, but we have to be able to reach down to the 
lowest----
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Senator Reed [continuing]. you know, the smallest areas, 
and also don't assume that that the big water systems know what 
they are doing either. This is rather novel for these types of 
organizations. But thank you very much for your great work, and 
I look forward to working with you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Senator Reed. Yes. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley. Senator Hagerty.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, and Ranking 
Member Murkowski. It is good to be with you today.
    Administrator Regan, good to see you as well. First, I want 
to talk a bit about the proposed Environmental Management 
Disposal Facility, we call the EMDF at Oak Ridge, in my Home 
State of Tennessee. DOE is cleaning up legacy waste and 
buildings from the Manhattan Project era of the Cold War.
    The cleanup has been a success story so far. For the first 
time in history the United States has cleaned up a former 
uranium enrichment complex, it has done so 4 years early, and 
under budget. I am sure my colleagues here are pleased to hear 
that. It has made more land available for economic development, 
and like you, I served in my Home State Cabinet.
    We are excited about the potential this creates from an 
economic development perspective, and it gives us an 
opportunity to reuse some previously contaminated land for 
other DOE purposes as well. One of the concerns about this 
though, is that the current on-site disposal facility will be 
full by 2028, and that threatens to delay clean up, leave 
contaminated buildings on site, it could cost hundreds of jobs 
and waste, again, millions of taxpayer dollars.
    For over a decade the State of Tennessee, the Department of 
Energy and the EPA, have been discussing approval of a second 
disposal site. And the process has been transparent, it has 
been rigorously reviewed, I must say, it has been open to 
public comment.
    And I was very pleased to hear that on May 4th the DOE, the 
EPA, and the State of Tennessee reached an agreement on site 
groundwater study, waste acceptance criteria, and protection of 
water quality in Bear Creek, in this area.
    DOE is currently hosting a 30-day public engagement period, 
and just last night DOD hosted a public meeting in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee, to discuss this facility.
    I want to particularly call out and commend one of your--
one member your team, Jeff Prieto, your General Counsel, who 
has done an excellent job. He and I talked about this before 
his confirmation. He stayed in touch with me. I appreciate him 
working with me on this issue to get us to this point.
    So Administrator Regan, on June the 7th, next month, when 
the 30-day comment period closes, what will the next steps be 
for your Agency to get through the process and sign a Record of 
Decision?
    Mr. Regan. Well, and Senator, thank you for that. I think 
our staffs are very proud that we are on time, under budget, 
and making some headway here. What I will do is I will circle 
back with you and your team on what those exact next steps are, 
because I don't have that right here at my fingertips.
    Senator Hagerty. Understood, my main goal is to see that 
there will just be no further delays in the process. That we 
get it done, get it approved, get the Record of Decision in 
place. There are substantial costs--risk of cost overruns 
associated with this, if we don't get the agreement in place 
now, the timeline is going to get pushed, and we are going to 
have a real problem in terms of running out of storage space 
there.
    Mr. Regan. I hear you loud and clear.
    Senator Hagerty. I appreciate your personal attention to 
that.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Administrator. I would like to 
turn now to another topic that impacts our Nation's gas prices, 
and capacity, and that is the topic of small refinery 
exemptions. I am sure you are well familiar with this.
    You know, prices at the pump are at record highs, Americans 
are feeling a lot of pain right now, and there doesn't seem to 
be major relief in sight. However, your Agency continues to 
move forward with attacking small refineries by denying all 
petitions for small refinery exemptions from the renewable fuel 
standard. My understanding is that the EPA has already issued 
31 retroactive denials for petitions that were awarded in 2019, 
that covered the 2018 compliance years.
    And industry anticipates that you will deny all 60-plus SRE 
petitions that are pending for 2019, 2020, and the 2021 
compliance years. I just want to ask, Administrator Regan, is 
that accurate?
    Mr. Regan. We have made the first tranche of decisions 
because of a court order deadline. And the second tranche of 
decisions have not been made yet. What I will say is I think 
that the 10th Circuit's decision really informed how the Agency 
should approach these SREs.
    And what we have tried to do also, in addition to the SRE 
issue, is not necessarily have it in isolation, but in the 
context of thinking about how we look at refineries, and 
biofuels, and RVOs, and just getting that program on a much 
stronger footing.
    So what I can commit to you is that we are looking for a 
way to provide certainty to both the AG industry, and refining 
industry in terms of those obligations under the RVO Program, 
and how that plays into these exemptions--that these exemption 
decisions that the Agency is having to make.
    Senator Hagerty. One thing I want to point out is that how 
these decisions unfold will have a real impact on compliance 
cost. And compliance costs, particularly with respect to these 
exemptions that we are talking about, have grown, my 
understanding, is 69 percent since the EPA published the 67 
percent of--the proposal to eliminate small refinery 
exemptions.
    That moves, what was a 0.13 cent per gallon compliance 
cost, up to 0.22 cents per gallon. And if all of these further 
exemptions are denied that will take that compliance cost even 
further.
    Mr. Regan. Yeah, I would like to--and I think we would have 
to sort of look at those sort of site-by-site, because when you 
take a look at the exemptions that were not recently granted, 
there is also compliance flexibility built into that. So it 
ranges from, you know, some decisions have been made in the 
past so far back that some of that compliance was forgiven.
    There is also some that were made more recent that have 
payment plans, or compliance plans, put in place in a phased 
way. So it wasn't a blanket denial, you are on your own. I 
think that that was carefully thought through, and there were 
very serious considerations given to those who we felt did not 
deserve the compliance, even though decisions were made years 
past, and we are making this decision today we thought we 
would--we did it with thought and care.
    Senator Hagerty. So you have got an easy payment plan, so 
to speak, when you have come back and denied retroactively?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. There is a payment plan that has been built 
into those decisions that were made most recently. I can't 
speak to the decisions that haven't been made yet.
    Senator Hagerty. Sure.
    Mr. Regan. But when you look back at the ones that were 
denied you can look back at different flexibilities built in 
for repayment.
    Senator Hagerty. I understand the concept here. I would 
just encourage you strongly, given the fact that we are hitting 
record high gas prices at the pump every day, families are 
having to make decisions between groceries that they buy, or 
filling up their tank. And anything that would increase 
compliance cost, I think we should look at very carefully right 
now.
    And having blanket exceptions, you know, retroactive 
withdrawals of exemptions, I think you know, obviously, puts 
upward pressure on prices, when you have an opportunity right 
before you to put downward pressure by granting the exemptions.
    So I am going to encourage you, please to consider 
reversing course here, in this blanket exemption denial, and 
please take into account the impact on, you know, hard-working 
families that are trying to make things work at home, at the 
pump.
    Not doing it, I think it implicates, not only the economics 
of an American family, making it harder for them to get by, it 
has upward pressure on inflation, it also impacts our national 
security. And all of this I think is something that is 
extremely challenging, in my mind, to understand why we would 
be pursuing a policy like this at this point in time, when we 
see the type of inflation and energy costs that we have got.
    I am also concerned about the way the policy is being done 
in terms of being implemented through guidance, rather than 
going through a more formal rule-making process that would 
actually subject it to congressional review, because I can tell 
you that we would like to have the opportunity to review this.
    It feels like a policy change to me, and particularly given 
the economic implications on the American consumer, it is 
significant. So again, I would encourage you to take a very 
strong look at that and reconsider.
    Mr. Regan. And I appreciate that, and we are--listen I 
understand that people are hurting, the price at the pump is 
really putting pressure on all of our fellow citizens, because 
of this unprovoked war. And I will say that we are very 
thoughtful about that----
    Senator Hagerty. Just to clarify, this started well before 
the unprovoked war.
    Mr. Regan. Well, on the SRE.
    Senator Hagerty. The war may be exacerbating it, but these 
decisions don't have anything to do with the war in Ukraine.
    Mr. Regan. I think that the prices that we are looking at 
now, and then some of the pressure that the refineries are 
facing, this war doesn't help. And these SRE decisions that, 
quite frankly, I don't enjoy making, but have been forced to 
make because, during the previous administration the previous 
administration gave these exemptions out in a way that the 10th 
Circuit Court disagreed with. And so they were remanding it 
back.
    The decisions that we are making in terms of these SREs, we 
are trying to do it in a way where we follow the law. And I am 
trying to stay on the right side of the law, while also doing 
exactly what you just laid out, which is being sensitive to the 
prices that we are facing now, and how we can do that to 
alleviate the burdens of just average, everyday----
    Senator Hagerty. I appreciate your sensitivity to that, 
Administrator. And I would encourage you then to put it through 
a formal rulemaking, so we can have proper notice and comment, 
and proper review by this body. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Senator Hagerty. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator.
    I am going to try to get through a bunch of questions 
quickly. And first in terms of water infrastructure for tribes, 
and I am particularly concerned about the situation faced by 
the Warm Springs in Oregon who have a myriad of problems with 
their water system. And the Indian Health Service is using the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill to tackle that to a degree.
    But some of the issues are ineligible for funding through 
that mechanism, including the water system that supplies 
hospital, and schools to the drinking water system. Do you have 
a sense of how the funding that comes through your side of the 
world might be able to help in that situation?
    Mr. Regan. You know, we are very in tune with this issue, 
and will absolutely continue to work with the Indian Health 
Services, and we will keep you and your staff in the loop. I 
would say that, you know, EPA's experts have met with the 
Indian Health Service to explore some flexibilities and 
innovation here. We don't have the funding or the authority to 
directly support operation maintenance and repair, but that 
hasn't prevented us from continuing with the conversation to 
think about where and how EPA can weigh in on this very 
important issue.
    Senator Merkley. Well I like the terms ``innovation'' and 
``flexibility'', so let us brainstorm on how to get this--how 
to get this done.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Merkley. So that we have a complete water system in 
that situation. And in fiscal year 2022, we had a number of 
water infrastructure challenges that were addressed through, 
what I would call community-initiated projects, here in D.C. 
they are called congressionally-directed, which makes no sense 
to me.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Merkley. Because it is all about the communities 
initiating ideas, and then we fight for our communities to get 
those things funded. And they are very happy when we fight for 
them, and are able to assist them with the priorities that they 
see on the ground. But when are those grants going to start 
actually going out the door?
    Mr. Regan. I believe the--let us see--we have about 483 
congressionally-directed projects totaling about 841 million. 
We are committed to a timely and transparent process, but to be 
perfectly honest it is the implementation of what we consider 
to be a new program. The magnitude is great, and while the 2022 
appropriations gave resources for the projects, it did not 
provide dedicated administrative funding to support the 
implementation.
    So we are trying to stand that up as quickly as possible, 
and we are working on that that final process. I believe, if my 
information is correct, fall of 2022 I believe is our targeted 
timeframe there.
    Senator Merkley. Well, let me explain something that you 
probably have realized. There is a hundred Senators who have 
communities that have received grants, and they are very 
excited about the grants in there, but they are very concerned 
about costs going up while they are waiting.
    They are like: Okay, we submitted a proposal. We were 
awarded a grant. Why can't we get the check? I would like you 
to brainstorm with your inner circle on, like, realizing that 
these communities will be really well served by finding a way 
to expedite that process, because I am sure you don't a hundred 
senators calling you up and saying: My community just found out 
their costs doubled because the grants haven't come yet.
    Mr. Regan. I agree with that 100 percent.
    Senator Merkley. I am sure you don't want those phone 
calls. All right, so I want to turn to the issue of plastics. 
You can't hardly pick up any kind of newspaper that doesn't 
talk about the expanding problems with microplastics, the 
problems with the plastics being swept out to sea. You know, in 
the past all the mantra was the three R's, reduce, reuse, and 
recycle.
    And when I look at those little triangles, and we sit there 
and we go, hmm, can this piece of plastic that was on top of my 
coffee cup be recycled when it has coffee on it? And there is a 
whole lot of wish cycling, where you put things into a 
recycling bin, but they are not actually getting recycled. And 
a lot of those plastics that have those triangles with those 
numbers on them, there is not even a market, there is not 
even--nothing is happening with them. We are just deceiving the 
American public about it.
    In fact recycling has dropped from 8 percent to 6 percent 
over this last year. So it is not working. What really happens 
with plastics, is not the three R's, but it is the three B's, 
they are burned, they are buried, or they are borne out to sea. 
And now, because of the microplastics, every American is 
consuming, it is estimated, about a credit card worth of 
plastic a week.
    And, you know, there is a lot of chemicals in those 
plastics, hormone disruptors, so on, and so forth. This can't 
be good for our children, it can't be good for anybody, and we 
need to radically improve plastics. How are you going to make 
that happen?
    Mr. Regan. Well, I can tell you this was a surprise to me, 
but in my conversations, especially with young people in this 
country, the very number one issue is climate change, but a 
close second is plastics. And this is something that in 
recycling, something that EPA is really focused on.
    We are in the process of developing a national strategy to 
reduce plastics and other waste in waterways and oceans--which 
identifies key actions that are needed to reduce and collect 
plastic waste material. And these are strategies that are part 
of a series of strategies on building a circular economy for 
all, that we believe will fulfill the mandate for strategy 
under our Save Our Seas Act 2.0.
    And so that is where we are focusing most of our time, 
efforts, and resources, and we believe that will contribute to 
the solution that you are looking for.
    Senator Merkley. Yeah. Well, here is my impression. There 
is a whole lot of nice sounding language regarding reducing 
waste, and improving recycling in a circular economy, but a 
whole lot of inaction and actually delivering changes. When we 
grab our coffee, and we get a plastic cap on it. Why is that 
necessary? Why can't it be done in some other fashion?
    I mean, you have got research teams, you have got experts, 
we need a dramatically improved plan, not just simply a new 
version of a recycling strategy that fails for a whole host of 
very understandable reasons. And so I am going to really push 
the Agency to say, this is a huge, huge issue. And failure on 
this is a massive failure for the American people. So I will 
keep pressing for a really dramatic, significant set of 
solutions to be proposed and implemented by the Agency.
    Mr. Regan. Yes, absolutely.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just to follow up on the Chairman's comments about 
plastics. As you well know, we have challenges in Alaska with 
recycling efforts, just limited capacity. Most of our recycled 
product is shipped outside, probably down to Senator Merkley's 
state in Oregon.
    Senator Merkley. We are happy for you to keep that up 
there.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, we are trying to get it out, and 
get it to a place where it can be recycled, but the marine 
debris that we deal with, that just comes to our shoreline as a 
result of the currents, it is just--we may be doing a good job 
of keeping our state clean, but it gets delivered on our 
beaches, it gets delivered on our coastline.
    And so it is costly to remove it, and of course the longer 
that it stays there in the title zone, the more the debris 
deteriorates into microplastics, the more challenging it is on 
a host of different levels. So the Agency, I think, is rightly 
looking at what more we need to be doing. I was pleased to see 
that a Phase 2 Small Business Innovation Research Grant was 
provided to an Alaska constituent who has a pretty innovative 
way of recycling plastic ocean waste. So we are encouraged by 
levels of innovation like that.
    But as you are looking to expand grants for recycling 
efforts, I am hoping that you are also going to be considering 
in seeking funding for marine debris and plastic ocean waste 
collection and recycling efforts, as well as that, as well as 
what you have just discussed with the Chairman.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Murkowski. So I mentioned PFAS, again this is a big 
issue for us in Alaska, but I know that it is a priority for 
others on the committee, and here in Congress, and in my state 
the list of communities that is facing the challenges of PFAS 
and PFAS contamination is only growing.
    As you know, we had 10 billion in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law that is going to be helpful, but we have got 
to start making meaningful impact on PFAS contamination while 
we wait for Federal standards. And I think the Infrastructure 
Bill is a good first step on that.
    So can you walk the committee through how you envision this 
10 billion from that law making a difference on PFAS? And how 
the Agency is working with states, working with our local 
communities to perhaps provide some best practices on how to 
spend these funds on remediation of PFAS?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. You know, this is a top priority for 
the administration, and so we have got a couple of tracks 
going, but we do have this PFAS strategy for the $10 billion. 
You know, most of these funds are being pushed through to the 
states being provided, as fully forgivable loans or grants 
without a state match required. So that is going to help us get 
the resources to the communities that need them the most, in 
terms of putting some protective measures in place.
    We are also working on guidance for the proper destruction 
and disposal of PFAS, so we want to be able to not only give 
these communities resources to handle the products, but we want 
to be able to give the right guidance as well.
    Senator Murkowski. So are you working with the Department 
of Defense on that in terms of the proper destruction of PFAS?
    Mr. Regan. We are on track to update our guidance on that. 
And yes, we are working with the Department of Defense, we are 
working with HHS, we are working in an inner agency capacity to 
be sure that we are all focused on solving the same problem.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay. All right. Well, sooner is better 
than later, but I think you agree with that. And I appreciate 
that the administration is placing a priority on it.
    PM2.5, we can't have a hearing on EPA's budget without 
talking about fine particulate matter. This is an ongoing issue 
of course, in primarily the Fairbanks North Star Borough. I 
just wanted to check in with you on the current status of the 
PM2.5 standards. In June of last year you announced that you 
were going to re-examine the previous administration's decision 
in 2020 to retain the existing particulate matter on national 
ambient air quality standards.
    So can you give me an update on the Agency's review, and if 
you have made a decision to revise the 2020 Rule? And if so, 
what the timeline is for a proposed and then a final rule on 
that?
    Mr. Regan. Yes. We are working on. We are continuing to 
work closely with the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough to continue 
to provide technical assistance there. I think we have met, or 
our team has met with the mayor a number of times this year, 
just to talk about PM2.5, more specifically the challenges of 
wood stoves.
    And we are continuing to coordinate and meet regularly with 
Nescon to better understand some of the concerns. And then we 
are--we have, you know, since 2016 awarded over $31 million in 
grants. So we are continuing to have that conversation, to look 
at some of the unique aspects of the Fairbanks community, and 
we are just going to continue to push that ball.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, if there is a new proposed rule, 
we want to make sure that there is going to be plenty of 
opportunity for public review and comment on that, and just 
making sure that these very unique concerns related to the 
issues there, again primarily in Fairbanks North Star Borough 
are considered.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
    Senator Murkowski. So you mentioned wood stove testing, and 
again, this is an issue where you have a real genuine, 
committed effort by those in the community to address a 
problem, and we have got a situation where we don't have the 
technology, or the standards to--that are in place to 
appropriately address this issue.
    So what we have is a situation where people in the 
Fairbanks area, in a non-attainment area want to try to address 
their own level of emissions. They are being told that if you 
buy a new wood stove, then you are going to be able to make 
some impact there.
    And yet the Agency is letting wood stoves come to market 
that don't meet the existing standards. And so we have got a 
great program through the Targeted Airshed Grant, but this wood 
stove change-out, we are using good Federal money, important 
taxpayer dollars, but because of the standards issue it is not 
making a difference. And that is not fair to the constituents, 
it is not fair to the Agency, it is really not fair to anyone. 
So this is something that we have got to do better on.
    I had the mayor and his assistant fly out to Washington, 
D.C., specifically to have a meeting with folks in the Agency, 
and when they got here they were told: Okay fine, your meeting 
is on Zoom, and we will meet you--you know, come online at X 
o'clock.
    They came to my office instead. And I said no, you have 
flown all away from Fairbanks, Alaska, to be here, we are going 
to get the individuals that you have been talking to, in. This 
goes to the point that Senator Capito raised about, you know, 
whether or not EPA folks are actually back in office. And they 
told me that that was the very first week that they had been 
called back in, and weren't quite sure what their protocols 
are.
    I just share that with you, because it was a real live 
instance where you have got a serious issue with constituents, 
they have managed to make the effort to come back here, and 
their government isn't there. So their Senator has to call the 
Agency and demand a meeting.
    They came over, it worked out fine, they got good 
information back and forth, I think both sides would agree it 
was a meeting worth taking. But I just need to know that we are 
going to--we are going to see some better efforts in how EPA is 
reviewing the current wood stove standards, and how, in the 
meantime, you are you are engaging the industry to fix the 
current flaws here. So it is it is something that shouldn't be 
so hard, and I am hoping that we are making better progress 
than we have seen.
    I have gone on far longer than I have. But thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for letting me raise that issue before the 
Administrator this morning.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you for sharing that.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Senator Hyde-Smith.,
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, I keep up with the Mississippi River on my phone, 
because of the unnecessary flooding that we just stay under a 
threat of. And a few days ago the Corps closed the Steele Bayou 
floodgates, because the Mississippi River is on the rise. And 
that means the rivers and streams that are inside the levee 
system, they have no exit because we have no pumps.
    So with any measurable rainfall right now, today, as we sit 
here in the next several hours, in the next few days, we could 
be looking at another flood. And I just want to invite you that 
if that does occur, I would love for you to come down and join 
me in a helicopter ride over the river, to see the 
significance. And that is all I have.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator.
    I imagine, Administrator, you are familiar with the term, 
``Insect Armageddon''?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. We have seen a massive drop in insects in 
this country. I am really struck by how being a kid when we 
drive north and south in the state; we would always be stopping 
to clean all the insects off our windshield, and now that is a 
very, very rare moment.
    And we see it in things, for example, like the collapse of 
the monarch. And California has taken efforts to do things, 
such as plant significant amounts of milkweed, but one of the 
things, that I took a trip down to California to go to over one 
of the overwintering spots along the coast.
    And they are noting now some of the challenges include 
things like, with climate change, the milkweed rhythm is 
changing, and sometimes the milkweed isn't out at the time that 
the monarchs need to start leaving the coast to the first kind 
of evolution of--because they go through several life--several 
life cycles of subsequent groups in a single year.
    And also that milkweed that people might plant to help out 
monarchs in their home gardens and so forth, they may be 
contaminated with neonicotinoids, or other pesticides that will 
actually hurt pollinators rather than help them.
    Anyway this issue of pollinators is a big deal for the 
broader ecosystem, and how is the EPA really tackling this 
problem?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question. And you know, 
we recognize, as you do, that pollinators are important to the 
environment and the economy. And I think the Endangered Species 
Act is one of EPA's best tools to protect endangered 
pollinators when we register pesticides.
    And so we have invested heavily in strengthening our work 
in this area. In the 2023 budget it proposes to include, for 
the first time ever, a targeted increase for our ESA pesticide 
work. So we have asked for $4.9 million and 10 FTE to focus 
specifically on this issue.
    We are also working to finish our review of some of the 
pesticides that pollinators are vulnerable to, although some of 
this work has slipped a little bit behind where we want to be, 
we are continuing to forge ahead on this very important issue. 
So it is a priority, and it is reflected in our budget.
    Senator Merkley. I will give you just one example of the 
types of things that might be real facts on the ground changes, 
and that is to have a system in which we can make sure that as 
we replant pollinators, or the flowers, and appropriate plants 
for pollinators, we are making sure that that they are raised 
in a fashion, that is that the plants are prepared in the 
nurseries in a fashion that doesn't make them damaging to 
insects rather than helpful.
    And so it is just one of the pieces to look at. And I hope 
that there will be a moment 10 years from now when we can say 
that that 98 percent collapse in the monarch has been reversed 
before we lose the western monarch. But it is just as--it is a 
beautiful symbol, but it is representative of the broader 
challenge of a whole classes of pollinators, including, 
obviously, our bee populations.
    I want to turn to your broad effort to rebuild the EPA, and 
we have seen a proposal for a really significant expansion, and 
you have got a lot going on with toxic chemicals, and water 
supplies, and hydrofluorocarbons, you have got a massive set of 
responsibilities.
    So as you look at your plan to go forward, and your work--
restore your workforce, you are also facing a retirement wave. 
And I understand that 43 percent of your workforce have enough 
service that they could be retirement eligible within 5 years. 
And so not only rebuilding the vacancies you have now, but 
preparing for probably a significant wave of retirements.
    How will your budget proposal rebuild and modernize EPA's 
enforcement and compliance efforts in the context of this 
personnel challenge?
    Mr. Regan. You know, I think that the enforcement piece is 
something that I have indicated we are wanting to build up and 
build capacity up very quickly, because we have a lot of laws 
and rules on the books that just aren't being enforced, that 
protect our most vulnerable.
    So our enforcement budget is mostly comprised of many of 
those employees--any of the employees that are in our regional 
offices. Our 2023 budget request is about $104 million, we are 
asking for 122 FTE that will ensure EPA can follow through with 
compliance and enforce our Nation's environmental laws.
    I would say that, you know, unfortunately, our enforcement 
budget has remained flat over time as payroll costs have 
increased, in addition to cost of living adjustments. And so as 
a result, during the past decade, we have seen about a 22 
percent of our enforcement capacity, or resources drop.
    We need more boots on the ground. We need to be able to 
follow through and do our job to protect our fellow citizens. 
And so this fiscal year 2023 budget has that pragmatic, and 
practical request in there to get us to that workforce level 
that we need to be at.
    Senator Merkley. So I did specifically mention enforcement. 
But let me turn more broadly to your overall number of staff 
that you need to add. And I was glancing back, looking at the 
fiscal year 2023 request proposes to fund 16,200 FTE, an 
increase of 2,000 above fiscal year 2021 staffing level. So now 
let me just kind of zoom out to this broader challenge of 
those--how essential are those 2,000 staff members? And I think 
you are going--is that in addition to the thousand that you are 
you are hoping to hire through the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Bill?
    Mr. Regan. We are looking at an addition, yes. We know that 
the resources that we are asking for, for the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, those are resources that look at a five-
year window. We are trying to really rebuild the core EPA 
workforce here.
    To the point you just made about 25 percent of all EPA 
employees are eligible to retire with 19 percent eligible in 
the next 5 years. And so we can look at just really basic 
examples. If we want to implement the TSCA laws the way 
Congress has asked that we do, we need the bodies there to do 
that. We have about 200 less staff to focus on processing, and 
getting new chemicals to the market, than we did in 1988.
    So we need to rebuild capacity at the core, but we also 
really need to rebuild capacity in strategic programs that, 
quite frankly, are trying to keep pace with the growing 
economy.
    Senator Merkley. Yeah. Thank you, and thank you for 
highlighting the toxic chemicals bill, the TCSA Bill, with the 
Lautenberg rewrite of it, the Lautenberg amendments. And 
consumers in America, are just kind of really believe that we 
are monitoring the chemicals that go into products in a way we 
are not. But TCSA makes that possible as rewritten, but you 
need the personnel, the 200 FTE that you noted, the additional 
200 FTE to make it work. I think that is incredibly important.
    On that note, I will turn back to my colleague from Alaska.
    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
Administrator for being here this morning, for the engagement 
that you have had with each of us on issues, some very 
parochial, some more national in scope, and just would ask that 
you continue with a very direct engagement as you have 
committed to.
    I share the Chairman's desire, and concern, and knowing 
what we can anticipate with regards to the guidance, and the 
guidelines with the congressionally directed spending. This is 
something where I think we know full well, certainly on the 
water and wastewater projects that we have in Alaska, a very, 
very keen interest in starting to move out on this quickly.
    And in many parts of my state we have got issues where 
timing is pretty important, as the season is not unlimited as 
we work to build out these projects. I wanted to just ask a 
question, and based on--based on your response to the Chairman, 
you probably have not yet determined, but the staffing set 
asides from the infrastructure bill funding, curious to know 
whether they could be used to help offset the costs of 
administering the congressionally directed spending projects.
    That is something that has been raised. So as you are 
considering that, perhaps you should just include that as part 
of the discussion as you are moving forward in laying down this 
particular guidance.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the Administrator. And 
thank you for having a good hearing today.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you very much.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator. And if there are no 
other statements, the hearing record will be open until the 
close of business on May 25th.
            Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                    california coast dumping cleanup
    Question. I continue to be deeply concerned about industrial waste 
dumped off the California coast between the 1930s and 1960s that still 
remains in our ocean. This toxic waste includes DDT--a chemical so 
harmful it was banned in 1972.
    We now know that oil and gas-related chemicals are also likely to 
have been dumped there as well. Scientific studies point to decades of 
detrimental impacts to the marine life, including cancer in dolphins, 
sea lions and California Condors.
    The survey conducted by NOAA and partners in March 2021 mapped 
approximately 36,000 acres at 3000 feet depth of the sea floor. This 
area, known as dumpsite #2, revealed around 26,000 dumped barrels of 
industrial waste, and over 100,000 other debris objects. We also know 
based on historical record, there are a total of 14 known offshore 
dumpsites off the California coast. This is alarming.
    Both EPA and NOAA have informed my office a number of times that 
they have more questions than answers on this problem and a follow-up 
survey mission is the best next step to understand the state of the 
barrels, as well as the chemicals in them and around them in the water 
and on the sea floor. Yet, more than a year later, neither agency has 
provided a funding estimate or including funding in the fiscal year 
2023 budget proposal despite repeated requests by my staff, nor a plan 
of action for next steps. Lastly, EPA has yet to fulfill its commitment 
to a public website for the public to learn more and understand the 
scope of the issue.
    Administrator Regan, I ask, once again, that EPA and its partners 
act with urgency and prioritize this issue. Can you describe the next 
steps EPA will take to help us better understand the impacts of this 
historic ocean dumping?
    Answer. This historic toxic dumping is a major problem off the 
California coast.
    Although the United States outlawed this practice decades ago, 
major problems and risks from these lingering chemicals still exist. 
Based upon scientific studies, EPA agrees that these deep- water sites 
need to be further examined. EPA is collaborating with state and 
Federal agencies and key institutions, including the Scripps Institute 
of Oceanography and the University of California Santa Barbara, to 
identify a strategy to investigate this area and the potential risk to 
human health and the marine environment.
    Question. Does EPA have the statutory authority it needs to monitor 
or conduct testing on the impacts of the DDT and other toxic waste that 
was dumped decades ago but remains active in our environment?
    Answer. CERCLA provides discretionary authority under Sections 
104(a) and 104(b) to undertake monitoring and testing of releases or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances, such as DDT and to respond 
to releases or threats of release, including releases into United 
States territorial waters or ocean waters with natural resources under 
the exclusive management authority of the United States. The US Coast 
Guard is delegated lead response authority for releases in the coastal 
zone, with EPA serving in a support capacity, subject to further 
agreement between the Agencies.
                          bay delta watershed
    Question. I appreciate the President's budget proposal investing in 
geographic ecosystem restoration programs nationwide including San 
Francisco Bay Delta, however, I am disappointed that San Francisco Bay 
appears to be the only program--when compared to at least seven 
others--not to have received a funding increase despite demonstrated 
need of the region and success of the program.
    The San Francisco Bay Delta watershed system is one of the largest 
in the nation. It covers 75,000 square miles and includes the largest 
estuary on the west coasts of North and South America. It also contains 
the only inland delta in the world. In addition, the watershed provides 
a primary source of drinking water for 25 million Californians, 
irrigation for 7000 square miles of agriculture, and includes important 
economic resources such as California's water supply infrastructure, 
ports, deepwater shipping channels, major highway and railroad 
corridors, and energy lines. In the Delta specifically, declining water 
quality and increasing demand for limited water resources are the 
subject of intense review and planning to protect this valuable 
resource for the future.
    The watershed includes a diversity of fresh water, brackish water, 
and salt water aquatic habitats. Several endangered and threatened 
aquatic species are found here including delta smelt, steelhead, spring 
run Chinook salmon, winter run Chinook salmon, and others. Two-thirds 
of California's salmon pass through these waters, and at least half of 
the state's Pacific Flyway migratory water birds rely on the region's 
wetlands.
    Administrator Regan, can you provide an explanation as to why San 
Francisco Bay did not receive an increase from fiscal year 2022 funding 
levels in your budget proposal for fiscal year 2023 while at least 
seven other programs received double or more, including similar 
programs such as Puget Sound and South Florida?
    Answer. EPA is committed to continue 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 San Francisco Bay Delta.
    The fiscal year 2023 President's Budget was formulated before 
enacted levels were fully available for the San Francisco Bay Program 
and, therefore, reflected a $3 million increase when compared to the 
fiscal year 2022 Annualized Continuing Resolution Levels as contained 
in the request.
                    south coast air quality district
    Question. For over 20 years, the South Coast Air Quality District 
has been working to meet Federal Clean Air Act standards. Since these 
standards were set in 1997, California has led the nation in taking 
action against pollution and climate change.
    While I am appreciative of the EPA's action to reinstate 
California's waiver so it can set its own fuel emissions standards, as 
well as actions to increase standards for heavy-duty trucks and 
regulate hydrofluorocarbons, I think we can both agree that the Federal 
government must do more to limit emissions, including from ocean-faring 
cargo ships, trains, and out-of-state trucks and airplanes--all of 
which affect the South Coast's air quality. Until it does so, it is 
unreasonable to expect that the state will meet their Federal air 
quality goals, and still more unreasonable to penalize air quality 
districts for non-attainment. Further, the withholding of highway funds 
in pursuit of this penalty will only make it more difficult for the 
district to complete projects which would help them reach their 
attainment goals.
    What is the EPA doing to fast-track emissions standards for 
interstate and international travel and commerce, including ships, 
trains, trucks, and airplanes?
    Answer. EPA recognizes the significance of the public health 
challenges that California faces and is acting on a range of fronts to 
reduce emissions from the transportation sector. That includes: a March 
2022 proposal to reduce oxides of nitrogen from Heavy Duty Vehicles, 
for which EPA intends to finalize standards by December 2022; 
evaluating whether emissions from piston-engine aircraft operating on 
leaded fuel contribute to air pollution that endangers public health 
and welfare, then issuing a proposal this year for public review and 
comment, and taking final action in 2023; and leveraging the 
significant investments in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's Clean 
School Bus program to achieve air quality improvements in communities 
and help drive the market for electric heavy duty vehicles. In 
addition, EPA is engaged as an active member of the U.S. Government 
delegation at the International Maritime Organization working on 
programs to reduce air pollution from ocean-going vessels and at the 
International Civil Aviation Organization working on programs to reduce 
air pollution from aircraft. Refer to the proposed rule https://
www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule- 
control-air-pollution-aircraft-engines.
    Question. What plans does the EPA have to help the South Coast Air 
Quality District meet their attainment goals, given large sources of 
federally preempted sources of pollution in the area?
    Answer. EPA appreciates these air quality challenges and shares 
your concern about reducing pollution from sources needed to reach 
attainment. A coordinated, collaborative Federal- state partnership is 
critical to address these long-standing air pollution problems. EPA's 
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and Region 9 leadership are working 
closely with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 
and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to address these time-
sensitive issues regarding Clean Air Act obligations and sanctions. OAR 
and Region 9 have established a team that began meeting with SCAQMD and 
CARB to develop a common understanding of the area's ozone attainment 
challenges, potential Federal and state solutions, required timelines 
for achieving compliance with ozone air quality standards, and 
potential triggers of Federal sanctions. EPA is committed to 
determining how EPA, our colleague agencies, and our state and local 
counterparts can move forward to ensure attainment and maintenance of 
the ozone NAAQS.
    Question. What is EPA's long-term enforcement posture to ensure air 
quality districts are able to meet their goals and avoid inappropriate 
penalties in future situations?
    Answer. EPA's desire is always to help air quality planners meet 
the requirements and the goals of the Clean Air Act collaboratively, 
and we will continue to provide support to state and local compliance 
monitoring and enforcement programs with the goal of achieving the 
reductions envisioned by the regulatory framework designed to improve 
air quality.
                            renewable fuels
    Question. Currently, the EPA allows biomass cleared from areas that 
are ``at risk from wildfire'' to be classified as a renewable fuel. 
However, that definition relies on outdated information that may not 
include many locations in California that are actually areas of high 
wildfire risk according to the U.S. Forest Service, as I mentioned in 
my December 2021 letter to you. If vegetation cleared from wildfire 
hazard areas could be classified as renewable biomass under EPA rules, 
it would help reduce wildfire risk in these areas, improve forest 
health, and make use of cleared vegetation.
    Will you update this guidance with a more recent U.S. Forest 
Service Wildfire Hazard Potential map to more accurately reflect 
California's wildfire risk?
    Answer. It is clear that climate change and extreme weather are 
exacerbating wildlands fires across the country. As requested in your 
December 2021 letter, EPA has been working with the U.S. Forest Service 
and interested stakeholders to evaluate if such a change is permissible 
under the Clean Air Act. Any changes to EPA's current approach will 
need to go through notice and comment rulemaking to amend the existing 
regulations.
    As the EPA processes additional pathways for biofuels under the 
Renewable Fuel Standard, including from canola and rapeseed oil, I urge 
the agency to be as aggressive as possible with other pathways. The 
agency's expertise is critical to evaluate new transportation fuels 
lifecycle greenhouse gas benefits.
    Question. What is the current status for additional pathways that 
is EPA considering, such as biomass and biogas for electric or fuel 
cell vehicles or those technologies that pair direct air capture and/or 
carbon capture and sequestration?
    Answer. EPA intends as part of an upcoming rulemaking to propose 
new regulations that would allow renewable electricity to participate 
in the RFS program, consistent with Congressional intent to expand 
renewable fuel use. EPA has met with multiple stakeholders over several 
months to gather input on the upcoming proposal, which will provide 
details regarding how program implementation would work.
                               wildfires
    Question. Wildfires in California have become increasingly 
prevalent and intense in recent years. While the science exploring the 
environmental impacts of these fires is ongoing, comparatively little 
attention has been paid to the health impacts for Californians 
resulting from the resulting poor air quality. Researchers in my state 
have attempted to quantify these impacts and found that wildfire smoke 
was linked to 11,500 deaths in California between 2008--2018. Another 
recent study estimated that the 2020 California wildfires resulted in 
an additional 20,000 COVID-19 cases as people were more likely to stay 
indoors. As smoke from California wildfires can potentially impacts 
states as far away as New York, more funding is needed to study the 
impacts of these wildfires across the nation.
    Administrator Regan, what is the EPA doing to fund research on the 
environmental and health impacts of wildfire smoke? Have you explored 
using the EPA STAR program to prioritize this research?
    Answer. EPA works to mitigate the public health impacts of both 
wildfire and prescribed fire smoke events. EPA provides trusted 
information about air quality conditions and health impacts before, 
during and after fire and smoke events. EPA also conducts research and 
builds the tools needed to understand the impacts of fire on air 
quality, water quality, and health.
    EPA researchers are working to increase understanding of who is 
most at risk for adverse health effects of smoke; what strategies and 
approaches are effective in communicating impacts of wildfires on air 
quality and health to reduce smoke exposures and protect public health; 
how best to measure and model wildfire emissions and related air 
quality; and the impacts of wildland fire on surface waters and 
drinking water quality. This work will help citizens and local 
governments to understand and minimize the impact of wildfire smoke on 
public health.
    EPA is also working with tribes, states, and other Federal agencies 
to address wildfires. EPA is expanding the Wildfire Smoke Air 
Monitoring Response Technology (WSMART) program to increase the 
capacity of air agencies and air resource advisors affiliated with the 
Interagency Wildland Fire Air Quality Response Program to expand air 
quality monitoring during wildfire smoke events.
    EPA Wildfires Research is expected to be funded at approximately 
$3.0M in fiscal year 2022. A $4.8 million increase to address wildfires 
research is being requested in fiscal year 2023 for a total investment 
of $7.8M.
    In 2021, as part of its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, 
EPA awarded $9 million in grant funding for researchers to address 
behavioral, technical, and practical aspects of interventions and 
communication strategies to reduce exposures and health risks of 
wildland fire smoke. To improve public health, the institutions 
receiving these grants are conducting research to understand what 
actions might be effective for reducing exposures to wildland fire 
smoke and how best to communicate these actions to various groups.

                                 ______
                                 

            Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                             lake champlain
    Question. I want to thank you and the administration for once again 
including $20 million in funding in the President's budget to support 
the EPA's Geographic Program for Lake Champlain. The Lake--Vermont's 
``Great'' Lake--is critical not only to our state's economy, but to the 
entire Champlain Valley. New and ongoing threats, however, from climate 
change, invasive species, water contamination, and more, demand 
continued investment in restoration and preservation.
    You and I have spoken about the success of the EPA's Lake Champlain 
Program. It is a model for other geographic area programs across the 
country. What future investments do you believe are necessary to ensure 
that Lake Champlain remains protected, and with it, the economies that 
rely on the Lake?
    Answer. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL) invests $40 million in Lake Champlain which 
will allow us to extend additional support throughout the basin to 
support underserved and disadvantaged communities and increase 
resiliency in the face of climate change through programs to conserve 
important lands and access to them, improve aquatic organism passage, 
reduce flooding, and restore the function of floodplains in the basin. 
This investment in Lake Champlain and other geographic programs across 
the country will help clean up waters and accelerate our work in 
special places like Lake Champlain. Support for activities to address 
aquatic invasive species through the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act 
(VIDA) will also serve to protect the important ecosystem of the Lake 
Champlain basin. Potentially detrimental species, such as the round 
goby that is currently threatening to enter the basin, could have far-
reaching impacts on the fishery and water quality that the economy of 
the basin depends on. On top of their base appropriations, these 
expanded and multi-year resources will accelerate the programs' long-
standing work to improve water quality, enhance ecosystem and community 
resilience, conduct environmental education and outreach, and more. EPA 
is committed to being a strong partner to support their growth and to 
working with Congress and key local stakeholders to ensure effective, 
efficient, and equitable implementation.
                  burlington high school contamination
    Question. When you last appeared before this Committee, I spoke 
with you about the high levels of PCBs found in Burlington High School 
shortly before the 2021-2022 school yhttps://www.yahoo.com/
entertainment/scheana-shay-reveals-million-dollar-130827403.htmlear was 
set to begin, forcing the school to relocate in order to remediate 
these toxic chemicals--and construct a new high school, free of toxins 
on the site. The cost of the project is staggering.
    Burlington is Vermont's largest and most diverse city, with the 
greatest number of disadvantaged students in the State. Congress has 
provided billions of dollars through the bipartisan infrastructure to 
support projects like this one. What support can the EPA provide, 
beyond technical assistance, for dire situations such as the need for 
environmental remediation at Burlington High School, which is attended 
by over 1,000 Vermont students?
    Answer. EPA is committed to improving children's environmental 
health in schools and has provided information on and implemented 
programs to address PCBs. EPA continues to engage across state, tribal, 
and local government partners, and their stakeholders, to reduce or 
eliminate PCB contamination, particularly in schools and environments 
with children or susceptible sub-populations as well as disadvantaged 
and environmental justice communities, so that all Americans are safe 
from environmental and health hazards, including exposures to PCB- 
containing materials.
    The fiscal year 2023 President's Budget includes an increase of 
$1.7 million to provide some additional capacity for the Agency to help 
assess the risk of PCB exposure at local schools and buildings. EPA 
support for capacity building and improved ventilation in schools 
serving communities with environmental justice concerns are options for 
funding under the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act. In fiscal year 2021, 
EPA launched the Healthy Learning Environments in Low- Income and/or 
Minority Communities grants program to address children's environmental 
health in schools and childcare settings using ARP funds. EPA would 
welcome the opportunity to work with you on ways to address 
environmental and health hazards in schools. Our staff from Region 1 
have been supporting Burlington and will continue to do so.
                      lake champlain basin program
    Question. The Lake Champlain Basin Program was created by the Lake 
Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990. It brings together partners 
in Vermont, New York, and Quebec to coordinate and fund solutions to 
the challenges faced by the Lake Champlain Basin. For over 30 years, 
the program has addressed phosphorus pollution, toxic substances, 
biodiversity, and aquatic invasive species. Today, these interconnected 
issues are exacerbated by the effects of the climate crisis. 
Considering the growth of the Lake Champlain Basin Program since its 
establishment in 1990, its reauthorization in 2002, in addition to the 
increasing complexity of challenges in the Lake Champlain watershed, 
would you agree that it is timely to consider reauthorizing the program 
expediently?
    Answer. Thank you for your leadership on efforts to protect and 
restore this resource of national significance. EPA is one of several 
agencies that jointly administer the Lake Champlain Basin Program. Lake 
Champlain is a precious resource, and as such EPA stands ready to 
provide technical assistance to Congress on any effort to reauthorize 
the program to account for changes in the 20 years since the last 
reauthorization. EPA Region 1 and OGC have provided technical support 
to Chairman Leahy's staff on the proposed reauthorization and are 
available and willing to respond to any additional requests for 
assistance.
    Question. I am currently working on legislation to again 
reauthorize the Lake Champlain Basin Program. What resources, both 
fiscal and technical, is the EPA prepared to bring to the table to 
ensure the future protection and preservation of Lake Champlain?
    Answer. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides $40 
million to address climate change mitigation and adaptation, phosphorus 
loadings, invasive species, and toxic substances that threaten Lake 
Champlain's water quality and ecosystem health. EPA has historically 
provided technical support to the Lake Champlain Steering Committee and 
its partners through requests for assistance, funding of the New 
England Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC), the Lake 
Champlain Basin Program (LCBP), and the states of New York and Vermont, 
and provides technical insight and guidance as members of various LCBP 
subcommittees, the Executive Committee, the Steering Committee, and the 
Lake Champlain Federal partnership. As the program has grown, EPA is 
committed to increasing its support of the program through the addition 
of technical and support staff in EPA Regions 1 and 2. EPA also 
coordinates on aquatic invasive species with the Great Lakes National 
Program Office through the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) and 
provides technical support as necessary. EPA is committed to continuing 
to support the Lake Champlain program and would welcome the opportunity 
to work with you on future protection and preservation.

                                 ______
                                 

            Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
                             chesapeake bay
    Question. One of the most important roles for the EPA Administrator 
and EPA in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is to demonstrate 
leadership and a commitment to a restored Bay. We are only a short 3 
years away from our 2025 commitments under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement 
to meet our mutual goal of clean water. The Chesapeake Bay agreement 
identifies the pollution reductions necessary to meet water quality 
standards in the Bay and EPA's role in achieving those reductions. 
Given that 86 percent of the remaining pollutant load reductions must 
come from agriculture, it is imperative that the EPA work with USDA to 
ensure sufficient financial and technical assistance are provided to 
Bay region farmers so that we can get the job done.
    Ensuring that we are on the right pathway to meet our rapidly 
approaching 2025 clean-up deadline is critical; I appreciate that the 
EPA has used a ``most effective basins'' approach to get the most bang 
for the buck in critical areas of the watershed. How does the EPA plan 
to continue that approach, and how can EPA work with USDA to direct 
agricultural conservation funds to where they will be most helpful in 
the Bay in order to get the maximum load reduction possible?
    Answer. Nutrient pollution is a serious challenge affecting water 
quality across the country. Making progress on reducing excess 
nutrients and improving water quality will require all the tools 
available, including regulatory, non-regulatory and market-based 
programs to promote collaboration among urban and agricultural sectors. 
EPA uses a host of tools to support our partners, including states, 
tribes, and farmers, to reduce excess nutrients in watersheds using 
regulatory, non-regulatory, market-based, and other collaborative 
approaches. EPA is committed to working with USDA among others.
    EPA will continue to focus funding in the ``most effective basins'' 
(MEB) of the watershed to reach the goals of a restored Bay. At the 
same time, EPA will work with our partner agencies to accelerate the 
implementation of the most cost-effective best management practices in 
reducing nutrient and sediment pollution within the ``most effective 
basins.'' This year over $22 million is being targeted through MEB 
funding, $15 million of which comes from additional funding provided 
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    EPA, USGS, and the University of Maryland developed the ``Priority 
Agricultural Watersheds'' mapping tool to inform where to target 
Federal funding to agricultural conservation practices to reduce the 
greatest nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the tidal Chesapeake Bay. 
Since 2010, this regional screening tool has been used by EPA and USDA 
in their funding ranking criteria to target EPA Chesapeake Bay grants 
and USDA Farm Bill program funding for the greatest agricultural load 
reductions to the tidal Chesapeake Bay. In July 2021, EPA and USGS 
updated and enhanced this mapping tool with the most recent USGS 
SPARROW model and State agriculture-impaired streams data. More 
recently, EPA has updated its Most Effective Basins map, which will 
provide complementary information for the Priority Agricultural 
Watersheds. EPA and USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service 
continue to coordinate Federal funding to support implementation of 
priority agricultural practices in priority watersheds to achieve the 
greatest nutrient reductions to the Chesapeake Bay. Additionally, EPA, 
NRCS, and USGS developed recommendations to enhance monitoring to 
document water-quality improvements to conservation practices. In 2021, 
EPA, NRCS, and USGS published reports summarizing their coordination 
efforts and recommendations:

  --Report NRCS EPA Ag Conservation Funding Team (https://
        www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/41834/
        report_nrcs_epa_ag_conservation_fundingteam.pdf) and

  --Report NRCS EPA USGS Federal WQ Monitoring Team (https://
        www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/41834/
        report_nrcs_epa_usgs_Federal_wq_monito ring_team_122220.pdf).

    An example of how EPA and NRCS are working together to make it 
easier for Chesapeake Bay agricultural partners to access Federal 
funding for their conservation work is the Decision Memo they signed on 
June 21, 2021. This memo allows agricultural partners to use Chesapeake 
Bay grants as ``match'' (partner contribution) for the NRCS Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) projects. RCPP projects can be 
as high as $10 million and require an equal amount of match from 
applicants. Allowing applicants to use EPA's Chesapeake Bay grants as 
match has been a game-changer for applicants and made them more 
competitive for these national funds.
    Question. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $238 million 
for the Chesapeake Bay Program through 2026 on top of annual 
appropriations, this will supercharge our efforts to clean up the Bay. 
Earlier this month, EPA announced the allocation of $40 million in 
first-year funds with $25 million administered through the NFWF 
Chesapeake Stewardship Fund, and $15 million for distributed to the 
watershed states and D.C. for Most Effective Basins. Is it the Agency 
intent allocate funding at the same ratio in fiscal year 23?
    Answer. EPA is grateful to Congress for including the Chesapeake 
Bay Program in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) . The Agency is 
committed to timely investment of all infrastructure funds, knowing 
this will allow the program to accelerate actions to restore and 
protect the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. The Chesapeake Bay 
Program will continue to support the Most Effective Basins grants to 
jurisdictions and is gathering input this summer to ensure future 
allocations are aligned with the highest priority needs. The Bay 
Program will continue supporting the competitively awarded Small 
Watershed Grants (SWG) and Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction 
Grants (INSR) which are up for competition again this year. A request 
for proposals is planned for later in 2022.
                               clean air
    Question. For decades, the State of Maryland has worked diligently 
to address pollution to meet air quality standards and to protect the 
health of our constituents. In Baltimore, the rate of asthma- related 
hospitalizations is among the highest in the country--three times 
higher than the U.S. average. These pollutants lead to increased 
pulmonary and cardiovascular-related illnesses and disproportionately 
impact communities of color. Ensuring these communities receive the 
resources they need is critical and I thank you for the work the EPA 
has done to expand the efforts of air pollution control agencies to 
reduce greenhouse gases, yet more is needed to be done. On August 11, 
2021, the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against EPA 
Administrator Michael Regan in the District Court for the Northern 
District of California Oakland Division. Plaintiffs allege that EPA has 
failed to undertake certain non-discretionary duties under the Clean 
Air Act in Detroit, Anne Arundel County, and Baltimore County and fails 
to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards for sulfur dioxide 
levels.
    What efforts has the EPA made to address these urgent issues and 
support states like Maryland in meeting our clean air standards? How 
will EPA support the Office of Air and Radiation ability to regulate 
and reduce pollution from the power generation and transportation 
sectors?
    Answer. Under the Clean Air Act's ``good neighbor'' provision, EPA 
provides a backstop to state actions by promulgating Federal 
Implementation Plans (FIPs) when a state fails to submit, or EPA 
disapproves, a good neighbor SIP. EPA has promulgated several national-
scale rulemakings to fulfill its FIP obligations to address interstate 
pollution for ozone and fine particulate matter NAAQS, including the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR); the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
(CSAPR); the CSAPR Update; and most recently, the Revised CSAPR Update. 
Emissions reductions from electric generating units (EGUs) were 
achieved through these rules via regional allowance trading programs. 
Before these actions, EPA had regulated certain non- power plant 
sources (along with power plants) in the 1998 ``NOx SIP Call.'' EPA's 
recently proposed transport rule builds upon these prior rulemakings 
and extends the proposed emissions reductions to industrial sources 
beyond the power sector and to several states not included in prior 
national-scale actions.
    Regarding areas failing to meet the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2), EPA, on January 28, 2022, issued a 
finding that the Detroit, MI, nonattainment area failed to attain the 
SO2 standard by the attainment date. EPA is working to finalize a 
Federal implementation plan for this area by the consent decree 
deadline of September 30, 2022. Regarding the Anne Arundel/Baltimore 
County nonattainment area, EPA has a consent decree deadline of October 
31, 2022, to take final action on the state's SO2 attainment plan for 
this area and is working with the state to meet this deadline.
    EPA is also moving expeditiously to reconsider the 2020 decisions 
to retain both the ozone and the particulate matter (PM) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This approach adheres to 
rigorous standards of scientific integrity and provides ample 
opportunities for public input and engagement. These reconsideration 
decisions reflect EPA's commitment to a rigorous NAAQS review process, 
with a focus on protecting scientific integrity. An important part of 
that is to ensure the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) 
is fully equipped to provide me the advice needed to make the best 
decision possible. EPA moved to reinstate pollutant specific CASAC 
panels to assist the CASAC in ongoing reviews, including in these two 
reconsiderations.
    Power plants remain the largest stationary sources of harmful 
pollutants like nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide and are the nation's 
second largest source of greenhouse gas pollution. EPA is committed to 
using the full scope of its authorities, including its Clean Air Act 
authority, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, to 
protect communities, and to reduce the pollution that is driving 
climate change. In March, EPA outlined its approach to working with the 
power sector to continue to deliver affordable, reliable power while 
reducing pollution to protect public health. EPA is working to develop 
a set of clean air, clean water, and waste disposal standards. The 
approach includes engaging industry and working in a transparent 
manner, protecting public health and overburdened communities, and 
pursuing an integrated approach that provides a framework for 
investment decisions.
    EPA is moving forward on critical actions to address pollution from 
the power sector. Building on a robust foundation of public engagement, 
we plan to finalize the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Appropriate 
and Necessary Finding this year and propose a review of the MATS Risk 
and Technology Review in early 2023. We will continue to conduct 
outreach in 2022 on greenhouse gas rules for new and existing power 
plants and propose Clean Air Act section 111 rules in early 2023. These 
steps are an important part of the Administration's commitment to 
advance standards to ensure that all Americans are protected from the 
power plant pollution that harms public health and our economy. They 
also demonstrate our commitment to achieving a cleaner power sector, 
and to doing so in a way that provides regulatory certainty and a long-
term planning horizon for companies, state regulators and investors; 
that maintains reliable and affordable electricity for families and 
businesses; and that creates jobs and economic opportunities. It is 
critical to the success of these efforts that EPA receive the fiscal 
year 2023 President's Budget request. For example, the President's 
Budget requests an increase to support the regulation of stationary 
sources of air pollution through developing and implementing emissions 
standards, regulations, and guidelines. The fiscal year 2023 
President's Budget also includes a request for additional resources for 
NAAQS review work and related implementation activities, such as 
development of guidance, review of SIPs and permits, and air monitoring 
and analyses.
                                  pfas
    Question. PFAS contamination in our nation's waterways pose 
enormous health risks to communities across the country, and many 
private drinking water wells currently don't have any standards. How 
does EPA plan to ensure that communities on private wells aren't being 
harmed by PFAS? Will there be support for well remediation?
    Answer. In October 2021, EPA Administrator Michael Regan released 
the PFAS Strategic Roadmap--EPA's whole-of-agency approach to tackling 
PFAS. The Roadmap sets timelines by which EPA plans to take specific 
actions and commits to bolder new policies to safeguard public health, 
protect the environment, and hold polluters accountable. The actions 
described in the PFAS Roadmap each represent important and meaningful 
steps to safeguard communities from PFAS contamination. Cumulatively, 
these actions will build upon one another and lead to more enduring and 
protective solutions.
    EPA recognizes that PFAS contamination has impacted communities 
across the country, including communities and households that rely on 
home drinking water wells. The Agency is taking action to use the best-
available science to tackle PFAS pollution, protect public health, and 
provide critical information quickly and transparently, while also 
providing infrastructure funding to help communities--especially 
disadvantaged communities--deliver safe water. In addition to direct 
actions to protect drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
(SDWA), EPA is bringing deeper focus to preventing PFAS from entering 
the environment in the first place (through actions under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act and the Clean Water Act) and to broadening and 
accelerate the cleanup of PFAS contamination to protect human health 
and ecological systems.
    The SDWA's regulatory and financing programs are generally designed 
to assist public water systems, which the law defines as a water system 
that has at least 15 service connections or that regularly serves at 
least 25 individuals. The SDWA does provide authority to use funds from 
key financing programs (including the SRFs and the new BIL Emerging 
Contaminants grant program) to connect households on private wells to 
public water systems. Funds from these programs may be used to connect 
households currently on private wells to create a new public water 
system as defined in the SDWA, and to install appropriate treatment 
solutions to reduce PFAS in the new public water system. The SDWA 
authorities for the SRFs and for the new BIL Emerging Contaminant 
Program do not allow for states to fund projects for private well 
remediation.
    EPA includes information about steps that people who get their 
water from a home drinking water well can take to reduce exposure to 
PFAS in drinking water on the agency's website at Meaningful and 
Achievable Steps You Can Take to Reduce Your Risk (https://www.epa.gov/
pfas/meaningful-and-achievable-steps-you-can-take-reduce-your-risk). 
EPA also maintains a website at Private Drinking Water Wells (https://
www.epa.gov/privatewells) that educates well owners more broadly on 
topics such as the importance of testing home drinking water wells and 
shares information on protecting health, including links to other 
Federal and non-profit websites that host additional educational 
materials and resources to help these well owners. EPA highlighted 
these resources for the public when releasing health advisories for 
four PFAS on June 15, 2022.
    EPA's Office of Water has committed to setting enforceable limits 
in drinking water for PFOA and PFOS, with a proposed rule coming this 
fall and a final rule by the end of 2023. It has also committed to 
setting binding discharge standards (effluent guidelines) for different 
categories of industry that discharge PFAS. EPA issued a final PFBS 
assessment in April 2021, after addressing scientific integrity 
concerns with a version of the assessment released on January 19, 2021. 
EPA finalized a similar assessment for GenX in 2021 and is also moving 
ahead to assess the toxicity of additional PFAS. Finally, EPA is taking 
action to improve Clean Water Act permitting and to deepen our 
understanding of PFAS in fish tissue and working closely with USDA, the 
risks of PFAS in biosolids.

                                 ______
                                 

          Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
                          stakeholder meetings
    Question. What is your procedure for handling stakeholder meeting 
requests when you are unable to take the meeting? Are the meetings that 
you cannot attend delegated to be handled by other US Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) staff?
    Answer. Engagement and transparency are important values to me. 
That said, when scheduling conflicts or other limits prevent my ability 
to accept meeting requests, EPA usually offers a surrogate who has 
relevant expertise.
                     full-time equivalents staffing
    Question. How many full-time equivalents (FTEs) are currently 
employed by EPA?
    What is the average number of EPA FTEs that reported for work in 
person in the EPA headquarters buildings daily from April 1, 2022 to 
May 31, 2022? What is the average number of EPA FTEs that reported for 
work in person in each EPA regional office daily from April 1, 2022 to 
May 31, 2022? Please break down by regional office. What is the average 
number of EPA FTEs that reported for work in person at any other EPA 
facility daily from April 1, 2022 to May 31, 2022? Please break down by 
facility.
    Answer. As of June 1, 2022, EPA has 14,450 onboard employees. EPA 
currently projects utilizing 14,313.8 full time equivalents (FTE) 
through the end of fiscal year 2022 across annual appropriations, user 
fee, and supplemental appropriation accounts, including the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law.
    EPA recently expanded existing workplace flexibilities, such as 
telework and flexible schedules, so the EPA workforce will operate in a 
hybrid manner. EPA also provides an option for full-time remote work 
only if all duties are portable. These flexibilities are implemented 
according to policy and adherence to established eligibility criteria 
and provide for better work- life balance and prioritize the well-being 
of our workforce.
    EPA completed its phased re-entry to the workplace in late April, 
with all personnel who report to an EPA location returning per their 
work schedule. EPA anticipates that a hybrid workforce may lead to 
reduced facility lease and utility costs in outyears as EPA works to 
right- size our footprint. The fiscal year 2023 President's Budget 
request resources to support this rightsizing and enable EPA to expand 
the use of collaboration technology to support a hybrid work 
environment.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Administrator Regan, 
I think about the huge set of issues that you are responsible 
for I know you are diligently trying to make a difference 
through your leadership, and your rebuilding of the Agency. We 
support you in that. This matters a great deal for all of us. 
So thank you.
    No further comments. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, May 18, the hearing 
was adjourned, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 
at a time subject to the call of the Chair.]