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




 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley (Chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Merkley, Leahy, Reed, Tester, Van Hollen, 
Heinrich, Murkowski, and Capito.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

    Senator Merkley. Welcome everyone. I am so pleased to get 
this hearing underway for the Environmental Protection Agency 
Budget. And so, pleased to have with us today, Administrator 
Regan, and also acting CFO for the EPA, David Bloom. And so 
welcome. And welcome to my colleagues who are here today, in 
this hearing on the fiscal year 2022 budget request for the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    After 10 years of painful budget caps, EPA's budget today 
is 25 percent lower in real dollars, than its fiscal year 2010 
funding level. EPA staffing levels have dropped 20 percent. We 
are at a low point for the resources desperately needed to 
tackle the breadth and depth of the public health and 
environmental challenges facing our Nation.
    The administration's requested budget increase for EPA is a 
little under $2 billion, or 22 percent compared to the fiscal 
year 2021. These levels would help reverse the funding and 
staffing losses EPA has suffered. But we are not here to simply 
recreate the old EPA. These levels would begin to remake the 
Agency to confront the enormous challenges of today.
    It is an essential step environmental protection funding 
that enables a robust response to the threats communities face 
across our Nation, from contaminated air and water, to 
Superfund sites, to environmental injustices, to climate chaos. 
In Oregon, and all over United States and the world, climate 
chaos is a fact of life. Last summer, devastating wildfires 
incinerated several of the towns in my home State of Oregon, 
destroying hundreds of homes, leveling businesses to the 
ground, tragically killing 11 individuals.
    I drove from the northern border to the southern border and 
back again, for more than 600 miles and never got out of the 
smoke. I have never seen anything like that before. But these 
types of fires are increasingly common, as fire season gets 
longer and hotter, the forests are drier. And even this summer 
is shaping up to be another emergency, with historic drought 
conditions present across the West. For the first time in 105 
years, there is no water for irrigation in the Klamath Basin.
    It is inescapable, climate chaos is a present day crisis 
and urgent action is essential. The prior administration rolled 
back clean air and climate protections. They walked away from 
our global commitment to address climate change. We lost ground 
at a moment when we need to supercharge our ambition. It is 
encouraging to see the Biden administration reverse that 
dangerous course, commit to follow the science and work to 
tackle this challenge.
    The $1.8 billion in climate-related funding included in 
this proposal is a breath of fresh air after the slash and burn 
budget requests from the last administration. We need to treat 
this crisis as an emergency and act with boldness, these 
investments are an important step forward, a step towards 
right-sizing our climate investment. We also need urgency and 
boldness in addressing our Nation's long history of 
environmental injustice.
    It is a tragic fact that our laws and our lack of 
enforcement of laws have failed to protect overburdened 
communities that all too often, are low-income communities of 
color. The administration's nearly $1 billion proposed 
investment Environmental Justice Initiatives is historic and 
long overdue.
    This proposal appropriately aims, prioritize and mainstream 
environmental justice across all of EPA, providing the 
resources needed for EPA to elevate environmental justice 
voices within Agency programs, and decisionmaking. And I 
appreciate that the budget request includes more than $3 
billion in funding for water infrastructure, for grants, and 
loans, other support, including WIFIA, Water Infrastructure 
Finance and Innovation Act program that I championed through 
the authorization and funding process years ago.
    I am pleased that WIFIA has made possible a long list of 
clean water projects that serve 31 million Americans. But more 
progress is needed a path forward for families that are facing 
steep water bills and shutoffs after falling behind during the 
pandemic. And we need programs that prioritize the small 
communities, often low-end communities that I hear from across 
Oregon, where their clean water supply and their wastewater 
treatment is unable to keep up with the deteriorating 
infrastructure built more than half-a-century ago, including 
wooden pipes that often go back 100 years, to keep up with the 
new and important standards for clean water and for wastewater, 
or simply prepare for the possibility of expanding the size of 
a town.
    So we have to come up with a lot of help for these small 
communities. And I am heartened by the increases in grant 
funding in the--in the budget requests that are directed to 
this challenge. We need to rebuild our environmental protection 
framework, which is battered and battered over the last decade 
by budget caps and the last administration's tenure.
    We need to rebuild the EPA and provide long overdue relief 
to its State, Tribal and local partners on the frontlines of 
implementing our environmental laws. And I am pleased to see 
the proposed budgets attention to this challenge.
    Administrator Regan, you started your career at EPA, and I 
know you understand the contributions of the Agency and its 
dedicated professionals to clean air and clean water across the 
country. The staffing numbers at EPA have been cut to a level 
not in almost 40 years. The President's budget request before 
us today would return 1,000 staff to the Agency, an important 
step.
    We need to rebuild this Agency that has lost 3,000 
scientists, toxic cleanup specialists, environmental engineers, 
drinking water technicians, toxicologists, and other experts 
over the course of the last decade. From your leadership at the 
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, you are 
familiar with EPA's role in partnering with local leadership.
    In fact, half of EPA's funding is passed on to State, 
Tribal and community partners to support State environmental 
agencies, air quality monitoring, clean water infrastructure 
projects, and local priorities. This has certainly been 
important in my home State of Oregon.
    We need urgency, but we also need consistency, and the 
President's American Jobs Plan prioritized investments to 
tackle climate change and environmental injustice, but it is 
also important these programs are increased in the annual 
budget.
    Right sizing our annual funding for these priorities, 
otherwise a one-time infrastructure investment we followed by 
years of neglect and backsliding. There is no more important 
statement of our values than a budget. And I like the values I 
see in this budget and I stand ready to help the administration 
provide the resources we need to tackle these really important 
challenges.
    Let me turn to my colleague, Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski 
from the State of Alaska for any comments she would like to 
make.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good 
morning. And to you, Administrator Regan, good morning, and 
welcome to your first budget hearing before this subcommittee. 
I am glad to be joining Chairman Merkley for this very 
important discussion about EPA's fiscal year 2022 budget 
request.
    I would like to open by first thanking you. It is always 
good to start with a thank you, and notes of appreciation. But 
you made an early commitment to work with me on a number of 
issues that uniquely affect my State, that are important to 
Alaska. You and your staff have been responsive in engaging 
with me and my team. And I truly do appreciate that. It is my 
sincere hope that this level of outreach and coordination will 
continue throughout your tenure as administrator.
    And on that note, as the Agency, under this administration, 
reviews and potentially rescinds regulations that were 
promulgated under the previous administration, it is imperative 
that you engage with Congress and consider all perspectives 
before taking action.
    The Agency, under the previous administration, I think, 
struck the right regulatory balance on a number of key issues, 
and I would point to WOTUS as a specific example. You stated in 
a previous hearing that you are, ``Not satisfied'', close quote 
with the existing WOTUS rule, and WOTUS and many other 
regulations that significantly affect Alaska, and the Nation, 
my hope is this administration not engage in the regulatory 
overreach that we saw under the Obama administration.
    So I credit you for your goal of finding common ground 
among varying stakeholders. And again, I cannot stress how 
important that will be, in practice, on these issues. Another 
issue where it is important to find common ground among diverse 
stakeholders is on long-term protections for the Bristol Bay 
watershed. Last week, I had an opportunity to visit Dillingham, 
out in the Bristol Bay region, to begin discussions on what 
protections may be needed and really the overall future of the 
region.
    I was able to reiterate my commitment to developing a long-
term, durable solution, and begin the process to develop a 
legislative proposal based off of input from regional 
stakeholders.
    And, Administrator Regan, as I shared with you and the 
other EPA nominees that I have had an opportunity to speak 
with, I have been--I think I have been pretty clear in my 
concerns about the use of the 404(c) veto for the Pebble 
Deposit. I hope you will be working with us on legislative 
protections and not relying solely on heavy-handed 
administrative approaches. Again, my interest here is to find 
an enduring solution here. And I would like to work with you on 
that.
    Now, turning to fiscal year 2022, the EPA's budget request 
totals approximately $11.2 billion. That is almost a 22 percent 
increase over last year's funding level. This along with $116 
billion proposed in the American Jobs Plan is really a stunning 
amount of proposed funding for the Agency.
    This budget request and the American Jobs Plan are both 
proposals as of now, and of course Congress will ultimately 
decide the fate of both. There are a number of proposed 
increases in the request that I can support and a number that I 
cannot. I appreciate the request commitment to State, and 
tribal grant, and loan programs that lead to on-the-ground 
improvements for communities across the country.
    In my time with this subcommittee, and particularly as 
chair, I have worked hard to provide increases to the many EPA 
programs that achieve the real substantive results in attaining 
cleaner air, water, and lands for the people of Alaska, and 
across this great country. And I will continue to do so.
    I will say that I am disappointed to see that the Alaska 
Native Villages Program and the targeted Airshed Program are 
held flat in a request that does include so many increases. 
These are grant programs that really help to address some 
important and significant problems in the State of Alaska. So I 
would hope that we would see increases in future requests for 
both.
    On the American Jobs Plan and infrastructure spending, if 
an infrastructure bill is passed, and I am one of those that is 
working to try to do just that, it is critical that remote and 
rural communities are able to easily access funding, which is a 
challenge many such communities face. The administration's 
proposal makes mention of funds for underserved communities, 
but lacks details that provide assurance that the funding will 
be meaningfully helpful in remote communities, such as we have 
in so many of our Native villages across the State.
    It is critical that you, and really all of us, work to 
ensure that steep barriers to entry on infrastructure funding, 
such as high matching requirements, are avoided for these very 
smaller communities.
    So to close, I will reiterate that I do appreciate your 
commitment to working with me on so many of these issues that 
are important to Alaska, but also, very, very unique. And I 
think you have noted that. I will be asking you about a number 
of them in my questions this morning. And I look forward to 
your continued help towards making progress on these, and so 
many issues that are important to our country.
    Thank you, Administrator. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Leahy, did you wish to make an opening statement?
    Senator Leahy. No. I will have questions later.
    Senator Merkley. Okay.
    Very good; Administrator Regan, we will turn it over for 
your opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR, 
            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Mr. Regan. Thank you Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member 
Murkowski, and Members of the subcommittee. I am grateful for 
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the EPA's 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2022.
    For half a century, EPA has worked hard to provide the 
American people with clean air to breathe, clean water to 
drink, and safe, healthy land. EPA's dedicated career staff at 
our headquarters in Washington, D.C., and throughout the 10 
regions, work every day to improve the lives of our people 
across this great Nation, and have risen to the occasion 
presented to us through the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Earlier this month, President Biden sent to Congress EPA's 
budget request for $11.2 billion. If enacted this budget would 
help ensure that EPA continues to meet its essential mandate by 
providing the resources necessary to confront our environmental 
challenges, especially in our overburdened communities. EPA's 
mission is to protect human health and the environment.
    To achieve these goals, we must have resources to help all 
communities across the Nation who are on the frontlines of 
protecting public health and cleaning up pollution. That is why 
almost 50 percent of the President's budget request for EPA 
supports EPA's State and Tribal partners through the State and 
Tribal Assistance Grant Program. State and tribal leaders know 
their communities better than the Federal Government ever 
could.
    It is also why the budget of every place-based program, 
from the San Francisco Bay to the Chesapeake Bay was increased. 
These programs are key to managing and accelerating the 
restoration of our Nation's treasured water bodies which helps 
sustain local and regional economies, ensuring access to clean 
and safe water for all Americans is another priority for this 
administration.
    At EPA, we have seen that investing in water infrastructure 
is a win-win for public health and for economic development. 
The 2022 budget provides $3.6 billion to EPA to rebuild our 
water infrastructure with targeted increases to our State 
revolving loan funds. These programs assist States, Tribes, and 
territories with infrastructure projects that help provide 
clean water and safe water management in all communities across 
the country. Water infrastructure investments, however, only 
represent one aspect of clean and safe water.
    The Agency will also invest resources and expand efforts to 
address the pervasive and persistent chemicals known as PFAS in 
our drinking water. As part of the President's commitment to 
tackle PFAS pollution, the budget provides approximately $75 
million to accelerate toxicity studies and funds research to 
inform our regulatory process, additional funds for technical 
assistance grants have also been set aside for State and local 
governments to deal with PFAS contamination in their own 
communities.
    Under the President's leadership we are taking action to 
tackle climate change, to ensure a livable planet for future 
generations. This budget invests in programs that will help 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including $100 million for air 
quality grants directly to States and Tribes to tackle emission 
levels on a local and regional scale.
    An additional $30 million will help improve the knowledge 
of the impacts of climate change on human health and the 
environment through our scientific research programs. Much like 
climate change, environmental justice underpins all of our 
work. The pandemic ignited a perfect storm for communities of 
color and low-income communities who already bear the highest 
burdens of pollution, suffer the highest rates of mortality 
from heart and lung disease, and recently, COVID-19 as well.
    The budget invests $936 million toward new, accelerating, 
environmental and economic justice initiatives for efforts 
across the Agency that will help create jobs, clean up 
pollution, and secure environmental justice for communities who 
have been left behind far too often. In the 40 years since 
Congress' creation of the Superfund program, we have made 
significant progress, but much work remains to be done. Under 
my leadership EPA would do everything in its power to hold 
responsible parties accountable for environmental degradation, 
and return land to safe and productive use for communities.
    Our budget provides $882 million for Superfund remedial 
programs to clean up America's most contaminated land. That is 
a $293 million increase. Our budget provides $882 million for 
Superfund remedial programs to clean up America's most 
contaminated land, reduce emissions of toxic substances, and 
respond to environmental emergencies, oil spills, and natural 
disasters.
    Chairman, and Members of the subcommittee, the fiscal year 
2022 budget will help ensure EPA can meet the interconnected 
health and environmental crisis we face, lift up communities 
who have long been left behind, and put the Nation on a 
prosperous path to economic recovery. And EPA is ready to meet 
those challenges.
    So, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look 
forward to your continued partnership, and welcome any 
questions that you might have. Thank you.

    [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael S. Regan
    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 American Jobs Plan. This 
plan is a transformational investment that puts working people first 
and will help ensure we reduce pollution and help create good quality 
jobs.
                         the american jobs plan
    In March, President Biden released the American Jobs Plan. This 
plan recognizes that now is the time for a bold, once-in-a-generation 
investment in America to put millions of people to work and lay the 
foundation for economic growth for decades to come by investing in 
infrastructure.
    Infrastructure in the 21st century extends far beyond just roads 
and bridges. It means investing in our electrical grid and building 
more resilient transmission. It means revitalizing digital 
infrastructure to expand access to reliable, high-speed broadband 
Internet in every pocket of the country, especially rural areas and 
underserved communities. And it also means investing in our drinking 
water and wastewater infrastructure, cleaning up and restoring our 
land, and investing in programs to reduce air pollution for our kids.
Guaranteeing clean water for all
    The American Jobs Plan proposes a $111 billion investment in water 
infrastructure, including a $45 billion investment to replace 100 
percent of lead service lines and pipes through the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Water 
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act grants. Replacing 
lead service lines is vital for public health and yet EPA estimates 
that six to 10 million homes in the United States and up to 400,000 
schools and daycare centers have lead service lines. The impact of lead 
exposure, including through drinking water, is a serious public health 
issue and its adverse effects on children are all too well known. In 
children, lead can cause irreversible and life-long health effects, 
including decreasing IQ, focus, and academic achievement.
    The plan also would invest $56 billion in grants and low-cost 
flexible loans to States, Tribes, territories, and disadvantaged 
communities across the country to upgrade and modernize America's 
drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems, tackle new 
contaminants, and support clean water infrastructure across rural 
America. The American Jobs Plan also provides $10 billion in funding to 
monitor and remediate PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in 
drinking water and to invest in rural small water systems, and 
household well and wastewater systems, including drainage fields.
    In total, these investments will create millions of good paying 
jobs, including union jobs.
    We know from experience that water infrastructure investments not 
only improve public health--they also create good-paying jobs. Through 
our State Revolving Funds, EPA has already provided more than $189 
billion in financial assistance to nearly 43,000 water quality 
infrastructure projects and 16,500 drinking water projects. This has 
created over 300,000 jobs in the last 2 years alone. Through the Water 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan program, EPA has 
provided $9 billion in credit assistance to help finance more than $19 
billion for water infrastructure while creating nearly 47,000 jobs and 
saving ratepayers $4 billion.
Investing in clean buses for kids
    When I was a kid growing up in Eastern North Carolina I had to use 
an inhaler, an experience familiar for far too many kids. That is why 
the American Jobs Plan proposes to electrify at least 20 percent of our 
yellow school bus fleet through a new Clean Buses for Kids Program at 
EPA. We know this type of investment works and that it is important to 
protect kids on their way to and from school. Since 2008, Congress has 
provided funding through EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) 
for more than 28,000 school bus upgrades, including more than 4,000 
school bus replacements. The Clean Buses for Kids Program is a new 
program, which would build on the lessons learned from DERA while 
leaving the existing program intact.
    Reducing emissions from school buses has demonstrated positive 
health benefits for the children who ride them, the drivers, people 
around school bus loading areas, and the communities in which they 
operate. These investments will also boost market demand to create 
jobs, build out infrastructure and support U.S. manufacturing.
Cleaning up and restoring our land
    In the 40 years since the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was signed into law, we have 
significant progress on cleaning up and restoring our land, but the 
work is far from over. Under my leadership, EPA will do everything in 
its power to hold bad actors accountable for environmental degradation 
and return land to safe and productive use for communities. Communities 
located within one mile of Superfund sites are disproportionately 
communities of color and low-income. Remediation of these sites will 
strengthen climate resilience, improve public health, and expand job 
opportunities both in these communities, and the Nation at large.
    The American Jobs Plan proposes a $5 billion investment in the 
remediation and redevelopment of Brownfield and Superfund sites, as 
well as related economic and workforce development programs. Cleaning 
up contaminated sites so they can be returned to productive use can be 
an engine for economic development across the country. Since Congress 
started the Brownfields program, Federal investments have leveraged 
$34.6 billion, supported over 176,000 jobs, and thousands of properties 
have been cleaned up or made ready for reuse.
           the fiscal year 2022 discretionary funding request
    President Biden's proposed fiscal year 2022 discretionary request 
for the Environmental Protection Agency of $11.2 billion advances key 
EPA priorities, including tackling the climate crisis, delivering 
environmental justice, and rebuilding core functions at the Agency. The 
fiscal year 2022 discretionary funding request prioritizes working with 
and supporting State, local and Tribal leaders in expanding capacity in 
community development, cleaning up toxic waste, and investing in water 
infrastructure projects that create good paying jobs. Within the EPA 
topline, $1.8 billion will support investments related to tackling the 
climate crisis, with more than half supporting environmental justice 
work. In addition, the request dedicates resources to restoring 
scientific integrity at the Agency and ensuring the foundation of our 
decisionmaking process is grounded in science.
    EPA is also seeking additional resources and staff to enforce the 
environmental laws that Congress has passed so that all companies play 
on a level playing field and our communities share in public health 
benefits.
Restoring the Agency
    Responding to the environmental crises at hand requires a systemic 
approach in expanding the Agency's capacity. EPA lost nearly 1,000 
dedicated staff over the past 4 years, and it has affected the Agency's 
ability to carry out its core duties and functions to protect public 
health and the environment. The discretionary request invests over $110 
million to restore EPA's staff capacity and to rebuild programmatic 
capabilities that focus on protecting clean air, land, and water.
    Restoring capacity across the Agency will strengthen our ability to 
tackle multiple priorities, from clean air and water, to cutting edge 
research at the Agency. Restoring the voice of our employees and 
supporting their efforts--through the best available science--to 
advance the mission of the Agency has never been more important.
Tackling the climate crisis
    Under the Biden-Harris administration, EPA is reprioritizing 
addressing climate change with the urgency the crisis demands. The 
discretionary request invests $1.8 billion in programs to tackle the 
climate crisis while also delivering environmental justice to 
marginalized and over-burdened communities, growing the economy, and 
creating good paying jobs.
    This request invests in programs to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, including an additional $100 million for air quality grants 
to States and Tribes to tackle emission levels on a local and regional 
scale. An additional $30 million is included to improve knowledge of 
the impacts of climate change on human health and the environment 
through our research programs--more than doubling EPA's climate change 
research while providing additional investments to decrease emissions 
of methane and hydrofluorocarbons.
Prioritizing environmental justice
    The communities hardest hit and struggling the most under the 
weight of the pandemic are often communities of color, lower income 
communities, and Tribal nations. For decades, many of these same 
communities have been overburdened with air pollution and other 
environmental hazards. An individual's skin color or their zip code 
shouldn't determine whether they have clean air to breathe and water to 
drink.
    This request invests $936 million towards a new Accelerating 
Environmental and Economic Justice Initiative that will help secure 
environmental justice for communities who too often have been left 
behind while creating jobs, cleaning up pollution, and implementing the 
Justice40 Initiative to advance racial equity. Like climate change, 
environmental justice underpins the work of the Agency and is an 
integral part of this national conversation surrounding equality and 
equity in the Nation's communities.
    The environmental justice initiative invests in a new community air 
quality monitoring and notification program, provides additional funds 
to enforce existing laws meant to protect communities from hazardous 
pollution, and allocates resources to hold polluters liable in civil 
and criminal suits. As part of the Justice40 Initiative, $100 million 
will support development and implementation of a community notification 
program to monitor and provide real-time data to the public on current 
environmental pollution. These investments build on the funds provided 
by the American Rescue Plan, which will help address disproportionate 
environmental or public health risks in minority and low-income 
populations resulting from exposure to pollution and the COVID-19 
pandemic.
                          american rescue plan
    I also want to acknowledge and thank Congress for recognizing EPA's 
critical role in addressing human health and environmental disparities 
through the American Rescue Plan. Polluted air, contaminated water, and 
hazardous waste continue to threaten public health, and the COVID-19 
pandemic has compounded the seriousness of such inequities for 
communities for color and low-income communities across the Nation. The 
American Rescue Plan provides $100 million for the EPA to address these 
issues; $50 million targeted specifically to advance environmental 
justice and $50 million to help States, Tribes, and localities improve 
air quality for their communities. As we work to implement programs and 
projects to best maximize the use of this funding, I am focused on 
ensuring these vital funds have the highest and best impact on the 
ground.
                               conclusion
    In closing, I want to reiterate how crucial the American Jobs Plan 
is to achieve our shared goal of reducing pollution and putting people 
to work. With these investments we can tackle the climate crisis with 
the urgency it requires and ensure the benefits of a cleaner 
environment are enjoyed by all Americans.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to 
our continued partnership to achieve these ambitious yet necessary 
goals and welcome any questions you may have.

                           STAFFING STRATEGY

    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Administrator Regan. 
And it is a real chance for us to dive into different elements 
that the senators are interested in. I wanted to start with the 
staffing strategy that you are laying out in this budget. Folks 
may say: You want to hire a thousand more people. What are 
those thousand more people going to do? Why are they essential?
    Mr. Regan. You know, it is essential that we have the 
adequate resources and workforce to protect America's 
resources, air, water, and land. In 2008, we had over 18,000 
employees. We have seen a decline over quite a few years, 
especially the last 4 years, and now we are right around 
14,000. That is not an adequate workforce to protect America's 
people.
    So, we are asking for the increase of just over 1,000 
employees, a significant number that we lost over the past 4 
years. The numbers, we believe, need to focus on providing the 
appropriate research, scientific research, the analytical 
capabilities to inform our regulations, but more importantly, 
the capabilities and capacity in our regional offices to 
provide the partnership and the technical expertise for 
activities that are occurring on the ground.
    Senator Merkley. So you are saying that even with this 
increase, you will still be 3,000 employees fewer than where 
you were at 4 years ago?
    Mr. Regan. In 2008 we were at 18,000. And so, yes, with 
this increase we will still have a significantly reduced 
workforce. On top of that, like many agencies, we have a 
workforce that is in transition, an aging workforce. What we 
hope to do with this 1,000 employees is replenish the capacity 
that we have lost, but also build the capacity that we need for 
future activities to protect our air, water, and land.

                           STATE EPA FUNDING

    Senator Merkley. Well, that is pretty important. And I was 
very struck that almost half your workforce is retirement-
eligible in just 5 years, we are going to continue to see 
rebuilding a younger team that will be there for the next 
generation to take us forward.
    I wanted to turn to the funding that you send out to the 
States and you were--you saw it directly in your role in North 
Carolina. So, can you give me a sense from your work on the 
ground, how important that Federal EPA funding was in 
supporting your efforts inside North Carolina, or more broadly 
in other States?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. It is critical. When you think about 
the awesome responsibilities that the States have through a 
delegated authority, they are responsible for protecting their 
communities. So, these precious resources that we pass through 
to the States are critical for their success. Whether that be 
repairing aging water infrastructure, protecting individual 
communities from PFAS pollution, or looking at the equal 
distribution of protection through environmental justice 
inequity.
    Senator Merkley. Is there any one particular example you 
can draw from North Carolina of a project that was advanced 
because of those Federal funds?
    Mr. Regan. You know, there are a number that we can talk 
through. I think when we look at the mixture of economic 
development, and environmental protection, the resources we got 
for our Brownfields programs were critical. I actually got the 
chance to oversee the 600th Brownfield site redeveloped in 
North Carolina. The amount of revenue that flows from these 
redeveloped lands are just awesome.
    The same goes for water infrastructure. We have got an 
aging water infrastructure across this country. North Carolina 
was no different, significant needs there. Without adequate 
Federal State partnership, we risk vulnerabilities to our good 
quality drinking water.
    Senator Merkley. Do you still have communities with wooden 
pipes like we do in the west?
    Mr. Regan. You know, we have communities with wooden pipes, 
we have communities with lead pipes, we have communities with 
pipes that are over 100 years old. This is absolutely no way to 
deliver good quality drinking water to the American citizens.

                           CLIMATE CHALLENGES

    Senator Merkley. Thank you. So the most important 
challenge, the most--the biggest challenge to humanity on this 
planet is climate, climate chaos. And, you are dedicating a 
significant amount of resources in your budget to tackling this 
challenge. Can you paint maybe what are the two or three most 
important aspects of your effort, proposed effort are?
    Mr. Regan. The funding there is critical to ensure that we 
have the science to inform the decisions that we have to make. 
Those resources are really critical in terms of the scientific 
integrity, the quantification of the impact, and ensuring that 
we know how to predict where we are going to be and provide the 
right solutions.
    So, as we think about solutions, and what I mean in terms 
of solutions is, as we look at potential rulemakings, that will 
capture the imagination of the future using the latest 
technologies to get deep cuts, like in pollution, like methane, 
we really need those resources for the ability to quantify the 
technologies available, understand the science, but more 
importantly, engage with our partners on the ground so that we 
are providing the right solutions for each State.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    We are going to turn now to Senator Murkowski.

                           WOTUS RULE--STATUS

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    A lot to talk about here this morning, so I appreciate this 
conversation; let me, let me begin, Administrator, with the 
subject that I raised in my opening statement, concerns about 
the likelihood of the Agency, potentially, rewriting the 
current WOTUS rule.
    I have described the Obama administration's approach to 
WOTUSs as a showstopper, certainly negative consequences to 
Alaska, approximately two-thirds of the State of Alaska is 
already considered wetlands. And so if you have an overreaching 
WOTUS rule, you have got--you have got real complications in 
terms of what most we would consider relatively minor and 
routine projects that would then be subject to a level of 
review that most would say is just beyond--beyond belief.
    So, the question for you this morning is: What is the 
current status of the review of the rule? Whether or not the 
Agency has any timeline for future actions on the existing 
rule?
    Mr. Regan. What I would say is, I have been traveling and 
talking with a number of individuals, the industry, State 
leaders. I was in North Dakota last week discussing this very 
rule. I am being consistent with what I have said before, which 
is we are evaluating the path forward because we believe that 
we have got some lessons learned from previous actions. We look 
at some of the complexities that you have referenced, and many 
have referenced in the Obama rule.
    We are looking at what I believe to be an abdication of 
some responsibilities for water quality protection under the 
current rule. There are lessons learned for both. What I am 
committed to do is engaging with the Secretary of USDA, with 
the Army Corps of Engineers, with the agriculture community, 
and with the communities that are impacted, and Congress, to 
best understand how do we have a long-term, durable solution 
and not continue to have the ping-pong and back and forth.

                       LISTENING SESSIONS--ALASKA

    Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that, and the fact 
that you are going out, whether it is to North Dakota, or other 
places, you are holding listening sessions, you have indicated 
that you are going to be doing that this summer with 
stakeholders. I appreciate that. Can you tell me if you are 
planning to hold any such sessions in Alaska?
    Mr. Regan. You know, I don't believe we have mapped out.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay.
    Mr. Regan. But I do know that we can definitely consider 
your request as we map out listening sessions. I was in North 
Dakota last week during the confirmation for the assistant 
administrator of water. She committed to holding a listening 
session in North Dakota. Our goal really is to hold listening 
sessions in places that felt that they did not get a chance to 
voice their concerns. So, we are mapping that out, and will 
continue to work closely with our partners.

                           PFAS CONTAMINATION

    Senator Murkowski. Well, and if you can just keep us 
apprised of that in your progress along the way. Because, 
again, critically important in a State like ours. Another issue 
that people are talking about everywhere, some more lively in 
other communities than others, is the issue that you have 
raised of PFAS. I was out in Dillingham this past week, I have 
been in Fairbanks this past week, and the issue of PFAS is 
considerable to both of them, but we have other communities.
    Down in Gustavus they are trying to do some repairs or 
extension of a small, little airstrip there, and they have got 
PFAS contamination that is really quite a concern to that small 
community, up in the North Slope, the community of Utqiagvik. I 
am very concerned about the implications for health, and what 
we are doing.
    As when I was chairman of this subcommittee I prioritized 
PFAS funding from both the research and the need for regulatory 
actions, and for getting money to the States to help with 
remediation in the absence of Federal guidelines. So, I 
appreciate that the Agency under your leadership is building on 
the previous administration's PFAS action place, with the 
establishment of the EPA Council on PFAS.
    So can you kind of walk me through, and I know other 
Members are very concerned about this as well, what the 
Agency's timeline is for listing PFAS, or any of the specific 
compounds, listing as a hazardous substance. And I am just 
trying to understand because when we don't have Federal 
guidelines it is difficult to help the States and local 
communities take on this matter of PFAS contamination.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Well, I will tell you, in the budget 
we are requesting at least $75 million to focus on accelerating 
some of the toxicity studies that we have underway to inform 
our regulatory approach. Part of that $75 million again, we are 
really focused on State and State partnerships. We provide 
grants to help State and local governments deal with PFAS 
contamination right now.
    We started the process of setting the primary drinking 
water regulation for both PFOA and PFOS, and developing a 
monitoring rule to improve EPA's understanding of the 
occurrence of this and our Nation's drinking water. We have 
also issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to 
solicit data, to improve our understanding of the treatment of 
PFAS in our wastewater discharge. We sent a proposed rule to 
OMB that would require manufacturers to import PFAS chemicals 
to report on the historic uses, the production volumes, just a 
lot of information that we have never collected and don't have.
    We have announced the policy designed to prevent the 
introduction of new unsafe PFAS into commerce, something we are 
working with the Department of Commerce on. So those 
activities, plus the $75 million budget request, overlaid with 
what you have identified, which is the establishing a PFAS 
Council, we have got all hands on deck. I can assure you, being 
on the receiving end of a PFAS issue in the State of North 
Carolina, it is a priority for me, and it is a priority for 
this Agency.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that my time has 
expired, Mr. Chairman. But again, what I am hearing from folks 
back home is when are they going to be listing this? You have 
outlined, I think, very thoroughly what we are doing to put 
resources in place to make sure that we are getting this--the 
research, and an understanding again about the toxicity. But if 
there--if there is any semblance of a timeline that you think 
might be realistic, I think that that helps people.
    Mr. Regan. I will have staff provide you with that 
information.
                 pfas: timeline for proposed rulemaking
    The administration is currently discussing options for moving 
forward with the hazardous substance designation of PFOA and PFOS and 
is committed to protective steps guided by science and law moving 
forward.

    Senator Murkowski. Super. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    Senator Leahy.

                       EPA'S GEOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS

    Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
and Senator Murkowski for having this hearing.
    And, Administrator, it is great to see you here. Thank you 
for being here. Now, you may find, and I am sure this will not 
be totally surprising to you, that in hearings before the 
Appropriations Committee, sometimes, some of the questions may 
seem a tiny bit parochial, and I just wanted to alert you to 
that had you not been aware.
    I do like President Biden's budget with his commitments on 
climate change, environmental protection, justice, community, 
resilience, and they are not empty gestures. They are the 
cornerstones of this administration, and the budget proposal is 
a statement of values. I have been concerned about some of the 
dismantling attacks that subverted science threatened our basic 
environmental laws. And in our State Republicans and Democrats 
are agreed, we want to protect the environment.
    So, I am pleased that the request includes funding for 
EPA's geographic programs, including $20 million for Lake 
Champlain. The funding for Lake Champlain, which the previous 
administration repeatedly sought to eliminate, is fundamental 
to your mission. The dollars leveraged abroad, the network of 
stakeholders, experts, funding streams, to support our goal of 
a drinkable, and swimmable, and fishable lake, that is outside 
of the five Great Lakes. It is the largest body of fresh water 
in our country. We are doing a lot to reduce runoff, combat 
invasive species.
    So, my question is: In what ways do EPA's different 
geographic programs, like those for Lake Champlain and the 
Great Lakes, benefit when one another? And why is it important 
to continue these programs?
    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and the 
acknowledgement. We all acknowledged that these are national 
treasures. You know, Lake Champlain, our bays, our pocosins. 
This is really important, and I think the President's budget 
reflects that priority, $36 million increase over last year's 
budget to focus on the protection of these water bodies.
    It is critical that we, number one, partner with our States 
to protect these national treasures for a couple of reasons: 
the first, because we want to preserve the ecological vitality 
and what they mean to us all culturally, but from an economic 
standpoint, significant revenue driver for our local 
communities as well. What you will see in the President's 
budget is not only resources dedicated to the geographical 
programs, as I have mentioned, but in the infrastructure 
resources, in general, you will see that we are going to focus 
on both hardened infrastructure that is resilient to climate 
change, but we are also focused on natural infrastructure that 
will help to protect and preserve our national treasures as 
well.

                               PCB RISKS

    Senator Leahy. You are going to have more work than you can 
possibly handle, but if you want a chance to see what this 
looks like, you have an open invitation from me, and I will 
come with you and show you what I think is a very attractive 
area, with New York on one side of us and Canada to the North. 
So you have an open invitation to join me there at any time.
    And, you know, last September, just as people are getting 
ready to return to in-person learning, the students at 
Burlington High School, and Burlington is our largest city, 
very small by other States' standards, large by Vermont's, they 
were forced to relocate to the temporary site, actually a 
former Macy's department store, because testing found levels of 
PCBs in the school that exceeded the State threshold.
    The building is going to be torn down, and they have got to 
build on another site. Of course these PCBs were used a lot in 
school construction through the 1960s and 1970s. So I suspect 
you are going to see this all over the country and I appreciate 
your setting out standards.
    My one question is this: The threat to the health of the 
students at Burlington High School was discovered only by 
chance as the school prepared for new renovations. Many more 
schools were built in my State of Vermont and every State 
represented here, before EPA ban PCBs in 1979. What proactive 
steps can EPA take to ensure that the full scope for this risk 
is understood and dealt with?
    Mr. Regan. That is a great question, and part of it really 
flows to the core of this budget, which is ensuring that the 
States have the resources, and that we have the resources to 
have the proper partnership. As we evaluate the toxicity level 
of many of these chemicals, past and present, that we care so 
much about, it really does boil down to EPA's ability to 
provide technical assistance and partnership with the States.
    And so, as we see States all across the country, struggling 
with PCB, asbestos, and the like, we are looking at the risk 
evaluation of these pervasive chemicals and the partnership 
opportunities with how the States can take the lead with the 
Federal backing to address some of these issues that are more 
localized.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    Senator Reed.

            CYBERSECURITY PRACTICE FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS

    Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 
welcome Administrator Regan.
    One of the issues that we have worked on is the Drinking 
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. And I was involved in 
with colleagues in trying to include significant resources of 
cybersecurity, which is the issue de jour, and the issue for 
the next generation, perhaps. And also I noticed that the EPA 
budget includes $3.8 million boost to improve cybersecurity 
practice for public water systems.
    Can you comment on how you would implement this funding and 
coordinating with other agencies, particularly Homeland 
Security, Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency? And 
again, from my experience on the defense panel, cybersecurity 
is not a passing fad. It is going to be a compelling factor, as 
long as we are around. So please?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. And, 
you know, cyber attacks against our water and wastewater are 
occurring more frequently, something that I thought about quite 
often as a secretary in the State of North Carolina. In 
addition to the resources, we are asking under the umbrella of 
the infrastructure requests that the President has proposed, 
about $4 million of that, as described in the President's 
budget, and then I think we are looking at about 6 FTE that 
would be focused squarely on cybersecurity.
    You know, I would say Homeland Security is an invaluable 
partner, but we have also got the State emergency officials, 
and the partnerships with the Governors that are critical there 
as well. So, when we think about the resiliency of our water 
infrastructure, we are thinking about that physical resiliency, 
but we are also thinking about that sort of software-hardware 
piece that cybersecurity is invaluable for.
    Senator Reed. And of particular concern is the coordination 
with the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency. There 
has to be a central point where information is gathered and 
disseminated, and you feel comfortable that you have 
established that rapport, yes?
    Mr. Regan. I do. I feel comfortable that we have an 
established rapport that we will continue to work and 
strengthen as this issue becomes more prevalent.

                 DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT (DERA)

    Senator Reed. Thank you. I am also pleased to see the EPA 
budget proposed a significant increase in the Diesel Emissions 
Reduction Act, the DERA program, it is critical in my State, 
and it is particularly critical in low-income communities of 
color, which typically suffer from more exposure to these types 
of pollution.
    We have in the Port of Providence, for example, a great 
deal of diesel activity was shipping and other vehicles coming 
in and out, and no surprise located to relatively low-income 
communities. Could you comment on that?
    Mr. Regan. I could not agree with you more. The DERA 
program is such an important program, and I hate to continue to 
refer to my time as Secretary of North Carolina, but we 
received DERA funds and it made all the difference in the 
world. I think the President's budget recognizes the importance 
of the DERA program, which is why we are asking for an increase 
of about 67 percent.
    The goal, obviously, is to transition to an electric 
future, but looking at the placement of cleaner diesel 
technologies right now is so important, especially in our lower 
income communities, and especially when we think about 
transportation like school buses that carry some of the most 
precious cargo in this country.

                         CLIMATE CHANGE THREATS

    Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. The final point 
is that the Clean and Drinking Water Revolving Funds are 
critical to every State. I am sure North Carolina was no 
exception. And we have been experiencing severe storms, et 
cetera, and with this in mind, and thinking about these 
revolving funds, what steps are you taking to ensure that when 
we rebuild infrastructure, that we do it with climate change in 
mind. Not just the history, or not just the next year or two, 
but looking ahead at some of the projections that go out about 
10 or 20 years?
    Mr. Regan. You know that we have significant strong 
partnerships with our States on these long-fund programs. At 
the core of all of the conversation has been that topic of 
resiliency from cyber attacks, but as well as from climate 
threats as well. It is critical that we don't just put Humpty 
Dumpty back together the same way, we know that we have to be 
prepared. One important point I want to make is the reason that 
EPA is so focused on the science is so that we can predict the 
intensity of these storms so that we know how to design the 
infrastructure to withstand the inevitable.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Administrator.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    And Senator Heinrich.

                               WOTUS RULE

    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. And Administrator, 
thank you so much for being here this morning.
    I want to start with the statement and just say how deeply 
unsatisfied I am with the current WOTUS rule. According to the 
New Mexico Environment Department, 96 percent of the wetlands 
and waterways in New Mexico are not covered by that rule. I 
will give you an example, major portions of the Santa Fe River, 
which provides 40 percent of the drinking water for the City of 
Santa Fe is not covered by that rule because the nature of 
waterways in New Mexico are that they are seasonal.
    That is what happens when you have snowpack in a desert 
environment, and to disregard the critical nature of those 
waterways in producing clean water for drinking, producing 
water for agriculture, producing water for industry, and the 
importance of protecting those waterways, I just think this 
rule was horribly written, and I would urge you to revisit it 
as soon as possible.
    And I would invite you to engage with the New Mexico 
Environment Department, because they are in the difficult 
position of not having backup rules for the State of New 
Mexico, because they actually relied on the Federal, previous 
WOTUS rules under the Obama administration.
    I want to talk a little bit, and some of my colleagues have 
focused on this, but many rural and small communities need 
financial assistance to maintain their clean drinking water and 
wastewater systems. But the system that we have in the 
revolving funds, the grants, they really rely heavily on local 
matching funds. And as you probably recognize, with your 
experience, in some of these low-income communities that have 
had historic underinvestment in infrastructure, and simply 
don't have the tax base, those matching funds are unrealistic. 
So, we have a lot of communities where, because even a 10 
percent match, much less a 25 or 50 percent match, we are 
simply not upgrading the water infrastructure as a result of 
the matches.
    So, I wanted to ask you if you had given consideration to 
this, if you have thought about how we can--you know, in 
communities where the community can afford that. You know, I 
have communities where clearly the tax base is there to make 
that match, but I also have communities where it is absolutely 
prohibitive to have that kind of match. So have you given much 
thought to how we, you know, reevaluate the structure to make 
sure we are making those investments in, historically, 
underserved communities?

              TAX BASED FUNDS FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES

    Mr. Regan. Yes. Thank you for that question. We have given 
it a lot of thought and I have thought carefully about how we 
really partner with the States at the State level. There is 
enough autonomy for the States to determine some of these 
matching levels. We see it swing from 10 percent to 40 percent. 
I think we want to look at some consistency there. We want to 
do it in a way that we partner with the States, not to have 
Federal overreach, but encourage a scenario that addresses 
exactly what you have laid out.
    We have also collectively, in the States and the Federal 
Government, have to take a look at what flexibilities we have 
in our fund programs to determine which are loans at a normal 
rate, which are zero-interest loans, and then what 
flexibilities do we have just for grant programs? We know for 
sure that there are communities out there that just don't have 
the capacity or the resources to take out a loan. So, we have 
given careful thought to that, and we will continue to partner 
with you all on that.

               THE RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PARTNERSHIP

    Senator Heinrich. If you need additional authorities, 
please ask for them, because I think this is critical. If you 
look at a very remote village in States like Alaska or, you 
know, we have communities in New Mexico that are hours away 
from the nearest major city that actually has a more 
traditional wastewater system, et cetera. We need to be able to 
serve those communities. So ask us for that.
    And, you know, one example of that is the colonias that we 
have along the border, those are communities where there simply 
is not the tax base. Unfortunately, I am disappointed to learn 
that the EPA's U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program 
was flat funded. The Rural Community Assistance Partnership 
estimates the need there at $10 billion. And yet that was flat 
in a budget that is largely very robust. So I would urge you to 
look at that program and consider how we can better meet that 
need, because if you think about historic frontline and 
historically underserved communities, I would think that those 
colonias would be very much within that definition.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. We have carefully looked at that. One of 
the things that you will see in this budget is the overlay, 
whether it is infrastructure, Brownfields, Superfund, you see 
the overlay of environmental justice inequity. There are 
considerable grant dollars in those programs that address 
unique challenges for underserved communities, whether that be 
air quality monitoring, water quality, and water 
infrastructure. So, we would love to work with your staff to 
see if you don't see it line itemed in one category where there 
may be some supplementation in other categories.
    Senator Heinrich. I very much look forward to that.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley. Senator Murkowski has a comment on that 
topic. And I will turn to Senator Van Hollen.

                             HONEY BUCKETS

    Senator Murkowski. Yes. And I will be brief so that Senator 
Van Hollen can go. But I want to speak to this issue of 
environmental justice in water, and wastewater, and what it 
means to communities that don't have the ability to make this 
match. I asked my staff to bring up this poster, and I don't 
know if you can see it back there, but what this is, this is a 
four-wheeler here.
    Two gentlemen are dumping the contents of a honey bucket. A 
honey bucket is basically a Home Depot plastic bucket where 
people--people go to the bathroom. And so he is dumping human 
waste from honey buckets that have been just dumped into a 
bucket. They run the four-wheeler down the Boardwalk. And this 
is the dumping station, which is basically a lagoon on the 
Tundra. This is the water--wastewater sanitation system in some 
of the villages that I have in my State.
    And Senator Heinrich, you have talked about, some of the 
conditions in areas of New Mexico. Our reality is that this is 
a--this is an injustice that most Americans would say: I cannot 
believe that this is happening. I cannot believe that we would 
allow this in a community in the United States of America. And 
yet this is not just one example.
    In the winter time this waste freezes, we call it a 
``shitsicle''. And I don't mean to make light of it, but this 
is the reality that we face and in some of our communities, so 
when we talk about environmental justice, it is really about 
some pretty basic things. It is water and it is sanitation, and 
these kinds of pictures need to really be put in the history 
books. So I wanted to just add my concern. I raised it in my 
opening statement, but when you have communities that don't 
have the ability to put together these matching requirements, 
we have great funds that are available at the Federal level, 
but they are not accessible to the very small, small 
communities. And so they take the situation into their own 
hands, and this is the result.
    So, thank you, Ms. Chairman for letting me jump in before 
Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Heinrich. Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief. 
But the point that the Ranking Member is making, is many of 
these communities never got infrastructure in the first place.
    Senator Murkowski. Yes.
    Senator Heinrich. And we should address that.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    Senator Van Hollen.

                    CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED CLEANUP

    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; Ranking Member 
Murkowski. Mr. Administrator, good to see you.
    I am going to start by talking about the Chesapeake Bay. We 
have talked about it before. As you know, 6 States and the 
District of Columbia drain into the Chesapeake Bay. That is why 
about 50 years ago those States and the Federal Government 
agreed that the EPA had to play a vital role in protecting the 
bay.
    In April, a group of Chesapeake Bay senators sent you a 
letter outlining the challenge. And what I am looking for today 
is your commitment to work with us, to make sure that we meet 
the cleanup goals by 2025. Do we have that commitment?
    Mr. Regan. I do.

                        WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION

    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Now, if you look at the, you 
know, implementation plans, the watershed implementation plans 
of the various States, one State stands out is not being in 
compliance. And that is the State of Pennsylvania. If you just 
look at their current cleanup plan, they will acknowledge that 
they only will achieve 75 percent of the target needed to reach 
the cleanup goals by 2025. So do we have your commitment that 
you will work with us to make sure that Pennsylvania meets its 
goals under the 2025 agreement?
    Mr. Regan. We want to facilitate this process so that 
everyone meets the goals that have been set out for protecting 
this national treasure.
    Senator Van Hollen. Okay. If you could get back to us with 
your plan for how you are going to hold everybody accountable, 
can you do that? Thanks.
    Mr. Regan. We can do that.
watershed implementation plans: plan for pennsylvania to meet the goals 
                       under the 2025 agreements
    In fiscal year 2022, EPA will focus on supporting implementation of 
the 2-year Logic & Action Plans for the 25 Management Strategies 
developed under the Agreement, with particular focus on accelerating 
implementation of outcomes where progress is lagging. EPA will 
specifically support and prioritize implementation of the 
jurisdictions' commitments for having all practices in place by 2025 to 
achieve the necessary pollutant reductions. EPA will focus its 
enforcement and programmatic resources to assist the jurisdictions in 
achieving their commitments. President Biden's fiscal year 2022 budget 
proposes an increase of approximately $3 million to increase support 
for projects to accelerate the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay 
focusing on a number of outcomes, including improving water quality and 
promoting climate resiliency.

        VACANT POSITION--DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

    Senator Van Hollen. Now, way to really, you know, 
coordinate this effort, because it does require coordination. 
You know, a lot of the runoff into the Bay that needs to be 
addressed is from agriculture runoff, which doesn't come 
necessarily directly under the jurisdiction of the EPA in all 
cases. And there are grants supplied by the Department of 
Agriculture that could be helpful to farmers. So we need much 
better coordination, which is why the Obama administration had 
appointed kind of a quarterback at EPA, the senior advisor to 
the administrator who could work with other agencies. I believe 
it is your intent, but can you confirm that you plan to fill 
that position?
    Mr. Regan. We are looking at filling that position, and we 
are trying to determine the Director of the Office of the 
Chesapeake Bay, Region 3. What we want to do with these 
resources that we are pushing forward is make that office more 
muscular and have that office and that position as the 
expertise that is whispering in the administrator's ear.
    So, we are evaluating whether or not it is making that 
office more muscular, and having the right leadership there, or 
having someone in the administrator's office, what I would 
perceive to be--could be detached from what we have started 
there. So I think we are looking at, what is the best scenario 
for me to have the best advice on the ground on how to 
coordinate on these efforts.

                         AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

    Senator Van Hollen. Well, Mr. Administrator, okay. My 
understanding was that, at the Agency you had decided to move 
forward with this other position. Let me just stress that I 
think that the Maryland delegation, others think it is really 
important. I am glad--I would like to see a more muscular 
Region 3, I am all for that. I don't see this as an either or 
situation. As I mentioned, the Region 3 administrator could be 
muscular within EPA's authority, but there are many other 
pieces to this cleanup puzzle, including the Department of 
Agriculture.
    And you are going to need somebody who is 24/7, making sure 
all the other agencies that are involved in the cleanup effort 
are at the table and doing their job. So we will follow up with 
you on that.
    Let me ask you a question about your sort of air pollution 
control systems, and including climate change. If you look at 
the City of Baltimore, we have talked about this. Asthma-
related hospitalizations were three times the National average 
in 2010, twice the Maryland average, and that is due to 
heightened air pollution from 13 fossil fuel burning power 
generation plants in that area.
    How will community air monitoring in the budget expand 
efforts of air pollutant control agencies to reduce greenhouse 
gases that EPA regulates, also have a beneficial impact in 
these areas?
    Mr. Regan. In this budget, we have asked for, approximately 
$100 million specifically for air quality monitoring in these 
communities of concern, the communities that have been 
disproportionately impacted, underserved. It will be of great 
help to have the adequate monitoring in these communities so 
that we have the data on the ground so that we can enforce the 
regulations at the level we do to reverse the trends that we 
have seen with this disproportionate impact.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I would 
be remiss if I didn't say I support your budget. I was glad to 
see the budget request for the Chesapeake Bay, the previous 
administration, at first zeroed that out and then dramatically 
cut it. So we are grateful for the budget. Thank you.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley. In our effort to go back and forth between 
Ds and Rs, we only have one Republican team Member with us, and 
so we are going to return to Lisa Murkowski, and then Senator 
Tester.

                   THE TARGETED AIRSHED GRANT PROGRAM

    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Administrator, we have had an 
opportunity to talk about the Targeted Airshed Grant Program. 
As I have shared with you, I have many, many residents in the 
Fairbanks North Star Borough who rely on woodstove heating, and 
they have had real difficulties over the years meeting EPA air 
quality requirements. The Targeted Airshed Grant Program has 
been really helpful for them. So I am pleased that we were able 
to secure a $14.7 million grant Fairbanks North Star Borough to 
take actions like woodstove change out.
    I had an opportunity when I was home in Fairbanks last week 
to speak with the three mayors in the region, and this issue 
was raised. The problem that we have faced, and I have raised 
with you is that, there has been this recent report that finds 
that EPA's oversight of certification standards and testing, 
have led to this systematic failure where, effectively, these 
newer stoves do not provide the pollution reduction that has 
promised. And so, as I mentioned to you, we have got to address 
this. We cannot be in a situation where, the EPA continues find 
that Fairbanks is not meeting the air quality standards, while 
at the same time it is allowing wood stoves to enter the 
market, and don't have the Agency's standard.
    So the question for you today is whether or not the Agency 
is planning on revising its standards for the woodstoves? And 
where we are with the timeline? And really, perhaps more broad 
to the problem is: What is the Agency doing to conduct proper 
testing and oversight of the woodstoves that are entering the 
market? We want people to be making wise investment for all the 
right reasons. And the right reasons will be they will be able 
to keep their homes warm, while at the same time working to 
reduce emissions.

                   THE TARGETED AIRSHED GRANT PROGRAM

    Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, thank you for that. We have talked 
about that, and I have pressed folks on that very issue. We 
recognize the unique situation there. I think we have been 
actively working to improve the testing and the certification 
on that side of the ledger. I think we are making progress 
there. The air quality in Alaska is improving considerably, but 
we do have some of those remaining issues.
    So, what we have done in this budget, as a reflection, have 
put forth resources that we would push to the States, as well 
as EPA has a responsibility to help to ensure that the proper 
woodstoves are coming to market. We are collectively working 
with you guys on the ground to get those change outs done as 
needed.
    I think we are also reevaluating test methods that will 
specifically capture the uniqueness of Alaska to be sure that 
we are measuring the right thing, and not having a one-size-
fits-all, and then also really focused again on the woodstove 
change out program. So we have recognized that uniqueness. I 
believe that we have been responsive in terms of the questions 
that your staff have posed, but also the questions that the 
States have posed to us. I think we are working with them hand 
in glove on that.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay. Well, if we can just keep really 
close on this because, again, people want to make the 
investments. But they also want to know that--that the wood 
stoves that they are purchasing are actually going to be in 
compliance, and that they are not going to see, they are not 
going to see EPA regs coming out next year saying: What you 
bought, what you spent money on does not cut it right now. So 
this is--this is important. So let us keep working on this.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.

                     BROADER INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE

    Senator Murkowski. Another issue in Fairbanks and kind of 
Fairbanks-centric today. This relates to a building that has a 
fair amount of history in Fairbanks. It is the tallest building 
in town, it is 11 stories. But it has been vacant for a period 
of years. It is not only an eyesore, but it is a hazard. It is 
filled with contaminants like asbestos. It desperately needs to 
be remediated, redeveloped, but it sits right in the core of 
downtown.
    The City of Fairbanks cannot demolish and redevelop in this 
area without some option for remediation. And part of our 
problem is you--we have no place to dispose of hazardous 
materials, basically any hazardous materials that we have, we 
have to ship down to the Lower 48. So that is--that is a 
considerable cost and a challenge. So we have just been stymied 
with how to deal with this extreme liability, environmental 
liability, and liability to the community.
    So, we have been looking for sources of funding within EPA 
to help address this. I use this as a specific example of a 
larger problem, which is how we can take steps to make 
remediation of contaminated sites in Alaska more affordable, 
because right now our projects get stopped before we even get 
started because it is too expensive on paper, because we can't 
get rid of the contaminated materials.
    So, this is--and my time has expired. I want to be 
courteous to Senator Tester here. But this is a big, big, big 
issue for us. And as we are thinking about this broader 
infrastructure package and how we--how we put in place 
infrastructure, whether it is expanding airports or docks, the 
fact of the matter is, is in most places in this country, 
before you can put something new in, you have got to get rid of 
the old, and the old has contamination.
    So, we are looking at spending a lot of dollars to build 
things. I think we are going to be surprised at how expensive 
it is to start with the building, because we are dealing with 
so much when it comes to issues of contamination. You are 
talking about Superfund, but we are talking about just how do 
you--how do you make the plate clean so that you can start 
something new? Whether it is in Fairbanks for the Polaris 
Building, or what we are going to be trying to do with this 
broader infrastructure package?
                   polaris building and alaska waste
    The Polaris Building, a former hotel located in the downtown 
Fairbanks Opportunity Zone, has been vacant since 2002, and was 
acquired by the City of Fairbanks in 2018. While a variety of potential 
funding opportunities exist for project development, there are very few 
available for the deconstruction of the building. Remediation and 
removal of the structures are hurdles in preparing the site for an 
anchor project for downtown revitalization and in appealing to a 
private partner.
    EPA Region 10 has directly supported the Polaris Building site by 
conducting a Targeted Brownfields Assessment in 2018, which estimated 
demolition costs ranged from $2 to $4 million. Additionally, EPA and 
other Federal agencies (HUD, EDA, FEMA, EPA, etc.) have met with the 
Fairbanks Polaris Building Redevelopment Team to explore Federal 
funding opportunities and offer technical assistance.
    In 2021, the City of Fairbanks applied for an $800,000 brownfields 
multipurpose grant to address contamination at the Polaris Hotel. 
Unfortunately, the City was not selected for funding through this 
year's competitive grant program due to lack of program funding.
    Additionally, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 
uses about $400,000 each year of their Brownfields 128a funding to 
address sites through their technical assistance for brownfields. These 
funds could possibly be used to address the Polaris Building.
 addressing accessibility and reliability of household hazardous waste 
                      collection: backhaul alaska
    Backhaul Alaska will provide rural Alaska Native Villages with a 
consistent and reliable service that will coordinate the transportation 
of household hazardous waste and materials to appropriate recycling or 
disposal facilities. The program seeks to reduce the cost of backhaul 
by coordinating hazardous material transport and leveraging economies 
of scale, while reducing liability risks to transporters and recyclers.
    In June 2021, EPA and the Denali Commission announced they will 
award $3 million over 3 years to Kawerak, Inc., the regional Native 
non-profit corporation serving the Bering Strait region, to implement 
and expand the Backhaul Alaska program for removing household hazardous 
wastes from rural Alaska communities.
    Under the one-time, 3-year grant, Kawerak will fund implementation 
and logistics of backhaul services, communications, coordination with 
Tribes and advisors, development of a sustainable funding plan, 
backhaul training for communities, recruitment of participants and 
partners, and associated capacity-building.
    Kawerak will initially target electronic waste; spent mercury-
containing lamps such as fluorescent bulbs, compact fluorescent 
lightbulbs, high intensity discharge lights; and lead-acid batteries 
from vehicles, boats, heavy equipment, and all-terrain vehicles. These 
materials represent over 95 percent by weight of toxic wastes in rural 
Alaska landfills.

    Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. And what I can do is 
commit to get the details about that specific, situation there 
to see which program it may fit in, or what aspect of that 
applies to what we are asking for in our budget and in the 
American Jobs Plan.
    Senator Murkowski. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. 
Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Senator Tester.

                         LAKE KOOCANUSA, CANADA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, and Ranking 
Member Murkowski.
    And I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you, 
Administrator Regan. I don't know. And I asked this question in 
good faith, if you are familiar with the selenium issue in Lake 
Koocanusa that is coming out of a mine in Canada.
    Mr. Regan. I am not.
    Senator Tester. Okay. That is good. Well, actually it is 
not good, but that is okay. Canada has a mine that has been 
releasing enough selenium into the water that Canada fined the 
company $60 million for threatening fish health with their 
wastewater. It is the largest fine in Canadian history.
    Mr. Regan. Okay.
    Senator Tester. That water flows directly in the Lake 
Koocanusa, which is in my State. And that selenium continues to 
be elevated all the way down to Idaho. And the company up in 
Canada is operating--is operating these mines, and posing a new 
untested treatment technology to stop the selenium 
contamination. Unfortunately, and back in 2017 the same 
watershed, they had a spectacular failure which, once again, 
didn't solve the problem.
    So, the question is, is that, we have got a pressure 
Canada. Okay. It is similar to a statement that I made in ENR 
yesterday. There are some places where we should mine, and 
there are some places we should not. Headwaters of a river, 
probably is not the best place to mine, if you know what I 
mean. So the question is: What is the EPA doing--do you know? 
If you don't know, you can say, I don't know, which is fine, 
because now it is on your radar screen.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. It is on my radar screen now.
    Senator Tester. Okay, good.
    Mr. Regan. I can commit to you that we will take a look at 
that. What I can say is I have been in constant communication 
with my Canadian counterpart and Mexican counterpart to better 
understand these types of issues.
    Senator Tester. So there is one other thing you have got to 
do. You have got to get a hold of your counterpart, the State 
Department, because they are a part of this equation, and 
engage with them, and the International Joint Commission, it 
is--this is a big deal. Water is life. You know, if we don't 
have good water, it ain't just the fish that are going to die. 
Okay?
    Mr. Regan. That is right.

                            TSCA REGULATIONS

    Senator Tester. So, it is really important. Now I want to 
talk to you about asbestos, one of those great issues that you 
have to deal with. Up in Libby they have been struggling with 
it. I am sure you are familiar with it, a huge, Superfund site. 
By the way that we have done some good work up there, but there 
is a lot more work to be done.
    Look, I got a guy to come bid on the siting of my house, 
and I live a long ways from Libby, and he pointed out to me 
that he has, I believe, 18- or 20-percent lung dysfunction 
because of mesothelioma, because he was raised in Libby. Okay. 
Not as whole life either, just a few years. So it is a big 
issue.
    And asbestos, you know, we can go down the list, tens of 
thousands of people have died from it. It is not banned 
outright yet. And so the question is: Do you believe the EPA 
has authority under TCSA to regulate legacy issues of asbestos?
    Mr. Regan. We are closely looking at that. I do believe 
that one of the initial catalysts for TCSA was focused on 
asbestos cities. One of the top 10 that we're looking and doing 
a risk evaluation to determine what regulatory action we should 
take as it regards to asbestos.
    Senator Tester. So, let me back it up a little bit, because 
my hearing is not very good. You did say that you believe that 
EPA has the ability to regulate under TCSA?
    Mr. Regan. Yes, I do believe that.
    Senator Tester. Okay. And you did say that you are working 
on a risk evaluation.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Senator Tester. When do you anticipate that will be out?
    Mr. Regan. I will have to get you that timeline, but I do 
know it is one of the top 10 chemicals listed under the TCSA 
law that requires a risk evaluation immediately, as 
prioritized.
    Senator Tester. Yes. So you will get me that timeline?
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
                timeline of risk evaluation of asbestos
    Because of the complexity of Asbestos and the multitude of legacy 
uses, EPA chose to divide the TSCA risk evaluation of asbestos into two 
parts. The decision to bifurcate this risk evaluation was a result of 
the previous Administration's decision to exclude legacy uses and 
associated disposal from the risk evaluation. The Agency was 
subsequently sued and lost in the 9th circuit court. Thus, the Agency 
developed the approach to finalize the current part of the risk 
evaluation focused on on-going uses and initiate a second part that 
will focus on legacy use and associated disposal, as well as other 
fiber types that were also excluded.
    Part one focused on chrysotile asbestos which is the only form of 
asbestos that remains in active commerce in the United States. That 
risk evaluation was completed in December 2020 and is now serving as 
the basis for risk management rules that the Agency is currently 
working to prepare. On June 30, 2021 the Agency announced the path 
forward on this and the other nine risk evaluations completed under the 
previous Administration. For all chemicals going forward we intend to 
issue the unreasonable risk determination on the whole chemical as 
opposed to the previous practice of making them on a condition of use 
by condition of use basis. Additionally, we intend to no longer assume 
the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by workers in the 
risk determination, as doing so could result in an underestimation of 
risk to workers. What this means for asbestos Part 1 is that this 
summer/early fall, the Agency intends to issue a draft revised risk 
determination that reflects these changes and take public comment. The 
public comment will be considered and the Agency will issue a final 
revised risk determination before the end of the calendar year. The 
Agency does not believe any additional analysis for Part 1 of the risk 
evaluation will be required and upon this issuance the Agency will 
quickly move to propose risk management actions. The risk management 
rule for Asbestos Part 1 is likely to be one of the first TSCA rules 
the Agency will propose.
    Part 2 of the asbestos risk evaluation will focus on legacy uses of 
chrysotile and current and legacy uses of the additional asbestos 
fibers. We are currently gathering and reviewing scientific literature 
on legacy asbestos, and we anticipate publishing the scope of this part 
of the risk evaluation by the end of 2021, and a final Risk Evaluation 
by the end of 2024.

    Senator Tester. That would be great. And then based on that 
evaluation, you should probably be able to tell me whether 
asbestos is going to remain on the market or go off the market. 
Was that a fair assessment?
    Mr. Regan. We will have to wait to see what the science 
says in terms of the regulation under the TCSA law. Once we 
make that determination of how we regulate it, I think we will 
be able to answer that question for you.
    Senator Tester. Yes. But let me get this straight. The 
evaluation you are going to do is based on science. It is not 
just somebody coming out and throwing darts at a dartboard, 
right?
    Mr. Regan. A very thorough risk analysis. There is a 
rigorous course that we have to pursue based on the TCSA law 
that we intend to follow.
    Senator Tester. Okay, sounds good. I have got another 
question on Butte America, which also has a Superfund site due 
to some water contamination, due to, you know, copper 
extraction that wired this country, but we will put that for 
the record and you can get back to me on it. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Thank you.
    Senator Merkley. Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you administrator. It is good to see you again. I 
get to see you on EPW Committee quite a bit. So I appreciate 
that.
    Mr. Regan. Thank you.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTIVITIES

    Senator Capito. And I know that you are working to get 
things underway. I wanted to ask on the--the EPA's budget 
justification would devote millions--hundreds of millions of 
dollars to environmental justice activities. You and I have 
talked about environmental justice and a little bit how I 
differ and--or I would expand that definition, I think would be 
a better way to put it.
    And last month the White House Environmental Justice 
Advisory Council concluded that carbon capture utilization and 
storage, and the procurement of nuclear power do not benefit 
environmental justice communities. So I guess I would ask if 
you agree with that assessment, and is that reflected in your 
budget in terms of your environmental sections of your budget?
    Mr. Regan. I think the administration has been clear that 
carbon capture and storage and sequestration is one of our 
options for curbing these climate pollutants that we care so 
much about. I was just in North Dakota last week with both 
Senators and the Governor, looking at the advanced research and 
development done, not only in the technology but the 
understanding of the geological infrastructure that would 
support it. Our goal is to look at all of the technologies that 
are available that get the deepest emission cuts to curb the 
climate crisis.
    Senator Capito. So, I guess what I am asking more 
specifically, is in your environmental justice part of your 
budget, which I am not sure exactly. I cannot, I cannot figure 
out how much exactly that is, but I know it is a dedicated part 
of where you want to take the--and the President wants to take 
the Agency.
    Is there an exclusion, I guess, to what would be covered 
under environmental justice grants for a certain--for certain 
communities? Would that be determined at the local level? Is 
this going to be determined by the committee who has concluded 
that nuclear power and carbon capture or not part of where you 
would see environmental justice inequities?
    Mr. Regan. We would describe those as site by site. I mean, 
carbon capture and sequestration and storage cannot be done 
everywhere. I think that is part of our permitting process, if 
we got to that stage, we would look at the implications of the 
application of that technology on surrounding communities to be 
sure that we are preserving the health of those communities. I 
cannot say that we have looked at CCS as an environmental 
justice issue because we have not gotten to the point where we 
are actually permitting projects to determine the implications 
on potential sites.

                        PERMITTING OF PIPELINES

    Senator Capito. Mm-hmm. Let me ask you, just generally 
what--I know this is an issue that you dealt with in North 
Carolina on pipelines, and I know you are not the principal. 
You do have a peripheral responsibility on the permitting of 
pipelines, certainly in the water area and all that. Have you 
made any changes in that area, in terms of what was going on 
during the Trump administration, as opposed to what you plan to 
do in the future?
    Mr. Regan. We have not made any changes at EPA. I maintain 
the same position that as a State regulator, FERC, has 
jurisdiction over that siting. We believe that communities 
should be engaged with FERC when sites are chosen. We believe 
that public participation in the NEPA process should inform 
where these routes are sited.
    Our job at EPA is to be sure that once these projects are 
sited, that we look at the implications from a water quality 
standpoint, environmental degradation standpoint, and sort of 
what that means to the communities that are in closest 
proximity. Site-by-site determinations; and that is what we are 
doing at EPA.

                         LOST OF PROFESSIONALS

    Senator Capito. In Committee, in the EPW, and also here you 
have mentioned, and in your written testimony, you have 
mentioned, too, losing 1,000 professionals out of EPA. I think 
some of the folks at EPA actually went to the border; am I 
correct on that? Some of the folks that work at EPA went to the 
border, when the President called for additional help?
    Mr. Regan. We have EPA employees that have volunteered for 
the assistance at the border for time periods of 30 to up to, I 
believe, 60 days. So, there is a time where an employee can 
take 30 to 60 days, go and help with that humanitarian crisis, 
and then back.
    Senator Capito. Even if you are down 1,000 people at the 
Agency, you can afford to have that occur?
    Mr. Regan. In 2008 we had 18,000 employees. We are down 
about 14,000 employees now. The 1,000 employees that we are 
looking at, not only replenish those that we lost, but just 
like every other Agency, it is part of our succession planning. 
We have an aging workforce. So, we have to plan for the future 
and think ahead. So, there is, sort of looking at the snapshot 
of now and in the foreseeable future, all of the challenges 
that this Agency faces.
    To answer your question directly, yes, employees that want 
to take 30 to 60 days to volunteer for the humanitarian crisis, 
they have the ability to do so. We have a structure in place 
where they work with their management to be sure that their 
duties are covered or don't interrupt the timelines for what we 
are on the hook to deliver.
    Senator Capito. Okay. All right. Thank you. It is good to 
see you again.
    Mr. Regan. Good to see you too.

                          JUSTICE40 COMMITMENT

    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Administrator. A number of 
colleagues have raised the question of environmental justice, 
and I am so glad it is becoming part of the regular discussion 
in this subcommittee and in your budget. Can you explain the 
Justice40 commitment, and how you are planning to carry it out?
    Mr. Regan. So, the Justice40 commitment, as outlined by the 
President, looks at all of the direct and indirect implications 
of investments that go into infrastructure development, climate 
pollutant remediation, and the like. What we have at EPA is a 
strong partnership with all of our agencies to ensure that the 
criteria that flow from that Justice40 fits into the way we 
conduct our business through our grant making and through our 
regulatory responsibilities.
    So, we very interested in not only looking at how we 
enforce the laws to ensure that we reduce the disproportionate 
impact, but as we move forward to rebuild these communities, 
that our grant programs and all of our technical assistance 
efforts match the President's desire to have 40 percent of 
those investments go back into these communities.
    Senator Merkley. Is it fair for me to describe 
environmental justice as a recognition that pollutants are 
often concentrated in low-income communities, and communities 
of color, and we need to make a special effort to address that 
challenge and remedy that situation?
    Mr. Regan. The data clearly shows that there are 
communities that disproportionately bear the brunt of many 
types of air and water quality pollution. And so, yes, it is 
our responsibility to be sure that we take a look at how we 
remedy those situations through our programs, but also 
proactively as we look to the future, ensure that they don't 
happen again.

                    U.S. RECYCLING SYSTEMS--PLASTICS

    Senator Merkley. So, I want to turn to plastics, plastics 
have an enormous impact on the environment. We talk about the 
idea of reduce, reuse, recycle, but the reality for plastics is 
they are burned, buried, or borne out to sea. And it is not 
just those visible pieces of plastic that float out and fill 
the guts of our Marine animals, and kill life, or litter our 
beaches. It is also the microplastics that are ingested. It is 
now estimated that each of us, because of how microplastics now 
permeate our air, water and food, eat the equivalent, or 
consume the equivalent of a credit card's worth of plastic 
every week. Plastics full of chemicals including endocrine 
disruptors that have a significant impact on human health. So 
what is EPA doing about plastics?
    Mr. Regan. Under our purview and jurisdiction, we are 
focused on a few areas. The first is bolstering our partnership 
with the States around recycling programs. We really do have 
the capacity to help States build stronger recycling programs. 
I will put in, there is another piece to that, and that is the 
education and outreach as well. We are really grappling with 
sort of the market conditions around recycling, and what that 
means today versus what it meant 4 years ago.
    But nevertheless, through our grant programs, there are 
significant resources that go to States, to help with the 
recycling programs that they have right there on the ground. As 
you can imagine, the recycling programs and the level of effort 
varies State to State, and we are there to help the States lead 
on that.
    Senator Merkley. Are you familiar with the term ``wish-
cycling''?
    Mr. Regan. Wish cycling?
    Senator Merkley. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Regan. No.
    Senator Merkley. It is when you throw your plastic into a 
recyclable bucket, thinking that you are recycling, but almost 
none of it is recycled. And in fact, in major institutions, and 
I would say, this is probably true of the U.S. Senate, we have 
recycling buckets, people put plastic in it, and it just gets 
dumped into the trash. So it is something perhaps we should 
look at right here. But there is--reasons for it, because it is 
all kinds of materials, of all kinds of sizes, single-use.
    Here, at the subcommittee where we have the dais littered 
with plastic bottles, there is no recycling program for these, 
there is no national bottle bill. Oregon, which has one of the 
strongest recycling for plastic bottles, is about 80 percent. I 
think it may be the highest, which means 20 percent is not 
recycled, tremendous amount of plastic being burned. It puts 
these same poisons into the air. I really think EPA has to 
really up their effort on this. Do you share that opinion?
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I think we could, do a lot to 
strengthen the U.S. recycling systems, and it is a priority. I 
think, in our traditional program, in the example you just gave 
is an example of where we have a strong suit, which is 
education and helping the States have the right structures in 
place. Obviously, Oregon has an opportunity to help EPA 
understand what certain States are doing in that leadership 
capacity and replicate that across the United States.
    Senator Merkley. I will just say that, despite Oregon's 
recycling, because it has a returnable deposit on bottles, it 
still--it still recycles only a very small proportion of 
plastics. We have to think about different items being used and 
single-use that are biodegradable, or that do not come from 
fossil fuels. There is a lot of work to be done. Otherwise we 
are just going to be amplifying the pretense that we are 
addressing the problem, rather than the reality of addressing 
it.
    Senator Murkowski.

                          RECYCLING--PLASTICS

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And know that I 
share your interest in what is going on with recycling. I think 
that this is--this is an area that is so often overlooked, or 
to use your term, a wish recycling, and I think we need to be 
honest. And if people are going to take that extra step, 
thinking that what they are doing is helping to solve the 
problem, we need to be honest about that.
    We are an exceptionally wasteful country when it comes to--
whether it is things like plastics or--and I noted, I think 
that you were drinking out of a water bottle, Mr. Chairman, you 
know, not a plastic one. So I think you are setting a good 
standard and a model there, but this is, yes.
    Senator Merkley. Future meetings of this subcommittee are 
not going to see plastic bottles on the dais.
    Senator Murkowski. I will bring my own water bottle. It is 
one of my favorites. And we will lead by example.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.

                       SENIOR LEADERSHIP MEETINGS

    Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. But I do think that 
this is an area that we can and must do more. I showed earlier 
a picture that was pretty horrible in terms of what goes on 
with our--our waste in the sanitation issues in villages. But 
one of the things that I have been following with great 
interest, and really quite great concern, is what is happening 
with our smaller landfills.
    In Alaska it seems like all of our landfills came on at the 
same time. They are not very sophisticated. There is kind of a 
plastic lining, and you fill it up, and when you get to the top 
you bulldoze it over, and make another--make another hole 
somewhere else. And our reality is that the maxing out of our 
landfills is going to be--is already and will be, going 
forward, an issue that we have just got to get our hands around 
it.
    So, the more that we can be doing with recycling is 
important, and using those technologies that will allow us to 
get rid of some of this waste is a big, big issue, and one that 
I would like to work with you on.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more questions, but just a 
specific ask of the Administrator. As I mentioned in my outset, 
I have appreciated the level of back and forth that we have--
already have I mentioned to you that in previous 
administrations I had worked out an agreement where we could 
have quarterly meetings with my team and a senior EPA team, 
usually led by the deputy administrator.
    These have really worked to solve some of the things that 
are very local, very parochial, and that really should not 
occupy the time of a broader gathering of Members. But I would 
just ask for your continued commitment, Administrator Regan, to 
hold quarterly meetings with my team on some of these punch-
list items so that we can get to them before they become real 
problems. And I would hope that we would be able to continue 
that.
    Mr. Regan. Yes. I think we can definitely continue these 
senior leadership meetings, and continue to focus on solving 
these problems. So I don't see a problem with that at all. And 
hopefully whoever that senior leader we choose, will be joining 
me when we visit Alaska in August.
    Senator Murkowski. Very good. We look forward to that.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the good 
conversation this morning's subcommittee.

                          TSCA IMPLEMENTATION

    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Ranking Member 
Murkowski. And I appreciate your interest in working together 
on this plastics challenge. We see the beaches in Oregon 
covered, we see marine life that is dying because their guts 
are full of plastic. We have increased prostate and breast 
cancer that many believe is being affected by the endocrine 
disruptors that come out of plastics prevalence. And it really 
is an area that has not gotten the attention it needs. And so 
it is worth our efforts, and thank you for your offer to work 
on that.
    And I appreciate your dramatic presentation of the sanitary 
water infrastructure challenge of Alaska. And in my State, if 
you think about the small towns that have just been burned by 
fires and people are trying to rebuild their homes, but the 
requirements for sanitary systems are different than they were 
60, 70, 80 years ago when a lot of these homes were built.
    And small towns, 500 to 1,000 people, the cost of a modern 
sanitary system is absolutely about the same, whether you have 
1,000 people or you have 5,000 people, and it is such an 
impossible charge. And so in order to prevent these towns from 
being paralyzed or decimated by the challenge of sanitary water 
systems, and clean water systems, we need a significant grant 
component, low-interest loans just is not enough. There is 
waiver of power under these programs, but I think we need to 
explore. It has come up with many folks here.
    I was just out visiting a community that was burned to the 
ground, Blue River, and the first infrastructure we got--put 
back in place was the post office. That is the kind of the 
heart of a community. And it is kind of a symbolic bridge to 
the outside world, but the homes all around have not been 
rebuilt, and figuring out the sanitary system is a big part of 
that. And a lot of these small towns, all the governing 
officials are volunteers, and they are addressing, trying to 
address a very complicated issue.
    And when they hear about the fees it cost just to get an 
engineering assessment of what the best practices are, or best 
possibilities. Can they pipe their sanitary--sewage to another 
town down the--down the road? Can they use various forms of 
biotreatment for tertiary treatment? They need--they need help 
with the grants for the upfront costs of understanding their 
best options.
    And I had proposed, and we now have launched a circuit 
rider program for the ability to help small towns evaluate, but 
this, I think you have heard from so many Members today about 
the importance of water infrastructure in small--in small 
towns. They are trying to meet modern standards; they are 
trying to provide for the possibility of the towns growing. 
Some of these small towns have a very exciting development 
because of COVID, and because people became so familiar with 
Zoom, they found: Hey, I don't have to live in a city in order 
to participate in the modern economy, if I have a role that can 
be accomplished over Zoom. That is a real opportunity for our 
small towns, but they need help with that infrastructure.
    Let us turn to TCSA, and it was really a major effort, of 
bipartisan effort, amazing bipartisan accomplishment back in 
about 2016, when we adopted the Lautenberg restructuring of 
TCSA. To try to say: Hey, TCSA is--Americans are astounded to 
find out that there is no real regulation of the chemicals that 
go into ordinary household products.
    So here we are now 4 years into the implementation of the 
Lautenberg rewrite of TCSA, and I hear you talking about doing 
risk analysis on the top 10 chemicals. Risk analysis should 
have been completed years ago. I mean, every major developed 
country has gotten rid of asbestos except for us.
    So, I am kind of frightened by the idea of we are still 
stuck in evaluating the risk when this is one of the best 
understood issues that faces the modern world, and that every 
other nation has taken action on. Can you tell me how we can 
get out of this cycle of being forever moving the bureaucratic 
pieces around on asbestos, and actually take action on it?
    Mr. Regan. I can tell you that the President ordered a 
reexamination of some of the science and the decisions that 
were made on the previous administration. The thing that is 
slowing us down is the scientific integrity and the record that 
was built the last 4 years.
    So, what is slowing us down is the lack of action that 
occurred the last 4 years, but I can assure you that we are 
making up for lost time, and taking the latest science and 
doing the proper risk evaluation so that when we get to the 
point of regulation of asbestos. We will not have any concerns 
in terms of scientific integrity.
    And also in this budget, I think you will see that we have 
requested $15 million to add 87 positions to be sure that we 
can play catch up on the work that was lost on implementing 
TCSA.
                     tsca lautenberg restructuring
    In the case of chrysotile asbestos, the only fiber type which is 
still currently in commerce, the risk evaluation was completed at the 
end of 2020. As announced by the Agency on June 30, 2021, and as 
explained in my response to Senator Tester, we will be re-issuing 
revised risk determinations with updated policy decisions that are more 
reflective of the law and more protective of human health. These 
updated risk determinations will not require additional analysis and 
after public comment the final versions will be issued and the Agency 
will move directly to propose risk management rules to address 
unreasonable risk. We are aiming to have this proposed rule published 
in the first half of 2022. We are also continuing with the risk 
evaluation for legacy uses of asbestos, with a goal of completing the 
risk evaluation by the end of 2024.

    Senator Merkley. Well, I hope that every day you can spend 
part of the day calling and pushing to get TCSA underway, 
because it is--or let us take that top 10 list, dry cleaning, 
carcinogens of fluid, TCE. No action that I know of. Am I 
right?
    Mr. Regan. They are in the top 10 that we are currently 
doing a risk evaluation that we believe, in the near future, we 
will be able to take action on.

                            CHEMICAL STUDIES

    Senator Merkley. Methylene chloride, a paint stripper, 
still, no action. This is not, obviously you just came to the--
came to the team. We have a new administration. My point is 
that almost every week I find out about a friend or an 
associate who has cancer, almost every week. And I think that 
is true, probably everyone in this--in this room. A lot of that 
stems from complicated chemicals we have introduced that have 
impacts.
    Other nations are saying: Let's get those things out of our 
products. And we have passed a law to get that done. That is 
now in your hands.
    Mr. Regan. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. And so it is a pretty significant 
responsibility. I appreciate your taking it on seriously, but I 
think you have to constantly push, because otherwise it is 
always: Well, we can get a little more perfect science, or get 
one more study. We have thousands of studies on many of these 
chemicals. And so the point comes, you cannot study things 
forever. There is a point, this is a risk, let us get it out of 
our products.
    That is your job. And I am looking forward to your being 
able to tell me: We have now gotten that chemical out of the 
products that ordinary people experience every day.
    Mr. Regan. Absolutely.

                             WILDLIFE SMOKE

    Senator Merkley. Thank you. Not just asbestos, but many, 
many, many others.
    So, I want to turn to smoke. It is something that we hear 
about in terms of firefighters entering buildings, and the 
people dying in buildings, not just of fire, but of smoke 
inhalation, but now we have the problem of forest fires which 
are leaving smoke lingering the air with people breathing it, 
great aggravation of asthma, the small particulates are very, 
very harmful. Has EPA started to think about wildfire smoke as 
a significant pollutant that needs to be addressed?
    Mr. Regan. We are really taking a close look at what we are 
seeing before our eyes, in terms of the increase--intensity 
from the byproducts of climate change. What I will say is the 
answer is, we are taking the wildfire smoke very serious, which 
is why in this budget we are asking for an increase in our air 
quality monitoring system.
    Not only do we want to get better at predicting the climate 
science, and when we think we will see this occur, but we want 
to be able to have the monitors in place so that we can 
measure, verify and inform the public of how to be--how to be 
most protective of their public health.

                           TAILPIPE EMISSIONS

    Senator Merkley. Well, obviously I like to see these big 
fires not happening in the first place, and that includes 
forest management strategies that make forests more resilient. 
And it certainly means a major effort to tackle the methane 
gases and carbon dioxide gases that are heating our planet--
planet so quickly. But we also need to help communities live 
with better health, when there is smoke as there is regularly. 
And there is a variety of strategies to help address that.
    And my final question is just to turn to tailpipe emissions 
because they are such a large source of climate warming gases. 
And this question was asked before, but I just wanted to raise 
it again. The Diesel Emission Reduction Act Program, can this 
help us in pursuing an EV transition? And are there other key 
regulatory opportunities to help drive the transmission to 
radically reduce carbon dioxide from ordinary vehicles?

                           TAILPIPE EMISSIONS

    Mr. Regan. Absolutely. The tailpipe emissions and 
transportation emissions are the largest contributor. We are 
laser-focused on it. I believe DERA is absolutely a mechanism. 
We also have the regulatory authority to pursue this as well. 
In mid-July, you will see EPA do a notice of proposed 
rulemaking for tailpipe emissions for cars. We are also focused 
on heavy-duty vehicles as well.
    The transportation sector is so important from a climate 
change, global warming perspective, but also from a localized 
pollution and environmental justice perspective. We have got 
the tools to address it. We are moving forward quickly. And the 
last thing I will say is also the reestablishment of the 
statutory authority of States like California and others who 
want to take a leadership role and expedite that timeline. We 
support that as well.
    Senator Merkley. Often we think about electric vehicles 
might work well for passenger vehicles, but maybe not for heavy 
machinery. And I am very interested in visiting a pilot project 
in Oregon that involves electric tractors, and farmers who are 
experimenting with whether they work effectively. The early 
reports are--they sure are impressed by the torque on electric 
tractors.
    Is there anything else you would like to add in closing, 
Senator?
    Senator Murkowski. No, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Merkley. Well, thank you so much, Administrator 
Regan. And if my eyesight was better, I would repeat the name 
of your assistant.
    Mr. Regan. Mr. David Bloom.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Bloom for standing by with 
a lot of expertise on the budget.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    If there are no other statements, the hearing record will 
be open until close of business on January 23.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
              Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael S. Regan
            Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
    Question 1. For decades, the State of Maryland has worked 
diligently to address transported pollution to meet air quality 
standards and to protect the health of our constituents. In 2018, the 
Trump EPA denied Maryland's Good Neighbor Petition under Section 126(b) 
of the Clean Air Act regarding 36 upwind electric generating units in 5 
other States to provide Maryland with relief from downwind air 
pollution.
    On May 9, 2020, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals granted Maryland's 
Good Neighbor Petition for review in part and remanded this issue to 
the EPA. On March 15, 2021, EPA finalized the Revised Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update--first proposed in October 2020--in order 
to resolve outstanding interstate pollution transport obligations for 
the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    Maryland has had a multi-year effort to address cross-State 
pollution and I thank you for work to revise the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule to address issues like ours. How will the CSAPR Update 
reduce the interstate transport of nitrogen oxide pollution, and 
support States like Maryland in meeting our clean air standards?

    Answer. On March 15, 2021, EPA finalized the Revised Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Starting in the 2021 ozone season, the rule 
will require additional emissions reductions of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) from power plants in 12 States in the eastern United 
States, improving air quality and public health for millions of 
Americans. EPA estimates that the Revised CSAPR Update will reduce 
NOX emissions from power plants starting in 2021, with 
reductions reaching 18,000 tons in 2022 compared to projections without 
the rule. Over the period from 2021 to 2040, EPA estimates that the 
rule will yield public health and climate benefits that are valued, on 
average, at up to $2.8 billion each year.

    Question 2. Many best management practices or BMPs that are 
utilized to improve water quality in the Bay watershed have other co-
benefits as it pertains to climate resilience, wildlife or ecosystem 
restoration or in helping to solve other environmental challenges. Does 
the EPA have or plan to create any system for quantifying these co-
benefits for specific BMPs?

    Answer. EPA collaborates with other Chesapeake Bay Program partners 
to develop science and tools to advance understanding of the possible 
co-benefits associated with implementation of water quality BMPs. EPA 
has several ongoing efforts to quantify ecosystem services and co-
benefits of best management practices, including co-benefits related to 
climate resilience, wildlife, and ecosystem restoration. Early work 
provided a qualitative approach to understanding co-benefits of BMPs 
used for water quality improvements.
    Building on this effort, EPA is currently developing a methodology 
to identify and quantify ecosystem service co-benefits of nutrient and 
sediment-reducing BMPs, utilizing the EPA-developed National Ecosystems 
Classification System-plus framework. EPA is evaluating options for 
integrating information generated from this research into the 
Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool.

    Question 3. We are at a very critical junction in the 
implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 
and our mutual goal of clean water by 2025. In April, I and my Bay 
Watershed colleagues sent you a letter detailing our concerns with the 
watershed's ability to meet the Bay TMDL without sufficient assistance 
and accountability.
    While I am grateful for your response and commitment to ``providing 
funding and technical assistance, tracking and reporting progress, 
[and] coordinating and facilitating partnerships to support pollution 
reduction efforts,'' I also note the absence of any commitment to take 
necessary enforcement measures. What specific actions within your 
enforcement authorities under the Clean Water Act are you prepared to 
take to ensure all watershed States get back on track to meet their 
2025 goals?

    Answer. EPA is committed to taking the action needed to help ensure 
the jurisdictions meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL's 2025 goals in order to 
protect this national treasure. I have asked our team to consider all 
appropriate tools and actions available to EPA to help accelerate 
progress where it is lagging, including the use of EPA's enforcement 
authorities where warranted.
    EPA will focus its enforcement and programmatic resources to assist 
the jurisdictions in achieving their commitments. Reflecting the Bay's 
high priority for EPA, President Biden's fiscal year 2022 budget 
proposes an increase of approximately $3 million to increase support 
for projects to accelerate the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay 
focusing on a number of outcomes, including improving water quality and 
promoting climate resiliency.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
    Question 1. The budget justification for the Environmental 
Protection Agency notes several priorities related to its management 
and implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard. In addition to 
setting the statutory deadlines for setting the volume requirements 
under the law, page 24 details additional efforts centered upon:

    (1)  revising and improving the RFS regulations to improve its 
operation;
    (2)  reviewing and approving the use of new biofuels and/or their 
feedstocks;
    (3)  registering new facilities to enable them to generate RINs 
(the credits under the Program);
    (4)  operating and upgrading the electronic moderated transaction 
system (EMTS) to provide oversight and verify compliance with the RFS 
Program;
    (5)  ensuring the integrity of the RFS Program through enforcement 
actions against those using the program for fraudulent gain; and
    (6)  supporting the Department of Justice in defending the Agency's 
implementation of the RFS Program in the numerous challenges in court.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has not made progress for 
several years on the review and approval of qualified D3 RIN-qualified 
cellulosic biofuel. This is unfortunate as the delays have stifled 
innovation that could result in a significant increase in ethanol 
output from the same bushel of corn.
    To that end, under the work plan enumerated in the budget 
justification, does the Environmental Protection Agency intend to renew 
its efforts to review and approve D3 registrations under Title 40 CFR 
Part 80, especially those related to corn kernel fiber? If so, can you 
provide certainty that this effort will not preclude the use of peer 
reviewed analytical chemistry methods with appropriate guidelines to be 
finalized, published, and followed?

    Answer. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program remains a high 
priority for EPA, and we continue to strive to improve our 
implementation of the program. Over the past several years, EPA has 
approved numerous new RFS fuel pathways, and we are constantly 
evaluating new pathway applications and registration requests under the 
program. We continue to prioritize processing additional applications 
and registrations, however, some of the new fuel pathway applications, 
including some for certain pathways such as ethanol from corn kernel 
fiber, are complex in nature and often take a significant amount of 
time to process. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed and published a new 
public analytical procedure for corn kernel fiber. We will continue 
working with interested stakeholders to leverage DOE's new method. In 
implementing the RFS program, we are committed to moving forward in a 
way that follows the law, follows the science, is transparent, 
preserves the integrity of the program, and provides certainty.

    Question 2. President Biden's climate plan calls for ``doubling 
down on the liquid fuels of the future, which make agriculture a key 
part of the solution to climate change.'' Yet, scores of facility 
registrations submitted by American entrepreneurs across rural America 
for cellulosic ethanol made from corn fiber against a pathway under the 
RFS that is already approved have been sitting at EPA, awaiting action, 
some for more than 4 years. What has the administration done to make it 
a priority to move these cellulosic biofuel facility registrations?

    Answer. The RFS program has played a key role in driving the 
development and use of biofuels, especially advanced biofuels, and that 
will continue during the Biden administration. Over the past several 
years, EPA has approved numerous new RFS fuel pathways, and we are 
constantly evaluating new pathway applications and registration 
requests under the program. We continue to prioritize processing 
additional applications and registrations, however, some of the new 
fuel pathway applications, including some for certain pathways such as 
ethanol from corn kernel fiber, are complex in nature and often take a 
significant amount of time to process. Earlier this year, the 
Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory 
developed and published a new public analytical procedure for corn 
kernel fiber. We will continue working with interested stakeholders to 
leverage DOE's new method. In implementing the RFS program, we are 
committed to moving forward in a way that follows the law, follows the 
science, is transparent, preserves the integrity of the program, and 
provides certainty.

    Question 3. Last week the Acting Assistant Administrator for the 
Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA gave an interview in which he 
declined to answer whether biofuels have reduced carbon emissions, 
saying he had not yet had time to look into this. Yet, since the Biden 
administration took office, the United States has:

  --Adopted a commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse 
        gas emissions by 50-52 percent by 2030;
  --Released a comprehensive infrastructure proposal focused in part on 
        cutting carbon emissions
  --Extended the RFS compliance deadlines for refiners for 2020 until 
        January 31, 2022;
  --Failed to prioritize facility registration applications for 
        production of the lowest carbon fuel we have today--cellulosic 
        ethanol from corn fiber--that have been languishing in some 
        cases for 5 years at the Agency;
  --Failed to move a proposed rule for the 2021 RFS blending volumes a 
        full 6 months into the compliance year; and
  --Failed to fulfill the requirements of a Court remand from 2017 to 
        restore 500 million gallons of blending volumes that were 
        inappropriately waived from the 2016 RVO.

    Administrator Regan, in your experience to date, is this 
administration planning to make biofuels a centerpiece of its 
commitment to innovation, climate mitigation, and job creation?

    Answer. The RFS program has played a key role in driving the 
development and use of biofuels, especially advanced biofuels, and that 
will continue during the Biden administration.

    Question 4. The Energy Information Administration projects that 
about 80 percent of new vehicle sales will be gasoline or flex-fuel 
powered, not to mention the ongoing use of gasoline for decades to come 
by cars on the road today. Given the new goals adopted by President 
Biden to cut emissions by 50-52 percent by 2030, we must deploy every 
solution we have to meet this goal, including cutting greenhouse gas 
emissions by 46%-120 percent in the case of ethanol and 74 percent in 
the case of biodiesel from every gallon of fuel we use. Investing in 
biofuel infrastructure will help deliver higher blends of ethanol and 
biodiesel into the marketplace to speed decarbonization of the vehicle 
transportation sector. Does the Administration intend to use funding 
proposed in the American Jobs Plan for biofuel infrastructure?

    Answer. The American Jobs Plan and the President's budget are 
complementary policies that work together to address the major 
challenges of our time. The American Jobs Plan would make a one-time, 
transformational investment that America has put off for too long. It 
would invest in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and allow us to 
achieve the dual goals of reducing pollution and creating jobs. The 
President's plan will create a more resilient grid, lower energy bills 
for middle class Americans, improve air quality and public health 
outcomes, and create good jobs, with a choice to join a union, on the 
path to achieving 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035.
    The President's budget proposes the investments needed to advance 
EPA's mission across the board, including major investments to support 
the Agency's work on climate and environmental justice. The President's 
budget proposes a $13 million increase in funding for the Federal 
Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program, which houses the 
RFS program. A large portion of the EPA's efforts on fuels will support 
the ongoing implementation of the RFS program.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
    Question 1. During the hearing, Senator Murkowski posed several 
questions to you on PFAS, including requesting details on the Agency's 
timeline for listing PFAS as a hazardous substance. In response, you 
stated that, ``I will have staff provide you with that information.'' 
As you know from our previous discussions and my April 19, 2021 letter 
to you on EPA's PFAS actions, I am interested in being kept up to date 
on all of the Agency's actions addressing PFAS. Do you commit to 
providing me with regular updates on all PFAS actions, including any 
activities related to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA)?

    Answer. EPA is looking at various types of scientific information 
related to designating certain PFAS, specifically PFOA and PFOS, as 
CERCLA hazardous substances. This information includes the most up to 
date chemical and physical characteristics, toxicity and kinetics, 
environmental prevalence, and manufacturing and use data.
    I understand the importance of Congress' need to obtain information 
necessary to perform its legitimate oversight functions and I am 
committed to working with EPA staff to accommodate your interests.

    Question 2. One of the issues I raised with you during the hearing 
was the EPA's budget request of hundreds of millions of dollars for 
environmental justice activities. Do you agree with the White House 
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) that investment in 
carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), nuclear power, 
and fossil fuel-related infrastructure projects do not benefit 
environmental justice communities?

    Answer. The fiscal year 2022 President's budget is rooted in EPA's 
commitment to advancing environmental justice, tackling climate change, 
protecting public health, improving infrastructure, and rebuilding the 
EPA workforce to accomplish the EPA's mission. The budget includes an 
increase of $1.8 billion in programs across EPA to tackle the climate 
crisis while also delivering environmental justice to marginalized and 
over-burdened communities, investing in local economies, and creating 
good-paying jobs.
    As you reference, in response to charge questions from the White 
House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the White House 
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) issued recommendations 
on the administration and implementation of Justice40 in May 2021. 
After receiving those recommendations, the White House issued interim 
implementation guidance for the President's Justice40 Initiative. EPA 
is committed to implementing this guidance in accordance with our 
statutory authorities to achieve the 40-percent goal.

    Question 3. In response to my question related to eligibility of 
nuclear power and CCUS projects for environmental justice grants, you 
stated that EPA has not yet ``looked at CCUS as an environmental 
justice issue because [EPA has not] gotten to the point where we're 
actually permitting projects to determine the implications on potential 
sites.'' You explained that considering CCUS and nuclear power as an 
environmental justice issue is a ``site-by-site'' issue. Do you commit 
to providing an update to the committee once EPA encounters a ``site-
by-site'' issue regarding CCUS or nuclear power?

    Answer. I understand the importance of Congress' need to obtain 
information necessary to perform its legitimate oversight functions and 
I am committed to working with EPA staff to accommodate Congress' 
interests.

    Question 4. Can you provide details on the role EPA has and the 
parameters that would be used by the Agency in evaluating projects on a 
site-by-site basis, including how EPA plans to evaluate environmental 
justice funding related to CCUS and nuclear projects?

    Answer. EPA is committed to implementing the interim implementation 
guidance for the President's Justice40 Initiative in accordance with 
our statutory authorities to achieve the Administration's 40-percent 
goal.

    Question 5. In one of his early Executive Orders,\1\ President 
Biden set a goal of ensuring 40 percent of Federal investments are 
directed to disadvantaged communities. Do you believe the term 
``disadvantaged communities'' as used in the Justice40 initiative 
includes energy communities, like coal communities in West Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Exec. Order No. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 
Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).

    Answer. EPA is committed to implementing the interim implementation 
guidance for the President's Justice40 Initiative in accordance with 
our statutory authorities to achieve the Administration's 40-percent 
goal. The interim guidance calls for agencies to ``consider appropriate 
data, indices, and screening tools to determine whether a specific 
community is disadvantaged based on a combination of variables that may 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
include, but are not limited to, the following:

  --Low income, high and/or persistent poverty
  --High unemployment and underemployment
  --Racial and ethnic residential segregation, particularly where the 
        segregation stems from discrimination by government entities
  --Linguistic isolation
  --High housing cost burden and substandard housing
  --Distressed neighborhoods
  --High transportation cost burden and/or low transportation access
  --Disproportionate environmental stressor burden and high cumulative 
        impacts
  --Limited water and sanitation access and affordability
  --Disproportionate impacts from climate change
  --High energy cost burden and low energy access
  --Jobs lost through the energy transition
  --Access to healthcare . . .''

    Question 6. In March, you fired all 44 members of the Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) and the seven members of the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee (CASAC). You stated the move was necessary since the 
panels were ``out of balance,'' and that the members were ``not 
representative of the needs'' of the Agency. On June 18th, you instated 
members of CASAC, but members of SAB have not yet been selected.\2\ Can 
you explain how you plan to undertake technical rulemakings under the 
Clean Air Act that would be supported by this year's budget without SAB 
membership in place?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/559069-epa-
announces-new-clean-air-advisors-after-firing-trump-appointees

    Answer. After joining the EPA as Administrator in March, I 
consulted with career staff and career scientists and determined that 
the Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 
needed a fresh start to ensure the quality and independence of their 
science advice. In 2019, the Government Accountability Office concluded 
that the previous Administration did not follow EPA's normal, 
established process for recruiting and appointing experts to these 
boards, which are critical to the integrity of EPA's regulatory 
process. This is a process that Democratic and Republican 
administrations have always followed, until the Trump administration. 
To move forward, we thanked current members for their service and sent 
out a Federal Register notice to recruit new members.
    Following the EPA's request for nominations in April 2021, 
significant public interest resulted in 352 candidates seeking 
membership on the SAB. The membership solicitation, evaluation, and 
selection of these members used the Agency's time-tested, fair, and 
transparent process--correcting for process irregularities made in 
recent years. I selected 47 members for the Chartered SAB, including 
six prior members. The SAB will be comprised of 22 women and 25 men, 
including 16 people of color, making it the most diverse SAB since the 
committee was established. These selections are well-qualified experts 
with a cross-section of scientific disciplines and experience needed to 
provide advice to EPA leadership to help advance the Agency's mission. 
I believe this highly qualified, diverse group of experts will ensure 
that EPA is receiving sound science-based advice to inform our work to 
protect people and the environment from pollution. We worked 
expeditiously and deliberately to finalize the new SAB, and now we can 
move forward knowing EPA's work is guided by the most credible, 
independent expertise.

    Question 7. During the hearing, I raised concerns about your recent 
announcement that EPA planned on revisiting the Clean Water Act section 
401 certification rule and the general issue of infrastructure 
permitting. You stated that, while the Agency had not made any changes 
yet, you maintained the same position you had as a State regulator in 
North Carolina. Can you explain that position you held while in your 
role as a State regulator in North Carolina under the Clean Water Act 
and why it has not changed now that you are instated as EPA 
Administrator?

    Answer. As a former State regulator, the lack of certainty had been 
discouraging for us who are trying to get the business of our States 
done. As EPA Administrator, I have the opportunity to look back at what 
we have learned, what worked and what didn't, and apply those lessons 
to how we move forward.
    EPA believes that Congress provided authority to States and Tribes 
under Clean Water Act section 401 to protect the quality of their 
waters from adverse impacts resulting from federally licensed or 
permitted projects. EPA recently announced its intent to revise the 
2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule after determining 
that the rule erodes State and Tribal authority. Through this process, 
EPA intends to strengthen the authority of States and Tribes to protect 
their vital water resources.

    Question 8. During the hearing, we discussed pipeline permitting. 
In your comments, you mainly deferred to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's (FERC) jurisdiction on siting and said that EPA's role was 
solely focused on review of site-by-site environmental impacts. On May 
26, 2021, EPA's Office of Policy filed general comments \3\ to FERC on 
the certification of new interstate natural gas facilities. Do you 
endorse these comments filed by your Agency?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Rick Weber, Kerry Rejects Notion Of Gas Pipelines As `Stranded' 
In Low-Carbon Shift, InsideEPA (June 14, 2021), https://insideepa.com/
climate-news/kerry-rejects-notion-gas-pipelines-stranded-low-carbon-
shift (EPA comment letter cited, https://insideepa.com/sites/
insideepa.com/files/documents/2021/jun/epa2021_1111.pdf).

    Answer. On May 26, 2021, EPA responded to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) invitation to submit comments on the 
Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities. EPA reviewed 
FERC's notice and provided updated comments and recommendations for 
consideration based on the technical expertise, experience, and past 
reviews of FERC's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's career staff.

    Question 9. In response to Senator Reed's questions during the 
hearing on cybersecurity in the water sector, you noted the 
Administration's additional budget request of $4 million and 6 FTEs for 
cybersecurity at EPA. Can you provide further details on this specific 
request, including what additional capabilities the proposed funding 
would provide, what the proposed 6 FTEs would be used for, and where 
the proposed 6 FTEs would be located in EPA and geographically?

    Answer. Cybersecurity represents a substantial concern for the 
water sector, given the ubiquitous access to critical water treatment 
systems from the Internet. Recent attacks perpetrated by State and 
other actors and their clear potential to disrupt essential lifeline 
services, such as drinking water supplies, are prompting a growing 
recognition that the Federal Government should adopt a more aggressive 
posture towards cybersecurity. EPA will work with States, territories, 
and Tribes to develop and train a cadre of technical assistance 
providers who can work directly with individual water systems to assess 
and enhance their cybersecurity practices. This multi-year effort 
requires EPA to work with the Nation's 52,000 community water systems, 
many of which have limited or no technical capacity to address cyber 
issues. EPA also would seek to train individuals on how to integrate 
cyber training into their sanitary survey assessments.
    In addition to expanding direct technical assistance, and in 
discussions with the National Security Council, EPA is pursuing 
regulatory options in the near-term for addressing cybersecurity in the 
water sector. Under this effort, EPA also is requesting resources to 
develop policies and/or regulations and associated activities. EPA will 
publish guidance for public water systems on what cybersecurity 
practices are recommended for safe operation and EPA will develop a 
nationwide training effort for all States, sanitary survey inspectors, 
and all public water systems on compliance and cybersecurity in 
general.
    In fiscal year 2022, EPA will continue to fulfill its obligations 
as the Sector Risk Management Agency for the water and wastewater 
systems sector. EPA will partner with the water sector to promote 
cybersecurity practices and gauge progress in the sector's 
implementation of these practices as directed by the Cybersecurity 
Enhancement Act of 2014. EPA will be conducting nationwide exercises 
and providing technical support on cybersecurity threats and 
countermeasures for about 200 water and wastewater utilities. The EPM 
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Program also can 
support cybersecurity related work.

    Specifically, EPA will:

  --Conduct one-day classroom exercises, at locations distributed 
        nationally, on water sector cybersecurity. The exercises will 
        address cybersecurity threats (including ransomware), 
        vulnerabilities, consequences, best practices, and incident 
        response planning;
  --Update and/or develop new course materials owing to the evolving 
        nature of cyber threats, such as the recently documented role 
        of Russian state actors in infiltrating water system industrial 
        control processes and business enterprise functions;
  --Develop brief, targeted guidance documents for underserved segments 
        of the water sector, such as small systems and technical 
        assistance providers; and
  --Continue to implement a new training program for technical 
        assistance providers that will create a nationwide, state-level 
        network capable of providing direct assistance to water 
        utilities in adopting and tracking cybersecurity practices in 
        adopting and tracking cyber security practices as recommended 
        in the sanitary survey guidance.

    Question 10. Can you please detail your coordination with the 
Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) regarding the water 
sector, including specifically whether EPA serves or would serve as the 
central repository where water utilities provide information on 
security issues?

    Answer. Under Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), Critical 
Infrastructure Security and Resilience, each of the 16 critical 
infrastructure sectors has a Sector Risk Management Agency (SRMA), 
which serves as the Federal lead responsible for that sector's security 
and resilience. PPD-21 designates EPA as the SRMA charged with ensuring 
that the water sector is prepared for any hazard, including cyber 
risks. EPA fulfills its critical mission in water sector cybersecurity 
in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s 
Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Water Sector 
Coordinating Council of industry representatives, and other Federal, 
State, local, Tribal and territorial, and private sector partners by 
helping water and wastewater utilities prepare for, respond to, and 
recover from cyber-attacks. With respect to generating alerts and 
intelligence reports for the water sector, CISA is effective in 
translating intelligence information about new threats and 
exploitations into alerts with actionable mitigation procedures that 
water systems can follow, with EPA ensuring that these alerts reach a 
broad swath of the sector. In terms of the Federal response to a cyber 
incident, PPD 41 identifies three general concurrent lines of effort in 
responding to a significant cyber incident with CISA having the lead 
Federal role for asset response (meaning that they provide technical 
assistance to affected entities to protect assets, mitigate 
vulnerabilities, and reduce impacts), while EPA as the Sector Risk 
Management Agency (SRMA) leads the Federal Government's efforts to 
understand the business or operational impacts of a cyber incident in 
the water sector. EPA encourages water sector entities to report cyber 
incidents to the FBI and CISA, which relay incident information to EPA 
and also may request EPA assistance in following up with the affected 
entity.

    Question 11. I also submitted questions for the record to you 
following an April 28, 2021 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works (EPW), of which I am Ranking Member. Those 
questions are reproduced here as an attachment. I am disappointed that 
I have not received responses to those questions, approximately six 
weeks after the questions were sent to you. When can I and the other 
members of EPW expect responses to their questions for the record?

    Answer. EPA responded on July 12, 2021.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., Wednesday, June 9, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]