U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–892PDF 2013

STRENGTHENING TRANSPARENCY AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 14, 2013 

Serial No. 113–54 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

November 14, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 20 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 68 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement for the record by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty, 

Member, Committee on Science, Space and Technology ................................... 134 

Report submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Member, Committee 

on Science, Space and Technology ...................................................................... 136 

Letter submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Member, Committee 

on Science, Space and Technology ...................................................................... 146 

Letters submitted for the record by Representative Mark Takano, Member, 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology ................................................... 149 

(1) 

STRENGTHENING TRANSPARENCY AND 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Welcome everyone to today’s hearing titled Strengthening Transparency and Accountability Within the 

Environmental Protection Agency. I am going to recognize myself 

for five minutes for an opening statement, and then I will recognize 

the Ranking Member for hers. 

The Environmental Protection Agency, like every other governmental institution, should answer to the American people. Everyone agrees that we need to protect the environment, but we should 

do so in a way that is open and honest. Democracy requires transparency and accountability. 

Yet EPA’s justifications for its regulations are cloaked in secret 

science. It appears the EPA bends the law and stretches the 

science to justify its own objectives. 

Americans impacted by the Agency’s regulations have a right to 

see the data and determine for themselves independently if these 

regulations are based on sound science or a partisan agenda. The 

EPA’s efforts to expand its regulatory reach across the U.S. represent a troubling trend. 

For example, take EPA’s current attempt to redefine its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It seeks to expand the definition 

of Waters of the U.S. to give the Agency unprecedented new authority over private property. 

According to media reports, this expansion of EPA regulatory 

power could include almost all man-made and natural streams, 

lakes and ponds in the U.S. This undermines states’ rights and increases Federal control of private property and could lead to the 

EPA telling us what to do in our own back yard. 

The EPA’s efforts to demonize hydraulic fracturing are another 

example of an Agency implementing a partisan agenda before it 

takes the time to get the facts. The EPA made wild claims of 

groundwater contamination but was forced to retract those claims 

when it could produce no evidence. Perhaps the most worrisome examples of the Agency’s disregard for transparency and accountability are found in the EPA’s Clean Air Program. 

We all agree that ensuring clean air is essential, but the EPA 

has a responsibility to establish rules that balance our environmental concerns and our economic needs. 

Nearly all of this Administration’s air quality regulations are justified on the basis of hidden data. These regulations cost billions 

of dollars but the EPA claims that the benefits of these rules justify 

the costs. These claims can’t be verified if the EPA uses secret 

science. 

More than two years ago, before this Committee, then Assistant 

Administrator McCarthy said this information was available for 

independent review and verification. And a few months ago, the 

President’s own Science Advisor took the same position. When the 

EPA failed to live up to those commitments, the Committee issued 

a subpoena requiring the Agency to produce the data. Three 

months later, the Agency still hasn’t provided the data necessary 

to verify the Agency’s claims. 

Let me be clear: It is the EPA’s responsibility to ensure that the 

science it uses is transparent and that its claims can be verified 

independently. 
9 

Recently, the EPA provided us with copies of letters it received 

from scientists explaining why they believe this data cannot be released to the public. It is unfortunate that it took us two years and 

a subpoena to get here, but now even the EPA knows the truth: 

The Agency itself cannot publicly verify its own claims. 

So not only do we have a lack of transparency, we have an Agency that is regulating without the facts to back up its claims. 

We need to know whether the Agency is telling the truth to the 

American people. The EPA must either make the data public or 

commit to no longer use secret science to support its regulations. 

Without this, Congress will have no choice but to prohibit the 

EPA’s use of secret data moving forward. 

I will introduce legislation in the next few weeks that will stop 

the EPA from basing regulations on undisclosed and unverified information. 

We can and should continue to look for ways to protect our environment. But these efforts must be open, transparent and based on 

sound science. Only then can the American people decide whether 

the costs of EPA’s regulatory agenda is supported by the facts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), like every other governmental institution, answers to the American people. Everyone agrees that we need to protect 

the environment, but we should do so in a way that is open and honest. Democracy 

requires transparency and accountability. 

Yet EPA’s justifications for its regulations are cloaked in secret science. It appears 

the EPA bends the law and stretches the science to justify its own objectives. 

The Americans impacted by the Agency’s regulations have a right to see the data 

and determine for themselves independently if these regulations are based on sound 

science or a partisan agenda. The EPA’s efforts to expand its regulatory reach 

across the U.S. represent a troubling trend. 

For example, take EPA’s current attempt to redefine its jurisdiction under the 

Clean Water Act. It seeks to expand the definition of ‘‘Waters of the U.S.’’ to give 

the Agency unprecedented new authority over private property. 

According to media reports, this expansion of EPA regulatory power could include 

almost all man-made and natural streams, lakes and ponds in the U.S. This undermines states’ rights and increases federal control of private property and could lead 

to the EPA telling us what to do in our own back yard. 

The EPA’s efforts to demonize hydraulic fracturing are another example of an 

Agency implementing a partisan agenda before it takes the time to get the facts. 

The EPA made wild claims of groundwater contamination, but was forced to retract 

those claims when it could produce no evidence. Perhaps the most outrageous examples of the Agency’s disregard for transparency and accountability are found in the 

EPA’s clean air program. 

We all agree that ensuring clean air is essential, but the EPA has a responsibility 

to establish rules that balance our environmental concerns and our economic needs. 

Nearly all of this Administration’s air quality regulations are justified on the 

basis of hidden data. 

These regulations cost billions of dollars but the EPA claims that the benefits of 

these rules justify the costs. These claims can’t be verified if the EPA uses secret 

science. 

More than two years ago, before this Committee, then Assistant Administrator 

McCarthy said this information was available for independent review and 

verification. And a few months ago, the President’s own Science Advisor took the 

same position. 

When the EPA failed to live up to those commitments, the Committee issued a 

subpoena requiring the Agency to produce the data. Three months later, the Agency 

still hasn’t provided the data necessary to verify the Agency’s claims. 

Let me be clear: It is the EPA’s responsibility to ensure that the science it uses 

is transparent and that its claims can be verified by the public. 
10 

Recently, the EPA provided us with copies of letters it received from scientists explaining why they believe this data cannot be released to the public. It’s unfortunate 

that it took us two years and a subpoena to get here, but now even the EPA knows 

the truth: the Agency itself cannot publicly verify its own claims. 

So not only do we have a lack of transparency, we have an Agency that is regulating with reckless abandon and without the facts to back up its claims. 

We need to know whether the Agency is telling the truth to the American people. 

The EPA must either make the data public, or commit to no longer use secret 

science to support its regulations. Without this, Congress will have no choice but 

to prohibit the EPA’s use of secret data moving forward. 

I will introduce legislation in the next few weeks that will stop the EPA from basing regulations on undisclosed and unverified information. 

We can and should continue to look for ways to protect our environment. But 

these efforts must be open, transparent and based on sound science. Only then can 

the American people decide whether the costs of EPA’s regulatory agenda is supported by the facts. 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, is recognized for 

her opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, and good morning. I am 

very pleased to welcome Administrator McCarthy to today’s hearing. She has had a distinguished record at the Environmental Protection Agency prior to her being selected to be EPA Administrator. 

And by all accounts, she has been doing an exemplary job since assuming the position. 

While I think her record of performance and her integrity speaks 

for themselves, I thought it was important to review the mission 

of the Agency. First, the mission of EPA is to protect human health 

and the environment. As someone who worked in public health before I entered politics, I can think of no mission of the Federal Government that is more important or noble than that. As a Member 

of Congress, I think I should be doing all I can to encourage EPA 

as it attempts to carry out a very challenging mission. I think too 

often EPA is made a target for funding cuts and its leadership subjected to harassment and denigration. Unfortunately, our own 

Committee has not been immune from employing these tactics. 

Mr. Chairman, I am a Texan. From birth to death, I am a Texan, 

and I am no stranger to the oil and gas industries and the economic benefits they can bring or to the pollution and health and 

environmental impacts those industries can also bring. I know that 

EPA’s actions have consequences for companies that sometimes are 

negative. However, I also know that EPA’s actions have important 

consequences for the health of our constituents, especially those 

who are young, infirmed or elderly. And those consequences have 

been very positive indeed over the 40 years that EPA has been in 

existence. 

We all want a healthy economy, but we also want a healthy quality of life for our citizenry. And EPA’s efforts have played a critical 

role in achieving both these goals since its inception. 

As Members of Congress, I think we should strive to educate our 

constituents, not scare them. I hope today I can resist the temptation to try for provocative sound bites for my district and instead 

use today’s hearing to better understand what EPA has been 

tasked to accomplish, how it is doing on those tasks and how we 

in Congress can help it to do its job more effectively. 

Administrator McCarthy, I know you have a very tough job, and 

I want to commend you for your willingness to take it on in spite 
11 

of all the hurdles that you and your Agency face. I look forward to 

your testimony, and I look forward to working with you to help 

EPA achieve the goals that the Nation has asked us to carry out. 

I thank you and yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I am very pleased to welcome Administrator McCarthy to today’s 

hearing. She had a distinguished record at the Environmental Protection Agency 

prior to her being selected to be EPA Administrator, and by all accounts she has 

been doing an exemplary job since assuming that position. 

While I think her record of performance and her integrity speak for themselves, 

I thought it important to review the mission. 

First the mission of the EPA is to ‘‘protect human health and the environment.’’ 

As someone who worked in public health before I entered politics, I can think of 

no mission of the federal government that is more important or noble than that. As 

a Member of Congress I think I should be doing all that I can to encourage EPA 

as it attempts to carry out a very challenging mission. I think, too often EPA is 

made a target for funding cuts and its leadership subjected to harassment and denigration. Unfortunately, our own Committee has not been immune from employing 

such tactics. 

Mr. Chairman, I am a Texan from birth to death, and I’m no stranger to the oil 

and gas industries and the economic benefits they can bring—or to the pollution and 

health and environmental impacts those industries can also bring. I know that 

EPA’s actions have consequences for companies that sometimes are negative. However, I also know that EPA’s actions have important consequences for the health of 

our constituents—especially those who are young, infirm, or elderly. And those consequences have been very positive indeed over the forty-odd years that EPA has 

been in existence. We all want a healthy economy, but we also want a healthy quality of life for our citizenry—and EPA’s efforts have played a critical role in achieving 

both those goals since its inception. 

As Members of Congress, I think we should be strive to educate our constituents, 

not scare them. I hope today I can resist the temptation to try for provocative 

‘‘sound bites’’ for my district, and instead use today’s hearing to better understand 

what EPA has been tasked to accomplish, how it is doing on those tasks, and how 

we in Congress can help it to do its job more effectively. 

Administrator McCarthy, I know you have a very tough job, and I want to commend you for your willingness to take it on in spite of all the hurdles that you and 

your agency face. I look forward to your testimony, and I look forward to working 

with you to help EPA achieve the goals that the nation has asked us to carry out. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Members who have 

opening statements can submit them for the record, and they will 

appear at this point. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman SMITH. Our witness today is The Honorable Gina 

McCarthy, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Prior to her appointment as Administrator, she was the Assistant 

Administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation where she advocated to protect public health and the environment. During her 

career, which spans over 30 years, she has worked at both the 

state and local levels on environmental issues and helped coordinate policies on economic growth, energy, transportation and the 

environment. 

Administrator McCarthy received a bachelor of arts degree in social anthropology from the University of Massachusetts and a master’s of science and environmental health, engineering and planning from Tufts University. 

At this time I will yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, 

Ms. Esty, for additional comments. 
12 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member 

Johnson for holding today’s hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency. I am very pleased to welcome Administrator Gina 

McCarthy who served as Commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection and then as Assistant Administrator of the U.S. EPA. 

Administrator McCarthy, it is wonderful to see you again. Congratulations on your confirmation. You have an important role and 

responsibility as head of an agency charged with protecting the environment and the public’s health. I appreciate all of your hard 

work to that end, and we are very proud of you in Connecticut and 

very pleased to see you here today. 

Thank you so much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Esty. Administrator McCarthy, 

we welcome your testimony, and please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GINA MCCARTHY, 

ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and—oh, I am so sorry. Good morning, Chairman 

Smith and Ranking Member Johnson, other distinguished Members of the Committee. I am pleased to be here to talk about the 

central role that science plays at the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Let me begin by stating that science is and always has been the 

backbone of the EPA’s decision-making. The Agency’s ability to 

pursue its mission to protect human health and the environment 

depends upon the integrity of the science upon which it relies. I 

firmly believe that environmental policies, decisions, guidance, and 

regulation that impact the lives of all Americans must be grounded, at the most fundamental level, in sound, high quality, transparent, science. 

Because we rely so heavily on science to meet our mission on behalf of the American people, it must be conducted in ways that are 

transparent, that is free from bias and conflict of interest and of 

the highest quality, integrity, and credibility. These qualities are 

important not just within our own organization and the Federal 

Government, but across the scientific community, with its long-established and highly honorable commitment to maintaining strict 

adherence to ethical investigation and research. That is why the 

agency has established and embraced a Scientific Integrity Policy 

that builds upon existing Agency and government-wide policies and 

guidance documents, explicitly outlining EPA’s commitment to the 

highest standards of scientific integrity. And that commitment extends to any scientist or organization who wishes to contribute to 

our efforts. All EPA-funded research projects, whether they are 

conducted by EPA scientists or outside grantees or collaborators, 

must comply with the Agency’s rigorous quality assurance requirements. 

To ensure we have the best possible science, we are committed 

to rigorous, independent peer review of the scientific data, the models and analyses that support our decisions. Peer review can take 

a number of forms, ranging from external reviews by the National 
13 

Academy of Sciences or the EPA’s federal advisory committees to 

contractor-coordinated reviews. 

Consistent with OMB’s guidance, we require peer review of all 

EPA research projects and for all influential scientific information 

and highly influential scientific assessments. 

Among the external advisory committees is the EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board. Our SAB reviews are conducted by groups of independent non-EPA scientists with the range of expertise required for 

that particular advisory topic. We invite the public to nominate experts for the SAB panels and to comment on candidates being considered by the EPA for SAB panels. The EPA evaluates public comments and information submitted about SAB nominees. The EPA’s 

review experts’ confidential financial information is available to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. 

SAB peer reviews are conducted in public sessions in compliance 

with the open-government requirements of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act. The public is invited to send and to provide oral 

and written testimony for consideration by the SAB. Public comments help to ensure that all relevant science and technical issues 

are available to the SAB as it reviews the science that will support 

our environmental decisions. 

Another example of how well we do science and maintain our integrity is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee which provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the science 

that supports EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 

CASAC reviews the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessments which 

deliver science in support of the Clean Air Act. 

Through a transparent and open process, we have also committed to enhancing the Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System assessment program. A strong, scientifically rigorous IRIS Program is of critical importance, and the EPA is in the process of enhancing the scientific integrity of assessments, enhancing the productivity of that Program and increasing transparency so that 

issues are identified and debated early on in the process. In 2009, 

the EPA made significant enhancements to IRIS by announcing a 

new 7-step assessment development process. Since that time, the 

National Research Council has made recommendations related to 

enhancing the development of the IRIS assessments. The EPA is 

making changes still to the IRIS program to enhance our ability to 

respond to those recommendations and to maintain our science integrity. These changes will help the EPA produce more high-quality IRIS assessments each year in a timely and transparent manner to meet the needs of the Agency and the public. A newly released NRC report is largely supportive of the enhanced approach 

that EPA is now taking to develop the IRIS assessment, in this 

case, for inorganic arsenic. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, science 

is the backbone of our decision making, and our work is based on 

the principles of scientific integrity and transparency that are both 

expected and deserved by the American people. I am proud of the 

EPA’s research efforts and the sound use of science and technology 

to fulfill EPA’s important mission to protect public health and safeguard the natural environment. 
14 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to meet with the Committee for the first time and to provide testimony, and I am happy 

to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy. I will 

recognize myself for some questions. 

The first one is this. When you testified before this Committee 

in September 2011, you promised to provide the data behind EPA’s 

health benefit claims. And yet, to my knowledge, you have not done 

that. Yet, the Agency continues to justify major regulations based 

upon these studies. Now, you have given the Committee some information, but do you agree that the information you have given 

us so far is insufficient to validate these findings? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we 

have submitted information that you requested. 

Chairman SMITH. I don’t deny that, but is the information you 

have given us sufficient to validate the findings that you have come 

to? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is sufficient for you to understand the—— 

Chairman SMITH. I know. I know it is sufficient to understand, 

but can we validate it independently? Is the information you have 

given us sufficient to validate independently the findings that you 

have concluded? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that it is sufficient for you to understand that we have relied on peer-reviewed science. 

Chairman SMITH. Well, let me say that we get a letter from the 

EPA saying that it was not sufficient, so you might want to check 

with other individuals within the EPA. We have not gotten sufficient information to validate the findings. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, if you are looking to replicate the 

studies, I would agree with you that all of that information isn’t 

available to the Agency, but we have sought to get that information 

for you and we have provided that information to you. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. The information you have provided—I 

will just make that statement again—and is validated by a letter 

we received from the EPA which is not sufficient to validate your 

findings. 

Let me go onto my next question. Next year the EPA is seeking 

to change its national ozone standards, a move that the Agency admits could be the most expensive regulation in history, I think perhaps exceeding the cost of $100 billion to the American people. Will 

you specifically commit to not rely on secret science and hidden 

data in the rule making for the ozone standards? In other words, 

will you make the underlying data public? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee that 

we rely on as our peer-review entity to take a look at our National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards ensures that we are public, that we 

make our information publically available. As far as transparency—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. So the—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —the EPA—— 

Chairman SMITH. —information will be made publically available 

that you rely upon to issue the ozone—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In the same way in which we have done it before, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are very public—— 

Chairman SMITH. —the same way—— 
21 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —with the information. 

Chairman SMITH. The same way before wasn’t sufficient, so I am 

kind of wondering if you are saying it will be made public, if it is 

really going to be made public. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We rely on thousands of studies. We provide an 

integrated science assessment that is thoroughly looked at for the 

peer-review process. 

Chairman SMITH. Let me take you at your word. You said that 

the information would be made public, that the data that you rely 

upon for the issuance of the ozone—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In the same way we have done it always, Mr. 

Chairman, yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Well, okay. We have to disagree on that. I 

don’t think you have always done it, but if you will say you will 

do it now, I will take you at your word. 

Let me ask you this. Have you given the Committee all the subpoenaed data in the EPA’s possession? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If you are referring to the PM data that you 

have requested from the Agency? 

Chairman SMITH. No, I am saying—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. What—— 

Chairman SMITH. —have you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have a number of subpoenas. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I just want to make sure—— 

Chairman SMITH. I am just talking about the one from the 

Science Committee. Have you given the Committee all the information that we have subpoenaed that is in your possession? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe we have as of September 20. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Those were related to some specific studies. One 

was outstanding until September 20 so we could make sure that 

we had looked at confidentiality and privacy issues. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. Will the EPA produce all of 

its correspondence with outside entities regarding the efforts to 

comply with the subpoena, and this would include emails, text and 

other electronic communications? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe we are responding to that request 

today, Mr. Chairman. If you have further questions after that response or you don’t believe it is adequate, we will certainly get staff 

together—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and we can converse as well. 

Chairman SMITH. But otherwise you will say it is going to Freedom of Information Act and give us all that correspondence, is that 

correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually respond to a number of Freedom of 

Information Act requests, Mr. Chairman. If that is your preference, 

we can do that. 

Chairman SMITH. No, don’t let me confuse the issue. You are 

going to give us the correspondence that you have engaged in with 

the third parties to try to get them to comply with the subpoena? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are going to respond to your request for 

that—— 
22 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —I believe today. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you for that. My last question is 

this. The EPA has a draft Clean Water Act rule that could give 

EPA unprecedented authority over private property. The law clearly states that at the time such a proposal is sent to other Federal 

agencies, it must also be made available to EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board, the SAB, for peer review. In September EPA sent its proposal to OMB for interagency review, but according to your SAB, 

the draft has not been made available to the Board. Why didn’t you 

comply with this requirement before formally proposing the rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that we are 

going to be and we are complying with our statutory obligations. 

What you are referring to is a rule that is very, very early in the 

process of science—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right, but you submitted it to OMB, and according to the law, when you submit it to OMB, you have got to 

submit it to your Science Advisory Board, and that hasn’t been 

done yet. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually have a process that is established 

at EPA for how we communicate with the Science Advisory Board 

on those issues. It is a process that they have agreed to and we 

have. It is consistent—— 

Chairman SMITH. The submissions are supposed to be—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —with the law. 

Chairman SMITH. The submissions are supposed to be concurrent, and yet you have submitted the rule to OMB but not to the 

Science Advisory Board. Are you expected to do that immediately? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Again, Mr. Chairman, the Science Advisory 

Board right now has an opportunity to look at the science that 

would underpin that rule, but we are very early on in the process 

and will make sure to comply with the law. 

Chairman SMITH. Regardless of where you are in the process, the 

law says you have to submit it to the advisory board at the same 

time you give it to other agencies. But you haven’t done that, and 

I am just wondering why. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, it is not a question that we haven’t done 

it. It is a question that we have a process in place— 

Chairman SMITH. So you have—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —where we work those issues—— 

Chairman SMITH. So you have submitted the—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —with the Science Advisory Board. 

Chairman SMITH. You have submitted the rule to the advisory 

board and I am just not aware of it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. As far as I know, I don’t believe the advisory 

board has the rule, but we are very early in the process. Unfortunately, you may have it, and they are likely to have it as well because it has been publically released. But it is in a very early 

stage. 

Chairman SMITH. If there is a law that says you are supposed 

to submit it to them immediately and you haven’t done that and 

that is not following the proper process—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to supply you with 

the articulated process that we use to—— 
23 

Chairman SMITH. No, I understand—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —comply with that. 

Chairman SMITH. The process is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But we believe we are in compliance with the 

law. 

Chairman SMITH. Yeah, the process is very clear because it is the 

process required by law that you are not following at this point and 

I hope you will. 

That concludes my question, and the Ranking Member is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I am a little confused myself. I am seeing stacks, huge stacks of materials that have been 

submitted, and I don’t know what is missing that you have access 

to that has been requested. Do you understand what is being requested or—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We believe that we do, and we believe that we 

have complied with those requests to the best of our ability. EPA 

has provided thousands of pages of material that is been requested 

of us, and we have done it because we agree with this Committee 

and its mission to ensure that we have sound science and transparency. That is the commitment of this Agency, and we will fulfill 

that commitment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, thank you. I am really trying to follow the 

line of question of the Chair to understand exactly what the real 

problem is. How do you interpret what the questions have been for 

your understanding and what else do you think that can happen, 

what can be given? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we have provided the information. When 

we do rule making, like National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

we look at the thousands of peer-review studies that are available 

to us. We also fund studies ourselves, and we conduct studies ourselves. When we fund those studies and the information and the 

data that we gather to fund those, we have to make sure now 

under the Shelby Amendment that that underlying data is available to us. We have done that. But there is much information that 

we look at that is peer-reviewed literature, which is really how 

science works, Ranking Member, is that we rely on rigorous peerreview data. EPA relooks at that to make sure it is been peer reviewed before we rely on it. But we don’t have the wealth of data 

underneath all of the thousands of studies. But clearly researchers, 

including EPA, can enter into agreements to gather that data, but 

much of it ends up being confidential or private and we have obligations under other statutes as well as OMB guidance to protect 

that privacy. In the case of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, we have the data on air quality, we have the data on 

deaths. What we don’t have available to us with the full breadth 

of raw data is the cohort data which really follows individuals. So 

when we have that data, we have to protect it, but we don’t need 

to see the wealth of raw data under every study to know that it 

has been rigorously peer reviewed and we can rely on it for our decision making. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Has there ever been a time when the Congress 

has requested raw data that—or is this a unique time? 
24 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We did actually face similar questionings, frankly, about the exact same issues, the PM studies, the particulate 

matter studies, from Harvard University and from American Cancer Society. And we were asked similar questions back in the early 

’90s is my understanding, and we funded through a contractor 30 

researchers to look for three years at all of that underlying data 

they had available to it because they could enter into a confidential 

contract with the researchers to access that data so the private information was protected. They did a complete reanalysis of that 

data and the methodologies used, and they came out with the same 

types of conclusions. So we have verified even with that underlying 

data available that these are studies that can be relied on. These 

are in fact studies that the world relies on, not just EPA. They are 

well-done, they are credible and they have not changed their methodology substantially since the last time we even looked at the raw 

data. So we are very confident in the underlying science and that 

we have done the right thing and paid attention to that, which is 

what EPA is supposed to do. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I yield. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. The gentleman from 

Wisconsin, our former Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. 

McCarthy, on June 27, 2012, you sent a letter to me relative to the 

issue of ethanol and the waiver on E–15. And I asked the question, 

does the EPA remain confident that E–15 will not damage car engines from vehicles of model years 2001 and later. The letter you 

signed responded the EPA remains confident in the technical basis 

for the E–15 partial waiver decision. This question can be answered simply yes or no. Do you remain confident in the technical 

basis for the E–15 decision? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Now here is what others are saying. 

Ford says it doesn’t support the introduction of E–15 into the marketplace for the legacy fuel. Ford does not approve. In the owner’s 

manual it is considered misfueling and any damage resulting from 

misfueling is not covered by the warranty. Mercedes-Benz states 

that any ethanol blend above E–10 including E–15 will harm emission control systems in Mercedes-Benz engines leading to significant problems. Honda states that vehicle engines were not designed or built to accommodate the higher concentrations of ethanol. There appears to be the potential for engine failure. The AAA. 

AAA’s automotive engineering experts have reviewed the available 

research and believe that additional assessment is warranted to 

more fully document to what extent the sustained use of E–15 in 

both newer or older vehicles will cause significant problems such 

as accelerated engine wear, fuel system damage and false check-engine lights. And the Coast Guard finds that increasing the blend 

to E–15 can be expected to exacerbate any fuel system deterioration now being reported with E–10 blend gasoline. Fuel leaks cause 

an unacceptable risk of fire and explosion. My question to you is 

are the auto manufacturers, the AAA, the small engine makers and 

the U.S. Coast Guard wrong and how can the EPA continue to ignore these concerns? 
25 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, I am not going to speak to their 

issues that particularly the car manufacturers might have relative 

to their liability and warranty considerations. What I can tell you 

is that EPA with DoE did extensive testing of E–15 on cars. We 

understand that there are challenges prior to 2001 which is when 

some new, more robust engines were required in those vehicles. We 

have done extensive testing. We continue to believe that E–15 is 

appropriate, and if it were available it would be being used by individuals for vehicles that are 2001 and younger. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, that is not what the manufacturers 

say. That is not what the AAA says. They don’t make cars. They 

represent motorists’ interest. That is not even what the Coast 

Guard said because we are dealing with small engines including 

marine engines, lawn mowers, snow mobiles and things like that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congressman, we never—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, ma’am. Ma’am? I am going to ask 

you a question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am going to ask you a question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Because I have a limited amount of time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All right. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You will make a very good senator if you 

would like to filibuster. I have a bill that this Committee has reported favorably out to require the National Academies of Science 

to conduct an unbiased assessment of the science surrounding E– 

15. There seem to be enough questions relating to EPA’s conclusions on this. So why don’t you support further testing of E–15, and 

why are you opposed to having an unbiased referee making call on 

this fuel? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t recall, Congressman, that I have spoken 

to this issue. EPA—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will you support—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Again—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. —my bill for more testing on this issue? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. I have not read the bill but if you 

are asking me—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, the bill has been around for a long 

time because it was sponsored in response to your letter where 

there’s a disagreement on whether the EPA has conducted unbiased research. Now, how about having another look at this before 

people’s engines get wrecked? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Additional research that is done credibly and 

transparent is also—always welcome, Congressman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Fine. I would appreciate a letter from the 

EPA and from you supporting my bill, and then maybe we can put 

it on the floor. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But I do feel that we have sufficiently done our 

analysis, and I continue to rely on it. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, then I guess having an unbiased 

view is something that you won’t always support. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield back the balance of my time. 
26 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized for questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Administrator McCarthy for appearing before us today. The 

work that you do to protect the health of our constituents is very 

important and very much appreciated. 

I want to briefly mention the EPA’s work on the Portland Harbor 

Superfund Site, an issue that’s been important for years in the district I represent and in the region but one where I think we could 

all agree the work has not progressed as expeditiously as it should. 

And when I met with you in April of this year to discuss the issue, 

you had yet to be confirmed as administrator, but we still had a 

very productive conversation and I want to say an encouraging conversation about increased cooperation between the EPA headquarters, the Oregon Congressional delegation, and you also expressed an interest in improving the relationship between the EPA 

Region 10 and our local stakeholders. And so far I have seen positive signs of that happening, and I wanted to say that I look forward to working with you and the EPA to, we hope, finally take 

care of that superfund site in the Portland Harbor. So thank you 

for your work on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Ms. BONAMICI. On the topic of EPA protecting public health, in 

your testimony you focus on how important it is that good science 

be used to determine when public health is in danger. After all, 

that is one of EPA’s critical missions. And in the first hearing held 

by the Environment Subcommittee—oh, in a hearing held by the 

Environment Subcommittee earlier this year, a look at the state of 

the environment, one witness, Richard Truesbeck, said that looking 

too closely at a problem can sort of overestimate the need for a solution. He said when one puts anything under a microscope, one 

necessarily will find something ugly to gawk at. 

When considering public health, it is hard to imagine that just 

because something is small or microscopic, it should not be evaluated to determine its impacts on public health. Surely our constituents can be harmed by pollutants that they cannot see. 

So can you talk about the process that EPA goes through to determine when a problem is severe enough to address through Federal action, and then I do want to save time for another question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We address the science in many different ways 

depending upon what we are actually focusing on and where authorities lie. EPA doesn’t agree with a statement that says that we 

shouldn’t be focused on both our mission as well as appropriately 

doing our job that Congress gave us. We look at both doing independent reviews of the science. We do that rigorously. We do it 

through something we call the IRIS process which I mentioned earlier, which is really a health assessment that underpins many of 

the decisions that we do that helps us understand what the science 

implications are, what the health implications are for people that 

are exposed to chemicals and other hazards in the environment. 

And it is extremely important for us to look at those issues. 

Then we look at what authorities Congress has given us, what 

responsibilities we have and we address those responsibilities in 

the way in which Congress gave us to address those. 
27 

Ms. BONAMICI. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is how we make improvements in public 

health. That is how we have successfully done that for 40-almost 

3 years. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. In March of this year the Environment Subcommittee had a hearing on EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board, and since then the committee has passed legislation modifying the makeup of those boards. And throughout the process, 

some on this Committee have asserted that industry voices are not 

represented and that academic interests dominate, and others of us 

acknowledge that the industry perspective should be heard but we 

are concerned about making sure that we don’t have conflicts of interest. 

So you discussed this a bit in your opening testimony, but will 

you please expand on how industry scientists might contribute to 

the Science Advisory Boards while also avoiding conflicts of interest? And how do you as Administrator ensure that the advice that 

you are receiving from those bodies are not tainted with policy-related judgments? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. For the Science Advisory Board, we believe the 

EPA meets and exceeds our responsibilities under FACA, our legal 

requirements, and we are more transparent and we look more 

closely so that we can make sure that we look at the Ethics in Government Act as well. The Science Advisory Board in our process for 

doing that is something that we are very proud of. When we do 

panels and we put them together, we publish our consideration of 

who the panel members should be. We ask for comments on that. 

We respond to that. We look at making sure that the panels we put 

together are well-balanced and that they have all of the range of 

expertise we are looking for as well as a variety of perspectives. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And can you please discuss the conflict of interest 

issue because I want to make sure you get that in. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually look very closely at conflict of interest which we look at both whether or not there are financial problems that are real or the appearance is there, and we make sure 

that we do a thorough analysis of both any investment opportunities or financial considerations. We just recently established a new 

process where we are looking at that as well and more rigorously 

for external contractors as well. 

So we look at the issues, whether they are perceived or real. We 

do them publically, transparently. We take comments every step of 

the way to ensure that our panel has the expertise as well as the 

credibility it needs to speak from a sound science and transparency 

perspective. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. I see my time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, the Vice Chairman of 

this Committee, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

following up with my colleague from Oregon’s line of questioning. 

I appreciate her setup, and we appreciate you being here with us 

today. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 
28 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. About the Science Advisory Boards—and 

there is serious concern that the EPA’s regulatory science has become somewhat of a closed loop that the Agency sets regulatory 

goals based on whatever motives those goals are based upon and 

then develops the funds and the science that it needs to justify 

those goals. The Agency then creates its own regulations and is 

solely responsible for interpreting those regulations. Making matters even worse, the courts largely defer to the EPA especially 

when questions involve the analysis of science. 

Therefore, the most critical requirement for America to trust this 

regulatory policy or system and especially the regulations that are 

set forth by the EPA is scientific integrity. Unfortunately, as I say, 

there are worries, and at least I believe there seems to be some 

very serious reasons for being worried about this being a closed 

loop. A closed loop is not going to give us the type of science that 

we need. We believe that especially this is evident in a matter that 

you were just discussing with my colleague from Oregon, the independent peer review of EPA science and we believe, and I would 

like to ask you a few questions about whether or not this has been 

compromised. 

You are responsible for appointing members of the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Boards, and let’s take a look at Science Advisory 

Boards such as, number one, the Science Advisory Board and number two, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. And you have 

called these panels independent review boards. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And your predecessor described them as 

being made up totally of independent expert scientists. And that is 

pretty well what you still agree with? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You are still acknowledging that that is still 

what your goal is and what we are trying to do? I would like to 

put into the record some information prepared by the Congressional Research Service that calls into serious question the independence of the experts that sit on these committees. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. According to the CRS, almost 60 percent of 

the members of these two panels have received EPA grants since 

2000. That is totaling taxpayer-funded grants worth roughly $140 

million. Perhaps even worse, a majority of the members of the 

Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, the panel tasked with critically evaluating the EPA’s particulate matter standards that was 

finalized at the end of 2012, a majority had received EPA grants 

directly related to particulate matter since 2010. So you have someone investigating or passing judgment on things that they themselves have been given grants and been involved in the research 

they are supposedly overseeing. And Ms. Administrator, in the past 

we have heard EPA witnesses express the point of view that scientists who have received EPA grants are somewhat immune from 

any potential conflicts associated with these grants that they are 

involved with or future grants. Do you consider that the recipient 

of EPA grants, do you consider that if someone has actually been 
29 

involved and had a grant and done study about something they are 

supposed to now review that that would compromise that person’s 

ability to have an independent judgment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, not in and of itself, as long as we have procedures to ensure that they are fair-minded, that they are there because of their expertise. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, fair-minded just means that they don’t 

have any bias. We are talking about a built-in bias here. You are 

trying to say that somebody who has already been given a grant 

and has reached conclusions is someone that we can then trust to 

have an unbiased view, after we have paid them in order to have 

a biased view? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, we understand that there have 

been concerns expressed about that. We also understand that others have expressed concern about having people who are in the industry that we are discussing that would be impacted. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. That is a whole—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is a—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is something someone would be concerned about. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But I would say that we use—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You think government employees are immune from the same sort of bias that you would find in an—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I am not saying they are immune, sir. I am 

saying that we have a process in which we rigorously pursue those 

issues to ensure that they are there to represent their expertise 

and that the panel is balanced, that it is fair, it meets all requirements, ethical requirements—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The question isn’t whether they are—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and technical requirements. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —isn’t balanced. The question is whether 

there are members who are involved, sometimes at very high levels, and guiding the direction of those panels who actually have a 

built-in bias in that they have already been granted grants to make 

a conclusion before you now are asking them for an unbiased conclusion. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In fact, sometimes, Administrator, they are 

asked to give assessments of their own work in other words, we are 

now paying someone to give an unbiased assessment of something 

that is his or her work. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Kilmer, is recognized for his question. 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for coming 

to take our questions today. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is good to be here, thank you. 

Mr. KILMER. I have got a question regarding EPA funding and 

prioritization. I represent the 6th District of Washington State 

which is bordered by the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound and also 

includes some of the most pristine natural areas in the country. I 

want to commend the work of your Agency and all of our Federal 

agencies in the State of Washington for some of the work that has 

been done to protect our resources. But there is a lot more to be 
30 

done. Ocean acidification, storm water runoff, ecosystem restoration are just a few of the issues that we are only beginning to understand, not to mention the effects that these issues have on our 

marine industries and on the Puget Sound economy. 

Faced with this task, myself and Representative Denny Heck 

along with several of our colleagues created the Puget Sound Recovery Caucus to gather support and try to figure out what we can 

do on a Federal level to solve these direct problems that we are facing in the Puget Sound and also how to be proactive in issues that 

are just beginning to emerge. 

With a limited Federal budget and sequestration, receiving funding for these types of vital problems is an uphill battle that we are 

still climbing and we need to continue to climb, not just because 

it affects our environment but because it affects jobs and our economy. I realize the issues that we face in the Puget Sound are similar to many other issues across the nation, and we want to find 

ways not only to highlight the Puget Sound but we want to make 

progress, get projects off the ground and fix the problems we need 

to ensure the vitality of Puget Sound, not just now but in the future. 

So first an invitation and then a few questions. One, I would like 

to invite your partnership with our caucus. I would love to invite 

you to meet with our members, and would even love to invite you 

to come out and meet with the folks who are working on this in 

our State. And then my question are can you give insights into how 

we can actually make some progress, particularly in light of this 

budget environment, how we can fast track and give greater priority to regional efforts like this where the science is clear, the 

need is clear, and we need to start making some progress. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I do hope that the indiscriminate way that 

the sequestration has impacted all of the agencies is something 

that is looked at in the budget, upcoming budget discussions so 

that everybody can agree on a more sensible and common-sense 

way to make any reductions that are necessary and to implement 

the budget effectively. 

I do know that we have folks who are working in this area, and 

you probably know Dennis McLerran. There is nobody in the world 

that knows or cares more about the issues that you have just identified than he does. I do think there are ways in which we can work 

together through a variety of shared technical expertise as well as 

potentially grant funding. We work on those issues together. I have 

an opportunity over the next three years to make sure we enhance 

those partnerships. So I would be looking forward to it, and we 

should have a discussion about how best to do it. 

Mr. KILMER. Great. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer. The gentleman from 

Texas, the Chairman Emeritus of this Committee, Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCarthy, I thank 

you for being here today, and the Committee has worked for several years to ensure sound scientific processes and transparency at 

the EPA. I think we need a study on the EPA’s lack of transparency and accountability some time, and you would be one of the 

witnesses that we would want you back again. 
31 

One of the areas that concerns us is the EPA’s very poor track 

record of science relating to hydraulic fracturing. The EPA is zero 

for three on that. In Parker County, Texas, Dimock, Pennsylvania, 

and Pavilion, Wyoming, you and the Agency alleged that hydraulic 

fracturing had been responsible, and three times the agency had to 

back away from these allegations after proper scientific analysis 

and review exposed these to be totally unfounded. 

We have had a number of regulators and scientists testify where 

you sit today about hydraulic fracturing, and you have sat there 

and you testified here and you have also testified in the Energy 

and Commerce Committee. Nearly all of those that have sat before 

us have confirmed the safety of these unconventional oil and gas 

techniques. Not one testified that there has been any incidents of 

groundwater contamination from fracking, not one of them. We 

have also received testimony from both the President’s Science Advisor as well as the President’s Assistant Secretary sitting right 

where you are under the oath that you have taken for the Department of Energy, said that there has not been a single documented 

case of groundwater contamination from fracking in this country. 

You probably won’t be surprised that I reference once again in a 

comment that you made in 2011 that I gave you a chance to take 

back. I have not seen where you have made any apology for it 

when you said—and I hope you have backed off of this remark 

since then. You said I certainly don’t want to give the impression 

that the EPA is in the business to create jobs. A cruel statement 

I think to those families that can’t support their children, can’t 

make a car payment, because according to a 2012 study by the research company IHS Global Insight, hydraulic fracturing, estimated 1.7 million jobs in the United States. That number is projected to go over 3.5 million jobs by 2035. And according to the Energy Information Administration, natural gas production is expected to rise an estimated 44 percent through 2040. Without the 

use of hydraulic fracturing technology, the nation’s energy security 

and economy would seriously be compromised. Those millions of 

jobs would be lost. 

With that in mind, you stated recently in the interview with The 

Globe, Boston Globe, I quote, ‘‘There’s nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering practices can’t accomplish.’’ 

So do you agree that hydraulic fracturing is safe and that there 

has not been a single documented case of groundwater contamination from fracking? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t answer it that way. I will agree with 

you—— 

Mr. HALL. Well, then yes, you have answered it. If you can’t answer it that way, you don’t know or you refuse to answer it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I meant I would like to explain it a little bit 

if I could. 

Mr. HALL. I am not asking for your explanation. I just asked you 

for a yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know of a documented case—— 

Mr. HALL. I will go on. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —of groundwater contamination. 
32 

Mr. HALL. I will take that as you don’t know or you don’t care 

because you didn’t know and you didn’t care about people having 

jobs back then. That was a terrible statement that you made, and 

it is of—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, it was taken out of context. 

Mr. HALL. —record. It was not taken out of direct context. I read 

it exactly out of the CR, and you know that. Now why don’t you 

admit it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, it was actually celebrating the fact that we 

have been successful in reducing environmental pollution while we 

have grown jobs. 

Mr. HALL. Let me go on. So you agree that this hydraulic fracturing is safe. Do you agree to that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I cannot agree. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. You haven’t agreed. These experts that have 

testified before you have also agreed that state regulators have the 

expertise, competence and experience necessary to oversee hydraulic fracturing. Do you agree that the state regulators are generally 

quite knowledgeable about local geologic conditions in the drilling 

operations they oversee? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe they are knowledgeable and they often 

seek EPA’s technical advice. 

Mr. HALL. I think your answer is led to be yes. Do you think the 

EPA is better suited to regulate hydraulic fracturing operations 

than the state regulators who are already doing so? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that with water quality, the state is the 

line of first defense and EPA is with the state in those—— 

Mr. HALL. I am not asking you to filibuster anymore. Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am trying to understand how to—in the context of the authority we are given. 

Mr. HALL. You are not making me understand. Maybe I can’t understand anything you say because—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. HALL. —you are hard to believe, ma’am. Do you believe that 

natural gas prices will remain low if EPA promulgates regulations 

that restrict production? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I actually think that a large component of the 

nation’s energy security relies on the safe and responsible development of oil and natural gas, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Our nation depends on an all-of-the-above energy 

strategy, and the use of technologies like hydraulic fracturing have 

been an important role in helping achieve energy security. We need 

you to support it, not deter it and not deter these efforts. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And I would hope not, sir. 

Mr. HALL. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The gentlewoman from 

Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator, again. Connecticut, as you know exceptionally well, has 

been the beneficiary of substantial improvements to health through 

the Clean Air Act, and so I would like you to talk a little bit about 

the situation now. Many utilities have already installed pollution 

control devices on their facilities. If EPA at this time were to pull 

back on clean air regulations governing these utilities, would they 
33 

have and do you believe they would have an incentive to run these 

pollution control devices and what would be the associated impact 

on air quality and public health, particularly for those of us, I 

would have to say, on the Eastern Seaboard who with west-to-east 

winds are the recipient of what is burned in Indiana, Ohio and 

elsewhere? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we know even with the control equipment 

working that the power sector remains the largest single stationary 

source sector in terms of the amount of pollution that it emits. We 

have been working hard with them, but there is no question that 

there is financial incentive to bypass equipment when it is available to be done. 

So I would assume that if we were to pull back on our regulations, what you are going to see is increased emission. And that increased emission results directly in public health impacts that are 

as severe as thousands of premature deaths. 

Ms. ESTY. I know in our own State, we have seen those asthma 

rates rise very substantially in our cities, and those are costs that 

are borne primarily by state governments who then have to pick 

up the tab and by insurance companies to—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And many because of pollution, that comes to 

you from facilities run very far away. 

Ms. ESTY. Exactly. If we could turn for a moment to the scientific 

review process, certainly we have heard some commentary today 

and elsewhere from Members of Congress who have stated that or 

suggested that EPA develops regulations based on faulty scientific 

evidence. Can you explain to us in a little more detail—and I will 

ask my question and then listen—how the scientific process that 

underpins EPA regulations is peer reviewed, what you believe to 

be the importance of peer-review process, and flesh that out a little 

bit more for us, please. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. The process that we use is to actually establish peer-review panels. We can do them by seeking advice from 

the National Academies of Sciences. We can establish it through 

our Science Advisory Board, and we can use consultants that follow 

similar processes and establish again transparent, robust, balanced 

peer review. 

The Science Advisory Board is a highly transparent, professional 

entity. We are—as a FACA, we comply with those regulations. We 

also comply with ethics requirements. We follow all of the guidance 

that is given to us in the directives by the Office of Management 

and Budget in how to do our work. I believe that we are a model 

for transparent, solid, high-quality science. 

The Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee was mentioned. 

That advisory committee was just recently looked at by our own 

IG, our Office of Inspector General, who just issued a report commending us for how solid our panel was in our ability to have that 

balanced and appropriate. Now we are always working to enhance 

that, but I am incredibly proud of the science this Agency relies on, 

and I know the high quality of our science is what is going to keep 

EPA relevant and make us and allow us to do the right thing in 

terms of meeting our mission which is public health protection. 

Ms. ESTY. And if I may—I am shuttling between hearings, and 

currently in the Transportation and Infrastructure hearing, we are 
34 

talking about the cost of Sandy and the underwater rail lines in 

the State of Connecticut and Newark, New Jersey, the impacts of 

the severe weather systems that we see. Can you talk a little bit 

about how EPA—other than the curbing of greenhouse gas emissions, what other work is EPA doing to look at the scientific but 

also the very real economic impacts, I have to say, on the Eastern 

Seaboard we are seeing from climate change and severe weather 

conditions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congresswoman, in 2012 the costs associated with disaster response topped $120 billion. That is not planned expenses. That is what happens. And what we know is that in the 

face of a changing climate, these types of disasters are going to become more and more prevalent if we don’t reduce greenhouse 

gases. 

If you look at the work of this Agency, we have not only been 

funding efforts at the local level and the state level to look at how 

you can adapt to a changing climate, we have put out a plan that 

requires and shows a pathway forward, for EPA to look at how it 

does its business working with the communities. So we look at a 

changing climate, and we factor that into our decision making, in 

our ability to work more carefully and collaboratively with local 

communities and states moving forward. And my heart goes out to 

Connecticut. I know it was very hard hit, and it is my home away 

from home. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you for your service, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Esty. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administer 

McCarthy, thank you for appearing before this hearing today. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks for inviting me. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I have several questions, and so if you could 

keep your answers pretty short and direct. First, as you know, setting the levels for the New Source Performance Standards, the 

Clean Air Act requires you to select the best system of emission reductions for technology that has been adequately demonstrated. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Now, we have had several hearings in this 

Committee on the new standards where we have heard testimony 

whether the CCS technology necessary to meet these standards has 

actually been adequately demonstrated at the full-scale power 

plants. 

I have asked your colleagues from the Department of Energy on 

a number of occasions if they could give me examples of where fullscale power plants are located, and their testimony is none of them 

are operating anywhere in the world. If this is true that full-scale 

power plants operating now are not operating with CCS technology, how can you say that it has been adequately demonstrated? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We believe, sir, that CCS technology has been 

adequately demonstrated. The technology is proven, it is available. 

In fact, the coal technologies in facilities that you see being constructed today are actually utilizing CCS. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So can you give me, provide me an example 

of a full-scale power plant that is currently operating with this 

technology? 
35 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can give you examples of two that are 75 percent completed, and I can give you an example of others that are 

coming up that are also in the planning stages. So CCS for coal—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So what would those be? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —is actually what is being invested in. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. What would those be? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have the Kemper facility that is 75 percent 

complete, and there is another project in Canada that is also utilizing it at levels much higher than the types of reductions that 

EPA has proposed in its new source data. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Are any of those facilities that you mentioned 

receiving clean coal power initiative funding, excuse me? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is my understanding that there has been 

funding supported by DoE. DoE continues to have funding available for these types of projects. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So they are receiving clean coal power initiative funding? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, that is my understanding. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, it is kind of interesting then because the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 clearly states that projects receiving 

funding from this program can’t be used to prove technology is adequately demonstrated. So the examples that you are using are receiving funding, and the 2005 act says that you can’t use those. So 

can you explain your logic on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, sir, I think we are regulating and proposing this regulation under the Clean Air Act which is very specific in both its intent as well as its history of application. There 

is no question that CCS technology is available. The components of 

CCS have been in place and demonstrated for decades. So the question really is, is it reasonable in cost and is it available for this sector? EPA believes it is, but we have proposed that. We are welcome 

and open to comments. We will be getting to that public comment 

process shortly. But I think through that public comment process 

you will see that this technology is well-known, it is available, it 

is being invested in today and it is going to work and it is going 

to be a pathway forward for coal into the future. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No, but I think to summarize what you have 

said is, one, there is no full-scale power plants operating with this 

technology today. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware of—these components being operated 

in many different applications. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I didn’t say components, but there is no fullscale power plant operating with these—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, but the ones being invested in would be operating—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No, that is right. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —at much higher levels than we would be requiring. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. So and then you are using federally funded 

CCS projects to argue technology is adequately demonstrated, yet 

the 2005 act prohibits you from doing that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, we think it has been adequately demonstrated, but the support—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But not on a full-scale basis, right? 
36 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —from DoE will help advance the technology. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Not on a full-scale basis? We don’t have that 

yet. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have it on full scale in other applications, 

sir, other industry sectors. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But not on these—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is only—it is being invested in today and in 

two facilities are 75 percent complete and on their way. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But what you are saying under these new 

rules is no new coal plants can be built without utilizing this technology, and we don’t know that it is adequately demonstrated for 

these plants because we don’t have a full-scale model. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We believe it has been adequately demonstrated. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But not on a full-scale model. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It has been fully utilized in other industry sectors. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But not on these coal plants, not on a fullscale coal plant. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have already indicated to you. We know of two 

that are being constructed today, and they are—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. That they are being constructed, but we don’t 

have any history that that technology is, one, will accomplish that, 

but secondly, that it meets any kind of cost-benefit analysis, do we? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The cost-benefit analysis? Is that what we are 

talking about, sir? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No, but that would be a part of that. I mean, 

you don’t know for sure because you don’t have a model where this 

technology is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, but we do know that the industry sees CCS 

technology as a pathway forward. We also see it as one that is 

available to it and ones that we are hoping with DoE assistance it 

will continue to progress. It will get less and less expensive. That 

is how technology gets developed. But in this case, all of the components of CCS as well as those together have been demonstrated 

over and over as being viable and effective, and we believe that 

they will be the path forward for coal. Coal is a big part of our energy supply. I know it is going to continue to be a big part of our 

energy supply. We have tried very hard to make sure that we look 

at the technologies available to it today so it continues to have a 

path forward. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But we don’t tend to use research funds for 

things that have already been determined adequately demonstrated, do we? And so we are using research funds to try to 

prove this up, and you are using it as an example that it is adequately demonstrated. It doesn’t make sense to me. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, we are coordinating very closely with 

DoE, and if you have listened and heard from the DoE folks today, 

you will know that they share our opinion about its availability and 

that it is been demonstrated. But it is exciting to think that we 

could make it more cost-effective moving forward and that you 

could expand the range of sequestration opportunities. So they are 

actually working very hard with the industry to continue to move 

that technology forward. That is only good news, sir. That is not 

bad news. 
37 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s—— 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. But we still don’t know whether it is adequately demonstrated. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Neugebauer. 

Pursuant to the discussion earlier about the sufficiency of the 

data provided by EPA relating to the Committee’s subpoena, I ask 

unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality the Committee received just 

last week that makes clear, ‘‘that the data provided to date lacks 

critical information, making it impossible to replicate the findings’’ 

of the EPA. Without objection, that will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman SMITH. We will go now to the gentlewoman from 

Maryland, Ms. Edwards, for her questions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Madam 

Administrator. I really appreciate your being here, and I certainly 

appreciate your patience. 

We have heard described on this Committee and throughout the 

Congress frankly questions about EPA’s reliance on faulty and secret science, questions about EPA’s transparency and accountability. First of all, I want to thank you for the transparency and 

accountability the EPA has provided for the volumes of data and 

correspondence that this Committee has received. And I am just 

curious that sometimes the correspondence asks for information, 

sometimes for documents or data as evidenced by testimony, by 

questions here today. I am a strong supporter of Congressional authority, but I really am concerned about whether we may be overstepping our authority in terms of what we are requiring of the 

Agency. We are just one committee of many who’s making these 

types of requests to the EPA. And so I wonder if you could just tell 

me how much time and energy is spent by you and your colleagues 

at the EPA in responding to these volumes of requests? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Congresswoman, we know how important it is to 

be transparent, and we will do our very best to respond to any request that Congress brings to us. It is a significant burden in terms 

of resources. But that is just the amount. I don’t mean burden in 

the negative sense. We want to be open. We want to be responsive. 

But we receive thousands of these types of requests. We do our best 

to answer them as expeditiously as we can. I think the times when 

we have had difficulties is when we have been asked to release 

data that the EPA doesn’t have available to it. Then it becomes an 

extra effort for us to try to make sure we bridge those gaps with 

scientists when we fully expect that researchers themselves will access that data as they have always done and work it out that way. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, let me just ask you this because we have 

heard some discussion of conflicts of interest. I can understand, 

and we have heard testimony in this Committee, that when you are 

forming—when there’s peer review done and you are delving into 

some area of expertise that is a very narrow area, there are only 

so many folks out there who have the kind of experience that you 

can draw upon. Some of those may be in industry, some of those 

may be academics who receive grants. When you assess conflict of 
38 

interest and, you know, I am just like a cheap lawyer. And so I always thought that the idea behind conflicts is revealing those conflicts, having them assessed and then making a determination 

about whether that conflict would prohibit performance, adequate 

performance, and independence of performance in a peer-review situation. Is that how the EPA looks at conflict of interest? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is exactly how we do that. You are right. 

There are opportunities or instances where we have a very narrow 

expertise that is not represented that is critical to a thorough look 

at a science question or a technical question. In that case we do 

a thorough investigation. We post the results of that so that people 

can know the background and we can make sure that it is a balanced, fair, equitable discussion and as transparent as we possibly 

can be. And so we do that both for folks who are the scientists as 

well as folks that bring their history in the industry to the table. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And is there anything necessarily exclusionary 

whether a person receives billions of dollars or a company in profits 

from an industry or whether a person receives thousands of dollars 

from the Administration in terms of doing research? Is there anything exclusionary about that that would prohibit service on a scientific advisory panel? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t believe so. What it really means is we 

must have a rigorous and transparent peer-review process and we 

must rigorously share that information with the public so they 

can—before the panel is empanelled, they can offer their suggestions and comments and criticisms, and we can make sure that we 

have the most robust fair, comprehensive science available to us. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. I want to ask you about your work 

around climate change because there has been a lot of discussion 

also. Is it your view from the Administration that you have sufficient data to back the work that you are doing around climate 

change, that in fact it is happening and that there are certain causal effects that would enable you to do rule-making in that area? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that I have a wealth of data that is 

more than sufficient. I believe that the Supreme Court has agreed 

with me, which is nice. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Great. And so can you tell me about some of the 

rule-making that you are engaged in going in that direction and 

then relate that to the mission of EPA protecting our public health 

and the environment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, the President’s Climate Action Plan identifies mitigation opportunities and reductions in greenhouse gases as 

well as addressing adaptation and then international issues. EPA 

is to some extent involved in all three. But I think the most important I want to get at is our opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases 

so we can try to mitigate significant impacts associated with increased emissions in higher levels of climate change. 

And so what we are really looking at is first and foremost regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, both the 

new facilities and existing. We have already issued a proposed rule 

for new facilities, and we are beginning listening sessions and discussions on how we best put out a proposal next June for existing 

facilities. The reason why we want to do this is that climate change 

is not an environmental problem. It is a serious public health and 
39 

economic problem as well as an environmental challenge. And so 

what happens with a changing climate is that the weather gets 

hotter. When the weather gets hotter, the ozone levels increase. 

When the ozone levels increase, your kids go to the hospital more 

often with asthma. In this country today, one out of ten children 

have chronic asthma. We are talking about serious public health 

challenges. Allergy seasons extend. We are seeing health impacts 

from different types of mosquitoes and other vector-borne diseases 

moving north as the weather gets warmer. Things are changing, 

and things are not changing for the best in terms of public health 

in a changing climate. It threatens the health, safety and wellbeing of communities and individuals. It is something we must address and now. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much for your testimony, and 

thank you so much for the work that you do to protect all of us. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. The gentleman from 

Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy for coming and testifying today. I do honestly believe that what you are doing is important. That being said, I have 

a number of problems with how EPA has done its job. Putting forward rules without adequate stakeholder input or a full grasp of 

the negative impacts proposed rules will have on regular Americans. I think it is important to point out how far we have come, 

even according to your own data. Since the implementation of the 

Clean Air Act, aggregate emissions have dropped by 72 percent, all 

while energy consumption has increased by 47 percent. Vehicle 

miles traveled has increased by 165 percent, and most importantly, 

GDP has increased by 219 percent. 

That is why I will continue pushing your Agency to base regulations on sound scientific principles and practices, make your data 

sets open to the public for review and to utilize common-place statistical measures and methods, all of which EPA has seemed adverse to when the facts don’t necessitate what often appears to be 

a politically predetermined regulatory approach. 

As you know, Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires the 

best technology available to minimize harm to aquatic organisms 

living in water that are withdrawn through cooling water intake 

structures for power plants. For the last three-and-a-half decades, 

states and permitting authorities have been setting necessary controls on a site-specific basis. But unfortunately, it now appears that 

the EPA is again attempting to rewrite the rules to expand your 

regulatory power. When relying on the science, EPA has not been 

able to justify this rule-making. This is because the costs always 

outweigh the benefits. Your agency has recognized that there will 

be no benefit to human health, and the economic benefits from potential improvements to commercial fisheries and recreation bodies, 

the use benefits, will not justify the new rules cost, either. 

Since the Agency has been unable to justify these rules with 

their standard methods, I am troubled with the idea of non-use 

benefits that you are now attempting to put in place. Even more 

troubling is the way EPA intends to assign values to these benefits 

through polling. I think every member in this room can attest to 
40 

the inaccuracies of polling, and it is troubling to me that the EPA 

would turn away from science and to a public opinion poll to promulgate regulations. When EPA did their survey asking how much 

money the public was willing to spend to save a given number of 

fish, the numbers predictably came back inflated. Then EPA 

punted the issue to the Science Advisory Board. 

Also troubling with the rule is that it could be interpreted to 

force power plant owners to monetize these non-use benefits and 

perform willingness to pay surveys for specific control technologies 

on a site-specific basis. 

Although 316(b) is the EPA’s first attempt to justify rule-making 

with this willingness to pay surveys, I am also worried that this 

controversial methodology will only encroach into other rule-making. If this happens, public opinion polling will become the backbone of many EPA regulations instead of science. 

I think it is important that states are allowed to continue exercising permitting discretion. I am asking could you confirm that the 

EPA’s final 316(b) rule will not require states to consider non-use 

benefits or require plant owners to conduct willingness to pay surveys in the NPDES permitting process? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The final 316(b) is at the Office of Management 

and Budget, so I am constrained about getting into too much detail. 

But we have heard similar comments during the public process. 

The survey that we did was appropriate on the national level to get 

a handle on people’s willingness to pay for the types of improvements that these technologies would bring. We don’t expect that to 

be the way in which states and permittees make case-by-case decisions. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, again, I think the most important thing is 

to base this on science, not on public opinion polls. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I understand. 

Mr. HULTGREN. You can ask all of us how we feel about public 

opinion polls and the accuracy of them. Certainly for us to be basing—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I understand. 

Mr. HULTGREN. —the scientific decisions and significant costs on 

them is very troubling. I have another quick question that I hope 

to get an answer. It is regarding when EPA plans on publishing 

rules, adjusting the volume requirements for the renewable fuel 

standard. As you know, with the predictions that were made when 

designing the RFS not being realized, those predictions have not 

been realized, your Agency is who are farmers and everyone else 

downstream must get answers from regarding the early adjustment 

for this requirement. I think everyone was pleased that the first 

two adjustments came in a timely manner which helped to bring 

certainty for all parties involved. The final rule for the 2011 adjustment was published in the beginning of December in 2010, and the 

2012 rule came in January of that year. 

What is troubling is how long it took EPA to issue their final 

rule for 2013. It didn’t happen until the middle of August. As it is 

important that our businesses and farmers be able to plan ahead 

for this, can you give this Committee assurance that you will focus 

on getting a final rule out in a reasonable amount of time this year 
41 

and wonder if you could give a perspective date or timeframe when 

you expect to have this rule published? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The rule to establish limits for 2014 is soon to 

be proposed. It will take some time. We did tee this issue up in our 

2013 proposal. The only thing I want to make sure that the Committee is aware of is the levels that we are talking about for renewable fuels to get into the system in 2014 are not predictions. They 

are Congressional mandates that we are dealing with in trying to 

understand the authority that Congress gave us to—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, my time is winding down, and I want to 

be respectful of the 5 minutes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I apologize. Me, too. 

Mr. HULTGREN. So anyhow, the issue is bringing certainty to our 

businesses and farmers. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I agree with you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. The sooner we can get these—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I agree with you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. —again, earlier over the last few years, this did 

happen quickly. I would just ask you for my farmers, for my businesses, to have it as quickly as possible—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I agree with you. 

Mr. HULTGREN. —to bring certainty back. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I agree. 

Mr. HULTGREN. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for your testimony today and your appearance before this Committee. 

I have to tell you, it is frustrating to me to sit here and listen 

to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle beating up on the 

EPA. My colleagues and I have seen first-hand how the EPA—not 

my colleagues, my constituents and I have seen first-hand how the 

EPA and the Clean Air Act have improved air quality and advanced public health in my district. Nationally, the stories are just 

as compelling. A study by the EPA shows that by 2020 the benefits 

of the Clean Air Act will outweigh the costs by more than 30 to 

1. The Clean Air Act has helped improve public health by cutting 

down cases of asthma, heart disease and infant mortality, and by 

2020, it is expected to prevent 17 million lost work days because 

people are healthier. 

I believe the EPA is a driver of innovation, pushing the industry 

to adopt new standards that protect the environment, improve public health and create jobs in emerging fields. Administrator McCarthy, could you go into more detail about how the EPA rules have 

actually created jobs in our country and what new structures have 

grown because of EPA action? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, thank you for asking that. It helps me 

to put the job code in a little bit more perspective. I think you 

would see as we have done a considerable amount of analysis as 

we do with every rule, about every significant rule looking at job 

implications, we have been able to make these considerable pollu-
42 

tion reductions at the same time as we have been able to continue 

to grow the economy here in the U.S. 

We are looking at actually a pollution control technology industry 

that now tops around $2 billion annually. We are leaders internationally in those issues. It is because we have been moving at 

a concerted pace to get better and better at how we reduce pollution, and we are doing it in a way that is affordable and that is 

extremely beneficial to the public health. We are talking about saving millions of lives. We are talking about really improving the 

health of our most vulnerable populations, our children and our elderly. I mean, we are talking about growing jobs, not taking them 

away, and we can provide you with significant more detail, Congressman. But I appreciate your asking the question because EPA 

is about public health. But we do it always conscious of how we can 

reduce economic impacts and actually build the economy at the 

same time. 

Mr. TAKANO. Madam Administrator, I just wanted to clarify 

something. My colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, cited a CRS report 

which indicated an inherent conflict of interest found among members, academic members of its advisory committees. However, this 

report, which I have right here, made no such conclusion. Rather, 

it noted that these grants are actually to academic institutions—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. TAKANO. —where the member is employed. And not the 

member and only a very small proportion of any of the grant may 

be paid in the form of salary to a member. Is that your understanding as well? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Thank you, Congressman, 

for raising that. 

Mr. TAKANO. Yes. With the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with the 

discussion of the Committee’s subpoena regarding the Harvard and 

American Cancer Society studies, I would like to enter into the 

record letters that the Chairman received on October 30 from Harvard, Brigham-Young University, the ACS and the American Cancer Society and the Health Effects Institute. These letters highlight 

the serious legal, ethical and policy concerns regarding the release 

of individual health information. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Without objection, those letters will be 

made part of the record. 

[The information appears in Appendix II]*************** COMMITTEE INSERT *************** 

Chairman SMITH. But just for clarification, those letters were actually addressed to the EPA, not to me. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Administrator, if I understand these science advisory committees, the industry is—in your opinion, is the industry adequately represented 

on these committees for a full balance of use? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The members on these panels don’t represent 

specific sectors. They do represent expertise and knowledge and experience. And from my experience in working with these panels is 

that folks who have worked in the industry usually provide a perspective that is necessary on these panels. So it is a broad and balanced panel when we pull them together. That is required under 
43 

law, and we even go above and beyond to ensure that that is the 

case. 

Mr. TAKANO. So in your view there was no such closed loop, that 

these are open-minded panels that are not contained by a particular ideology? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is exactly what we are required to do under 

the law, and I think we do a very good job at ensuring that it is 

not at all closed. It is very open. We just look for good expertise 

so we can get the best science. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Takano. The gentleman from 

Georgia, Mr. Broun, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator McCarthy, 

I have a very limited amount of time and very many questions, so 

please answer as quickly as you possibly can so we can get 

through. 

I am a physician, and I want to make sure that we are on the 

same page about basic principles of toxicology, one of which is that 

the dose makes the poison. A good example is two aspirins will 

help relieve the headache, 50 aspirins is a toxic dose. Would you 

agree with that premise that the dose makes the poison? Yes or no. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t want to speak to the science—— 

Mr. BROUN. Yes or no, please. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —but the dose is very important to us, yes. 

Mr. BROUN. So the answer is yes. Even though fine particulate 

emissions have dropped 55 percent over the last two decades, it is 

noted on your website, EPA’s own website for air quality trends, 

your Agency has been very concerned with the health effects associated with fairly low dosage, low levels of particulate matter, or PM. 

It has been the basis of most of your recent Clean Air Act regulations. Agency analysis suggests that hundreds of thousands of 

Americans die from PM exposure every year. According to your 

website, ‘‘Numerous scientific studies have linked particulate particle pollution exposure to premature death, cancer, non-fatal heart 

attacks and aggravated asthma.’’ Does the science suggest that PM 

can cause cancer? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know. I cannot answer that question, 

sir. I am sorry. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t know what the word suggests is, and I 

don’t know how the scientists would interpret that. I wait until 

they tell me. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, okay. EPA’s most recent assessment of PM 

stated that there was ‘‘strong epidemiological evidence linking 

short-term exposure to PM as measured in hours, cardiovascular 

and respiratory mortality and morbidity.’’ Is that still true? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe so. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. If the dose makes the poison, as you just indicated you believe that they do and I do, too, and you think that 

hundreds of thousands of people die from fine particulate levels at 

the lowest level, why has your Agency conducted a series of human 

tests in North Carolina that exposes unknowing volunteers, that 

have no knowledge of the exposure, including those with pre-existing respiratory issues and asthma, to particulate concentrations as 
44 

high as 750 micrograms? That is more than 60 times the standard. 

Would you explain, please? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. To my knowledge, we have not done that. 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, ma’am, you have. And, in fact, the Inspector 

General has been investigating this, and we found out about this 

through the Freedom of Information Act. Were these individuals informed that they were being subjected to a pollutant that EPA 

thinks causes mortality and cancer, especially since many came 

from susceptible populations? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is my understanding that the human studies 

work that we are doing was recommended by the national academies. It is done with the highest ethical standards. We medically—— 

Mr. BROUN. Ma’am, I—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —treat every—— 

Mr. BROUN. —disagree, because these people—according to the 

knowledge that we have gotten is they were unknowing that they 

were being exposed to these high levels of exposure of particulate 

matter. And, as far as I am concerned, as a physician, as a scientist, this is totally unethical, and totally unacceptable. Let me 

ask you one more question, because my time is running out. Are 

you signed up for Obamacare? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I am not. 

Mr. BROUN. Why not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, because I am lucky enough, as a Federal 

Government, that I have health care available to me, which I have 

signed up for. In a few years, when that is not the case, I will be 

happy to have other available—— 

Mr. BROUN. Well, our President says that—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —health care—— 

Mr. BROUN. —Obamacare—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —opportunities—— 

Mr. BROUN. —is much better than forcing most Federal employees to—into Obamacare. And, obviously, if you are not signing up, 

you don’t think it is. Mr. Chairman, I have run out of time. I yield 

back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Broun. The gentleman from 

Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is recognized for questions. We have 

had some problems with the audio system. How about that one? 

There we go. Okay, there we go. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Madam Administrator, for being here, and I apologize for the 

raspy voice. It has been going around a bit, so, apologies. I just 

wanted to start off by saying welcome, and thank you. It is always 

nice to see another member of Red Sox Nation here today, so—and 

certainly in front of our committee. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Go Sox. 

Mr. KENNEDY. There you go. I want to thank you for all your 

hard work over the past several months, and I look forward to— 

very much working with you in the years ahead. I had a couple of 

questions, if you don’t mind, and first is actually an issue that is 

pertaining to my district a bit. Over the past few decades, the EPA 

has made really admirable progress in attacking the lingering pollution and contamination issues in local municipalities that, left 
45 

unchecked, would have dire long term health and safety consequences, not to mention financial ones. 

Back home, in my district, just outside of Boston, the Fourth District of Massachusetts, I hear concerns about the cost of compliance 

with some of those regulations in almost every city and town I 

visit. They don’t disagree with the importance of these regulations, 

but the communities struggle to get back on their feet post-recession, and deal with an already crippling loss of state and Federal 

dollars due to our budget situation here. That price tag of compliance can seem nearly impossible. 

In 1992, the city of Fall River was ordered to tackle a combined sewage overflow project that is estimated to cost them $185 million 

to date, along with 8 million in debt payments every year. This is 

an old industrial city, with an unemployment rate around 13 percent, median household income that struggles to break $30,000 a 

year. Similarly, Milford is looking at a $100,000 a year additional 

spending to meet new regulations for storm water management. 

They have also included a new pilot program to reduce phosphorus 

runoff in local rivers and waterways, but the price tag around that 

is about $111 million up front, a price tag which, if borne by the 

town, would be felt tremendously by local businesses. The surrounding towns of Franklin and Bellingham are both looking at 

bills of about 75 million and 35 million respectively through the 

same pilot program. 

When I talk to local officials and businesses, they want—they 

have a genuine desire to be EPA compliant. They are bringing up 

their children and grandchildren in these same neighborhoods, and 

they see the value of clean air and clean water. They are tremendously concerned about the effects of contamination, pollution, and 

other environmental hazards, and how they wreak havoc on their 

hometowns, and they know the associated costs of long term savings. But they are stuck, and so I wanted to ask you, in your opinion, is there any assistance that the Federal Government, not just 

the EPA, but the Federal Government, can give these already 

strapped municipalities that are struggling with the cost of compliance? And, again, I ask this, of course, given the—understanding 

the fiscal constraints that our government is under right now, but 

knowing that, obviously, this is an issue that is important to you 

as well. So if you could respond for a minute or so, I would be 

grateful. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you for raising this, and your voice in 

this discussion would be really welcome. We are working on these 

issues pretty diligently, primarily with the conference of mayors, 

because all of them understand these challenges, why it is important for their public health and their environmental resources that 

we tackle these more challenging water quality issues. But we are 

working on this on a number of different fronts, and EPA clearly 

has funds available to help support this. Is it enough to go around? 

No, it isn’t. It is never expected to be. It will be a challenge. We 

try to prioritize that, and make sure that we are getting the biggest bang for the buck in helping those most in need. 

So we are trying to work on a way to make a—this a much more 

collaborative process, where we understand the constraints that 

the cities and towns are in, and we don’t expect things that they 
46 

cannot deliver, but we work more in partnership to find the least 

cost opportunities to make continued environmental progress moving forward. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. And then, Madam Administrator, if I 

can ask, and I apologize, I had to step out for a moment, but, my 

understanding, there has been two studies that have much discussed today. I can refer shorthand to them as the Harvard study 

and the ACS, American Cancer Society study, is that right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. You do understand me? Would you characterize 

those institutions as reputable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well known? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Capable, and producing well-regarded and scientific study, other than these past studies? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Have these two studies been peer reviewed? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Many times. 

Mr. KENNEDY. By who? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. By—through contractors for the agency, through 

the national community, through EPA. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Through EPA? And sometimes through public/private partnerships? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And so that review, is that all government funded? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Mr. KENNEDY. No? So, in fact, part of that funding was done by 

a group that was actually funded by automotive industry, is that 

right? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah, many. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy, you 

have elicited the shortest answers of the day, so congratulations to 

you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I just wanted to give a brief statement about bias. I am a cardiovascular and 

thoracic surgeon, so I know quite a bit about health, and I recently 

reviewed the data from the American Lung Association that they 

put out about particulate matter, and look at the background on 

the funding for all the studies, and, lo and behold, everything that 

they used was pretty much very far left leaning global warming activist foundations that privately funded these things. And, in addition to that, the potential health benefits are based on computer 

modeling, not on actual data, but a computer model projecting their 

data results into the future, not based on actual factual data, with 

human studies. And, to make matters worse, the computer modeling was developed by an individual who had a financial stake in 

the success of the model going forward. In fact, I had the Chief 

Medical Officer from the American Lung Association come down 

from New York and discuss this with him in my office, and voiced 

my disappointment that an organization that is so highly esteemed 

would be using data which, in my view, was biased. 
47 

But my question goes in another direction. In September your 

agency proposed a rule that represents perhaps the clearest, although not certainly the first, in the administration’s war on coal, 

what I will call war on coal. The Eighth District of Indiana, that 

I represent, has nine coal mines, every coal mine in the state, our 

state. 88 percent or so of our power comes from coal. Coal supports 

the economy, you know, jobs indirect and direct. It helps families 

put food on the table. In fact, I grew up in Illinois. My dad was 

a coal miner, so I have known this industry forever. In fact, I 

wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for that. 

But the new source—performance stands for new power plants 

will essentially prevent construction of another coal fired power 

plant in this country ever, essentially. In the first few pages of the 

EPA Cost Benefit Analysis, you admit that this policy will, and I 

quote, ‘‘Result in negligible CO2 emission changes, or quantified 

benefits, through 2022.’’ In your view, should the federal government regulate coal fired power plants in this manner if there are 

no clear benefits? That is an up or down. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We should be regulating CO2 from carbon emissions, yes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Then your statement that you made was incorrect, 

that there is a benefit through 2022? Because the quote in the first 

few pages of the Cost Benefit Analysis says, and I quote again, ‘‘Result in negligible CO2 emission changes, or quantified benefits, 

through 2022.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Which is a reflection of the industry and the 

market as it sits today. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Okay. So what you are saying is they should regulate that, even in light of the fact the EPA admits there is no benefit to it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The issue is that coal is not being invested in, 

except in a few instances where carbon capture and sequestration 

is being invested in, where—when we want to make sure that we 

take advantage of those new technologies, and make sure that we 

do what the Clean Air Act says, which is to underpin those reductions—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —moving forward. 

Mr. BUCSHON. And that is fair, and I think the industry would 

agree that constant innovation and technological advances is something that the industry also—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Uh-huh. 

Mr. BUCSHON. —believes in, as—and would—will invest in. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. They do. 

Mr. BUCSHON. That said, is the technology currently commercially available on a large scale for Indiana and the Midwest to 

meet the proposed standards? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. On a large scale? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. I mean, you might quote that the technology 

is available in—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is. 

Mr. BUCSHON. —in some academic setting, or in an area of the 

country, say, where things are very close—but specifically, you 

know, related to CO2 emission capture, and all, you know, my un-
48 

derstanding is currently there is not the commercially available on 

a large scale technology to comply, in Indiana, with the regulation. 

So the regulation is in place, but there is no commercially available 

technology to comply. Is that true or not true? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We believe that CCS is commercially available. 

Is it going to be broadly disseminated at this point? No, we don’t 

believe so, because most of the facilities that are being constructed 

are actually natural gas facilities. They are the most competitive. 

But where coal is being invested in is being invested in with CCS. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bucshon. The gentleman from 

California, Mr. Peters, is recognized for questions. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam 

Administrator, thank you for being here. I should start by mentioning that the first job I had out of college was at the EPA in 

Washington, D.C. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Really? 

Mr. PETERS. And I left to pursue other interests, and here I am 

back again with you, but it is nice to see you. And welcome, and 

thank you for your service. I wanted to ask about hydraulic fracturing, but, for context, I just wanted to call your attention to the 

work at the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at the Harvard Business School. Michael Porter and Jan Rifkin have done a 

study, what would make the United States the most competitive 

place to do business in the world? They have identified a lot of 

things we have heard about, like highly skilled immigration—or 

highly—immigration of highly skilled individuals, corporate tax reform, overseas profits, international trade, simplifying and streamlining regulation, improving communication and energy infrastructure, creating a sustainable Federal budget, and the responsible development of American shale gas and oil reserves as an important 

component—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. PETERS. —of competitiveness worldwide. So, first, I wanted 

to ask you a little bit about—do you think that it is—that it is possible to develop these reserves responsibly? Is that the EPA’s position? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe so. 

Mr. PETERS. And if so—so, if so, tell me a little bit about what 

you think the approach should be. And I want to give you a little 

bit of time, because I feel like I didn’t get—you were interrupted 

sometimes when you were trying to give these answers. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I—— 

Mr. PETERS. What is the—what should be the approach to the 

development of this? I would ask you to touch on two things in particular. One is the—obviously water and—water supply and quality, but also the emission of gases, including VOCs and methane, 

which is a super pollutant, and also how you would avoid double 

regulation? Because I understand there is other agencies in the 

Federal Government that may be doing things that are overlapping 

or inconsistent. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And there is a lot of State Governments working 

on this issue as well. 

Mr. PETERS. Right. 
49 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I would, first of all, want to agree with you 

about the importance of the expanded natural gas availability. It 

has been a game changer in many ways, and it is important for our 

national security, as well as our continued ability to have all these 

energy resources available to us. So I think what EPA has been 

doing is in two ways. One is the President has been very clear 

about the fact that natural gas, and its availability, has been incredibly important to the country, but it also needs to be done safe 

and responsibly. 

And I think the committee knows that we are working on a very 

large project with other agencies of the Federal Government to look 

at water quality challenges, or implications, associated with hydro 

fracking, and new unconventional oil and gas exploration. We are 

in the middle of that study. Again, that is very robust. We have 

done a lot of outreach, webinars, and we are gathering as much information as we can, doing technical workshops. We expect that a 

draft will be out for peer review in the end of 2014. So we are 

tracking those issues, as well as responding to individual states 

when our technical expertise is being requested. 

States are also the first line of responsibility in water quality, so 

we want to work in partnership with them to make sure that they 

are able to meet their own needs, and their—and fulfill—and get 

answers to their own questions, when they arise. 

On the air quality side, we have a couple of things happening. 

We have actually already put out an air quality standard to address methane from emissions related to natural gas facilities— 

natural gas exploration, in particular fracking, at which time there 

are a lot of VOCs emitted. We can capture those. With that comes 

the methane. It can be re-used, and there is an ability to actually 

move forward in a cost—a very cost-effective, and actually profitable, way to start gathering that methane as we are capturing the 

volatile organic carbons. We are looking at some other questions 

that have been raised about what else we should do, and we are 

looking at those issues, again, working in concert with other agencies, as well as states and local communities. 

So while hydro fracking has raised concern about whether it can 

be done, or is being done, safe and responsibly, EPA is working 

with states, local governments, and the industry to make sure that 

we understand how to answer those issues effectively, from a 

science perspective, and in a way that continues to maintain the 

availability of inexpensive natural gas that strengthens this economy, as well as helps us reduce air emissions. 

Mr. PETERS. And I appreciate that. I think that seems like a reasonable response. The one thing I would ask you, as a—someone 

who practiced environmental law for a long time—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes? 

Mr. PETERS. —is please do what you can to work with the administration so we don’t have overlapping and potentially inconsistent 

regulations? Very frustrating for the public, and we want it to be 

done responsibly. We also want it to be done in a way that people 

can understand. Again, thank you for being here, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Peters. The gentleman from 

Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized for his question. 
50 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Administrator, I really only had two things I wanted to walk through, and 

for everyone that was in a Committee with us here yesterday, I am 

sorry, you are going to hear part of the same theme again. These 

large data sets that are used, particularly in things like PM10, 

which is a big deal for those us out in the desert, southwest, where 

we actually have this thing called dirt, you know, without grass on 

it, so it really does affect our lives. 

Why is it so controversial, why is it so partisan, to put up the 

data? And what I mean is down to the individual, because you and 

I know, with all other types of data—you were a social anthropologist, so when you were being vetted, and doing a review of data, 

you got down to the line item. If there was something personal 

there, you do a non-identifier number, you strip the personal data, 

and put those data sets up on websites, where it is egalitarian, 

where if a, you know, collectivist group, or a conservative group, or 

a business group, or a grad student could get it down to the line 

item data, and say, here is the noise from the data, but at least 

you have a communal international fight over this is good, this is 

bad, and who knows, you know, for those of us on the conservative 

side, it may not yield what we think it will, or the liberal side, but 

at least there is that purifying effect of lots and lots and lots of people being able to drive their analysis through those data sets. Why 

is that such a difficult conversation to have around here? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t think there is anything political or controversial about making data available. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I should show you the tape from this committee from earlier in the year, where that was stunningly a fight. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All the EPA is really trying to do is its responsibility under a number of laws, which is basically—we want to be 

supporting to the extent we can, openness, transparency, sharing 

information, sharing data—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —meeting our—but—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. May I just finish? The one thing I think we just 

need to have—make sure that there is a clear understanding is we 

have obligations to protect private information—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But there is a—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and confident—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But I will tell you that in many ways that is 

a bizarre comment, because—do what everyone else does. You strip 

the personal identifiers, and here is your data set. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have—and we are actually asking those very 

same questions, and if you look—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well—but—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —at the—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But how do you ask—and then use it as an excuse to not give us the data? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There is no—I am not trying to offer excuses, 

Congressman. I am trying to be as responsive as I can. But we 

need to just be careful in how we maintain that confidentiality. 

And we are working with—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But there is all—— 
51 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —all of the researchers—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But there is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —on this. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But, look, there is all sorts of protocols in that. 

I was involved in a very large project, where we were doing analysis of how much mortgage fraud had happened in our communities. We did random identifiers, and then we put it out, and said, 

everyone study what happened. It is not hard. It is done every single time it is not that hard. And, if you are also using proprietary 

data, inappropriate. You are making public decisions, for the public, that affect the public, billions and billions of dollars, maybe for 

the good, maybe to the bad. To use proprietary data, I believe, is 

borders on perverse. 

I have something else I just want to show real quick, can we put 

up this slide? And this has sort of been my fixation of how we accumulate data, how we do analysis and study things. In Maricopa 

County and Gila County, Pinal County, I have a metroplex there 

with a few million people. We have PM10 and monitoring sites. 

And instead of putting monitoring sites where my population lives, 

we have chosen, you have chosen, under the rule sets, and I understand there may be a rule where, once it is there over a couple of 

years, it is really hard to move, because you lose the baseline data, 

but take a look at this one, just for the fun of it. 

You have put, your predecessor, a monitoring site next to a very 

large stockyard, next to a railroad track, next to desert agriculture, 

and next to a series of dirt roads. Could you imagine the data you 

get from this monitoring site? Yet this is dozens, and dozens, and 

dozens, and dozens of miles away from where my population base 

is. How does that not create perverse skewing in your underlying 

data for trying to really build good quality statistics, particularly 

in PM10? This is an outlier, and you have two other monitoring 

stations that have almost the same attributes here. You are getting 

so much noise in your data, this is where you—for those of us from 

sort of statistical backgrounds, we are just bouncing off the walls 

livid. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I am happy to spend some time and bring 

my folks in, but when we do these rules, we also propose a monitoring plan, and we work with states. We take public comment on 

those plans as well. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. My county, and my state, and my communities 

have been begging for years to put this in a rational spot, and have 

been ignored. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we should have that conversation. But I do 

think our obligation is to look at ambient air quality across the 

country in a way that reflects the—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. The population basis? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, actually, we do the—most of the monitors 

are done on a population basis. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Some of these are not. Clearly this one was not 

one of them. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But this one didn’t even hit the trifecta. It hit 

all four, you know, outliers. So—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But I appreciate your—— 
52 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Administrator—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —raising that point—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —sorry—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and having that—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —but this is one that is just been a thorn in 

our side—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I actually—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. —for—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —think I have been there before. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, in that case, I can’t believe we didn’t 

move it the next day. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert. The gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for being 

here. The Chairman, in his opening comments, said that he believes the EPA should answer the American people. Do you agree 

with that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We work for the American people, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Good. Ms. McCarthy, have you ever run a business? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Have I ever—no. 

Mr. WEBER. No? Okay. You said in your comments that you were 

here to talk about the central role the science plays—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. —earlier today. And have you ever heard the statement that all scientists are only sure about one thing, and that is 

that every scientist before them was wrong? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have not. 

Mr. WEBER. You have not heard that? Good. That is, you might 

learn, does the science ever change, or get proven wrong? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. Yes, it does. 

Mr. WEBER. Frequently, doesn’t it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—— 

Mr. WEBER. So if you are here to talk about the central role the 

science plays in the EPA’s deliberations, what would you say is the 

second thing that plays a role in the EPA’s deliberations? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There are—if I could say three things? 

Mr. WEBER. Quickly, please. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Science, law, and transparency. 

Mr. WEBER. Science, law, and transparency. We are off to a good 

start. You said—and I don’t remember who the exchange was 

with—submitted a rule, was it to OMB? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. OMB. 

Mr. WEBER. OMB, Office of Management—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Office of Management—— 

Mr. WEBER. —and Budget. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. But not to the Science Advisory Board? And, by law, 

as you said was the second thing that played a part in you all’s deliberations, behind science, or three things, then. So, by law, you 

are supposed to submit that same rule on the same date—or by 

that date, is that accurate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware that that is specified in the law, 

but we certainly engage the SAB, and we have a—— 
53 

Mr. WEBER. And you said you have a process of doing this. But 

if it is—if you are to submit it at the same time, or the same day, 

that is a pretty exacting science. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually sometimes consult with them even 

before it goes in the inter-agency—— 

Mr. WEBER. And you are to be commended. So if you don’t submit that at the same time, as the objection was earlier, then, in essence, you are going around that law that you just said you are 

here to commit science, the American people, and following the 

law, right? So you are actually going around that law, so that exact 

science of the date, when you submit the law to OMB and the 

Science Advisory Panel at the same time, you are circumventing. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir, I believe I am—— 

Mr. WEBER. You are not—so you are—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —the law. 

Mr. WEBER. You are interpreting the law so that as long as you 

have the process, in effect, you are good? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, sir, that—that is not what I—— 

Mr. WEBER. That is not what you said? Well, I misunderstood, 

I apologize. Let me go on. You said that there are researches that 

have contracts to verify data, in your earlier comments. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —contact—— 

Mr. WEBER. You don’t recall that? Well, I was taking notes. So 

you have researches that have contracts to verify data, and my 

question is do you ever get biased results? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, actually, the—our entire peer review process is designed to minimize any possibility—— 

Mr. WEBER. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —of that, and I think we do a good job at it. 

Mr. WEBER. And so Mr. Hall mentioned Parker County earlier, 

where you had—or the EPA had to retract a statement where they 

said that fracking has contaminated the water supply. Are you 

aware of that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am aware that the EPA developed data, and 

has provided that data publicly. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And when Mr. Sensenbrenner questioned you 

on the standard for fuel efficiency, you said, pretty much quote, you 

aren’t here to speak to manufacturers’ warranties and liabilities. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t speak to their—— 

Mr. WEBER. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —statements about that, no. 

Mr. WEBER. So, in essence, if it affects an entire car industry, it 

doesn’t matter—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so it matters. It matters to us, and 

we—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —appropriate testing for that reason. I just 

can’t—I am not—that is not my—— 

Mr. WEBER. Let me move quickly. Mr. Rohrabacher said, on 

grant recipients, you said in response to him that you have procedures to ensure that they are fair-minded. Well, let me submit to 

you, as a business owner, if we are going to put businesspeople on 

the Science Advisory Panel, can’t you apply those same procedures 

to make sure that they are fair-minded? 
54 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We provide the same procedure that is on—— 

Mr. WEBER. So you would be okay with having more business 

and industry experts on a panel, as long as they are fair-minded? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Our job is to balance that—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —panel out, and make sure they are doing their 

job correctly. 

Mr. WEBER. Very quickly, I have Valero,a plant—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. WEBER. —carbon capture sequestration in my district and I 

am in the Gulf Coast of Texas, District 14. Four hundress million 

dollars was the cost of that project. Some 60 percent of that was 

supplied by the DEO through the—DOE through the ARRA, American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, stimulus. So you said that 

CCS had been demonstrated to be cost-effective in your exchange 

with—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, I am sorry, sir, I said it was a reasonable 

cost. 

Mr. WEBER. It was a reasonable cost? Okay. Well, let us go with 

that. So out of a $400 million, project, 60 percent of it $240 million, 

if I have done—my high school math is holding up, is going to have 

to come from the Federal Government. Do you think it is reasonable to believe that industry can duplicate that, if 60 percent of the 

money has to come from the American taxpayers? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think our analysis that has been put out, that 

we are taking comment on, would indicate that this cost is reasonable for new facilities moving forward. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. So when Congressman Neugebauer asked you 

if you had a cost benefit analysis, you said no, in essence you have 

done one, and you made a judgment decision about your analysis 

that it is reasonable? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. It is a little—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —different that what we would look at as a— 

as being cost—— 

Mr. WEBER. I got you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —effective. But—— 

Mr. WEBER. And then finally, very quickly, I know that you are 

looking at new projected rules for ozone standards. When are those 

coming out? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know the exact date, sir. It is in the 

middle of the process with our Clean Air Act Science Advisory 

Committee. I know that the next big step in that process is for 

them to look at a couple of documents that are—we are hoping to 

provide by the end of the year. We are past our five year time window—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —under the law, but we are working as hard as 

we—— 

Mr. WEBER. EPA seems to be in the business of mitigating hazards, so this might be a tricky question for you. Would you hazard 

a guess, will it be before November of 2014 or afterward? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not know the—— 

Mr. WEBER. And go through that? 
55 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It needs to be both proposed and finalized, and 

I haven’t even been briefed on that, because we are still looking at 

the science, and we like to keep the policy and legal questions—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —aside and work on the science. 

Mr. WEBER. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, very quickly, you did 

a national survey to see willingness of people to pay? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are talking about the 316(b)? 

Mr. WEBER. Um-hum. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe it was a national—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —survey. 

Mr. WEBER. Did you also survey industry to see if they were willing to pay for the EPA’s opinion on whether or not it was cost-effective? And did you also do a survey to see if people were willing to 

pay for the loss of jobs when jobs are exported offshore because our 

plants can’t compete? Did you do that survey? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think we are mixing a little bit of apples and 

oranges, sir, and I don’t know if there is time for me to clarify what 

the survey—— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —actually was doing, and in what rule it was 

applying. 

Mr. WEBER. We will talk offline. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. All right. Thank you, Mr. Weber. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Madam Administrator, for being here 

today. I am sure you have just enjoyed your morning. You have 

been looking forward to this—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. This is—— 

Mr. STEWART. —for weeks, I hope. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —part of the public process, and I am honored 

to be here. 

Mr. STEWART. Well, thank you, and I am sincere when I say I 

think we recognize that you have worked hard to serve your country. But there are so many things that you and I disagree with, 

and that I believe that the EPA is working not for, but actually 

against the best interest of the American people. And some of 

those, not all of them, but some of them have been brought up to 

date in this hearing so far, and let me just list a few of them quickly. Your interpretation of navigable waters, with the Clean Water 

Act, RFS standards and the new ozone standards that my friend, 

Mr. Weber, mentioned there very quickly. It is going to affect huge 

parts of the West. 

Hydraulic fracking and clean water, new standards for the 

human cost of carbon emissions, and standards that—as we have 

spent some time talking about coal fired power plant generation. 

All of these things, and there are others, taken together, I believe 

that these new rules and proposals make life harder for hardworking American families. They take away economic freedom. 

They take away economic opportunity, I believe, and they have the 

effect of making Washington D.C. more and more powerful, and 
56 

more and more central to Americans’ lives. And I think, frankly, 

that they make the American people less trustful of Washington 

D.C., and less trustful of the government, and I am sure you have 

a sense of that as well. And very clearly some of the questions and 

concerns expressed in this hearing today indicate that to you. 

But let me focus on just one of them, if I could, and it is not a 

particularly partisan issue. It will affect Democratic and Republican districts. It will affect Democratic and Republican states. And 

I will start with a very simple question, and it is not intended to 

be a gotcha question at all, but do you think it would be appropriate for the EPA to propose a standard that would be impossible 

to meet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If it is a health based standard about what is 

healthy, and impacts associated with it, we need to rely on the 

science to say that. 

Mr. STEWART. Well, I understand, but, again, would you propose 

a standard that would be impossible to meet? Would that be appropriate for the EPA to do? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It really depends on what the question is. 

Mr. STEWART. Well—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If it is a health based standard, you set the 

standard based on the health impacts—— 

Mr. STEWART. But once—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and then you—— 

Mr. STEWART. —again, Madam Administrator, if it is impossible 

to meet, it doesn’t matter what your standard might be, if it is impossible. And I think everyone would recognize that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we would not require the impossible, sir. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay, and I appreciate that, and that is what I 

was hoping you would say. And it wouldn’t be appropriate for the 

EPA to set standards, for example, that are actually below naturally occurring background levels. And if I could call your attention 

to a slide, and I suppose you have seen this, or something like this 

before, regarding ozone standards. The areas in red reflect EPA 

controlled monitor counties where a 60 parts per billion standard 

would be violated. Areas in orange indicate unmonitored counties 

that anticipate the violation of the 60 parts per billion. 

And, look, I represent parts of Utah. We have got some of the 

most remote areas, they are very beautiful, but they are some of 

the most unpopulated areas of our nation. Zion’s Canyon, Bryce, 

canyon lands. You could include Yellowstone National Park in this 

map as well. And yet, using Yellowstone as an example, naturally 

occurring ozone, 66 parts per billion, which is above what some of 

the proposed standards are being considered. And I guess I would 

just ask you, are you aware that some of the most remote, and in 

some cases pristine parks and parts of the country will have ozone 

that exceeds the range of this proposed standard? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There is no proposed standard at this point, 

Congressman, let us just make sure that people aren’t confused by 

that. But I would also say that I know the Science Advisory Board 

is looking at this issue with the staff so they can establish some 

recommendations to me moving forward—— 

Mr. STEWART. Yeah. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —and we can take a look at these issues. 
57 

Mr. STEWART. And I appreciate—okay, maybe there isn’t a proposed standard. Maybe this is one of those issues that depends on 

what the meaning of the word is is, and we could go back to very 

technical definitions, but there is certainly some consideration of a 

standard of 60 parts per billion, would you agree with that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I honestly do not know whether that is part of 

the consideration—— 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —that the Science Advisory Board will advise 

me on. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. In hearings that I chaired earlier this 

spring, we were very clearly told that that was the standard that 

they were considering. And, in fact, that they were not only considering, it was one that they were leaning towards, and we expected 

it to be the new proposed standard. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mr. STEWART. I guess I would just conclude with this, my time 

being ended, and I wish I had more time, but there is nothing that 

these Western states can do to achieve that kind of standard. It 

will have great economic cost. By the EPA’s own estimate, $90 billion. By some estimates, it may be 10 times that amount. And I 

would love to talk to you another time about just the wisdom, or 

the sanity, frankly, forget wisdom, just the sanity of the EPA proposing a standard that is impossible to meet, that would be incredibly expensive. And, once again, coming back to my opening statement, and why that generates so much suspicion—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. STEWART. —and so much ill will in the body politic of the 

American people. So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 

yield back my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. The gentleman from 

Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is recognized for his questions. Sorry. 

He is not here. We will go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Well, hi, Ms. McCarthy. I am over here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I know, we are kind of jumping around. I think, 

though, you earlier gave me my favorite tweet of the day, which 

is, I am lucky enough—really? The quote is from you, I love it. It 

says, I am lucky enough not to have to sign up for Obamacare. 

That is wonderful. I wish my constituents could say the same. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I actually think I was referring to I am lucky 

enough to have access to good health care, which the—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I still will take your quote—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —Affordable Care Act—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. —from the record. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —will expand. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I wrote it down. It is really good. You said also 

in your testimony there was $2 billion in new jobs from your EPA. 

I want to point out that one facility alone in my district is a $7 

billion—$7 billion in new construction, representing 13,000 jobs, 

and your administration is saying, because of the two week furlough, that it is going to take many more months to look at the permits. And I would request that, given the circumstances of our poor 
58 

economy, and the fact that this needs to be done, it is meeting, I 

believe, all the EPA requirements, I would ask that you, and I will 

follow up with you, that you look at this and expedite it. It is 

12,000 jobs. That is a lot of jobs. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry—— 

Mr. STOCKMAN. And I just—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —what kind of permit are we talking about? 

Mr. STOCKMAN. EPA permit. It has been in your office, it has 

been sitting there. They have followed all the rules and regulations. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am happy to follow up. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I would appreciate it. There is also another plant 

that wants to export coal, so it won’t be burned here, in my district. 

Altogether we have $52 billion that is being held up by the EPA, 

which, by the way, is more than the sequester. I am just saying 

to you that there is a lot of jobs in my district that is dependent, 

unfortunately, by your decisions, and I would like to give the information to you so we can facilitate the jobs that I know this President wants. He is the jobs president, and I really want to help him 

out in doing that. 

And this much activity in our district, which, Texas, as you probably know, represents almost 50 percent of all the jobs in the 

United States that are created. And in my district, we have had 

30,000 people move into our district. There has been over a million 

wells fracked, as you know. There has been a lot of fracking. And 

there is a general history in this United States of people independently drilling for oil and producing products that this nation relies 

on. We are going to produce more oil than Saudi Arabia, and I 

think it is because of the independence and the drive of this American spirit. 

I just want the boot off the neck of the Americans so we can see 

a future where we have independence from the Middle East. This 

has great implications on our foreign policy, great implications on 

people’s future. And I am real frustrated when I come back to my 

district, and I have people coming to my town hall meetings and 

saying, we want the jobs. And I have to tell them, I am sorry, but 

someone from the EPA is not letting us have the jobs. I am just 

begging you, please, open your heart up, get these permits done. 

They have done the work. They have complied with all the regulations. I don’t see what it is—for two weeks they said we shut down 

the government. It shouldn’t take months to recuperate the two 

weeks that is lost. 

And, I don’t know, I even have a plant, that is not in my district, 

but a lead plant. Now all the lead plants are closed in the United 

States. They were willing to spend $100 million upgrading the lead 

plant. Now the Chinese are going to produce the lead, so now we 

are not going to have the lead for the Americans to put on their, 

you know, when you get X-rays, they will come from China. The 

batteries, the lead will be coming from there. 

I am really frustrated that we have so much opportunity in this 

country, and again, and again, and again, it comes back to your administration, where I hear, okay, it is locked up there, it is locked 

up there, it is locked up there. And I go to town hall meetings— 

I would love for you to come with me, and I will invite you to a 
59 

town hall meeting where we can share the podium, and hear from 

the people individually who are losing their jobs because we can’t 

get permits. 

And I am troubled that, again, time and time again, I can’t get 

any satisfaction, quoting from The Rolling Stones, of course, from 

your administration. So if we could work together—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —to sing. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yeah. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I appreciate it. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Go for it. But if we could work together on this, 

I would appreciate it. And I will welcome you to any town hall 

meeting. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You know, this is an issue that, frankly, I just 

have not heard for a long time. I think we have been trying to do 

our best to expedite permits as much as we can, knowing the economic implications of that. So if you do have concerns, we really 

should tackle them together. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I appreciate it. Thank you. I have got one thing 

I want to add. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah? 

Mr. STOCKMAN. This is for my colleague, who wanted to clarify, 

Dana Rohrabacher. It is my quick clarification on the CRS report, 

and place this into the record, if I can, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Without objection. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stockman. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, is recognized. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Administrator, 

throughout this hearing you have touted the importance of transparency, and I agree. Consistent with your promise of transparency, on September 30, 2013 your agency announced it would 

hold public listening sessions on reducing carbon emissions from 

existing power plants to consider the public concerns ahead of development of the EPA rules. But I was disappointed to learn that 

all of the EPA’s 11 announced sessions are in major metropolitan 

areas, and none of these listening sessions would be in the 10 

states most reliant on coal. 

In November, our Congressional delegation sent you a letter, informing you that Kentucky’s already lost more than 6,200 coal jobs 

in just the last two years, reducing the state’s coal employment to 

its lowest level since the Commonwealth began keeping statistics 

in 1927. Unfortunately, these job losses are forecasted to continue, 

to increase, as additional EPA regulations targeting coal come online. In this letter, we requested that you hold listening sessions 

in Kentucky for the sake of openness and transparency that you 

have espoused today. In the eyes of Kentuckians and American 

people, will you commit to us today that the EPA will hold listening sessions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and other similar 

states, like North Dakota, where my colleague, Mr. Cramer is from, 

that are reliant on coal production and coal fired electricity as you 

seek public comment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congressman, we received a number of requests for additional listening sessions. I would like to explain to 
60 

you, those 11 sites are actually our regional offices, because it 

is—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Certainly you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —helps us—— 

Mr. MASSIE. We appreciate that, and we appreciate that you 

have held before listening sessions outside of your offices. I think 

you should get outside of the office, you know, go out and see the 

people you are going to affect once in a while. And hopefully you 

certainly must realize that if you fail to hold these listening sessions on greenhouse gas regulations in the states whose economies 

most depend on the coal industry and coal fired electricity, this will 

be perceived as an effort to avoid negative public opinion—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, there—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —or to ignore the adverse effects of these regulations. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—— 

Mr. MASSIE. You realize that is going to be perceived that way 

if you don’t hold these hearings? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think people should recognize that this 

is even before we are proposing, never mind entering into the rigorous public—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Can you commit—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —comment process—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —today—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —without making—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —to hold this in Kentucky? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There is also opportunities for individuals to—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay, I can’t let you take all of my time if you won’t 

answer the question. You know, smog and most other air pollution 

is a function of urban concentration. In fact, the EPA has recognized 66 of 3,000 counties in the United States as having air quality issues. Those are urban issues, for the most part. So residents 

of rural areas, like myself, who rely on wood heat as an affordable, 

abundant, renewable, and you will like this, carbon neutral source 

of heat energy, are perpetually perplexed by the EPA’s fascination 

with regulating this form of heat, since it is primarily a rural form 

of heat. And we believe that a one-sized fits all rule on wood heat 

that comes from Washington D.C., from bureaucrats who have 

never experienced the warmth of the heat that comes from wood, 

or maybe even the exercise of collecting it themselves, really aren’t 

qualified to regulate our source of energy, especially when they are 

taking away our other sources of energy. 

Let me read for you from the EPA’s website on these new rules 

that are being proposed. Or maybe this is pre-proposal, but this is 

certainly from your website. EPA—quote,‘‘EPA is revising the new 

source performance standards for new residential wood heaters.’’ I 

will skip some of it. ‘‘This action is expected to include the following new residential wood heating appliances, wood heaters, pellet stoves, hydronic heaters’’, and the list goes on. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. MASSIE. And then it finishes with this, ‘‘These standards 

would apply only to new residential wood heaters, and not to existing residential wood heating appliances.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 
61 

Mr. MASSIE. Is that your impression, that these rules would just 

apply to new heaters? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is all they do apply to, yes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay. So you can promise us—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It would apply to—— 

Mr. MASSIE. You can promise us today that if Americans like the 

wood stove they have, they can keep it, period? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. This particular part of the Clean Air Act does 

not address existing for this—these types of pollutants. And the 

only thing—— 

Mr. MASSIE. I have one more question, and only 30 seconds to 

ask, but I am glad that you can assure us we can keep that if we 

like it, period, and I hope that is a promise you can keep. There 

is one other issue that affects rural America that just has us 

scratching our heads. I hope it is an urban legend. Is anybody in 

the EPA really looking at regulating cow flatulence? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay. Yeah, because we have heard that on farms, 

are aware of that, at the USDA? 

Chairman SMITH. Pardon me? You have heard it what? 

Mr. MASSIE. That the methane emissions from cattle, can 

you—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. MASSIE. —assure us today that you are not—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not looking—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —investigating that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —at that. 

Mr. MASSIE. Nobody in the EPA is? Thank you very—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not that I am—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —much. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —aware of. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Massie. The gentlewoman 

from Wyoming, Ms. Lummis, is recognized. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Administrator. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. In your agency’s recently re-proposed New Source 

Performance Standards for power plants—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —you set levels for coal fired plants based on the 

use of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. You did not 

require that same technology for gas fired power plants. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. By requiring CCS for coal units only, aren’t you 

applying a standard that is higher regarding the carbon that is 

emitted from coal generated power? It just sounds to me like this 

is not an all of the above energy plan. It singles out coal for punitive treatment. Can this really be defended as a transparent and 

equitable application of the Clean Air Act? I like the administration, that you have testified, supports opportunities in natural gas. 

So do I, and I support them also for new coal fired plants, and coalto-liquid. All the reasons that EPA gives for declining to find CCS 

technologies to be the best system of emission reduction for gas 
62 

fired units apply with equal force to coal fired units. So why require it for coal? 

It strikes me that the answer to that question is to set a precedent. EPA is under a consent decree to issue New Source Performance Standards on greenhouse gases for refineries in the near future. Will that rules best system of emission reduction also require 

implementing technology that is unproven on a commercial scale? 

That seems to be the new definition of adequately demonstrated. 

When EPA requires a technology for new coal plants that is not yet 

in commercial operation, what is to stop it from doing the same for 

other sources of carbon? 

I might add that earlier, in response to Mr. Neugebauer, you said 

that CCS technology is ready, according to the DOE. But DOE was 

in front of this committee in the summer, and they couldn’t give 

us a date for the technology to be ready. And then former Secretary 

of Energy McConnell was here two weeks ago, and he testified that 

commercial CCS technology currently is not available to meet 

EPA’s proposed rule. So our problem is this committee has received 

conflicting testimony from the former Secretary of DOE at your sister agency. 

I find it interesting that the EPA claims that, regardless of this 

new rule, no one plans to build traditional coal plants. So does this 

rule achieve any of the EPA’s carbon reduction goals? By its own 

admission, EPA is requiring carbon reducing technology for plants 

that will never be built. But, at the same time, it is requiring no 

reductions from new natural gas plants, even though they are 

being built in greater numbers than ever before. This doesn’t make 

sense to me, and I just want to ask if it makes sense to you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. What—could I address the issues that you have 

raised? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. In terms of why we wouldn’t be proposing 

CCS on natural gas, we do not have the kind of wealth of data that 

we have for the demonstration of CCS on natural gas as we do on 

coal. We know they run differently. We know the technology is different. We know the—that the gas stream for natural gas is different. We did not have the data available to be able to propose 

CCS on natural gas. We went with what we knew to be demonstrated technology moving forward. We do have data on the coal 

side that addresses the requirements we have for being robust. But 

we will look at comments that come in. 

Relative to DOE, I think the DOE employees have been—and 

staff, as well as the Secretary, have been very supportive of the 

way we are looking at the data in this industry sector moving forward. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks. I want to squeeze in one more—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. —question before I run out of time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay, sorry. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. That is okay. Let me ask you—this is kind of a yes 

or no question. Is it EPA’s view that Section 111(d) of the Clean 

Air Act gives states primacy in the development and implementation of new source performance standards for existing power 

plants? 
63 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, it is state implementation plans that need 

to be developed. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. So now you have three seconds to answer my previous question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the only other one I wanted to hit was this 

idea that we are not going to be making any progress moving forward because most of them are natural gas. The—what we are trying to do is make sure that new facilities, like power plants, that 

are around for 60 or 70 years take advantage of the technologies 

available to them today so that they can be part of the mix moving 

forward. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Coal is important now. It will be in the future. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lummis. The gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Cramer, is recognized for questions. 

Mr. CRAMER. I am sorry, did you say from North Dakota? 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. CRAMER. Yeah, I thought you did. 

Chairman SMITH. I thought I said North Dakota. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mister—— 

Chairman SMITH. I misspoke if I said anything other than North 

Dakota. 

Mr. CRAMER. That is fine. Thank you for being here today, and 

I want to ask some questions about the hydraulic fracturing study. 

But before I do that, I want to follow up on Mr. Massie’s invitation 

to—for you to go to Kentucky and hold a listening session on your 

way to North Dakota to hold a listening session on the new source 

performance standards. I would like to submit my letter of invitation to you of October 18 into the record, if I could, Mr. Chairman? 

And it just seems like, in the spirit of transparency, that having 

these 11 listening sessions in the cities where you, granted, have 

regional offices, is okay as far as it goes, but what a wonderful opportunity it would be to add some more listening sessions. And so 

I would really love to have you commit to considering these other 

places, including Bismarck, North Dakota. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I appreciate that. And I just want to tell you 

that that is not the extent of what we are doing. Those are the 

major listening sessions, but the regional offices and our administrators are really branching out to the individual states. 

Mr. CRAMER. And I understand that, but I also understand that, 

in a place like North Dakota, where there are 17,000 jobs at stake, 

$3–1/2 billion toward our economy is at stake, and where there are 

a whole bunch of really wonderful smart experts and scientists who 

work in this every single day, could provide lots of good information to the EPA, that a better way might be to hold a listening session there in public view, for everybody to participate. So I would 

appreciate—in fact, I would love it if you would just commit. We 

will work out the details later as to, you know, what time and what 

cities, and all of that. 

But I also want to get into the hydraulic fracturing study that 

you are engaged in, because I have some concerns about it, especially the study designed and some of the goals of the study. Because, as we have discussed in this committee previously with 
64 

other witnesses, this idea of the EPA searching for what is possible 

without attention to what is probable is problematic I think from 

a real scientific standpoint, because one of the primary goals of the 

study—stated primary goals of the study is to answer questions, 

like, what are the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing, fluid 

surface spills, on—near well pads, on drinking water resources, end 

quote. 

And it appears, in fact, the EPA’s independent science advisory 

board shares this concern as well. One SAB expert comment, 

‘‘There is no quantitative risk assessment included in EPA’s research effort. Thus, the reader has no sense of how risky any operation may be in ultimately impacting drinking water. This is also 

a significant limitation of the work.’’ Is the mere possibility of an 

event occurring sufficient to justify regulatory action, in your mind? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I actually think that this is purely a scientific 

research project so we understand the potential implications. It is 

not a regulatory decision. 

Mr. CRAMER. Sure, but again, the possible versus probable, as 

what is the standard, then, of probability before you continue with 

more years and more resources, given the fact that hydraulic fracturing is not exactly a new technology? I mean, it is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, it has been around—— 

Mr. CRAMER. —been around for—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —for a while. 

Mr. CRAMER. —over half a—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. CRAMER. —century. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yeah. 

Mr. CRAMER. So, I mean, is there a line—and you certainly can 

understand why industry and states might be concerned that we 

are down this path, with the mere possibility as a standard, and 

the uncertainty that that creates in the investment community as 

we try to become more energy security in this country. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My understanding is that this is a number of research projects that are looking at the potential for impact on 

water supplies. It is the first step—— 

Mr. CRAMER. I understand—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —in looking—— 

Mr. CRAMER. —but, in fact—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. —at this in a more comprehensive way so we 

can be sure we are doing things safe and—— 

Mr. CRAMER. While I agree that this is one, and I guess part of 

something more comprehensive, because your Office of Science Policy director, Dr. Hoffman, in May of last year, stated that the agency was doing ‘‘a pretty comprehensive look at all the statutes to determine where holes may allow for additional Federal oversight.’’ 

So is this study part of that comprehensive look for holes and opportunities to regulate further? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My understanding is, and we can certainly follow up, is that this is purely a research project. It is not, at this 

point, talking about what laws we might utilize, or what regulations we might want to do. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, have you found any holes, or do you know of 

any regulatory holes that might present an opportunity for further 
65 

regulation by the EPA? Because, you know, that standard is rather 

frightening in North Dakota. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I—we are purely looking at whether or not there 

are implications that we need to understand from hydraulic fracturing both—in this case on water quality. That is it. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right. Thank you, and my time is expired, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Cramer. The gentleman from 

Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam 

Administrator, for your testimony today, and it has been largely direct responses, and I really appreciate that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. POSEY. Following up on some of the questions that we had 

earlier today concerning science based management, how many Ice 

Ages have we had on this planet, do you know? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. I have read different things. Some say three, 

some say five. Do you think we have had Ice Ages before? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am quite sure of reading about those, but I am 

not a scientist, and I don’t want to pretend to be for you, sir. But 

we can get our scientists to respond, if you want a more direct—— 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah, I really would like that. You know, normally 

you can’t have seamless Ice Ages. You must have a warming period 

between the Ice Ages, and I was just wondering if you happen to 

know what the temperature was here on Earth between the last 

two Ice Ages. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, sir, I can’t answer those questions. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. If I told you the Earth was 30 degrees warmer 

before the last Ice Age, would that surprise you, or—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It would not influence my decision, in terms of 

listening to the science and the consensus around climate. I leave 

the science to the scientists. 

Mr. POSEY. But don’t you think the history of the Earth should 

have some bearing on science? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sure that it does. 

Mr. POSEY. But—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I just don’t want to pretend that I am a scientist 

and have that discussion with you, sir, because I am not. I do listen 

to the scientists, and I look—listen to the consensus that is being 

drawn. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, I listen to scientists too, and I don’t claim to 

be a scientist, but I don’t want to put my head in the sand and—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Um-hum. 

Mr. POSEY. —ignore what science—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not. 

Mr. POSEY. —is inconvenient. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am listening. 

Mr. POSEY. And now I was just wondering what impact you 

thought carbon emissions had on previous global warming between 

Ice Ages? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The information that I have available to me relates to all of the work that is done by the number of scientists 

looking at the climate issues. And I pay attention to that, and I 
66 

will apply the science in decisions moving forward. I am not either 

comfortable or qualified to have a science discussion with you on 

these issues. 

Mr. POSEY. Do you see the promulgation of any rules that would 

enact a carbon tax in the future? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Say that again, sir? 

Mr. POSEY. Do you see the promulgation of any rules that would 

enact a carbon tax for this country in the future? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Only if Congress provides a—provides that 

mechanism, no. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I can’t get my questions answered, so I guess I am pretty much finished and yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. I don’t believe we have 

any other members with questions, so, Administrator McCarthy, 

thank you for your presence today. And we may have additional 

questions that would be submitted to you in writing. We hope you 

will reply to those in the next couples of weeks. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, can I ask you one favor? 

Chairman SMITH. Of course. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know you asked me a lot of information in the 

front about the subpoena issues. 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I want to make sure that we both understood 

one another, so if we could meet afterwards? I want to make sure 

that I gave perfectly correct answers, and that our expectations are 

the same on what you are looking for, and whether or not we have 

complied with that, and what you are looking for next. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I want to be very respectful of you, and the 

wishes of this committee. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Well, I am somewhat encouraged 

by some of your answers today, and I hope you will give us the 

data that we would like to have, and that we would like to have 

independently verified. I am not sure it is true or not, but didn’t 

you once tell us, if you like it, you can have it? I am just teasing. 

Thank you for your appearance today. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(67) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
68 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable Gina McCarthy 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
(133) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
134 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ELIZABETH H. ESTY, MEMBER, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY
135 
136 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE RANDY NEUGEBAUER
147 
148 
149 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE MARK TAKANO
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 

Æ