U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–874 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–471 

EXAMINING EPA’S AGENDA: PROTECTING THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND ALLOWING AMERICA’S 

ECONOMY TO GROW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 1, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

AUGUST 1, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

WITNESS 

Wheeler, Hon. Andrew, Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 13 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 17 

Senator Duckworth ................................................................................... 37 

Response to an additional question from Senator Fischer ............................ 38 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 38 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 41 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 45 

Senator Sanders ........................................................................................ 77 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 82 

Response to an additional question from Senator Wicker ............................ 89 

(1) 

EXAMINING EPA’S AGENDA: PROTECTING THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND ALLOWING AMERICA’S 

ECONOMY TO GROW 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:24 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, 

Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Van 

Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Before we begin today’s hearing, I want to 

thank Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler for making it a 

priority to come to testify before the Committee today. I have been 

very impressed with how he has started his tenure as head of the 

Agency. 

As Acting Administrator, Mr. Wheeler has emphasized transparency, while implementing policies that protect the environment 

and allow America’s economy to grow. 

I would encourage President Trump to nominate Andrew Wheeler to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Mr. Wheeler is very qualified for that position. He spent over 25 

years working in environmental policy, and in that time he has 

served as a career employee at the Agency, as a staffer here on 

Capitol Hill, as a consultant in the private sector, and now in a 

leadership role of the EPA. 

I believe Andrew Wheeler would make an excellent administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

With that, I call this hearing to order. 

Today, the Committee will hear testimony on the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s work to protect the water we drink, the air we 

breathe, and the communities we call home. It is my pleasure to 

welcome back to the Committee Andrew Wheeler in his new role 

as Acting Administrator of the EPA. 

First, Mr. Wheeler, as you know, the way that this Committee 

works, sometimes there are roll call votes. I understand there are 

five roll call votes starting at 11 this morning, so there will be 

2 

members coming and going during the hearing process, so I appreciate your indulgence as we come in and out. 

Mr. Wheeler has served on this Committee in a number of capacities, most recently as Staff Director. It is only fitting that our 

Committee be the first that you testify before in your new role. 

Since President Trump has come to office, his Administration has 

made it a priority to pursue policies that both protect the Nation’s 

environment and allow the economy to grow. Just last week, we 

saw how the Administration’s pro-growth and pro-jobs policies are 

leading to incredible economic growth. America’s economy grew at 

an impressive 4.1 percent. 

Over the past year and a half, the Environmental Protection 

Agency has been busy rolling back punishing regulations that hurt 

the economy in my home State of Wyoming and communities 

across the country. 

Under the previous Administration, the Agency created broad 

and legally questionable regulation that punished the very communities EPA claimed to be protecting. The so-called Clean Power 

Plan would have cost Wyoming energy workers their jobs and 

closed power plants across the country. The Obama administration 

openly declared war on American coal and the workers who 

produce this critically important resource. 

The so-called Clean Power Plan wasn’t just bad policy; it was illegal. Twenty-four States—including Wyoming—filed suit to block 

this regulation. The Supreme Court has put the rule on hold because of the challenges. 

Under the leadership of President Trump, the EPA is now taking 

steps to undo this damaging rule. The Agency held listening sessions in several different communities to hear feedback on how the 

regulation should be changed or withdrawn. 

One of those listening sessions took place in Campbell County, 

Wyoming, in the city of Gillette. Wyoming is the leading coal producing State in the Nation. The vast majority of the coal from the 

Nation comes from Campbell County. America can’t afford to leave 

its energy resources stranded in the ground. 

I am thankful the EPA took the time to listen to all stakeholders 

and reexamined the Agency’s deeply flawed rule. It was an important example of Washington listening to the people of Wyoming. 

The Administration has also taken major steps to revise the 

Waters of the United States, or the WOTUS, rule. This outrageous 

Obama era rule would have put backyard ponds, puddles, and farm 

fields under Washington’s control. Under that rule, the EPA told 

farmers and ranchers their irrigation ditches were considered navigable waters and would be regulated by the Federal Government. 

The consequences were staggering. The EPA threatened to fine 

one private landowner in Wyoming $75,000 a day. The crime he 

committed was digging a stock pond in his backyard. 

This past January, the EPA delayed the implementation date of 

this devastating rule. This delay gives the Agency time to revise it. 

EPA should not punish our ranchers or farmers for managing 

their land. It must replace the WOTUS rule with common sense 

policy that protects America’s waters and respects States and local 

authorities. 

3 

The Agency has also taken important steps to protect small refineries in Wyoming and across the country. I applaud the Trump administration for rejecting efforts to undermine the ability of small 

refineries to obtain hardship relief under the Renewable Fuel 

Standards, or the RFS. 

During the Obama administration, EPA frequently ignored the 

law, which requires EPA to grant relief to small refineries suffering 

economic hardship under RFS. Since then, two Federal appeals 

courts have rebuked the Agency for decisions denying hardship relief to small refineries. 

EPA must not take any action that would limit the ability of 

small refineries to obtain hardship relief, restrict when small refineries can apply for hardship relief, disclose the confidential business information of small refineries, or increase the burdens on 

other refineries. Taking any of these steps would only compound 

the problems that this broken program has created for American 

refineries and their workers. 

I look forward to hearing more about what the Agency is doing 

to protect the people of Wyoming and America, to keep our environment clean, and to support the Nation’s growing economy. 

Acting Administrator Wheeler, thank you for taking the time to 

come testify today. Thank you for making the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee your first stop on Capitol Hill. 

I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

As my colleagues know on this Committee and outside of the 

Committee, I have been asking for an oversight hearing with the 

EPA Administrator for many months, and I am pleased that our 

Committee is holding that hearing today. I have to be honest with 

you, I am even more pleased that the person sitting at the witness 

table is our Acting Administrator and not his predecessor. 

When Mr. Wheeler took the helm of this Agency, all 25 days 

ago—it probably seems like 25 months ago—the Washington Post 

noted that we were trading an Administrator who is known for 

‘‘sipping organic juice infused with kale’’ for an Acting Administrator who collects Coca-Cola memorabilia. 

With that said, Mr. Wheeler, I have something to present to you 

today, as we begin this hearing, to add to your collection, something that my staff found for sale in, of all places, the Senate cafeteria. I thought you might like to have it. It is a bottle of CocaCola that actually has the word ‘‘Wheeler’’ on it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I don’t know if you have some special deal, 

something in your life we don’t know about, Andrew. This is very 

interesting, but this is your bottle. You will probably need something stronger before you are finished. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. But I am encouraged that there will be a number of differences between Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Pruitt in the way 

that they approach this important leadership role. For example, I 

4 

don’t expect to hear as much as a peep from Mr. Wheeler today 

about used mattress shopping or Chick-fil-A or fancy moisturizers. 

What we do need to hear from Mr. Wheeler today is how he 

plans to differentiate himself from Mr. Pruitt across a range of environmental policies that are far more consequential; how we repair the significant damage that Mr. Pruitt has done to the EPA. 

Will the American public once again be able to trust the EPA to 

carry out its mission of protecting public health and our environment? 

Now, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. In the few 

weeks that Mr. Wheeler has been the Acting Administrator, he has 

published his calendars on a daily basis. He has opened up EPA 

events to the media, as well as began to work to ensure that EPA’s 

beleaguered career staff once again feel valued, respected, and included. He withdrew Mr. Pruitt’s parting act to stop enforcing air 

emission standards for some of the dirtiest heavy duty trucks on 

the road under the Clean Air Act, granting one company permission to continue building high polluting glider trucks for 2 years. 

Thank you for that. 

There is a whole lot to be done. Mr. Wheeler has told me repeatedly that he shares my goal of striking a deal between automakers 

and the State of California and other States on fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas tailpipe standards. Unfortunately, the Administration’s proposal could not be further from the win-win outcome that 

many of us on this Committee and outside this Committee believe 

is within reach. 

Instead of providing near term flexibility and predictability for 

the auto industry in exchange for more rigorous standards and 

clean vehicle incentives going forward, the Trump administration 

is proposing to free standards for 7 straight model years. We can 

do better than that, and we need to. 

The Administration would remove all credits for air conditioning 

and other improvements and argue that California should be preempted. Such a proposal is not the win-win outcome that stakeholders are asking for, one that keeps the American auto industry 

competitive, creates more good paying jobs right here at home, and 

protects our environment well into the future. 

Instead, this Administration has, once again, ignored common 

sense, turned its back on a solution that would allow for States like 

California to enforce its own clean standards, and decided to listen 

to the most extreme voices as it pushes through a plan no one is 

interested in. 

Mr. Pruitt’s EPA also had a warped sense of cooperative federalism, especially when it came to protecting downwind States 

from harmful air pollution. Under Mr. Pruitt, EPA failed to meet 

the deadlines to designate who was living in unhealthy ozone areas 

and delayed emission reductions critical to downwind States. 

At the same time, Mr. Pruitt’s EPA rejected requests from downwind States to require upwind polluters to install or operate existing pollution controls, tried to cut State air program funding, and 

weakened enforcement efforts. All of these actions were a disaster 

for the people, like those in my own home State of Delaware, and 

States like Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, MasVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:29 Feb 25, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\34874.TXT SONYA
5 

sachusetts, and others on the East Coast who live at the end of 

what we call America’s tailpipe. 

Instead of prioritizing and protecting the polluters, I hope Mr. 

Wheeler will prioritize and protect the people who are being 

harmed from those emissions. Under Mr. Pruitt, EPA has also 

acted to roll back clean water protections by, I think, dishonestly 

inflating the costs of those rules to industry, while minimizing the 

health and environmental benefits to the public. 

Mr. Wheeler needs to describe how he plans to ensure that clean 

water and other rules are based on credible data, how they comply 

with the law. 

Mr. Pruitt misguidedly banned any scientist who had received 

EPA grant funding from serving on EPA’s scientific advisory committees. He proposed to have EPA ignore and not consider some of 

the best scientific studies in the world. It is my sincere hope that 

Mr. Wheeler will share with us his plans for ending EPA’s war on 

science. 

Disappointedly, too, there is probably no aspect of EPA’s implementation of the new Toxic Substances Control Act that will not 

be litigated. Mr. Pruitt’s EPA chose to blatantly disregard the clear 

and unambiguous law that we largely wrote right here in this 

Committee and Congress passed with near unanimous support. 

This kind of blatant disregard for the rule of law needs to end, and 

it needs to end here. 

Mr. Wheeler needs to describe how he plans to stop wasting taxpayer funds and EPA’s lawyers’ time defending proposals that are 

clearly illegal, and restore the Agency to one that respects the rule 

of law and is guided by science. 

The day after Mr. Pruitt resigned, I sent Mr. Wheeler a letter. 

I told him, ‘‘You have been granted an enormous challenge and responsibility, but an even greater opportunity. The damage that 

Scott Pruitt has done to this Agency will not be easily undone. 

While you and I have not always agreed—and will not always 

agree—on every environmental policy matter, it is my hope and expectation that you will carefully consider the lessons of the past as 

you prepare to chart the Agency’s future.’’ We look forward to a 

continued dialog and to today’s hearing. 

Welcome. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much, Senator Carper. 

We will now hear from our witness in a few seconds, and that 

is Hon. Andrew Wheeler, the Acting Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

I want to remind Mr. Wheeler that your full written testimony 

will be made part of the official hearing record, so please keep your 

comments and your statement to about 5 minutes so we will have 

time for questions from the members of the Committee. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Mr. Wheeler. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW WHEELER, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. WHEELER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Carper, and members of the Committee. 

6 

When Chairman Barrasso called me to ask me if this would be 

my first hearing, I jumped at the opportunity because I couldn’t 

think of another Committee that I would want to testify in front 

of first. 

When President Trump appointed me Acting Administrator, he 

asked me to focus on three things: clean up the air, clean up the 

water, and provide regulatory relief to help the economy thrive and 

create more jobs for American workers. I believe we can accomplish 

all three at the same time. In fact, we have already made progress 

on all three fronts in just the past few weeks. We haven’t slowed 

down, and we haven’t missed a step. 

Yesterday, we released EPA’s annual report on air quality, and 

we have great news to share. From 1970 to 2017 the combined 

emissions of the six key pollutants regulated under the NAAQS 

dropped by 73 percent, while the U.S. economy grew more than 260 

percent. This is a remarkable achievement that should be recognized and celebrated. The U.S. leads the world in terms of clean 

air and air quality progress. 

On my first day as Acting Administrator we sent to OMB for 

interagency review a proposed rule to set State guidelines for 

greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. 

We recently finalized the first set of revisions to the 2015 regulations for the disposal of coal ash. These actions will provide States 

and utilities much needed flexibility in the management of their 

waste. 

Last week, we issued a final rule that codifies the animal waste 

reporting exemptions which were signed into law in the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method, the FARM Act, Senator Fischer’s legislation. We also approved pathways for biodiesel derived from sorghum. This action lays the groundwork for more homegrown fuels 

under the Renewable Fuels Standard and adds diversity to the Nation’s biofuels mix. 

Finally, we recently commemorated the 1-year anniversary of the 

Superfund Task Force Report and highlighted the extraordinary 

progress we have made cleaning up sites and returning them for 

productive use. 

Just this week, we reached a framework to address the outstanding issues of the Anaconda Smelter site in Montana. This 

framework will allow us to meet our goal of delisting the site by 

2025, and this site has been on the list for decades. 

As you can see, we are continuing the President’s agenda posthaste. The combination of regulatory relief and the President’s historic tax cuts continues to spur economic growth across the country, particularly in communities that were previously—and wrongly—ignored or forgotten. 

One way we can fulfill the President’s agenda is providing more 

certainty to the American people. A lack of certainty from EPA 

hinders the environmental protections and creates paralysis in the 

marketplace. We will prioritize certainty in three areas: certainty 

to the States and local governments, including Tribes; certainty 

within EPA programs, such as permitting and enforcement actions; 

and certainty in risk communication. 

First, we need to provide more certainty to the States, who are 

the primary implementers and enforcers of many of our environVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:29 Feb 25, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\34874.TXT SONYA
7 

mental laws and programs. We will work closely with the States 

to ensure our mutual responsibilities under the law are fulfilled. 

Second, we need to provide more certainty within EPA programs. 

For example, we need to improve our permitting processes. Our 

goal is to make all permit decisions, up or down, in 6 months. I am 

not suggesting that we approve all permits within a set amount of 

time. 

On a similar front, we must provide more certainty in our enforcement actions. When EPA’s enforcement actions linger for 

years, it hurts the competitiveness of American businesses. 

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for letting people off the 

hook or reducing fines. Rather, I am advocating for making enforcement decisions in a timely and consistent manner. 

Third, and finally, we need to provide more certainty in risk communication. As an Agency, we must be able to speak with one voice 

and clearly explain to the American people the environmental and 

health risks that they face in their daily lives. We have fallen short 

in this area from our response to 9/11 to recent events surrounding 

the Gold King Mine in Colorado, and most recently in Flint, Michigan. We owe it to the American public to ensure that this does not 

happen again. 

We are also prioritizing our efforts to assist State and local governments in preparing for and responding to natural disasters and 

extreme weather events. Readiness is all, to quote my favorite author, Shakespeare. 

There is no doubt in my mind that we will make improvements 

in all of these areas. I believe in this Agency; I believe in its mission, and I believe in its personnel. 

I would like to take a minute to talk about my fellow EPA employees. I know how dedicated and passionate they are, and it is 

a privilege to work alongside them. 

Senator BARRASSO. If I could have the witness suspend, please, 

and ask the officers to remove the disturbance. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Apologize for the delay. Thank you. 

Mr. WHEELER. Quite all right. 

I would like to take a minute to talk about my fellow EPA employees. I know how dedicated and passionate they are, and it is 

a privilege to work alongside them. I have told them that my instinct will be to defend their work, and I will seek the facts from 

them before drawing conclusions. 

We exist to serve the public. As such, we should conduct our 

business in a manner fully deserving of the public’s trust and confidence. Earlier this week, I issued my own fishbowl memo which 

lays out the principles and protocols that will guide our efforts to 

be transparent, open, and accountable to the American public. Our 

success as an Agency depends on it. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:] 

8 


34874.001

Andrew R. Wheeler 

Acting Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Andrew Wheeler is the Acting Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. Prior to joining the EPA, Mr. Wheeler was the head of 

the energy & environment team at Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting and cochaired the energy and natural resources industry team within the law firm. 

Mr. Wheeler previously worked at the U.S. Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee for fourteen years, serving in various roles including as 

the majority and minority staff director and chief counsel. He started his 

career at the Environmental Protection Agency as a special assistant in the toxics office where he 

received three bronze medals. He has a B.A. from Case Western Reserve University, a J.D. from 

Washington University in St. Louis, and an M.B.A. from George Mason University. Mr. Wheeler is a 

member of the District of Columbia bar and an Eagle Scout. 
9 


34874.002

Testimony of 

Acting-Administrator Andrew Wheeler 

before 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

August 1, 2018 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the committee. 

As I said in my confirmation hearing, l am truly honored to appear before the same committee 

that I spent 14 years working on. 

I am humbled and grateful that President Donald Trump has given me the opportunity to lead the 

Environmental Protection Agency- the very Agency where I began my career in 1991 in the 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics Office. 

When President Trump called me and appointed me Acting Administrator, he asked me to focus 

on three things: Clean up the air, clean up the water, and provide regulatory relief to help the 

economy thrive and create more jobs for American workers. 

I believe we can accomplish all three at the same time. In fact, we have already made progress on 

all these fronts in just the past few weeks. We haven't slowed down; we haven't missed a step. 

On my first day as Acting Administrator, we sent to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for interagency review a proposed rule to set state guidelines for greenhouse gas 

emissions from power plants. 

We recently finalized the first set of revisions to the 2015 regulations for the disposal of coal ash. 

These actions will provide states and utilities much-needed flexibility in the management of coal 

ash. 

Last week, we issued a final rule that codifies the animal waste report exemptions which were 

signed into law in the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act. 

We also approved pathways for biofuel derived from sorghum. This action lays the groundwork 

for more homegrown fuels under the Renewable Fuels Standard and adds diversity to the 

nation's biofuel mix. 

Finally, we recently commemorated the one-year anniversary of the Superfund Task Force 

Report and highlighted the tremendous progress we've made cleaning up sites and returning 

them to productive use. 

As you can see, we are continuing the President's agenda posthaste. The combination of 

regulatory relief and the President's historic tax cuts continues to spur economic growth across 

the country, particularly in communities that were previously- and wrongly- ignored or 

forgotten. 

1 
10 


34874.003

We have made historic progress at EPA since President Trump took office. But we have more 

work to do. One way we can fulfill the President's agenda is by providing more certainty to the 

American people. A lack of certainty from EPA hinders environmental protections and creates 

paralysis in the marketplace. 

We will prioritize certainty in three areas: Certainty to the states and local governments, 

including tribes; certainty within EPA programs, such as permitting and enforcement actions; 

and certainty in risk communication. 

First, we need to provide more certainty to the states, who are the primary implementers and 

enforcers of many of our environmental laws and programs. 

For example, the Clean Water Act lays out the process by which states can take charge of their 

own pollutant discharge elimination systems. EPA's recent approval ofldaho's program is a 

great example of EPA working cooperatively with states to provide them certainty with respect 

to water permitting. 

We are also collaborating with states to improve air quality. Since March 2017, EPA has turned 

an average of one Federal Implementation Plan into a State Implementation Plan each month. 

These actions provide states clarity and certainty as they strive to reduce air pollution. 

We will continue to work closely with the states to ensure our mutual responsibilities under the 

law are fulfilled. 

Second, we need to provide greater certainty within EPA programs. For example, we need to 

improve our permitting processes. Permitting issues can heavily impact small and mid-sized 

businesses- the backbone of the American economy. Prior to this administration, we were not 

systematically tracking permit decisions. 

Through EPA's Lean Management System and the recently created Office of Continuous 

Improvement, we are now tracking the time it takes to issue permits. Our goal is to make all 

permit decisions, up or down, in six months. If we arc able to accomplish this, we will make a 

profound, transformative change in how the Agency carries out its responsibilities_ I am not 

suggesting that we approve all permits within a set amount of time. I am suggesting that we 

make a decision, yes or no, within a set amount oftime. 

On a similar front, we must provide more certainty in our enforcement actions. During my time 

in private practice, I learned firsthand the importance of timely enforcement actions. Companies 

must disclose pending enforcement actions in their annual shareholder reports, and when EPA 

doesn't settle and enforcement actions linger for years, companies must still report them. This 

hurts the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. It also delays actions that may be necessary to 

prevent harm to the environment. Let me be clear: I'm not advocating for letting people off the 

hook or reducing fines. Rather, I'm advocating for making enforcement decisions in a timely and 

consistent manner. Accomplishing this will dramatically improve our relationship with American 

businesses and workers. 

2 
11 


34874.004

Third, and finally, we need to provide more certainty in risk communication. Risk 

communication goes to the heart ofEPA's mission of protecting public health and the 

environment. As an Agency, we must be able to speak with one voice and clearly explain to the 

American people the environmental and health risks they face in their daily lives. We have fallen 

short in this area, from our response to September 11th to recent events surrounding the Gold 

King Mine in Colorado, and Flint, Michigan. We owe it to the American public to ensure this 

doesn't happen again. 

The reality is that risk communication disproportionately impacts people at the lower end of the 

socioeconomic ladder. They are the ones who often live, work, or go to school near industrial 

facilities or areas with environmental hazards. They are most impacted by how well- or poorlywe communicate health risks. EPA owes it to the American public to be able to explain in very 

simple and easy to understand terms, "What are the risks that they face in their daily lives?" As 

an Agency, we need to provide this certainty to the American public. 

If we are able to improve in these areas- and I believe we can and provide more certainty to 

the public and the regulated community, we can dramatically enhance environmental protections 

and give the private sector the clarity and transparency it needs to grow and create more jobs. 

I believe in this Agency. I believe in its mission. And I believe in its personnel. Again, I began 

my career in Washington as an EPA career employee. Like so many of our hardworking career 

employees, I came to the Agency to help the environment. 

I'd like to take a minute to talk about my fellow EPA employees. I know how dedicated and 

passionate they are, and it is a privilege to work alongside them. I have told them that my instinct 

will be to defend their work, and I will seck the facts from them before drawing conclusions. 

As an Agency, we are only as good as the sum of our human capital. My first trip as Deputy 

Administrator was to visit our campus at Research Triangle Park. I have already visited our 

offices in Regions I, 2, 3, and 4, and I plan to travel to the rest as soon as possible. In July, I had 

a robust and productive dialogue with senior career and political leadership from EPA 

headquarters and all I 0 regions at our two-day Senior Leadership Council. I want to ensure that 

EPA employees are getting the support they need to carry out our important work on behalf of 

the American people to protect public health and the environment. 

We have important work before us. However, let us not forget that the United States is the gold 

standard worldwide for environmental protection. We have come a long way in the past several 

decades. 

Since 1970, emissions of the six criteria air pollutants regulated under the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards established through the Clean Air Act have dropped 73 percent, while the U.S. 

gross domestic product grew by over 250 percent. This is a remarkable achievement that should 

be recognized, celebrated, and replicated around the world. A 73 percent reduction in any other 

social ill- crime, poverty, diseases, or drug addiction- would lead the evening news. 

This is just one of the many reasons the U.S. is a global leader in environmental stewardship. 

The world is watching us. We will not shirk this responsibility or take it lightly. In the short time 

3 
12 


34874.005

that l have served as Acting Administrator, I've already met with two of my international 

counterparts. I look forward to further developing those relationships and engaging with other 

environmental ministers from around the world. 

America is blessed with abundant natural resources resources we use to fuel and feed the 

world. We will continue to protect and steward these resources for the benefit of ourselves and 

our posterity. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

4 
13 


34874.006

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Hearing entitled, "Examining EPA's Agenda: Protecting the Environment and Allowing 

America's Economy to Grow." 

August 1, 2018 

Questions for the Record for Andrew Wheeler 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. The administration has indicated that it plans to issue a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 

waiver for fuels with ethanol concentrations higher than ten percent. However, in 2011, 

EPA formally reaffirmed that it did not have the authority to issue a RVP waiver for these 

fuels. Specifically, EPA stated that: "In sum, the text of section 2ll(h)(4) [ofthe Clean 

Air Act] and this legislative history supports EPA's interpretation, adopted in the 1991 

rulemaking. that the I psi waiver only applies to gasoline blends containing 9- I 0 vol% 

ethanol." 76 Fed. Reg. 44406,44433 (July 25, 2011). Please explain the process by which 

EPA has re-evaluated its statutory authority and come to a new conclusion. 

On October 9, 2018, President Trump directed EPA to undertake a Clean Air Act 

rulemaking to modify our regulations to allow El5 to take advantage ofthe 1-pound 

per square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) waiver that currently applies to 

EIO during the summer months. We are currently working on the proposed 

rulemaking, which will provide stakeholders and the public with relevant legal and 

technical information. The rulcmaking will be subject to a notice-and-comment 

process and will therefore present an opportunity for all stakeholders to review the 

proposal and provide input. 

2. On June 29, 2018, EPA published a report entitled, ·'Biofuels and the Environment: 

Second Triennial Report to Congress.'' The report documents how activities associated 

with biofuel production and use have negatively affected the environment. Specifically, it 

shows how activities associated with biofuel production and use have reduced air quality, 

polluted waters, destroyed wildlife habitat and ecosystems, and depleted already stressed 

aquifers. Has EPA evaluated how a RVP waiver for fuels with more than ten percent 

ethanol would affect demand for biofuel feedstocks and the use of biofuels, and, in turn, 

make the impacts to the environment worse? [foot, will EPA do so before issuing a RVP 

waiver for these fuels? 

EPA has begun work on a Clean Air Act rulemaking to modify our regulations to 

allow El5 to take advantage of the 1-pound per square inch (psi) Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) waiver that currently applies to EIO during the summer months. 

We are currently developing the proposed rule, which will provide stakeholders and 

the public with relevant legal and technical information. The rulemaking will be 

subject to a notice-and-comment process and will therefore present an opportunity 

for all stakeholders to review the proposal and provide input. 

Page 1 of77 
14 


34874.007

3. EPA is currently taking public comment on its proposed renewable fuel volume 

obligations for 2019 and biomass-based diesel volume obligations for 2020. EPA issued 

this proposal three days before issuing its second triennial report to Congress on biofuels 

and the environment. 

a. How does EPA plan to incorporate the findings of its second triennial report into 

the final renewable fuel volume obligations for 2019 and biomass-based diesel 

volume obligations for 2020? 

The 2018 Biofuels and Environment reJ>ort fulfills our obligation under 

section 204 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of2007. The final 

renewable fuel obligation (RVO) rule will fulfill our obligations under section 

211(o) of the Clean Air Act in keeping with the requirements and authorities 

provided by Congress in 21l(o) for doing so. 

The final RVO rule will take into consideration the 2018 Biofue/s and 

Environment report. For additional context see answer included in Part B 

below. 

b. Will EPA seek to mitigate the impacts to the environment, as documented in the 

second triennial report, in its final volume obligations for 2019 and 2020, 

respectively? 

The final renewable fuel obligation (RVO) rule will fulfill our obligations 

under section 21l(o) of the Clean Air Act in keeping with the requirements 

and authorities provided by Congress in section 2ll(o) for doing so. Section 

2ll(o) provides EPA the authority to "waive the requirements of paragraph 

(2) in whole or in part ... based on a determination by the Administrator, 

after public notice and opportunity for public comment, that implementation 

of the requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a 

State, a region, or the United States." In our proposal for the 2019 RVO 

rule, we did not propose to exercise this waiver authority. 

The 2018 Biofuel and Environment report was based on a review of the 

literature related to biofucls up until April2017. As the report noted, 

attributing environmental impacts to biofuels is complicated and uncertain. 

For example, crops snch as corn and soy are produced for many other 

purposes besides biofuels and it remains unclear what portion and severity of 

the impacts can be attributed to biofnel production. In addition, the report 

did not include a comparative assessment of the impact of biofuels on the 

environment relative to the impacts of other transportation fuels or energy 

sources, including fossil fuels, for every environmental endpoint. 

Furthermore, the Biofuels and Environment report also notes that 

environmental impacts associated with large scale agriculture can be reduced 

if efficient technologies, best management practices, and conservation 

techniques are widely implemented. In this regard, EPA continues to work 

Page 2 of77 
15 


34874.008

closely with USDA and supports the efforts by USDA to promote and 

advance sustainable agricultural practices. 

4. Historically, EPA and DOE have protected the confidential business information, 

including the identities, of small refineries, which petition for hardship relief under the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Failure to protect this information would: (I) give 

entities that sell refined products in the same market as a small refinery a competitive 

advantage over that refinery; (2) give entities that sell renewable identification numbers 

(RINS) to a small refinery the opportunity to extract a higher price from that refinery; (3) 

move the secondary R!Ns market. which is measured in billions of dollars; and (4) 

increase the risk of insider trading and securities fraud with respect to publicly-traded 

companies that own small refineries. Will EPA continue to protect the confidential 

business information. including the identities, of small refineries petitioning for hardship 

relief? 

EPA is committed to protecting confidential business information (CBI). Both EPA 

and DOE staff understand the sensitivity of CBI and take very seriously the need to 

maintain confidentiality of such information, consistent with our regulations at 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information (specifying the 

requirements for protecting information for which a claim of business 

confidentiality has been made and the procedures for resolving a claim and 

protecting or disclosing information). 

5. The public, state governments, members of Congress, and others have shown a growing 

interest in and concern about per- and polylluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Among the 

issues that you arc addressing as Acting Administrator, where do PFAS issues rank? 

Addressing per- and polytlouroalkyl substances (PFAS) remains among EPA's 

priorities. 

6. Who within EPA has responsibility for managing EPA's efforts with respect to PFAS? 

a. Has EPA formed an intra-agency group to coordinate the agency's PI' AS 

activities? If EPA has created such a group, which EPA offices are represented in 

that group? 

Yes. The EPA's Office of Water is leading a cross agency workgroup 

addressing per- and polytlonroalkyl substances (PFAS). The workgroup 

brings together expertise from across the EPA, including top scientists and 

senior officials from the Agency's air, chemicals, land, research, enforcement 

and water offices. In addition to a cross-program effort, the EPA is also 

working closely with the Agency's regional offices to enhance cooperation 

Page 3 of77 
16 


34874.009

with partners at the state and local levels, to provide on-the-ground 

knowledge about specific issues to address PFAS nationwide. 

7. I understand that an inter-agency group exists to coordinate PFAS activities among 

federal agencies. 

a. Which agencies arc represented in that group? 

b. How often does this group meet? 

c. Are there opportunities for public engagement with the group? 

The EPA is coordinating each of the Agency's actions on per- and polyflouroalkyl 

substances (PFAS) with other federal agencies to ensure the Agency has input from 

experts with relevant expertise from across the federal government. For example, 

the EPA developed draft toxicity values for GenX chemicals and perfluorobutane 

sulfonate (PFBS) in cooperation with our federal partners, including agencies within 

the Department of Health and Human Services (such as Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A TSDR), and 

the National Institutes of Health), the Department of Defense (DoD), the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In 2018, the EPA visited communities impacted by PFAS to hear directly from the 

public on how to best help states and communities facing this issue. To plan these 

events, the EPA coordinated closely with the states and local communities as well as 

with DoD and ATSDR. Each engagement included panelists and/or presentations 

from local governments, states, and federal partners. The EPA remains committed 

to continued collaboration with onr federal partners and public engagement as the 

Agency works to protect public health. 

8. In proposing actions to address ongoing PFAS concerns, will EPA seek public comment 

on its proposed actions? 

The EPA is currently seeking public input on draft toxicity values for GenX 

chemicals and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) in cooperation with our federal 

partners. This action marks the first of the four actions the EPA announced at the 

May 2018 PFAS National Leadership Summit. 

In 2018, the EPA visited communities impacted by PFAS to hear directly from the 

public on how to best help states and communities facing this issue. The EPA also 

collected public input through a docket which can be accessed at 

htts://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OW-2018-0270). Information from the 

National Leadership Summit, community engagements, and public input provided 

in the docket will all help the EPA as the Agency considers potential actions to assist 

states, tribes, and local communities address PFAS contamination. Depending on 

Page 4 of 77 
17 


34874.010

the nature of the action the EPA decides to undertake, the Agency will seek further 

public review and comment on the specific actions as appropriate. For example, the 

EPA will seek further public comment on any proposed regulatory actions the 

Agency determines are needed. 

a. Will EPA seek peer review of those proposed actions through, for example, 

EPA's Science Advisory Board? 

The EPA is committed to using robust scientific analysis to inform decisions 

by the Agency regarding PFAS. The Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides 

valuable independent expertise that informs and improves the EPA's actions. 

On June I, 2018, the EPA briefed the SAB on the Agency's efforts to help 

states and communities address PFAS contamination. Depending upon the 

additional actions the Agency decides to undertake, the EPA may seek 

further input from the SAB. 

9. Does EPA have any plans to seck technical or scientific input on any PFAS issue from 

the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine? 

The EPA is committed to using robust scientific analysis to inform decisions by the 

Agency regarding PFAS. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine (NAS) provides expert advice on some of the most pressing challenges 

facing the nation. Depending upon the additional actions the Agency decides to 

undertake, the EPA may seek input from the NAS. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

!0. EPA's Science Advisory Board provides independent scientific and technical review, 

advice and recommendations to the Administrator on the science forming the basis for 

EPA's actions. In June, the Board wrote to former-Administrator Pruitt announcing that 

it would like to review the science forming the basis for six controversial rules before 

they are finalized. The request included the basis for the rule regulating greenhouse gas 

emissions from cars and SUVs, the rule exempting polluting glider trucks from emissions 

standards. the rule designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas 

industry, the Clean Power Plan. the rule setting greenhouse gas emission standards for 

power plants, and EPA's proposed "secret science" rule to ignore some of the world's 

best scientific studies when writing regulations. 

a. Will you commit to making sure that the EPA Science Advisory Board gets 

access to any materials it needs to complete its reviews? If not, why not? 

b. Will you commit to wait to receive and review the advice the Board gives you 

before EPA finalizes any of these rules? If not, why not? 

Page 5 of 77 
18 


34874.011

We are in tbe process of responding to 3 letters from tbe SAB (two dated June 21, 

2018 and one dated June 28, 2018) and expect to send responses iu tbe near future. 

In our July 17. 2018 private meeting, I expressed my concerns about the manner in which 

EPA is implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It is my belief that if 

EPA does not immediately reverse course, it risks having the majority of its TSCA 

implementation efforts overturned in litigation. I have several questions regarding some 

of my concerns. The attachments referenced in these questions consist of EPA technical 

assistance provided to Congress while the law was being negotiated, and are available at 

IJ1il'~'~"''-'' .L"P'' .\L~Ila\<:gQv·pt!]ilic;_~·ac[lc~ ji lc~. I/([ 11172'1 II De jl 0:'~4:'.; I~Q 71ii: 

14 2 S.:' 5 all ?f.. I ci ~{lR I .\[1;2_(>J112;'.<.:Lil:'J~:'Jlil:D~&~\ 'I 1 JUl'J .. '.C:.lli'l()L:.c :1rp c_r:\1 tr c'.li£lrl,'.: 

llu~:1 h~::rc_cgrd:l•>:CP.~l:W>Jn inc:c,, pd 1: 

II Section 26 ofTSCA states that: 

"(4) CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES WITH COMPLETED RISK 

ASSESSMENTS.-With respect to a chemical substance listed in the 2014 

update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments for which the 

Administrator has published a completed risk assessment prior to the date 

of enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st 

Century Act, the Administrator may publish proposed and final rules under 

section 6( a) that are consistent with the scope of the completed risk 

assessment for the chemical substance and consistent with other applicable 

requirements of section 6." 

Page I of Attachment I is an email sent by EPA on March 17, 2016, the substance of 

which was shared with the bipartisan and bicameral negotiators of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act. It states that EPA "just discovered a technical issue that will 

have significant policy implications for EPA's ongoing work under Section 6. As 

currently drafted, both Senate and House bills could frustrate EPA's ability to timely 

manage risks that have been (or may be) identified in our current Work Plan risk 

assessments." The email goes on to describe several risk assessments on chemical 

substances (TCE. NMP. MC and 1-BP) that had been completed or were near 

completion by EPA, and stated that "EPA is not looking at all the conditions of use 

for these chemicals. This approach, which might be characterized as a partial risk 

evaluation or partial safety determination, we see as simply not contemplated under 

the Senate and House bills. The section 6 structure in both bills would require EPA to 

assess a chemical in its entirety, based on l!!.Lconditions of use -not just a subset of 

those uses.'' EPA then went on to state that if it were to move forward with 

rulemakings to restrict or ban some or all of these substances (which it has 

subsequently proposed to do). there would be some risk that the rules would be found 

to be inconsistent with the new statutory requirement to assess all conditions of use. 

EPA said that it would "welcome an opportunity to work with you on a drafting 

solution to this issue." 

Page 6 of 77 
19 


34874.012

a. Do you agree with EPA's March 17, 2016 view that if it had moved forward with 

these partial risk evaluations and rulemakings absent explicit statutory authority 

to do so even though the risk evaluations had not considered all conditions of 

use, that EPA could have been sued for not complying with the law's 

requirements? If not, please provide specific reasons why not. 

EPA agrees that proper implementation of the statutory requirements for 

evaluating existing chemicals is key to ensuring the safety of chemicals in the 

marketplace under amended TSCA. EPA is committed to implementing the 

amended TSCA law as written by Congress, and taking actions consistent 

with the rules EPA has promulgated, via notice and comment rulemaking as 

required by TSCA, to implement the law. 

b. Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 1 consist of April2, 2016 Technical Assistance 

from EPA that was provided to the Senate on a drafting solution to address the 

problem identified by EPA on March 17, 2016. Do you agree that this language, 

which is also drafted as an amendment to Section 26, bears a close resemblance 

to the language that was enacted into law, and, like the enacted text, provides 

EPA with statutory authority to complete rulcmakings on the chemical 

substances on which it completed risk assessments prior to the enactment of the 

new law even though the risk assessments were not undertaken for all conditions 

of use? If not please provide specific reasons why not. 

EPA is not precluded from finalizing proposed regulations based on risk 

evaluations conducted prior to the enactment of amendments to TSCA. For 

TCE and NMP, EPA has concluded that the Agency's previous assessments 

of the potential risks will be more robust if the potential risks from these 

conditions of use are evaluated by applying standards and guidance that 

EPA has developed under amended TSCA. EPA is committed to using the 

best available science and information to implement the amended TSCA law 

as written by Congress, and taking actions consistent with the rules EPA has 

promulgated, via notice and comment rulemakiug as required by TSCA, to 

implement the law. For MC, the agency is currently considering information 

received during the public comment period for the proposed rules. 

12. The newly enacted TSCA, for new chemicals, states that: 

"(e) REGULATION PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION.-(l)(A) 

If the Administrator determines that-

(i) the information available to the Administrator is insufficient to permit a reasoned 

evaluation of the health and environmental effects of a chemical substance 

with respect to which notice is required by subsection (a); or 

(ii)(l) in the absence of sufficient information to permit the Administrator to make 

such an evaluation. the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, 

usc, or disposal of such substance, or any combination of such activities, 

Page 7 of 77 
20 


34874.013

may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, 

without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an 

unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation 

identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of use; or 

(II) such substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such 

substance either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the 

environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or 

substantial human exposure to the substance, the Administrator shall issue 

an order, to take effect on the expiration of the applicable review period, to 

prohibit or limit the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, usc, 

or disposal of such substance or to prohibit or limit any combination of such 

activities to the extent necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of 

injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other 

nonrisk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under 

the conditions of usc, and the submitter of the notice may commence 

manufacture of the chemical substance, or manufacture or processing of the 

chemical substance for a significant new use, including while any required 

information is being developed, only in compliance with the order." 

Attachment 2 consists of a portion of EPA's Technical Assistance on an April?, 2016 

draft of Section 5 ofTSCA that EPA provided to the Senate. Comment A7 provides 

EPA· s views on section 5( e). This comment noted a change from previous drafts, 

observing that the draft allowed manufacture of a new chemical to proceed even if 

EPA did not have enough information to determine whether it posed an unreasonable 

risk. This is because the draft as written allowed for manufacture to proceed if EPA 

either took steps to obtain sufficient information about the chemical substance (but 

before it received and evaluated that information) OR if it imposed a risk 

management order. EPA also suggested some edits to this draft to restore the 

"functionality of the prior draft," which ensured that manufacture could not proceed 

unless/until the information about the chemical substance was sufficient and EPA 

made the necessary risk determination, or in compliance with an EPA-issued order to 

protect against unreasonable risk under the conditions of use while the in formation 

was being developed. 

a, Do you agree that the statute requires EPA to issue an order to protect against an 

unreasonable risk a new chemical substance may pose under the conditions of 

use, either while information EPA needs to assess the chemical substance is 

developed, or if EPA determines that the substance may present an unreasonable 

risk under the conditions of use, or if such substance is or wi II be produced in 

substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be 

anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be 

significant or substantial human exposure to the substance? If not, please provide 

specific reasons why not, using statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

EPA appreciates the significant responsibility conferred under Section 5 of 

amended TSCA and is dedicated to fully utilizing all authorities under 

Page 8 of77 
21 


34874.014

section 5, including the use of consent orders, as applicable, to protect the 

public against any unreasonable risk a new chemical substance presents or 

may present. EPA is committed to implementing its new chemicals 

responsibilities consistent with TSCA section 5 as amended by Congress. 

13. Section 5(t)(4) ofTSCA states that: 

"(4) TREATMENT OF NONCONFORMING USES.-Not later than 90 days after 

taking an action under paragraph (2) or (3) or issuing an order under 

subsection (e) relating to a chemical substance with respect to which the 

Administrator has made a determination under subsection (a)(3)(A) or (B), 

the Administrator shall consider whether to promulgate a rule pursuant to 

subsection (a)(2) that identities as a significant new use any manufacturing, 

processing, usc, distribution in commerce, or disposal of the chemical 

substance that does not conform to the restrictions imposed by the action or 

order, and, as applicable, initiate such a rulemaking or publish a statement 

describing the reasons of the Administrator for not initiating such a 

rulemaking." 

Attachment 3 is an Apri19, 2016 email from EPA providing responses to questions 

on the April 7 draft included in Attachment 2. The email asks whether the removal of 

provisions 5(e)(4) and 5(f)(I)(C) in that draft would also remove EPA's requirement 

to consider whether to issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) when it issued 

orders to a submitter of a pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) (and explain its decision if 

it chose not to do so). EPA responded in the affirmative. 

a. Do you agree that the enacted law retained the April 7 draft's requirement to consider 

whether to issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) when EPA has issued an order 

to a submitter of a pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) (and explain its decision if it 

chooses not to do so)? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory 

text to explain your reasoning. 

EPA appreciates the significant responsibility conferred under Section 5 of 

amended TSCA and is dedicated to fully utilizing all authorities under section 5, 

to protect the public against any unreasonable risk a new chemical substance 

presents or may present. EPA is committed to implementing its new chemicals 

responsibilities consistent with TSCA section 5 as amended by Congress. Section 

5( 4) of the statute docs allow EPA to consider whether to issue a Significant New 

Use Rule when EPA has made a determination under subsection (a)(3)(A) or (B). 

Page 9 of77 
22 


34874.015

14. The newly enacted TSCA requires EPA, for existing chemicals that are designated a highpriority chemical substance or otherwise designated for a risk evaluation, to: 

"conduct risk evaluations pursuant to this paragraph to determine whether a 

chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 

environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, 

including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the 

Administrator, under the conditions of usc." 

In the statute, 'conditions of use' is defined as: 

"the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator. under which a chemical 

substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, 

distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.'' 

Attachment 4 is a December 12, 2016 (post-enactment) email conveying Technical 

Assistance from EPA that responded to several questions posed about how EPA was required 

to do risk evaluations for a chemical substance under the conditions of use. 

a. Do you agree with EPA's responses to these questions as well as the narrative that 

precedes the specific responses to questions? If not, please provide specific reasons 

why not, indicating in your response how your views arc consistent with the statutory 

text excerpted above (or, as applicable, how EPA's responses are inconsistent with 

the statutory text excepted above). 

EPA is committed to implementing the amended TSCA law as written by 

Congress, and taking actions consistent with the rules EPA has promulgated, via 

notice and comment rulemaking as required by TSCA, to implement the law. As 

EPA stated in the Risk Evaluation Process final rule (40 CFR 702) promulgated 

in 2017, regarding the conditions of use, as EPA interprets the statute, the 

Agency is to exercise that discretion consistent with the objective of conducting a 

technically sound, manageable evaluation to determine whether a chemical 

substance--not just individual uses or activities-presents an unreasonable risk. 

In that regard, EPA will be guided by its best understanding, informed by 

legislative text and history, of the circumstances of manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, use and disposal Congress intended EPA to consider 

in risk evaluations. 

Page 10 of77 
23 


34874.016

15. Attachment 5 is a document that includes EPA's technical assistance and observations 

that compared an April 12 2016 Senate draft of section 5 to an April 18, 2016 House 

draft. 

a. On pages 2 and 15, EPA provides comments related to the 90-day period for review 

of a PMN. Do you agree that the enacted law includes text that reflects EPA's input 

in these comments? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory 

text to explain your reasoning. 

b. On Page 14, EPA notes the deletion of the requirement not to consider costs or other 

non-risk factors when considering section 5(h) exemption requests. Do you agree 

that the enacted law retained this deletion in this subsection, but included the 

requirement in sections S(a), S(e) and 5(1)? If not, please provide specific reasons 

why not, using statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

EPA is committed to following all section 5 statutory requirements for the conduct 

and timing ofPMN reviews. EPA is committed to implementing its uew chemicals 

responsibilities consistent with TSCA section 5 as amended by Congress. Section 

5(h) does not prohibit EPA from considering costs or other non-risk factors when 

considering exemption requests. 

16. Attachment 6 consists ofEPA's comments to a draft of Senate section 5 dated around 

April 12, 2016. 

a. EPA's comment A22 notes the absence of the requirement not to consider costs or 

other non-risk factors when considering section 5(h) exemption requests. Do you 

agree that the enacted law does not include the requirement in this subsection, but 

does include the requirement in subsections 5(a), 5(e) and S(f)? If not, please provide 

specific reasons why not, using statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

b. Do you agree that while this same EPA comment identifies one inconsistency 

between the above-described text that is absent from subsection S(h) but appears 

throughout the rest of section 5, it does not identify another difference, namely the 

presence of the term "specific uses identified in the application" in subsection 5(h) 

versus the term "conditions of use" that appears throughout the rest of section 5? If 

not, why not? 

EPA is committed to following all section 5 statutory requirements, including those 

in section S(h), for the conduct and timing ofPMN reviews. EPA is committed to 

implementing its new chemicals responsibilities consistent with TSCA section 5 as 

amended by Congress. Section S(h) does not prohibit EPA from considering costs or 

other non-risk factors when considering exemption requests. 

Page 11 of77 
24 


34874.017

17. Attachment 7 consists of EPA's comments to an April3, 2016 Senate drat! of section 5. 

a. On page 1, EPA observes that "5(e) requires no action on the part ofthe 

Administrator whatsoever: it is wholly discretionary authority to impose 

requirements on the manufacture pending development of information." Do you 

agree that the enacted law requires EPA to either prohibit manufacture or issue an 

order to mitigate against potential risk while information is being developed by a 

manufacturer? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory text to 

explain your reasoning. 

b. On page 2, EPA responds to a question posed by Senate stall stating ''We think it is 

important not to limit review to the uses identifled in the notice. lfthe identifled 

uses seem flne, and EPA therefore does nothing, the submitter is free to submit an 

NOC and then manufacture in any way he or she wants. EPA often uses 5( e) orders 

to address uses beyond those specified in notices." Do you agree that the enacted 

statute requires EPA to review the conditions of use (as that term is defined in the 

statute) of a chemical substance when it reviews a PMN as EPA advised the Senate 

in this comment? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using statutory 

text to explain your reasoning. 

c. On page 9, EPA says that "It seems like the best solution, per above comment, may 

be to drop the limitation above that the order pertain only to the conditions of use 

spccifled in the notice." Do you agree that the enacted statute incorporated EPA's 

proposed 'best solution' and did not limit orders only to the conditions of use 

specified in the notice? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using 

statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

d. A second EPA comment on page 9 states that "A possible solution would be, in line 

with the Senate bill and offer, to drop (e) and require EPA to issue an order under 

what is now (I) any time EPA either makes a may present Jlnding or lacks sufficient 

info. as necessary to make the unlikely to present finding.'' Do you agree that the 

enacted text retains section 5( e) and also requires EPA to issue an order any time 

EPA either makes a may present Jlnding or lacks sufflcient information before 

manufacturing can commence? If not, please provide specific reasons why not, using 

statutory text to explain your reasoning. 

e. On page 16, EPA responds to a question from Senate staff about whether, in the 5(h) 

exemptions section, it makes sense to deviate from the rest of the section's 

references to 'conditions of use' and instead limit EPA's exemption determination to 

the uses of the chemical substance identifled in the exemption request. EPA 

responds by stating "We agree that the reference to specific uses makes sense, but 

not because of anything having to do with a SNUR. It seems to us that, if a party is 

seeking a partial section 5 exemptions, we would consider only the uses for which 

they are seeking the exemption, since the exemption would limit them to those." Do 

you agree that the enacted statute follows EPA's advice to retain the authority for 

EPA to consider just the uses of a chemical substance included in an exemption 

request but does not make the same limiting change anywhere else so as not to so 

limit its review of all conditions of usc of a chemical substance subject to a PMN? If 

not, please provide speciflc reasons why not, using statutory text to explain your 

reasoning. 

Page 12 of77 
25 


34874.018

EPA is committed to following all section 5 statutory requirements for the conduct 

and timing of PMN reviews, including those related to the conditions of use. EPA is 

committed to implementing its new chemicals responsibilities consistent with TSCA 

section 5 as amended by Congress. Section 5(e) states that "the Administrator shall 

issue an order ... to prohibit or limit the manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use, or disposal of such substance or to prohibit or limit any combination 

of such activities to the extent necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of 

injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non risk 

factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of 

use." EPA acknowledges that only Section 5(h)(l)(A) contains the phrase 

"including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopnlation identified by the Administrator for the specific conditions of use 

identified in the application" in Section 5. For Section 5(a)(3) reviews, EPA reviews 

the conditions of use and does not limit its review to the intended uses identified in a 

PMN. 

18. What actions is EPA currently taking and planning to take to enforce emissions 

requirements for glider trucks? 

a. Is EPA requiring Fitzgerald and other glider truck manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance with these rules, for example. by regularly reporting to EPA on its 

sales of glider trucks? If not, why not, and how does EPA plan to ensure that the 

rules are being complied with? 

Manufacturers of glider vehicles are required by regulation (40 CFR 

1037.250 and 1037.635) to annually report to EPA specific information on 

their manufacturing operations, including total U.S.-direeted production 

volume in the prior year, and whether the vehicles complied with the 

standards or were exempt. 

19. EPA's proposed revision to its Phase 2 Medium- and Heavy-Duty greenhouse gas rules 

proposes to repeal the emission standards and other requirements for glider vehicles, 

glider engines, and glider kits. This proposal, if finalized, would conclude that that glider 

vehicles are not "new motor vehicles" within the meaning ofCAA section 216(3), glider 

engines are not "new motor vehicle engines" within the meaning ofCAA section 216(3), 

and glider kits are not "incomplete" new motor vehicles. The result of these reinterpretations would be that EPA would lack authority to regulate glider vehicles, glider 

engines, and glider kits under CAA section 202(a)(l). Many Clean Air Act experts do 

not agree with EPA's proposed re-interpretations, and have announced plans to litigate if 

the proposal is finalized. 

Page 13 of77 
26 


34874.019

a. If courts agree with these prospective petitioners and reject EPA's proposed reinterpretations, do you agree that glider vehicles, glider engines, and glider kits 

would remain subject to EPA's Phase 2 greenhouse gas rules in the way 

contemplated by that rule? If not, why not? 

We continue to consider each of these factors as we revisit whether or not the 

Phase 2 requirements for glider vehicles are consistent with the Clean Air 

Act. 

20. Section 209 of the Clean Air Act prohibits States or any subdivision thereof from 

adopting or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new 

motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines (unless the State to adopt or enforce such a 

standard is California, it is granted a waiver by EPA to do so, and states that are subject 

to section 177 of the Clean Air Act subsequently adopt California's standard). 

a. In the event that EPA finalizes its proposed revision to its Phase 2 Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty greenhouse gas rules, and those reinterpretations are upheld in 

court, do you agree that section 209' s preemption provision would no longer 

apply to any state requirements relating to control of emissions from glider 

vehicles or glider engines? If not, why not? 

b. Do you also agree that in this event, there could be 50 different state standards for 

gliders (in addition to the standards California has already set)? If not, why not? 

We continue to evaluate EPA's authority to regulate glider vehicles under the Clean 

Air Act. The evaluation of EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act may or may 

not have an impact on preemption applicable to California and other states under 

sections 209 and 177 oftbe Clean Air Act. 

21. During the development of the "Sater Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule 

for Model Years 2021-26 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks", EPA officials met with 

OMB and NHTSA officials to convey their concerns about the proposal several times. 

They left numerous documents with OMB officials that are now part of the rulemaking 

docket 1

.These documents indicate that there are significant problems with the model that 

was used by NHTSA to develop the proposal to freeze fuel economy and greenhouse gas 

tailpipe standards from 2020-26. One such example is a document titled "Email_5_-

- Email_ from_ William_ Charm ley _to_ Chandana _ Achanta _-_June _18,_ 20 18%20( 1 ).pdf". 

This 122 page long document includes a number of Power Point presentations EPA made 

to OMB and NHTSA staff along with additional documentation and analysis. 

Page 14 of 77 
27 


34874.020

a. The document notes that "EPA analysis to date shows signit!cant and 

fundamental flaws in CAFE model (both the CAFE version and the "GHG 

version'') .... These flaws make the CAFE model unusable in current form for 

policy analysis and for assessing the appropriate level of the CAFE or GHG 

standards.'' Do you believe that each of these flaws were fully remedied before 

the rules were proposed? If so, please list the specific remedies that addressed 

each of EPA's concerns. If not, will you ensure that all necessary technical input 

fi·om EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality is incorporated into the final 

rule in order to ensure that the rule cannot be successfully over-turned in court on 

grounds that the model on which it is based is significantly or fundamentally 

flawed? 

b. One of the main contributors to the NHTSA conclusions that the augural 

standards would cause thousands of additional deaths is NHTSA's "consumer 

choice" module, which asserts that making the fleet more fuel eftlcient will cause 

people to keep their less safe, older vehicles for longer, and that this will mean 

there are more unsafe vehicles on the road (because newer vehicles have more 

safety technologies). The document states that EPA believed this NHTSA model 

was flawed, because it predicts an additional 26 million non-existent vehicles 

would be in the 2016 fleet and 46 million additional non-existent vehicles in the 

2030 fleet. For context, this would represent a 15-20% increase in registered 

vehicles. The document also notes that this problem appeared to be un-remedied 

several months after EPA first raised it. Was this problem remedied in the 

proposed rule? If so, how? If not, will you ensure that it is remedied before the 

EPA rule is finalized in order to avoid litigation that will result in the rule being 

overturned on grounds that the model on which it is based is significantly or 

fundamentally flawed? 

c. The document also found that NHTSA's consumer choice model predicts an 

unexplained, and apparently fictitious I 0-15% increase in vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT). Specifically, the model somehow predicts people will drive an extra 239 

billion miles in 2016 and 302 billion more miles in 2030. The increased deaths 

associated with higher efficiency standards in the NHTSA model are highly 

correlated to VMT (more driving equals more accidents equals more deaths). It 

would thus seem that EPA believes that the NHTSA safety numbers are 

predicated on an entirely fictitious driving scenario. Was this problem remedied 

in the proposed rule? If so, how? If not, will you ensure that it is remedied before 

the EPA rule is finalized in order to avoid litigation that will result in the rule 

being overturned on grounds that the model on which it is based is significantly or 

fundamentally flawed? 

d. The document also notes that NHTSA does not accurately model the manner in 

which automobile manufacturers trade credits as part of their compliance 

strategies, observing that NHTSA docs not assume that compliance credits are 

traded between manufacturers' car and truck fleets (which is what manufacturers 

currently do), and that this has the effect of over-estimating compliance costs. 

Was this problem remedied in the proposed rule? If so, how? If not, will you 

ensure that it is remedied before the EPA rule is finalized in order to avoid 

litigation that will result in the rule being overturned on grounds that the model on 

Page 15 of77 
28 


34874.021

which it is based is significantly or fundamentally flawed? 

e. The document observes that NHTSA's model overestimates the costs of particular 

technologies compared to their actual costs and use in the real world. The model 

also reportedly selects the most expensive technology packages to meet the 

standards, which overestimates the most cost-effective ways to do so by $1-2,000 

per vehicle. Do you agree that manufacturers would be more likely to select the 

most cost-effective set of technologies with which to meet standards, rather than 

the least cost-effective set of technologies? If not, why not? Was this problem 

remedied in the proposed rule? If so, how? If not, will you ensure that it is 

remedied before the EPA rule is finalized in order to avoid litigation that will 

result in the rule being overturned on grounds that the model on which it is based 

is significantly or fundamentally flawed? 

f. The document stated that the NHTSA model omitted the benefits of some fuelefficient technologies entirely, while others were erroneously inputted into the 

model. For example, 'start/stop' technology, a technology that causes engines to 

automatically shut off while vehicles are stopped in traffic (and thus use no fi.1el). 

is estimated to have a negative effect on fuel-efficiency, which is simply not 

plausible. Were these problems remedied in the proposed rule? If so, how? lfnot, 

will you ensure that they are remedied before the EPA rule is finalized in order to 

avoid litigation that will result in the rule being overturned on grounds that the 

model on which it is based is significantly or fundamentally flawed? 

g. The document observed that NHTSA's model appears to add vehicle miles 

travelled in unexplained ways. For example, it observed that as many as 25 billion 

more miles of driving were predicted in a given year, even when the rebound 

effect (a measure of how much extra driving consumers arc expected to do as a 

result of having more fuel-efficient vehicles) was set to 0 percent. The document 

observes that NI-ITSA's model actually predicts less driving when the rebound 

effect was set to 20 percent (meaning 20% more driving by consumers in more 

fuel-efficient vehicles would have been included in the model) than when it was 

kept to 0 percent. This suggests that NHTSA 's model is incapable of predicting 

anything accurately, separate and apart from whether one agrees with its policy 

premise. Was this problem remedied in the proposed rule? If so. how? If not, will 

you ensure that it is remedied before the EPA rule is finalized in order to avoid 

litigation that will result in the rule being overturned on grounds that the model on 

which it is based is significantly or fundamentally flawed? 

h. The document states that NHTSA's "Proposed standards are detrimental to safety, 

rather than beneficial" once NHTSA ·s modeling errors were corrected. In fact. 

EPA found that the proposed standards result in "an average increase of 17 

fatalities per year in VY s 2036-2045" relative to the current standards. Do you 

agree with this conclusion? If not, why not? 

i. The document states that the NHTSA model projects that the current standards 

result in 8,000 fewer new automobiles sold annually in CY s 2021-2032, but that 

the used vehicle fleet would grow by 512,000 vehicles per year. That means that 

for every new fuel-efficient vehicle that consumers do not purchase (because 

NHTSA predicts their costs will be too high), somehow an additional 60 used 

vehicles will remain in the fleet. Do you agree that this scenario is simply 

Page 16 of 77 
29 


34874.022

implausible in the real world, as the EPA document points out? If not, why not? 

Was this problem remedied in the proposed rule? If so, how? If not, will you 

ensure that it is remedied before the EPA rule is finalized in order to avoid 

litigation that will result in the rule being overturned on grounds that the model on 

which it is based is significantly or fundamentally flawed? 

j. In draft comments submitted to OMB on June 29, EPA commented that more than 

90% of the net benefits for which the proposed rule to freeze fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas tailpipe standards takes credit are in fact benefits associated with 

vehicles manufactured prior to 2021. EPA attributed this to NHTSA 's flawed 

consumer choice model, and questioned whether these could technically be 

attributable to the actual post-2021 rule. What would the net benefits of the 

preferred alternative- and for each of the other seven alternatives included in the 

NPRM- be if the agencies were to compare the costs to the benefits of cars 

manufactured within the MY 2021-29 cohort timeframe? 

The documents you reference were made available by EPA in the rulemaking 

docket, because they are part of the documentation of interagency review of the 

draft proposed rule. Working through modeling methods and technical inputs and 

assumptions is a necessary aud critical aspect of the agencies' joint rulemaking 

development efforts. EPA looks forward to reviewing the public comments ou this 

proposal. 

22. On March 14, 2018, I wrote with several of my colleagues to former EPA Administrator 

Scott Pruitt about our deep concern over the reversal of the EPA's longstanding policy 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act to continuously regulate hazardous air pollution 

from major industrial sources. We believe revoking the "once in, always in" policy will 

lead to greater levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and almost two hundred other air toxic 

pollutants in communities around the United States. In the letter. we asked that the "once 

in, always in" policy be reinstated at least until EPA has performed, and received public 

comment on, a thorough analysis of the expected increases in air toxic pollution and its 

corresponding impacts on human health. 

a. When former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was before the EPW Committee on 

January 30, 2018, he acknowledged the agency failed to do any analysis before 

making its ill-advised decision. Please provide all EPA analysis and modeling of 

the impacts of this policy change, including cancer and other human health 

effects, environmental effects, effects on state air pollution emissions, cost-benefit 

analysis, and effects on interstate emissions. If none still exists today, I request 

that EPA complete such analysis and provide a timeline for completion. 

b. How many individual facilities in the country were considered a "major source" 

under Section 112 on January 24, 20 18? 

c. Please identify. as of January 24, 2018, how many of the "major source" facilities 

identified in question l(b) had complied with one or more MACT standards with 

the result being the source no longer emits more than I 0 tons per year of any 

hazardous air pollutant or more than 25 tons per year of any combination of 

Page 17 of77 
30 


34874.023

hazardous air pollutants? Please group these facilities by source categories (for 

example, there were X number of chemical plants meeting a MACT standard that 

resulted in lower emissions than the major source threshold). 

d. Please provide state-by-state data and a national total for facilities identified in 

!(c) 

e. Please provide the potential maximum amount of pollution increases for all 187 

hazardous air pollutants as a result of EPA's decision to revoke the "once in, 

always in" policy. 

f. How much additional particulate matter, ozone, lead and other criteria pollution 

will be added to the atmosphere as a result of revoking the "once in, always in" 

policy? 

g. Under the new memorandum, have any major source facilities in the power plant 

source category requested to be re-designated as an area source? If so, please 

provide a list of all such facilities, also indicating whether EPA has approved the 

re-designation. 

h. Under the new memorandum how many major sources facilities, other than 

facilities in the power plant source category, have asked to be re-designated as an 

area source? Please provide a list of all facilities, also indicating whether EPA bas 

approved the re-designation. 

The January 25, 2018 Wehrum guidance memo builds upon a 2007 proposed rule 

that addressed the same issue. In that proposal, EPA asserted that, "The 

environmental, economic, and energy impacts of the proposed amendments cannot 

be quantified without knowing which sources will avail themselves of the regulatory 

provisions proposed in this rule, and what methods of HAP emission reductions will 

be used. It is unknown how many sources would choose to take permit conditions 

that would limit their potential to emit (PTE) to below major source levels. Within 

this group, it is also not known how many sources may increase their emissions from 

the major source MACT level (assuming the level is below the major source 

thresholds). Similarly, we cannot identify or quantify the universe of sources that 

would decrease their HAP emissions to below the level required by the NESHAP to 

achieve area source status." (72 FR 77, ,January 3, 2007). In the 2007 proposed rule, 

EPA concluded that, "we believe it is unlikely that a source that currently emits at a 

level below the major source thresholds as the result of compliance with a MACT 

standard would increase its emissions in response to this rule. However, even if such 

increases occur, the increases will likely be offset by emission reductions at other 

sources that should occur as the result of this proposal. Specifically, this proposal 

provides an incentive for those sources that are currently emitting above major 

source thresholds and complying with MACT, to reduce their HAP emissions to 

below the major source thresholds." (72 FR 73-74, January 3, 2007). 

Page 18 of77 
31 


34874.024

As we noted in the 2018 Wehrnm Memorandum, EPA anticipates that it will be 

publishing a Federal Register notice to take comment on adding regulatory text that 

will reflect EPA's plain language reading of the statute in early 2019. Further, as we 

proceed through the rulemakiug process, we will prepare appropriate economic and 

other analyses with respect to the action and provide details about the length of the 

comment period and location of any public hearing. 

23. On July I 0, 2018, every major electrical utility trade organization representing coal-fired 

and other utilities joined with labor organizations on a letter to EPA confirming power 

plants have "reduced mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent over the past decade" and 

that "all covered plants have implemented the regulation [Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards Rule, MATS] and that pollution controls-where needed-arc installed and 

operating."2 The letter goes on to say, "leave the underlying MATS rule in place and 

effective."3 States. environmental and health groups have echoed industry's messageleave MATS alone. Is the EPA considering a rule making that will change the current 

status of MATS? If so, please provide why and detailed information on what the EPA is 

considering. 

In an April 2017 court filing, the EPA requested that oral argument for MATS 

litigation be stayed to allow the current Administration adequate time to review the 

Supplemental Cost Finding, which was the Agency's response to the U.S. Supreme 

Court decision in Michigan v. EPA which held that the EPA erred by not 

considering cost in its determination that regulation of hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units 

(EGUs) is appropriate and necessary under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

After reviewing the cost finding, the EPA plans to propose and solicit comment on 

the results of the review and any changes that result from that review. 

24. I'm proud to have had the opportunity to work with your former bosses- Senators 

Voinovich and Inhofe- on establishing the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, known as 

DERA. Cleaning up dirty diesel engines through DERA is a win-win for economic and 

health benefits. I'm concerned that all the gains we've made in the past decade through 

DERA will be negated if EPA moves forward with the glider kit proposal. The DERA 

Coalition, a broad coalition of environmental, science-based, public health, commercial 

and industry groups, shares my concerns. The DERA Coalition wrote to the agency on 

January 5, 2018, opposing EPA's glider kit proposal. stating, "EPA's decision to 

encourage the continued proliferation of older engines through the glider industry would 

increase emissions from medium and heavy-duty vehicles and undermines the work of 

the Coalition and cooperative federalism with the EPA and states."4 It is clear that 

allowing some of the dirtiest heavy-duty diesel trucks, called glider trucks, to circumvent 

clean air cleanups is bad for the environment, bad for health and bad for the economy. 

Page 19 of77 
32 


34874.025

Should the federal government continue to focus on replacing and retrofitting dirty diesel 

engines, rather than putting dirty diesel engines back on the road? 

Thank you for your support for the DERA program. It aims to help address the 

pollution coming from older diesel engines, and its widespread support from many 

different stakeholders is indicative of the role it serves in addressing these legacy 

fleet emissions. EPA received many comments on the November 2017 glider 

proposal (82 FR 53442, November 16, 2017). We will consider each of these factors 

as we revisit whether or not the Phase 2 requirements for glider vehicles are 

consistent with the Clean Air Act. 

25. During the August l, 2018 EPW hearing, you fielded several questions from my 

colleagues on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Several times you mentioned that 

under your leadership, EPA would focus more on transparency when it comes to 

implementing the RFS program. This is welcome news since I've tried to get EPA to 

take this step for years. However, I am concerned that you may only be focused on 

transparency when it comes to the small refinery waiver process and not the entire 

program. I remain concerned about the volatility in the RFS compliance trading system 

used by EPA, known as the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) market, and believe 

market transparency is a big part of the solution. 

a. In your answers, you talked about creating a dashboard -without disclosing 

proprietary information -on who is getting the small refinery waivers and why. 

Can you discuss further what this dashboard may look like and a time line on 

when it may be released? 

EPA posts RIN transactional and compliance information on our RFS Data 

website. We recently implemented revisions to the website to incorporate 

additional data through a more interactive dashboard. Please visit the 

following link for additional information: .!!.!.!.=~~~~~~-'-"':,!.;;;. 

b. The State of California has created a dashboard to provide weekly, monthly, 

quarterly and annually trading data for its own renewable fuel program. After 

talking to many stakeholders involved in that process, it seems that California's 

renewable fuel trading dashboard has been able to provide valuable insight into 

trading and helped reduced market volatility. EPA could implement something 

similar for the RFS RIN trading market. Is EPA considering a RIN dashboard 

that provides the public weekly, quarterly and annual RIN trading data? If not, 

why not? 

EPA posts RIN transactional and compliance information on our RFS Data 

website. We are open to comments and suggestions for improving and 

expanding program and market insight. Currently, information is updated 

Page 20 of 77 
33 


34874.026

the third Thursday of each month to reflect all transactions submitted 

through the end of the prior month. 

c. What further transparency measures is the EPA considering regarding the RFS 

program? 

As mentioned in our response to question "a" above, we recently 

implemented revisions to the website to incorporate additional data through 

a more interactive dashboard. Please visit the following link for additional 

information: hUps:/iwww.epa.gov/fucls-rcgistratiou-I·cporting-and-

<~ompliance-hdp/puhlk-data-rcncwabk-fuel-standanl. Furthermore, On 

July 10,2018, EPA published proposed volume requirements (83 FR 32024, 

July 10, 2018) under the Renewable Fuel Standard program for cellulosic 

biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel for calendar year 2019, 

and biomass-based diesel volume standards for calendar year 2020. In 

addition to seeking comment on the proposed volumes, EPA sought public 

comment on additional transparency measures for the Agency to implement. 

The Agency is still processing the large volume of comments received and 

will take all relevant comments into consideration when developing further 

RFS transparency measures. 

26. Currently, the EPA has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (CFTC) on RFS RIN market manipulation. In my questions for the 

record for the EPW January 30, 2018 hearing, I asked former Administrator Pruitt about 

the coordination between CFTC and EPA to assess potential RIN market manipulation 

I wanted to know how often EPA staff communicated with the CFTC on R!N market 

manipulation and why EPA wasn't asking for more help from the CFTC. Former 

Administrator Pruitt did not provide clear answers to these questions and in part of his 

answer he stated, 

'"EPA is always looking for ways to improve implementation and transparency of the 

program, while balancing resource needs and our duty to protect confidential business 

information as required by our regulations. EPA will continue to work with CFTC and 

seek to utilize their market oversight expertise and authority."5 

I've seen no action to date from EPA on the issue ofRIN market manipulation and still 

do not have a clear answer on how EPA is coordinating with other agencies to address 

this issue. 

a. What have you and your staff done with the CFTC to assess potential RIN market 

manipulation? 

5 See Scott Pruitt, Admi nistralor Environmental Protection Agency. Responses to Questions for the Record. Hearing 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works entitled .. Oversight Hearing to Receive 

Testimony from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scot! Pruil! ··(Jan. 30, 2018). 

Page 21 of77 
34 


34874.027

Under the MOU, CFTC looked into a claim by the Renewable Fuels 

Association (RFA). RFA asserted that some participants in the RIN market 

may have deliberately driven up RIN prices during a certain period to 

disrupt the RIN market, in order to support political gains to repeal/reform 

the RFS program. The RFA letter, dated August 31,2016, was sent to both 

CFTC and EPA. To assist CFTC, EPA provided RIN data from January 

2010 to August 2016. CFTC reviewed this data and, as noted by the CFTC 

Chairman Chris Giancarlo in his testimony to the Senate Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on February 15, 2018, CFTC did not 

find misbehavior in the market. Given EPA's market oversight limitations, 

we intend to pursue continued collaboration with CFTC under the MOU. 

b. How often has EPA staff communicated with the CFTC on RIN market 

manipulation? 

EPA and CFTC have engaged in dialogue since the MOU on RIN market 

manipulation was signed and EPA is committed to continuing these 

discussions. 

c. Please provide dates, times and details of any communication, including any 

cmails and phone calls, between CFTC and EPA since the MOU on RIN market 

manipulation was signed. 

EPA and CFTC have engaged in dialogue since the MOU on RIN market 

manipulation was signed and EPA is committed to continuing these 

discussions. 

d. Provide any suggestions from CFTC on what data EPA should be collecting to 

mitigate RIN market manipulation. 

On October 9, 2018, President Trump directed EPA to undertake a Clean 

Air Act rulemaking that, among other things, would change certain elements 

of the RIN compliance system under the RFS program to improve both RJN 

market transparency and overall functioning of the RIN market. While 

details of the proposal have yet to be finalized, EPA is currently considering 

a number of regulatory reforms that could be included in the proposal, such 

as: prohibiting entities other than obligated parties from purchasing 

separated RINs; requiring public disclosure when RIN holdings held by an 

individual actor exceed specified limits; limiting the length of time a nonobligated party can hold RINs; and changing the timelines that apply to 

obligated parties regarding when RINs must be retired for compliance 

purposes. We are currently working with CFTC to evaluate some of these 

proposals, and as part of that process we will take into consideration any 

relevant suggestions CFTC makes related to data collection or how to 

improve market functioning as a whole. 

Page 22 of77 
35 


34874.028

e. The CFTC has successfully used position limits to protect against excessive 

speculation and market manipulation, which helped stabilize markets. Has EPA 

had any discussions with the CFTC about establishing position limits for the RFS 

RIN market? If not, why not~ If so, please provide further details of those 

discussions. 

EPA recognizes and values CFTC expertise with regard to ensuring market 

stability. We are currently developing a proposed rule intended to improve 

both RIN market transparency and overall functioning of the RIN market, 

and we are working with CFTC to evaluate some of the policy proposals 

before the agency. 

27. Last year, I asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff to offer their expertise to 

EPA to help address RFS RIN market manipulation. I was told by former Administrator 

Scott Pruitt that on February 8, 2018, EPA and FTC did have a meeting to "initiate 

dialogue on this matter."6 

a. Have there been further conversations with the FTC? If so, please provide further 

details. If not, why not? 

As you noted, on February 8, 2018, EPA and FTC held a meeting to initiate 

dialogue on this matter, in which FTC discussed their authority and 

expertise, and we exchanged information to facilitate future discussions. 

b. Please provide any suggestions received from FTC on what data EPA should be 

collecting to mitigate RIN market manipulation. 

During a February 8, 2018 call, FTC discussed their authority and expertise, 

which are largely focused on investigating fraudulent reporting of 

information to governmental agencies and other acts with intent to deceive or 

gain advantage in market. Given the nature of the call, FTC did not offer any 

specific suggestions on what data EPA should collect to mitigate RIN market 

manipulation. 

c. On August 6, 2009, the FTC finalized a rule that prohibited market manipulation 

in the petroleum industry. So far, EPA has not taken similar steps. Why is market 

manipulation banned for the wholesale petroleum markets and not tor the RFS 

RIN markets? 

6 See Scott Pruitt. Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. Responses to Questions fOr the Record. Hearing 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works entitled .. Oversight Hearing to Receive 

Testimonyfrom Em·;ronmental Protection .1/gency Administrator Scott Pruitt" (Jan. 30, 2018). 

Page 23 of77 
36 


34874.029

Based on our internal reviews, EPA has not seen evidence of manipulation in 

the RIN market. CFTC analysis, discussed above, also did not find evidence 

of manipulation. Even so, we understand concerns about potential 

manipulation, and we are open to the prospect of discussing possible steps 

that could be taken by CFTC or others in this area. 

d. Is the EPA considering a similar rulemaking to prohibit market manipulation in 

the RFS RIN market? If not. why not? If so. please provide further details and a 

planned timeline. 

As mentioned above, EPA is currently working on a Clean Air Act 

rulemaking that, among other things, would change certain elements of the 

RIN compliance system under the RFS program to improve both RIN 

market transparency and overall functioning of the RIN market. As part of 

the rule development process we are assessing a wide range of policy options 

that could be pursued. Our current goal is to issue a proposed rule in early 

2019, and in that rule we will provide our assessment of the various 

approaches that could be taken to help deter market manipulation. 

28. For Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. the Administration's budget proposal included plans to 

dramatically reduce the size of EPA's workforce. When Congress enacted the FY' 18 

Omnibus in March of this year, it made clear that EPA was to not seek to reduce EPA's 

workforce through buyouts of other active measures. 

a. As of August!'', what is the number of full-time employees at EPA? 

As of July 30,2018, EPA had 13,780 full-time employees (this includes 

permanent and temporary employees). 

b. How does this number compare to the number of FTEs on March 23, 2018, when 

the Omnibus was signed into law? 

As of March 26,2018, EPA had 13,981 full-time employees (this includes 

permanent and temporary employees). 

c. If there are fewer EPA FTEs today than there were on March 23, please explain 

why this is the case. 

Due to attrition and hiring lags the number of Agency full-time employees 

has gone down. In FY 2018, EPA has set an on-board target of 14,172, 

including temporary and part time employees. 

29. Congress is currently working to finalize EPA's FY 2019 appropriations. Will you abide 

by all Congressional directives regarding staffing levels in FY 20 19? 

Page 24 of 77 
37 


34874.030

We appreciate the attention to our staffing levels under the current federal budget 

landscape. Our intent is to abide by all Congressional directives. 

30. The 2018 Omnibus contained a provision related to reporting requirements under 

CERCLA for air emissions from animal waste. known as the FARM Act. On April 27th, 

EPA published guidance on its website entitled "How does the Fair Agricultural 

Reporting Method Act Impact reporting of air emissions from animal waste under 

CERCLA Section I 03 and EPCRA Section I 04?" On May 25, I along with other 

members of the EPW committee wrote to then-Administrator Pruitt that the information 

contained in the guidance document was contrary to the clear Congressional intent and 

legislative history behind the FARM Act. We requested that the guidance be rescinded, 

and the EPA website be updated accordingly. As of today, this guidance is still online. 

When do you intend to rescind this guidance? 

In November 2018, EPA published a proposed rule for public comment on the 

agency's interpretation that air emissions from farm animal waste do not need to be 

reported under EPCRA. The final rule would maintain consistency between the 

emergency release notification requirements of EPCRA and CERCLA. The agency 

is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised in your letter 

throughout the rulcmaking process. The guidance is no longer available on EPA's 

website. 

Senator Duckworth: 

31. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) includes a provision that requires the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to "reset" the renewable volume 

obligations (RVO) if certain conditions are met. 

a. With regard to this reset authority, can you please explain what would trigger this 

process and what the authority allows you to do? 

The statute specifies the conditions under which this "reset" authority is 

triggered, which include waivers of the renewable fuel volumes laid out in the 

statute by more than 50% in one year or more than 20";(, in two consecutive 

years. These criteria have been met in the past for both the cellulosic biofuel 

and advanced biofuel categories in the statute. The proposed renewable fuel 

volume obligations for 2019, if finalized, would satisfy the reset criteria for the 

total renewable fuel volume category. The statute requires that EPA undertake 

a rulemaking to modify the volumes otherwise specified by Congress in the 

statute for the remaining years (2019-2022) and to complete such rulemaking 

within one year (e.g., by November 30, 2019). 

Page 25 of77 
38 


34874.031

b. Do you expect the final 20 I 9 RVOs to trigger the reset process? 

The proposed renewable fuel volume obligations for 2019, if finalized, would 

satisfy the reset criteria for the total renewable fuel volume category. 

c. Do you expect the final 2019 RVOs to trigger the reset process? 

The proposed renewable fuel volume obligations for 2019, if finalized, would 

satisfy the reset criteria for the total renewable fuel volume category. 

Senator Fischer: 

32. Administrator Wheeler, during questioning, l discussed with you small refinery 

exemptions awarded to petitioners for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship. 

When EPA conducts its analysis to determine disproportionate economic hardship, please 

clarify if the EPA compares the high cost of compliance to only small refiners (those that 

produce 75,000 barrels of crude per day) Qr if the EPA compares the high cost of 

compliance to the entire refining industry. 

EPA conducts its analysis of whether a petitioning refinery is experiencing 

disproportionate economic hardship by evaluating the specific economic and other 

conditions that may be in play at that refinery, on a case-by-case basis. Each caseby-case evaluation is performed in coordination with DOE. For additional 

information on the DOE studies that define "disproportionate economic hardship" 

and the process for evaluating each petitioning facility, please visit the following 

website: https://\\" w.cpa.gm/renc\\ ahk-fucl-standanl-pmurallJ/small-refinc·rv-

.cxem pt ion-s! u d i<'S-llqw rtmt•n !-energy. 

Senator Gillibrand: 

33. Acting Administrator Wheeler, as you may know, a number of communities in my state 

of New York have been negatively impacted by the presence ofPFOA and PFOS in their 

drinking water. The residents of Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh were consuming water 

tainted by PFOA from a plastic manufacturing plant in their community. The drinking 

water supplies in Newburgh and East Hampton are tainted with PFOS from tlrefighting 

foam used at Air National Guard bases nearby. I appreciate that the EPA has made 

addressing these chemicals a priority. I note that, to date, the EPA has conducted 

community engagement meetings in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and has 

scheduled meetings in Colorado and North Carolina later this month. When will EPA 

hold a PF AS community engagement meeting in New York State'> 

Page 26 of 77 
39 


34874.032

The EPA coordinated closely with states and local communities on a series of perand polyflouroalkyl substances (PFAS) community engagement events. The 

locations were selected based on state and community interest as well as logistical 

considerations related to geographic distribution and timing. Additionally, the EPA 

worked to ensure the Agency was able to balance the need to take action with the 

EPA's desire to hear from as many communities as possible. 

Community engagements have been held in Exeter, New Hampshire (.June 25-26); 

Horsham, Pennsylvania (.July 25); Colorado Springs, Colorado (August 7-8); 

Fayetteville, North Carolina (August 14); and Leavenworth, Kansas (September 5). 

The EPA also engaged with tribal representatives at the Tribal Lands and 

Environment Forum in Spokane, Washington, on August 15. 

The EPA appreciates your interest and understands the importance of this issue to 

New Yorkers. We appreciated the participation of New York's Department of 

Environmental Conservation and Department of Health in our May 22-23 PFAS 

National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C., and the EPA will continue to 

work with both agencies to address PFAS contamination in New York State. 

Also, to ensure that everyone who wanted to provide input to the EPA had the 

opportunity to do so, the Agency opened a docket for input from the public. This 

docket is available at !.!.J.t.lls://\1 \\\\.rcoulations.om ldod>et':D=FI' c\-l!O-OW-2018-

027H. 

34. The EPA's regulations for implementing the recent TSCA reform bill passed by Congress 

limits the EPA from considering the "legacy uses" of a chemical when deciding whether 

to regulate it under the TSCA program. Drinking water contamination from a plant that 

is no longer manufacturing PFOA would be considered a legacy use. Despite Congress's 

very clear direction, those rules ignore the public's current exposure as a result of the past 

uses of chcm icals. Legacy uses pose risks to public health because the past 

manufacturing and disposal of those chemicals can still contaminate groundwater, as is 

currently the case with PFOA in Hoosick Falls. NY. Will you review those 

implementation rules and direct your staff to revise them to ensure that EPA is 

considering all potential uses and potential pathways of exposure for these chemicals? 

As a general matter, EPA will address in its risk evaluations those uses for which it 

is known, intended, or reasonably foreseen that the chemical is being manufactured, 

processed, or distributed (i.e., the use is prospective or on-going). However, as stated 

in the 2017 final rule Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under tlte Amended 

Toxic Substances Control Act, in a particular risk evaluation, EPA may consider 

background exposures from legacy use, associated disposal, and legacy disposal as 

part of an assessment of aggregate exposure or as a tool to evaluate the risk of 

exposures resulting from non-legacy uses. For example, EPA's Office of Water has 

developed health advisories for PFOA and PFOS based on the agency's assessment 

of peer-reviewed science to provide drinking water system operators, and state, 

Page 27 of77 
40 


34874.033

tribal and local officials who have the primary responsibility for overseeing these 

systems, with information on the health risks of these chemicals, so they can take the 

appropriate actions to protect their residents. EPA also has an agency-wide PFAS 

workgroup developing human health toxicity values for GenX and PFBS, evaluating 

the current universe ofPFAS manufactured and in use, gathering scientific 

information and undertaking robust public outreach and engagement. 

35. Last December, the US Court of Appeals for the 9'h Circuit faulted EPA for taking too 

long to develop new rules updating the outdated lead-based paint and dust-lead hazard 

standards. The court compelled your agency to take action to propose and finalize a rule. 

This is critically important in New York, where a special report published by Reuters this 

past November found 69 New York City census tracts where at least 10 percent of small 

children had elevated lead levels. While lead paint and dust are not the only factors 

contributing to these high lead levels, it remains a serious concern for children under the 

age of 6 years and a major environmental justice concern, particularly for residents of 

public housing and older buildings. 

a. While the EPA proposed more stringent standards for lead dust in July, it did not 

propose to lower the standards for lead-based paint, citing lack of sufficient 

information to support a change. What specific action will you direct EPA staff to 

take to address that data gap identified in the proposed rule, so that you can make a 

more informed decision on the definition of lead based paint? 

Pursuant to TSCA section 401 (15 U.S.C. 2681(9)), EPA will work with the 

Department of Housing and Urban I>evelopment (HUD) to make any 

appropriate changes to the definition of lead-based paint. EPA, working with 

HUI>, has identified a number of specific data and information needs to inform 

consideration of revising the definition of lead-based paint. EPA also solicited 

input from the public regarding data or information that could be useful in this 

effort. The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on August 16, 

2018, and EPA is now carefully considering all comments and input received, 

including any data or information that may inform any change to the definition 

of lead-based paint. 

b. Is the EPA on track to finalize the lead dust rules in compliance with that court order? 

Yes, EPA published, in the Federal Register on July 2, 2018, the proposed rule, 

Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards anti the Definition of Lead-Based Paint 

in compliance with the court deadline and EPA is on track to take final action 

within the timeframe stipulated by the court. 

Page 28 of77 
41 


34874.034

36. Will you commit that, before issuing a certificate of completion for the PCB cleanup of 

the Hudson River, the EPA will continue to work in close coordination with New York 

State to fully review and consider sediment samples from the Upper Hudson River, and 

the supplemental studies of the Lower Hudson River? 

EPA is currently working with our state partner, the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), to review the results of some 1,800 

sediment samples collected by NYSDEC. EPA is working towards developing joint 

findings on the results of the sampling. EPA will not make any final decisions with 

respect to whether General Electric has completed its work or about the 

protectiveness of the work so far until we have completed our review of input from 

the public and our government partners and completed analyses of data from the 

samples collected by NYSDEC. The supplemental studies of the Lower Hudson 

River are ongoing, although they are not tied to certifying completion of remedial 

action under the consent decree, which is limited to the area defined as the Upper 

Hudson. 

Senator Inhofe: 

37. When EPA promulgated the existing Section lll(b) "new source" rules for carbon 

dioxide, the agency did not adequately contemplate the emerging value of natural gasfired "Quick Start'' Simple Cycle Combustion Turbines (CTs) to maintain the reliability 

of our nation's electricity grid. Unlike traditional coal-fired and gas-fired electric 

generation units that take hours to come on line from a cold start, "Quick Start" CTs can 

achieve full operating capacity in as little as 9 minutes. Consequently, "Quick Start" CT 

units arc uniquely valuable to the nation's power pools to address reliability challenges 

that commonly occur due to changes in the generation mix. However, the existing EPA 

Ill (b) regulations limit the operation of "new" electric generation plants, including new 

"quick start" CTs, to less than 40% of their annual operating capacity. This mitigates the 

ability of power pool operators to call on CTs to respond quickly to unpredictable 

changes certain types of generation transmitted to the grid. It also restricts the flexibility 

that these generators and power pool operators need to respond to a variety of other 

market conditions, including weather-related events or transmission or generation outage 

events on the grid. 

Several industry comments were filed with EPA during the rulemaking that produced the 

existing lll(b) rule expressing concern about this artificial operating restriction, which 

was also believed to be overreaching under statute. Given that EPA is working on 

revising its ''new source" regulations affecting utilities under Section lll(b), what 

regulatory changes could be included in the revision to insure that the existing lll(b) 

regulations do not needlessly restrict the use of·'quick start" CT units to redress 

reliability challenges to the electric grid? 

Page 29 of 77 
42 


34874.035

EPA staff is currently focused on reviewing requirements for new coal-fired EGUs. 

Those standards are legally contentious and the subject of multiple petitions for 

review. EPA conducted an extensive analysis of the role of"quick start" 

aeroderivative simple cycle combustion turbines as part of the Section lll(b) GHG 

NSPS for EGUs. The requirements for combustion turbines were a balance of 

providing sufficient flexibility to account for potential future changes to the electric 

grid, affordability, achievability, not artificially distorting the electricity market, or 

providing perverse incentives to increase GHG emissions. While no petitions were 

filed on the standards for combustion turbines, EPA staff continues to monitor the 

operation of EGUs to determine if the role of new high efficiency "quick start" 

acroderivative simple cycle combustion turbines in the electricity market has 

changed sufficiently since 2015 to warrant revising the current standards. 

38. From 2009 through 2015, the General Electric Company conducted one of the largest 

environmental cleanup projects in U.S. history, dredging about 40 miles of the Hudson 

River to remove PCBs. EPA developed an aggressive plan to remove most of those 

PCBs, deciding on the appropriate scope of the removal to realize the strongest 

environmental outcomes over time. GE spent almost $2 billion implementing that plan 

and removed almost twice the amount ofPCBs originally estimated, and EPA lauded the 

efforts as an "historic accomplishment." On December 23,2016, GE submitted a 

completion report outlining all of the steps the company took to complete the plan and 

asking EPA to certify that the project is complete, in accordance with a 2005 Consent 

Decree signed by GE and the EPA. In that Consent Decree, EPA agreed to grant a 

Certification of Completion within I year ofGE's submission of the completion report. It 

is now seven months past the deadline, yet the agency has not issued a certification of 

completion. 

a. Will you decide GE's certification of completion based on the specific criteria set 

forth in the consent decree? 

b. When can we expect EPA will make the decision on the certification of 

completion? 

EPA will comply with the Consent Decree for the Hudson River PCBs Site in 

deciding whether to provide the Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action 

to General Electric. The Consent Decree states: 

If EPA concludes, based on the initial or any subsequent report requesting 

Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action and after a reasonable 

opportunity for review and comment by the State and by the Federal 

Trustees for Natural Resources, that the Remedial Action has been 

performed in accordance with this Consent Decree, EPA will so certify in 

writing to [General Electric]. This certification shall constitute the 

Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action .... 

(Consent Dect·ee, paragraph. 57.d) 

Page 30 of77 
43 


34874.036

The Consent Decree defines Remedial Action as "those activities, except for 

Remedial Design and Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring, to be undertaken to 

implement the {2002 Record of Decision], in accordance with the [Statement of 

Work], the final Remedial Design plans and reports, the Remedial Action Work 

Plans, and other plans allproved by EPA." (Consent Decree, paragraph 4). 

General Electric (GE) has informed EPA that it believes that it completed the 

Remedial Action portion of the cleanup as required by the Consent Decree and has 

requested EPA's Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action. EPA is 

reviewing input from the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC), including results of some 1,800 sediment samples it 

collected, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service, and the New York State Attorney General's office as it considers 

GE 's request. EPA will not make any final decisions with respect to whether GE has 

completed the Remedial Action or about the protectiveness of the work so far until 

we have completed our review of input received from the public and our 

government partners and completed analyses of data from the samples collected by 

NYSDEC. 

39. In April, EPA issued a policy statement announcing that it would proactively address 

congressional directives and stakeholder concerns, by treating biogenic emissions from 

forest biomass as carbon neutral in a forthcoming regulatory action. What is the 

timeframe in which we can expect the proposed regulation will issue? 

An action to address the treatment of biogenic C02 emissions in the context of 

Clean Air Act permitting is currently under development. In the 2018 Fall Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, we noted that this was a 

long term action, with a date for a proposed rule to be determined. 

40. It is my understanding that IRIS is not a statutorily mandated program and that IRIS 

assessments have no direct regulatory impact until they are combined with other 

information by EPA's program offices. Currently, EPA has regulations in place 

managing exposures to formaldehyde. 

a. Is there a need or added benefit, then to developing this assessment? 

The IRIS program is a mechanism to implement the risk assessment 

requirements contained in a variety of environmental statutes. Therefore, the 

authority for the IRIS Program's mission of developing of human health 

assessments that evaluate potential health effects that may result from 

exposure to environmental contaminants is contained in the relevant 

research and risk assessment requirements within statutes governing the 

Environmental Protection Agency. ORO is currently developing a new 

approach of soliciting program input on current and future IRIS 

Page 31 of77 
44 


34874.037

assessments, to ensure IRIS assessment activities are focused on the highest 

priority needs. The formaldehyde assessment will be included in this activity, 

which will inform our next steps. 

b. If so, what higher priority assessments could be prioritized instead? 

See answer to 40a. 

c. Arc there any program offices that have a regulatory need for a revised 

formaldehyde IRIS assessment to inform ongoing or pending Agency action? If 

so, please provide the specific program offices and the specific Agency action. 

See answer to 40a. 

41. The National Academies was highly critical of EPA's last public draft IRIS formaldehyde 

assessment. Based on recent leaks to the media, it appears that the conclusions in the 

current unreleased draft assessment have not changed even though published science 

supports that formaldehyde does not cause leukemia and that safe thresholds for exposure 

exist. 

a. With new science and credible criticisms by the National Academies, will EPA 

not modify its assessment? 

Any IRIS assessment would consider all relevant scientific information -for 

formaldehyde that would include considering all science which has been 

published since the release of the NAS report. In addition, any revised 

assessment for formaldehyde would address all the recommendations from 

the 2011 NAS report. More broadly, IRIS has been incorporating principles 

of systematic review into the assessment development process in response to 

the recommendations from the 2011 and 2014 NAS reports. 

b. Will you review and integrate all science published since the release of the 2010 

draft IRIS assessment has been reviewed and integrated into any revised draft? 

Yes, any development of a draft formaldehyde assessment would carefully 

review and consider new, peer-reviewed science as it becomes available. A 

new draft IRIS assessment would consider and incorporate this information, 

as appropriate, to ensure that the assessment reflects the state-of-the-science 

on any chemical, including formaldehyde. 

Page 32 of77 
45 


34874.038

42. EPA ·s previous draft IRIS formaldehyde assessment suggested that human breath might 

pose an unacceptable risk of cancer. Given that the human body naturally produces 

formaldehyde, this does not seem reasonable or realistic. Will you ensure that IRIS 

values retlect real life human exposure scenarios and include a reality check as 

recommended by the National Academies? 

IRIS assessments address the first two steps of the risk assessment process, hazard 

identification and dose-response. EPA program and regional offices estimate the 

amount of human exposure under different exposure scenarios. The exposure 

information developed by the Agency is combined with the toxicity values developed 

by the IRIS program to characterize the potential public health risks of a chemical. 

Any updated assessment would reflect all comments received by the 2011 NAS 

report. 

43. Given the recent media attention around the EPA's draft IRIS formaldehyde assessment 

and the appearance that the Agency is circumventing its own peer review process by 

releasing unvetted conclusions to the media, would you consider: 

a. Identifying a small panel of independent 3rd party scientists to review the revised 

draft IRIS assessment and provide you input on its scientific rigor before it is 

released for public review? 

EPA will follow the 7-step process established for IRIS assessments, which 

includes an independent peer review process. 

b. Identifying an independent 3rd party arbiter to confirm that all201 I and 2014 

NAS recommendations are fully and adequately resolved before the IRIS 

assessment is finalized? 

EPA has been moving forward to ensure that both programmatic and 

assessment-specific recommendations are being addressed by the IRIS 

Program. These advances were most recently presented to the NAS in 

February 2018, and the ensuing report by the National Academies, building 

on the recommendations in the 2014 report, concluded that EPA had made 

substantial progress. Any future IRIS assessments would consider and 

address all recommendations from the NAS 2011 report. 

Senator Markey: 

44. Formaldehyde is a toxic carcinogen widely used in everything from furniture to lotion. 

During the last administration, EPA scientists began an analysis of the human health 

impacts of formaldehyde that I understand has been completed for over a year. When 

Pruitt was here in January, I asked him about this scientific analysis, which he admitted 

was completed. However, despite the desire by EPA staff to make this critical analysis 

Page 33 of77 
46 


34874.039

available for public review, lobbying by special interest groups who have a stake in 

suppressing information about formaldehyde's dangerous impacts met a friendly and 

abiding audience with Mr. Pruitt. I, and several members of this committee, are 

significantly concerned about this attempt to silence scientists and scientific data under 

the last Administrator. 

a. At this month's hearing. you refused to say when you would publicly release 

EPA's formaldehyde assessment for peer review. Will you now commit to 

publicly release this report, without any additional political interference, within 

the next thirty days? 

ORD is currently developing a new approach of soliciting program input on 

current and future IRIS assessments, to ensure IRIS assessment activities arc 

focused on the highest priority needs. The formaldehyde assessment would 

be included in this activity, which will inform our next steps. 

45. The EPA is a pivotal player in our national fight against toxic substances and has 

historically worked to protect the public from the health risks posed by unsafe chemicals. 

Last year, on a bipartisan basis, Congress worked to enact reforms to the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) intended to, among other things, significantly strengthen 

new chemical reviews. These changes made as a part of the Frank R. Lautenberg 

Chemical Safety for the 21 ''Century Act, have been significantly weakened by this 

administration. 

For example, the EPA now appears to no longer release the results of its initial reviews of 

new chemicals or new uses of existing chemicals that identify risk concerns or data gaps. 7 

Under previous administrations going back decades, the EPA would provide public 

notice of its initial recommendations that new chemicals be determined to be "not likely 

to present an unreasonable risk"; that they would or could present an '·unreasonable risk 

of injury"; that they lacked sufficient information to conduct a reasoned evaluation; or 

that further review was needed. An EPA presentation dated December 6, 2017 noted that 

the agency was developing "revised terminology." 8 Now, rather than publish these 

interim statuses, the EPA is only informing the public that a "Focus Meeting Occurred,"9 

and is not communicating the recommendations of its professional staff made at that 

meeting. The EPA appears to have stopped providing this information to the public, 

despite the agency's continued interim and final decision-making on dozens of new 

chemicals each month. This intonnation was invaluable to the public in ensuring the 

7 l!iar. Corbin. "At Trump's EPA, one-public chemical safety reviews go dark."" E&E News. January 20. 2018. 

Page 34 of77 
47 


34874.040

accountability ofEPAjudgments as to whether new chemicals will be safe when they 

enter the market. While there may be legitimate reasons for the amelioration of initial 

concerns about a new chemical by the time the EPA makes a final decision on it, 

transparency and good governance warrant the EPA explaining to the public the steps it 

took to remove the concern-not to hide from the public any evidence of the EPA's 

initial concern. 

a. Can you provide examples of the ''confusion"10 that the EPA alleges was 

produced by providing the public with the interim statuses? Please provide 

any documentation or communications between EPA staff and the public that 

evidence this confusion. 

Prior to amended TSCA, EPA posted the interim status, but not the final 

status for cases that had gone through the multidisciplinary Focus 

meeting. EPA continued this approach for a short time after the passage 

of the TSCA amendments. However, in certain cases, a submitter 

provided additional information for EPA to consider after the Focus 

meeting occurred and after the interim status was posted. Following 

EPA's review ofthe new information, the recommended determination 

listed in the interim status may have differed from the final 

determination. These changes were leading to confusion among our 

stakeholders. 

b. Please provide an explanation as to how the new terminology was developed, 

including any meetings held (and related documentation) on the topic and how 

the new terminology will better protect public health? 

EPA temporarily stopped posting the interim status for 

PMN/SNUN/MCAN cases until language could be discussed with the 

Office of General Counsel aud senior management. This was discussed at 

the December 6, 2017, new chemicals public meeting. In mid-December 

2017, it was decided that the best approach would be to inform 

submitters that their case had made it to the Focus stage as the interim 

status and the final status should be the only determination listed in the 

table. Since early .January, the interim status now simply notes that a case 

was considered at the Focus meeting and the date of the meeting. This 

change was made to be consistent with the fact that if the intended 

conditions of use in a PMN submission raise risk concerns, and the 

submitter makes a timely amendment to address those concerns, EPA 

will consider the conditions of use in those amended submissions. The 

tables are current for all cases that have been discussed at a Focus 

meeting and will continue to be updated on a weekly basis. 

10 Environmental Protection Agency, "Other Advance Questions'' Presentation by Tanya Hodge Mottle, Acting 

Deputy Director of Programs, U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. December 6, 2017. As found on 

January 17,2018 at S fiLl< I 

Page 35 of 77 
48 


34874.041

c. Can you commit to updating the public with more information on potentially 

hazardous chemicals or presumed safe chemicals, beyond simply stating that a 

focus meeting has occurred? Please include in your response the type of 

information the EPA could provide to improve transparency into this process 

and a date by when this change will take place. 

EPA is committed to providing the public timely and accurate 

information on the status of its safety reviews of pre-manufacture notices 

(PMNs) for new chemicals submitted by industry under section 5 of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended. For example, the 

Agency posts weekly statistics on the EPA web site to reflect the numbers 

and types of new chemicals cases under review, the number of completed 

reviews, and the determinations made to date. (See 

h ttps: I /ww'' .cpa.gm) n•vit'\\ ing-ncw -(·hem ica Is- nn dc·r-to ~i c-s u hs t~ 

'~••n tml-act-tsc~a/statistks- n~\\ -chc mkals-rc1 ie1!). 

In addition, the Agency has provided a case-specific table where 

submitters and others can look up individual new chemical submissions 

to see the current status of the review and, when complete, a final status. 

The table includes hyperlinks to the publicly available final 

determination documents. Cases are added to the table once they pass the 

multi-disciplinary team risk characterization meeting called the Focus 

meeting. 

46. Under your leadership, the EPA has indefinitely delayed finalizing its proposed bans on 

high-risk uses of methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone, and trichloroethylene."·" 

The 2016 Lautenberg Act specifically authorized the EPA to pursue needed restrictions 

on these chemicals. The law allowed for prioritized action on high-risk uses of these 

chemicals-which the EPA has declared to present unreasonable risk. Dozens of deaths 

have been linked to methylene chloride-based paint strippers, and agency experts have 

noted connections between trichloroethylene and developmental damage. 

Trichloroethylene was one of the chemicals found in the water around Camp Lejeune, a 

Marine base in North Carolina. Potentially 900,000 service members were exposed to this 

dangerous chemical, which causes cancer and is linked to fetal cardiac defects. 13 

11 Kaplan, Sheila. "E.P.A. Delays Bans on Uses of Hazardous Chemicals." New York Times. December 19,2017. 

Environmental Protection Agency, "New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework: \Vorking Approach to Making 

Determinations under Section 5 ofTSCA:· November 2017. As found on January 17.2018 at 

l_c. 

Page 36 of77 
49 


34874.042

a. Can you provide a detailed justification for the indefinite delay of the 

proposed bans for high-risk uses of methylene chloride, N-methylyprrolidone, 

and trichloroethylene? 

EPA is continuing to work expeditiously on this rule and on making sure 

that it is fully consistent with the new risk management provisions of the 

Frank R. Lauten berg Chemical Safety Act. 

EPA is evaluating identified uses of MC, , trichloroethylene (TCE), and 

N-methylyprrolidone (NMP) as part of the first ten chemicals undergoing 

chemical risk evaluations under amended TSCA. These evaluations will 

be completed in accordance with statutory timelines. 

While EPA is not precluded from finalizing proposed regulations based 

on risk evaluations conducted before enactment of amendments to TSCA, 

EPA has concluded that the Agency's previous assessments ofthe 

potential risks from TCE and NMP will be more robust if the potential 

risks from these conditions of use are evaluated by applying standards 

and guidance under amended TSCA. 

b. Was Michael Dourson involved in any capacity on the evaluation of 

trichloroethylene while he was working as an EPA advisor? If so, please detail 

and provide any written documents of his work, including any memos. 

meeting notes, or other correspondence. 

Dr. Doursou, along with other Senior Leaders new to the Agency, was 

briefed (provided a synopsis) on the content and conduct of the risk 

assessment for trichloroethylene that EPA completed in 2015. This 

meeting was informational and did not include solicitation or nor 

providing of advice or direction related to evaluation. 

Also, under the previous administration, the EPA had proposed to ban the use of the 

chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide used on a variety of fruits and vegetables. 14 

Residential and indoor use of chlorpyritos was banned in 2000. 15 However, you opted to 

reject the EPA's earlier findings and deny the petition to ban the use ofchlorpyrifos, 16 

despite the EPA analyses that found widespread risk from pesticide residues, drinking 

water contamination, and drift. Chlorpyrifos has been linked to neurological damage, 

with children particularly at risk for learning disabilities. 

''New York Times ... EPA's Decision Not to Ban Chlorpyrifos ... October 21. 2017. 

7 ····-"··-~·· ._.,.,., ... ,. 15 Environmental Protection Agency. "Dursban Announcement" Archived 

:woo. As found on January 17. 2018 at [11\J~ __ ;li}JJ.L\:LG 

H> Environmental Protection Agency, "'News Release: EPA J'mnm1smnor 

Pesticide.'' March 29, 2017. As tound on January 17. 2018 at llllJ'l <.ll:chi1c;j', '\\ !}0_1 

Page 37 of77 
50 


34874.043

c. Can you provide a detailed explanation of why the EPA chose to refute earlier 

analyses performed by Science Advisory Panels, including those done in 

2016, 17 2012, 18 and 200819, which provided independent scientific review and 

reaffirmed the health risks connected with chlorpyrifos exposure? Please 

include any and all new studies, or analyses, performed since the November 

2016 Human Health Risk Assessment that provide the basis for this decision. 

Over the course of several years, the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel 

provided numerous recommendations for additional study, and 

sometimes conflicting advice, for how EPA should consider (or not 

consider) the epidemiology data in conducting EPA's human health risk 

assessment for chlorpyrifos. Comments received in response to EPA's 

proposed rule demonstrate that the science on this question is not 

completely resolved. EPA is conducting a full and appropriate review of 

all of the nenrodevelopmental data. 

d. Can you provide a detailed time line for the "ongoing registration review" 20 

that the agency is performing to continue its evaluation of the risks of 

chlorpyrifos, despite the body of evidence previously collected by EPA 

researchers? 

EPA must complete registration review by October I, 2022, for all 

pesticides registered as of October 1, 2007. EPA continues to work to 

obtain access to original datasets that should allow the EPA to sufficiently 

address concerns around the use of certain studies in risk assessment, and 

move forward with its decision for the registration review of chlorpyrifos. 

e. Can you provide the times and dates of every meeting and any relevant 

communication that you or your senior administration officials had regarding 

chlorpyrifos or toxic chemical standards, including with employees of or 

lobbyists working on behalf of Dow Chemical, the American Chemistry 

Council, the American Farm Bureau, or CropLife America? 

17 Environmental Protection Agency. "'Memorandum on Meeting Minutes of the April 19-21 2016 FIFRA SAP 

Meeting Held to Consider and Review Scientit1c Issues Associated with ''Chlorpyrilbs: Analysis ofBiomonitoring 

Data." July 20, 2016. Astound at 

Environmental Protc~tion Agency, on Meeting Minutes or the FIFRA Scientilk Advisory Panel 

Meeting held Aprill0-12, 2012 on '"Chlorpyritos Health Effects." As l<>und on January 17,2018 at 

En•iirc•l11T1Cnl.al Protection Agency. "'Memorandum: Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scicntillc 

Advisory Panel Meeting held September 16-18,2008 on the Agency's Evaluation of the Toxicity Profile of 

Ch1orpyrifos:' December 17,2008, As found on Regulations,gov on January 17.2018 at 

Page 38 of77 
51 


34874.044

Making a final decision on whether chlorpyrifos meets the safety 

standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

and the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act is an important priority for 

the EPA. We would like to work with your staff to better understand the 

scope of this information request so that the agency can provide the 

information you are seeking. 

47. Environmental protection requires the use of sound science. The EPA's own mission 

states that "national efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available 

scientific information." Science is the beating heart of the EPA's work. You can imagine 

my concern in April when former Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed a "secret science" 

rule -or more properly named "censoring science." Because this proposal would prevent 

the EPA from using scientific studies that include data that aren't publicly available. 

If the EPA can't use public health studies that include confidential participant data, it will 

not be able to properly implement numerous environmental laws under EPA's 

jurisdiction, like the Clean Air Act which requires the use of the best available science for 

implementation. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the EPA cannot refuse to 

consider any comment submitted to the agency-including scientific findings based on 

confidential data. This proposed "censored science" rule allows for such refusal, and it 

wouldn't hold up in court. 

a. Will you commit to withdrawing then-Secretary Pruitt's proposed "censored 

science" rule, which is a violation of numerous laws':> 

EPA has started reviewing the more than 500,000 comments received on 

the proposed Strengthening Transparency in EPA Science rule. EPA will 

be reviewing these comments through the fall. EPA will determine a 

timeline for a decision after it has more fully assessed the comments. 

It appears that EPA statThavc been dissuaded from communicating to the public and to 

other scientists about climate risks. In October 2017. an EPA scientist, research fellow, 

and consultant withdrew from planned speeches at a workshop about the health of the 

Narragansett Bay and Watershed. Though former Administrator Pruitt responded to the 

October 3 I, 2017 letter sent by New England members of Congress expressing our 

concern, that reply was vague. 21 In this response letter, it was indicated that "fp]rocedures 

have been put in place to prevent such an occurrence in the future." When another set of 

follow-up questions was asked to clarify that statement, the answers provided on May I 0, 

2018 were incomplete. 

"Response Letter from the Environmental Protection Agency on the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program,"' 

Decem her 4. 2017. i111~l_ 1\h>..lia. d_~~~~)~l 

{1-Ji_',u:?iil !' \ ',~''l({._'~f'll :~.,·",,_:(!(t•' .,,.)1\..l~i jl'J_,,21J!_l'l~l(' f'd: 

Page 39 of 77 
52 


34874.045

b. What are the exact procedures put in place to ensure that EPA scientists 

continue to be able to speak at public events about climate science? 

c. How have you evaluated whether these new procedures arc successful and 

staff are not discouraged from participating in similar scientific forums? If no 

evaluation has been made, why not? 

EPA has one of the strongest Scientific Integrity policies and one of the most robust 

Scientific Integrity training programs in the federal government. EPA's Scientific 

Integrity Policy doesn't just apply to EPA scientists; it applies to all EPA employees, 

including scientists, managers, political appointees, and other staff. EPA regularly 

makes improvements to its Scientific Integrity program to make it even stronger. 

You can read more about this policy at £!2'I."O\'/osaiha>ic-infonnation-a!JOutscicntifir-inkgril\. 

I am committed to upholding EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy, which ensures that 

the Agency's scientific work is of the highest quality, is presented openly and with 

integrity, and is free from political interference. The policy recognizes the 

distinction between scientific information, analyses, and results from policy 

decisions based on that scientific information. Policy makers within the Agency 

weigh the best available science, along with additional factors such as practicality, 

economics, and societal impact, when making policy decisions. 

48. The EPA Strategic Plan for FY 2018 through 2022, finalized in February 2018, does not 

contain a single mention of climate change, despite the major threats that it poses to 

public health and the economy-threats that will only continue to increase during the 

next five years. 22 

a. Why was climate change not included in the EPA's draft strategic plan for 

2018-2022? 

b. Were EPA political appointees involved in writing the draft strategic plan? lf 

so, what role did political appointees play in creating this document, and did 

any political appointee remove any reference to climate change? 

Strategic plans are drafted every five years to reflect new initiatives and projects of 

the Agency. Naturally the plan will be reflective of the current administration's 

priorities of refocusing the Agency on its core mission, and leading the Agency 

through improved processes and adherence to the rule of law. 

49. The EPA's staff of dedicated researchers and scientists have worked hard to present the 

most accurate climate change data and information to the American public. This 

information is critical to illustrate what climate change is, why it matters, and what the 

EPA is doing to confront its effects. It is also a central component of the EPA's mission 

22 Environmental Protection Agency, Strategic Plan for FY 21!18-21122. 

Page 40 of77 
53 


34874.046

statement, which declares that the EPA should work to ensure that ·'all parts of society 

communities. individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments- have 

access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human 

health and environmental risks."23 

Unfortunately, outside groups and news organizations have documented a complete 

overhaul of the EPA's website that resulted in relevant climate change data and 

information being hidden from the general public or removed entirely. The 

Environmental Data and Governance Initiative issued a report on January I 0, 2018 that 

documented the removal of more than 200 climate-related pages from the EPA website. 14 

On April 28, 2017. the EPA removed the content of its main informational webpage15 on 

climate change. which had existed in some form since at least 1997. and replaced it with 

a page that states, "We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities 

under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt.''26 The American 

public is entitled to have easily accessible and factual information regarding climate 

change-something the EPA is uniquely positioned to provide. 

a. Can you please provide a list of the specific changes to the climate change 

webpage, and justification tor how each will ·'reflect EPA's priorities under 

President Trump and Administrator Pruitt," what they will entail? 

b. On what date will the climate change webpage will be reposted on EPA's 

website? 

c. Please explain how, under the current EPA since Administrator Pruitt's 

departure, the removal of climate change science fits under the 

Administration's set of priorities? 

d. Were any EPA political appointees involved in discussions and/or 

development of recommendations to remove EPA webpages on climate 

change? Who was responsible for authorizing the removal of EPA webpages 

on climate change? 

e. Were any EPA career scientists or authors of the reports on climate change 

involved in discussions regarding the decision to remove EPA webpages on 

climate change or the decision itself? If not. why not? 

f. How does the EPA and its communications team handle discussion and 

mention of climate change in the EPA's social media and other public-facing 

communications? Have EPA staff or other personnel been instructed to not 

use the term "climate change'' in social media posts? If so, was this decision 

made by EPA political staff? When was this decision finalized and announced 

to staff? 

21 Environmental Protection Agency. ·•our Mission and What We Do'' as visited on January 17, 2018. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

January !9, 2017. lliUh: 26 Environmental Protection Agency. on January 17, 20!8. 

\\ \\\\ .q~J,g( ~\ _<;i ''-": J?J:l ~~]p,;! j':_lll 

Page 41 of 77 
54 


34874.047

EPA is continually making changes to its website and other digital information 

resources to reflect and support the agency's current priorities and work. When we 

move information from our main portal, "ww .cpa.gm, the majority of the time we 

make sure it is still available to the public via our archive website, 

hHps:llarchiH.t'pa.govl. In addition, because of the public concern about access to 

information on our website last year, as well as the receipt of a number of FOIA 

requests for access to information, we created a snapshot website that contains the 

content that was on our main portal on January 12, 2017. The snapshot website can 

be searched here: hllps:// 19ianuan 20 17snapshot.cpa.go\ -'. 

50. Each year, over 100 million tons of coal ash, laden with numerous toxic chemicals like 

arsenic, cobalt, and lithium, are produced when coal is burned. This past March, coal 

plants were required for the first time to publicly post groundwater monitoring data. A 

preliminary analysis of that data has found that ninety-two percent of sampled 

groundwater sites had unsafe levels of at least one toxic contaminant. 

a. Mr. Wheeler, can you commit that the EPA will review all of the significant 

and concerning data at hundreds of existing coal ash sites as reported earlier 

this year before moving forward to weaken the 2015 rule that protects the 

health of Americans? 

Over the past few months, EPA has been actively reviewing the posted 

groundwater monitoring data and the agency remains committed to 

reviewing the available data in the coming months. Furthermore, EPA 

will consider the facility-reported groundwater monitoring data as it 

considers any additional amendments to the 2015 CCR rule. 

51. Late last April, f(xmer EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the EPA will 

reconsider its methane emissions rule set by the last administration that aimed to combat 

climate change and protect public health, and simultaneously stated that during the 

"reconsideration process," the EPA would place a 90-day stay on oil and gas companies' 

compliance with the rule. Methane is the second-biggest driver of climate change after 

carbon dioxide. Even thougb the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the 

EPA's suspension of the rule, the EPA's rationale for pursuing this issue still raises 

significant questions. 

a. What are the existing regulations that would curb the leaking of methane and 

other harmful pollutants without this rule? 

Page 42 of77 
55 


34874.048

The 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) built on 

requirements of a 2012 NSPS to reduce emissions of volatile organic 

compounds. The 2016 rule added requirements that the oil and natural 

gas industry reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It did this through an 

emissions limit for methane. The updated rule also covered additional 

sources in the sector that were not covered in the 2012 rule. After the 

final rule was issued, EPA received administrative petitions seeking 

reconsideration of various aspects of the 2016 NSPS, as well as several 

petitions for judicial review of the rule. As you are aware, EPA granted 

reconsideration of the rule in 2017. As part of the reconsideration 

process, EPA has been considering comments we received on stays to the 

NSPS that we proposed last summer, along with comments on notices of 

data availability. In March of this year, we made narrow final changes to 

the rule based on those comments, to address two aspects of the rule that 

posed significant and immediate compliance concerns. For the remainder 

of the reconsideration of the rule, we have been focused on two broad 

areas: 

• One covers technical issues identified in petitions for 

reconsideration on the 2016 NSPS. On October 15,2018, we 

proposed this technical package. The comment period closed on 

December 17,2018. We held a public hearing for the proposed 

rule in Denver on November 14, 2018. 

• The other area is more policy focused, including the issue of 

regulating greenhouse gases for the oil and gas sector. We 

anticipate releasing a proposed rule in the coming months. 

52. On August 15, you said that the EPA will prioritize communication with vulnerable 

communities about environmental contamination and exposure to hazardous substances. 

However, on April 27, 2018, the EPA issued guidance that stated animal waste emissions 

do not need to be reported under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA), as they were exempted from being reported under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act through the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. 

a. How does EPA's move to exempt extremely hazardous substances released by 

animal agriculture operations from being reported under EPCRA further your 

stated priority of ensuring that communities know when they are being 

exposed to hazardous substances? 

The April27, 2018, Q&A explains EPA's inteqlretation of the 

relationship between the CERCLA and EPCRA statutory release 

reporting requirements and is consistent with the agency's prior 

statements interpreting EPCRA section 304(a)(2), as well as the agency's 

prior regulatory actions. See, e.f:., 52 Fed. Reg. 13,378 (Apr. 22, 1987). 

Page 43 of77 
56 


34874.049

b. Can you commit to responding within the next two weeks to the letter sent by 

all the Democrats of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

concerning this guidance on May 25, 20 !8? 

See attached letter. 

53. On May 22, 2017, former Administrator Scott Pruitt created a Superfund Task Force, 

which was made up of l 07 EPA employees27 and headed by Albert Kelly, 28 a senior 

advisor and former bank executive with no experience in pollution cleanup, who was 

recently banned from participating in banking activity by the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation for unspecified violations.29 The Task Force's recommendations30 include no 

mention of considerations that should be made to Superfund sites in areas prone to 

flooding or sea-level rise. According to an Associated Press analysis, 327 Superfund sites 

are vulnerable to flooding or climate-change-related sea-level rise, and 2 million people 

live within a mile of these sites. 31 The damage done during the most recent hurricane 

season emphasizes the need for the EPA to seriously consider how to address both the 

threat of flooding and how flooding will get worse as sea levels continue to rise. 

Although the 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Implementation Plan32 instructed cleanup 

managers oftoxic sites to prepare for extreme rain, higher floods, and more intense 

hurricanes, and recommended that the EPA work to protect people from an increased risk 

oftoxic chemical releases, this report was removed from the EPA website following 

President Trump's election. 33 It is therefore unclear what guidance is being provided to 

the public and stakeholders at Superfund sites regarding the threats posed by climate 

change and how these threats may change prioritization, assessments, cleanup, and other 

actions at these sites. 

27 Public Employees tOr Environmental Responsibility. ''Pruitt SupcrfunJ Plan Leaves No Fingerprints.'' Posted on 

December 20,2017. lit!)'-;_. \\ llt~\\:;Jh:\':-_::·-rt:ll\l'>c~ prui1iw',_tlfh:(li1JI,I··r~l:t:b-l,\t\ 

28 Environmental Protection Agency. Announces Superfund Task Force Recommendations: 

Recommendations to Streamline and Improve the Superlcmd Program." As visited on January 17. 2018. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. "Climate Change Adaptation 

Implementation Plan." June 2014. As found on January 17,2018 at 

Page 44 of77 
57 


34874.050

I:Jln:-

On December 4, 2017, a group often Senators requested an investigation from the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) into the risks posed by natural disasters to 

Superfund sites and how the federal government can mitigate those risks.34 However, the 

EPA should be working to address this concern immediately. At least two Superfund sites 

were severely flooded during Hurricane Harvey, neither of which had finalized cleanup 

agreements in place, and one of which resulted in the release of high levels of hazardous 

dioxins. 35 

a. Please provide us with the EPA's specific plan to prioritize and respond to the 

327 Superfund sites that are threatened by rising seas from a warming climate. 

If the EPA does not currently have a plan, please provide a timeline by when 

one can be expected. 

Since the inception of the program, Superfund remedy selection has 

considered durability and resilience of remedial designs to extreme 

weather events and site conditions. In 2014, EPA identified specific key 

actions to implement over the next several years to address climate 

change at National Priorities List sites. The plan includes technical 

guidance, information tools, and training to raise stakeholder awareness 

of considerations for ensuring remedy resilience. These guidance 

documents remain in effect. A key stakeholder group is EPA's remedial 

project managers. The Superfund program's climate change adaptation 

efforts are summarized and posted on EPA's website: 

h ttps: //www .epa.gov /su perfu nd/su perfu n d -climate-change-adaptation. 

The 2014 actions that EPA identified were informed, in part, by the 

agency's Superfund remedy vulnerability analysis undertaken in 2011-

2012, which resulted in an internal 2012 report, Adaptation of Superfund 

Remediation to Climate Change (EPA, 2012). This analysis (shared with 

AP under a FOIA request in August 2017) considered to what degree 

Superfund National Priorities List and Superfuud Alternative Approach 

sites were vulnerable to flooding and sea-level rise. In the analysis, EPA 

identified case study candidate sites to use for assessing how project 

managers evaluated and responded to climate change's effects on 

Superfund remedial actions. 

b. How is the EPA's Superfund program working to reduce risks from flooding 

and managing an increase in future risks from sea-level rise? 

15 Environmental Protection Agency, ·'EPA Statement- San Jacinto River Waste Superfund Site Data." 

September 28, 2017. As found on January 17. 2018 at fl\l[~:!.:__yl __ \\_\~_._l.l'~l_._b(.~::__ll~--\~ ''.l~~·h·_,-l_';~"-·~.J2J:-_.._,!dJ"-~t_1l\:n1-:,l.IJ-.L~!\;i!J~\~_-

11~.i:[-.:.\J :t._t,;_-J~)!'· -~tg~~~r! t: iy.l-::1 \l:· d<!t,~ 

Page 45 of77 
58 


34874.051

The Superfund remedial program's climate change adaptation efforts 

include: training remedial project managers; providing adaptation tools; 

capturing and sharing best practices to ensure vulnerability assessments 

are conducted as needed; and ensuring that conceptual site models, 

remedy system designs and operations, and National Priorities List site 

remedies all reflect consideration of resiliency measures. 

c. What lessons were learned from the flooding at two Superfund sites in Texas 

during Hurricane Harvey and the release of dioxins from the San Jacinto 

Waste Pits Superfund site? 

Hurricane Harvey presented a number of challenges for protecting 

Superfund sites along the Gulf coast. The hurricane, which produced 

record rainfall and flooding in Harris County, Texas, required both preevent planning and post-event response work. EPA employed many past 

practices iu response to Hurricane Harvey; however, our experience 

underscored the need for several important actions: 

• Undertake advance site preparation; it is key for large-scale 

tropical events. Generally, advance warnings are available for 

tropical storms and hurricanes allowing for site security measures 

to be conducted in advance. EPA project managers contact the 

site's responsible entity (e.g., EPA contractor, private responsible 

party, state or tribal agency) and request implementation of 

appropriate actions to secure the site. 

• Conduct post-storm site assessments as soon as safely possible. 

Using the available site information, a site-specific site assessment 

needs to be performed immediately upon safe site access. 

Depending on the site conditions, additional investigations, 

including soil or water sampling, may be necessary. 

• Maintain clear communication with the surrounding communities. 

It is important to quickly share information regarding the status of 

a Superfund site with the community to effectively alleviate public 

health concerns. 

Hurricane Harvey's flood waters heavily affected the San Jacinto 

Superfund site; and several days passed before the water had receded 

enough to allow a full site inspection. Due to this site's location in the San 

Jacinto River, EPA implemented a response plan, which was in place 

prior to Hurricane Harvey, that detailed site inspection and response 

actions. The plan includes: 

• Inspection and re1>air contractors on standby; 

• Coordination with nearby business on storm 

preparation/notification; 

Page 46 of77 
59 


34874.052

• Site monitoring using Texas Department of Transportation & site 

cameras; 

• River flow monitoring using an online upstream river gauge and 

dam release data; 

• Access site when safe to do so; 

• Stock pile rock near the site for cover system repairs; 

In October 2017, following Hurricane Harvey, EPA decided to 

permanently remove the dioxin waste from the San Jacinto site in a 

Record of Decision issued by the EPA Administrator. The severity of 

tropical events and the frequency of repairs following storm events were 

key reasons for the dioxin wastes' full removal requirement. 

d. What guidance is the EPA providing to responsible parties and other 

stakeholders about the risk of climate change and how this should impact 

assessment or cleanup activities at a Superfund site? 

EPA's Superfund Climate Change Adaptation website 

(https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-climate-change-adaptation) 

contains resources to help guide responsible parties and other 

stakeholders in assessing and addressing climate change's effect on 

Superfund cleanups. These resources include technical fact sheets 

designed to help project managers and other cleanup stakeholders 

identify, prioritize, and implement site-specific measures for increasing 

remedy resilience to account for climate change effects. The web content 

is part of EPA's ongoing efforts to raise awareness among external 

stakeholders of the need to ensure remedy protectiveness, including 

remedy resilience to extreme weather events. 

In addition to the guidance found on the Superfund Climate Change 

Adaptation website, the agency uses other communication approaches to 

convey remedy resilience information to stakeholders, including webinars 

and engaging target audiences with technical conference presentations. 

For internal EPA audiences such as project managers, the agency's 

Intranet site, EPA's Adaptation Resource Center, provides a "One-Stop" 

solution to finding and using Climate Change Adaptation resources. It 

contains training specifically geared toward land cleanup programs, 

including Superfund. 

e. How do flooding risks and other climate-related impacts factor into the EPA's 

prioritization and decision processes for Superfund sites? 

Page 47 of77 
60 


34874.053

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com11ensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) are key parts of the basis for 

consideration of potential extreme weather impacts at Superfund sites. 

As part of the Superfund removal process, extreme weather events are 

included as one of the eight factors that should be considered in 

determining whether a threat to public health or welfare or environment 

exists and that an action should be taken to mitigate that threat, which is 

outlined in 40 CFR 300.41S(b)(2) with the following language, "Weather 

conditions that may cause hazardous substances or pollutants or 

contaminants to migrate or be released." This factor is usually cited with 

several of the other factors, but requires analyzing future weather 

conditions and determining how those weather conditions can affect 

contaminant migration. 

The Superfund remedial process for planning and implementing 

contaminated site cleanups provides structure to consider both potential 

extreme weather effects and, as warranted, to take actions that increase 

remedy resilience. Extreme weather vulnerability analyses and 

adaptation planning are integrated throughout the Superfund process. 

For example: 

• The Hazard Ranking System, which provides the framework for EPA 

to determine which sites should be included on the National Priorities 

List, considers flooding risks. 

• Remedial investigations characterize the extent of a site's 

contamination and associated risk, while the feasibility study 

evaluates cleanup alternatives, including the nine evaluation criteria 

of which the following are most relevant. (See: Remedial 

investigation/feasibility study and selection of remedy; 40 CFR 

300.430( e)(9)(iii)): 

o Protective of human health and the environment: 

o Long-term effectiveness and permanence; 

o Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment; 

o Short-term effectiveness; 

o lmplementability. 

• The record of decision (ROD) explains which cleanup alternative will 

be used and how it addresses these evaluation criteria. Leading up to 

a ROD's issuance, the EPA releases, for public comment, a proposed 

plan containing a preferred cleanup remedy. Following the public 

comment period and state and tribal review, the EPA issues the final 

ROD. 

Page 48 of77 
61 


34874.054

• Remedial designs provide an opportunity to consider site 

vulnerabilities and adaptation measures to help maximize the remedy 

resilience. 

• Five-year reviews evaluate existing remedies' protectiveness by 

considering whether "any other information has come to light that 

could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy." The EPA's 

2001 five-year review guidance includes consideration of changing 

floodplain boundaries. Supplementary guidance issued in 2016 

recommends consideration of "site changes or vulnerabilities" that 

may not have been apparent during remedy selection, such as "sea 

level rise, changes in precipitation, increasing risk of floods, changes 

in temperature, increasing intensity of hurricanes and increasing 

wildfires, melting of permafrost in northern regions, etc." See p. 4-9 of 

the 2001 Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance: 

http:/lsemspnb.epa.gov/src/document/111128607 and 

p. 10 of 2016 Five-Year Review Recommended Template: 

h ttps://semspu b.epa.gov/src/document/11/1 0000000 l.pdf 

Information provided in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by Public Employees for 

Environmental Responsibility indicate that the "Superfund Task Force" that you 

commissioned on May 22, 2017 generated no record of its deliberations beyond the final 

recommendations that were published on June 21. 36 This means that there was no agenda, 

no meeting minutes, no written drafts, and no attendance records for a task force that was 

working on one of your stated top priorities as EPA Administrator. The use oftask forces 

to guide the decision-making process can lead to decisions being made in secret, away 

from the public eye, and outside the established public rulemaking process-something 

that raises serious alarms to those of us in the Senate concerned with transparent 

governance. 

f. Please describe in detail the drafting of the Superfund Task Force 

Recommendations report, including EPA political and career staff 

involvement, and provide all draft interim reports with dates and redlines. 

The Superfund Task Force was established on May 22, 2017, to provide 

recommendations on an expedited timeframe on how the agency can 

restructure the Superfund cleanup process, realign incentives of all 

involved parties to promote expeditious remediation, reduce the burden 

on cooperating parties, incentivize parties to remediate sites, encourage 

private investment in cleanups and sites and promote the revitalization of 

properties across the country. Specifically, the Administrator asked the 

Task Force to provide recommendations on promoting site reuse, 

improving the timeliness of EPA activities and promoting stakeholder 

""Pruitt Superfund Plan Leaves No Fingerprints." Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. December 

20. 20 17. Accessed .I an uary I 8. 20 I 8. 12iiJ[>j_";:Dc~.'!:!.Y,',Jli~"()I:£1J.l.c''!:!j.L!lfi!~~c:l:.'b'cc:5l.J2fl'-'l!::.Sill2.':LW!1QJ'!lD..'~'f"'·'L'?:I.l9: 

Page 49 of77 
62 


34874.055

involvement. The Task Force report containing 42 recommendations was 

released on July 25,2017. More than 100 EPA career stafffrom 

Headquarters and the ten Regions volunteered and were engaged in the 

Task Force in developing these recommendations. Furthermore, the 

instructions to the Task Force were to refrain from any recommendation 

that involved or required a statutory change. 

54. News media37 and advocacy groups" have uncovered a major shift in EPA enforcement 

activities since January 2017. As the EPA is tasked with protecting public health and the 

environment. a rapid decrease in activities meant to prevent and penalize pollution is 

cause for significant concern. 

a. Can you provide a justification for the memo39 that directs EPA investigators 

to seek special authorization from the EPA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) headquarters for requests for information in 

circumstances where state authorities object to the request or the interpretation 

of the law, the media or politicians may be interested in the request, or 

requests will require sampling or testing beyond that already required by law 

and not completed by the entity? 

The memorandum entitled Interim Procedures for Issuing Information 

Requests Pursuant to the Clean Air Act§ 114, Clean Water Act§ 308, and 

RCRA § 3007 (May 31, 2017) was issued prior to the confirmation of the 

current OECA Assistant Administrator. OECA has not disapproved any 

information requests pursuant to the review process established by this 

memorandum. The reviews, however, gave OECA an awareness of a lack 

of consistency with respect to how the Agency handles information 

requests. OECA staff issued a memorandum entitled Best Practices for 

Compliance and Enforcement-Relatetl Inform"tion Requests on 

November 21, 2018, to the Regions recommending best practices for 

information requests. Having established these best practices, the 

November 21,2018, memorandum also withdrew the May 31,2017, 

memorandum. 

37 Lipton, Eric. and Daniellc Ivory. "Under Trump, E.P.A. Has Slowed Actions Against Polluters, and Put Limits on 

Enl(Jrcement Oftlcers.'' The New York Times. December !0. 2018. 

Environmental Integrity Project. Penalties Against Polluters Drop 60 Percent So Far Under Trump." 

August 10,2017. As visited on January 18,2018. dr.op_ 

Shinkman, Susan. "Interim Procedures lor Issuing lnl\1rmation Requests Pursuant to Clean Air Act§ 114. Clean 

Water Act~ 308, and RCRA §3007." Environmental Protection Agency. May 31,2017. Accessed January 18,2018. 

Page 50 of77 
63 


34874.056

b. What is the longest and what is the average time that it takes for requests for 

information submitted to OECA headquarters to be approved or denied and 

returned to regional EPA offices? 

EPA did not track the time for review of information requests under the 

interim procedures. 

c. Did your predecessor. you or other political appointees at the EPA tell state 

officials or industry representatives that the EPA will cease to investigate or 

enforce some pollution cases? If so, please provide the dates of those 

conversations and how this decision was reached, as well as transcripts, if 

possible. 

In Jan nary 2018, the OECA Assistant Administrator issued a 

memorandum entitled "Interim OECA Guidance on Enhancing 

Regional-State Planning on Compliance Assurance Work in Authorized 

States." That memo sets forth an expectation of joint work planning 

between the Region and an authorized state, to divide up enforcement 

work and to maintain a collaborative relationship with "no surprises." 

The memo contemplates situations where EPA bas identified violations 

but the state requests to take the lead on enforcement. According to the 

memo, such a request must come from the state, not an industry 

representative. Such a request may take the form of a letter from the 

state commissioner to the Regional Administrator or may result from 

conversations among senior managers from the state and the 

Region. The memo sets forth the expectation that if the state takes the 

lead, the Region should periodically assess the state's progress. As these 

conversations pertain to ongoing enforcement actions, the details are 

confidential. 

d. Have your predecessor, you or your political appointees restricted the ability 

of EPA enforcement officers to order pollution tests under Clean Water Act, 

Clean Air Act, or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act authority in any 

way beyond requiring them to proactively submit requests for information to 

OECA headquarters for approval? If so. please describe exactly how this 

ability has been changed since January 2017, detailing what additional steps 

EPA staff must take to order requests for information. 

See response to Part A above. 

Page 51 of77 
64 


34874.057

e. Please provide a detailed list of the companies and plants that have received 

notices of violation under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, or the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act during the final nine months of 

Obama Administration, but that have not yet had any EPA penalties levied 

upon them. 

In some enforcement circumstances, the EPA issues a NOV to a facility 

owner/operator that the agency has identified as having one or more 

violations. However, not all statutes include provisions for issuance of an 

NOV or require issuance of an NOV. Compare Clean Air Act§ 205(c)(1), 

42 U.S.C. § 7523(c)(1) ("[Tjbe Administrator shall give written notice to 

the person to be assessed" a penalty) with Clean Water Act§ 309, 33 

U.S.C. § 1319 (no provision for written notice). 

Since not all statutes include these provisions, the agency does not 

centrally track all NOVs in the agency's Integrated Compliance 

Information System (I CIS) enforcement and compliance database. Some 

information on NOVs is available in ICIS, but NOVs are not required to 

be entered. Additionally, because NOVs do not always result in the need 

for follow-up enforcement actions, e.g., where the facility promptly 

returns to compliance, we do not have the ability to link NOVs to later 

enforcement actions. 

f. Please provide a detailed list of the times and occasions where, since January 

2017, the EPA has asked to delay a consent decree that was proposed during 

the final nine months of the Obama Administration. 

EPA has not asked for a delay of any consent decree. 

g. A subsidiary of Koch Industries has challenged the EPA's authority to issue 

requests for air pollution testing. Please provide a list of all meetings your 

predecessor, you or other political appointees took with Koch Industries or its 

subsidiaries or any entity representing these organizations, as well as with the 

North Dakota Petroleum Council, which has also criticized the EPA's use of 

requests for information.40 

The EPA has a centralized search currently underway that we expect to 

yield documents relevant to your request. We anticipate delivering 

documents to you on a rolling basis as they become available. 

"'Ness. Ron. North Dakota Petroleum Council. March 3 L 2017. Accessed January 19.2018. 

https:l/www.documentcloud.org/documents/4324892-EPA-Ciean-Air-Act-and-Its-l'ower-loRequest.html#document/p52/a392199 

Page 52 of77 
65 


34874.058

h. Please provide a detailed list of occasions where, since January 2017, the EPA 

withdrew or accepted lower civil monetary penalties than were recommended 

under the previous administration and the rationale for these decisions. 

EPA's civil penalty policies provide the bases upon which EPA 

compromises claims and settles cases for less than the statutory maximum 

penalty. These policies can be found here 

https:l/www.cpa.gov/cnforccmcntlcnforccmcnt-policv-guidanccpu blications. The Agency negotiates penalties based on these policies. 

The specifics of each case are confidential enforcement information. 

When an enforcement action is withdrawn or not pursued, regions report 

that information in ICIS. However, regions are not required to certify 

that this information is complete and accurate and they may not always 

enter it in a timely manner. We have provided below the total number of 

enforcement actions in ICIS reported as withdrawn or not pursued. 

Because the decision to withdraw a case may involve an enforcementconfidential determination, we have not provided a list of cases. 

29 

** In an effort to provide complete and accurate data, we conduct continuous data quality 

assessments of federal compliance and enforcement data. As a result, the total number of 

enforcement actions reported as withdrawn or not pursued in this table updates what EPA 

provided in prior responses. The data is current as of December 20, 2018. 

55. On December I, the EPA announced that it would be reversing a rule41 proposed under 

the last administration that would have required that companies mining non-coal minerals 

(like gold, silver, copper or lead) demonstrate to the EPA that they can afford cleanup 

costs once the mine is closed, through mechanisms like bonds, insurance, or selfinsurance. 42 

a. Please provide the EPA's views as to who would be responsible for any 

necessary cleanup costs once these mines are closed, including any estimated 

costs to the U.S. Treasury over the next 10 fiscal years in the absence of this 

rule. 

41 Environmental Protection Agency. "Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA § 1 08(b) for Classes 

of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry." Federal Register. January 11.2017. Accessed January 18,2018. 

; r.l t(1:J (_~U:l7 J!n.<tf.l~·.UJJ :I~~~Jl(lU~J2l1Lt)..:t:_~:~U:!.iD.:.n'.~J.ll2:untkt: 

Page 53 of77 
66 


34874.059

In developing its final action, EPA analyzed the need for financial 

responsibility based on risk of taxpayer funded cleanups at hardrock 

mining facilities operating under modern management practices and 

modern environmental regulation, i.e., the type of facilities to which 

financial responsibility regulations would apply. That risk is identified by 

examining the management of hazardous substances at such facilities, as 

well as by examining federal and state regulatory controls on that 

management and federal and state financial responsibility requirements. 

With that focus, the record demonstrates that, in the context of CERCLA 

section 108(b), the degree and duration of risk associated with the 

modern production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of 

hazardous substances by the hard rock mining industry does not present a 

level of risk of taxpayer funded response actions that warrant imposition 

of financial responsibility requirements for this sector. 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the proposed rule estimated 

that the projected level of taxpayer liability that would have been avoided 

by the proposed rule was relatively small, and that the costs of meeting 

the proposed financial responsibility requirements were an order of 

magnitude greater than the costs avoided by the federal government as a 

result of such requirements. EPA did not require evidence of financial 

responsibility under section 108(b) at hardrock mining facilities in its 

final action. EPA therefore did not conduct an RIA for it. 

b. In a statement, former Administrator Scott Pruitt said that he was "confident 

that modern industry practices, along with existing state and federal 

requirements address risks from operating hardrock mining facilities.''43 

Please detail the federal requirements that address those risks and what 

industry practices are in place that would prevent cleanup costs from being 

passed along to the American taxpayer. 

With respect to federal regulatory requirements, EPA discusses these in 

the Federal Register preamble to its final action (see 83 FR 7565 et seq.). 

With respect to industry practices, EPA evaluated information received 

in comments on the proposed rule that argued that new facilities are 

specifically designed, constructed, operated and closed in a manner to 

prevent environmental degradation and to avoid the types of problems 

that were caused by past practices. Further specifics can be found at 83 

FR 7577-80. 

43 "EPA Determines Risks from flardrock Mining Industry Minimal and No Need for Additional Federal 

Requirements." Environmental Protection Agency. December I, 2017. Accessed January 19.2019. 

https:/lwww.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-risks-hardrock-mining-industry-minimal-and-no-necd-additionalfederal 

Page 54 of 77 
67 


34874.060

c. Please provide my office with any memos, meeting notes, emails, or other 

documentation on this proposed rule reversal during the year of 2017 between 

the Office of the Administrator or political appointees, including your 

predecessor, you, and any one or combination of the following groups: the 

Western Governors' Association, the National Mining Association, the state 

of Utah, the state of Arizona, or the state of Idaho. 

The agency is currently working on responding to a FOIA request from 

Earth Justice regarding the same information. EPA expects that it will 

take several months to compile the information to respond to the FOIA 

and the Congressional requests. We will update the Committee when we 

have this information. 

56. Since 2010, the EPA had argued that construction undertaken by the DTE Energy 

Company at DTE's Monroe Power Plant in Michigan, one of the largest coal-powered 

plants in the country, required a preconstruction perm it under the new source review 

(NSR) program. The EPA filed an enforcement action as a result of projected emissions 

increases of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen that would have resulted from this facility 

overhaul.44 On Dec. 7, 2017, former Administrator Pruitt issued a memo reversing the 

position the EPA had taken since 20 I 0 on pollution management for DTE Energy. 45 The 

memorandum states that the EPA will no longer "initiate enforcement in such future 

situations unless actual post-project emissions data indicate that a significant emissions 

increase or significant net emissions increase did in fact occur." The memo also details 

how the EPA will now apply the NSR regulations in a way that defers to the "intent of an 

owner or operator to manage emissions," rather than basing decisions solely on 

quantifiable information like the projections of future emissions. 

a. Please provide a justification for this regulatory change from December 2017, 

which could be read as preventing the EPA from conducting any enforcement 

activities until after companies release dangerous pollutants into American 

communities. 

The December 7, 2017 Memorandum from Administrator Pruitt that you 

identified was not a regulatory change. The memorandum explains, 

among other things, that it "is not a rule or regulation" and that it does 

not "change or substitute for any law, regulation, or other legally binding 

requirement and is not legally enforceable" (p. 2). Rather, the 

44Evans. Carlos. "U.S. v. DTE Energy Co. (DTE II)." American Bar Association. Accessed January 18,2018. 

E. Scott. "New Source Review Preconstruction Permitting Requirements: Entorceahility and Use of the 

Actual·to·Projected·Actual Applicability Test in Determining Major Modification Applicability." Environmental 

Protection Agency. December 7. 2017. Accessed January 18,2018. 

Page 55 of77 
68 


34874.061

memorandum sought to resolve uncertainty related to the application of 

certain existing requirements in the NSR regulations at issue in two 

appellate court decisions from 2013 and 2017, respectively, identified in 

the memorandum. In particular, the memorandum communicated the 

EPA's intended approach, for future matters, to the application of the 

procedures iu the NSR regulations that apply to sources using "projected 

actual emissions" iu determining NSR applicability and the associated 

pre- and post-project source obligations. Administrator Pruitt explained 

in the memorandum that he believed the memorandum was necessary to 

provide greater clarity for sources and states implementing the NSR 

regulations. 

b. Will you continue to pursue changes to new source review regulations? 

Yes. Consistent with presidential priorities, the EPA continues to review 

the NSR permitting program regulations and associated policies for 

opportunities to clarify and streamline requirements while maintaining 

environmental protections. 

c. How does the EPA plan to assess the intent of an owner or operator to manage 

future emissions from the project on an ongoing basis to prevent a significant 

net emissions increase from occurring? 

The NSR regulations contain recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting 

requirements that are designed to ensure the integrity and validity of preproject applicability analyses. The regulations require owners or 

operators to perform a pre-construction applicability analysis to 

determine whether a proposed project would result in a significant 

emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase, thus 

triggering the requirement to obtain an NSR permit. The regulations also 

specify that all relevant information be used in determining the projected 

actual emissions for use in that analysis. As explained in the December 7, 

2017 Memorandum, EPA intends to apply the NSR regulations such that 

this could include information related to the intent of an owner or 

operator to manage future emissions from an affected unit after the 

project that could be considered along with other relevant information in 

making an emissions project. The NSR regulations further provide that, 

when certain criteria are met, certain information shall be documented, 

maintained, and in certain cases submitted to the reviewing authority 

prior to beginning actual construction. The NSR regulations also contain 

post-project monitoring, record keeping and reporting obligations that 

can apply for a period of 5 or 10 years following a pro,ject, depending on 

the type of source involved. These post-project monitoring, record keeping 

Page 56 of77 
69 


34874.062

and reporting provisions can provide a means to evaluate whether a 

project actually did result in a significant emissions increase as well as the 

validity of the source's pre-project determination that there would be no 

such increase. 

d. As the memo states that "decisions about how to proceed in ongoing 

enforcement matters will be made on a case-by-case basis," please provide a 

list of any other NSR enforcement cases that will no longer be pursued under 

this new standard and the status of the decision-making process on any case 

that has not yet been resolved. 

It is not our practice to comment on individual enforcement matters. 

e. Does the EPA now intend to no longer pursue enforcement of its projection 

regulation in any cases where source owners or operators are determined to 

have failed to perform a required pre-project applicability analysis or failed to 

follow the calculation requirements of the regulations, or only in the DTE 

Energy case? If so, what is the EPA'sjustification for this decision, and how 

will the agency continue to ensure that air quality is protected? 

Decisions about how to proceed in ongoing enforcement matters will be 

made on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the December 2017 

Memorandum. This includes taking enforcement action on a case-bycase basis when a source owner or operator fails performs a pre-project 

NSR applicability analysis or fails to follow the calculation procedures in 

the regulations. 

f. Do you intend to notify and consult the public on this important issue through 

open comment and public meetings advertised in the Federal Register, as 

required by the Administrative Procedures Act? 

The December 2017 Memorandum communicated how the EPA intends 

to apply certain aspects of the applicability provisions of the NSR 

regulations. As explained above, the guidance contained in that 

memorandum is an interpretive rule that does not constitute a legislative 

rule, regulation, or other legally binding requirement under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. Nor does the guidance change or 

substitute for any law, rule or regulation, or other legally binding 

requirement. For these reasons, the Administrative Procedure Act does 

not require the EPA to provide for either open comment or public 

meetings on this issue, as the question wrongly assumes. The EPA does 

not currently plan to pursue rulemaking or other action requiring public 

notice and comment on the specific issues addressed in the memorandum. 

Page 57 of77 
70 


34874.063

57. Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a memo preventing anyone receiving an 

EPA grant from serving on scientific advisory panels.'• As a result, many expert 

researchers can no longer provide advice on technical questions and scientific best 

practices to the EPA. In answers provided to me by Administrator Pruitt on May I 0, 

2018, he indicated that he relied on the use of"Administrator's discretion" to enact this 

directive. However, no guidance was issued on how to prevent improper conflicts of 

interest for panel appointees who have worked for companies or trade groups (either 

directly or as a contracted lobbyist) that could be subject to EPA regulations." 

a. Will you reverse this directive? 

There are no plans to reverse the directive. 

b. Please provide a list of Advisory Panel members who have worked in or 

lobbied for industries regulated by the EPA over the five years preceding their 

nomination to the panel, noting in which industries and what capacity the 

member worked. 

Information about cnrreut members of EPA's federal advisory 

committees can be found here: https:l/" "w.{·pa.goYifaea/a!l-k!kralarh ison -committees-cpa. To the extent you seek a more extensive 

inquiry, please reach out to EPA's Office of Congressional and 

Intergovernmental Relations. 

c. Please provide a rationale for discerning between this financial conflict of 

interest and the alleged conflict of interest possessed by scientists who have 

received EPA grant money. 

Every candidate for a federal advisory committee position mnst disclose 

to EPA potential conflicts of interest. The directive builds on that 

requirement by further ensuring that any person serving on an EPA 

federal advisory committee be as fully independent as possible from the 

agency. Any potential lack of independence or potential conflict with 

EPA, including financially, could affect the advice that is given. 

d. Please describe the ethics review process for Advisory Panel members with 

financial ties to industries regulated by the EPA. 

"'Pruitt, E. Scott. "Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees." 

Envimnmental Pmtection Agency. October 31. 2017. Accessed January 18,2018. 

Page 58 of77 
71 


34874.064

Information responsive to this question can be found in EPA guidelines 

and public documents, including: 

• h ttps :/ /w1n\ .cpa .gov/fat·a/strcngthcni ng-a nd-im proving-mcm bersh i pepa-fcdcral-advisorv-committccs 

• https://n ww .cpa.gov/sitcs/production/filcs/2() 15-

02/documents/cthksadvisot·v.pdf 

• h ttps://voscm itc.cpa.gov /sa b/sa bprod uct.nsf/Wcb/cth ics ?Open Uocu me 

!!.! 

e. Please provide an explanation on how existing conflict of interest policies for 

EPA advisory boards were insufficient to prevent scientific researchers 

receiving EPA grants from being unethically partial or biased. 

The directive builds on preexisting policies by further ensuring that any 

person serving on an EPA federal advisory committee be as fully 

independent as possible from the agency. Any potential lack of 

independence or potential conflict with EPA, including financially, could 

affect the advice that is given. 

58. Since January 2017, more than 700 EPA employees have left the agency or been forced 

to leave or retire, and more buyouts are expected. This number includes about 200 

scientists, nearly I 00 environmental protection specialists, and nine department 

directors.48 The EPA, which is responsible for protecting the health and environment of 

the American people, is now at its smallest size since the last year of the Reagan 

Administration-despite the fact that the U.S. population has grown by 80 million people 

since that time.49 

Scientists are not being replaced, accounting for only 5 percent of the new hires this year. 

At the same time that the EPA is hemorrhaging technical expertise, the number of 

political appointees and administrator is disproportionately increasing. The Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention hired seven people and lost 54, and the Office 

of Water hired one person and lost 26, but the Administrator's office has grown by 20 

people. 

a. Please provide data on the number of political appointees hired at the EPA 

since January 2017, and on political appointees hired under the three 

preceding EPA administrators. 

48 Friedman, Lisa, Marina Afto, and Derek Kravitz. "E.P.A. Officials, Disheartened by Agency's Direction, Are 

Leaving in Droves." The New York Times. December 22, 2017. Accessed January 18. 2018. 

Page 59 of77 
72 


34874.065

The number of political appointees hired at the EPA since January 21, 

2017 is 96. 

The chart below contains the number of political appointees with an 

accession/ start date dnring the specified time periods and does not 

account for political appointees that may already be on-board during 

those timeframes. 

b. Please provide data on the number of career EPA staff since January 2017 and 

the number of career staff under the three preceding EPA administrators. 

What is the current number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff at the EPA? 

Please see the response to question 28 for the current number of FullTime Equivalent staff at EPA. 

Below is the number of career EPA staff (all employees except experts, 

consultants, and political appointees) hired Ol/2112017- 08/21/2018 and 

the number of career EPA staff (all employees except experts, 

consultants, and political appointees) hired under the three preceding 

EPA administrators. 

c. Former Administrator Pruitt provided data to the press indicating that the EPA 

could cut its staff by 47 percent by 2021 50 --can you commit to reversing this 

trend, or alternatively cutting the number of political appointees by an equal 

amount by the same time? If not, why not? 

Page 60 of77 
73 


34874.066

The Agency is working to carefully manage its workforce to support 

progress toward the goals and objectives of the EPA's FY 2018-2022 

Strategic Plan. 

59. News reports indicate that the EPA is now using a business efficiency system known as 

"lean" in agency activities. 51 The "lean" management philosophy was developed to 

minimize waste within a manufacturing system, and originated within the Toyota 

Production System in the 1990s. I am deeply concerned that the integration of"lean" 

philosophy into environmental protection has resulted in the prioritization of industry 

over public safety. A former EPA employee said that the use of''lean" principles required 

her to curb requests for further information regarding pollution on Superfund sites. 52 

a. Does the EPA agree with the conclusion drawn in the Arizona "lean" method 

instructional video53 that the ·'customer" of environmental protection work is 

not the American taxpayer, but actually the company being regulated? If so. 

how does that correspond to the EPA's mission to protect public health and 

the environment? 

EPA's utilization of Lean is not new. EPA has used Lean to improve its 

processes for over 10 years. A list of Lean projects at EPA through fiscal 

year 2017 is attached to this response. In fiscal year 2018, EPA has 

focused on developing a management system that supports lean process 

improvement efforts and promotes continuous problem identification and 

the use of a range of approaches to solving problems. The Lean method is 

just one type of problem solving approach. Delivering EPA's important 

mission in a more effective and efficient manner for American taxpayers 

is the explicit goal of the EPA Lean Management System. 

b. Has the "lean" method been implemented at any EPA projects. including at 

Superfund sites? If so. please provide a list of which projects and at what time 

the implementation directive occurred. 

As a result of EPA's continued utilization of Lean, several projects have 

been undertaken in fiscal year 2018 for the following processes: 

acquisitions, Freedom of Information Act responses, environmental 

permitting, Toxic Substances Control Act Premanufacture Notice Final 

Determinations, Superfund Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use 

"Stern, Marcus. "EPA lJsing Controversial Process to Push Cleanup of America's Most Toxic Sites." The Weather 

Channel. Accessed January 18. 2018. i_1l!J:'>: ___ \\ v:l!_l_l~l·'..-_Pin_ 5-_~:i~.·n_,:c_l._i_l\ jruom_~o::_~~,_ p.._:\\_':>_}i! 1 

51 Arizona Management System. "Knowing your Customer." Office of the Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. 

Accessed January 18,2018. 

Page 61 of 77 
74 


34874.067

(SWRAU) process, and the brown fields Ready for Anticipated Use 

process. 

With regard to the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) effort: 

• SWRAU is an agency performance measure that was developed to 

comply with EPA's responsibility to report long-term, outcomebased accomplishments under the Government Performance and 

Results Act. The SWRAU measure reflects the importance of 

considering future land use as part of the cleanup process by 

tracking the number of sites meeting certain criteria. 

• In March 2018, EPA held a Lean event to focus on increasing the 

number of Superfund sites that meet the SWRAU llerformance 

measure each year. In addition to EPA HQ participation, the lean 

event was attended by representatives from EPA Regions 1-9, and 

from the states of Delaware, Maryland, Oklahoma, and 

Virginia. Outcomes from the event include: updating the current 

SWRAU Best Practices document to include ideas discussed 

during the Lean event; forming the National SWRAU 

Workgroup; creating a visual management tool to track SWRAU 

sites; developing a form to track performance improvements; and 

reviewing legacy sites that have reached construction completion 

but not SWRAU. 

In addition, EPA has used Lean approaches at the following Superfund 

sites: 

• In August 2017, EPA Region 9 began talks with Atlantic Richfield 

Co. to discuss holding a Lean event at the Leviathan Mine Site, an 

abandoned open-pit sulfur mine on the eastern slope ofthe Sierra 

Nevada in Alpine County, California. The purpose of the 

application of Lean at this site was to examine the Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) schedule along with the 

Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) deadlines and form the 

most efficient process to meet the expectations of the stakeholders 

and RI/FS/AOC requirements. 

• In November 2017, EPA met with the Washoe Tribe to discuss the 

potential Lean event. EPA Region 9's Leviathan Lean team met 

with other Leviathan Lean team members. After subsequent 

check-ins with the Washoe Tribe, the Tribe decided that they did 

not have time to commit to the Leviathan Lean process, as the 

Leviathan Site Characterization Report had recently been 

submitted. 

Page 62 of 77 
75 


34874.068

c. Please detail employment information, including title, for Veronica Garcia, 

who has been reportedly teaching "lean" management to EPA staff. 5

4 

Veronica Garcia Darwin is a Senior Advisor to EPA's Office of Land and 

Emergency Management. Ms. Darwin is responsible for implementing the 

recommendations ofthe EPA Superfund Task Force 

(J!!ips://\\" w.gm.gm/supcrfund/superfund-task-fon:c). The 2018 update 

on EPA's progress on the Superfund Task Force's recommendations was 

published on July 23, 2018 

(httns:lls~mspuh.ep<Lgmh~ork/1 IQ/I <J7109.pdl). Prior to joining EPA, 

Ms. Darwin spent more than 18 years working extensively on 

environmental waste issues, including roles as a compliance officer in 

EPA Region 9 and as deputy division director of the Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality's Waste Divisions Program. 

d. Please provide any documents related to how the "lean" principles are being 

integrated into Superfund site management. 

In October 2015, EPA held a Lean kaizen event for the Applicable or 

Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) identification and 

selection process. An outcome of the Lean event was to pilot a best 

practice process for two years and then evaluate its implementation. In 

October 2017, EPA issued a memo outlining the pilot process. The memo 

is attached to this response. The agency expects to start evaluating the 

pilot in October 2019. 

60. In February 2017, President Trump directed agencies to establish task forces that would 

develop a list of regulations that should be targeted for elimination, edit, or replacement. 

While former Administrator Pruitt issued an agency-wide memorandum of 

implementation that included the names of EPA staff who would lead and work on the 

Regulatory Reform Task Force on March 24, 2017, 55 no further details about the task 

force or its process have been made public. The president's Executive Order required that 

this task force submit a progress report to the Administrator by mid-May 2017. 56 

54 Stern. "EPA Using Controversial Process to Push Cleanup of America's Most Toxic Sites." 55 Pruitt, E. Scott "Executive Order 13777: Ent(Jrcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda." Environmental Protection 

Agency. March 24, 2017. Accessed January 18, 2018. '""·'·'"-~-''·"""'' ·'" "''"'':cc:·•·"'"'"·''-·''''-'-·~·.: 

Page 63 of 77 
76 


34874.069

a. Please provide the May progress report for the Regulatory Reform Task 

Force, any subsequent progress reports, and the schedule by which further 

progress reports will be requested. 

The May 2017 progress report was an internal, deliberative agency 

document that was not produced publicly. Nonetheless, the work of the 

Regulatory Reform Task Force, including agendas for public meetings 

and teleconferences, can be found at https://w" w.cpa.gO\Ilawsrcgulations/rcgulatorv-rcfonn. For other document requests, please reach 

out to EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. 

b. Please provide the calendar and schedule tor the Regulatory Reform Task 

Force members, dating back to March 24, 2017. 

Per E.O. 13777, EPA hosted a series of public meetings and 

teleconferences to inform the Regulatory Reform Task Force. 

Information on these public meetings and teleconferences, including 

agendas, is accessible through EPA's Regulatory Reform webpage: 

h tips:/ /w\\ w .cpa.gov/laws-rcgu Ia tions/n•gula to rv-reform. 

c. Please provide any documents relating to or criteria being used by the 

Regulatory Reform Task Force to determine which regulations it will focus 

on. 

The Regulatory Reform Task Force has drawn from the thousands of 

comments in response to a Fetleral Register notice seeking input on 

regulations that may be appro1lriate for repeal replacement or 

modification. The Task force has also been informed by public meetings 

and teleconferences discussing regulatory reform. EPA's regulatory 

reform efforts, including the work of the Regulatory Reform Task Force, 

and information on the meetings and teleconferences, including agendas, 

is publicly available at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/regulatoryreform. 

Can you commit to a more transparent process for task forces going forward, including 

publishing of planning documents, meeting minutes and attendees. reports, and timelines for 

decision-making? 

Some discussions among the Regulatory Reform Task Force may be internal or predecisional agency actions protected from disclosure. Nonetheless, information involving the 

Regulatory Reform Task Force such as public meetings and teleconferences, including 

agendas, is accessible through EPA's Regulatory Reform webpage: 

h !Ips://\\ \In .t:pa.go\ /Jan S··n·gula tions/rcgulatorv-rt'l(lrm. 

Page 64 of77 
77 


34874.070

Senator Sanders 

65. In response to my questions for the record from your nomination hearing to become the 

EPA's Deputy Administrator, you committed to "relying on independent scientists with 

relevant expertise to evaluate and review the data that EPA uses when making decisions 

related to the implementation of environmental regulations." 

This commitment stands in opposition to then-Administrator Pruitt's October 31, 2017 

directive to prohibit scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on EPA Federal 

Advisory Committees (FAC). As we know from administrative records released on May 

23, 2018 in response to a federal court order, the EPA did not solicit or receive input 

from scientific or technical organizations while formulating this rule. Instead, the EPA 

relied mostly on input from political and industry groups. Given that the EPA did not rely 

on independent scientists with relevant expertise when formulating this October 31 

directive, and that the directive has and will continue to block independent scientists with 

relevant expertise from evaluating and reviewing the data used to make regulatory 

decisions, please describe your plan, including a timeline, for reversing thenAdministrator Pruitt's directive regarding membership on EPA FACs. 

There is no plan to reverse the directive. The directive's beneficial purpose is to 

strengthen existing membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees by 

improving member independence, diversity, and breadth of participation on these 

committees. The directive builds on measures already in place to address potential 

conflicts of interest. 

66. Your commitment to rely on independent scientists also contradicts then-Administrator 

Pruitt's appointment of many representatives from the regulated fossil fuel and chemical 

industries to these commissions. 

Given that these industry representatives are not independent, and their scientific 

conclusions are not always peer-reviewed, please describe your plan, including a 

timeline, for replacing them with truly independent scientists who will ensure the 

EPA's usc of peer-reviewed scientific studies to support the EPA's mission to protect 

human health and the environment. 

The Agency is committed to selecting qualified, independent, and knowledgeable 

individuals to serve on advisory committees. All EPA employees, including Special 

Government Employees, must abide by federal ethics laws and regulations, 

including the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees in the Executive Branch, 

5 C.F.R. Part 2635, aud the conflict of interest statutes codified in Title 18 of the 

United States Code. Agency policies, including ethics-related and conflict of interest 

guidelines, can be found at: 

• https:/ Ill wn .epa.gm/faca/strcngthcning-and-im proving-mcm hl•rsh ip-cpafcdcra 1-advisnrv-tom mit tees 

Page 65 of77 
78 


34874.071

• https://w\1 I\ .t~pa.gov/sitcs/production/filcs/20 15-

02/dot·umcnts/cth icsadvisorv. pdf 

• h t t ps: 1/\ oscm i k.qJa.gov/sa bl,a bp rod uct.ns f/\\' c h!t·t h ics '! () pt·n Document 

67. On April 24. 2018, then-Administrator Pruitt proposed the ·•strengthening Transparency 

in Regulatory Science" (STRS) rule to bar the EPA from considering important peerreviewed public health studies in making decisions about vital protections for human 

health and the environment. Emails obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists show 

that EPA officials significantly altered this rule prior to its release in order to avoid 

imposing "enormous burdens on industry." 

As you know, the proposed rule gives the EPA Administrator unilateral authority to 

determine what constitutes '"pivotal regulatory science." You are not a scientist, so any 

use of this unilateral authority would constitute a violation of your pledge to rely on 

independent scientists when making decisions related to the implementation of 

environmental regulations. 

Were you aware that EPA officials adjusted this proposed rule to avoid imposing 

"enormous burdens on industry"? If so, please provide a time line for withdrawing the 

STRS rule. lfnot, do you commit to investigate the regulatory capture inherent in the 

STRS rule? 

The proposed rule Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science seeks to ensure 

that the regulatory science underlying EPA's actions is publicly available in a 

manner sufficient for independent validation. Where available and appropriate, 

EPA will use peer-reviewed information, standardized test methods, consistent data 

evaluation procedures, and good laboratory practices to ensure transparent, 

understandable, and reproducible scientific assessments. The public commeut 

period for this rule was open from April30 to August 16,2018. EPA also held a 

public hearing in July to get feedback on the proposed rule. EPA is now reviewiug 

public comments and will follow the agency's regulatory process. 

68. In response to my questions for the record from your nomination hearing to be the EPA's 

Deputy Administrator, you stated that you were unfamiliar with the EPA's December 

2016 report on hydraulic fracturing's (fracking) impacts on drinking water. In this report. 

the EPA found "hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under 

some circumstances." You committed to working with career EPA employees on the 

issue. You also stated that you believe that "all of the environmental laws function better 

with the information in the hands of the communities most-impacted." 

a. Now that you have had ample time to work with career EPA employees on the issue, 

do you concur with the conclusions of the EPA's final report on fracking and 

drinking water? 

Page 66 of 77 
79 


34874.072

EPA's study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water 

in the United States was conducted with active engagement with states, tribes, 

industry, and multiple non-governmental organizations. The study produced 

over 25 peer-reviewed reports and journal publications that advanced 

understanding of hydraulic fracturing activities. The study culminated with the 

publication of EPA's December 2016 assessment entitled "Hydraulic Fracturing 

for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing water cycle on 

drinking water resources in the United States." That assessment was based 

upon the latest science available at the time and cites over 1,200 sources of data 

and information. Those conclusions are being used by federal, tribal, state, and 

local officials; industry; and the public to better understand and address 

vulnerabilities of drinking water resources to hydraulic fracturing activities. 

b. What further actions are you taking with career employees to regulate fracking's 

impacts on water quality? 

The EPA is working with states, the oil and gas industry, and stakeholders such 

as the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas 

Compact Commission to ensure that oil and gas development occurs safely and 

responsibly to protect drinking water resources. Consistent with the EPA's 

Memorandum to the EPA Regions and State and Tribal Underground Injection 

Control (UIC) Program Directors in February 2014 and an associated technical 

"Permitting Guidance (UIC Program Guidance #84) for Oil and Gas Hydraulic 

Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels," the EPA continues to issue Safe 

Drinking Water Act UIC permits, where EPA directly implements the UIC 

Program, for the injection of diesel fuels for hydraulic fracturing related to oil 

and gas operations. Additionally, in May 2018, the EPA initiated a study to 

evaluate approaches to managing both conventional and unconventional oil and 

gas extraction wastewaters generated at onshore facilities. Currently, the 

majority of this wastewater is managed through underground injection, where 

that water can no longer be accessed or used. A key component of the study is 

to engage with states, tribes, and stakeholders, including industry and nongovernmental organizations, to facilitate discussion and solicit information on 

topics surrounding produced water management. 

c. What actions have you taken to ensure that impacted communities have information 

about the ways in which fracking may be impacting their water quality? 

EPA actively engages with a very wide range of stakeholders to better 

understand hydraulic fracturing activities. Throughout the conduct of the 

hydraulic fracturing drinking water study, EPA has engaged with states, tribes, 

industry, and others to both collect information and to discuss the results of our 

findings. For example, the EPA recently launched a new study to look at how 

the EPA, states, tribes, and stakeholders regulate and manage wastewater from 

the oil and gas industry. This fall, the EPA will conduct a public meeting to 

report on what the Agency has learned to date and provide stakeholders with 

Page 67 of77 
80 


34874.073

an additional opportunity to provide input. Additionally, where the EPA 

directly implements the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection 

Control Program, permitting decisions are subject to public notice and 

comment, affording communities with the opportunity to learn more about a 

proposed project within their community and submit comments to EPA for 

consideration. The EPA is also currently working to stand up a web-based 

compliance assistance center for stakeholders, including the public, to better 

understand the oil and natural gas sector and the regulations that ensure 

protection of water quality. Other EPA activities are highlighted on the 

Agency's web site for unconventional oil and gas activities 

(https:/1\\ 'n' .t•pa.grn'/uog). 

69. In response to my questions for the record from your nomination hearing to be the EPA's 

Deputy Administrator, you stated that you had not been briefed on the EPA's 

Environmental Justice 2020 plan but looked forward to working with career agency 

employees on its implementation. 

Have you been briefed on the plan? If you have been briefed, please describe how 

you are working to ensure that the EPA's Environmental Justice 2020 plan is fully 

implemented. If you have not been briefed, please include a time line for when you 

will receive this important information. Please also include a timeline for then fully 

implementing the Environmental Justice 2020 plan. 

EPA continues to further environmental justice through implementation of 

important strategic priorities within the Agency, through the leadership of the 

Interagency Working Group on Environmental .Justice and through continued 

direct support of and engagement with community-based organizations throughout 

the United States. EPA has taken meaningful steps towards implementing the 

Environmental .Justice 2020 plan. For example, earlier this year the Office of Policy 

issued an Aucnc·v-\\ ide memorandum containing numerous environmental justice 

strategic priorities. These priorities were purposefully aligned with key elements of 

the E.J 2020 Action Agenda. Examples of this alignment arc a continued focus on 

engaging with states, tribes and other governmental partners to support their 

interest in integration of environmental justice into their programs; developing 

metrics to track the meaningful implementation of environmental justice 

considerations and tools into program activities throughout EJ>A; advancing our 

ability to engage directly with vulnerable and overburdened communities to provide 

tangible improvements that meet their needs; and making progress on key national 

measures of EPA's impact on issues critical to furthering environmental.iustice. 

Moreover, this past year EPA also released QI.!J:. annuaii:;J...rcport, which contains 

numerous examples of bow EPA has continued to make significant progress on 

environmental justice strategic priorities from across our regional and national 

program offices. We have also recently formed an agency-wide senior decisionmaking body for environmental justice and community revitalization efforts called 

Page 68 of77 
81 


34874.074

the Environmental Justice and Community Revitalization Council. As we continue 

to implement these important steps, we are in the process of evaluating the E.J 2020 

Action Agenda in whole in preparation for an update to the multi-year strategic 

plan. We estimate this process to conclude during the winter of2018/19. 

70. As you know. many of former Administrator Pruitt's proposed rulemakings have 

generated lawsuits from outside groups due to their questionable legality. You recognized 

the questionable legality of at least one of these rules in reversing former Administrator 

Pruitt's decision to lift the sales limits on so called "glider trucks." Given that many of 

former Administrator Pruitt's rules and proposed rulemakings were based on the same 

questionable legal ground as the glider trucks rule, please describe your plan, including a 

timclinc, for withdrawing all other proposed rulemakings signed by former Administrator 

Pruitt. 

EPA does not have a comprehensive plan to rescind "all other proposed 

rulemakings signed by former Administrator Pruitt." 

The decision to withdraw the conditional no action assurance regarding small 

manufacturers of glider vehicles was a decision specific to the facts and law relevant 

to that matter. As explained in the .July 26, 2018 memo, "[a]fter consultation with 

OAR, OECA and OGC, and after further consideration ofthe No Action Assurance 

and information before me, including the administrative and judicial petitions and 

motions, and the application of agency guidance regarding no action assurances to 

these particular facts, I have concluded that the application of current regulations to 

the glider industry does not represent the kind of extremely unusual circumstances 

that support the EPA's exercise of enforcement discretion." EPA will similarly 

continue to consider all relevant factors, including legal authority, as we take 

regulatory action. 

71. As you know, the EPA Office of Investigator General (I G) has opened nine investigations 

into former Administrator Pruitt's ethical conduct. Given that several of these 

investigations are related to potential conflicts of interest that could have influenced Mr. 

Pruitt's conduct and decisions as EPA Administrator, will you commit to suspending all 

proposed rulemakings he signed until the EPA IG concludes all its investigations? 

EPA is committed to cooperating with the IG. EPA takes very seriously the findings 

or recommendations made by the IG with regard to EPA's agency actions, including 

rulemakings. 

72. During this hearing, Chairman Barrasso asked you the following question: 

The state of Washington is abusing section 401 of the Clean Water Act in order to 

block the development of coal export terminal in that state. The terminal would 

Page 69 of77 
82 


34874.075

ship coal from Wyoming, Afontana, Utah. and Colorado to markets in Asia. The 

state of Washington has cited reasons for objecting to the terminal that have 

nothing to do with water quality, yet they're using section401 of the Clean f'Vater 

Act. I introduced a bill this week to address this problem, we can't allow states to 

block the export of American energy, so will you commit to working with me to 

identify both legislative and regulatmy solutions to stop these abuses? 

You responded by committing to helping to stop these "abuses." 

The state of Washington found that construction of this terminal would permanently 

destroy more than 30 acres or wetlands, and that operation of this terminal would 

deposit coal dust to nearby surviving wetlands. As you may know, coal dust has a 

significant and negative impact on the ecological functions of wetlands. 

Do you consider the state of Washington's decision to prevent the permanent 

destruction and environmental contamination of its wetlands to be an ·'abuse" of its 

authority under the Clean Water Act to ensure permitted activity will comply with 

applicable water quality standards? If not, do you commit to informing Chairman 

Barrasso that you will not help him reverse the decision made by the state of 

Washington? 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides states with an opportunity 

to evaluate and address aquatic resource impacts of federally-issued licenses and 

permits. It is a direct grant of authority from Congress to the states. The statute 

does not provide the EPA with the authority to review, approve, or deny state 

section 401 certification programs or individual state certification decisions. The 

EPA supports the appropriate use by the states of their section 401 authority 

consistent with the goals of the CWA and promotes timely coordination, 

planning, and review. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

73. I appreciate the steps you've already taken to right the ship at EPA. While I expect many 

of the ethical lapses during Scott Pruitt's tenure will not continue after his departure, his 

behavior exposed systemic failures within EPA that need to be addressed. Specifically, I 

still wait for complete answers about: 

a. Who was responsible tor prohibiting EPA scientists from presenting their work at a 

Narragansett Bay Estuaries Project conference in October last year; 

Page 70 of77 
83 


34874.076

As explained in our December 4, 2017 letter to you, the EPA understands your 

concerns about the cancellation of planned presentations at the October 23, 

2017 State of Narragansett Bay Estuary Program workshop. We have since put 

in place procedures to prevent such an occurrence in the future. Senior agency 

leadership- both political and career- have been assured that they have the 

authority to make decisions about event participation. 

b. Why, after multiple requests, I have never received a copy of Assistant 

Administrator William Wehrum 's recusal statement, a statement which under ethics 

rules should have been completed many months ago; 

Please find attached a copy of Mr. Wehrum's recusal statement. 

c. Who was responsible for the no-bid contract EPA gave to Definers, a Republican 

opposition research firm associated with dark money eftorts behind Scott Pruitt's 

confirmation; 

As explained in our April 27, 2018 letter to you, in .July 2017 the EPA began 

acquisition planning to procure real-time coverage of media stories for specific 

topics, event, and announcements relevant to the agency. After determining that 

Definers would be able to provide that real-time coverage, and that such 

coverage for specific events was not provided by other companies, the EPA 

awarded a purchase order to Definers for those services on December 7, 2017. 

At Definers' request, the EPA terminated the awarded purchase order on 

December 19,2017, before any work was initiated. The EPA incurred no costs 

from the date of award to the date of termination. 

As explained in our April27, 2018letter and discussed with your staff, the EPA 

has a centralized search for records related to Definers currently underway. We 

have delivered records to your staff on April27, 2018, May 10,2018, July 23, 

2018, and August 23,2018, and we will continue to deliver responsive 

documents on a rolling basis as they become available. 

d. Why EPA has never disclosed copies of Bob Murray's action plan, either through 

FOIA or in response to my requests, when a copy of that plan addressed to Scott 

Pruitt was disclosed under FOIA by the Department of Energy; 

As explained in our November 28,2017 and February 1, 20181etters to you, the 

agency has conducted centralized Outlook searches of EPA officials that would 

have been engaged on this topic. These searches did not capture any instances 

of"action plan." We are conducting additional searches and continuing to 

locate and review documents relating to the Clean Power Plan, including those 

that may yield documents responsive to your request. We will be in touch if and 

when responsive documents are available for release. 

Page 71 of 77 
84 


34874.077

e. Why the formaldehyde assessment has been blocked from moving through the 

normal review process. 

As explained in our July 5, 2018, response to your May 171etter, the EPA's 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program informs decisions under a 

number of statutes, including the Comprehensive Environmental Recovery, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean 

Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. The EPA 

is committed to ensuring that the IRIS Program provides high-quality, healthbased assessments that adhere to the highest standards of scientific review. 

Prior to releasing any assessment, the EPA conducts a rigorous and robust 

review process to ensure agency decisions to protect human health and the 

environment are based on high quality science. The agency continues to discuss 

the formaldehyde assessment internally and has uo further updates to provide 

at this time. 

lfyou can't commit to providing full answers to these inquiries within two weeks of your 

response to this question, please explain the continued delay. 

74. The hearing at which you testified was entitled "Examining EPA's Agenda: Protecting 

the Environment and Allowing America's Economy to Grow." You and I had a chance 

to discuss two climate change-related issues that touch on both of these subjects. The 

first of these subjects is the carbon bubble, which refers to the risk that too much 

investment in the fossil fuel industry will lead to a situation in which many fossil fuel 

assets wind up stranded, setting up a chain reaction economic crash in which total losses 

may equal or exceed those of the 2008 Jinancial crisis. The economic literature we 

discussed all suggests that the best way to avoid such a crash is to begin decarbonizing 

our economy now rather than later. The Bank of England happens to agree with this 

view as well. In light of this, please explain how: 

a. EPA's plan to repeal the Clean Power Plan and replace it with something far weaker 

is consistent with sending the sort of clear signal economists and policy makers 

recommend that we will begin decarbonizing our economy now in order to reduce 

the future risk of stranded fossil fuel assets provoking an economic crash; 

The EPA proposed to repeal the CPP on October 16,2017 (82 FR 48035). In 

that proposed repeal, EPA asserted that the best system of emission reduction 

(BSER) in the CPP exceeded EPA's authority under CAA section ll1 because it 

established the BSER using measures that applied to the power sector as whole, 

rather than measures that apply at and to, and can be carried out at the level of, 

individual facilities. On August 21, 2018, the administrator issued a proposed 

replacement rule (the Affordable Clean Energy Rule) that he believes is more 

consistent both with the authorities under lll(d) and the types of technologies 

currently available to reduce C02 emissions at existing coal-fired power plants. 

Page 72 of77 
85 


34874.078

b. EPA· s plan to roll hack fuel economy standards tor cars is consistent with sending 

the sort of clear signal economists and policy makers recommend that we will begin 

decarbonizing our economy now in order to reduce the future risk of stranded fossil 

fuel assets provoking an economic crash. 

The EPA and the Department of Transportation's Safer Affordable FuelEfficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, issued on August I, 2018, projects economic 

benefits, including a reduction in regulatory costs, of more than $252 billion 

(present value estimate, 3% discount rate) through model year 2029, and 

societal net benefits of $176 billion (present value estimate, 3% discount rate). 

The corresponding estimates using 7% discount rates are $192 billion and $131 

billion. The agencies' proposal reflects a balance of a number of factors, 

including safety, costs, benefits, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution 

reduction, and we also seek comment on a wide range of alternatives. 

75. The other economic risk that we discussed involves the prospect of a coastal real estate 

crash. Numerous highly regarded sources are warning that this country faces the prospect 

of seeing hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions of dollars in coastal residential and 

commercial real estate value wiped out over the coming decades as sea levels rise due to 

climate change. Freddie Mac, the Union of Concerned Scientists. and the insurance 

industry trade publication Risk & Insurance are all warning of this prospect. One new 

study indicates that $7.4 billion in real estate values have already been wiped out due to 

sea level rise along the southeast coast since 2005. In light of this, please explain how: 

a. EPA's plan to repeal the Clean Power Plan and replace it with something far weaker 

is consistent with the kind of serious decarbonization we need if we are to avoid the 

most catastrophic consequences of sea level rise; 

The EPA proposed to repeal the CPP on October 16, 2017 (82 FR 48035). In 

that proposed repeal, EPA asserted that the best system of emission reduction 

(BSER) in the CPP exceeded EPA's authority nuder CAA section 111 because it 

established the BSER using measures that applied to the power sector as whole, 

rather than measures that apply at and to, and can be carried out at the level of, 

individual facilities. On August 21,2018, the administrator issued a proposed 

replacement rule (the Affordable Clean Energy Rule) that he believes is more 

consistent both with the authorities under lll(d) and the types of technologies 

currently available to reduce COz emissions at coal-fired power plants. 

b. EPA ·s plan to roll hack fuel economy standards lor cars is consistent with the kind 

of serious decarbonization we need if we are to avoid the most catastrophic 

consequences of sea level rise. 

Under the EPA/DOT SAFE Vehicles Rule proposal, EPA relied on the estimates 

of climate impacts presented in the NHTSA Draft Environmentallmpaets 

Statement. The NHTSA analysis indicates that by 2100, the proposed 

Page 73 of77 
86 


34874.079

alternative would result in an increase of 7,400 million metric tons of C02, an 

increase in global temperature of 3/1 OOOth of one degree Celsius, and a 

projected sea level rise ranging from 76.28 centimeters (30.03 inches) nuder the 

No Action Alternative (i.e., the existing EPA GHG standards) to 70.34 

centimeters (30.06 inches) under the proposed alternative, for a maximum sea 

level increase of0.06 centimeters (0.02 inches) by 2100. Although GHG 

emissions would be higher under this proposal compared to EPA's existing 

standards, in light ofthe assessment presented in the proposal indicating higher 

vehicle costs and associated impacts on consumers, safety, and other factors 

including the increase in GHG emissions, EPA believes the proposal is an 

appropriate balancing of the factors EPA must consider when setting these 

standards. 

76. Your predecessor instituted a policy that prohibited scientists who receive EPA grant 

money from serving on EPA's science advisory boards under the pretext that this 

constituted a conflict of interest. However, he appointed many individuals from 

regulated industries to EPA's science advisory boards. 

a. Please explain how serving on an EPA science advisory board while receiving EPA 

grant money constitutes a conllict of interest but serving on an EPA science advisory 

board while working for or receiving funding from a regulated industry does not. 

The directive supports that any person serving on an EPA science advisory 

committee must be fully independent from the EPA. Any potential lack of 

independence or potential conflict with EPA, including financially, could affect 

the advice that is given. Past and current members of federal advisory 

committees come from a wide range of backgrounds, including academia, 

state/local/tribal governments and from the regulated community. 

Furthermore, the process for serving on a federal advisory committee requires 

disclosure of financial conflicts of interest. Agency policies, including ethicsrelated and conflict of interest guidelines, can be found at: 

• https://ww\\ .cpa.go' /facalstrengthcning-and-im PfO\ ing-mt·mhcrshi p-elli.\: 

l'cd t•ra l-ad Yison -COlli m iIi'"" 

• h ttr":/lwn w.cpa.gm /sites/prod ul'l iolllfilcs/20 l :".: 

02/documcn ts/ethicsat!Yison.pd f 

• h ttps:/ivoscm itc.,•pa.gov/sa b/sa bpmtlnet.n,!'/\\ el>/d h k' '!{)pen Boot mt·u t 

b. Will you commit to reversing your predecessor's policy prohibiting scientists who 

receive EPA grant money from serving on EPA ·s science advisory boards? 

There is no plan to reverse the directive. 

Page 74 of77 
87 


34874.080

77. There have been reports that EPA political appointees are refusing to put new policies in 

writing and arc instead insisting that career staff follow verbal instructions. Will you 

commit to requiring that all policies, guidance, and other similar complex instructions be 

put in writing before career staff arc instructed to follow them? 

I do not have any specific knowledge of these practices and always seek to provide 

my directions clearly in writing. 

78. During Administrator Pruitt's tenure, scientists associated with the Narragansett Bay 

National Estuary Program were stopped from presenting their work. What steps have 

you taken since becoming acting administrator to ensure scientists are not silenced, 

including those working and presenting on climate change and its consequences? 

It is the EPA Office of Research and I>evelopment's (ORD) decision about scientists 

participating in events. ORD will continue to conduct research outlined in our 

STRAPs reflecting Congressional appropriations. 

EPA has one of the strongest Scientific Integrity policies and one of the most robust 

Scientific Integrity training Jlrograms in the federal government. EPA's Scientific 

Integrity Policy doesn't just apply to EPA scientists; it applies to all EPA employees, 

including scientists, managers, political appointees, and other staff. EPA regularly 

makes improvements to its Scientific Integrity program to make it even stronger. 

You can read more about this policy at cpa.gm'io>alba,ie-infonnation-ahoutsd(·ntific~in rc~fritv. 

I am committed to upholding EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy, which ensures that 

the Agency's scientific work is of the highest quality, is presented openly and with 

integrity, and is free from political interference. The policy recognizes the 

distinction between scientific information, analyses, and results from policy 

decisions based on that scientific information. Policy makers within the Agency 

weigh the best available science, along with additional factors such as practicality, 

economics, and societal impact, when making policy decisions. 

I have met with the EPA Scientific Integrity Official, Francesca Grifo, and 

supported the scheduling of the EPA Scientific Integrity Program's Annual 

Employee Conversation with the Scientific Integrity Official on Tuesday, June 12, 

2018. 

79. What is the EPA's role in helping states and coastal communities mitigate or adapt to the 

challenges projected for the shellfish industries or the thousands of individuals that make 

their living otT of this billion-dollar resource? 

Page 75 of77 
88 


34874.081

The EPA has a number of regulatory and non-regulatory efforts in place to help 

states and coastal communities address current and projected challenges for the 

shellfish industry. 

The EPA uses the Agency's grant and regulatory authorities under the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) to protect and improve water quality, with an emphasis on ensuring that 

shellfish resources can thrive and continue to be safe for human consumption. This 

includes providing training and monitoring support to states and tribes in 

developing and refining water quality standards, listing impaired waters, developing 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and addressing both nonpoint and point 

sources of pollution. The EPA also provides guidance to states, territories, and 

tribes about issuing fish and shellfish consumption advisories, and determining safe 

human consumption rates offish and shellfish, and has jointly issued EPA/FDA safe 

eating guidelines. 

In addition, the EPA serves as the co-chair of the Hypoxia Task Force, a coalition of 

states, federal agencies, and tribes working to better manage the pollution sources 

that threaten the fish and shellfish industries in targeted areas. The EPA also works 

directly with coastal communities through a number of federal aud local 

partnerships, including the National Estuary Program, to improve local resilience 

by helping coastal communities to develop adaptation strategies for future impacts 

to infrastructure, fish and shellfish industries, and natural resources. This type of 

work includes conducting vulnerability assessments in order to identify, analyze, 

prioritize, and reduce risk at the community level and water quality monitoring to 

better understand and reduce the impacts of changing water chemistry. The EPA is 

also conducting research to examine the effect of nutrients in coastal systems and an 

economic analysis of the impacts of ocean and coastal acidification on the shellfish 

industry. 

80. The Save Our Seas Act, which passed the Senate last August and the House last week, 

urges the administration to pursue a number of activities aimed at reducing the intlux of 

plastic waste into the oceans, including investing in research into ocean biodegradable 

plastic alternatives, pursuing new international agreements focused on land-based plastic 

pollution, providing technical assistance to improve waste management in developing 

countries. and considering marine debris in future trade agreements. 

a. What role can or does EPA play in achieving these goals? 

b. Where docs addressing marine debris rank in your priorities at EPA? 

The EPA recognizes the severity of the global problem of trash pollution in the 

ocean, and in freshwater systems as well, and is contributing to the 

Administration's activities to address marine litter. The EPA, in coordination with 

NOAA and other federal partners, is taking proactive steps to address this 

problem, primarily through the work of our multi-faceted Trash Free Waters 

(TFW) program. The EPA's TFW program assists states, municipalities, and 

Page 76 of77 
89 


34874.082

businesses to work together to define more effective ways to reduce litter, prevent 

trash entry into water, and minimize packaging waste through stakeholder 

consultation, strategic planning, pilot initiatives, and public/private collaboration. 

In addition to the EPA's efforts under the TFW 1>rogram, the Agency is engaging 

in a variety of international marine trash forums, exploring new opportunities to 

reduce plastic trash loadings into the ocean from China and other highcontributing nations. The EPA has also identified microplastics as a research 

priority, focusing on quantifying the extent of plastic pollution in all aquatic 

systems and assessing the possibility of human health impacts from microplastics in 

the environment. In addition, the EPA's recycling and sustainable materials 

management programs are working to reduce the volume of plastic trash in the 

waste management system and consider how the Agency's waste system expertise 

could benefit countries that lack effective waste management infrastructure. 

Senator Wicker: 

81. On July 20, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded 

the EPA ·s denial of a 2016 petition for small refinery hardship tiled by Ergon- West 

Virginia, Inc., under the Renewable Fuel Standard. What actions is the EPA prepared to 

take to respond to this court ruling? What is the expected timeline for such actions? 

EPA continues to review next steps in light of the court's ruling. We are not in a 

position to share a timeline at this point, but understand the need to move quickly. 

Page 77 of77 
90 


34874.083

Attachment, Question 52b 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Carper: 

AUG 2 1 2018 

OFFICE Of 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23, 2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codify the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

On April 27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/cercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-farm-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

janifer.pamela@epa.gov or at (202) 564-6969. 

reen 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address {URL) • http:/lwww.epa.gov 

Aecycled!Reeyclable • Ptin1ed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Poslconsumer} 
91 


34874.085

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Bernard Sanders 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Sanders: 

AUG 2 l 2018 

OFFICE OF 

SOUO WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF lAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23,2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codify the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

On April27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcrafcercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-farm-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

jrurif~.--gw m "(202) 56H~\vl'------~ 

~N.Breen Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycl&d/Recyclabf9 • Printed w~h Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Post consumer) 
92 


34874.086

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Whitehouse: 

AUG 2 1 2018 

OFFICE OF 

SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF lAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23, 2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codifY the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

OnApril27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcralcercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-farm-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

janifer.pamela@epa.gov or at (202) 564-6969. 

ll:OI~----- Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http:llwww.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OU Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
93 


34874.087

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Merkley 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Merkley: 

AUG 2 1 2018 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Conununity Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23, 2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codify the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

On April 27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/cercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-furm-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public conunent on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

janifer.pamela@epagov or at (202) 564-6969. 

Q~L Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http:/Jwww.epagov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable on Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minlmum 30% Postconsumer) 
94 


34874.088

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Cardin: 

AUG 2 1 2018 

OFFICE OF 

SCUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23,2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codify the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

On Apri127, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra!cercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-farm-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the 'CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's 6ffice of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

janifer.pamela@epa.gov or at (202) 564-6969. 

7\L N. Breen 

g Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (UAL) • htlp://www.epa.gov 

Recycted/Recyctable •Prlnte<f wnh Vegetable 0!1 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Poslconsumer) 
95 


34874.089

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Chris Van Hollen 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Van Hollen: 

AUG 2 1 l018 

OFF!CEOF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF lAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23,2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codify the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

On April 27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra!cercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-farm-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engagei! in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the CERCLA and RPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

janifer.pamela@epa.gov or at (202) 564-6969. 

. reen 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

lnmmet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Aecycled/Raeyclable • Printed with Vegetable OM Based Inks on Recycled Paper (M'mlmum 30% Postconsumer) 
96 


34874.090

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Gillibrand: 

AUG 2 1 2018 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23, 2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising it~ 

regulations under CERCLA to codify the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act 

On April27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FAR.\:! 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epagov/epcralcercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-fann-act 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thaak you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

janifer.pamela@epa.gov or at (202) 564-6969. 

/t7rtL, UJ/JB en 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http;/lwww.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oll Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Post consumer') 
97 


34874.091

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Cory A. Booker 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Booker: 

AUG 2 1 2018 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23,2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codify the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

On April27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/cercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-farm-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your Jetter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

;~;""-"-·'"'~•~ro)56«;~m~y, L 

l/:arry N. Breen 

:Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http://Www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • PrJn!ed w!th Vegetable on Based Inks on Aecyded Paper {Minimum 30% Post consumer) 
98 


34874.092

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 · 

Dear Senator Markey: 

AUG 2 1 2018 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF lAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25, 2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March23, 2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, fann owners and operators are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August l, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codify the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

On April27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra/cercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-fann-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is currently engaged in a rnlemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at fanns under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the'CERCLA arid EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your Jetter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

jmrlfu<.pomolo@<po.gw oc"(202) ''frv:· L 

Barry N. Breen 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled!Aecyclabla • Printed with Vegetable 0!1 Based Inks oo Recycled Paper (Minimum 30"h Poslconsumer) 
99 


34874.093

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Tammy Duckworth 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Duckworth:. 

AUG 2 1 2018 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

NOW THE 

OFFICE OF LAND AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Thank you for your letter of May 25,2018, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding 

guidance published by the EPA on reporting requirements for air emissions from animal waste at farms 

under section 304 ofthe Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

On March 23, 2018, the "Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act" (FARM Act) was enacted as part of 

the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018." The FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal 

waste at farms from reporting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA). Therefore, farm owners and operators·are no longer required to report these 

types of releases under CERCLA. The EPA published a final rule on August 1, 2018, revising its 

regulations under CERCLA to codifY the reporting exemption provided by the FARM Act. 

On April27, 2018, the EPA updated its website to include an explanation of the impact of the FARM 

Act on the reporting of air emissions from animal waste at farms under both CERCLA and EPCRA, 

which can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/epcra!cercla-and-epcra-questions-and-answers-farm-act. 

Consistent with this guidance, the EPA is current! y engaged in a rulemaking process to revise the 

EPCRA regulations to address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste at farms under EPCRA. EPA is actively considering many of the substantive issues raised 

in your letter and will be seeking public comment on the proposed rule, which will reflect the EPA's 

interpretation of the relationship between the CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting requirements. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Pamela Janifer in the EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 

janifer.pamela@epa.gov or at (202) 564-6969. 

C!L 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Aooycled/Recyclabla • Printed wflh Vegelable Oll Based Inks on Recycled Paper {Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
100 


34874.094

Attachment, Question 59a 

Lead Office Category Title 

Region 1 Land and Emergency Management MA DEP/EPA Region 1 RCRA Part B licensing 

Project 

Region 1 Planning NH DES/ EPA Region 1P&C list Development 

Region 1 Planning NH DES/EPA Region 1 Performance Partnership 

Agreement Process 

Region 1 Water NPDES Clearinghouse Intranet Site 55 Project 

Region 1 Enforcement and Compliance OES Tracking Database Lean Project 

Region 1 Information Management/IT Program Activity Reporting 

Region 1 Enforcement and Compliance RCRA Authorization 

Region 1 Information Management/IT Region 1 Air Branch Q share Migration 

Region 1 Facilities and Infrastructure Region 1 Annual Facility Inventory Process 

Region 1 Contracts and Grants Region 1 Co Sponsorship Agreement 

Region 1 Water Region 1 NPDES Draft Permit Process 

Region 1 Water Region 1 NPDES Draft Permit Routing Process 

Region 1 land and Emergency Management Region 1 RCRA NOV Inspection Reporting Process 

Region 1 Contracts and Grants Region 1 Regional Laboratory Small Purchase 

Process 

Region 1 Information Management/IT Regional Events Calendar 

Region 1 Air and Radiation SIP Project 

Region 1 Human Resources Travel Authorization Process 

Region 2 Contracts and Grants CASD Grants Processing 

Region 2 Information Management/IT Clean Water Division (CWO) Data Management 

Region 2 Communications Controlled Correspondence - Phase 2 
101 


34874.095

Attachment, Question 59a 

Region 2 Communications Correspondence Management Process 

Improvement 

Region 2 Other - Laboratory operations DESA laboratory Chain-of-Custody & Sample 

Login Process 

Region 2 Information Management/IT E -Discovery Process Improvement 

Region 2 Contracts and Grants EPA's Grant Application Process in the Virgin 

Islands 

Region 2 Enforcement and Compliance, MPCB SOP on CWA Enforcement Cases 

Water, 

Planning 

Region 2 Enforcement and Compliance, NPDES Inspection Reporting Process 

Water 

Region 2 Communications ORA Meeting Scheduling Improvement 

Region 2 Other- Inventory control & Purchasing of Common laboratory and Field 

purchasing Supplies 

Region 2 Other -Travel R2 International Travel process 

Region 2 Enforcement and Compliance RCRA Enforcement 

Region 2 Contracts and Grants Region 2 Grants Closeout Process 

Region 2 Enforcement and Compliance Region 2 Virgin Islands Storm water Enforcement 

Region 2 Human Resources Region 2 Volunteer Intern On/Off-Boarding 

Process 

Region 2 Communications, Stakeholder Complaints/Inquiries Tracking 
102 


34874.096

Information Management/IT, System 

Planning 

Region 2 Information Management/IT, Superfund Five Year Review (FYR) Process 

land and Emergency Management, Improvement 

Planning 

Region 2 Human Resources Telework Sign up and Recertification Process 

Region 3 Human Resources Employee Exit Process 

Region 3 land and Emergency Management Federal Facilities/Office of Regional Counsel 

Docket Meeting 

Region 3 Enforcement and Compliance ICERTS- lntergrated Compliance Enforcement 

Reoortine and Tracking Svstem 

Region 3 Contracts and Grants lean on ESAT Administrative Duties- Region 3 

Region 3 Enforcement and Compliance NPDES Administrative Order on Consent 

Region 3 Enforcement and Compliance NPDES- SCAFO concurrence 

Region 3 Human Resources RA Event Planning Lean 

Region 3 Air and Radiation Region 3 Air Protection Division SIP concurrence 

Region 3 Air and Radiation Region 3 Air Protection Division SIP concurrence 

Region 3 Land and Emergency Management Region 3 Analytic Support Process 

Region 3 Contracts and Grants, Region 3 Analytic Support Process 

Land and Emergency Management, 

Other- laboratory 

Region 3 Water Region 3 Clean Water Act Section 404 Aquatic 

Resources Regulatory Permit Review Process 

Region 3 Enforcement and Compliance Region 3 Enforcement Tracking 

Region 3 Enforcement and Compliance Region 3 FIFRA Case Conclusion Process 

Region 3 Financial Management Region 3 OPM Support Budget process 

Region 3 Human Resources Region 3 Onboarding 

Region 3 Human Resources, Region 3 Onboarding 

Planning 
103 


34874.097

Region 3 Financial Management Regional Support Budget Submittal Process 

Region 3 Enforcement and Compliance State Review Framework Tracking 

Region 4 Other -Administrative OPM/10 Deliverables Report 

Region 4 Air and Radiation R4 Air Technical Systems Audit Process Review 

Region 4 Facilities and Infrastructure R4 Property Utilization Process Lean Process Map 

Event- FY 2015 

Region 4 Financial Management R4 Unliquidated Obligations Process Review 

Region 4 Contracts and Grants RCRA Enforcement and Permitting Assistance 

(REPA) Contract Task Order Award Process 

Region 4 Human Resources Region 4 0National Honor Nominations Awards 

Region 4 Enforcement and Compliance Region 4 Air Planning and Implementation Branch 

Regulatory and Permitting Actions Review 

Process Ootimization 

Region 4 Information Management/IT Region 4 Automatic Computer Shutdown 

Region 4 Planning Region 4 CSEB Program Administrative 

Enforcement Process Lean Rapid Event 

Region 4 Communications Region 4 Conference Lines 

Region 4 Contracts and Grants Region 4 Continuing Environmental Programs 

Grants Award Process 

Region 4 Facilities and Infrastructure Region 4 Desktop Printer Reduction 

Region 4 Contracts and Grants Region 4 Large Procurement Process Review 

Region 4 Information Management/IT Region 4 Library Services 

Region 4 Facilities and Infrastructure Region 4 Medical Surveillance 
104 


34874.098

Region 4 Enforcement and Compliance Region 4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Program Administrative 

Enforcement Process Rapid Event 

Region 4 Communications Region 4 OEJS EJ Complaints Process 

Region 4 Facilities and Infrastructure Region 4 Office Supplies 

Region 4 Human Resources Region 4 On-Boarding Process: Lean Rapid Event 

Region 4 Facilities and Infrastructure Region 4 Overtime Utilities 

Region 4 Contracts and Grants Region 4 Personal Property Management 

Acquisition and Delivery Process 

Region 4 Information Management/IT Region 4 Printers/Multifunction Devices 

Region 4 land and Emergency Management Region 4 RCRA FIRST lean Transference Project 

Region 4 Information Management/IT Region 4 Regional Records 

Region 4 Facilities and Infrastructure Region 4 Right-sizing/Consolidation of Vehicle 

Fleet & VARS Implementation 

Region 4 Facilities and Infrastructure Region 4 Space Reduction/South Florida Office 

Region 4 Other Employee Benefits Region 4 Space Release--Sam Nunn Federal 

Building 

Region 4 Financial Management Region 4 Transit/ GoCard 

Region 4 Communications Region 4 Tribal Consultation Tracking and 

Reporting ln1Provements 

Region 4 Communications Region 4 Webinars for Outreach 

Region 4 Information Management/IT Region 4 Wireless Network 

Region 5 Information Management/IT Office of Regional Counsel (ORC)/Superfund (SFD) 

Information Request Process (EPCRA/CERCLA § 

103)-

Region 5 Contracts and Grants R5 GLNPO Electronic Grant Files Lean 

Transference Pro· ect 

Region 5 Enforcement and Compliance R5 lean LCD RCRA FIRST Transference 

Region 5 Enforcement and Compliance RS Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance 

(OECA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Review 

PrnrP<• 

Region 5 Communications RS Office of the Regional Administrator 

(ORA)R50nline Intranet Front Page Process 

Proiect 

Region 5 Contracts and Grants R5 RMD/CRL Streamlining TDF Issuance Project 
105 


34874.099

Region 5 Human Resources R5 Regional Honor Awards Process 

Region 5 Financial Management, R5 Resources Management Division (RMD), 

Contracts and Grants Chicago Regional lab (CRl) lab Process Project 

Region 5 Other- Records R5 Resources Management Division (RMD)/Office 

of Regional Council (ORC) Records Project 

Region 5 Communications, RS Water Division (WD) Citizen Complaints 

Water Tracking and Handling Process 

Region 5 Enforcement and Compliance Region 5 Air Enforcement/Office of Regional 

Council Process 

Region 5 Enforcement and Compliance Region 5 Air and Radiation Division Inspection 

Reoorts Process 

Region 5 Human Resources Region 5 Employee Exit Process 

Region 5 Human Resources Region 5 Renovator Training Accreditation 

Program (RTAP) 

Region 5 land and Emergency Management Region 5 Superfund Consent Agreement and Final 

Order Lean Project 

Region 5 Planning Region 5-0RA-WD/Wisconsin DNR Performance 

Partnership Agreement (PPA) Process 

m 

Region 5 Financial Management Replicating and Scaling Up Superfund CAFO Lean 

Project Recommendation: Eliminate Transmittal 

Memo from CAFO Approval Packages 

Region 6 Communications 6EN-A Air Enforcement Mail Process 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance EPCRA Enforcement Process 

Region 6 Communications Enforcement FOIA Process 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance Hazardous Waste Combustion 

Region 6 Financial Management , Houston lab Equipment Procurement 

Planning 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance Inspection Report Normalization 

Region 6 Chemical Safety and Pollution MS4 Audit Streamlining 

Prevention 
106 


34874.100

Region 6 Information Management/IT NMED UST A/B Operator Training Tracking 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance NPDES Permitting (FY2015 Replication project) 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance National Pretreatment Audit Process 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance Pesticide (FIFRA) State Enforcement Credentials 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance Pesticides Enforcement 

Region 6 Communications Public Notices for Agency Actions/Rulemaking 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance Quality Assurance Project Plans 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance R6 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permitting Lean 

Pro·ect 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance RCRA Corrective Action 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance RCRA Enforcement Process 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance RCRA Procurement Package to Contracting 

Region 6 Other Travel Region 6 Travel 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance Spill Prevention Control Inspection Finalization 

Process 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance State Implementation Plan Review Process 

Region 6 Information Management/IT Superfund Enforcement Streamlining 

Region 6 Enforcement and Compliance TCEQ UST Inspection Process 

Region 6 Other- Tribal Treatment As a State (TAS) 

Region 6 Chemical Safety and Pollution UIC Direct Implementation 

Prevention 

Region 6 Chemical Safety and Pollution UIC Enforcement 

Prevention 

Region 7 Water 4 State-EPA Region 7 Wastewater Permitting 

(NPDES) Review- Kaizen Event 

Region 7 Air and Radiation 4 State-EPA Region 7 Clean Air Act State 

Implementation Plan- Kaizen Event 

Region 7 Water 4 State-EPA Region 7 Water Quality Standards 

Review- Kaizen Event 
107 


34874.101

Region 7 Air and Radiation Air Permits Review Process 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management Brownfields reference file library 

Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance Chemical Risk Enforcement Branch CBI Process 

Region 7 Planning Clean Water Act 106 Workplan Negotiation with 

State Partners 

Region 7 Communications DWSRF Annual Report Review 

Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance ENST/EDAB guidance library 

Region 7 Human Resources Employee Separation Process 

Region 7 Information Management/IT Employee and Services data 

Region 7 Financial Management Financial Assurance Package Coordination 

Region 7 Water Grant File Streamlining CANCELLED 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management HWMT Survey and Disposal Form 

Region 7 Other- Laboratory Operations Laboratory Sample Planning Process 

Region 7 Human Resources Leadership Development Program 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management Manager Task assignments workflow 

Region 7 Communications Manager's Network Position Development 

Region 7 Water NPS Logic Model Development 

Region 7 Air and Radiation NSPS-MACT-NESHAP Annual Delegations 
108 


34874.102

Region 7 Facilities and Infrastructure Organize the STC Stockroom 

Region 7 Human Resources Overtime/Comp Time Process 

Region 7 Communications PPG Progress Reports- State Environmental 

Agencies 

Region 7 Contracts and Grants Procurement Process for Lab Equipment and 

Supplies 

Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance Quarterly Enforcement target concurrence 

Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance R7 Compliance Inspection Tracking System 

Region 7 Communications R7 Executive Correspondence 

Region 7 Facilities and Infrastructure R7 GOV fleet review 

Region 7 Information Management/IT R7 Laboratory and IT support process 

Region 7 Chemical Safety and Pollution R7 Lead Paint Enforcement Workflow 

Prevention 

Region 7 Other- Laboratory Operations R7 Sample Disposal Process 

Region 7 Financial Management R7 Travel Cards 

Region 7 Other - Sustainability RCPP Outreach Materials Storage Rm 55 

Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance RCRA Enforcement Case Status & Prioritization 

matrix 

Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance Region 7 CAA 112(R) Administrative Enforcement 

Actions 
109 


34874.103

Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance Region 7 CAFO Inspection Reports Targeting and 

Coordination 

Region 7 Contracts and Grants Region 7 Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant 

Process Lean Kaizen Event 

Region 7 Information Management/IT Region 7 Concurrence Signature Process 

Region 7 Information Management/IT Region 7 FOIA Response Process 

Region 7 Other - Lab DOC Process Region 7 Lab's DOC Process 

Region 7 Contracts and Grants Region 7 Laboratory Cubitainer Replacement 

Region 7 Enforcement and Compliance Region 7 Multi-Media Case Processing 

Region 7 Human Resources Region 7 New Employee On board Process 

Region 7 Communications Region 7 Regional Daily Digest 

Region 7 Human Resources Region 7 Regional Programmatic Training 

Region 7 Human Resources Region 7 SF-52 Internal Routing 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management Region 7 Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure-- Lean Mini-Kaizen Event 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management Region 7 Superfund Daily Document Record 

Process 

Region 7 Information Management/IT Regional Delegations 

Region 7 Planning Regional Issuances Process Update 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management Regions 3, 7 RCRA Corrective Action CMS Process 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management Regions 3, 7 RCRA Facility Investigation Process 
110 


34874.104

Region 7 Information Management/IT SUPR FOIA Process 

Region 7 Contracts and Grants Santee Sioux- Region 7 workplan negotiation 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management Site Eligibility Tracking & Management Process 

Region 7 Contracts and Grants Site-Specific Contracting (Planning Phase) 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management Superfund CBI Room Cataloging 

Region 7 Human Resources Training Tracking 

Region 7 Financial Management Travel Card Atypical Usage 

Region 7 Land and Emergency Management UECA development and finalization process 

improvement 

Region 7 Communications WWPD FOIA Process 

Region 7 Water Water Enforcement Process 

Region 8 Land and Emergency Management ATSDR Health Consultations for EmergenciesInitiation, Review and Clearance 

Region 8 Other- Document Review and ATSDR Non-Emergency Public Health Document--

Clearance Review and Clearance 

Region 8 Water Colorado Water Supply Lean Project: Initiation of 

NEPA and Scoping (Kaizen Event) 

Region 8 Water Colorado Water Supply Lean Project: Initiation of 

NEPA and Seeping (Value Stream Mapping Event) 

Region 8 Water Region 8 OW Program SDWA Rule Management 

data submittal for compliance improvement 
111 


34874.105

Region 8 Enforcement and Compliance Region 8 NPDES Enforcement Documents: 

Processing & E-concurrence 

Region 8 Contracts and Grants Region 8 Office of Communications & Public 

Involvement Procurement Process 

Region 8 Contracts and Grants Region 8 Pesticides State Grant Funding 

Allocation Process 

Region 8 Facilities and Infrastructure Region 8 Property Management Process 

Improvement 

Region 8 Financial Management Region 8 Regional Support Process Improvement 

Region 8 Water Region 8 Review of Sanitary Survey Document 

Handling Process for Wyoming Systems and 

Wyoming Tribal Systems. 

Region 8 Contracts and Grants Region 8 Tribal UST Grant Awards 

Region 8 Financial Management , Superfund Special Accounts Payroll, Region 8 

Land and Emergency Management 

Region 8 Financial Management UIC Financial Responsibility Process Improvement 

for Class II Underground Injection Control Wells 

Region 8 Information Management/IT Visual Management Board Development- Region 

8 Information Management Team 

Region 9 Communications, Document and Streamline RCRA Branch Project 

Information Management/IT File Management 
112 


34874.106

Region 9 Human Resources Improve Time-to-Hire Process; from identification 

of position need to final offer letter (LSS) 

Region 9 Human Resources Improving the Mandatory Training Process (LSS) 

Region 9 Human Resources Improving the Travel Request Process (LSS) 

Region 9 Enforcement and Compliance Region 9 Enforcement Inspection Report 

Normalization (Lean) 

Region 9 Financial Management Region 9 Improve Processing and Tracking of 

Superfund Cost Recovery Packaees iLSS\ 

Region 9 land and Emergency Management Region 9 NPDES Life Cycle (LSS) 

Region 9 Human Resources Review regional human capital services 

Region 9 Financial Management Review/reform the Regional Support Account 

(RSA) management process 

Region 9 Financial Management State Superfund Contract Billing (LSS) 

Region 9 Communications Streamline and Improve the FOIA Response 

Process at Region 9 (LSS\ 

Region 9 Financial Management , Streamline laboratory supplies purchasing 

Information Management/IT, mechanism 

Planning 

Region 9 Contracts and Grants Streamline the Grant Enforcement Process (LSS) 

Region 9 Contracts and Grants Streamline the Procurement Request (PR) 

Package Process (LSS\ 

Region 9 Other -Quality Assuance Streamline the QA plan review & approval 

process 

Region 9 Land and Emergency Management Streamlining Region 9 RCRA PCB Cleanup Review 

and Approval Process 

Region 9 Human Resources Streamlining the Region 9 Separation/Exit Process 

Region 10 Human Resources Employee Exit Process 

Region 10 Water Leaning phase Ill of Region 10's NPDES permitting 

orocess 

Region 10 Communications Leaning the FOIA Process in Region 10 

Region 10 Air and Radiation Region 10 CAA State Implementation Plan 

Process 
113 


34874.107

Region 10 Information Management/IT Region 10 Correspondence Management System 

(CMS) Process 

Region 10 Water Region 10 NPDES Administrative Penalty Project 

Region 10 Human Resources Region 10 New Personnel Workstation Setup 

Process Lean Event 

Region 10 Financial Management Region 10 Travel Lean 

AO Information Management/IT OA (OEX/OCIR) Correspondence Process lean 

Pro'ect 

AO Planning OA (OP) EPA Performance Track Program 

Application Improvement- Value Stream 

Maooing Event 

AO Information Management/IT OA (OP) Leaning the EPA OP Review of 

Documents Published in the Federal Register 

OAR Facilities and Infrastructure Certification Fees 

OAR Air and Radiation ENERGY STAR certification for industrial plants 

OAR Air and Radiation Federal Ambient Air Monitoring Audit Process 

OAR Facilities and Infrastructure Hazards and Facilities Review 

OAR Air and Radiation Increasing the Efficiency of Sample 

Management's Receiving and Disposal Processes 

OAR Information Management/IT MOVES Data Submission 

OAR Air and Radiation NEEDS Database 

OAR Air and Radiation National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 

OAR Air and Radiation National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Nonpoint 

OAR Air and Radiation OAR (OAP) Part 75 Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring (CEM) Petition Response Process 

OAR Information Management/IT OAR (OAQPS) E-Enterprise Air Emissions Data 

submission review and use 
114 


34874.108

OAR Information Management/IT OAR (OPAR/10) Document production in response 

to FOIAs and Congressional requests-OAR-wide. 

OAR Air and Radiation OAR (OTAQ) Technical/Engineering Hardship 

application process for non-road diesel 

equipment manufacturers participating in TPEM 

OAR Information Management/IT OAR Congressional Correspondence Response 

Process Improvement 

OAR Information Management/IT OAR Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) response process 

OAR Air and Radiation OAR GHG Reporting Rule 

OAR Communications OAR 10 speechwriting 

OAR Air and Radiation OAR Renewable Fuel Standards Pathway Petition 

Process 

OAR Air and Radiation OAR Signiftcant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) 

for ozone-depleting substances 

OAR Air and Radiation OAR Upstream Inventory Development Process 

OAR Air and Radiation SmartWay Shipper Engagement 

OAR Air and Radiation US GHG Inventory Compilation and Data Sharing 

OAR Air and Radiation Vehicle Test Scheduling 

OAR Enforcement and Compliance Vehicle and Engine Defect and Recall Reporting 

OARM Human Resources Agency Reorganization Process 

OARM Contracts and Grants Contract Closeout Process Improvement 

OARM Human Resources LEAN Office of Diversity, Advisory Committee 

Management Outreach Membershio Steos 

OARM Contracts and Grants Leaning the Administrative Baseline and 

Unliquidated Obligation Review (BULO) 
115 


34874.109

OARM Human Resources OARM SF-182 Training Approval Process 

OARM Human Resources OARM Agency On-Boarding/Off-Boarding Process 

OARM Facilities and Infrastructure OARM EPA/RTP Facilities Task Orders 

OARM Communications OARM EPA/RTP Graphics Design & Print Service 

OARM Planning OARM FACA Membership Selection Process 

OARM Communications OARM 10 Internal/External Controlled 

Correspondence Management Tracking Process 

OARM Contracts and Grants OARM- Office of Grants and Debarment Grants 

Closeout Process 

OARM Human Resources OARM - RTP HR Shared Service Center Position 

Description Distribution 

OARM Human Resources ORO EPA RTP Separation Check-Out Process 

OARM Human Resources Off-Boarding/Employee Exit Business Process 

Improvement Project 

OARM Contracts and Grants Quick Requisition How to Guide 

OARM Facilities and Infrastructure Requisitions and APPs EAS Report- Sprint Lean 

Process 

OARM Information Management/IT Security Clearance Process Managed between 

SSCs I Executive Resources I Personnel Security 

OARM Contracts and Grants Technical Evaluation Panel Guide 

OCFO Financial Management Budget Execution - Unliquidated Obligations 

(ULO) Lean for Contracts and Related Processes 

OCFO Financial Management lVFC Interim Federal Financial Report (IFFR) Mini 

lean 

OCFO Financial Management National Superfund Cost Recovery Process 

OCFO Enforcement and Compliance OCFO Corrective Action Tracking 

OCFO Human Resources OCFO End-of-Year Performance Reporting 

Process 

OCFO Planning OCFO National Program Manager Guidance 

Process 
116 


34874.110

OCFO Contracts and Grants OCFO Reimbursable Interagency Agreements 

Payment Process 

OCFO Financial Management OCFO Software Applications Accountability 

Process 

OCFO Financial Management OCFO Unliquidated Obligations (UlO) Reviews 

OCFO land and Emergency Management OECA Superfund State Contract (SSC) Accrual 

Process Lean Event 

OCFO Financial Management PPM-Pl-1-Site Specific Redistribution (SAP) 

OCFO Financial Management PPM-Pl-2-SAP Obligations 

OCFO Financial Management PPM-Pl-3-Contract Site Redistribution lean 

OCFO Financial Management PPM-Pl-5-IPP- LV Cash Lean 

OCFO Financial Management Payment Process Modernization 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution 12(b) Modernization 

Prevention 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution CBI Review Process 

Prevention 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution OCSPP (CCD) Chemical Data Reporting Process 

Prevention 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution OCSPP (OPP) Antimicrobial Testing Program Lean 

Prevention Event Case Study- Value Stream Mapping Event 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution OCSPP (OPP) OPP Process improvements (OPP 

Prevention Label Review, Approval, and Posting Process 

OCSPP Information Management/IT OCSPP Federal Register Publication Process 

lmorovement 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution OCSPP Front-End Processing 

Prevention 

OCSPP Planning OCSPP Improved Headquarters/Lead Region 

Coordination and Communication 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution OCSPP Leaning the Creation, Maintenance, 

Prevention Stora2e and Retrieval of an OPP "Jacket" 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution OCSPP Risk Assessment Groundwork 

Prevention 

OCSPP Chemical Safety and Pollution OCSPP/ (CCD) TSCA Section 4 Test Rule Data 

Prevention Management Process 

OECA Other FIFRA, pesticides Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) Inspection LEAN 

Event 

OECA Human Resources Improving OECA's Human Resources Operations 

and Recruitment Process 
117 


34874.111

OECA Enforcement and Compliance Improving the OECA/OCEFT/NEIC Criminal Report 

Processs 

OECA Communications, OECA Information Channels 

Enforcement and Compliance 

OECA Information Management/IT Smart Mobile Tools for Field Inspections (Smart 

Tools\ 

OECA Enforcement and Compliance Streamlining EPA process for addressing formal 

CAA rule applicability determination requests 

OECA Enforcement and Compliance Streamlining OECA's Federal Enforcement & 

Compliance Data Reporting Process 

OECA Contracts and Grants Streamlining the EAS Procurement Process for 

OECA/OCEFT /NEIC Field and Laboratory Supplies 

OECA Air and Radiation, Streamlining the EPA Process for Addressing 

Communications, Formal CAA Rule Applicability Determination 

Enforcement and Compliance Requests 

OEI Information Management/IT OEI FOIA Process 

OEI Information Management/IT OEI IT Security Critical Patching for Workstations 

OEI Information Management/IT OEI QA Reporting Process 

OEI Communications OEI's Controlled Correspondence Lean 

Transference Proiect 

OEI Human Resources Phase 2: Lean Provisioning 

OEI Other Internal Assessments Quality System Assessment Project 

OGC Human Resources OGC Regional Attorney Hiring Process 

OITA Human Resources OITA Establish a streamlined internal OITA Onboarding process for new employees 

OITA Information Management/IT Office of International and Tribal Affairs Records 

Management Lean 

OLEM Planning Improving the Use of Evidence in OLEM's 

Planning & Budgeting Process (Planning and 

PPrfnrm•ncP Reoorting PrncPss) 

OLEM Facilities and Infrastructure Increase New Office's Efficiency and 

Effectiveness 

OLEM Communications OLEM Communication Strategy Process 
118 


34874.112

OLEM Land and Emergency Management OLEM Process for Identifying and Documenting 

ARARs for Superfund Remedial Actions 

OLEM land and Emergency Management OLEM e-Manifest Project Management Plans 

OlEM Financial Management Superfund ARARs Process 

OlEM Enforcement and Compliance UST State Program Approval (SPA) Process 

ORO Financial Management GAS Cylinder Bar Coding Scanning 

ORO Other- Operations Improving supply closet management and 

maintenance 

ORO Information Management/IT Leaning IRIS Steps 2-7 

ORO Human Resources ORO EPA Safety and Health Management System 

SHMSl 

ORO Communications ORO Science Matters Magazine Publication 

Process 

ORO Human Resources ORO Scientific and Technological Achievement 

Awards (STAAl Program 

ORO Financial Management ORO Shared Administrative Resource Group 

Purchase Card Process 

ORO Human Resources ORO Technical Qualifications Board (TQB) 

ORO Human Resources ORISE Recruitment Process 

ORO Contracts and Grants Onboarding/Deprovisioning Non-Federal 

Employees 

ORO Planning Research Planning and Approval Process 

ORO Contracts and Grants STAR Grant Program 

ORO Human Resources Special Government Employee Process 

ow Water 303(d) and 30S(b) Integrated Reporting (IR) 

Process 

ow Enforcement and Compliance leaning the Coordination of Aquatic Life Criteria 

to NPDES Permit 

OW Facilities and Infrastructure Media Request 

ow Water OW Endangered Species Act Consultation with 

USFWS & NOAA Fisheries 

ow Information Management/IT OW Mobile Device Ordering Process 

OW Water OW Water Quality Standards 

Approval/Disapproval Review Process with 

IRe!!ion 10. 

ow Human Resources Purchase Card Ordering Process 
119 


34874.113

Description 

MA DEP/EPA RCRA Part B licensing Project This Kaizen event focused on streamlining the process for Hazardous Waste 

Transfer storage and disposal facilities in Massachusetts to renew their operating licenses. The time to renew licenses was 

I shortened from 2 vears minimum to 8 months. 

NH DES/ EPA P&C Ust Development The scope of this project was from EPA's internal development of a draft Priorities and 

Commitments (P&C) List through negotiations between NH DES and EPA. The project defined the process and schedule for 

ldevelooino the next P&C list bv October 201'. 

NH DES/EPA Performance Partnership Agreement Process The scope of this project was from the discussions at the 

beginning of a new Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) planning cycle through a signed PPA. The focus was on 

lcie>dv rlefinine the sten enrl srherlule fm rnmnletinn tn m•irle the of e new m ltivear PPA bv October 1. 

Completed aSS project in a digital environmental to organize and improve usefulness of NPDES Clearinghouse Site for EPA 

ermit writers and NPDES manae:ers. 

The goal of this project is to improve Region 1

S ability to track and manage enforcement work, to eliminate redundant data 

entry, and to replace an outdated Lotus Notes database with a more efficient and robust system. 

Reduce the number of reports; streamline data entry and extraction into one or a few universally accepted formats; reduce 

the amount of time spent on duplicate data-entry; reduce staff resources needed to respond to fire drills; and increase 

COnfidenCe in data ontecorl intn the SV<tom 

States must adopt new RCRA rules and have those adoptions authorized by EPA 

Migrating over 200,000 files from 0 share to either records retention, SharePoint or personal files to reduce costly storage 

on the 0 share. 

Annual Facility Inventory Process. This project reduced time from 8 months to less than a week by utilizing information 

available from the IT deoartment. Event held. 

Streamlining and standardization of co sponsorship agreement 

NPDES Draft Permit Process. This Value Stream Mapping Event resulted in the addition of a suite of SOPs and Guidance 

documents to the Regional NPDES Intranet site to assist permit writers during permit development, a streamlined process 

for downloading and creating tables for monitoring data using a national database, and identified the need to create an 

>rtcnnir m"tin<• morerl"'" fm rl,eft necmit 'eview 

NPDES Draft Permit Routing Process. This Rapid Planning Event (an offshoot of the NPDES VSM Event) resulted in a new 

electronic review and routing orocedure for NPDES oermits designed to increase efficiencv of draft oermlt reviews. 

RCRA NOV Inspection Reporting Process. Accomplishments will include reducing the number of steps for a routine NOV 

from 37 to 22; reducing process time for a routine NOV from 10 days to 7 days; automating the document writing process; 

acquiring tablets for inspectors to use in the field; developing a field NOV; and developing standard formats for inspection 

. "")\/' ''· '"'' Regional Laboratory Small Purchase Process. This project Includes a visual inventory system for routine supplies, an 

electronic order form, and transfer of approval responsibility to the purchaser. Accomplishments include reducing steps 

fmm 77to 16· anrl rorlur;no time from 1? rlavsto S rlavs qo-rlav check-in. 

Replace lotus Notes based Regional events calendar with something streamlined and easier to use 

The S!P Process does not have a standard procedure. The steps to handling a SIP update or submission from the states can 

vary depending on who is handling it. This leads to confusion and lack of transparency at any point in the process. 

Managers and the senior SIP coordinator must conduct a great deal of follow up and reminders to make sure the SIPS are 

on trerk to be · 1 the reauired 1 o. '"' TBA 

Examine process improvements that can be implemented to award Divisional grant actions prior to the fourth quarter of 

the FY. This pro·ect would evaluate the Divisional process for increased efflciencv b 10%. 

Data generated by CWO, partners and grant recipients is individually stored after use and ultimately forgotten. CWO staff 

are unaware that the data exists and waste time and money to recreate or make decisions without using the existing data. 

The team will develop a process to ensure that the division enters data into secure searchable formats and database, that 

<no, • rlovelnnerl for ell rlete enrl th, rlete hom ?01S to ?016 Nil! he nlererl into the , serure seerrhehle 

This project will address controlled correspondence that requires the Regional Administrator's signature. The team will 

look streamline the process to prepare correspondence to see how the use of the new collaboration tools available at EPA 

ran facilitate and brino efficiencies in reviewino and finalizino documents. 
120 


34874.114

The project scope of this Correspondence Management Process focuses on the areas in which the R2 Office of Policy and 

Management controls and oversees: the initial phase of this project is centered around transference (implementing the 

I 

There is big gap in the timeline from when CWA inspections are performed and enforcement actions (Administrative 

Compliance Order and/or Administrative Penalty Order) are issued by CEPD. EPA's timeliness guidelines establish that 

inspections reports should be completed between 30 to 45 days from the date of the inspection. 

Examine NPDES Compliance Sampling Inspection report generation process to identify opportunities for improvement in 

timeliness and overall content. 

The current communication process between ORA and Regional staff could be more efficient and effective. In particular, 

the process to schedule meetings with the RA/DRA offers opportunity for great improvement both in terms of time and 

h I I' . fi f 

Once the agreement doses, l VFC sends a notification requesting the final FFR. The recipient has 90 days to submit the 

required reports and draw remaining available balances. EPA has the responsibility of reviewing reports and entering the 

information into the appropriate databases within 30 days and then dosing the agreement. Once all reports from the 

recipient and forms from the Project Officer is received, the Grants Specialist provides the complete grant file to the Grant 

Assistant to close the file in !GMS and to send the closeout letter. When the recipient has not submitted the required 

reports, at 90 days EPA is supposed to initiate the enforcement process. An "A"letter is sent on the 91st day requesting 

overdue reports. A "B" Letter is issued at 120 days requesting overdue reports and to notify the recipient the next step for 

enforcement will be a termination. If the reports remain outstanding at 150 days, a "C" Letter is issued which notifies the 

recipient of the intent to terminate the agreement for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the award and 

provides directions for dispute rights and to submit the outstanding documents. After the period stated in the "C" Letter 

the recipient either submits their outstanding reports and the grant can be closed or the agreement is terminated and EPA 

VI Stormwater Enforcement: This project will examine EPA's goal of providing thorough and timely enforcement for all 

Stormwater violations in the Territory. EPA's current process did not have a consistent implementable tracking system of 

how decisions were made for referral of enforcement cases to the Virgin Islands Government. The Current process 

comprises of 52 steps with a Process Time (PT} of 81 working days and the lead Time (LT} of 280 working days. The 

projected future state has a rough estimate of 14 working days Process Time (PT} and 42 working days Lead Time (LT}. This 

equates to a 85% Reduction in the process 83% Reduction in Touch Time (resources). All identified actions on the 
121 


34874.115

Division all submitted similar lean projects proposals based on a shared need to optimize how the Region receives and 

handles tips and complaints. Currently, tips and complaints are received by the Region in various ways and are tracked in 

The Five Year Review process involves many people with many rounds of editing. The intent is to have a standard 

workflow, a clear picture of who is editing, and a single working draft. This wif! help the team meet planned due dates to 

the fullest extent. 

Develop a streamlined/electronic process where employees can apply and annually re~certify for Telework. 

The purpose of this project is to review the current Region 3 Employee Exit Process. This project is being conducted in 

multiple phases. The goal of this first phase is to establish a baseline and implement a Employee Exit Signout Event to assist 

i 1 orocessine seoaration of a laree erouo of emolovees due to the VERAIVSIP. 

The FedFacs/ORC Docket Meeting and Tracking System for Superfund Site commitments were streamlined reducing 

meeting time bv and creating a central shared electronic tracking svstem 

Judicial Consent Decree tracking system development and implementation. 

The purpose of this project is to review the administrative duties related to managing the ESAT contract. This project is 

being conducted in multiple phases. The goal of this first phase is to eliminate duplicate steps and reduce the amount of 

paperwork generated. High-level points about key results I benefits of the event (for example): • Reduced the number and 

,;,p rlnrum. otnh ;niorl onrl filorl •lim <OtPrl rorlunrlo• · fil' 

The NPDES administrative order on consent (AOC) concurrence process was addressed via a Rapid Organization Kaizen 

event. The team transferred large parts of the NPDES SCAFO concurrence Jean project to this process, and many of the 

goin< will bo th• 'mo: nmfiri nrv ooin< dorifierl ro<non<ibiliti• time to foru< ;n rlrito, aualitv 

This project standardized the process for concurring on Class II NPDES SCAFO actions from the time the respondent signed 

the action to the time the action is entered into !CIS. 

To document the RA event planning and improve the process, clarify roles and responsibilities through event execution. 

TBA 

Region 3's State Implementation Plan (SIP) Project Officers draft hundreds of rulemaking documents every year which 

require detailed review through a hard copy concurrence chain. The lean event resulted in fewer steps, standardization 

nd an electronic Sh rePaint new concurrence oro cess that al<o reduces lead time anrl no nor. 

Region 3 Analytic Support Process The Analytical Support process begins when the Superfund Remedial Program forecasts 

a field sampling event and ends when a laboratory is assigned to analyze the samples. The process also includes the 

Analytical Request Form filled out by the Remedial Project Manager, a three tier decision tree managed by laboratory staff 

to determine if the samples will be analyzed in Region 3'slaboratory or sent to an outside laboratory, which requires 

,.;,, ,<t;, 

"Region 3 Analytic Support Process for the Superfund Remedial Program field sampling and laboratory analysis of samples. 

The process participants included RPMs, Contract Officer and laboratory staff. Analytical Request Form automated. 

Developed standard work for procuring laboratory assignments?. Reduced process steps from 32 to 25?. Clarified roles & 

responsibilities. Designed a new process that will take 23% less time?.? 

Region 3 Clean Water Act Section 404 Aquatic Resources Regulatory Permit Review Process. This project will provide 35% 

fewer steps, 18% fewer handoffs, up to 72% less review time. Accomplishments include new opportunities for staff learning 

nd :feedback. 120- dav check-in. 

Improved enforcement cases tracking and workload management. 

I F!FRA Case Conclusion Process 

I The process by which OPM tracks the planning, committment, and obligation of funding requirements for Regional Support 

TBA 

"Onboarding logistics for new hires are not executed in a coordinated manner. This process was was improved with a minilean event and SOP revised resulting in meeting target condition for 100% of people on-boarded on Dec. 2014 
122 


34874.116

Improve the process for planning and execution of regional support funds, from forecasting needs, approval, funding, 

contracting and obligation bv creation of a standardized svnchronized orocess and associated reports. 

Improved tracking and performance of SRF review process. 

The OPM Immediate Office of the Director requires monthly submittal of items for a divisional Deliverables Report from all 

work units within the Division. Each work unit documents the status of all significant ongoing activities that would be of 

interest or concern at the Division Director and Deputy level, with due dates for each. The Deliverables Report provides a 

lt<,rkino merh,ni<m fM thP emnl< vee «<ne.vi« Oivi<inn OirertM ,nrl Oenutv 

~~~e Technical Systems Audits (TSAs) process focuses primarily on qualitative on-site project evaluations of research or 

t programs starting with oreoarator file review/checklist develooment and concluding with a final reoort. 

Streamlined process/procedures, and shared with Property Officers {FY 2015 lowest Losses). 

For this event, unllquidated obligations (ULOs)wi!! be evaluated for a process improvement outcome for regional accounts 

for contracts/simplified acquisitions/purchase orders, grants/cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, training, 

Working Capital Fund, GSA Reimbursable Work Authorizations (RWAS), Purchase Card/Fleet Card, Other Federal Orders: 

print requests, security clearances, federal register requests, and Travel (to include Permanent Change of Station {PCS) 

orders (Standard Operating Procedures: Deobligating Unliquidated Obligations, 2520-03-P2). The Agency's ULO process 

refers to accounts having no activity within 180 days after the end of the period of performance (Draft EPA Funds Control 

Manual, pg 7-50). Provide awareness of ULOs and their regional impact; define what causes acquisition related ULOs; 

identify roles and responsibilities to manage ULOs; identify process(es) to address ULOs for utilization or for de~obligating. 

Policies, guidance and procedures that affect ULOs include: 2015 DRAFT EPA Funds Control Manual (out for OMB 

approval); Responsibilities for Reviewing Unliquidated Obligations (2520-03-P1) and Attachments A, Band C respectively, 

Grants Policy Issuance (GPI) 11-01- Managing Unliquidated Obligations and Ensuring Progress under EPA Assistance 

Agreements, Interagency Agreement Policy Issuance (IPI) 11-01, Managing Unliquidated Obligations and Ensuring Progress 

under EPA Interagency Agreements and Contracts Policy Issuance (CPI) 11-01: Managing Unliquidated Obligations and 

RCRA Enforcement and Permitting Assistance {REPA) Contract Task Order Award Process. 

The current process for nominating individuals for a regional honor award includes manual entry and re-typing of 

names/citations throughout the nomination and review process. Errors and omissions repeatedly occur in the 

announcement of these awards. Problems to address in the project- awards form is not user friendly and creation of an 

electronic or hard copy binder are labor and cost intensive. The project and team will review the process from when the 

oil ,f;, 

The processing of regulatory and permitting actions including he review process by the Office of Regional Counsel 

AU computers automatically powered down at end of each day. 

The lean event addressed CSEB Risk Mgt Program Enforcement process to reduce process time {lead Time). 

~Meet Me & Reservationless Plus (R+) conference lines; terminated excess/underutilized R+ 

162K IFY 20111 to $85 700 IFY 2014\ 

Region 4 Continuing Environmental Programs Grants Award Process. This project will reduce current process time and 

meet EPA standard of 90 da s for Part 35 Grants. Six-month check-in. 

121 of 305 desktop printers in the region eliminated. Purchase of toner and other supplies discontinued. 

Large Procurement Process Review. Reduced the Regional Acquisition Program processing time for large procurements 

(Competitive Procurements greater than $150,000) to adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Contracts 

t M"n""l {('MM\ ,nrl FPA Puirl,nrP. 

Consolidated labor and space for regional library and law library. 

After detailed needs-assessment, reduced enrollment by 129 (37%) from 350 to 221 employees. 
123 


34874.117

Goal: reduce NPDES administrative enforcement cases processing time by several months, Project completed 1/28/2016 

and progressing with management/stakeholders presentations (final presentation with R4 Executive Leadership TeamTBD). 

The number of days it takes to process an inquiry that comes into the OEJS. 

Reduced contractor labor cost for Office Supplies by 50%; number of items carried reduced from 242 to est. 25i eliminated 

excess inventory; two-thirds of space made available for other purposes; empowered divisions to order division-specific 

I 

lers, fax machines with shared multifunction devices (MFDs)that provide print, 

t uses the tools and techniques developed in the RCRA FIRST Lean process for investigation and remedy 

leadin to remediation of hazardous wastes at this active manufacturin facilit . 

Identified significant contractor work/labor that was not being accounted for in contractor reports {special projects). Labor 

need was reviousl underestimated. 

Based on utilization analysis, returned 9 underutilized GOVs without replacement Also implemented new/efficient fleet 

all re ional vehicles into a sin !e ooL 

Saved money ($230,000/year) by releasing 9,578 sq. ft. of space back to the General Services Administration (basement 

The goa! is to measure customer satisfaction, accuracy, and time, money, paper and space saved by transitioning paper 

rant files to electronic files. 

RCRA Facility Investigation Workplan review and approval. CAF Tool. 

The LEAN process uncovered time-saving measures for the EIS review process and increased the satisfaction of NEPA 

reviewers and associate reviewers. 

The goal of this project is to post content more consistently, reduce the amount of time to post content, and streamline 

the process to post content. 

The Environmental Science and Assistance Team (ESAT) contracts are multimillion dollar vehicles supplying Superfund with 

analytical and data validation services in each of the ten EPA Regions. Regional ESATs are "tasked'' via Technical Director 

Forms (TDF)s approved by the Contracting Officer's Representatives (TOCOR)s. In Region 5, to date, TDFs are initiated, 
124 


34874.118

Standardize the nomination process for Regional Honor Awards. Optimize the format for announcing Region 5 Honor 

Award nominees and final selections. Reduce the amount of time it takes to receive award products. Ensure efficiency and 

I thoroughness in the oublicized listing of award final selections. 

The project's goal is to streamline supply purchasing and adopt other Region's best practices where applicable. 

PROCESS: The process being addressed: archiving EPA records to the Federal Records Center (FRC). DESCRIPTION: Project 

will reduce wasting time, steps in the approval process and cost to move boxes, which will free employees to work on 

ieher orioritv work and reduce the amount of soace needed to store records readv to be archived. 

This lean project wl!! evaluate the existing Citizen Complaints (CC) process in the Water Division (WD) and establish a new 

process that includes utilizing a Region 5 {RS)~wide CC database. 

Air Enforcement/Office of Regional Council Process. The team sought to expedite CAA enforcement from the current 

average of 512 days to 180 days. It addressed the long lead time, variations between ORC managers on whether to start 

negotiations prior to receiving a Department of Justice (DOJ) waiver for administrative settlement, the time from postoti, > ()j 1/o,ioti' IN()\/\ '" ><hm'ttina "' ,1)()1 "' inl '"' "' mh. "' >m 

Air and Radiation Division Process. The team sought to reduce the time it took to write inspection reports. 

Employee Exit Process. This project provided expedited 3110-1 form signing by asking all signers to assemble in one room 

for the convenience of 41 exiting and retiring employees. Event held. Event created new internal exit check out sheet 

which i; more inclusive of lccountabili"' 'nrl lnnPooPrl c><otnm"' ""r efficiencv. 

Review and improve current work flow of the Section Review Application Process and the Section Review Enforcement 

Process for the region's lead-based paint renovation training program and re-accreditation process {R-TAP). Reduce the 

amount of time it takes to accredit/re-accredit a paint renovation, repair and painting {RRP) training provider; optimize the 

program and enforcement project file(s}; ensure efficiency and thoroughness; increase by 50%, by the end of FY 15, the 

><mh, offn,mol ·nmnlion' >rtinn> to'cPn 

Reduce the amount of time it takes EPA to sign, file, and serve a CAFO after it is signed by the respondent. Optimize the 

routing process, including decreasing the number of steps in the filing process, eliminating unnecessary or duplicative 

reviewers, and reducing the total walk and wait time. Ensure efficiency and thoroughness in the CAFO sign-off process, 

including the elimination of redundant steps, improvement of communication between all staff involved, and insertion of 

AH 

Reduce total lead (delivery) time; reduce EPA and WDNR staff workload; simplify the PPA renewal process; and improve 

customer satisfaction. 

Eliminating the transmittal memorandum from consent agreement and final order (CAFO) approval packages eliminated 

nonessential documents and substantially reduced review times. 

The Region 6 Air Enforcement Branch receives an excessive volume of paper mail, resulting in unacceptable backlog for 

mail orocessine:. codine: and tilinE for distribution to staff or archivine: to the file room. 

This project will integrate the EPCRA program into the Enforcement Division's inspection and normalization procedures. 

The is project aimed to reduce the number of FO!A responses that are late. 

This project aims to reduce the time it takes to complete hazardous waste combustion MACT reviews and approvals. 

The Houston laboratory used the NEIC equipment acquistion process and used elements of that project to increase it's lab 

equipment acquisition process. This transference project was one of the 10 projects selected by the lean Action Board as 

Region 6 completed a project to improve the quality and timeliness of inspection reports, ensure consistency of reporting 

information across enforcement programs, and share these reports with the public on an agency website. The goal of the 

project was to post the newly-optimized reports to the web within 60 days of the inspection, much faster than the average 

ofl' > th _ r~sultine in 

To improve the municipal storm water system audit program by reducing time and costs. 
125 


34874.119

Examine all aspects of the current NMED UST A/B Operator Training Tracking process flow and restructure, as necessary, to 

make a more efficient and streamlined orocess. 

This project will streamline the NPDES permit review process. 

This project will identify a more efficient way of meeting EPA's obligagtions by streamlining the National Pretreatment 

Proeram's audit/insoection orocess 

The project will reduce the number of steps and time it takes for state inspectors to receive their F!FRA inspection 

credentials. 

This project aimed to reduce the lead time for filing a pesticides enforcement action 

This project will examine Region 6's current practices of providing information about our actions and explore more 

effective and cost efficient means of communicating significant actions to our customers, as well as hear from them about 

I the ; of our :ion Nith them. 

The Lean objective is to streamline the 6EN QAPP template to reduce errors that could hinder enforcement and reduce 

reduct develooment time. 

The project aimed to streamline completion of GHG permits in Texas during period before state delegation of program. 

This project will streamline the process for reviewing and approving corrective action plans for RCRA remediation. 

This project identified improvements to increase efficiency in RCRA enforcement case management. 

This project aimed to streamline the RCRA project procurement process and reduce the amount of time from initiation to 

contract award 

lowering the overall cost of non-local travel by using tools and tips recommended by the team. 

The problem identiried was the backlog of SPCC inspection reports that had not been finalized. 

The Region 6 air program evaluated the SIP review and approval process to incorporate lessons learned from R7 and RlO. 

The goal of this project was to increase the efficiency of PRP searches and negotiations, and use of technology tools to 

increase communication and reoortine:. 

TCEQ and EPA produced changes to TCEQ's UST Inspection program to make the process more efficient. 

Shorten the approval time for tribal regulatory action applications. 

The project sought to streamline the process for reviewing and approving the backlog of VIC permit applications 

This project yielded ideas for improvements to reduce or eliminate transactional costs. 

4 State-EPA Region 7 Wastewater Permitting Review- Kaizen Event- The objective of the week-long event was to improve 

the effectiveness and efficiency with which all parties implement the NPOES program, and to learn how best to work 

together and resolve issues quickly. The event resulted in redesigned processes that clarified how to better address critical 

"" Hi«ct in• >rl ·nlk '"'"'' >on tho >aonci• 

4 State-EPA Region 7 Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan- Kaizen Event- The goal of this event was to cut waste and 

improve the speed and effectiveness of the Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP) process in the region. Prior to the 

event, it took as much as an estimated 7.4 years to complete the process in Region 7. The new process could take as little 

"' :u veers iSh% led. 

4 State-EPA Region 7 Water Quality Standards Review- Kaizen Event. The objective of the week-long event was to improve 

communication and understanding between States, EPA Region 7 and EPA Headquarters on the process to develop and 

revise water quality standards. Prior to the event, the water quality standards submittal, review and approval process was 

time- consuming, unpredictable, and frustrating for all parties. The event resulted in a redesigned process with clearer 

understanding among all parties and a 51% reduction in the number of steps in EPA's approval process (from 53 to 26}, 

lrli• ''"· 
126 


34874.120

AWMD/APCO is tasked with reviewing and providing comments on Title V and PSD Air Permits developed by the States; 

approximately 100 Title v and 20 PSD permits are reviewed each year which are completed during the 30~day (Title V) and 

4S~day (PSD) comment periods. A general process exists for completing these reviews, along with various tools (AirWeb) to 

heln with tr>rkino · hnwevec thece i< nn "<et" ;rherlule ' euirline the nmre« 

The Brown fields program has a significant volume of files and reference material that needs to be catalogued in a 

consistent manner so that staff are auick! able to locate information. 

Chemical Risk Enforcement Branch CBI Process: Confidential Business Information {CBI} is collected in the course of 

enforcement matters. This information can be vital to developing a case. We are legally required to protect CBI. 

Technology has changed from when the initial CBI procedures were drafted. The goal of this project is to create an 

onrlo' >rl ,,,e,mlinerl >ebhl< """ '""' iefen<ihl • rRI mnrP• '!h. >rn unt< fnc >rhnt wv """""' This project's goal was to develop a documented process that allows CWA 106 Workplan negotiations to be completed 

within the ret?ion- and between the re12ion and its state oartners~ in a consistent and efficient manner. 

AU four states in Region 7 are required to submit annual reports to show the states are implementing drinking water 

capacity development and an operator certification program to receive their full DWSRF capitalization grant allotment. The 

reports come in at various times of the year but primarily 2 state capacity development reports at the end of the previous 

fiscal year, 2 state capacity development reports at the end of the calendar year, one state operator certification report at 

the end of March, and three state operator certification reports by August 15, which must be reviewed by September 30. 

In addition, there is a triennial report to the governor from each state which must also be reviewed for the -capacity 

Technical guidance documents and policies are located on numerous websites and staff have either printed out or saved 

cooies to their laotoos. If staff need to access one of these documents thev have to search for it on their laotoo or the 

Develop a written separation process for the Region to accompany the re-vamped separation checklist (2014) and 

incoroorates: 1) recent changes in the SF-52 orocess for seoaration actions {i.e. FPPS) and 21 technological advances within 

R7 employee/services data is currently collected/updated on differing time schedules through various processes. These 

processes require the time of many staff and supervisors to consolidate information for end products. Much of the 

'I< rlunlicatiVe and eXiStS in multinle <V<IPm' onrl fmm,t< 

This is a follow-on project from the branch's GWl development, They wanted to develop a VSM and process map of the 

roces.s to briog visibilitvand understanding, 

To streamline the grant filing process for Region 7's Watershed Planning and Implementation Branch. Enhance grant file 

management practices, make files more accessible, improve ability to meet records requirements and FO!As., and make the 

rocess more ' 'friendlv bv using less oaoer. 

HWMT Survey and Disposal Forms: Develop a list of questions that satisfy RCRA requirements and obtain customer 

satisfaction results associated with their sample analysis experience. Develop a disposal form that is easier to use and 

I generates 1 hie her use rate. Determine a method and orocess for electronic sending and submission of the forms /instead 

Identify the specific details needed by the laboratory and the customer related to sample analysis planning. Develop a 

recess mao with details. Evaluate if imorovements can be made. 

This project developed a logic model for the leadership Development Program that is being stood up in Region 7. !t also 

rovided an oooortunitv for the development team to have a discussion about what the lOP will look like. 

Many of the tasks assigned by Sr. management get lost in genera! course of business; often difficult to ascertain basic 

status or task closure. Automated tracking svstem allows for easv assi nment status checks and follow-up as needed. 

To develop a process that allows first line supervisors the ability to incorporate their perspective into Management Official 

ositions - prior to negotiation with the unions- on issues that mav have broad Reglon~wide implications. 

This will be a kick-off effort to help the NPS team identify the key goals, objectives, activities, outcomes, outputs, etc. 

associated with the program. This logic model will help all team members focus efforts on key programmatic components 

and will orovide a framework for orMram understandine in times of staff turnover 

Kaizen event for Authority of Air Delegations for NSPS, NESHAP and MACT- The project focuses on EPA Region 7's Internal 

processes leading to the publication of the delegation notice. During the event, we will discuss the programmatic purposes 

and historical context of the delegation program, document the current process and outline the ideal process, then 

develop an S.O.P. We will discuss a method for training relevant personnel on how the submittals are processed, as we!! as 
127 


34874.121

The STC stock room holds office supplies, laboratory supplies, safety supplies, common field supplies, and shipping supplies 

that are necessary to STC staff for the completion of their jobs. The STC also has field equipment that is stored around the 

i lab. some of which needs to be stored in the stock room. 

This project aimed to increase understanding of comp time and overtime requirements by managers and staff, created 

efficiencies and uniformity in answering questions, and implemented a SharePoint based approach to routing and 

iaoorovine reouests therebv reducine' ulnerabilities and administrative lead time. 

This project improved the internal process used to review and comment on the progress reports associated with the PPGs 

Reeion 7 has with the State Environmental Aeencies. 

Equipment for conducting analytical analyses is needed from time-to-time in order to develop new capabilities and/or 

replace outdated equipment. The process for obtaining this equipment requires both ENST staff who establish the 

functional and procurement timeline requirements, and PLMG/AMBR who executes the acquisition process. The current 

I nrocess does not tend to favor the dose 1 needed between the two erouos. 

In consultation with ECO immediate office staff, we designed a SharePolnt workflow to track concurrence with the 

uarterlv enforcement targeting list. 

The current compliance inspection tracking process is not well understood, consistent, or efficient because, in part, it is 

forced to work within the framework of an antiquated INSPECTrax database. Creating a standard and efficient process will 

eliminate these issues and identify a complete understanding of changes needed to the INSPECTrax database so that it can 

'e morlifierl to meet the nm< ," neerl< 

Severa! different types of executive correspondence require Regional Administrator (RA) or Deputy Regional Administrator 

(ORA) signature. These may include letters/notices resulting from programs that cannot be delegated to subordinate units 

within the Region, responses to inquiries from specific individuals, and correspondence with members of the media. This 

vtoni fn, >etin< .. btoc>, m"i<Pm< ''' onrl on< "in< <i<tent "voir<" 'th. >a< bte• 

In 2010, The GOV fleet management processes were selected for the first Region 7 Six Sigma study due to known 

inefficiencies with the current process which seemed to warrant a closer review. The study reviewed and analyzed the 

usaee ;<>nrl "'' "'"' :iated with he Region 7 anve• nment vehicle fleet. 

Lab equipment is managed on a different lifecycle than standard IT products. This results in compatibility issues between 

Lab equipment software and standard IT updates. This pro·ect seeks to resolve these issues t>v defining a test environment 

Develop a new or improved enforcement-type concurrence process to more efficiently and effectively handle the workload 

to meet internal and external customers' needs. The team is looking at ways to improve the process, and is in the process 

' a solution through SharePoint. 

The primary purpose of this project is to review, validate, and where appropriate improve on the process for properly 

disposing of laboratory samples (and all associated wastes) once they have been cleared. A secondary purpose is to assess 

how the process intersects with the UMS database, and the Access database developed in-house to aid with sample 

disposal, to develop a requirements for a future iteration of the software that would allow the sample disposal process to 

offio oth off< r>i< 

The process for identifying and addressing travel card delinquencies is not widely understood by managers. Managers 

don't always know there is an issue with an employee's travel card payments and there is often inconsistency in follow-up 

actions taken by managers when necessary. This project is looking at the process used once someone has been identified 

oeino rlelinn1' ont on thei< t<;<>vel c;<>•rl n;<>vment<. 

RCPP has been tasked with providing CPS with 2 entire shelving units ln one of the AWMD storage rooms. Currently, the 

storage room is extremely cluttered, disorganized, and presents a number of potential safety hazards. There are large 

bulky items that restrict access to areas of the storage room. There is also overflow material that has made its way out of 

the ohio >rl orlrlitionol <h< · w "nit< '"rl fil<• c;<>hinet< in th<> m;<>in wmk m Mhich lrl he "'erl 

Program and legal staff have such high workload that it's hard to tell what to work on first. Too many cases have dropped 

off the radar and aged past enforcabi!ity. Clearly setting case priorities and managing status consistently will enable the 

team to focus on the important cases and track cases through to completion more effectively. Goal is to develop a simple 

visual chart showing the status and priority of all cases in the Branch. Clear communication on what is the most important 

·,;,;, 'p, I RCRI 

CAA 112(R) Administrative Enforcement Actions. Process improvement across media for administrative enforcement 

actions (non-DoJl. 
128 


34874.122

CAFO Inspection Reports Targeting and Coordination. Expected accomplishments will include identifying opportunities to 

use inspection resources; better use of technology and scientific data and tools; and improving communication internally 

•nrl e•tem~llv 

Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Process Lean Kaizen Event- The team developed a new process that reduces the 

number of steps, handoffs, and the overall time to finalize grants enabling Region 7 to award 319 funds in a more effective 

and efficient manner through increased transparency and understanding. This new process will improve the timeliness and 

"'' ;within"' ·7 

Concurrence Signature Process. Expected accomplishments will include improving routing procedures; examining signature 

requirements· and considering e- concurrence. Pilot in progress. 

FOIA Process: The goal of this project was to analyze and develop an implementation plan to improve the process of 

responding to FOIA reouests from receipt to delivery of final response. 

Chemists must prove they are capable of performing each new method. To demonstrate this, each chemist analyzes four 

samples and all corresponding quality controls to generate a data package. This data package is peer and manager 

reviewed. Additional steps are performed on these Demonstrations of Capability (DOCs), both initial and continuing. The 

final step is to log the DOC into the Laboratory Information Management System (UMS). The length of time between a 

manager's review of the DOC and when it is logged into UMS can vary greatly. In the meantime, chemists need to analyze 

real samples and managers need to know who is current to make assignments, sometimes on an emergency basis. 

Historically, the length of time between a manager's review of the DOC and when it is logged into LIMS can be 6 weeks to 6 

months. The team wanted to identify causes of the significant delays between completion of the DOC and logging it into 

The purpose of this project was to use Lean tools to identify a replacement container used in several laboratory processes. 

Multi~Media Case Processing. Expected accomplishments will include reviewing regional policies and practices for multimedia orocessine of enforcement cases. Events held. le'"' ensure '"" they '"'' receive ,, '"" essential "'"~' "" tools '" '""'"' resources """ and ''"'"" knowledee. .. '"""" "' .. """""'"'~ """' 

xpected accomplishments include improving the content of Region 7's internal News and Events 

n2 the orocess for division submissions. 

Programmatic Training Identification: The goa! of this proJect was to develop a single process, common across programs, 

that provides an inventory of EPA Region 7 staff training needs and allows for better planning, improved coordination 

l"rr '" mnor~m·, less duolication of trainino ,nrl mme ,,,..,~te hurloetino 

SF-52 Internal Routing. Expected accomplishments include improving the efficiency of the routing process to ensure that 

on I value added steps are included. 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure-- Lean Mini-Kaizen Event- The event's objective was to clarify the SPCC 

inspection process and to Improve process efficiency by clarifying staff roles, identifying unnecessary process steps, 

eliminating redundant work, and streamlining the entire inspection, compliance, and enforcement process through the 

,;, !<no, 

Region 7 Superfund Daily Document Record Process. This project provided a revised document submittal form and 

instructions and created new records manaeement trainin2. 

The regional delegations maintenance process resides within SSFM and is critical to its COOP function, as well as the 

Region's ability to legally conduct its work. All of the reorganization packages in the past 5 years have failed to properly 

capture and address the need to update regional delegations; thus it appears as though the process for doing so is 

unknown and/or not functioning properly. This project will determine why these failures have occurred and how best to 

Process by which Regional Orders and Notices are updated, published, and catalogued. 

RCRA Corrective Action CMS Process. Expected accomplishments will include reducing investigation process from 19.4 

years to 5.1 years. New approach shifts critical decisions to the front of the corrective action process with new tools to 

re~rh kev ~oreement< "' rritbl noints in the rnrrective "rtinn nrnrP« 

RCRA Facility Investigation Process 
129 


34874.123

This project focused on documenting the FOIA process within the Superfund Division and creating tools to assist SUPR 

employees in responding and processing FOlA requests. It was completed through a series of facilitated discussions and 

I h F lA r 

Since the end of the "Registrar" system,Region 7 has not had an adequate system in place to track all staff training beyond 

what is tracked beyond at the programmatic or supervisory level (which may range from individual spreadsheets and 

databases, to hand written notes, to only that which the employee may keep). Region 7 spends significant resources on 

training (both dollars and hours) but largely has no system in place to account for this investment. In addition, tracking of 

This process look:s at the Region 7 process for responding to atypical travel card usage. Atypical travel card usage is when 

there is an travel card transaction that osts to the credit card outside of a authorized travel erlod. 

Environmental covenants are required at contaminated RCRA facilities as part of a fin a! remedy where clean up standards 

are less than unrestricted use (Le. industrial use}. Currently, the timeframe for development of these !ega! instruments are 

variable and, in some cases, excessive. The expected outcome of the project is to streamline the process and shorten the 

This project improved the process of responding to Freedom of Information Act requests in the Water, Wetlands, and 

Pesticide Division of EPA Re ion 7. 

This project aims to address the processes that the WWPD/WENF state coordinators are responsible for completing. 

Includes CMS plans, CMS reports, PPG workplans, and PPG annual reports (reviewing and commenting). This project is 

needed to document the processes the state coordinators work on so that all tasks and due dates are on a 

The initiation, review and clearance of emergency health consultations {HCs, including letter HCs and non-public facing 

consultation records) prepared in response to emergency and/or time-critical requests from other federal or state 

f r T A h 

Lean event included representatives from federal, state, and local government, as well as several customers (water utilities 

who request permits in this process} and NGO stakeholders. The overall goal of this project is to increase coordination and 

cooperation across federal, state, and local regulators, as well as non-governmental stakeholders, by designing and 

The overall purpose of this project is to increase coordination & cooperation across federal, state, and local, as well as nongovernmental stakeholders, by designing & implementing a more efficient process for the initiation of NEPA and seeping 

.T h 
130 


34874.124

The goal of this project is to reduce the amount of time used to develop and approve enforcement documents (e.g. orders, 

warning letters, request letters, etc.) and to reduce the number of re-works by staff and managers involved in the 

concurrence process. Tools used include 1) standard, accepted templates for common NPDES enforcement documents and 

2) a custom SharePoint approval workflow running off of custom list items. Use of templates for standard work is enabling 

the team to improve the rate of correct & accurate while the e-concurrence tool enables the team to achieve faster 

approvals of the documents. Furthermore, this particular e-concurrence tool improves accountability among a!! staff 

involved in developing and approving the document, as anyone from the program can see in SharePoint the status of a 

document in the routing pipeline. Documents no longer get lost in hard-copy routing, staff can review/edit and concur 

The overall goal of this process Improvement effort was to decrease the amount of time & re-work during procurement 

activities for the Region 8 Office of Communication & Public lnformation(OCPI), 

Pesticides State Grant Funding Allocation Process~ The overall goal of this project is to increase transparency, speed, and 

accuracy of the pesticide state grant funding allocation process in Region 8. The project team agreed on a metric of 

awarding all grants within 4S calendar days {approx. 30 business days) after both funds and grant applications are received 

into the reoioo Fvent heln 

Property Management Process Improvement- The overall goa! of this project is to revise the property management 

process to reduce errors in property tracking data and decrease the amount of missing property. Specifically: To improve 

the accuracy and completeness of tracking all property within and entering the system; gain team understanding of region~ 

wide best practices and develop standard work practices; and increase awareness of existing property management 

<• I o, rh ·Dill"' 

Regional Support Process Improvement~ The goal of this project is to streamline the Regional Support (i.e. OARM, OEI 

funding to region} allocation and spending process, prior to the retirement of the Regional Support coordinator. The 

project team mapped the current state, prioritized solutions, and implemented two solutions: 1) simplifying the org code 

structure for allocating Regional Support funds and 2) revising the Regional guidance for how SEE fees can be spent within 

>air »I '' onnrt Prr >rt on I tronitir »I mr >tina fnrmot 

Region 8 Review of Sanitary Survey Document Handling Process for Wyoming Systems and Wyoming Tribal Systems. The 

goal of this project was to decrease the time in which the sanitary surveys are mailed out to system operators (from nine 

months to three months). This project allowed the team to identify unnecessary steps in the review process, yet maintain 

lthP intearitv of thr• nmro« . inrlunon >nuirino rnntrortnr< • onhoro to n• >nlinr • in nrovinina <>>rvav 

Region 8 Tribal UST Grant Awards. This project will lead to awarding grants two to three months earlier by engaging tribes 

early in the process; encouraging grantee use of OMB MAX site; piloting 2-year awards; developing standard operating 

rorenurP<· onn rceotine document temolates. Event held. 

Appropriate utilization of Superfund Special Accounts to refining a processes to ensure accurate site charging to available 

and proper Special Accounts. Processes include activity level planning and execution for payroll, allowed within each site 

Consent Decree. This project has improvement actions with respect to internal coordination and centralization of shared 

The Objective of this project was to reduce process variance in the UIC well permitting program for obtaining financial 

assurance (FA) instruments from the regulated community. The U!C well permitting process was analyzed by project 

participants through three mapping events that highlighted the variance and turnaround times in the FA process and how 

to streamline and standardize these steps. This mini-Kaizen event greatly improved the way the Agency communicates with 

!thr >auloten 'mm oit• oh, •• 'h, "h. 

The Director of the Information Management team in Region 8 wanted to develop a deeper understanding of the work her 

staff performs and improve the timeliness and accuracy of the reports being certified by this unit. The lean process 

improvement facilitator conducted a series of events over a period of one year utilizing Value Stream Mapping, Gemba 

walking and development of a system of Visual Management Boards that track every aspect of work being performed by 

the Region 8 Information Management team. This effort has eliminated the need for weekly staff meetings as well as the 

one-on-one meetings the Director was conducting with each .Gemba walks and weekly standup meetings held at the Visual 

Management Board with the Director have greatly increased employee engagement. The timeliness and accuracy of the 

FOIA requests. •Ensure that all key records are available in electronic form in a central location. • Allow information to be 

seamlessly passed from PM to PM or from PM to Managers1 assisting in succession planning. • Provide a process that 
131 


34874.125

Our project sought to reduce the time to hire from the current average of 240 days to closer to the OPM metric of 80 days. 

Improves tracking and completion process in Agency Mandatory Trainings. 

Analyze the current Region 9 travel request process using Concurr and aims to decrease process time, defects, and rework. 

TBA 

Our project improved the process of assembling accurate Superfund cost recovery packages. 

Improve Cross-Division Coordination on Work Processes, Responsibilities and Decisions within the NPOES Permit life Cycle. 

The Region has historically used a decentralized approach to initiate and forward personnel action to HR. With the 

implementation of Federal Personnel Processing HR System {FPPS}, there is a need to review this work process to improve 

>ecuracv and to g;,in efficiencv esoeci llv if reduction of admi 1istrative overhe;,d become necess;,rv. 

The Regional Support Account (RSA) planning process (AKA the budget formulation phase) is very complex and involves 

many participants. The uncertainty in the funding amounts and timing further convolute associated issues. Although 

adjustments have been attempted over the years, participants still feel the process is unwieldy, lacks a well-defined and 

transparent structure regarding the ideal time to kick off the process, confusion as to who is involved and their roles and 

>nrllock fa CP!iahiP ,, .,rl,rli' ."" 

Improve documentation, billing, disputes with SSC's 

Reduce FO!A response times in order to improve employee quality of life and customer satisfaction. 

Use of WebForms to initiate, approve, and track bank card purchases of laboratory supplies is cumbersome and frustrating. 

Contractor staff cannot access software, necessitating re-entry of information by EPA staff. End users cannot tell the status 

of their purchase request without physically tracking down individuals in the approval and purchasing chain. Purchase 

requests slip through the cracks and do not get ordered in a timely way. Rl Lab has developed, a SharePoint application 

Streamlining the process and cut waste 

Procurement is a business process used to purchase goods and services. 

EPA Order CIO 2105.0 requires any project that involves collection of data have an approved QA plan before data collection 

may begin. This process can be perceived by project managers as holding up their work. A team from different programs 

will look at he OA alan review/aooroval orocess to recommend where and how it could be made more efficient. 

Region 9 RCRA PCB Cleanup Program Review and Approval Process- Addressing complaints from State partners and 

Brownfield redevelopment agencies that the process is hindering redevelopment. Reduce the time it takes for EPA to issue 

final aooroval under TSCA for a resoonsible oartv to cleanuo PCB contamination. 

DESCRIPTION: Clarify regional separation roles and responsibilities, update Lotus Notes-based separation checklists and 

prepare for elimination of lotus Notes, reduce email reminders, and assure that a !I who separate meet the regional and 

oosition-soecific seoaration reauirements. 

Region 10 reviewed the Employee Exit Process Toolkit and used elements to do just~in-time improvements to our 

employee exit process timed with the latest VERA/VSIP departures. Specifically, RlO implemented a one-stop "last day" 

check out process where a !I critical people gathered in one room with lap top computers at the same time. We also 

provided "read ahead" information to potentially departing employees so they clearly understood the expectations related 

'anrl '"" 

Kaizen Event to lean phase 1!1 of NPDES permitting process 

Create a standard process for processing FOIAs in RlO and lean that process 

CAA State Implementation Plan Process. This project focused on the SIP process in state and local agencies in Washington 

State, and had broader application to Region 10. Accomplishments included reducing SIP review time from 18.75 months 

to 12 months. Comoleterl. 
132 


34874.126

Region 10 Correspondence Management System Process. This project includes a standard letter template for aU Regional 

controlled correspondence; better records management protocols; and streamlined process for correspondence review 

enrl <i"""'"" liO-rlriv rherk-in Comnleterl 

NPDES Administrative Penalty Project 

New Personnel Workstation Setup Process Lean Event Case Study~ The objective of the event was to reduce the time 

required to complete the User Management Request (UMR) process for new employees and other new system users. The 

Lean team exceeded its original goal of reducing lead time by 50 percent, instead identifying process improvements that 

NntJirl re<,lt in" 74 nerrent rerl,rtinn in leed time. 

The regional process of traveling as an employee, starting with getting a trip authorized through getting a trip reimbursed. 

(OEX/OC!R) Correspondence Process lean Project- create greater efficiency and improve timeliness in the OEX and OCIR 

corresnondence orocesses 

{OP) EPA Performance Track Program Application Improvement- Value Stream Mapping Event 

{OP) Leaning the EPA OP Review of Documents Published in the Federal Register. This project Includes Standard Operating 

Procedures, improved communications on document requirements, and a digital signature program, Accomplishments 

include reducine davs in OP from 3 davs to 1 dav. 30-dav check-in. 

TBA 

Project included the process of pre-reviewing, reviewing, screening for potential enforcement concerns, approving, and 

auditing applications from industrial facilities to be certified as ENERGY STAR facilities for the previous year, as well as 

sending out final certificates. 

(OAQPS) Audit Processes for the Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) for PM2.5 and lead (Pb), and the National 

Performance Audit Program (NPAP) for gas measurements, This project is expected to reduce overall lead time by 75% or 

more from on-site field audits to entering results into the national Air Quality System (AQS) database. In-house program 

Hrrentlv heino h"ilt · ' '"nnnrt · 

A safety and/or facilities review must becompleted anytime new equipment is brought into our lab/office building or any 

building modifications are made 

The sample receiving process is taking longer than is expected as there are a number of repetitive and redundant steps that 

can be reduced to save time and increase efficiency. The laboratory is responsible, in the case of an environmental or 

homeland security incident, for analyzing samples for emergency response reasons. In the case of an incident, where a fast 

sample turn-around time is imperative, the sample log in process, as it stands now, could be a time drain in increasing the 

backlog. The sample disposal process is taking over 15 years to dispose of one sample, when 6 to 12 months is acceptable. 

Storage of samples, that should be disposed of, is both taking up space that is needed to be free for a new project and 

could lead to violating waste limits. The committee would like to establish a 90 instead of 180 day storage time followed by 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) modeling system used to assist in ru!emaking- project was to improve data 

submission orocess within MOVES orocess 

{1) Updating the NEEDS database to reflect input from a number of sources. Input comes in both as part of the formal 

rulemakinl2 orocess and outside of that orocess. {2) Sharin12 information about uodatesfe.e:. status. olansl with 

The National Air NATA is EPA's ongoing comprehensive evaluation of air taxies in the United States. 

The project included a large number of steps from gathering data from states through EPA creating, revising, and finalizing 

the nonooint portion of the NEI. The lean process included state review of the draft inventorv, 

(OAP) Part 75 Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Petition Response Process 

(OAQPS) E-Enterprise Air Emissions Data submission, review, and use 
133 


34874.127

(OPAR/10} Document production in response to FO!As and Congressional requests-OAR-wide. This project covers OAR, 

OEI, and OGC roles in developing document search requests, conducting document searches, reviewing results, and 

coordinating responses when they cover documents from more than one office. Solutions include standardizing forms and 

formats for document request and document delivery, providing training for crucial tools, and clarifying roles in some cases 

>rlof;n; 'th< cth, ro• onlirlo· th. oh< .. h, <th, 

(OTAQ) Technical/Engineering Hardship application process for non-road diesel equipment manufacturers participating in 

TPEM. This project will reduce the application review process by SO% in overall lead time as well as reduce the number of 

incomplete applications by creating user-friendly tools and guidance documents for manufacturers. Began implementation. 

OAR Congressional Correspondence Response Process Improvement. This project makes the process of finalizing responses 

to incoming letters faster and more efficient. Accomplishments so far include a shared understanding of the current 

1rOCe« 'nrl . of kev nrnre« <ten<. Ree"n ;mnlement"t;on 

OAR Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) response process. This process focused on OAR's steps in the FMFIA 

response process and made changes for both this years' reporting in 2015 and future years. Team members from 3 OAR 

program offices and the 10 redesigned the response process to make sure everyone knew what OCFO needed before the 

I nrnce« hePen >nrl revi<erl the document reaue<t form< to he >to 'II neonle who neerlerl to o><e them 

GHG Reporting Rule. This project covers the process EPA uses to prepare the electronic data collection software, collect the 

data, verify it, and publish it. The team recommended some changes to tools that would reduce the time or complexity of 

completing steps; aligning and streamlining work with contractors, and triage and "binning" steps to better target work on 

lth< <nmro ro ,;, whoro 'c k n< >«orv fnr thot eor 

The process of drafting, reviewing, and finalizing public speeches for the OAR AA and others in the 10. 

This project reduces overall lead time by 40% or more and makes the process more user-friendly for petitioners and EPA. 

Accomplishments include creating a Standard Operating Procedures Guide for petitioners 

Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) for ozone-depleting substances. Accomplishments include changes to how 

meetings with submitters are staffed, assigning a case manager for each submission, creating explicit steps to improve 

1 between staff and manaeers. and identifvine rainine neerl< for new ca<e men,eer.<. Bee"n 

Upstream Inventory Development Process 

This project covers the process of recruiting shippers into the SmartWay program, helping them submit the first set of data, 

and their first full vear as a oartner in the orogram. The oro'ect ended when a shiooer submits their second ear of data. 

The Inventory team wlll use the LEAN process to assess areas to improve the greenhouse gas inventory compilation 

process, focusing specifically on the initial annual compilation of the first draft of the report in the fall when the first text 

I anrl crilrulrition file< rire exch,ngerl. 

Improve scheduling process in order to reduce test voids (due to scheduling confusion and test packet ambiguities), 

redundant efforts, and staff frustration as well as increase customer satisfaction through improved responsiveness to 

lrlvnrimk <iturit;on•, lte<t rh,nPe< I renriir<. rete<K etc\. 

Manufacturers determine the need to submit defect and recall reports as defined in the regulations (40 CFR 85 and 1068). 

Agency Reorganization Process. Expected accomplishments will include reduced stakeholder review t!meline and 

processing of reorganization packages from 105 days to 65 days or less. Progress so far includes improved collaboration 

nrl rommunirritions between oroeram office customers. orocess . and senior managemen . On schedule. 

Streamline the tracking and closeout of contracts to improve compliance with required timeframes, improve customer 

service and decrease unnecessarv orocess reouirements while conforming to the FAR. 

The membership package process for the agencis federal advisory committees. 

The primary intent of the Agency's Grant Administrative Baseline and Unliquidated Obligation (BULO) Review Lean project 

was to combine independent but interrelated processes, streamline procedures and enhance electronic systems to 

increase efficiency; the ULO recommendations were carried out through a separate OCFO lean sponsored event, however 

expected results from some of those recommendations, mainly reviewing only those UlOs that didn't have financial 

activity of more than 180 days or more, was projected to have an 80-90% reduction in the amount of ULO reviews 

needing to be completed by each Grant or Interagency Agreement Specialist; lastly, some of the Administrative Baseline 
134 


34874.128

Training Approval Process-Focus on SF182 creation, submission, and approval, including funding requirements, and 

training officer approvaL Work group members to include reps from Program Offices and Re ions 

Agency On-Boarding/Off-Boarding Process partnering with R2 and R9 to examine 4 processes (Onboarding, 

Move/Add/Change Provisioning, De- orovisioning/Off-Boarding) 

Facility Task Order Development 

EPA/RTP Graphics Design & Print Service. Expected accomplishments will include reducing time for graphics service from 15 

days to 10 days by creating a standardized requirements collection process, and adding requirements process to project 

I tracking information. 

FACA Membership Selection Process - Streamlining and simplifying the process by which committee members are 

appointed to EPA Federal Advisory Committees will aid the Agency by achieving efficiencies and reducing the time it takes 

Ito aoooint members. 

Project will review OARM's current controlled correspondence process to clearly define the process, roles and 

responsibilities to enhance the inter-office/signature process in an effort to reduce unnecessary steps, decrease processing 

times, improve review and update/corrections processes, improve document tracking and manage documents through the 

l,;on>tm" nrn • p, · bino tho 'Tr I"'' 

Improve the Grants and Fellowships Closeout Process to deobligate and allocate unexpended funds to other mission critical 

activities faster. Multi- office Staff from OGD OCFO (Las Vegas) andRe ion a I Grants Management Offices. 

OARM- RTP HR Shared Service Center Position Description Distribution After a Position Description (PO) is assigned to an 

employee the Research Triangle Park (RTP) Human Resources Shared Service Center (SSC) sends the PD to the employee, 

lsuoervisor. ann HR liaison The office senrls annrnximatelv 2.000 Pfls 'nnuallv 

EPA RTP Separation Check~Out Process. Expected accomplishments will include an employee separation check-out list; 

verification sent to suoervisor· and check- out list e:iven to administrative contact bv 1om on last dav. 

The project focuses on standardizing, streamlining and automating the agency's off-boarding program. OARM wH! be 

working with mission support partners (e.g., OARM, OCFO, OEI, OITA) to discuss the activities and requirements that need 

itn h•· rnmnleteo bv emolovees before thev deoart the agencv. 

The Quick Requisition How to Guide will improve the quality of Requisition submitted to OAM. 

Provide mechanism for customers to easily check the status of their submitted requisitions and/or advanced procurement 

I an 

Improve the process/interaction between the Shared Service Centers/Executive Resources and the Personnel Security 

Branch for background investigations/security clearances. 

Technical Evaluation Panels composed of subject matter experts are used to evaluate technical proposals during source 

selections to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of all offers. 

This Lean project will streamline and standardize the ULO review/deobligation process for contracts and related processes 

to reduce workload, accelerate processing of funds, and reduce the level of expired funds lost. 

Provide a more consistent IFFR Report distribution process. 

National Superfund Cost Recovery Process. This project will standardize finance elements of cost recovery process across 

regions for certified cost documentation for oversight billing; and implement process efficiencies that provide cost savings. 

Co-led with OCFO. Comoleted. Final reoort oreoared. 

Corrective Action Tracking- The week -long event focused on clarifying the corrective action tracking process, developing a 

standard format for corrective action plans, clarifying the corrective action dose-out process, and codifying all process 

steps into a standard operating procedure. The event dramatically improved efficiency by eliminating non-value added 

lnrncess stens rP<odtinP in" more tr"n<n>ren! nn >«with inm >rl. ,, 'h!U 'nrl imnrm.erl ru<tnm• 

All Regions and NPMs collect and report performance data and analyze results in response to the Agency's end of year 

guidance. We have heard that this process is burdensome to the Agency and would benefit from streamlining. By mapping 

out and examining processes used by Regions and NPMs, we expect to identify opportunities to eliminate redundancies, 

>rhleve effiri< 'rl nrk cth. '"' National Program Manager Guidance Process. This project established a concise format for NPM Guidances and centralized 

the process for identifying and including cross-cutting themes into the Guidances. Accompllshments included reducing the 

I total number of oa"'" in the five maior Guidances bv 32 oercent, and creatPd a standard temnlate for Guidances 
135 


34874.129

Reimbursable Interagency Agreements Payment Process. This project saves $648K if changes are adopted; shortens total 

onds to a financial control issue raised bv the EPA IG office. Completed. 

Software Applications Accountability Process-Declared an "agency level weakness" at the end of year management 

inteeritv meetine. 

Unliquidated Obligations (ULO) Review. This project will standardize the ULO review and deobligation process for contracts 

and related orocesses to reduce workload accelerate orocessing of funds and reduce the level of exoired funds lost. 

Superfund State Contract (SSC) Accrual Process Lean Event Case Study· The event's objective was to create a consistent 

agency-wide approach for the sse accrual process that would result in accurate data for the production of quarterly 

accruals for financial statement reporting. The team hoped to accomplish this objective by simplifying and standardizing 

it he orocess. automatine it where o;, . oo, 

The redistribution of costs associated with EPA Superfund activities. 

The input and verification of SAP (Simplified Acquisition Procurements and Miscellaneous Obligating Documents) 

obli12ations in the Ae:encv's financial s stem to ensure fundine: avai!abilit for disbursements. 

This project will address the lengthy time to complete Superfund redistributions that have been coded as problems. 

The purpose of this Lean activity is to determine a process and tools that are efficient and reliable for measurable 

improvements from a common procedure. 

Agency payment process from commitment to disbursement 

The modernization of TSCA 12b process will implement electronic reporting for TSCA section 1 

The goal of this project is to develop a blue print and path forward for the efficient Agency implementation of TSCA section 

14(g) CBI reviews. The project seeks to improve reliability, effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency of the CBI review 

process from the time a submission is made until 30 days after final determination. The project will assess and work toward 

optimization of related information systems, organizational roles, and policies to eliminate current risks and problems as 

oil 

(CCD) Chemical Data Reporting Process. Expected accomplishments will include eliminating unnecessary steps to increase 

efficiencv and effectiveness of the CSR oroeram. Process chanees will be readv for the 2016 reoortine cvcle. Event held. 

{OPP) Antimicrobial Testing Program Lean Event Case Study- Value Stream Mapping Event· The goals of the lean event 

were to design a process that flows without interruption, to improve the quality of the process by reducing rework to cut 

lead time bv 50 percent. and to imnmvo >mnlnv >o "'ti<f,ctinn with tho nmco". 

(OPP} OPP Process improvements (OPP label Review, Approval, and Posting Process). OPP is improving business processes, 

including pesticide submission process and pesticide posting process. Expected accomplishments will align processes to 

reduce number of days to receive, review, and publish pesticide registration decisions. OPP will create an electronic 

!wnrkflow thot will minimize oaoer . reduce manual tasks. and automate routine activities. Event in Fall 201< 

Federal Register Publication Process Improvement 

Front-End Processing 

Improved Headquarters/Lead Region Coordination and Communication-to increase efficiencies in budget processes, NPM 

Guidance decisions other. 

Leaning the Creation, Maintenance, Storage, and Retrieval of an OPP "Jacket" (legally and functionally required documents 

to register pesticides} 

Risk Assessment Groundwork 

OCSPP/ \CCD) TSCA Section 4 Test Rule Data Management Process. Expected outcome will include implementation of 

standard operating procedures to create greater efficiency and effectiveness in the receipt, review, and communication of 

te<t mle rl;;t; via interactions within OPPT. , indicators have been develooed and a baseline is beine 

The Office of Compliance conducted a 4-Day Kaizen event on April 2-6, 2018 to help its GLP inspectors to be more efficient 

in producing and distributing their inspection reports. In addition, the LEAN event will address filing of the inspection files 

usino the latest 

Improving OECA's Human Resources Operations- The goal of this project was to reduce the time it takes to fill a position by 

reducing the average number of days it takes to submit a complete recruitment package to the Cincinnati Shared Service 

Center for oroce<sine. 
136 


34874.130

Improving the OECA/OCEFT/NEIC Criminal Report Process- NEIC's criminal report preparation process was evaluated to 

identify problem areas and define a path forward to implement efficiencies and improvements that will allow NEIC Project 

M,n,oee< to rleliver rlefen<ihl • crimi I renort< which he<t meet the needs of NEIC's customers in a timelv and efficient 

The goal of this transference project is to evaluate three OECA information channels {FOIA requests, Zen Desk requests, 

and congressional correspondence)and make improvements in the processes to ensure that consistent information is 

TBA 

The current state of the AD process addressing responses to forma! incoming requests on CAA applicability determination 

will be mapped ("as is" map) to identify constraints, bottlenecks, and improvement opportunities. The team will develop a 

future state ("to be") map to eliminate non-value added steps and develop an action plan for the improved process. 

Process steps involving receipt of the incoming request, determination of delegated program office to address request, the 

interactive process of analysis, research and consultation, process of drafting and finalizing the response letter, and issuing 

";II . '>h" 

Streamlining CECA's Federal Enforcement & Compliance Data Reporting Process- Reduce the data required and make 

reoortine. more efficient 

Streamlining the EAS Procurement Process for OECA/OCEFT /NE!C Field and laboratory Supplies. This project streamlined 

the EAS-based procurement process, standardized the process across NEIC branches, and resulted in a cohesive team 

approach to procurement for the Division. Results: reduced number of steps, eliminated major constraint steps, and 

>rl '"' "k. "e<>l 

This project involves the process by which the Agency receives a formal applicability determination (AD} request from a 

delegated state or the regulated industry sector and ultimately issues a final AD response letter to the requestor. The 

current state of the AD process addressing responses to formal incoming requests on CAA applicability determination will 

This project is in the early planning stages. Current process cannot sustain the projected increase in demand for FOIA 

reauests. OEI-OEIP wants to imorove the orocessino time of Mencv-wide FOIA reauests. 

RS and US EPA Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Information Technology (IT) Security Patch for Workstations: 

Critical Patches -Identify the current process{es) for critical patch management and identify key process for accountability 

and improvement to provide a measurement of cost {time and resources) of the current and projected process, provide a 

more efficient/effective process, provide a governance process for critical patch management, and provide an Agency 

,lin' ,rl/oc ncorerlur.• foe rritir"l o: rh 

Designed a process to transition to an enterprise tracking and reporting system that will enable real-time data collection. 

Two pro·ect co-leads will be identified and action items assigned bv 08/05/15 

To improve OEI's overall response time to Controlled Correspondence inquiries through the implementation of the lessons 

learned from the Controlled Correspondence Process Improvement Toolkit. 

This project is to lean and improve the provisioning processes across the agency so a new employee will have what they 

need to perform their · ob dutes on Dav 1 of arriving at their desk. 

The Quality Staff at the EPA conducts regular assessments of the Agency's Program Offices and Regions for the purpose of 

determining compliance with the Agencv's Quality Policy. 

Regional Attorney Hiring Process streamline and update the regional attorney hiring process working with Region 7 and 

Establish a streamlined internal OITA On-boarding process for new employees. 

Improve the internal records management process, engaging less frequently use lean tools (i.e., SS) 

Improving the Use of Evidence in OLEM's Planning & Budgeting Process (Planning and Performance Reporting Process). This 

project aligns planning, budget and performance reporting processes to allow program offices to share information and 

moke evirlenre- ho<erl rled<ions. Fvent helrl. 

Ensure that the new Office of Communications, Partnerships, and Analysis is run in an efficient and effective way, freeing 

up time for employees to focus on their priority work. 

OLEM Communication Strategy Process- Streamline and standardize the processes for developing and carrying out OLEM 

communications strategies and responding to oress inquiries 
137 


34874.131

Process for Identifying and Documenting Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs} for Superfund 

Remedial Actions-Improve and streamline the ARAR process across the Regions 

e~Manlfest Project Management Plans. This project creates an electronic system to replace the current paper system by 

October 2015 (statutorv deadline). 

Process for indentifying and determining state applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for Superfund 

remedial actions. 

The process for EPA to approve state UST programs and regulations 

Improve the receipt, delivery, assignment, funding, and tracking of gas cylinders by automating the tracking using a bar 

code system resulting in a more efficient process and less time consuming. 

Improved management and maintenance of ORD/HQ's main supply closet by addressing issues of both the orderliness of 

the supply closet and management of the supplies (when to reorder, how much to reorder, etc). The team applied SS 

principles to this project by flrst organizing the closet, and then creating an electronic inventory of supplies to 

'mm.,nir,t•• whot n• >rlPrl tn hP ncrlPrPrl tn thP """h"'P r,rrl hnlrlPr 

Better meeting customers' needs through improving assessment productivity while retaining high assessment quality of 

ORD's IRIS assessments that provides chemical toxicity information to EPA's programs and regions for their use risk 

messments to inform rulemakine and cleanuo •ctions for oublic health. 

EPA Safety and Health Management System (SHMS)-Streamline and develop a single system for the Agency. 

Science Matters Magazine Publication Process. This project simplified the review process and reduced time to publish the 

maeazine from 100 da s to 50 da s. Comoleted. 

Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Program-Streamline the application and review processes. 

Decreasing errors, improving process times, and improving communications to customers in the purchase card process. 

ORO Technical Qualifications Board (TQB)-Develop a single process to improve process times and reduce administrative 

burden. 

Automate and streamline the OR!SE recruitment and budget tracking process for a faster onboarding process and better 

utilization of extramural funds. 

Improve the onboarding and deprovisioning (dProv) of ORD non-federal employees. Current process is inefficient and is a 

security vulnerability when the dProv process is not complete in a timely manner after a non-federal employee stops 

wnrkine at EPA. 

Streamline and automate the approval process from original concept of an idea through the completion of a research 

ro'ect to have more time for research and less time soent on paperwork. 

Make more efficient the internal processes that leads up to award of Science to Achieve Results {STAR) grants. 

Streamline the process for reviewing and approving SGE candidates that come from the private sector into the Federal 

Service for brief oeriods of need as exoerts and consultants based on their high!v specialized knowledge and skills. 

This effort focused on state reporting of water quality assessment decisions under CWA Sections 303{d) and 305{b} 

Streamline and strengthen coordination of CWA 304a criteria development and NPDES Permitting 

Improve the turn around time of media request 

Endangered Species Act Consultation with USFWS & NOAA Fisheries 

The ordering of Mobile Devices was not uniform accross program offices in OW, so we established a baseline process and 

then streamlined it as a auick win. 

Water Quality Standards Approval/Disapproval Process. This project examines opportunities to improve efficiencies in 

decision process for state water quality standards; and partners with Region 10. 

Improve the purchase card user authorization process to purchase supplies, training, travel, etc. 
138 


34874.132

Primary Lean Method Event Date 

Kaizen event 12/1/2014 

Value stream mapping event 1/1/2015 

Value stream mapping event 2/1/2015 

55 11/21/2016 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Value stream mapping event 

Value stream mapping event 6/1/2016 

ss 10/17/2017 

Kaizen event 1/1/2014 

Mini-Lean 

Value stream mapping event 2/1/2014 

Mini-Lean 4/1/2015 

Kaizen event 4/1/2014 

Kaizen event 12/1/2013 

Mini-Lean 

Kaizen event 6/29/2017 

Value stream mapping event 2/4/2016 

Six Sigma 1/12/2017 

Kaizen event 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 3/23/2017 

Format 
139 


34874.133

Mini-Lean 9/13/2016 

Kaizen event 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Kaizen event 

Value stream mapping event 

Value stream mapping event 3/15/2017 

Kaizen event 6/8/2017 

Kaizen event 2/8/2017 

Kaizen event 5/4/2017 

Value stream mapping event 3/1/2017 

3/21/2017 

Kaizen event 4/1/2015 

Kaizen event 2/1/2015 

"Just do it"/Quick win 3/14/2017 
140 


34874.134

Value stream mapping event 2/13/2017 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 1/24/2017 

Format 

"Just do it" /Quick win 

Mini-Lean 2/7/2017 

"Just do it"/Quick win 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 1/30/2017 

Format 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 

Mini-Lean 4/4/2016 

Kaizen event 

Value stream mapping event 10/7/2015 

Value stream mapping event 4/1/2015 

Value stream mapping event 2/26/2015 

Kaizen event 1/1/2014 

"Just do it" /Quick win 

Value stream mapping event 4/3/2012 

Kaizen event 

Mini-Lean 

Mini-Lean 
141 


34874.135

Value stream mapping event 3/30/2016 

"Just do it" /Quick win 

Kaizen event 12/20/2017 

Kaizen event 4/17/2017 

Value stream mapping event 

Mini-Lean 2/1/2017 

Kaizen event 10/3/2016 

Six Sigma 7/20/2016 

Kaizen event 

Other 

Kaizen event 

Other 

Other 4/1/2014 

Other 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 7/1/2013 

Format 

Other 

Other 
142 


34874.136

Kaizen event 1/25/2016 

Kaizen event 

Other 

Kaizen event 

Other 

Six Sigma 3/1/2014 

Other 

Other 12/3/2014 

Other 

Other 

Other 

Other 

Other 

Kaizen event 

Other 

Other 

Kaizen event 

Other 

Other 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 
143 


34874.137

Value stream mapping event 7/1/2015 

Mini-lean 6/9/2017 

Kaizen event 

Value stream mapping event 5/26/2017 

1/1/2014 

Value stream mapping event 1/1/2015 

Kaizen event 1/1/2014 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 10/1/2014 

Value stream mapping event 2/29/2016 

"Just do it" /Quick win 

Value stream mapping event 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 6/21/2016 

Format 

Value stream mapping event 

Value stream mapping event 

Other 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Value stream mapping event 
144 


34874.138

Value stream mapping event 

Other 

Kaizen event 

Value stream mapping event 

Value stream mapping event 

Value stream mapping event 3/21/2016 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Value stream mapping event 

Other 

Kaizen event 

Value stream mapping event 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 8/3/2015 

Format 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Value stream mapping event 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Value stream mapping event 7/1/2014 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 2/27/2017 

Format 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 8/1/2008 

Kaizen event 1/15/2010 

Kaizen event 6/1/2007 
145 


34874.139

Other 5/23/2017 

55 11/10/2016 

Value stream mapping event 5/4/2016 

Kaizen event 

Mini-lean 

"Just do it" /Quick win 9/6/2016 

Other 

Kaizen event 4/24/2017 

Value stream mapping event 

Mini-lean 1/22/2015 

Value stream mapping event 

Other 4/6/2016 

"Just do it" /Quick win 8/4/2016 

Mini-Lean 6/21/2016 

Other 3/16/2017 

Kaizen event 5/31/2017 
146 


34874.140

55 8/30/2017 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 

Other 3/20/2017 

"Just do it"/Quick win 8/24/2016 

Mini-Lean 10/26/2016 

Mini-Lean 3/16/2017 

Six Sigma 

Mini-Lean 10/7/2016 

"Just do it" /Quick win 9/8/2015 

Mini-Lean 11/7/2016 

Other 12/20/2016 

ss 6/22/2017 

"Just do it" /Quick win 5/23/2017 

Kaizen event 9/15/2014 
147 


34874.141

Kaizen event 9/1/2014 

Kaizen event 8/6/2012 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Kaizen event 9/1/2014 

Value stream mapping event 6/1/2015 

Mini-lean 8/1/2015 

Value stream mapping event 5/1/2015 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 3/1/2015 

Format 

Value stream mapping event 2/1/2015 

Kaizen event 2/1/2015 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 6/1/2015 

Format 

Kaizen event 1/1/2012 

Kaizen event 9/1/2014 

Mini-Lean 12/2/2016 

Value stream mapping event 

Kaizen event 5/1/2014 

2/1/2013 
148 


34874.142

Value stream mapping event 

Value stream mapping event 5/17/2017 

Kaizen event 

Other 5/3/2017 

Mini-lean 3/3/2016 

Other 3/9/2017 

Kaizen event 3/21/2017 

Mini-lean 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 9/30/2016 

Format 

Mini-lean 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 

Value stream mapping event 

Kaizen event 10/7/2016 
149 


34874.143

Traditional Project Team Meeting 4/3/2017 

Format 

Mini-Lean 

Kaizen event 11/1/2014 

Kaizen event 2/1/2015 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 3/1/2015 

Format 

11/1/2013 

Kaizen event 1/1/2014 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Mini-Lean 4/18/2016 

Other 7/7/2016 

Kaizen event 9/12/2016 
150 


34874.144

Value stream mapping event 

Value stream mapping event 

"Just do it"/Quick win 

Value stream mapping event 2/1/2015 

Kaizen event 

Six Sigma 

Six Sigma 8/25/2017 

Six Sigma 8/18/2017 

Six Sigma 

Kaizen event 

Six Sigma 3/8/2017 

Value stream mapping event 

Value stream mapping event 

Six Sigma 8/15/2017 

Kaizen event 10/1/2014 

Six Sigma 3/15/2017 

"Just do it"/Quick win 

Kaizen event 10/11/2016 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 6/1/2012 
151 


34874.145

Kaizen event 12/1/2013 

Kaizen event 8/1/2013 

Kaizen event 3/1/2011 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 1/1/2015 

Value stream mapping event 1/1/2006 

Kaizen event 1/1/2013 

Other 6/14/2017 

Kaizen event 3/30/2015 

Kaizen event 8/1/2016 

Other 12/11/2017 

Mini-Lean 

Kaizen event 8/28/2017 

Kaizen event 3/28/2016 

Kaizen event 11/1/2016 

Kaizen event 

Value stream mapping event 2/1/2015 
152 


34874.146

Value stream mapping event 1/1/2015 

Kaizen event 2/17/2015 

Kaizen event 1/1/2014 

Kaizen event 4/1/2015 

Value stream mapping event 3/1/2015 

Other 

1/1/2014 

Kaizen event 1/1/2014 

Kaizen event 7/27/2015 

Kaizen event 6/20/2017 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 2/29/2016 

Kaizen event 

"Just do it" /Quick win 9/1/2013 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 
153 


34874.147

Kaizen event 5/1/2015 

Kaizen event 3/1/2015 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 7/1/2014 

10/1/2014 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 2/10/2017 

Format 

Kaizen event 3/1/2015 

Kaizen event 6/1/2014 

Kaizen event 

Value stream mapping event 

"Just do it"/Quick win 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Value stream mapping event 

"Just do it" /Quick win 

Kaizen event 7/1/2014 

Mini-Lean 

Kaizen event 5/12/2014 

12/1/2008 

Kaizen event 7/1/2015 

Kaizen event 10/1/2012 
154 


34874.148

Kaizen event 

Mini-Lean 1/1/2015 

Kaizen event 7/1/2014 

12/1/2010 

Kaizen event 12/1/2015 

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 6/9/2016 

Kaizen event 11/17/2016 

Value stream mapping event 8/19/2016 

"Just do it" /Quick win 

Mini-Lean 1/25/2017 

Kaizen event 5/1/2014 

Value stream mapping event 7/1/2010 

Kaizen event 8/1/2014 

Kaizen event 2/1/2014 

Kaizen event 9/1/2014 

Kaizen event 1/1/2015 

Value stream mapping event 11/1/2014 

Kaizen event 9/1/2014 

Kaizen event 9/1/2014 

Kaizen event 4/2/2018 

Kaizen event 3/1/2015 
155 


34874.149

Kaizen event 3/1/2015 

Traditional Project Team Meeting 

Format 

Other 10/8/2015 

Kaizen event 5/9/2017 

Kaizen event 6/1/2015 

Kaizen event 8/1/2014 

Kaizen event 5/9/2017 

Kaizen event 6/1/2015 

Kaizen event 7/1/2015 

Other 

Other 

Kaizen event 

1/1/2015 

Other 5/1/2015 

55 

Mini-Lean 7/1/2014 

Kaizen event 3/1/2015 
156 


34874.150

Kaizen event 

Kaizen event 12/7/2015 

ss 6/7/2017 

Other 

8/24/2015 

Kaizen event 3/1/2015 

Mini-lean 2/21/2018 

Value stream mapping event 6/1/2015 

Value stream mapping event 

Kaizen event 12/5/2017 

Kaizen event 5/9/2016 

Value stream mapping event 12/7/2015 

Kaizen event 1/1/2015 

Mini-Lean 

Value stream mapping event 

5/1/2008 

Mini-lean 

Kaizen event 10/1/2014 

"Just do it" /Quick win 
157 


34874.151

MEMORANI>UM 

SUBJECT: 

EROM: 

TO: 

Recusal Statement 

William L. Wchrum 

Assistant Administrator 

Andrew R. Wheeler 

Acting Administrator 

Attachment, Question 73b 

I have previously consulted with the Office of General Counsel/Ethics (OGC/Ethics) and 

been advised about my ethics obligations. This memorandum formally notilies you of my 

continuing obligations to recuse myself from participating personally and substantially in certain 

matters in which I have a financial interest. or a personal or business relationship. I also 

understand that I have obligations pursuant to Executive Order 13770 and the Trump Ethics 

Pledge that I signed. as well as my own bar obligations. 

FINANCIAL CONFL/C7S OF /NTERESl' 

As required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a). I will not participate personally and substantially in 

any particular matter in which I know that I have a fmancial interest directly and predictably 

afl'ected by the matter, or in which I know that a person whose interests are imputed to me has a 

linancial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter. unless I first obtain a written 

waiver, pursuant to I 8 U.S.C. § 208(b)( I). or qualify for a regulutory exemption, pursuant to I 8 

U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). I understand that the interests of the following persons are imputed to me: 

any spouse or minor child of mine; any general partner of a partnership in which I am a limited 

or general partner: any organization in which I serve as ofticer. director, trustee, general partner 

or employee; and any person or organization with which I am negotiating or have an 

arrangement concerning prospective employment. 

I have consulted with OGC/Ethics and been advised that I do not currently have any 

financial contlicts of interest but will remain vigilant and notify OGC/Ethics immediately should 

my flnancial situation change. 
158 


34874.152

OBLIGATIONS UNDER t'XECUTIVE ORDER /3770 

Pursuant to Section I. Paragraph 6 of the Executive Order, I understand that I am 

prohibited from participating in any particular matter involving specific parties in which my 

former employer. Hunton & Williams LLP (now Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP). or any former 

client to whom I provided legal services during the past two years, is a party or represents a 

party. I understand that my recusal lasts tor two years !Tom the date that I joined federal service. 

I have been advised by OGC/Ethics that. tor the purposes of this pledge obligation, the 

term "particular matters involving specific parties" is broadened to include any meetings or other 

communication relating to the performance of my orticial duties, unless the communication 

applies to a particular matter of general applicability and participation in the meeting or other 

event is open to all interested parties. I am further advised that the term "open to all interested 

parties .. means ti vc or more parties. 

£'0RMER 

Agrium Inc.; Agrium U.S. Inc.; Nu-\Vest General Electric Company 

Industries, Inc. Georgia-Pacific LLC 

American Forest & Paper Association Kinder Morgan, Inc. 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manul~lcturers Koch Companies Public Sector. LLC 

American Petroleum Institute Koch Industries. Inc. 

B l 0 Litigation Coalition Lehigh Hanson, Inc. 

Brick Industry Association Lowe's Companies, Inc. 

CEMEX USA. Inc. National Stone. Sand and Gravel Association 

Champion Power Equipment, Inc. Pfizer Inc. 

Chemical Safety Advocacy Group (CSAG) Phillips 66 Company 

Chevron Corporation Portland Cement Association 

Diageo Prinoth Ltd. 

Dominion Resources Services. Inc. Salt River Project 

Duke Energy Corporation Spectra Energy Corp. 

Enbridge. Inc. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Inc. 

Evonik Corporation2 Tile Council of North America 

ExxonMobil Corporation Utility Air Regulatory Group 

flint Hills Resources, LP Utility Water Act Group 

GPA Midstream Association (lonnally known as Whitaker Greer Company 

Gas Processo~~As~<:<:ia.tio_n.-'-)-·········------------·-·· ___ , ______ _ 

1 Two confidential clients arc not listed. Both clients have a written contidcntinlity agreement e:-.prcssly prohibiting 

disclosure. 

1 Includes but not limited to an ongoing sculcrncnt negotiation. 

2 
159 


34874.153

ATTOR.Vl:T /JAR 0/JU(i.·JT!O.\'S 

Pursuant to my obligations under my bar rules. I recognize that I am obliged to protect 

the wnlidcnccs of my former clients. I also understand that I cannot participate in any matter 

that is the same as or substantially related to the same specific party matter that I participated in 

personally and substantially while in pri\'<llc practice. unless my bar pro\'ides I(Jr and llirst 

obtain informed consent and notil~· OGC/Ethics. Attached is a list of cases I am recused li·om 

given my pm1icipation at I lunton Andrews Kurth 1.1.1' . 

.\'( 'RU:':\1,\'(i .IRR.J.\'UE.\IFXT 

In order to ensure that I do not participate in matters relating to any of the cntitks listed 

above or matters ilknti lied in the 1\ttadllncnt. I \Yill instruct Josh Lewis. Chief of Staff. and 

Mandy Gunas.:kara. Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator. to assist in screening EPA 

matters directed to my attention that im·olvc those entities. All inquiries and comments 

involving the entities or matters on my rccusal list should he directed to Josh and Mandy without 

my knowledge or involvement until alkr my rccusal period ends. 

If Josh or Mandy determine: that a particular matter will directly in\·olve any of the 

entities or matters listed on my .. spccitk party .. rccusallist. then they will rctcr it lbr action or 

assignment to another. without my knowledge or involvement. In the event that they arc unsure 

whether an issue is a particular matter ti·om which I am recused. then they will consult with 

OGC/Fthics I ill' a determination. I will provide a copy of this memorandum to my principal 

subordinates with a copy to Justina Fugh. Senior Counsel ti1r Ethics. 

f'I'DATF AS:\'/:'( 'f.\'S'ARl' 

In consultation ,,·ith OGC/Ethks. I will rcYisc and update my rccusal statement whenever 

warranted by changed circumstances. including changes in my tinancinl interests. changes in my 

personal or business relationships. or any changes to my El' A duties. In the e\·ent of any 

changes to my recusal or screening arrangement. I wi II prm·idc a copy of the rc\·iscd recusal 

statement to OCiCEthics. 

Attachment 

cc: \1atthcw '/.. Leopold. General Counsel 

Ryan .lm:kson. Chief of Staff 

Mandy Guncsakara. Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Clint Woods. Deputy Assistant Administrator 

Elizabeth Shaw. Deputy Assistant Administrutor 

Da\·id I larlow. Senior Counsel 

Josh I .ewis. Chief of Staff 

Kevin Minoli. Designated Agency Ethics Oflicial 

Justina Fugh. Senior Counsd for Ethics 
160 


34874.154

I 

'·c::-.,.-·.--:--c·-- ----·-·-c-··--:----:-o:::·c-------f-~"" ..o.::.-:-::-:-c:'"--:·c----- ·---·----------- D.C. Cir.) (consolidated with I 

·-----·-·------~--------L"-.CC.'---'-'"-~'~- . ·--- --· -- --------- --------·--·---·-.-J 
161 


34874.155

5 
162 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will start with some questioning, if I may, and I wanted to 

start by mentioning what I see happening right now in the State 

of Washington. 

The State of Washington is abusing Section 401 of the Clean 

Water Act in order to block the development of the coal export terminal in that State. The terminal would ship coal from Wyoming, 

Montana, Utah, and Colorado to markets in Asia. The State of 

Washington has cited reasons for objecting to the terminal that had 

nothing to do with water quality, yet they are using Section 401 

of the Clean Water Act. 

I introduced a bill this week to address this problem. We can’t 

allow States to block the export of American energy. 

Will you commit to working with me to identify both legislative 

and regulatory solutions to stop these abuses? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator, I will. 

Senator BARRASSO. Recently, there have been some stories in the 

press discussing some of your recusals from former clients that you 

took in terms of meetings you have taken as Deputy Administrator, 

so I would like to give you the opportunity to address the stories, 

and if necessary, clarify the record. Visit with us about that, and 

maybe tell the Committee how you are going to honor your recusals 

from former clients. 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. I have committed, under both the 

Trump ethics pledge and the ethics regulations, to follow all the 

guidelines. I have worked with our career ethics official at the 

EPA. I met with her for the first time before I was actually nominated to go over what the requirements would be, and I have not 

met with any of my clients that I represented for the 2 years prior 

to joining the Agency. 

There is one article that mentioned that there was a former client that was in a couple of meetings that I attended. I want to clarify that those weren’t meetings; they were actually speeches. I gave 

speeches at two trade associations, and the client was in the audience in those speeches. And according to ethics, as long as there 

are more than five people, and there were five times as many people as that in the audience, and I can’t control the people that attend a public speech. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA grant relief to small refineries which suffer disproportionate economic hardship under the 

Renewable Fuel Standards, the RFS. The law explicitly states that 

a small refinery may petition the EPA for hardship relief ‘‘at any 

time.’’ 

Do you agree that EPA doesn’t have the authority to limit when 

small refineries can apply for hardship relief? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. We cannot limit when they apply for 

the relief, no. 

Senator BARRASSO. The law further states the EPA must act 

within 90 days upon receiving a petition from a small refinery. 

Do you agree the EPA doesn’t have the authority to delay decisions on a small refinery’s petition beyond 90 days? 

163 

Mr. WHEELER. I am not sure, to the extent that we have met the 

90-day requirements, but we certainly try to meet all the requirements under all of our statutes. 

Senator BARRASSO. In December 2017 I sent Administrator Pruitt a letter encouraging the EPA to withdraw its proposed rule on 

in situ uranium recovery, ISR. The Obama administration proposed 

the rule on January 19th, 2017, the final day before President 

Obama left office. Since then, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

our Nation’s principal nuclear regulator, has stated that there is 

‘‘no health or safety jurisdiction for EPA’s rulemaking.’’ 

Uranium production is vital to our country’s national security, 

our energy security. Wyoming produces more uranium than any 

other State. When can we expect the EPA to scrap this unnecessary regulation that came out kind of a midnight regulation, came 

out by the Obama administration on the final day of that 8-year 

administration? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, I have not had the opportunity to be 

briefed on that in the last 4 weeks, but I know that the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission also has concerns about that, and we will 

try to work forward on that expeditiously. 

Senator BARRASSO. During the first year of the Trump administration, it is my understanding that EPA finalized 22 deregulatory 

actions. According to your Agency, these actions could save over $1 

billion in regulatory costs to Americans. Just last July it was announced that the American economy grew 4.1 percent. This continues the trend of strong economic growth under the Trump administration. 

In your opinion, is the Administration’s approach to environmental deregulation at the EPA protecting the environment, while 

also helping our economy? Essentially can we have both a strong 

economy and a healthy environment at the same time? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, we can, and I think the data shows that. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Again, welcome today, and thank you for—— 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, and thank you for the Coke. I need 

to clear that through our ethics in-house, but I do appreciate that. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. If it doesn’t clear, I am sure you will have some 

takers here. I would be happy to bring out the ice. 

Mr. WHEELER. I would be happy to buy it from you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Wheeler, you have told me more than once 

that you share my goal, I think our goal, of striking a deal between 

automakers in the State of California and other States on fuel 

economy and greenhouse gas tailpipe standards. A win-win is what 

we are looking for. 

The auto industry and the State of California also repeatedly told 

me that they want a deal. Unfortunately, the Administration’s proposal that is being released this week is reported to freeze standards at model year 2020 levels, eliminate technology incentives, 

and preempt California and the 12 States that have followed California’s lead, which I believe would be a lose-lose-lose situation; a 

loss for an industry that needs certainty and predictability, a loss 

for consumers, and a loss for our environment. 

164 

The largest source of air pollution in our country today is not 

coal fired utilities, it is not manufacturing, it is not cement plants; 

it is mobile sources. That is No. 1. So, I have a couple of questions 

to pursue in this regard. 

First, if you were presented with a proposal that both the auto 

industry and the State of California, and 12 States aligned with 

them, could support, would you welcome such a compromise? 

Mr. WHEELER. I would certainly welcome such a compromise. 

The proposal that is coming out this week, first, it is a proposal, 

and we are taking a range of comments from a flatline approach 

all the way to the numbers that President Obama’s proposal had, 

and a number of steps in between. So, we are taking comments on 

all of those levels, and we would welcome any comments or proposals from any of the impacted groups, absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. To follow up on that, could we assume on this 

Committee that if there was such a deal, essentially a 50-State 

deal, there would be no effort to preempt California? 

Mr. WHEELER. I mean, it is my goal, it is the Administration’s 

goal to come up with a 50-State solution, and we want to have a 

50-State solution that does not necessitate preempting California. 

However, there are a number of goals in the proposal, and there 

are important goals on highway safety, so we would have to make 

sure that those are met. The proposal will save 1,000 lives per 

year, which I think is very important, and make sure that we 

maintain that in any final regulation that goes forward. 

Senator CARPER. I do a lot of customer calls, and I know my colleagues do as well, businesses large and small. Delaware used to 

build more cars, trucks, and vans per capita than any State in 

America. We had a GM plant, Chrysler plant that employed 8,000 

people, and those two plants, lost them both at the bottom of the 

great recession. 

I still do customer calls with the auto industry, and I ask them 

three questions: How are you doing? How are we doing? And what 

can we do to help? Unanimously, they say, with respect to this, 

what you can do is give us predictability and certainty. They say 

we don’t want to have to build one Chevrolet Malibu for California 

and 12 other States, and then a different model for the other 37 

States. 

They say we want to have more near term flexibility on these 

standards, but we are happy to have more rigorous standard going 

forward. We don’t want to be in court for the next 5 or 6 or 7 years 

with California and other States. Give us the certainty and predictability, and enable us to really compete with the rest of the world 

when we get to 2025 and 2030. 

I just ask that we keep that in mind. 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Second, cross-State pollution. Delaware and 

other States have made great strides in cleaning up our State’s 

ozone pollution, yet northern Delaware—where my family and I 

live, where two-thirds of our citizens live—still does not meet ozone 

health standards due to emissions not from within our State, but 

from other States’ dirty cars and power plants drifting into our 

State. 

165 

Ninety-four percent of our air pollution in Delaware comes from 

sources outside of us, largely from the west and the north. In 2016 

Delaware filed four clean air petitions with EPA—four—showing 

that four fossil fuel plants, three in Pennsylvania and one in West 

Virginia, are contributing to our unhealthy ozone days. 

The cleanup solutions are easy. The three facilities in Pennsylvania have clean air pollution technology installed. They don’t use 

it. They don’t use it. The coal facility over in West Virginia, my native West Virginia, they could go to natural gas and help not only 

their air quality, but ours as well. We thought Delaware’s case was 

a slam dunk, and I was shocked when EPA proposed to reject these 

petitions. 

Just a couple yes or no questions, if I could. 

Before making a final decision, would you commit to reviewing 

Delaware’s rebuttal to EPA’s proposed rejections, which were sent 

to you July 23rd, 2018? I am asking for you just to commit to review our rebuttal. 

Mr. WHEELER. I would be happy to review that, Senator, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Since EPA has refused to have a hearing on this issue in Delaware, would you commit to meet personally with State of Delaware 

officials before making a final decision on this matter at the place 

and time of your convenience? 

Mr. WHEELER. I would be happy to talk to the officials in Delaware, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

I don’t usually ask yes or no questions, so bear with me, please. 

When making final decisions on any Section 126 petition from 

some of the other States on the end of America’s tailpipe, our 

neighboring States, will you follow the spirit and letter of the law, 

which requires EPA to prioritize the residents of the State which 

receive the pollution? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator, we will follow the letter and spirit 

of the law. I would add, also, that on the cross-border side, we are 

working with States to develop new technical tools to help them facilitate the Good Neighbor State plans. On the ozone, at this point, 

we are showing that all the areas, except for a few areas that have 

been longstanding in non-attainment, should be in attainment by 

the early 2020s. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. WHEELER. We are very positive about the data that is coming in on that. 

Senator CARPER. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, if I could, in 

closing, I think everybody on this Committee—I know the folks 

here pretty well, and we are Golden Rule people; we treat other 

people the way we want to be treated, and the idea that folks in 

States to our west put up pollution, keep their air clean, their 

health care costs low, and we end up with dirty air and higher 

healthcare costs, it is just not fair. It is not the way to treat our 

neighbors. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

166 

Before turning to Senator Inhofe, Andrew, I would say that we 

are going to start voting shortly, and I will go vote and turn the 

chair over to Senator Inhofe at the time, who will be chairing the 

Committee until I return. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I liked your opening statement. It is certainty that 

we want and that we deserve, which we have not been historically 

given. 

I want to elaborate a little bit with a question asked a little bit 

differently than the comment by the Ranking Member. 

Last year, the EPA, along with the Department of Energy, granted 33 of 34 hardship exemptions to refineries due to high RIN 

costs. The EPA was sued on one petition it denied and ended up 

losing in court. Opponents of these exemptions say that the refineries are not under a hardship, even though they are actually paying more than their payroll to comply with these mandates that are 

out there. 

If you look at the fact that the EPA has now lost twice in court 

for not approving exemptions, the EPA is simply applying the law 

when it does grant them and they should be approving more of 

them. 

How does the EPA thread this needle? 

Mr. WHEELER. It is a very difficult needle to thread. We are following the statute, and we now have had two court cases that have 

ruled against the Agency on the granting of the exemptions. We 

also have appropriations language to remind us to grant the small 

refinery exemptions. 

One area we are trying to do is to provide more transparency 

around the decisions that we are making on the small refinery exemptions, and I think that will help clear up a lot of the concerns 

around the issue. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I think it will. 

Now, President Trump and you have committed to returning 

EPA to cooperative federalism, which I applaud. Unfortunately, 

some have confused that principle with coercive federalism, where 

one State dictates their standard to all others. When it comes to 

the auto industry—and we talked about this a minute ago—the 

last Administration handed over car emission standards to California, but other States didn’t get to weigh in. Because of this, 

Oklahomans, my State of Oklahoma, are paying more for their 

SUVs and trucks to subsidize electric cars so California drivers can 

afford them, which I find personally a little offensive. 

I applaud the EPA and NHTSA for revisiting the mid-term review done at the last minute by the Obama administration. 

Now, EPA doesn’t have any statutory direction for its auto regulations, but NHTSA does. Do you think EPA and NHTSA should 

harmonize their regulations so technological feasibility and consumer costs are considered? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator, I do, and that is what we have done. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Last, I had the honor of attending your opening statement. It 

was a very good statement. You had all the employees, I don’t 

know how many hundred were there, but you got a very fine reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:29 Feb 25, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\34874.TXT SONYA
167 

sponse from them. In your opening remarks to the EPA employees, 

you mentioned the fact that the United States is the gold standard 

worldwide for the environmental protection and that pollution regulated under NAAQS has dropped 73 percent. You mentioned this 

again in your opening statement. Nobody ever talks about the success that we have, that we are riding on. 

Meanwhile, our economy has expanded three times over, and yet 

the pollutions regulated dropped some 73 percent. 

The problem that we had in the 8 years of the Obama administration was the use of regulations to punish industries and States 

to reshape our economy with little to no benefit for the environment. 

Can you elaborate on how you have both a clean environment 

without handcuffing our economy? How do you plan to do that? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. I think that goes to my comments on 

certainty. I think if we provide more certainty not just to the regulated community, but to the American people, so that everyone understands the decisions that we are making and why we are making them, we will continue to improve the environment and provide 

that certainty that businesses are looking for. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. 

Aren’t there instances where regulations such as the New Source 

Review can actually get in the way of reducing pollution? 

Mr. WHEELER. It can. It can be a disincentive for installing 

cleaner technologies. And we are trying to stop that. 

Senator INHOFE. Good. Good. Thank you very much. You did a 

great job. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Wheeler, welcome. It is a pleasure to have 

you here. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. I noticed your comments about the improvements in air over the last 40, 50 years. I might tell you we have 

seen remarkable improvement in the Chesapeake Bay during that 

period of time, and I say that because the Chesapeake Bay also has 

been a program that was developed with State flexibility. It is 

State blueprints that are agreed to by the six surrounding States 

of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, as well as the District of Columbia, and it has had the strong support from Congress, including 

this Committee recently, as well as from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

My first question, recognizing the importance of the Chesapeake 

Bay not just to the surrounding States, but to our region, it is the 

largest estuary in our hemisphere, will you continue the traditional 

Environmental Protection Agency support for a strong Federal role 

in coordinating the work that is done on the Chesapeake Bay? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. In my first week as the Deputy Administrator, I attended the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and next 

week I will be attending the Chesapeake Bay Leadership Council 

in Baltimore. It is a high priority for us. I actually live in the 

Chesapeake Resource Protection Area, and it is a high priority for 

the Agency. 

168 

Senator CARDIN. I don’t consider that to be a conflict, so you can 

do whatever you want to to protect our Bay. I would just ask you 

also to work closely with the members of this Committee and Congress that have a deep interest in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, I will. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

The EPA Inspector General recently released a report analyzing 

the Federal Government’s role in the lead contamination crisis in 

Flint, Michigan, with the hopes of avoiding another crisis in another city. 

Will you accept and implement the recommendations of the Inspector General? 

Mr. WHEELER. I know that our staff has reviewed the recommendations and we are in the process of planning an implementation program to make sure that we implement them. I haven’t 

been fully briefed on how we are going to implement them yet, but 

it is a high priority for the Agency, and we are moving forward to 

make sure that something like Flint, Michigan, does not happen 

again. 

Senator CARDIN. I guess that is the strongest commitment I am 

going to get here today, but I would just urge you, the Inspector 

General gives an independent view. 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. It is important that their report receives the respect from the Agency. 

Mr. WHEELER. It is. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

I also appreciate what you said about the work force, the people 

that work at the EPA. The first question I have, I recognize the 

struggle that every cabinet person has with OMB, but are you 

going to be an advocate for the funds necessary for the EPA in 

order to be able to carry out its work and be there fighting for the 

resources you need to carry out your mission? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, I am an advocate for the resources that we 

need, and we will fully implement the appropriations that Congress 

gives us. 

Senator CARDIN. That was the second question I was going to 

ask; you already anticipated it. The former staffer here understands the questions that are coming; that is good. 

Let me just follow up on that. You said that you wanted to respect the recommendations given to you by your scientists and your 

professional staff. I assume that also means the Science Advisory 

Board. That is a resource that you have, and it has been called into 

challenge in the last 2 years. 

Are you committed to allowing the experts to give you unfettered 

information for you to make decisions that need to be made? Will 

you also commit to allow them to participate in policy conferences 

so that you can have the interaction which we have seen over the 

long period of time with EPA? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator, I would commit to both of those. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Last, let me just ask you about your vision as to what you need 

in support in order to carry out your mission. The EPA is responsible for clean air, clean water, and for our clean environment. You 

169 

have a new toxic chemical law that has been working on. There is 

concern that chemicals are not being treated as intended by Congress. 

Do you pledge to work with us and outside interest groups to 

make sure that we do get an independent evaluation of issues such 

as toxic chemicals to make sure that they are given the independent evaluation as to whether they need to be regulated? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator, I do. I started my career in the 

toxics chemical program at EPA in 1991. I worked there for 4 

years, and I am excited to be part of the implementation of the new 

Lautenberg Chemical law, and we want to make sure that we are 

implementing it in the same manner in which Congress intended 

it when they passed it. 

Senator CARDIN. And if we have information, you will consider 

the information we send to you? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator, I will. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here today to testify. 

Senator Inhofe mentioned earlier the importance of certainty, 

and one of the things I would like to ask you about is the fact that 

on June 27th, then EPA Administrator Pruitt issued a memo reorienting the Agency’s approach to when and how it would veto Clean 

Water Act Section 404 permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

Recognizing the Agency has not acted on the authority often— 

only 13 times since 1980—the threat remains that the EPA could 

stop an infrastructure project that has already gone through a 

lengthy and expensive permitting process and already received approval to proceed. Threat adds uncertainty to permitting and jeopardizes support for infrastructure projects. 

Will EPA, under your direction, proceed with the rulemaking to 

align the 404(c) process with the June 27th memo? 

Mr. WHEELER. We are looking into that, and as we move forward, I think it is very important to provide that certainty, and I 

agree that, even though it has been rarely used by the Agency, it 

has created a lot of uncertainty even when it wasn’t used. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. We would appreciate your looking at 

that. 

As Acting Administrator, you will have a highly influential role 

in advising the President on how to implement or modify the regulatory footprint of environmental policy in our Nation. How do you 

anticipate your past experiences will help in improving the way the 

EPA engages with all stakeholders? 

Mr. WHEELER. First of all, having started my career at the Agency as a career employee, I think that has helped me a lot in understanding the processes and the people of the Agency. But I think 

my 14 years working here at this Committee and meeting with a 

wide variety of stakeholders from a number of States all across the 

country, international as well, has given me appreciation for the 

different conflicting policy areas that we have at the Agency and 

that we need to make sure that we are talking to all interested 

groups as we move forward with any regulation. 

170 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

A criticism of EPA during the previous Administration was the 

Agency’s disconnect with rural America. Rural America is having 

a difficult time right now. Many hardworking Americans in rural 

States felt they did not have a voice, and their opinions did not 

matter. 

What have you done, what do you feel, in other words, what is 

your planning in the future to facilitate a stronger level of trust between EPA and rural America? 

Mr. WHEELER. I think it is very important to make sure that all 

of our regulatory actions, our guidance documents, everything 

takes into account the impact on rural America. The announcement 

that we made last week on the sorghum pathway for the renewable 

fuels, that is going to help a lot of rural communities across the 

upper Midwest. I think making sure that we take actions like that 

to help grow the economy in rural areas is very important. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

EPA, during the Obama administration, encroached into other 

agencies’ jurisdictions, resulting in EPA making decisions on issues 

where they lack the expertise. 

Can we count on you to work with other agencies and take their 

expertise into careful consideration when developing and implementing rules and regulations? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, we will. We are taking those into consideration, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. It seems to me that our air permitting system 

is in desperate need of updating. The current system we have in 

place sometimes overstates the air quality impacts of new projects, 

which can lead to delays or canceled investments and lost opportunities. 

What does the Agency plan to do to fix the broken permitting 

and New Source Review programs? 

Mr. WHEELER. We have implemented several guidance documents, new guidance to the States and to the community on New 

Source Review, and we are looking at those now to see which ones 

of those we need to move forward on regulatory actions to make 

sure that we provide that certainty. 

As Senator Inhofe said on New Source Review, oftentimes it can 

be counterproductive on cleaning up the environment when it is a 

disincentive for installing cleaner, more efficient technologies. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Companies have made billions of dollars in investments complying with the 2013 Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule. While the rule was expensive, it was generally achievable. Unfortunately, regulatory uncertainty remains, given recent 

court decisions sending a couple of issues back to EPA to address. 

When will EPA complete this rulemaking so facilities can know 

they have met all of their boiler obligations? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, I am not positive on the timeline for 

that, but I would be happy to look into that and get back to your 

office. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

171 

Senator INHOFE [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much, sir. It is good to see you here. 

Mr. Wheeler, I want to focus on EPA’s TSCA implementation, if 

I can, and I would like to start by saying that I am pleased with 

the strategic plan that the EPA released to reduce animal testing. 

I was really grateful for that, and I hope that this is an issue that 

we can work together on moving forward. 

But overall, I am concerned about how the EPA is choosing to 

implement the changes to TSCA that my colleagues and I on this 

Committee—in a bipartisan way—worked so hard on last Congress. 

I know you are probably aware of that. 

One area I am concerned about is EPA’s failure to consider all 

the sources of exposure that people have to the toxic chemicals that 

EPA has started to review. In our amended TSCA law, EPA was 

told by Congress to examine the safety of all known, intended, and 

reasonably foreseeable uses of a chemical, and the combined impacts of all exposures to a particular chemical, when making their 

determination about whether a chemical presents an unreasonable 

risk of harm. 

But EPA’s problem formulations have dramatically narrowed the 

conditions that the Agency will use to evaluate the safety of the 

first 10 chemicals under TSCA. EPA is now indicating that it will 

ignore known exposures to those first 10 toxic chemicals, including 

for the known carcinogen TCE. EPA has warned since 2011 that 

TCE causes cancer, and in 2017 proposed to ban specific uses of 

TCE. But under Scott Pruitt’s leadership, EPA proposed to indefinitely postpone the ban on this deadly chemical. 

In New Jersey, we have many communities that have been 

harmed by TCE, but there is one community outside of New Jersey, in Franklin, Indiana, that I want to focus on. In Franklin, they 

discovered that the community has high levels of TCE in their 

groundwater and in the air outside many homes, and the children 

in Franklin are getting cancer at inordinately high rates. 

Carrie and Matt Rhinehart, who are in the audience right now, 

their daughter Emma Grace died 4 years ago from brain cancer 

when she was 13 years old. Stacy and Matt Davidson, who are also 

here, their son Zane has leukemia, but thank God, it is currently 

in recession. 

High level exposure of TCE makes these families partly vulnerably subpopulation under the TSCA law, but EPA is now saying 

that it will ignore exposures that come from land, air, and water, 

meaning it will ignore the types of TCE exposures that these and 

other families have so painfully endured in deciding whether or not 

TCE is safe. 

The scaling back of our bipartisan chemical safety law, one of the 

prouder moments I have had as a Senator, was set in motion by 

Scott Pruitt, and I am really hopeful that you are going to reverse 

course on what I think is a bad decision, and the families here 

agree with me. 

So, Mr. Wheeler, as part of the evaluation process, would you 

commit to comprehensively reviewing the risks of chemicals like 

172 

TCE by including known releases of chemicals into our air, water, 

and land, releases that threaten communities across the country? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, I am trying to keep track of all the parts 

of your question. On the last, let me start with that. It is tragic 

for any chemical to cause the death of a child, and my heart goes 

out to those families impacted by that. Absolutely, we need to be 

moving forward to do something on TCE and the other chemicals, 

which is why we included TCE on the list of the first 10 chemicals 

for review. 

Senator BOOKER. Well, I guess a yes or no is what I was asking. 

Would you commit to comprehensively reviewing the risks of 

chemicals by including known releases into our air, land, and 

water, released like TCE? 

Mr. WHEELER. It is my understanding that we are looking at 

those pathways as we look at the chemicals on the list. I will need 

to double-check with our chemical office on that, but it is my understanding it is part of the 10 chemicals, as TCE being one of the 

first 10 chemicals that we are examining, that we are examining 

the different pathways. 

Senator BOOKER. What I worry about, it was Scott Pruitt’s decision to move forward within 30 days to finalize the ban on specific 

uses of TCE. I am worried that that is something that is moving 

forward. We need to reverse that decision. Do you understand? 

Mr. WHEELER. I think I understand what you are saying, but let 

me check on the status of that. 

Senator BOOKER. And then let me very quickly, methylene chloride. In January 2017 EPA proposed banning all consumer and 

commercial uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers. The ban, 

though, was never finalized. 

In May your predecessor agreed to meet with mothers whose 

sons died suddenly from using paint strippers containing this toxic 

chemical, and a few days later, Scott Pruitt, today, we are going 

to finalize the proposed rule and send it out shortly, but since then 

we have seen nothing. It has been several months, and the mothers 

who were hoping to prevent other families from experiencing the 

loss of loved ones, people are really disheartened. 

So, my simple question, and I conclude with it, is will you commit to sending the proposed ban of consumer chemicals uses to 

OMB for the final review in the next 2 weeks? 

Mr. WHEELER. Well, we are continuing to work with OMB and 

the other agencies and departments that have equity on that chemical issue, and we are trying to move that forward as quickly as 

we can. I can’t commit to a specific timeframe, but we are trying 

to move that forward. 

Senator BOOKER. All right. There are a lot of families from the 

paint stripping chemicals sitting behind you right now that are 

really relying on you to save lives. There are extraordinary injustices going on with this kind of inaction by your Agency, and I hope 

that you will move with all deliberate speed to address these concerns. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Senator Ernst. 

173 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Mr. Wheeler, for being here today. I appreciate 

it. I know there has been a lot of talk about the small refinery exemptions, so I am going to dive in right with you. 

Over the past year and a half, EPA has taken actions that benefit refiners at the expense of farmers, and by retroactively granting an unprecedented number of small refinery exemptions, EPA 

effectively waived 2.25 billion gallons from refiners’ 2016 and 2017 

RFS obligations. 

Not only do these actions contradict President Trump’s pledge to 

uphold congressionally mandated volumes, but they have also destroyed corn and ethanol demand, leading to lost income for Iowa’s 

farmers, at a time when farm income is already at its lowest level 

since 2006. 

Yes or no, Mr. Wheeler, do you believe the RFS should be implemented in a manner consistent with the original intent of Congress? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, I do. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. So, let’s distill this even further, 

then. For compliance year 2017 the EPA granted 29 small refinery 

exemptions, totaling 1.45 billion gallons, which removes that many 

gallons from obligated parties’ compliance requirement, which is 

the 15 billion gallons, that is the implied corn ethanol requirement, 

minus the 1.45 billion gallons is 13.55 billion gallons. 

So, you just take the 15 that is implied, that is the requirement, 

minus the 1.45, and it gives you 13.55 billion gallons. So, that is 

about 10 percent below the statutory requirement, is that correct? 

It would be about 10 percent. 

Mr. WHEELER. I will trust your math, Senator, yes. 

Senator ERNST. OK. So, yes, it is about 10 percent below the 

statutory requirement. So, if these gallons aren’t reallocated somewhere, then you are not implementing the RFS in a manner that 

is consistent with the original intent of Congress, correct? 

Mr. WHEELER. Well, part of the original intent of Congress was 

also to grant the waivers, and there is not a provision for reallocating that. We are taking a look at that issue, but we are trying 

to be much more clear and transparent as we grant any small refinery waivers. As you are aware, we have been sued twice on this 

for not granting enough, and we have lost both times. 

Senator ERNST. I understand that. There is also an obligation, 

though, of 15 billion gallons, so those gallons that have been granted waivers for, we have to figure out a real allocation strategy. 

Mr. WHEELER. I agree we have to figure out a real allocation 

strategy, but we are confined by the law. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. The law does require 15 billion gallons. 

So, last November, before this Committee, you were committed 

to issuing a determination on whether or not the EPA can grant 

the Reid Vapor Pressure waiver, and just last week, in Iowa, President Trump again expressed support for removing the outdated 

regulatory barrier preventing the sale of E15 year-round and indicated his Administration is ‘‘very close to implementing the RVP 

waiver.’’ 

174 

Can you state for the record that EPA has the authority to begin 

a rulemaking process to provide RVP relief for ethanol blends of 

E15 and higher? 

Mr. WHEELER. We can certainly start that process. As you know, 

Senator, there are certainly people that don’t believe we have that 

authority. The legislation that this Committee considered last year 

would have been very clear in giving EPA that authority, but we 

are looking at that issue, as you and I have discussed a few times 

and am happy to discuss with you further, on moving forward on 

an RVP issue. 

Senator ERNST. And we find that that is very important and 

something that the President has committed to. 

I will say, in closing, that RVP parity and the sale of E15 yearround is a no cost solution that will expand a domestic market for 

farmers who have been adversely impacted by retaliatory tariffs. 

RVP parity would not only boost commodity prices, but also be 

viewed across rural America as the Trump administration taking 

concrete action to help during a time of economic hardship. 

Acting Administration Wheeler, I do encourage you to follow 

through on the President’s directive and remove this unnecessary 

and ridiculous restriction. I look forward to working with you on 

these issues. I know we will have many, many discussions to follow. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator. I look forward to those. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Taking the prerogative of the Chairman, I want to recognize myself for a unanimous consent request. 

Last week, Platts ran a story entitled ‘‘U.S. Small Refinery Waivers Not Likely Lowering Biofuel Blending.’’ The article cites Sandra 

Dunphy, an independent analyst who testified last week before the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee, and I ask unanimous 

consent to enter this article into the record at this point. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

175 


34874.156

Platts 

Volume 98 1 Issue 146/ Thursday, July 26, 2018 

Hess sees active year offshore Guyana 

Drilling program, evaluations of potential developments to intensify 

Houston-Hess anticipates an active 2018 

drll!ing program in the Stabroek Block offshore 

Guyana on the heels of a raised evaluation of 

resources at the prolific oii~PfOnc play where 

eight discoveries have been made in the last 

three years. 

• More prOSflects seen for Stabroek Block 

• Appraisals of Ranger, TurboH.ongtail in $lore 

• 3~DinterpOOtionplannedforl<aieteurB!ock 

And on Kaieteur, a new offshore block 

adjacent to Stabroek where Hess took a 15% 

stake in April, the work program thiS year calls 

for processing and interpretation of 3~0 seismic 

and evaluation of future dnlting, Hess Chief 

Operating Officer Greg Hill satd during the 

company's second-quarter earnings calL 

ExxonMoblf is a partner in both Stabroek 

and Kaieteur, a 3.3 million-acre block roughly 

the size of 580 Gulf of Mexico blocks, each of 

which Is three miles square. 

At Stabroek, a 6.6 million-acre block, "we 

will see numerous more prospects.~ Hill said 

"ExxonMobil said, and we'd agree, there are 

probably another 20 exploration prospects on 

the block to drilL~ 

The block partners. which also include 

China's CNOOC, are in the finQI phases of drilling 

the top section on an appraisal well i:lt Ranger, a 

discovery unveiled last January. After that, the 

Hammerhead prospect wf!l be drilled, after 

which ''we'!! most likely go back to Ranger for 

IUither appraisal," H!U said. 

In addition, the trio also "have a lot of stuff 

to do at Turbot-longtail," a potential future 

development area thought to contain more 

than 500 million barrels of recoverable oil, he 

added. More wens are likely in that area, along 

with a potential "good resource increase.~ 

"There wm be more and more at the 

Turbot-Longtail area," Hill said. 

The Turbot discovery was announced 

last October and longtai! was announced 

just last month. 

Hess CEO John Hess said the partners want 

Russia lifts output forecasts after OPEC move to wind back cuts 

Moscow-Russia's energy ministry has increased 

its forecast for 2018 domestic crude output to 

reflect the latest decision under the OPEC-led 

deal on lncreasing production, energy minister 

Alexander Novak said Wednesday. 

• Crude flows to rise 1% in 2018: Novak 

• Forecast sees 2018 output rise 90,000 bid 

• Moscow pledged to pump 200,000 bid more 

Russia is now expected to produce 551 

mlllion mt this year, up 0.8% on the year, Novak 

said. The figure translates to 11.065 million b/d, 

under the widely used 7.33 barrels per metric ton 

conversion rate. On that basis, Russian cmde 

output growth this year would amount to about 

90,000 b/d, accordmg to the latest forecast. 

The ministry's daily output fi9ure, however, 

has varied in the past because it uses different 

rates per day depending on the fields from 

which the crude comes. 

"ln light of the latest decision on the OPEC 

plus deal to gradually increase crude output, we 

have revised the crude output forecast for the 

whole of 2018 and have increased it by about 

3.5 mil!lon mt to 551 million mt," he saki in the 

ministry statement. 

Novak said he expects Russian crude 

output to rise 0.9% in 2019 to 555 million mt, 

reiterating the forecast from earlier this month. 

but warning the estimates may change. 

"These are preliminary forecasts -a lot will 

depern:l on market dynamics and the need to 

correct our cou;se;• he said. 

Under the OPEC-led deal in effect from 

January 2017 and intended to cut a combined 

l.B million b/d of members' output, Russia 

initially agreed to cut 300,000 bid from the 

October 2016 base level of 11.246 million bid. 

With the terms of the deal originally expected to 

apply through 2018, Russia had planned to keep 

its output 11at year on year. 

Following the decision in June by OPEC and 

its partners to boost output by 1 million bid 

combined from May levels, however, Russia 

pledged to bring an extra 200,000 b/d onto the 

mmket starting this month. 

www.platts.com 'fJI www twitter.com/P!attsOH 

TOP STORIES 

Argentina's 

~ 

NeuQUen oR production hits 

nearly4..yearhlgh 

Oil prOOuction in Ne!,!Q\Ien. an Argentirnan 

orovincehometothehugeVaCi1Mucrt<Jslli11C 

play,n?<lchedanearlylour·teJThighinJ!me. 

whileouliJutotrtiltutaiqdsllila10-yef!rl1iqlf_ 

~ 

Strong runs, exports pressure US crude 

stocks lower 

In Other News 

NorthAslanjet fuel hits ll•month low 

onseesonalweakness 

Rosneft seeks damages from SakhaUn 

li}Brtners 

Iraq to inkPetrofac deal fur 200,000 b!tl 

Majnoon capacity boost 

Slastneerlraq'sBasraol!fieldhelghtens 

risk outlook 

South SUdan drops talks with Total over 

oil block deal 

US small refinery waivers not likely lowering 

biofue!blend!ng 

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU 

Email the editors at Piatts Oilgram News with yOUf 

comments, questions or news at pofl@platts.com 

Oil 
176 


34874.157

OllGRAM NEWS I VOlUME 96/lSSU[ \46 I THURSDAY, JULY 26. 2018 

US small refinery waivers not likely lowering biofuel blending 

Washington-The US Environmental Protection 

Agency's occeferated use of waiverS e~empting 

smol! refineries from the renewable fuel mandate is not likely lowering biofue! blending, a 

market expert told a House of Representatives 

subcommittee Wednesday. 

Ethanol credits have plunged 71% since the 

start of the year, in part because former EPA 

Admimstrator ScoU Pruitt expanded the use of 

hardship waivers to small refineries. White 

House talkS to reform the Renewable Fuel 

Standard, which have been put on indefinite 

hold, also pushed Renewable Identification 

Numbers sharply lower. 

Sandra Dunphy, director of energy 

compliance serVIces for Texas-based 

accounting firm weaver, said small refiners are 

not likely taking those waivers tor granted for 

the current year. 

EPA issues the waivers for past years' 

compliance, meaning refmers must continue to 

blend biotue! and buy Renewable Identification 

Numbers to fulfill their current-year obligation. 

NT hey will continue to blend renewable 

fuels and buy RINS as needed because they 

don't know they're going to get the 

exempt1ons at the 12th hour when they go to 

report to the EPA by March 31 of the following 

yeart Dunphy said. 

SfiP Global Platts assessed 06 ethanol 

Renewable IdentifiCation Numbers for 2018 

compliance at 20.25 cents/RIN Tuesday. 

Platts 

~ 

OILGRAM NEWS Volume 96/lssue 146/Thu~ay, July 26,2018 

ChldEdllllf 

~~~O<!nhl<!,g,Jf)'g!!flWe@~PQiohi!l com 

~~~~~:e£~~~1;ve><1J~;()QIO!Blcorn 

R<.IOO<\Po:rkoos 

APAC~Ior£<11tor 

Si!!MI!Monooty 

;:::~~~~P<eduetlon 

mtt;Prnk!e:nt 

Ma<l,...f<~O~Kel 

RINS are tradable crediTs issued by EPA !o 

track product1on and use of alternative 

transportation fuels. For corn~based ethanol, 

one gallon of ethanol yields one RIN. 

Dunphy made the comments dunng a 

hearing on RINs by the House Energy and 

Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. 

She urged the lawmakers to ask small 

refineries if EPA's waiver policy has changed 

how they operate. 

HI think you will find that they have not 

changed their blending policy,~ she said. "They 

continue to bltmd, they continue to purchase 

RINs. What they do is focus on current-year 

RINs, rather than the prior year." 

lf the plant receives an exemptmn later, it 

can still use the current-year RINs for the 

following year. 

"That puts more RtNs into the market,~ 

Dunphy said. HBut does rt: destruct demam of the 

current year? I would say if you look at R!N data 

through June, we're at the same production level 

that we were in 2017 and we're halfway towards 

meeting the 201Bcompliance {obl!gations]. 

uWhether that Will hold true for !he entire 

year, I don't know," she said. 

Blofuel groups and lawmakers from farm 

states accused Pru'1tt of using the wa1vers as a 

backdoor to undermine the biofuel mandate. The 

process is not expected to change drastically 

~~;-r ~eli"-? ~dmimstrator Andrew Wheeler. 

02018S&PGiotlaiP•atts,&l:llws;onotS!:IPGioballnc.AIIrightsreserveo j 9 

MARKETS & DATA 

NYMEXWTI, ICE BRENT CRUDE OIL FRONT MONTH DAILY SETTLES 

GLOBAL GAS PRICE COMPARISON 

27-Jun ll•J\!1 

Sou>ce;Piatts,pnr.escreHmncted 
177 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Welcome, Administrator Wheeler. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As you know, I viewed your predecessor’s 

tenure as one characterized by tawdry personal behavior in office, 

a desire to do damage to the Agency that he led, a flagrant absence 

of transactional integrity and horrible environmental policies, and 

I see you as a remedy to three of those four, so in that sense I welcome you. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator, three out of four. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My visit to you, I appreciated very much 

your courtesy in having me in, and I very much hope that you follow through on putting Teddy Roosevelt’s picture up on your wall. 

I think that would be a good reminder and a good signal. 

A lot of what needed to be repaired at EPA had to do with process stuff, rather than the substantive disagreement you and I may 

have on environmental issues, and some of the process stuff had 

to do with enforcement. In the first 9 months of the Trump administration which we have data for, enforcement actions declined by 

30 percent compared to the first 9 months of the Bush administration, and more than 35 percent compared to the first 9 months of 

the Obama administration. 

In that same period, EPA sought 50 percent less in fines and 

money for environmental cleanup than in the Bush administration 

and almost 90 percent less than under the Obama administration. 

Some of that appears to have been a decision made by the EPA Office of Compliance and Enforcement to seek headquarters’ approval 

before beginning certain investigatory actions, and I have the 

memo here: ‘‘Effective immediately OECA Headquarters review is 

required prior to issuance of information requests under the Clean 

Air Act, RCRA, and the Clean Water Act.’’ 

I would ask that memo be made an exhibit. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

178 


34874.158

MAY 3 1 2017 

Sl tUECT: 

FJ~(HI; Su!'.Jn Shinkm~1n. 

TO: 

Clflh:t: C1\il 

Re·~ional Coun"'l 

Hc.~Kmal Enti>rccmcnt Dirc~tm:, Rcgionai Ent<,n·cmcnt ('.:;orditt:ll('f' 

OCE Dh i>ion Direch>r:> 

m~·rnnt~trh.h.lm ,~stn~li:-.h¢~ i~th::rim pt'f}C\.~un::-t OEC,t\ rt..~·dcw t"i' ~·~rt;;tin intf,rnuni~"n 

!l."\...tl<.~,t~ hdfJr·;;: the: urc ix~th.:J h~ cn1\'rl:t:rrt>;;;Ttt ~tati 

-\:,; t'll m.ay iia'~ ~<:~n. on \·Lty 1.5. ::n1 7. ()E( ·.\ ·, IJnic.t nl' < 'rn11plmn<:~ tO{ 'i is~m:d lh<-

<'ttL.:n:·hed 'httt-rfm Uuidance on Rr"quin,:d Rt~portin~or ( \luJtitotln$!, h~!or~wttau 

J?,·,tu,-,•~< itt!C/S" 10 cn~urc" mt>tc nati<•na!l~· ~:c>thist•:nl •·vmpkl<: ac.:vuming of Jc'\k'ral 

cnmpliar.cl! monitoring ;md cnlorccmcm activit~<:<. ll OFCA nnd rt•ginn.11 nfllcc< ,,., 

cnt.'r "''r1aitt tnini,num dalit intn !ClS after iss\ll!m:c of an lnt(>nmation n:que't. 

nc interim tPJidttr:t:c ~1ft;~,, rcrni""i" cnk1rccrncnt :-,tan~ ~lh(HJl ~'l:rai itnpttttuu1 prt"'~is.')>uancc 

tnn)rmatHJn \.'O:l~H.h:.~ralltJn~ the n4""~d tt) \~p ... ·n a ca:.c fit(! atld t:f~r'r\firH1h," \dth f"~t;lt': 

uffic.::-. <H·\ .\ di..;J..:u:'~ed ;unt •}th>!r hdpfui cnn::;idcr.ltinn..; in UK~ Jtta~ht:\J )uf~ 

,~tNI! mt~·mucJnJum .:n?ilkd, F1;h4ilt't-·tn:: rh .. , fNi.·d:t'r/nt q ol buurmat1on Rrqut'\'ts tn R<~'.:f-'!atfH:\· 

r)ttnrt. cmo:t \ltJifrJ'\ 

l·P.·\ fU;, hh.1,1J ~mthorit;. tn \dh."tht:r -~.-·rniti;;s OX\' \iOitHiog t!"n\'ir\'HmcnmJ L1'\~ 

lnl(>rm~tit>t~ rc«ucst.s tmch:r { I~. RCRA ~ Jl)H7 and C\\A ~ 10F arc u~.:fuland ll<'I:C'>tlf\ 

l<'<'l< !hat hclpt~> ensure th:H F!'t\ can cnthr<:c "'~' trnnmc-ntal !nw~ and pn>tt'l:l hc<tlllL ' 

n~~: alst> can re<lt!<'C the r.•gul;ucd <'<'1111l11!111tJ·, harden h} 1.1'.-\ 

h"l Ulnr,.... tailftr lllt-"'"ir nn~ite ins,p>edmn$. and in snme <:a~" h~ ~(1 

{h~lt nn l.;nf~Jn;-~,"'l'ltt;·nt ~H .. '\hm h \.\£1IT,:'!t11Cd 

t:ll\UP: t.'dft'lbJ \.'("111!\.-idt:"r.Hinn rCH+U'tlif'it~ FPA'-.: U">\~ r)fh~ inthrrntttinn 

<H>.: imnt~m¢ntittb tlw inlc:t1m nn,.•·uun:~~;;;!~~~~~~l-:. 
179 


34874.159

\ote v, OfC ~ill) re\icw i~ r~\juir<..'t! if StKh samplm~; ''' tci\lin~ 1s 

permit an-J "'l:i nN t<lf111'1<'1ed b) the .:ntil~. or rcqu.::~l$ n1erd: 10 

~·,lstinlr!. :;,ampling-;tg~tinf! dattl or otht:r do;;ur:nz·r1t5 

(I' • R.:quc"t' in auti"!4'>Ti.ted <>r dekj~<W:d >t"t~ "l~re l'J' .\ kn'''' ~ t!Mt U' .\ ,mJ 

by hl\\ or 

airt~.tJ;.. 

statt: ~tf\' n<"~ tn ~1,green1t'nt t"'n Jtn.~.ction ,.rf the m.;.ttter tlf iht: 

\\ "h~t~ r P.\ ha5 t1H inft~r-rn&h<- !1 

\htt~~tk1n ,~f \h~· 

'.;ntt;;>: :\~ stnh:d tn th1: ~uacht"'J Jt)l;. 10-{q \\!Wn i,~utnl! inff\n'r~tn!.~:-1 r~·"p~~~t"': 

th.:n is .J. vit•Jar.~ .. "n :u ;:t maH:cr of A1Z~n·.:v prar:rt,-~ 

!:!..: 5td1li.'lcnt h' dt.~kn11me t:1r cad1 if.~·lr"'?t.:ni bas:.'-' 

ht: in vlt"'la~it"fl (C g \\here C~Ur 

rnet:1 

r•f the ~1~"· c crit~rL1. pkJ::;..: 

;f)Ur an~ ~xrhmntpr~~ \\ith th4.." 

ap:pn-.pri~:ttc i )(~E D~\ l!-'iOU1 rn t~\lllu;lh; ti~ t'fOt!':''-<·J r~qur:,"'t in a 

rTM>ttn"""r ~)r ch~\.:;Uc nny i~s-u:es a:\ nct"iit.''tl \-\i;h a guai ,pfn::<>~"tnJin~·tt~ yc··ur rc\.p.J ... ":-~~ ~t:-. r·rnrr:rtly .15 

vn..:,ihtc mfrdrni;.;lng il.!t: undue 

·\l"' ;'IE'.l'~ !li'.:: OH'A liQ a hcaJs up nn 

pulclk. ,•Je.:t-ed \>flid,•l 

T \ ~:ni~tnl. !)~ li I. '-'RD U·\ 

(tEC."\ ~!« CU'tlct~ t'-f C<}-tllt"itln<.·t•. "hH-.."'rirn fh.~:tdan~,. nn f~~"-lnin.""d K"'"f'~}nin:.; (ti t\mtp!i.Pl"':"'' 

\hm!Wrinjl fnf,,rm:tti,,n R~q1re«t' in !CIS" 1 \lav ! '· :oi 7• 

Ft1'1:!...':ti\<:·n'l."''' 1"f l;tli_,-!rt;,Hr•rn 

~:!}: 11 ! 
180 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What is your intention regarding that 

headquarters review stymying of what had always been the prerogative of the different regional agencies in getting information about 

potential environmental violations? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, I haven’t seen that memo. Is there a 

date? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. This memo was dated May 31. 

Mr. WHEELER. Of this year or last year? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Of 2017. So it has been in place for a 

while. Obviously, if you have to run the ability to even ask information requests through headquarters, that gives headquarters the 

chance to either just create massive institutional delay or even put 

the kibosh on an investigation from its very beginning, and that 

doesn’t seem like the right role for headquarters. 

Mr. WHEELER. I was not aware of that memo. I would point out, 

though, that we did not have a Senate confirmed person and head 

of OECA until December of last year. I believe that is the longest 

time that the Agency had ever gone without a Senate confirmed enforcement person. I think the numbers have gone up significantly 

since Susan Bodine took over the office, and I think the program 

itself has improved quite a bit. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I would like to ask you to get back 

to me on whether this memo is still in place. 

Additionally, one of the problems that bedeviled people trying to 

get information out of EPA was that FOIA requests were customarily provided extremely slowly, and often only after litigation to 

force the issue; and Members of Congress, myself included, were 

told we will get you the information you ask for when we get 

around to it through the FOIA process. 

I don’t think either of those is good practice for a public agency. 

Could you let me know what you are doing with respect to FOIA 

compliance and with respect to Committee requests for information? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. First of all, on FOIA, I know at the 

beginning of this Administration we had a 700 FOIA case backlog, 

some cases going back to 2008. We have cleared up the entire backlog. 

I would also just point out, for the Administrator’s Office at EPA, 

we saw a 415 percent increase in the number of FOIA requests. 

What we are doing is we consolidated the FOIA program into one 

office under our General Counsel’s Office, and we are in the process 

of hiring additional FOIA people. 

On the requests to the Committee, as Senator Carper could tell 

you, when I worked here on staff, I worked very hard to make sure 

that the minority received information from the Agency, and I will 

continue to do that as the Acting Administrator at EPA. I know 

that we have responded to 54 of 67 requests from the minority 

members of this Committee over the last year and a half. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. I will send you a list of the 

ones that remain outstanding, and you can plow through those as 

well. 

Let me just close by saying that I know you have worked very 

closely with industry for a long time, and I hope that you will give 

your very serious and earnest consideration to the concerns of peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:29 Feb 25, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\34874.TXT SONYA
181 

ple like me from coastal States. We are seeing climate change driven sea level rise that is going to require us to redraw the map of 

my damn State. If that is not something to make a Senator serious 

about protecting it, I don’t know what is. 

So, I hope that in this position you will take into account not 

only the concerns of industry and the concerns of the square States 

in the middle of the country that don’t have coasts, but those of us 

who are looking at actually having to redraw the maps because of 

what is happening. 

Thanks very much. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wheeler, first of all, welcome to the Committee; it is good to 

see you once again, sir. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. I appreciate your interest in your opening 

statement regarding certainty and the desire to move forward with 

certainty and transparency. I do think what Senator Ernst was trying to get at with regard to the Renewable Fuel Standard and the 

small refinery limitation, or at least an exemption for them, and 

how those two fit together, I would like to explore that with you 

a little bit. Because it is critical that the Renewable Fuel Standard 

remain in effect and that it be honored and that it be something 

that producers in the central part of the country can count on. 

They have invested billions of dollars in creating an ethanol industry, and one that they had expected to be in until at least the year 

2022. 

Now, if we read this correctly, there clearly was the intent of 

Congress that there be, for traditional ethanol production, a 15 billion gallon per year allowance. We also understand that within 

that same legislation that there was an allowance that you could 

make exceptions for hardship for small refineries. There was nothing that we can find that indicates that that would limit or reduce 

the 15 billion gallon minimum for traditional ethanol production. 

Can you share with me where you would come up with or where 

there would be logic in taking or in reducing the Renewable Fuel 

Standard from the 15 billion to follow what was already included 

in the original law? In other words, when we wrote the law, when 

Congress wrote the law, they clearly understood that 15 billion was 

there and made clear. They also understood that we would take 

into account that small refineries may have a hardship. There was 

nothing that indicated that that 15 billion would be reduced. 

Can you share with me a little bit your thought process on why 

you would not continue to push and to reallocate for the 15 billion 

gallons? 

Mr. WHEELER. Well, as one of the former congressional staffers 

who helped write that section of the law, I wish we had spent a 

little bit more time on some of the details of it now that I am helping to implement it. I could start by saying that we are working 

to provide more transparency around the small refinery program, 

the exemption program. 

182 

We are creating a dashboard where we will publicize all the information about when we grant a waiver and the circumstances 

around the waiver. We have to balance that with the confidential 

business information of the impacted companies, but we are working to try to be more transparent on that side of the program, and 

we are looking to see what we can do as far as making up the difference when we have to grant a waiver from the 15 billion gallons. 

But it is not a clear cut—— 

Senator ROUNDS. If I could, I don’t think, and I don’t find any 

place where it says it is a waiver from the 15 billion. I think it says 

an individual refinery may get from their responsibility, but that 

doesn’t absolve us from meeting the 15 billion gallon limit. 

Mr. WHEELER. I agree. But then you have the problem, though, 

that the waivers are being requested and granted after the numbers have already been set, and we are talking about whether we 

can go back retroactively to change the numbers and change the 

compliance numbers for the other people in the industry. 

Senator ROUNDS. Well, I like the fact that you are looking at 

transparency within this process, and in fact, I think you are moving in the right direction. I actually sent a letter to your predecessor, dated April 13th of this year, requesting that the EPA provide more information on the factors that go into the granting of 

small refinery exemptions. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the copy of 

the letter be entered into the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

183 


34874.160

MIKE HOUNDS 

United 5tatrs Senate 

Aprill3, 2018 

The Honorable Scott Pruitt 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Pruitt, 

V:ASl+iN{,!(,N, [lC H~',>lil 

J am writing to reiterate my strong support for the Renewable Fuel Standard. I appreciate the 

time your staff has taken to discuss this issue with me and I would like to request additional 

infonnation regarding the unusually high number of small refinery waivers issued in 2016 and 

2017. 

Com ethanol production is a vital component of the South Dakota economy. The corn ethanol 

industry supports thousands of jobs in South Dakota and contributes a significant amount of 

revenue to South Dakota communities. It is essential that we be provided with comprehensive 

information that allows us to have a full understanding of the waiver process and the impact 

these waivers will have on the agricultural economy of South Dakota. 

Section 201l(o)(7) of the Clean Air Act allows the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a waiver to small refineries that process less than 75,000 

barrels per day of crude oiL 1 "Il1ese waivers are to be limited to refineries for which RFS 

compliance creates a "disproportionate economic hardship" and must be issued in consultation 

with the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture. 2 

It has been reported that the EPA issued approximately 20 waivers exempting refineries from 

RFS compliance in 2016 and at least 25 for 2017 compliance. 3 This large number of waivers has 

the potential to reduce domestic ethanol demand by billions of gallons, reducing the mandated 15 

billion gallons of ethanol required to be blended in liquid fuels and hurting American farmers 

and American agriculture. 

At a Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on April 1 1. 2018, Secretary of 

Agriculture Sonny Perdue expressed his concern that reducing the mandated blending 

requirement of 15 billion gallons creates "demand destruction'' I am concerned that this 

1 https://www,epa.gov/renewablc-fuel-standard-program/rencwab!e-fuel-standard-exemptions-smalkefineries 

1 https:J/www.epa.govtrenewable-fuel-standard-program/requests-volume-rcquirement-waiver-under.renewablefuel-standard 

1 https:f/www .houstonchronidc.com/business/anicle/With-Oood-of-EPA-waiverHefineries-find-way-12805971 .php 
184 


34874.161

'"destruction'' will be particularly felt by South Dakota Ianners and ethanol producers who 

produce 7 percent of our nation's ethanol. 

Additionally, impacts from potential Chinese trade retaliation have yet to be realized. Any 

potential implications from trading contlicts with China will greatly impact American 

larmers. This. combined with the decrease in corn ethanol demand created by the issuance of 

these waivers will be tremendously costly and detrimental to American farmers, particularly 

those in South Dakota. who produced an estimated 788million bushels of com in 2017. 

While 1 am pleased to hear the president express his support for the sale ofF 15 year-round. and I 

strongly encourage you to consider granting an RVP waiver to allow for increased sales 

of ethanol, l remain extremely concerned about the quantity of corn ethanol being eliminated 

from the U.S. market as a result of the large number of waivers issued. 

I am writing to request information regarding the small refinery waivers granted in 2016 and 

2017. Specifically, I would like to know, to the greatest extent possible: 

• How many waivers have been granted waiving RFS compliance for 2016 and 2017? 

• How many gallons of corn ethanol are displaced as a result of these waivers? 

What factors does the EPA consider when deciding whether to grant a waiver? 

• What action does the EPA plan to take to make certain that despite these waivers, the 

demand for com ethanol remains at the statutorily required level of 15 billion gallons per 

year? 

! appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to you response. 

Sincerely, 

J1. 

M. M~if~ Michael Rounds 

United States Senato 
185 

Senator ROUNDS. I have yet to receive a substantive response to 

the letter, as requested, and this is an issue which is of serious 

consequence to my constituents in South Dakota and throughout 

the upper Midwest. 

Would you commit to reviewing this request and responding to 

it in a substantive manner? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator, I will do that. 

Senator ROUNDS. I understand that information that is designated as confidential business information has reportedly been a 

factor in granting small refinery exemptions, but there must be aspects of the EPA’s decisionmaking process that do not strictly fall 

under this definition, and I just hope that you would continue—in 

an open and transparent process—to share with us the process that 

you are using in granting these. 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. The other piece of this, sir, the RVP across the 

United States, as the President has indicated his interest in doing 

it, I would hope that we would expedite that process so that we can 

actually start marketing this product across the United States year 

round. And if that happens, I think a lot of the issues surrounding 

meeting that RFP would be handled, because with those markets 

available year round, it means people would actually buy the 

equipment, have the equipment available if they could use it 

throughout the year. Those pumps are expensive, and they don’t 

want to use it if the EPA is going to come in and say you can use 

it 6 months out of the year, but not year round. 

Would you commit to trying to expedite that part of this process 

to see if we can’t get this behind us and help this industry to succeed? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, as I am sure you know, that was part of 

a broader package of a deal trying to address concerns of the oil 

refining industry, along with the concerns of the ethanol producers, 

and I am looking actively to try to figure out how we go forward—— 

Senator ROUNDS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time has passed, but you have taken 

care of the small refineries. What about the small farmers? What 

about the folks that are producing on a year to year basis enough 

to get buy in a time in which we have trade issues in front of us, 

at a time in which they expected that an RFP would be honored 

by the Federal Government that we made several years ago? 

You have taken care of the small refineries, but you haven’t 

taken care of the small farmers. I think we should look at that. 

Mr. WHEELER. The RVO number for 2019 is, I believe, 500 million gallons more than what it was the previous year. We also 

added the sorghum pathway to help farmers in finding another 

biofuel feedstock for the RFS program. 

We are looking very actively to see what we can do to provide 

more not just flexibility in the program, but more assistance to the 

agricultural community. 

Senator ROUNDS. Look forward to working with you, sir. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

186 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wheeler, welcome. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I had a question along the lines that Senator Carper asked you. He asked you about the Delaware filing 

under the Good Neighbor Petition provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Maryland also filed a petition back in November 2016. EPA did not 

respond to it until just a few months ago, at which time they said 

they proposed to deny the petition. 

This is an issue that has united all Marylanders, Republicans 

and Democrats alike. All of our members of the congressional delegation sent a letter to EPA asking EPA to take another look at 

this. Governor Hogan, a Republican Governor, has asked the same 

thing. 

So, the first ask I would have is the same that Senator Carper 

made of you. Would you commit to meet with our Maryland Department of Environment Secretary, Ben Grumbles, to go over 

Maryland’s position on the Good Neighbor Petition? 

Mr. WHEELER. I would be happy to meet with Mr. Grumbles. I 

have known him for years and worked with him briefly. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate it. 

The letter we got back from EPA said that there was not enough 

information. I think Ben Grumbles, if you know him, is very diligent. I looked at it; he provided a lot of information. And that it 

was too costly, even though what we are asking for is plants in 

these other States to just apply already existing technology. 

Do you have any details on why EPA proposed to deny the Maryland petition? 

Mr. WHEELER. I don’t, and I have not looked at the Maryland petition in the 4 weeks that I have been Acting Administrator. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I understand. I appreciate your willingness to do that and meet with Secretary Grumbles. I think it is important because it is simply unfair, and the Clean Air Act envisioned this, its amendments envisioned this, that some States are 

doing their job to clean up their air, but their air gets polluted by 

States that are not doing their job. So, I hope we can resolve this 

issue. 

I think you live in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in Virginia, 

is that right? 

Mr. WHEELER. I do, Senator, yes. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. The Bay agreements over a long period of 

time have been one of the great environmental success stories. You 

always feel like you are running in place with the Bay because 

there is such a drainage basin from so many States and so much 

development. But the good news is, as a result of these agreements, 

and most recently the 2014 agreement, we appear to be making 

progress. Long way to go, but progress. 

The most recent agreement included a provision with respect to 

the TMDL, total maximum daily load. Can you commit that you, 

as the Acting Head of the EPA, will continue to enforce EPA’s role 

within that agreement? 

187 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. I also want to point out it is good 

news on the Bay. We have a lot of work to do, but just over the 

last 10 years the seagrass in the Bay have gone from 34,000 acres 

up to 100,000 acres, and that is one of the first indicators of a 

healthy bay. So, I think we have made a lot of progress, and we 

continue to make progress. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate that. 

In the House, our House colleagues attached a provision to the 

environmental appropriations bill, a rider to eliminate EPA’s enforcement authority under that agreement. I am assuming that you 

would oppose that limitation on your enforcement authority, is that 

right? 

Mr. WHEELER. We would certainly like to keep all the enforcement authorities that we can, yes. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. 

Now, just last week EPA released a 2016–2017 milestone at midpoint progress report on the Bay, and again, as you indicated, I indicated, there has been some progress. It did note that the State 

of Pennsylvania is not meeting its targets for agriculture and 

urban-suburban runoff. Actually, as part of the Farm Bill I have 

worked on a bipartisan basis to increase the funds available under 

the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, so hoping that 

will go forward as part of the ag bill. 

But what actions can EPA take? As you know, a lot of the pollution in the Bay does come down the Susquehanna River, major 

tributary to the Bay. This has been an ongoing challenge. What can 

EPA do to help all of us improve Pennsylvania’s performance? 

Mr. WHEELER. We are trying to work more cooperatively with all 

the States in the Chesapeake Bay region. I mentioned to Senator 

Cardin that in my first week as a Deputy Administrator I attended 

the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and next week I will be attending the Chesapeake Bay Leadership Council meeting in Baltimore, 

and that will be my first meeting on the Chesapeake Bay since I 

have assumed the duties of Acting Administrator. 

I need to look a little bit more into what we can do to work with 

Pennsylvania, but we are trying to work cooperatively with all the 

States in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. No, I appreciate that, and EPA has played 

a vital role, so I appreciate your commitment there. 

I will say, as your own EPA report indicated, the pollution coming down the Susquehanna River from Pennsylvania remains a 

major challenge, so we want to work cooperatively with Pennsylvania as well, but we really do need your help. So, thank you. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Wheeler, for being here with us today. I would 

first like to take a moment to express my appreciation for your emphasis on improving transparency and increasing good governance 

practices at the EPA. From what I have heard in the testimony 

thus far, very cooperative spirit on both sides of the aisle to help 

not just with our national issues, but with our State issues as well, 

and certainly appreciate that. 

188 

As you well know, West Virginia bore the brunt of the last 8 

years of bureaucratic red tape coming out of Washington, a lot of 

it from the EPA. We are climbing out of that. Our unemployment 

rate is near its lowest since 2008; our growth rate is tracking the 

national average, and maybe in some has even exceeded the national rate, which is great. And this is in anticipation of things that 

are going on now, the regulatory relief that you have been a part 

of at the EPA, the tax reform and infrastructure investments. 

So, we are encouraged by what we see, but we still have a labor 

participation rate that is lower, and we need to use our skilled 

work force deployed in responsible and innovative utilization of our 

natural resources, which we have in abundance in my State. 

My first question is on the Clean Power Plan. As you know, I 

think you know, I am sure you know, that Appalachia was essentially ignored when the Clean Power Plan first rule was proposed. 

We couldn’t get the EPA to come. Subsequently, this EPA held its 

first hearing in West Virginia and heard opinions from all sides 

about the Clean Power Plan. 

I have talked about our growing economy in West Virginia and 

being led by our energy sector. I would like to know from you how 

do you plan to address the failings that were in the previous Clean 

Power Plan? Where are you on this, and do you expect your rule 

will return to an inside the fence approach and use technologies 

that are actually commercially available? That was another sticking point, requiring technologies that were never commercially viable and touting them as being a panacea, I think, which we knew 

did not really exist. 

Your comments on the Clean Power Plan. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. On my first day as Acting 

Administrator, we sent a new proposal to OMB for interagency review for replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The difference, I 

would say, between this approach and the approach of the Obama 

administration is that we are following the four corners of the 

Clean Air Act in what we are proposing. 

The 2015 proposal had the dubious distinction of being the first 

environmental regulation to have a stay issue by the Supreme 

Court, and I believe that was done because it was outside of what 

the law directed us to do. So, we are going to follow the law, and 

hopefully the proposal will be coming out for public comment sometime in the next 30 to 60 days. 

Senator CAPITO. OK. Thank you. 

I want to talk about chemical safety thresholds. I would encourage a particular emphasis on the PFOS. This is a chemical that has 

been found in waters particularly in the Parkersburg and Martinsburg area of our State. I had previously urged transparency with 

the former Administrator when it came to release of the toxicological report that came out that was very long and very complicated, so I can’t really interpret that for you. I am hoping that 

you will do that as well. 

So, would you agree that the PFOS issue is a serious concern and 

is a high priority within the EPA? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely, it is a serious concern, and it is a high 

priority. It was actually one of the first briefings that I requested 

from the career staff at the Agency when I first started as the DepVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:29 Feb 25, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\34874.TXT SONYA
189 

uty Administrator, and it remains a priority for me and for the 

Agency as we move forward. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, thank you for that. I think that was obviously the intent of the law that we all worked on, bipartisan, but 

I am concerned that we still don’t have a leveling of the appropriate levels both in safety levels either in the soil or in the water, 

and it is causing a lot of concern for me as a representative of our 

State. 

Let me just talk a little bit about coal, because we know coal has 

come back. It has come back to a reasonable level. Could you, just 

in the brief time we have left, say from your perspective—I know 

you have a lot of experience with coal—how do you see this in 

terms of a more robust coal industry and the environment, and 

where you are planning to move with that? 

That is a big question. 

Mr. WHEELER. It is. Let me address it this way. I have always 

believed in an all of the above on energy sources, and I don’t believe that it is the EPA’s job to pick winners or losers. It is our responsibility to enact the laws that Congress passes. Under my leadership, we will not pick winners and losers between the different 

fuel sources. That is something that the market will have to decide. 

But I think it is very important that we don’t enact regulations 

that penalize one energy source over another or emphasize one energy source over another. 

Last week, I visited a solar panel facility in Massachusetts. For 

the first time, 2 weeks ago; I had never been to the Marcellus 

Shale to see the drilling that is going on there. 

We are trying very hard to be straight down the road and not 

pick winners or losers on energy sources. I don’t believe that is the 

EPA’s responsibility. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wheeler, since 2010 the new fuel economy emission standards have saved consumers more than $63 billion at the pump, 

kept 540 million barrels of oil in the ground, reduced carbon pollution by 250 metric tons. Over the lifetime of the current fuel economy standards, consumers will save $1 trillion on gasoline and will 

keep 12 billion barrels of oil in the ground. 

That is the simple formula for fuel economy, you save consumers 

money, and you save the planet at the same time, and that is why 

big oil is attacking these standards. The oil industry is scared to 

death that the billions of barrels of reserves they are currently 

claiming on their balance sheets to the Securities and Exchange 

Commission will end up as so called stranded assets. They are 

scared to death that $1 trillion will stay stranded in the pockets 

of consumers, and that is why the Trump administration is moving 

to roll back these standards. 

There has been a lot of news recently about a rift between President Trump and the Koch brothers. President Trump and the Koch 

brothers might disagree these days on politics, but they are always 

in agreement on petroleum, and that is why this rollback of fuel 

economy standards is really all about petroleum. It is oil above all. 

190 

According to a leaked draft of the proposed rule, the Trump rollback of fuel economy standards, the No. 1 option that the Trump 

administration is considering is freezing the standards at 2020 

level, that we don’t increase the fuel economy standards after 2020. 

Mr. Wheeler, yes or no, do you agree that freezing the fuel economy emissions standards at 2020 levels would lead to more oil 

being consumed than if we kept the standards at their current trajectory? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, I am not sure on that, and I want to be 

on the record as saying that I have not talked to anybody in the 

oil industry or received any information from them. 

Senator MARKEY. I didn’t ask you that question. I asked you 

would more oil be consumed if we froze the standards at 2020. 

That is my question, yes or no. 

Mr. WHEELER. I believe the analysis shows that more oil would 

be consumed. 

Senator MARKEY. That is correct. Even the Trump administration—— 

Mr. WHEELER. But it also would save 12,000 lives at $500 billion. 

Senator MARKEY. Even the Trump administration’s draft report 

acknowledges we will consume 500,000 more barrels of oil per day 

if we freeze these standards. 

And by the way, by 2030 we back out under existing standards, 

if they continued, 2.5 million barrels of oil per day being imported 

into the United States from Saudi Arabia, from other OPEC countries. That is the number, 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. 

Yes or no, Mr. Wheeler, do you agree that freezing the standards 

at 2020 levels would mean consumers would pay more to fill up 

their gas tanks than under the current standards? 

Mr. WHEELER. That, I do not know. I know that we have $500 

billion in savings to the American consumers under the proposal. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, freezing the standards would cost American drivers an additional $20 billion alone in 2025 due to higher spending on gasoline. That is money that is transferred right out of the pockets of 

consumers into the big oil coffers. 

Yes or no, do you agree that a freeze on increasing the fuel economy standards would lead to more climate pollution than if we 

maintained the current standards? 

Mr. WHEELER. I believe our data shows it would be negligible between the Obama proposal and our proposal. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, you are wrong. Freezing the standards 

would mean an additional 2.2 billion metric tons of global warming 

pollution by 2040, equal to 43 coal fired power plants. 

There is a famous line, Mr. Wheeler, in the movie ‘‘All the President’s Men’’: follow the money. When you look at the $1 trillion 

that big oil will never receive from American consumers and the 12 

billion barrels of oil that they will never produce under the current 

standards, it becomes pretty clear why big oil would want to attack 

these standards, and all the auto industry has to do is sit back and 

drive the getaway car. 

So, let me just ask you one final question, Mr. Wheeler. Administrator Pruitt committed to release the EPA scientific report on the 

191 

carcinogen formaldehyde, but never did so. Will you commit to releasing this report? 

Mr. WHEELER. Are you referring to the IRIS report on formaldehyde? 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. 

Mr. WHEELER. I have not been briefed specifically on the IRIS 

formaldehyde report, but I have sat down with our IRIS staff, and 

what I am trying to do is to provide more certainty to that process 

to make sure we know how the different assessments will be used 

in the regulatory programs. It is my understanding that we still 

have a number of steps to complete on the formaldehyde assessment. 

Senator MARKEY. When will you release it? 

Mr. WHEELER. The question that I have to our IRIS staff is what 

is the purpose of the assessment at this point and whether or not 

the data that they have used in the assessment is still current, because I know they started that before 2010. 

Senator MARKEY. Will you commit to releasing that report? 

Mr. WHEELER. I am sure we will release it, but I need to make 

sure that the science in the report is still accurate. What I have 

asked not just for that report, but for everything that we are doing 

on the IRIS program, to make sure that we know the purpose of 

the assessment, because we have a lot of chemicals that we should 

and could be assessing under the IRIS program, and I want to 

make sure that they are being used in a regulatory process, because we have other chemicals that need to be assessed as well. So 

that is one of the questions that I have asked our program staff. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, Pruitt committed to releasing it, and I 

hope that you put it at the top of your list. I expect you to and get 

it released so that the public can understand what those dangers 

are. Thank you. 

Mr. WHEELER. And Senator, on the different reports that you 

mentioned under the CAFE, we should be going out in the Federal 

Register in the next day or two with the CAFE proposal, and I 

would hope that all those organizations will submit those reports 

for the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. We are now into the second vote and about 

halfway through. I wanted to get to the additional. 

Thank you so much for your comments. 

Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for being here today. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER. Many of my colleagues have already discussed 

this issue, but I would also like to visit with you about small refinery exemptions to the RFS. 

As you know, the law allows refineries that produce 75,000 barrels or less per day to seek an exemption from the RFS for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship. The EPA, in consultation with Department of Energy, must consider the findings from 

a 2011 DOE study and ‘‘other economic factors’’ when analyzing 

these requests. 

So, this disproportionate economic hardship is the critical factor 

in determining whether a small refinery is awarded an exemption. 

192 

How is that calculated? That is what is of great interest to small 

refineries, because it could decide whether they have to comply 

with the RFS or whether they get a free pass. 

My constituents in Nebraska, and others for whom the RFS is a 

very important item, would be interested in how you interpret that 

process for purposes of making sure that the law is being upheld; 

and for Congress, who wrote the law, understanding how you calculate disproportionate economic hardship is vital for purposes of 

making sure that you are carrying out that law as we intended. So, 

for these reasons, I would like to discuss how you are doing that 

analysis. 

It is my understanding that the law does not define disproportionate economic hardship. It is also my understanding that EPA 

regulations do not define disproportionate economic hardship. By 

its definition, disproportionate means you are comparing the impact on the petitioner to the impact on one or more others. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. WHEELER. I believe that is correct, Senator. 

If I could say, on the small refinery process, we work closely with 

Department of Energy. They do the initial analysis, and then we 

work with them on providing additional analysis as well. 

What I have committed to do, and what we are going to do is 

provide more transparency on how we make these decisions. We 

are in the process of developing a dashboard so we can put all the 

information out publicly so people know when we are issuing a 

small refinery waiver and the circumstances around that. We have 

to make sure that we take into account any confidential business 

information of the company applying for the small business refinery exemption, but we want to try to be as transparent as we can 

and put all that information, including our process, out for the public to see. 

Senator FISCHER. Just to confirm, are you saying that the EPA 

compares the high cost of compliance relative to the entire refinery 

industry? So, all you basically have to prove, Mr. Administrator, is 

that you are a small refinery and produce less than 75,000 barrels 

a day, and that is your ticket in the door? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, if I could respond back to you in writing 

on that, because I want to be very careful because this issue is 

being looked at very carefully—— 

Senator FISCHER. It is. 

Mr. WHEELER [continuing]. Not only by us, by everybody else, 

and I want to make sure that I am giving you the correct information. If I could respond back to you in writing, I would appreciate 

that. 

Senator FISCHER. I would appreciate it. Thank you, sir. 

What about the disproportionate economic hardship? The court, 

in 2017, said the EPA can’t go so far as to require that a refinery 

be at risk of going out of business to exempt them from the RFS. 

But I believe it is equally unacceptable for the EPA to merely exempt a refinery because they fit the definition of a small refinery. 

And I would think you would agree that there is space between 

those two options. Would you? 

Mr. WHEELER. I would agree there is space between those two 

options. I think just because a company is a small refinery does not 

193 

mean it should be entitled to a small refinery exemption; there are 

other market and business concerns to go into that analysis. 

Senator FISCHER. When the Agency awarded those 48 small refinery waivers retroactively for 2016 and 2017, I think that it effectively established a de facto RIN cap. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. WHEELER. A de facto RIN cap? We take that into account, 

we take into account the available RINs as we move forward in setting the RVO numbers for the next year, so I am not sure that I 

would say it was a de facto RIN cap, because we do look at the RIN 

numbers available before we set the next RVO, and try to factor 

that into our analysis. 

Senator FISCHER. OK. If I could get you questions on this pretty 

complex issue, I would appreciate answers in a timely manner. 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Administrator. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator INHOFE [presiding]. Having just voted, I assume that we 

have gone all the way through and that you have a request, Senator Carper, for one last question. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, I do, please. 

Senator Duckworth has not asked her first round. She was here, 

but other people came in ahead of her, so she is going to try to get 

back. Hopefully she does, and if she does, I will yield to her. But 

thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up, if I could, Mr. Wheeler, on your previous answer on cross-State pollution. In your answer, you may recall you 

stated that most areas will be in attainment for ozone in the early 

2020s. So, with that having been said, here is my question. EPA 

has not modeled the effects of all of its planned clean air rollbacks 

on cross-State ozone pollution. Given that, can EPA be certain that 

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and all these other States on the 

East Coast will be in attainment? How can EPA be certain that all 

of us are going to be in attainment in 2023, as EPA has claimed 

it would be, because you have not modeled the effects of all its 

planned Clean Air Act rollbacks on cross-State ozone pollution? It 

seems like we are getting ahead of the horse. 

Mr. WHEELER. I can’t predict with certainty on that, but what I 

am told by the career staff at the Agency in the Air Office is that 

our analysis shows that most areas of the country will be able to 

reach attainment in the early 2020s. There are, of course, factors 

that could change between now and then, but on the current pathway that we are with the emissions that we forecast in the different States in the areas of the country, we anticipate that most 

areas of the country will be in attainment in the early 2020s. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe most areas, but a bunch of the areas 

that are not in attainment now, again, it just seems 

counterintuitive that EPA has not modeled the effects of all of its 

planned clean air rollbacks on cross-State pollution; yet EPA feels 

like Delaware and other States are going to be in attainment in 

2023. It just doesn’t add up. We will be following up with questions 

for the record, and maybe we can get some clarification on this. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

194 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Whitehouse, did you want to? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, I would like to, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to follow up with Administrator Wheeler on something 

that he said in response to a question to another Senator, and it 

had to do, Mr. Wheeler, with not picking winners and losers in the 

energy industry, and that you would treat all energy sources equally. 

If you are presented with a polluting energy source on the one 

hand and a non-polluting energy source on the other, how do you 

treat them equally, when it is EPA’s duty to protect against pollution? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, if one energy source has emissions of a 

criteria pollutant or any of the other pollutants that we regulate, 

we would, of course, regulate the pollutants for that industry. I am 

not suggesting that every single environmental law would apply to 

every single industry, and we would treat it across the board. The 

coal combustion residual would only apply to coal fired power 

plants; we wouldn’t apply something like that, of course, to solar 

or wind. My point is that we shouldn’t be enacting regulations that 

favor one energy source over the other. We will implement all of 

the laws passed by Congress. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. How would a regulation that protected 

against pollution not advantage a non-polluting energy source over 

a polluting energy source? 

Mr. WHEELER. I believe some of the criticisms of the Obama 

Clean Power Plan, for example, is that it gave preferential treatment to some energy sources on the way that they calculated emissions. My point in saying that is that it is not the EPA’s role. We 

are trying to be very even handed and not pick winners and losers 

between the different energy sources and equally promote all of 

them at the same time. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I get that, but I just want to make sure 

that your view of what is preferential among energy sources isn’t 

driven by whether or not they are polluters. Because if you are not 

going to prefer, in the sense of putting regulatory protections up 

against polluting versus non-polluting sources, we have a problem 

on our hands. 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, we are regulating sources that pollute, 

that release, that have emissions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great. So, if a polluting source has to bear 

a regulatory burden to protect against its pollution, that is not 

what you mean by picking winners and losers. 

Mr. WHEELER. That is not what I mean, no. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

We were going to come to an abrupt stop after this vote, but we 

are going to make an exception because Senator Duckworth wants 

to be heard, but she will be the last one to ask questions, and then 

we will close the meeting. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very 

generous and quite a gentleman. 

195 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you. That is because you cosponsored my aviation bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Exactly. Exactly. And I just talked to the 

airline pilots this morning, and they are big fans of yours. 

Mr. Wheeler, although we don’t see eye to eye on most environmental issues, I believe that you are making a good faith effort to 

reverse the course at EPA and operate in a transparent manner. 

For example, I support your recent memo calling on your colleagues to be open and accessible, and committing to leading by example on open Government efforts, so I thank you for that. I think 

this is a critical first step toward restoring the public’s trust in the 

EPA. 

Acting Administrator Wheeler, as you know, Congress provided 

you with an incredibly broad authority under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act to hire up to 30 individuals without regard to civil service laws. For years, under Republican and Democratic administrations, Congress has trusted EPA Administrators to responsibly exercise this special hiring authority; however, your predecessor violated this trust in using the authority to give personal aides lavish 

pay raises after the White House denied such requests. 

To make sure you and future Administrators use this special hiring authority in an ethical and transparent manner, Ranking Member Carper and I introduced the EPA Special Hiring Authority 

Transparency Act. Our bill simply requires that EPA report to Congress whenever it makes an appointment. 

To restore confidence in the use of this authority, will you commit to supporting our legislation that will improve transparency 

and make sure this Committee is notified in regard to who is being 

appointed under the special hiring authority and why? 

Mr. WHEELER. Senator, I would be happy to work with you on 

your legislation, and I would be happy to provide a list of the people that we have hired under that authority as well. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

One area I believe we can work together on, in addition, is reducing lead exposure. Lead is a dangerous neurotoxin for vulnerable 

populations like young children, pregnant mothers, and the elderly. 

Exposure to lead can be life threatening. 

Under your predecessor, an interagency task force on lead was 

convened; however, Congress has not been briefed on the work of 

this agency. It is unclear whether the Administration fully understands the urgency of this problem and whether they are genuinely 

compelled to address this issue. 

Will you support reporting to Congress on the finding of this task 

force? 

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, Senator, I will. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

On a similar note, will you commit to releasing all the records 

on the Superfund Task Force? 

Mr. WHEELER. I thought we had already done that, but I will certainly look into that and have to get back to you on that. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. WHEELER. That predated my time at the Agency. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. OK, thank you. 

196 

And finally, before I close, I want to address a critical program, 

the bipartisan Renewable Fuel Standards program, the RFS, that 

has already been discussed at length in this hearing. 

Mr. WHEELER. A few times. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. A few times, yes. Well, we are all out there 

to support our farmers. I am alarmed by this Administration’s efforts to undermine this program. Even Brett Kavanaugh, the nominee to serve on the Supreme Court, has sided with the oil industry 

in several RFS related cases. Mr. Kavanaugh went as far as to 

argue that the oil and food industries were palpably and negatively 

affected by EPA’s allegedly illegal E15 waiver and had standing to 

directly challenge the E15 waiver in court. 

As you discussed with my colleagues, Senator Ernst and Senator 

Rounds and Senator Fischer, EPA has been undermining the RFS 

on abusing the small refinery exemptions. We need to understand 

how EPA is making decisions on granting these exemptions. Will 

you promise to report to Congress on how these decisions are being 

made, provide public notice on these decisions, and bring greater 

transparency to this work? 

Mr. WHEELER. Absolutely. In fact, we are developing a dashboard 

so that the whole public can see what we are doing on the issue 

and when and how we are granting the waivers. We have to be 

careful that there are confidential business information claims by 

some of the refiners when they apply for it, so we have to guard 

that, but we want to make sure that we release as much information as we can to be very transparent and let everybody know what 

we are doing and why we are doing it. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I need to stress again that ethanol is an American grown, American produced product, as opposed 

to foreign oil that we have sent troops for a decade to fight over. 

I would rather be supporting American farmers growing American 

produce to put in American gas tanks. 

I understand that the EPA may be constrained by law, as you 

have testified, and I look forward to working with my colleagues, 

Senators Rounds and Ernst, on a legislative fix, and I very much 

thank you for being here, and I certainly enjoyed our discussion, 

and I very much appreciate the return to transparency that you 

are pledging to bring to the EPA. Thank you. 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I appreciate 

you being here very much. 

I have two unanimous consent requests to get into the record. 

There will be no other questioners. 

First of all, I would note that, last week, 21 Senators sent a letter to EPA opposing the reallocation of small refinery obligations 

to other refineries under the RFS, and I ask unanimous consent 

that this letter be made a part of the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

197 


34874.162

'llnitcd ~tatcs ~cnatc 

Andrew Wheeler 

Ading Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Office of the Administrator, 1101 A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Acting Administrator Wheeler: 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

July 26, 2018 

ln recent weeks, media reports indicated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered a 

proposal to retroactively reallocate the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) compliance obligations from 

small refineries, which have received hardship relief: to other refineries and importers. Thankfully, in 

the proposed rule setting renewable volume obligations for 2019 (the "201 'I RVO"), EPA abandoned 

this ill-considered plan. llowcver, given the requests from biofucl interests, we are writing this letter to 

state very clearly our strong opposition to any future resurrection of this proposed policy. 

There is little doubt that retroactively reallocating obligations would only compound the problems with 

the RFS. Simply put, a retroactive reallocation of small refinery obligations to other obligated parties is 

illegal and fundamentally unfair, imposing a financial penalty on refineries that have otherwise been in 

compliance with the law. By so doing, retroactive reallocation violates the principles of due process and 

administrative law and is clearly not authorized under the Clean Air Act. further, retroactive 

reallocation injects radical uncertainty into the market for compliance credits. hurting the U.S. refining 

base, its workers, and the communities they serve. 

Retroactive reallocation is also inconsistent with sound energy policy. A robust domestic refining sector 

is a key element to national security, as administrations of both political pat1ies have found. Refineries 

are a source of high-paying manufacturing jobs, thousands of which are placed at risk when RFS 

compliance obligations aren't reasonable and when compliance costs escalate. All of this is placed in 

harm's way if EPA retroactively reallocates the obligations of small refineries, which have received 

hardship relief. We urge EPA to maintain the policy articulated in the proposed 2019 RVO and not 

deviate from sound policy and the law by trying to fashion any form of retroactive reallocation. Any 

other direction undermines national security, threatens higher gasoline prices for U.S. consumers, and 

risks economic harm to fuel providers and the loss of manufacturing jobs. 

Sincerely, 

r-2 

~--.. -~ ,. 

.. 

----·-·-··-

~// .. ·~--- James M. lnhofc 

United States Senator 

1?\C(d;ti. 

Orrin 

-~-·---------- G. Hatch 

t:nitcd States Senator 
198 


34874.163

~~-~4 l Jnited States Senator 

isch 

Unite , atcs Senator 

~=~~~ 

~~~~ United States Senator 

Tom Cotton 

"""'~s"~ 

~"""' ~~-~--~···-~~-· United States Senator 

United States Senator 

}J I p 0111~~-~- ~~cCapilo United States Senator 

C

Uni41 States Sen~tor 

1 \ / / 

khn -·--~lu~~- Kennedy //' 

LrJ;1ited States Senator {/ 
199 

Senator INHOFE. Second, I have a chart I think is important. I 

understand while I was down voting that something came up, some 

complaints were there in terms of responses, and I want to just 

compliment you and the EPA for the way you have done that. 

The chart is just one example of the huge increase in correspondence EPA has seen over the last Administration. For the Administrator’s office, it is over 400 percent increase in fiscal year 2017 

over the previous two fiscal years. Again, it is just for the Administrator’s office; it does not include other programs like air, water, 

land, general counsel, research and development, chemicals, and all 

that. 

In total, the EPA has so far responded to 84 percent of the inquiries elected offices have sent in. That is Federal, State, and 

local. EPA has responded to 81 percent of the minority members’ 

oversight letters, 65.5 percent of all their inquiries, and it is not 

done doing so. 23,430 pages of documents have been delivered to 

the minority members. I don’t know whether minority has had time 

to read all of these; I suggest probably they haven’t. 

It doesn’t sound like an agency that is ignoring anyone. 

I want to commend you and get this on the record so that people 

are aware of the great job that we are doing with the EPA. All 

right? 

Mr. WHEELER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. You are very welcome. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

200 


34874.164

EPA Correspondence By the Numbers: 

• This chart is just one example of the huge increase in 

correspondence EPA has seen over the last 

Administration. 

• For the Administrator's Office, it is over a 400% 

increase in FY2017 over previous two fiscal years 

• Again, this is just for the Administrator's office; it 

does not include the other program offices like air, 

water, land, general counsel, research and 

development, chemicals, etc. 

• In total, EPA has so far responded to 84% of the 

inquiries elected offices have sent (federal, state, 

and local). 

• EPA has responded to 81% of the minority members' 

oversight letters; 65.5% of all their inquiries; and it is 

not done doing so. 

• 23,430 pages of documents have been delivered to 

the minority members of EPW. 

• This does not sound like an agency that is ignoring 

anyone- it's a wonder they get any other work done. 

34874.165

AO Requests Received by fiscal Year 

Fiscal Year 2017 

1,047 

Fisca1Year2016 Fisca1Y

202 21
202 

Senator INHOFE. If there are no more questions for today, members may also submit follow up questions for the record. The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their time and testimony today, 

and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ