(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 11:02 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Murkowski, Udall, Tester, Cassidy, Blunt, 

Leahy, Daines, and Hoeven. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID BLOOM, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing in the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. Sorry that we are starting a little bit later than scheduled, but we had an energy bill that we wanted to move across the 

floor. Thanks to my colleagues for on that bill support. 

We are here to examine the fiscal year 2017 budget request for 

the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here. Thank you 

for your work. I hope that we have a constructive dialogue today. 

Mr. Bloom, welcome back to the subcommittee as well. 

Ms. McCarthy, we had a chance to visit briefly on the phone 

about some of the issues that are front and center in Alaskans’ 

minds, and as you know, there is angst, there is anxiety, there is 

a view by many within my State that EPA is overstepping its appropriate role. I hear from these folks all the time. 

There is a concern that, rather than focusing on the core mission 

of attending to and cleaning up the environment, the Agency is 

pumping out rule after rule based on questionable legal authority. 

I hear about the Agency’s Waters of the United States proposal repeatedly, the so-called Clean Power Plan, and several other rules 

that come up repeatedly in conversation. Several of these are rules 

have such questionable legal grounds that they’ve been stayed in 

the courts. Numerous other rules are being challenged by States 

and other impacted entities who are concerned that EPA continues 
2 

to push an agenda that lines up more with those that are seeking 

to stop development rather than working with the States or working with the tribes. 

Although the court stay offers a temporary respite, I continue to 

be very concerned about the Agency’s Waters of the United States 

proposal. I’ve described this rule as a showstopper in the past. I 

know that it will have negative consequences for my State and 

many others if it is allowed to move forward. Approximately twothirds of the State of Alaska is considered wetlands, and this proposal could subject even more of the most routine projects to EPA’s 

scrutiny and possible delay. 

I’m also concerned about the Agency’s efforts to use the Superfund statute to require potentially duplicative financial assurance 

requirements on hardrock mining. From the time when States and 

Federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

the Forest Service updated their bonding requirements for mining, 

no hardrock mining site has been placed on Superfund’s National 

Priorities List, and yet, the EPA continues to move forward with 

a rule that has the potential to make mining prohibitively expensive. 

I appreciate that your staff has signaled a willingness to work 

with us as the rulemaking process proceeds, and I hope that we 

can have continued dialogue on this proposal. It is very important. 

I’m also hearing substantial concern with the Agency’s latest proposal to regulate methane at existing oil and gas wells. In spite of 

the fact that natural gas production is up significantly, methane 

emissions from the oil and gas industry are either flat or in decline. 

In fact, one study suggests that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells have fallen approximately 79 

percent since 2005. At a time when low oil prices are creating a 

challenging situation for the industry, I’m concerned that this proposal has the potential to perhaps limit investment, hamper domestic production, and drive up costs for the consumers. 

While I have concerns with many of the major rules that the 

Agency is moving forward with, I am hopeful we can find a path 

forward on a laundry list of proposals that will have a real impact 

on cleaning up the environment. For example, the fiscal year 2016 

omnibus included $20 million for Targeted Air Shed Grants. My 

understanding is that the city of Fairbanks is eligible for some of 

these grants to help deal with the particulate matter problem that 

you are very familiar with. I am hoping that we can work with you 

to ensure that this type of cleanup can occur. 

Additionally, I was pleased that we were able to double the funding for the Alaska Native Villages Water Program in the fiscal year 

2016 omnibus to $20 million. I am also pleased that we were able 

to find a way to ensure that the backhaul program can continue 

to collect trash and other things that need to be disposed of from 

villages in rural Alaska. 

I am also hopeful that we can find common ground on a number 

of lower profile issues this year that are still very important to 

Alaskans. We still need to find a workable solution for small remote incinerators that are the only option to deal with solid waste 

in some areas in Alaska. This is something we’ve been working on 

for a long period of time. We need to deal with backup diesel gener-
3 

ator concerns in rural Alaska and find a way to clean up abandoned oil tanks and contaminated lands. We are willing to find 

some sensible solutions, and I want to work with the Agency on 

those issues. 

Turning to the fiscal year 2017 budget request, I have some very 

serious concerns with the choices the Agency has made. The budget 

prioritizes funding for controversial regulatory programs over onthe-ground cleanup, and it shifts money away from programs that 

have demonstrated results in favor of funding the bureaucracy. I 

think the most glaring example of this is the Agency’s decision to 

cut the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by more than $414 million. While the Agency has proposed an increase in funding for the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the fiscal year 2017 budget 

shortchanges the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) by approximately 

$257 million. At a time when there is ever-increased focus on the 

need to improve our Nation’s water infrastructure because of 

events like those that occurred in Flint, Michigan and in other cities with water quality issues, I am very concerned about the direction the budget takes here. 

Additionally, the Agency once again proposes to eliminate a program to protect against radon exposure, the second leading cause 

of lung cancer behind smoking, and it proposes to eliminate the 

grant program that I mentioned earlier that has the potential to 

help improve air quality in areas with particulate matter and ozone 

issues. 

At the same time the Agency proposes these cuts to programs 

with proven records of success, the budget requests approximately 

$235 million to fund the President’s climate change agenda. This 

is a 48 percent increase over last year’s level, even though the 

Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the Federal court. Similarly, 

the Agency has asked for a $27.5 million increase in the Agency’s 

enforcement budget, even though I’m hearing concerns from folks 

back home about the Agency’s enforcement activities. 

These are areas that I would like to explore with you, and working with the subcommittee, find a way to ensure that the actions 

of the Agency are consistent with what most people in the country 

believe the priorities should be. 

Again, thank you for being here. And my apologies that we’re 

starting so late. 

With that, I will turn to my ranking member, Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

Senator UDALL. Thank you so much, Chairman Murkowski. And 

what she didn’t say was we just came off a big victory on the floor, 

bipartisan victory, in terms of an energy bill. We haven’t had an 

energy bill since 2007. And Senator Murkowski and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell I think came up with a very solid proposal, and 

we hope the House will work with us, and I just want to congratulate you for that, and also say I hope those same bipartisan credentials we can both work on together in this subcommittee to get 

things done. 

Welcome, Administrator McCarthy, and thank you for joining us 

today. It’s been quite a year since you last testified before this subcommittee. The EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan. This is a crit-
4 

ical step. It will reduce carbon pollution and will make real 

progress on climate change. The EPA also proposed standards for 

methane to protect public health and the environment. We worked 

together on last year’s omnibus bill and fought off dangerous environmental riders. And we made history when the United States 

took part in the Paris agreement to fight climate change. The 

United States and 200 other countries agreed to work together to 

fight rising sea levels and climbing temperatures. 

On Friday, Earth Day, Secretary of State Kerry will sign the 

agreement for the United States. It will be a monumental step. It 

will seal our commitment with our global partners to fighting climate change. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan will frame our efforts 

to meet that commitment. 

While the Supreme Court did issue a stay on the Clean Power 

Plan, that decision was not on the merits of the case, and I’m confident that the Clean Power Plan will prevail. It will be flexible and 

it will meet the unique needs of each State. 

I’m pleased to see that EPA has not skipped a beat. It will keep 

helping States that are working to reduce carbon pollution, providing funding and technical help, ensuring that these plans are 

tailored to each State’s needs. I want to hear more about how the 

EPA plans to build on these efforts in fiscal year 2017. It takes 

time, effort, and resources to make progress on international agreements and new standards. 

But that’s why I’m also worried. Last year, the budget deal allowed us to make targeted investments for many agencies, but not 

so for the EPA. Its operating budget was frozen in last year’s budget deal, left at the sequester level. Over the past decade, its budget 

has dropped 10 percent in real terms, and the Agency has lost 10 

percent of its staff. The fiscal year 2017 budget request proposes 

important increases to support clean air, clean water, and basic 

Agency functions. I think the EPA has reached a critical point, and 

I think it’s time for us to get realistic about providing the resources 

that the EPA needs. 

Administrator McCarthy, I want to thank you for making sure 

your draft budget supports programs that are important to New 

Mexico, especially uranium cleanup, but I think we need to look 

closely at the proposed offsets, in particular, the 11 percent cut to 

State grants for clean water and drinking water. Across our country, communities like Flint, Michigan, face serious water contamination. In my State of New Mexico, over 20 water systems exceed 

the EPA’s lead level, lead action level, including St. Vincent’s Hospital in Santa Fe, New Mexico. This is very troubling to me. 

I’m also concerned about EPA’s proposal to reverse progress on 

the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Program. This is critical to ensure 

our border communities have clean water. 

But, Administrator McCarthy, my top priority today is to get 

firm answers about EPA’s response to communities in New Mexico, 

Arizona, and Colorado after the Gold King Mine spill. The spill was 

an accident, but the EPA made several serious mistakes, and the 

EPA owes it to the Navajo Nation and the State of New Mexico to 

make things right as soon as possible. I appreciate that $2 million 

was made available for long-term water quality monitoring. This 

funding is greatly needed by affected States and tribes, but the 
5 

EPA must sustain that commitment. And I’m very disappointed at 

how long it has taken the EPA to process reimbursements submitted by the State and the Navajo Nation, and I’m frustrated that 

8 months later, we still don’t have an official finding of tort responsibility despite public assurances that EPA takes full responsibility 

for the spill. We need a fair compensation process up and running 

for those who were affected so that people can file claims and receive compensation. I look forward to getting clear answers from 

you and when this will be corrected. 

Administrator, I want to add one note, and thank you to you and 

your team for all your technical assistance as we work on the many 

drafts of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The program office and the general counsel have been invaluable, and I hope you 

feel as optimistic as I do that we can get this done. 

Thank you again for appearing before us today, and I look forward to a good discussion. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

With that, let us turn to Administrator McCarthy. Again, welcome to the subcommittee, and we look forward to your comments 

and the opportunity to engage in questions. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, first of all, thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall for the opportunity to 

speak here as well as members of the subcommittee. It’s an opportunity for me to be here before you to discuss EPA’s proposed fiscal 

year 2017 budget, and I’m joined by the Agency’s Deputy Chief Financial Officer, David Bloom. 

EPA’s budget request of $8.267 billion for the 2017 fiscal year 

lays out a strategy to ensure steady progress in addressing environmental issues that affect public health. For 45 years, our investments to protect public health and the environment have consistently paid off many times over. We have cut air pollution by 70 

percent and cleaned up half of the Nation’s polluted waterways, all 

the while our national economy has tripled. 

Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of EPA, the 

States, as well as our tribal partners. That’s why the largest part 

of our budget, $3.28 billion, or almost 40 percent, is provided directly to our State and tribal partners. 

In fiscal year 2017, we are requesting an increase of $77 million 

in funding for State and tribal assistance categorical grants in support of critical work in air and water protection as well as continued support for our tribal partners. This budget request also reinforces EPA’s focus on community support by providing targeted 

funding and support for regional coordinators to help communities 

find and determine the best programs to address their local environmental priorities. 

The budget includes $90 million in Brownfield Project grants to 

local communities, and that’s an increase of $10 million, which will 

help to return contaminated sites to productive use. This budget 

prioritizes actions to reduce the impacts of climate change and supports the President’s Climate Action Plan. It includes $235 million 

for efforts to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases 
6 

through commonsense standards, guidelines, as well as voluntary 

programs. 

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan continues to be a top priority for 

the EPA and for our Nation’s inevitable transition to a clean energy economy. Though the Supreme Court has temporarily stayed 

the Clean Power Plan rule, States are not precluded from voluntarily choosing to continue implementation planning, and EPA will 

continue to assess those States that voluntarily decide to do so. 

As part of the President’s 21st Century Clean Transportation 

Plan, the budget also proposes to establish a new mandatory fund 

at the EPA, providing $1.65 billion over the course of 10 years to 

retrofit, replace, or repower diesel equipment, and up to $300 million in fiscal year 2017 to renew, as well as increase, funding for 

the Diesel Emission Reduction Grant Program. 

The budget also includes a $4.2 million increase to enhance vehicle engine and fuel compliance programs, including critical testing 

capabilities. We also have to confront the systemic challenges that 

threaten our country’s drinking water and infrastructure that delivers it. This budget includes a $2 billion request for the State Revolving Fund and $42 million in additional funds to provide technical assistance to small communities, loan financing program to 

promote public-private collaboration, and training to increase the 

capacity of communities and States to plan and finance drinking 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. 

The EPA requests $20 million to fund the Water Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act, the WIFIA program, which will provide direct financing for the construction of water and wastewater 

infrastructure by making loans for large innovative projects of regional or national significance. The budget also provides $22 million in funding to expand the technical, managerial, and financial 

capabilities of drinking water systems. Included is $7.1 million for 

the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center and the 

Center for Environmental Finance that will enable communities 

across the country to focus on financial planning for upcoming public infrastructure investments, to expand work with States to identify financing opportunities, particularly for rural communities, and 

to enhance partnership and collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

EPA is also seeking a $20 million increase to the Superfund Remedial program to accelerate the pace of cleanups, to support 

States, local communities, and tribes in their effort to both assess 

as well as clean up and return contaminated sites to productive 

use. 

EPA’s fiscal year 2017 budget request will let us continue to 

make a real and visible difference to communities and public 

health every day, as well as provide us with a foundation to revitalize the economy and improve infrastructure across the country. 

I want to again thank you for the opportunity to testify today, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 
7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GINA MCCARTHY

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed fiscal year 2017 budget. I’m joined by the 

agency’s Deputy Chief Financial Officer, David Bloom. 

The EPA is, at its very core, a public health agency. The simple fact is you cannot 

have healthy people without clean air, clean water, healthy land, and a stable climate. We have worked hard to deliver these and made significant progress over the 

years for the American people. This budget request of $8.267 billion (in discretionary funding) for the 2017 fiscal year, starting October 1, 2016, lays out a strategy to ensure that steady progress is made in addressing environmental problems. 

This strategy includes actions to protect public health and it ensures that the agency and its partners in environmental protection, States and tribes, are positioned 

to meet the challenges of the future. The request is $127 million above the agency’s 

enacted level for fiscal year 2016. For 45 years, the EPA’s investments to protect 

public health and the environment have helped make the Nation’s air, land, and waters cleaner. 

However, in many ways we are now at a turning point. As science advances, it 

improves our ability to measure pollution and provide better and more complete access to environmental information, but we know that the technologies and tools that 

we have relied on to date cannot be expected to meet all of today’s challenges, like 

climate change and aging infrastructure. This budget supports efforts to leverage investments in technology, and be even more innovative and responsive, while reflecting an understanding that a strong economy depends on a healthy environment. It 

funds essential work to support our communities, address climate change, protect 

our waters, protect our land, ensure chemical safety, encourage pollution prevention, 

advance research and development and promote innovation and modernization to 

streamline processes. 

Supporting our State, local, and tribal partners is a central component of our 

work to protect public health and the environment. This budget builds on a history 

of addressing environmental and public health challenges as a shared responsibility. 

We are doing this while supporting a strong workforce at the EPA and maintaining 

a forward and adaptive organization with the tools necessary to ensure effective use 

of the public funds provided to us. 

MAKING A VISIBLE DIFFERENCE IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY

We are committed to continuing our work with our partners to make a visible difference in communities across the country—especially in areas overburdened by pollution—including distressed urban and rural communities. 

The EPA has made community support a top priority and this budget reinforces 

that focus. It includes a multi-faceted effort that builds and strengthens capacity 

using innovative tools, comprehensive training, technical assistance, and increased 

access to the most up-to-date scientific data. The EPA is committed to assisting communities in addressing their most pressing environmental concerns and will continue to innovate by taking full advantage of advances in technology to detect air 

and water pollution. 

In fiscal year 2017, the EPA will provide targeted funding and support for regional coordinators to help communities find and determine the best programs to 

address local environmental priorities. The fiscal year 2017 budget also provides $17 

million for the Alaska Native Villages infrastructure assistance program, and an additional $2.9 million within the Integrated Environmental Strategies program will 

support these communities in conducting resiliency planning exercises and capacitybuilding. This will build upon previous collaborative efforts with FEMA, NOAA and 

HUD. 

Across the budget, activities help communities adopt green infrastructure, provide 

technical assistance for building resilience and adapting to climate change, and help 

communities to reduce environmental impacts through advanced monitoring technology and decisionmaking tools. The EPA’s budget also includes $90 million in 

Brownfields Project grants to local communities, an increase of $10 million. These 

funds will help to return contaminated sites to productive reuse by increasing investments in technical assistance and community grants for assessment and cleanup of areas where we work, live and play. 

The EPA will continue work to limit public exposure to uncontrolled releases of 

hazardous substances and make previously contaminated properties available for 

reuse by communities through a request of approximately $521 million in the Superfund Remedial program and another $185 million in the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program. An increase of $24 million in Superfund cleanup pro-
8 

grams will enable the remedial program to maximize the preparation of ‘‘shovelready’’ projects, and provide funding to reduce the backlog of new construction 

projects that address exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater. It also supports critical resources with the Emergency Response and Removal program giving 

us the ability to quickly respond to simultaneous emergencies. 

ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY

The fiscal year 2017 budget request for the agency’s work to address climate change and to improve air quality is $1.132 billion. These resources will help protect 

those most vulnerable to climate impacts and the harmful health effects of air pollution through commonsense standards, guidelines, and partnership programs. 

Climate change remains a threat to public health, our economy, and national security and the U.S. recognizes our role and our responsibility to lead in cutting carbon pollution that is fueling climate change. To do so, our work will position the 

business community, its entrepreneurs, and its innovators to lead the world in a 

global effort while at the same time, expanding the economy. States and businesses 

across the country are working to build renewable energy infrastructure, increase 

energy efficiency, and cut carbon pollution—creating sustainable, middle class jobs 

and displaying the kind of innovation that has enabled this country to overcome so 

many challenges. Over the last decade, the U.S. has cut its total carbon pollution 

more than any other nation on Earth. And last November, we set a goal of reducing 

economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 26–28 percent by 2025. Even so, we are 

still ranked just behind China as the second largest emitter of CO2, so we need to 

continue to lead by example as we work to address this global challenge. 

The fiscal year 2017 budget prioritizes actions to reduce the impacts of climate 

change, one of the most significant challenges for this and future generations, and 

supports the President’s Climate Action Plan. The budget includes $235 million for 

efforts to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases through common sense 

standards, guidelines, and voluntary programs. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which 

establishes carbon pollution reduction standards for existing power plants, is a top 

priority for the EPA and will help spur innovation and economic growth while creating a clean energy economy. Although the Supreme Court has stayed the CPP 

rule, the stay does not preclude all continued work on the CPP and does not limit 

States that want to proceed with planning efforts or other actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. During the stay, EPA will continue to assist 

States that voluntarily decide to move forward, helping to pave the way for plans 

that will involve innovative approaches and flexibility for achieving solutions. 

The President’s Climate Action Plan also calls for greenhouse gas reductions from 

the transportation sector by increasing fuel economy standards. These standards 

will represent significant savings at the pump, reduce carbon pollution, and reduce 

fuel costs for businesses, which is anticipated to lower prices for consumers. The 

budget includes a $4.2 million increase to enhance vehicle, engine and fuel compliance programs, including critical testing capabilities, to ensure compliance with 

emission standards. An additional $1 million is included in the President’s request 

to share the agency’s mobile source expertise and technical assistance internationally with a focus on heavy duty trucks. 

As part of the President’s 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, the President’s budget proposes to establish a new mandatory fund at the EPA. The existing 

fleet of cars, trucks, and buses is aging, contributing to climate change and putting 

our children’s health at risk. To protect the health of the most vulnerable populations and reduce childhood exposure to harmful exhaust, the EPA will provide a 

total of $1.65 billion through the Fund over the course of 10 years to retrofit, replace, or repower diesel equipment. The proposed funding, which is separate from 

the agency’s discretionary funding request, will provide up to $300 million in fiscal 

year 2017 to renew and increase funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant 

Program (DERA), which is set to expire in 2016. This budget also provides $10 million in discretionary funding to support our existing DERA program to provide national grants and rebates to reduce diesel emissions in priority areas. 

PROTECTING THE NATION’S WATERS

Protecting the Nation’s waters remains a top priority for the EPA. In fiscal year 

2017, the agency will continue to build upon decades of work to ensure our waterways are clean and our drinking water is safe. There are far reaching effects when 

rivers, lakes, and oceans become polluted. Polluted waters can make our drinking 

water unsafe, threaten the waters where we swim and fish, and endanger wildlife. 

To meet these needs and to protect public health, we need to expand our impact 

through innovation. The State Revolving Funds (SRF) alone, while important, can-
9 

not and should not be relied upon to solve all infrastructure needs. New funds available under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) credit program, as well as technical assistance to help communities plan future investments 

and better leverage Federal, State, and local resources are necessary to get us there. 

We have to confront the systematic challenges that threaten our drinking water; 

a resource essential to every human being and living thing on Earth. The EPA will 

continue to partner with States to invest in our Nation’s water infrastructure. This 

budget includes a combined $2 billion request for the Clean Water and Drinking 

Water State Revolving Funds and $42 million in additional funds to provide technical assistance to small communities, loan financing to promote public-private collaboration and training to increase the capacity of communities and States to plan 

and finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. 

The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) established a new 

financing mechanism for water and wastewater infrastructure projects. In this 

budget, the EPA requests $20 million to fund the WIFIA program, which will provide direct financing for the construction of water and wastewater infrastructure by 

making loans for large innovative projects of regional or national significance. The 

WIFIA program also will work to support investments in small communities and 

promote public-private collaboration. $15 million of the $20 million increase in the 

budget will allow EPA to begin making loans for WIFIA projects. The program is 

designed to highly leverage these funds, translating into a potential loan capacity 

of nearly $1 billion to eligible entities for infrastructure projects. 

This budget provides $22 million in funding to expand the technical, managerial, 

and financial capabilities of drinking water and wastewater systems to provide safe 

and reliable services to their customers now and into the future. Included is $7.1 

million for the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center and the Center 

for Environmental Finance that will enable communities across the country to focus 

on financial planning for upcoming public infrastructure investments, expand work 

with States to identify financing opportunities for rural communities, and enhance 

partnership and collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Water 

Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center is part of the Build America Investment Initiative, a government-wide effort to increase infrastructure investment and 

promote economic growth by creating opportunities for State and local governments 

and the private sector to collaborate on infrastructure development. 

PROTECTING OUR LAND

The EPA strives to protect and restore land to create a safer environment for all 

Americans by cleaning up hazardous and non-hazardous wastes that can migrate 

to air, groundwater and surface water, contaminating drinking water supplies, causing acute illnesses and chronic diseases, and threatening healthy ecosystems. We 

preserve, restore, and protect our land, for both current and future generations by 

cleaning up contaminated sites and returning them to communities for reuse. Funding will assist communities in using existing infrastructure and planning for more 

efficient and livable communities, and encouraging the minimization of environmental impacts throughout the full life cycle of materials. 

Approximately 53 million people in the U.S. live within 3 miles of a Superfund 

remedial site, roughly 17 percent of the U.S. population, including 18 percent of all 

children under the age of five. In fiscal year 2017, we will increase the Superfund 

Remedial program by $20 million to accelerate the pace of cleanups, supporting 

States, local communities, and tribes in their efforts to assess and cleanup sites and 

return them to productive reuse, and encourage renewable energy development on 

formerly hazardous sites when appropriate. We also will expand the successful 

Brownfields program’s community-driven approach to revitalizing contaminated 

land, providing grants, and supporting area-wide planning and technical assistance 

to maximize the benefits to the communities. 

TAKING STEPS TO IMPROVE CHEMICAL FACILITY SAFETY

The EPA is requesting $23.7 million for the State and Local Prevention and Preparedness program, an increase of $8.4 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level. 

In support of the White House Executive Order 13650 on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, the requested increase will allow the EPA to continue to 

expand upon its outreach and technical assistance to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities and reduce the risks of hazardous chemicals to facility 

workers and operators, communities, and responders. 

These efforts represent a shared commitment among those with a stake in chemical facility safety and security: facility owners and operators; Federal, State, local, 
10 

tribal, and territorial governments; regional entities; nonprofit organizations; facility 

workers; first responders; environmental justice and local environmental organizations; and communities. The EPA therefore plays a significant and vital role. 

In fiscal year 2017, the EPA will develop, initiate and deliver training to aid with 

expansive outreach and planning for local communities, emergency planners, and 

responders. This will assist local emergency planners and first responders in using 

the risk information available to them, educating the public about what to do if an 

accident occurs. The EPA also will work effectively with facilities to reduce the risks 

associated with the chemicals that are stored, used, or produced on site to help prevent accidents from occurring. 

CONTINUING EPA’S COMMITMENT TO INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

In building environmental policy, scientific research continues to be the foundation of EPA’s work. Environmental issues in the 21st century are complex because 

of the interplay between air quality, climate change, water quality, healthy communities, and chemical safety. Today’s complex issues require different thinking and 

different solutions than those used in the past. In fiscal year 2017, we will continue 

to strengthen the agency’s ability to develop solutions by providing $512 million to 

evaluate and predict potential environmental and human health impacts for decision makers at all levels of government. Activities in the fiscal year 2017 budget 

include providing support tools for community health, investigating the unique properties of emerging materials, such as nanomaterials, and research to support the 

Nation’s range of growing water-use and ecological requirements. The Chemical 

Safety and Sustainability program will continue to place emphasis on computational 

toxicology (CompTox), which is letting us study chemical risks and exposure exponentially faster and more affordably than ever before. The EPA’s ToxCast program 

has screened nearly 2,000 chemicals and Tox21 has screened over 8,000. In fiscal 

year 2017 we have an opportunity to further enhance CompTox and broaden its application, adding significant efficiency and effectiveness to agency operations. 

SUPPORTING STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNERS

Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of the EPA, States and our tribal partners, and we are setting a high bar for continuing our partnership efforts. 

That’s why the largest part of our budget, $3.28 billion dollars, or almost 40 percent, 

is provided directly to our State and tribal partners. In fiscal year 2017, we are requesting an increase of $77 million in funding for State and Tribal Assistance categorical grants in support of critical State work in air and water protection as well 

as continued support for our tribal partners. 

The EPA is focused on opportunities to continue building closer collaboration and 

targeted joint planning and governance processes. One example is the E-Enterprise 

for the Environment approach, a transformative 21st century strategy to modernize 

the way in which government agencies deliver environmental protection. With our 

co-regulatory partners, we are working to streamline, reform, and integrate our 

shared business processes and related systems. These changes, including a shift to 

electronic reporting, will improve environmental results, reduce burden, and enhance services to the regulated community and the public. State-EPA-Tribal joint 

governance serves to organize the E-Enterprise partnership to elevate its visibility, 

boost coordination capacity, and ensure the inclusiveness and effectiveness of shared 

processes, management improvements, and future coordinated projects. 

MAINTAINING A FORWARD LOOKING AND ADAPTIVE EPA

The EPA has strategically evaluated its workforce and facility needs and will continue the comprehensive effort to modernize its workforce. By implementing creative, flexible, cost-effective, and sustainable strategies to protect public health and 

safeguard the environment, the EPA will target resources toward development of a 

workforce and infrastructure that can address current challenges and priorities. 

We are requesting funding in this budget to help us fast-track efforts to save taxpayer dollars over the long term by optimizing and renovating critical agency space. 

That space includes laboratory buildings across the country, where we conduct critical scientific research on behalf of the American public. Since fiscal year 2012, the 

EPA has released over 250,000 square feet of office space nationwide, resulting in 

a cumulative annual rent avoidance of nearly $9.2 million across all appropriations. 

Additional planned consolidations and moves could release another 336,000 square 

feet of office space in the next several years. 

The agency will continue on-going work to improve processes and advance the EEnterprise effort—replacing outdated paper processes for regulated companies with 

electronic submissions. The EPA’s goals for process improvements are: leveraging 
11 

technology, streamlining workflow, and improving data quality, and increasing data 

sharing and transparency. The agency also is making necessary investments to improve internal IT services to support productivity and address cybersecurity needs. 

In fiscal year 2017, the EPA requests $3.3 million to expand Program Evaluation 

and Lean efforts as a part of the High Performing Organization Cross-Agency Strategy. We continue to eliminate non-value added activities to focus more directly on 

all tasks that support its mission of protecting public health and the environment. 

The EPA continues to examine its programs to find those that have served their 

purpose and accomplished their mission. The fiscal year 2017 President’s budget 

also eliminates some mature programs where State and local governments can provide greater capacity. Those grant programs are the Beaches Protection categorical 

grants, the Multi-purpose categorical grants, the Radon categorical grants, the Targeted Airshed grants and the Water Quality Research and Support grants, totaling 

$85 million. 

We are committed to do the work that is necessary to meet our mission and protect public health. The EPA’s fiscal year 2017 budget request will let us continue 

to make a real and visible difference to communities and public health every day. 

It will give us a foundation to revitalize the economy and improve infrastructure 

across the country. And it will sustain State, tribal, and Federal environmental efforts across all our programs. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. While my testimony reflects only some of the highlights of the EPA’s fiscal year 2017 budget request, I look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Administrator. 

And we will now move to a round of 6-minute questions. 

Let me begin with a real softball for you because this is something that we have tried to do working with your folks. Each year 

we convene a senior EPA team to sit down with my staff to go 

through the laundry list of things that come to my attention from 

constituents. They’re not as high profile as Waters of the United 

States or methane, but they’re critically important. I’m hopeful we 

will be able to continue these discussions. I know that things are 

winding down within the administration, but having as much dialogue back and forth on these as we can is appreciated, and I would 

hope that we would have your commitment to convene this type of 

a meeting perhaps later this spring. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. These meetings have been enormously important 

and productive, and I would be happy to do that. We do have limited time, but we’re certainly looking to make progress moving forward. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. If we can keep these issues from expanding into bigger, more complicated problems, then we’re all 

ahead. 

I mentioned the issue with city of Fairbanks and their eligibility 

to apply for a portion of this $20 million that’s in these Targeted 

Air Shed Grants. I know that you are very familiar with the issue 

and the limited options that the community of Fairbanks has. I 

would like your commitment this morning that you’ll look closely 

at what the city of Fairbanks is doing as they’re attempting to improve their air quality in this manner and their ability to perhaps 

use these grant funds for a wood stove change-out effort. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am familiar with the concerns in Fairbanks, 

and I’d be happy to work with them. I do know that they need to 

get in a proposal by July. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. But the unfortunate thing is they’ll be very competitive for that proposal given their challenge. 
12 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I understand, and one thing that we can do 

in Alaska is try our best to compete, and we will do that. 

Let me ask about Waters of the United States. I mentioned in 

my comments that the Agency’s rule is currently stayed, but I have 

heard from some that there is concern that EPA regional offices 

may be trying to implement parts of the WOTUS rule in spite of 

the fact that it is stayed. My question to you this morning is 

whether or not EPA is taking any actions related to Waters of the 

United States while the rule is stayed in the courts. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’re not doing anything to implement the rule 

given its stay, so if there are concerns, Senator, please pass them 

along or have folks give us a call. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So you are giving me your assurance that 

the Agency is not planning on taking any actions to implement the 

rule until there is final action by the courts. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. Thank you. I also mentioned financial assurance for mining and the Agency’s effort that could result 

in potentially duplicative financial assurance requirements on the 

hardrock mining industry using the Superfund statute. The omnibus bill included a directive that required the Agency to submit a 

market capacity study to the subcommittee 90 days prior to the release of a rule. Included within that omnibus measure with the 

study was a requirement that the Agency would engage in extensive consultation with the surety and with the insurance industries 

and then share with the surety and the insurance industries the 

model that the Agency is using to estimate the costs. 

What I’m hearing now, and the concern that I want to raise, is 

that the outreach to the surety and the insurance industries at this 

stage has been limited to initial meetings with very little follow-up. 

There is also some concern that the model has not been shared. 

Can you commit to getting to me, within the next couple weeks, a 

list with the names of the commercial insurers, the financial companies, the other entities that you are consulting with to date and 

who you have plans to consult with this year? Additionally, can you 

advise me as to whether you’ll commit to sharing a draft of the 

model or the specific components of the model with both the subcommittee as well as these insurers and financial companies just 

as we laid out in the omnibus provision? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we do intend to comply with the language 

in the omnibus provision. I think you know that by December 1st, 

we have to have a proposal out according to our court order. So we 

will do that, and we recognize that we need to do consultation early 

in order to be able to get the study out 90 days in advance. 

You know, I would say I’ve also heard from some of the western 

Governors looking to make sure that we also provide significant 

consultation so that we don’t duplicate things and we understand 

what is already being managed and handled at the State level and 

what our responsibility would then be at the Federal level. 

So I’ll do my best to get you the information I can in a timely 

way, but we will comply. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. As timely as you can make this, I think it 

is going to be important. There is a great deal of concern within 

the industry, at least in my State, that this is yet one more add- 
13 

on when they’re already providing these financial assurances to 

other Federal agencies. 

Let me turn to my—— 

Senator UDALL. Senator Tester. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. He is the best ranking member, he will always defer to one of his other colleagues first. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Udall, and 

thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple questions. 

First of all, thank you for being here, Gina. 

Brownfield utilization, you said it’s at $90 million. Did you spend 

all the money last year, in last year’s budget, in Brownfield? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We could spend that and much more. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. So the question is, and I know you’ve got 

to fall within budget lines, but this is a program that I am told in 

Montana is a very popular program that does a lot of really good 

work. And so you wouldn’t be opposed if we plussed that up a little? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, it depends on where you get it from. 

[Laughter.] 

But certainly we recognize that the Brownfields program is a valuable one for many States, and we are increasing that budget, but 

we certainly understand that it could go a long way. 

Senator TESTER. Just one more quick question. Is this a grant 

based on need? How do you allocate the dollars? The $90 million 

to the communities, how is it—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It’s a competitive grant process. 

Senator TESTER. And how many of those grant processes do you 

do a year? Is it just one bite at the apple? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Do we know? Yes, just one. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Thank you. Let me talk to you about 

Superfund designation for a second. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Has there ever been a Superfund that’s been 

designated that has been cleaned up? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, there has been. 

Senator TESTER. Can you give any examples? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I know that we’ve had more than 300 sites 

nationwide—— 

Senator TESTER. That have been cleaned up. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. That have been de-listed. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have over a thousand, even beyond that, 

that have been de-listed with the exception that you have ongoing 

groundwater treatment that’s required. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m happy to provide you a list following the 

meeting, if you’d like, with specific examples. 

Senator TESTER. I would appreciate that if you could, and thank 

you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: The list of all Superfund sites that have been 

cleaned up and others that have been de-listed are in the ‘‘Additional Committee Questions’’ at the end of the hearing under the 

heading ‘‘Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester.’’] 
14 

Water quality for cities and towns. Almost without exception, one 

of the things—and I’m not going to preface it with anything—one 

of the things that cities and towns talk to me about is that EPA 

comes down with regulations that they have to meet, and there is 

not money associated with it. Can you tell me in this budget if it’s 

adequate in that regard? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think we’re doing our best to increase the 

money that would go to States and tribes and the money that we 

can provide in assistance to local communities. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’re looking at a $77 million increase and $30 

million specifically for the tribes. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is a very challenging situation for all of us to 

make ends meet. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. So tell me how you would answer this argument, where cities and town, the water we’re dumping back into 

our water source is cleaner than the water we pull out; we think 

the regulations are too tight. Tell me how you would answer that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think we want to make sure that the 

drinking water that we provide meets health-based standards. 

That’s our primary goal. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. And how about the return water, the 

wastewater that they’re claiming is cleaner than the water that 

they drew out before it went through the shower or the toilet or 

wherever it went? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Well, part of the challenge that we have is 

to just work with States so we understand the water quality so 

that our discharges matched to how States prioritize their own rivers and streams. 

Senator TESTER. Good. Good, good, good. Real quickly, and I appreciate your brief answers, because I’ll get through this, I want to 

talk about your research budget, and you’ve got research for air 

and climate and energy and for safe and sustainable water resources, and there’s a lot of good stuff in here. A couple things. 

How much research dollars are actually dedicated towards technology that will help those cities and towns meet—where are we 

at on—meet the standards that are put out? Are we woefully inadequate or are we adequate? Where are we at on that? And then I’ve 

got another question on that, too. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think on technology, we certainly do 

some work. We’re focused a lot on monitoring technologies because 

they’re ever evolving. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think we have significant challenges to look at 

how we push towards the type of water and wastewater technologies that are going to be amenable to what we’re seeing today 

in the emerging technologies of the future. 

We clearly have challenges there on the water side. Where the 

Clean Air Act tends to push and motivate technology improvements—— 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. That kind of motivation doesn’t 

exist as heavily when you look at drinking water and clean water. 
15 

Senator TESTER. And water. Okay. Okay. Thank you. One more 

real life example. Because we had pretty good crops in Montana 

the last 5, 6 years, I’ve been able to swap out my equipment, my 

tractors. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. And so the air coming out of those stacks are 

a lot cleaner in these ones than it was in my 1985 model. Okay. 

But here’s the hitch: my cost per acre I was doing for a third of 

a gallon, now it’s two-thirds of a gallon, it’s doubled. And I asked 

the manufacturer, the dealer, I said, ‘‘How come efficiency is not 

as good?’’ and they said, ‘‘It’s the Clean Air standards on those engines.’’ I don’t know if that’s BS or not, but I’ve heard that from 

many, many, many people, that there is so much stuff attached to 

reduce the output. 

The question is, and it goes back to your research fund, is there 

any money dedicated to the industrial side of engines to make sure 

that—because I believe in the Clean Air portion of it, but I’d like 

to have a little efficiency in the process, too. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I mean, we clearly look at efficiency because we are now looking at regulating for both greenhouse gases 

and traditional pollutants. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We don’t want tradeoffs. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I want them to be cleaner and more efficient. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s the only way we’re going to get there. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will come—Senator, I’m happy to come back to 

you on the question of how much research we have directed at industrial equipment as opposed to on-road. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know a lot about light duty and heavy duty, 

which is somewhat what you’re talking about, but there’s a real 

challenge. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. And by the way, when it comes to highway 

vehicles, we’ve accomplished both, we’ve accomplished fuel efficiency and cleaner air. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. It seems to me it would be nice to have it the 

other way. Thank you. 

I’m sorry I ran over. Appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. Chairman 

and ranking member. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cassidy. 

Senator CASSIDY. Hello, Administrator. Again, thank you for 

being here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Nice to be here. Thank you. 

Senator CASSIDY. We had Chief Tidwell from the U.S. Forest 

Service—let me start over. 

The Paris Accords—in the Paris Accords, the use of forests as 

carbon sinks has increased by 100 percent. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 
16 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, frankly, there are some that are skeptical 

that that can be achieved because of the land that would be required to so achieve, but let’s just leave it as if that could potentially occur. 

Now, last September, EPA published an interim recommendation 

for environmental standards as well as eco levels—ecolabels for use 

in Federal procurement, and the recommendation that EPA made 

for lumber includes the Forest Stewardship Council’s certification, 

but it excludes other credible sources, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the American Tree Farm System. 

Now, Chief Tidwell from the National Forest Service came a 

while ago. I’ve learned that the Forest Service does not use these 

third-party certifications, which means that the National Forest 

could not supply wood for this purpose. Secondly, that these standards are very similar. I’ll just say in Louisiana there’s about 4 million acres and 85 percent of it is certified with either the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) or the American Tree Farm System 

(ATFS), but not the one that you all have favored, the Forest Stewardship Council. 

Now, all of this may seem arcane, but Tidwell made the point 

that unless a tree farmer can make money off of his trees, he’s 

going to use that land for its highest best use. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator CASSIDY. This recommendation would seem somewhat 

arbitrary, again according to Chief Tidwell, excludes his ability to 

market his wood. Now, if on the one hand, our goal is to increase 

the amount of forests in the United States by 100 percent, and on 

the other hand, the EPA has just diminished the economic value 

of all this other land, it seems as if these are two goals that are 

frankly incompatible. Your thoughts. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, first of all, I think with the continued 

threat of climate change and potential for significant wildfires, sustainable forest management is valuable in many different ways, it 

needs to be heavily invested in. 

Senator CASSIDY. I’m not disputing that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, no, I’m agreeing with you. 

Senator CASSIDY. Gotcha. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. So in terms of the ecolabels, I know that 

when EPA made a limited decision here, it was based on what was 

already being used by Federal agencies, in this case, DOE. We recognize that there needs to be an expansion of that certification so 

that others can be readily recognized because I want what you 

want, which is to have a forest sustainably managed and to be able 

to use whatever leverage we have to provide the economic incentive 

for that. So we are talking to folks and looking at that and seeing 

how we can expand the certifications that are recognized. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. Very good. Thank you. 

Secondly, in a previous conversation we’ve had, I made the point 

that if the Clean Power Plan rule raises energy costs, that will put 

our economy at a economic disadvantage relative to countries overseas, which, frankly, will continue to pollute or emit carbon. Now, 

we wanted to test this hypothesis, so we took all of the States in 

the United States, and we looked at those which have the easiest 

compliance with the Clean Power Plan rule, i.e., they currently 
17 

emit the less, and those States that are going to have the hardest 

time, they emit the most. And it turns out there is kind of an inverse correlation with electricity costs. So if you look at Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) States, for example, the Northeast, they have electricity costs that are three times higher than 

that for a State like Montana. 

Now, I think I remember you saying, no, it’s possible to lower 

emissions without raising the costs, but I’ll just say at baseline, 

these States which have the lowest emissions of carbon already 

have tripled the cost of their electricity. 

Now, if we’re going to have an input cost, and it’s going to be energy, intuitively, if you raise that input cost, you’re going to have 

some industries that will move to an area of the world with a lower 

input cost. As an aside, we had a question to a group and we 

asked, ‘‘What nation has successfully grown their economy and lowered their emissions?’’ they pointed out six, all of which have deindustrialized, my point being that de-industrialize, it doesn’t the 

industry is not there, they just moved to a country where they can 

emit as much as they wish plus release other pollutants, so on net, 

on a global issue, we’re worse off. Now, I have a sense you’re not 

going to agree with what I just said, but I would like your thoughts 

on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, it’s just one way to look at it, but, you 

know, I have kind of intimate knowledge about the Northeast and 

why the energy costs are higher because I live there. And the one 

thing I think you need to consider is if those States are such high 

cost and they’re taking action on climate, they’re either incredibly 

dedicated to greenhouse gas reductions or they find value in taking 

those actions. And if you look at Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, and the revenues that it has produced, has been a significant benefit to those communities because it invested in energy 

efficiency, and it resulted in lower costs. So there are two ways 

to—— 

Senator CASSIDY. May I interrupt just for a second? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well—— 

Senator CASSIDY. The analysis I read was that probably the 

lower costs were more of a product of substitution of low cost natural gas than it was for the, quote/unquote, investment. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If you look at it, they’ve done studies, and I 

know that RGGI has done a study on how much it actually reduced 

costs, so I just want you to think about that. I don’t think the direct relationship, as you’ve outlined it, is the most productive way 

to look at it or the one that best reflects the facts on the ground. 

Senator CASSIDY. Empirically, though, it is true, those States 

that emit the most carbon have the lowest energy costs, those that 

emit the least have the highest, in some cases, triple, and if 

input—if your cost of energy is an input into your cost of production, intuitively, companies are going to move where that cost is 

lower. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I guess I’m not disagreeing with the facts that 

you’ve outlined there. My disagreement may be with, what would 

the impact of regulating greenhouse gas emissions have? And if 

RGGI is moving forward, even when they’re not required to, and 

they’re saying it’s building a clean energy economy and jobs and 
18 

lowering their costs, then maybe there is an inverse relationship 

about the ability of climate action to actually benefit every State, 

and I would argue that if you do it well and let States design it, 

as we’ve done with the Clean Power Plan, they’re smart enough to 

understand the economics, and we’ll be able to make that work. 

Senator CASSIDY. I wish we could continue, but we’re way over, 

and I yield back. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

We will turn to Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

The EPA’s Gold King Mine accident was devastating, Administrator McCarthy, as you know, to the people downstream in New 

Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. The EPA is responsible for a number of serious mistakes, technical failures, and management failures, and these are deeply disappointing, and they’ve had a serious 

long-term impact. After the accident, the EPA was slow to notify 

downstream communities, communities that depend on the river 

for their livelihood, and the Navajo Nation and the people of northwestern New Mexico are still frustrated. They spent several million 

dollars to respond to the emergency, but 8 months after the spill, 

the State and the Navajo Nation are still waiting to be reimbursed, 

and 8 months after the spill, we’re waiting for a legal decision from 

EPA about whether it is responsible for individual damages so that 

people can be compensated. Those impacted deserve compensation. 

And I want reimbursements for New Mexico taxpayers and for the 

Navajo, long-term water monitoring, and a promise that the Gold 

King Mine, the source of this pollution, will be cleaned up. 

Administrator McCarthy, you’ve said publicly several times that 

EPA takes full responsibility for the spill, but the EPA hasn’t made 

the legal finding of tort responsibility. When will we have that decision so that the affected communities can finally begin seeking 

compensation for damages? What specific steps have to be taken 

for the tort finding to be made? And can you give us a firm date 

on when we will have that decision? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I wish I could give you a firm date. I believe it’s 

happening soon, sir, but I have to be independent and hands-off of 

that process. It’s being done by a claims individual that’s in a fairly 

insulated process working with the Department of Justice. So I do 

know that people are anxious. We have about 57 Federal tort 

claims that have been submitted, and we certainly want to get information out to people as soon as we can. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. The tort finding is just one of many 

issues raised by stakeholders. The Navajo recently sent you a letter 

detailing their priorities to address the damage caused by the spill. 

EPA responded in writing yesterday with a general commitment to 

continue working with the Navajo Nation, but we still need to 

know what specific steps EPA is going to take to address the Navajo’s concerns, and I will follow up with you on those questions for 

the record. Yet specifically I do want to ask, what is the status of 

claims submitted by the Navajo and the State of New Mexico? And 

can I get your commitment right now on a date certain for all of 

these requests to be fully processed? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, in terms of reimbursements, we have reimbursed the Navajo for their expenses of $158,000. There are signifi-
19 

cant additional claims where we’re working with them to get the 

information we need to determine what’s eligible for payment 

under the law. Likewise, for New Mexico, we have reimbursed 

$328,000. 

You know, in total, we’re working through the system in as best 

a collaborative way as we can with the States and with the tribes. 

We’ve also identified and continue with monitoring in the area, and 

we’ve also identified $2 million to be able to work with those States 

and tribes to define a longer term strategy moving forward so that 

we can identify whether or not there continues to be challenges 

moving forward. 

And as you know, we have also put the Bonita Mine area as a 

proposed Superfund site with the support of the local communities 

as well as the State of Colorado, and we much appreciate that significant step forward. 

Senator UDALL. And they really appreciate that work. And thank 

you for the work on the Superfund site. I know working through 

some of those local issues was very difficult. 

I think it would go a long way if you could reiterate EPA’s commitment to the Navajo and other stakeholders. Could you state for 

the record again that the EPA intends to make things right for the 

Navajo and others affected by the spill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You know, right after the spill, I went to the 

area and I said EPA would take full responsibility. I still intend 

to do that, and the Agency will. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Administrator McCarthy, as you talked 

about Superfund and getting this on the National—Gold King Mine 

on the National Priorities List, can you confirm that finalizing this 

proposal will make the site eligible for full and complete remediation? And does your budget request provide enough resources to 

begin the cleanup? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the fiscal year budget that we’re proposing 

does increase our Superfund funds by about $20 million, and so we 

do think that will give us an ability certainly to add more sites into 

the mix. It will take, I think, a significant amount of time to both 

assess that area and to determine what to do and how to take the 

steps moving forward we need to. And so we’ll continue to work 

through that process, and we’ll continue to make steady progress. 

It’s been a long time coming. Now that we have it in the system, 

we don’t want to fail to get the work done. 

Senator UDALL. Administrator McCarthy, as you know, the Clean 

Power Plan provides a lot of flexibility to States to craft their particular emission targets. Has the EPA provided guidance to States 

that are working on strategies under the Clean Power Plan? And 

can you explain more about how EPA is helping States develop 

plans to meet the new standards? And does your budget request 

continue support in fiscal year 2017? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It does. It includes support of about $50.5 million to continue to work with States that voluntarily want to continue moving forward to develop their plans as well as funding to 

support tools that the Agency would be able to develop for that 

purpose, including an accounting system. You know, States want to 

work together on this. They want to know and be prepared for 

when the court concludes its review of this, to be able to move for-
20 

ward quickly, and we’re trying to respond to that, and that’s what 

these monies are all about, to provide them direct money for States 

to be able to develop their plans and for us to be able to support 

them with the tools they’ll need to get that work done. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Blunt. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks for holding 

this hearing. 

In the bill we did last year, Director McCarthy, I asked for a— 

I asked you all to work with the National Academy of Public Administrators to conduct an independent study to create a definition 

of community affordability, this being a situation where a community might be protected from their water rates going up too quickly, 

but they might not be protected from their water rates hitting that 

cap and two or three other things in the community hitting that 

cap. And I just wonder if you would give us a little bit of an update 

on where we are on that study. And I have a couple of other questions, too, so I don’t need a 5-minute update, but are we—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m happy to provide you a more detailed update. My understanding is that a meeting has been planned, but 

I’ll go back and check and make sure that we’re moving aggressively. I absolutely agree with you that an integrated planning 

process is the best thing to do, and we should be looking at affordability with a more comprehensive approach to ensure that they 

can move forward with integrated planning and be comfortable 

that that can be done in a reasonable way. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, and you understand, as other discussions 

we’ve had on this, I do believe you understand the purpose of this 

is to be sure that we don’t have three or four things, or even two 

things, happening at the same time that happened as if they were 

not having an impact—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not related. That’s correct. 

Senator BLUNT [continuing]. On those very same families that 

they deal with. And in terms of impact of cost, under the Clean 

Power proposal—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BLUNT [continuing]. Certainly one of the things that I’ve 

had a lot of input from the rural electric co-ops that really do serve 

many of our lower income counties in the country, and serve about 

over 70 percent of the geography of the country, we have more than 

one county in Missouri where the customers from that rural electric co-op are already at the 20 percent level of their income. If the 

kinds of increases in rates occur and utility bills occur that have 

been anticipated with Clean Power, what can be done to minimize 

the impact of those dramatic power increases on rural electric coop families? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Well, we have spent a lot of time with the 

rural electric co-ops, and I think rightly so, to continue to work 

with their fairly unique challenges given the constituencies, the 

customer base, that they serve. We’re working really closely with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, both Rural Energy for America 

Program as well as the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan 

Program. So we can provide whatever support the Federal Government has to offer as they’re thinking about their strategies. 
21 

I would also point out that given the flexibilities that we have 

provided, there are opportunities for rural co-ops to actually think 

beyond their own borders about what they’re able to actually do 

that could provide them significant economic opportunities. 

And I would lastly point out that a lot of the utilities are reaching out to the rural co-ops, the larger utilities, because they are 

very much interested in renewable energy projects because in rural 

communities there’s a lot of wind and there are a lot of solar opportunities, and they are becoming very big customer bases. 

So there is a dynamic in the Clean Power Plan that could very 

much provide opportunities for rural co-ops to expand the diversity 

of how they provide electricity but also economically benefit from 

the Clean Power Plan in a very direct way. 

Senator BLUNT. In that case, that would involve an outside investor you would expect? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It would involve just a collaboration between 

them and some of the larger utilities to think about opportunities 

to actually join together in a joint plan and to be able to allow the 

utility that wants to make investments to offset their greenhouse 

gas emissions to be able to utilize the renewable energy that’s in 

rural communities as an inexpensive way to get reductions, but 

also a way that will reduce energy costs for those communities. 

So there are wonderful relationships that we can build, and we’ll 

continue to sit down and work with the rural co-ops and try to 

make sure that there are no opportunities lost in terms of their 

ability, not just to meet these challenges, but also to benefit from 

them. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, you know Missouri is 80 percent dependent 

on coal. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BLUNT. We were 82 percent dependent on coal just a few 

years ago, so we must be headed in the direction that you would 

like to see us head, but 80 percent—and the rural co-ops are more 

than 80 percent dependent on coal. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BLUNT. The impact in those counties and those areas is 

going to be greater, you know, in counties like Pemiscot County or 

Shannon County, and in the southeast and south-central Missouri, 

already are at the 20 percent family income rate for utilities, and 

anything that impacts that has a tremendous impact on what those 

families can do. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BLUNT. On the Waters of the United States, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that EPA had violated the 

Anti-Deficiency Act when conducting a social media campaign promoting Waters of the United States, one of many criticisms of how 

that rule came together. What are you doing about that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we have a report into the Office of Management and Budget. Senator, we didn’t agree with the GAO’s findings, but it doesn’t mean we’re not going to respect the process. 

And we have a corrective action or a report into the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and we’re going to do a couple of 

things. We followed all the rules of OMB in terms of how you do 

social media outreach. There were two issues which the GAO found 
22 

that they had concerns with, and we’re going to provide an opportunity in particular for when we do a blog post that has what they 

call a hyperlink that goes to another Web site. We found that some 

agencies can provide better and clearer acknowledgement that 

you’re leaving the Federal Web site when you use that hyperlink. 

We have already taken the same action. That should provide a, I 

think, level of insulation that GAO might be looking for, but we’re 

waiting for OMB to do a full review of that report, but any funding 

that we use was limited at best, if we use any, in terms of the two 

social media outreach issues or efforts that they had concerns with. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. I’m out of time. I’m sure 

I’ll have some questions for the record. And on that issue generally 

of who’s paying for advertisements or things that show up on social 

media Web sites, I think people should see that that’s clearly paid 

for by taxpayers if it’s being paid for by taxpayers. 

Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Blunt. 

Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Administrator McCarthy, we talked earlier about the time you 

joined me on the shores of Lake Champlain to see some portions 

of the lake that are affected repeatedly by nutrient pollution as a 

result of decades of pollution that’s built up in the lake. And 

Vermont wants to do the right thing. The Environmental Protection Agency has been working for 5 years to develop a new Total 

Maximum Daily Load plan, I believe you call it TMDL, for Vermont 

to address this problem. Vermont has to know how to react, but 

there have been many delays and that, but we have yet to see the 

final document. And interestingly enough, while developing this aggressive new plan, the administration has not increased funding requests for work on Lake Champlain. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. A number of areas have been able to get additional funding that they thought that could help on Lake Champlain, but it seems to go elsewhere. 

This year, the administration requested a significant reduction 

compared to last year’s total funding level. I’m afraid we may be 

getting into some kind of a Hobson’s choice here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. When will Vermont see a Lake Champlain phosphorus TMDL issued by EPA Region 1? And when we do see it, 

how are you going to help fund this important and very expensive 

undertaking? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we do—— 

Senator LEAHY. I say it because this lake has the most—outside 

of the five Great Lakes, has the most freshwater in the country. 

It affects New York, Vermont, and Canada, hundreds of feet deep 

in parts. So it’s a real jewel, but only if it’s constantly worked at 

to keep clean. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And I certainly recognize your championship efforts on this, and, frankly, as well as the Governor in the State. 

I couldn’t be more pleased with the response, including in your 

State legislature on this issue. 
23 

This spring EPA intends to issue the final TMDL for Lake 

Champlain. We’re working closely with the State of Vermont so 

that we can respond to the public comments effectively and make 

sure that the revisions are really going to be whatever everybody 

expects to see to get Lake Champlain where it needs to be. I do 

recognize that there is disappointment in the funding for the geographic program. I wish I had an ability to be able to fund those 

programs at higher levels. I think we all know the challenges in 

the Agency’s budget. 

The good news is that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, as 

well as the Section 319 grants, are really the primary way in which 

we can be supportive of Vermont’s implementation to the TMDL. 

So I’ll work with Region 1 to make sure that there is a commensurate commitment. I do not want any State to feel like they have 

to bear this burden themselves, even one that’s been as generous 

and aggressive as the State of Vermont. 

Senator LEAHY. And our legislature goes out of session in a couple weeks till next year, so as soon as we can know that, the better. 

Another area is a dangerous chemical known as perfluorooctanoic 

acid (PFOA). Apparently it’s gotten into private wells and municipal water supplies in Vermont, in North Bennington panel. I went 

and visited them a couple of weeks ago. I talked to a number of 

the homeowners who are hurt by this. I’ve heard their concerns 

firsthand. Also, invited the head of the company that now owns the 

manufacturing site believed to be responsible for the North 

Bennington contamination. There are more cases popping up all 

the time. It’s not going to be taken care of overnight. 

I mention this, and some will be up in the EPA, and I want to 

tell you I’ve heard nothing but praise for EPA Region 1 and their 

reaction. Some were there when I came there, but they weren’t 

there just the day I was there, they were days before and days 

afterward. The only problem we have with EPA is you have to 

issue a uniform guidance on what level should be considered a risk. 

And I’ll tell you why. Some of this is showing up in New York 

just across the border from Vermont. They may be following the 

EPA provisional health advisory of 400 parts per trillion for the 

contamination at Hoosick Falls. Eight miles away in North 

Bennington, Vermont, we have 20 parts per trillion, and everybody 

wants to do the right thing, everybody wants to protect their people, but we want to know what the numbers should be. And actually it’s going to be we’re probably going to find this in other parts 

of the country. 

So, one, when can we have uniform guidance? And can you tell 

me what your funding requests are going to be for this? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, at this point, we have been doing national 

testing on PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), we call 

them perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), and we have been doing it 

as an unregulated contaminant, and we identified it and we’ve 

been doing extensive monitoring for about a year. That is to underpin a health advisory that we want to get out this spring and hopefully very soon. We know there is a lot of anxiety about EPA providing some guidance on this issue. 

The good news is that while we are seeing it nationally, we are 

seeing it connected with localized problems, as you indicate, and 
24 

there are opportunities for current technologies to be able to bring 

those levels down considerably. 

So, Senator, if you can be just a short while more patient, we’re 

trying to make sure that we get the science right and we’re able 

to explain this with States and local communities so they can understand what the health advisory is and isn’t moving forward. 

Senator LEAHY. Okay. Thank you. Also, I’ll submit a question for 

you. This is something that the distinguished Senator from Alaska 

and I and others have raised, those from States that use a lot of 

wood stoves. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. We know new standards are coming, but we 

don’t know when and what they’re going to be, and you have manufacturers say, okay, we’ve got to test or retest and set up, and if 

they come at the last minute and they say, ‘‘Here’s what you’ve got 

to do,’’ they’re going to be out of business because, you know, it 

takes some retooling. And if that happens, and I think the Senator 

from Alaska would probably agree, if that happens, people are 

going to—you’re going to have worse problems, and they’ll say, 

‘‘Heck, I’m not going to spend money on one of the new ones, they 

don’t know what they’re doing, they can’t manufacture, so we’ll just 

keep on using the old ones.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, we did actually work really hard 

with the small businesses, which there are many in the wood stove 

industry, to make sure that the rule that was passed a while ago 

and those standards actually have an extended compliance period 

so that those small businesses that aren’t yet prepared to deliver 

stoves that can meet those standards have an opportunity to design 

and construct those so they don’t lose step in terms of their ability 

to compete. 

So we’ve worked hard at it. We think the standards are pretty 

clear, and we think they’re done in a way that’s very sensitive of 

small businesses. 

Senator LEAHY. My time—I’ve gone over my time, but we may 

have to talk more on that. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome back, Gina, to the subcommittee. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator DAINES. Your budget proposal includes $235 million for 

the EPA efforts to cut carbon pollution and greenhouse gases included in the Clean Power Plan. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. Given the Supreme Court’s issue to stay the 

final rule for the Clean Power Plan, I want to ask about the costs 

and benefits about this final rule. You stated in the EPA’s regulatory analysis of the Clean Power Plan that the purpose of the 

rule is to cut CO2 emissions from the contribution to climate 

change, quoting. The EPA Web site defines climate change to include major changes in temperature. I’m trained in engineering, 

chemical engineering, looking at numbers. Can you tell me what 

the impact of global warming would be from the Clean Power Plan? 
25 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, the Supreme Court asked us a very 

similar question and agreed with us that while we can’t define the 

exact reductions that would be achieved from any one action in climate, there is absolutely no reason to do that because we know it 

will take a lot of efforts to actually make those reductions. And the 

President’s move to actually push forward with this Climate Action 

Plan and the Clean Power Plan was to recognize that the energy 

sector is our largest source, stationary source, of emissions, and it 

will make big progress moving forward domestically and internationally. 

Senator DAINES. But I think it’s important to quantity because 

we have quantified the tremendous impact—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, okay. 

Senator DAINES [continuing]. On people—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator DAINES [continuing]. In Montana specifically because 

we’re one of the States hardest hit by this plan. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. Cato ran the numbers through the magic algorithm and assessed that the change in climate temperature for the 

world would be .02 degrees Centigrade between now and the year 

2100 as a result of these regulations, which says it’s a rounding 

error, and yet as we look at what impact it will have on the people 

of Montana, it’s a loss of 7,000 jobs. This is a study done by the 

University of Montana. This wasn’t some conservative think tank. 

This is objective, they’re very respected back home, the University 

of Montana, 7,000 lost jobs, $145 million of lost tax revenues we 

use to support our schools and teachers and infrastructure, doubledigit increases in utility rates, and a loss of $1.5 billion of economic 

activity in Montana per year, and the conclusion was it’s the single 

largest economic impact and event to occur in Montana in over 30 

years. 

So we’ve quantified the impact to families. I’ve stood and looked 

at the families there that are going to lose their jobs because of 

this. For what? For one quantitative analysis for .02 degrees Centigrade change in temperature between now and the year 2100. Why 

are we doing this? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, the actual net benefits of this rule are very 

large, not just in terms of our ability to generate the kind of actions 

on climate change that are necessary to protect those very families, 

but there is also—— 

Senator DAINES. But wait a minute, but wait a minute, if the impact on temperature is virtually negligible, what impact are we trying to drive here? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We’re trying to get actual domestic and international agreements, which this Clean Power Plan has helped to 

initiate to get worldwide response to what is essentially a worldwide problem, but—— 

Senator DAINES. So by getting at—by killing the coal industry, 

which your regulations are doing—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No. 

Senator DAINES [continuing]. They’re killing coal-fired plants, the 

regulations are going to result in the shutdown of Colstrip Units 

1, 2, 3 and 4. It’s a significant—where we—over 50 percent of the 
26 

electricity generated in Montana is from coal-fired plants. You’re 

going to shut them all down with these regulations. And I lived in 

China for 5 years, I’ve breathed the air. We need to help China 

continue to become better in terms of managing their environment, 

but to completely step away from the coal-fired business and to 

take American innovation out of the equation to let America lead 

in clean coal technology versus ceding it to the Chinese I think is 

a grave strategic mistake as it relates to overall stewardship of the 

planet. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think there are many ways in which Montana 

can achieve these standards. We’ve tried very hard to make sure 

they’re both reasonable and flexible, but, sir, you have to look at 

both the positive benefits of the rule. 

Senator DAINES. No, wait, the proposed rule was very different 

from what was actually generated. You gave us a proposal. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It was correct. 

Senator DAINES. When the actual rule came out, it was a baitand-switch in Montana. It is correct. And so we’ve been caught absolutely here with we’re cornered. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. No, what happened was the number did shift, 

but the way in which you’re allowed to achieve that number and 

the flexibilities very much changed to allow that number to be very 

commensurate, with the same strategy you would have used to 

achieve the proposal, you can still find as an amenable strategy—— 

Senator DAINES. We don’t—we’re struggling right now. We don’t 

see a path forward on this at the moment other than to have to 

literally look at shuttering our Colstrip Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. This 

is a big, big issue. And again the study says the single biggest economic impact to hit my State in over 30 years. These are real families. This is tax revenues for our teachers and our schools. It’s $1.5 

billion a year to my State. We can’t replace that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we share the concern for families. I think 

we—I just view certainly climate change as being a very large—— 

Senator DAINES. Well, but wait a minute. Come back to quantifying it, though. I challenge you to come back and tell me why the 

Cato study is wrong, .02 degrees Centigrade between now and the 

year 2100, it’s been quantified through the magic algorithm done 

for the EPA. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sir, that’s not the benefit that you’re trying to 

establish or quantify here. There are both costs and benefits. Our 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this rule showed that in 2030 

we are looking at upwards of $45 billion every year in benefits. 

And so there are benefits from traditional pollutant reductions, and 

there are certainly going to be benefits, as Paris showed, in the 

United States providing domestic leadership that will underpin 

strong international efforts, and that international effort, it is what 

is going to allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way 

that is going to provide a more stable world for our kids. 

Senator DAINES. China, as you know, China consumes 50 percent 

of the world’s coal right now. We’re about 10 percent here in the 

United States, and so we’ve got the tail wagging the dog here. This 

is where we have got to—I think the better strategy, and you’re 

hearing from somebody here who is a passionate outdoorsman, 
27 

loves spending time at 10,000 feet with my backpack on, and an 

ardent protector of clean water and clean air, as a fifth generation 

Montanan, but we’ve got to also I think have the right balance 

here, and I think strategically by working with us to develop clean 

coal technology is a better strategic bet. And we can help the Chinese with this ultimately, because if they don’t change, you’re not 

going to solve some of these challenges we face globally—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’re certainly trying to do that as well. 

Senator DAINES [continuing]. And so I just think we’re making 

a grave mistake by killing the industry and taking away American 

innovation from boilermakers, the trade unions, and so forth, who 

want to work to solve this problem, and instead you’re going to put 

them out of work, and that’s the reality of it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All right, sir. Thank you. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your 

courtesies. 

Administrator McCarthy, reducing methane emissions is a critical part of our Nation’s fight against climate change. Methane is 

a serious problem. It has 25 times the heat-trapping potential of 

carbon dioxide. And a recent EPA study found that methane emissions from oil and gas production are even higher than we had estimated. It’s a serious budget issue, too. In New Mexico alone, venting and flaring has cost the State more than $42 million in lost 

royalty revenues since 2009. Reducing methane emissions is a winwin for the environment and for our State budgets, and that’s why 

I’m supportive of the administration’s goal to cut methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent. 

I think the proposed regulations on new and modified sources are 

a good start, but we need EPA to set effective workable standards 

for leak detection and repairs and to investigate emerging technologies that could cut emissions even more. 

What is the timeline for the proposed standards? And what is the 

plan for a proposal on existing sources of methane emissions? And 

does the proposed rule consider industry feedback to minimize the 

potential impact on production when oil prices are low? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We do have proposals moving forward to finalization this spring, but relative to the existing sources right now, 

one of the biggest challenges we see is that the most recent greenhouse gas data shows us there are a lot of methane emissions that 

we had not accounted for previously. And what we are doing instead of immediately moving to proposal is we are putting out an 

information collection request to the industry because we need to 

understand better where those emissions are being generated, we 

need to understand exactly what you’ve asked us. What are the 

technologies that we can take advantage of? And what are the costs 

associated with those so we could provide reasonable standards 

moving forward and continue to work with States that have really 

good knowledge of the industry in their own States? And many of 

them are regulating them, and some very effectively, so that we’re 

not duplicating and we’re providing the kind of benefits that we all 

are looking for. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. That’s encouraging to hear that. 
28 

From—now talking about Navajo uranium cleanup. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. From 1944 to 1986, 4 million tons of uranium 

ore were mined in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico from lands belonging to the Navajo Nation. The demand for uranium mining 

skyrocketed during World War II, when little was known about the 

dangers. Even as we learn more, the Federal Government repeatedly failed to take steps to protect workers and their families. I visited the homes of workers impacted by uranium contamination. I’ve 

met the widows of men who worked in the mines and died in their 

early 30s. 

Uranium mining has a tragic legacy, and it’s our responsibility 

to prevent more deaths. Over 500 abandoned uranium mine claims 

remain in the Navajo Nation, including 145 in New Mexico. The 

areas around the Church Rock Mine spill, the site of the largest accidental radiation release in U.S. history, still needs extensive 

cleanup. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. I appreciate the EPA’s efforts to clean up uranium on Navajo land during the Agency’s first 5-year plan, we 

worked very closely with you on that, but more work still needs to 

be done given the extent of the contamination. EPA is now starting 

a second 5-year cleanup plan. What are EPA’s specific goals for this 

second round of cleanup? And how much funding is set aside in the 

budget for this year and next year? 

And the Church Rock Mine near Gallup is the EPA’s top priority. 

I am concerned about how long cleanup is scheduled to take. We 

have heard it may not begin until 2020 and may take 7 to 9 years 

to finish. Why will the cleanup take so long to start and finish? 

And can we speed it up? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, just specific to this year, we plan to spend $16.6 million this year looking at 46 high priority mines that are 

located near homes and streams, and the work will include replacing contaminated homes and providing water. But the good news 

is with the settlements that we have been able to achieve with 

Tronox, there is significant funding that we’re working on with the 

States in, and, in particular, with the Navajo Nation as well, to try 

to continue to make steady progress. 

Relative to Church Rock Mine, you’re right, it is a complicated 

site. It is projected to take a little longer. I think part of that is 

related to the fact that we have to go through some Nuclear Regulatory permitting obligations associated with that. But I will do the 

best I can to make sure that we’re providing the kind of prompt 

response that we can. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you very much. Talking a little bit 

about the Mexico border water funding. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. Chairman Murkowski, thank you for your work 

to prioritize the Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program in 

2016. Our funding is tight these days, and I appreciate you recognize the clean water challenges we face on the border. 

Many border communities lack water and sewer services. This 

program helps ensure that these underserved areas finally get 

their basic sanitary services. It’s critical in New Mexico, but I’m 
29 

concerned about the program’s future. There are at least $800 million in remaining projects that we have a huge need out there, and 

I’m disappointed that the budget request is just $5 million. It’s 

hard to imagine how we make progress at that pace. 

Administrator McCarthy, can you share more information about 

the estimated need for water infrastructure projects on the U.S.- 

Mexico border? What can EPA do to better meet the long-term 

needs of our border communities? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, I happened to spend a little bit 

of time along that border, and the needs are rather dramatic, as 

you well know. It’s been a very successful opportunity to look at 

how we support projects in that area that will both be protective 

of local public health as well as our tremendous water resources in 

those areas. 

We have a number of projects that are in the pipeline that have 

been funded. You’re right, we are looking at a fiscal year 2017 proposal of $5 million. That will allow us to continue to add new 

projects into the system, but we’re trying very hard to work within 

limited resources to be able to continue to construct the 14 projects 

that are already funded and in the system as well as to continue 

to add in a reasonable way. But certainly the more funding we 

have, the more that we can get done. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you very much. 

And thank you again, Chairman Murkowski, for your courtesies. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

And we will now go to Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here today. The 

number one regulation opposed by our farmers and ranchers, not 

just in North Dakota, but really across the country, is WOTUS, 

Waters of the United States, and, in fact, in Federal district court 

in Fargo, North Dakota, the judge, Judge Ralph Erickson, stayed 

that regulation, and that stay was upheld by the circuit court in 

Cincinnati. 

And so my question to you is, what are you doing to address the 

concerns that WOTUS has created? And it’s not just our farmers 

and ranchers, it’s the energy industry and many others. But what 

are you doing to try to address their concerns? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think we tried very hard to try to address their concerns in the Clean Water Rule that we put forward. 

You’re absolutely right, that rule is stayed, and we’re respecting 

that stay. We will see what the courts say when they look in detail 

at the merits, and we’ll do our best, hopefully we’ll succeed, in 

sticking through the courts, we’re confident of that. But in the 

meantime, I think we need to continue to work with agriculture to 

provide the level of certainty they’re looking for. 

One of the reasons we did this rule in the first place was the uncertainty and the costs associated with that both in time and 

money. And I think we tried very hard to have this proposal be not 

just respectful of the exemptions and exceptions for agriculture 

that were in place already, but to better define those, to expand 

those, and to make this an easier opportunity for agriculture to 

keep producing the food, fuel, and fiber we rely on. 
30 

Now, clearly we have work to bridge the gap between how people 

are perceiving this rule and what we think is the clear written rule 

when you look at it and look at its merits. But right now we have 

to respect the court’s decision and make sure that they have an opportunity for all sides to be heard, and I’m sure they’ll make a decision quickly. 

Senator HOEVEN. And I would encourage you to, between yourself and your people, engage with the farm and ranch groups, sit 

down and talk to them. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. You know, they want to be good stewards out 

there, but, as you say, they do produce the food, fuel, and fiber for 

this country. And you need to sit down and have your people sit 

down and talk to them and find out, you know, maybe what you 

can do to actually help address their very real concerns on this regulation. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, thank you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Next I would say on the CO2 rules that the 

EPA has put forward. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. In the case of North Dakota, we went from, in 

the preliminary rule of reduction, of 11 percent to now a required 

reduction of 45 percent in terms of CO2. How are we supposed to 

meet that without just closing power plants? What are you willing 

to do to help the industry? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’re certainly—I think we’ve been to 

North Dakota a number of times—— 

Senator HOEVEN. You have come to North Dakota. We appreciate 

that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not at all. We’re trying to make sure that we 

work with the utilities and with the States and with, obviously, the 

energy regulators. One of the reasons why that reduction number 

changed is we really opened this up to be seen as much more of 

a regional way of approaching an issue because that’s how the energy sector works. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And part of the whole rule is trying to follow the 

sector that we’re regulating in a way that we don’t limit the flexibility that is already in the system. 

So I would continue to encourage if you—we will be at any meeting you want to hold so that we can try to continue to work and 

talk about this while the court is reviewing the rule itself. 

Senator HOEVEN. We have engaged Janet McCabe. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Good. 

Senator HOEVEN. The industry is working on this, but they’re 

going to need help. Obviously, we think there are real problems 

with it. We’re going to continue to work on it, as you know, in 

terms of our concerns about it, but we do need your support for 

Janet McCabe to work with our industry as they try to address 

some of these issues. We met with her, but we need your continued 

support to get all the flexibility and help possible. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, you have been terrific to work with in 

terms of agreeing that while we don’t agree on everything—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. 
31 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. That we continue to work together, 

and I very much appreciate that. 

Senator HOEVEN. Along that line, for our oil industry—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN [continuing]. Which you know right now is challenged by oil prices, but it’s a very vibrant industry, they’re very 

technologically savvy, they’re working very hard, not only to 

produce more oil, but to continue to improve environmental stewardship. That means continued developments in directional drilling 

that reduces the footprint on the surface, finding ways to produce 

more oil with less impact, reducing the amount of water that’s required for things like hydraulic fracturing, even going to CO2, sequestration using CO2, sequestration as a way to fracture and 

produce oil rather than even using water. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. A lot of new technologies that can produce 

more energy most effectively with better environmental stewardship, but they need to have a regulatory environment where they 

can work and deploy the investment and deploy these new technologies to accomplish both, more energy and better stewardship. 

Right now, they’re facing about, the oil industry is facing about, 

50 different regulations that they’re trying to comply with, not all 

from EPA, but a number of them from EPA, but Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM). How do we get a rationalized structure so that they can actually innovate? Which is I think what you 

want as well as what we want. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, sure do. 

Senator HOEVEN. But we need—all these different regulations, 

and they’ve got to figure out how to work with them. One regulation might stop them from putting in gas-gathering systems on 

Federal land at the same time they’re trying to reduce methane 

emissions from flares. You see? And the two regulations work 

against each other, right? 

So, and, for example, in Section 114, we’re right in the middle 

of that, we have a State taskforce that’s trying to work with that. 

Again, I’m asking for some help from you to work with our State 

taskforce on Section 114, that’s the specific; and, second, somehow 

to pull all these things together so our industry can actually get an 

understanding of what it is they need to do, particularly when we 

have conflicting regulations. 

What can you offer? [Laughter.] 

Ms. MCCARTHY. On Section 114, it is an enforcement mechanism, 

and I know there are discussions with our enforcement staff, and 

I think that’s more than appropriate. 

Senator HOEVEN. The biggest thing would be if you could encourage your staff to work with our taskforce that is working on that. 

Our State taskforce is working on that very issue, including our 

State health department and others. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we consistently try to work with the States 

so that we’re making sure I think you know that we’re moving towards regulating methane from existing sources. We’ve had a brief 

discussion about that. And there are States that are doing a very 

effective job at regulating. And so I’m not looking to reinvent the 

wheel, I’m not looking to one-up, but I am looking to see what kind 
32 

of technologies are available and cost effective to take care of these 

emissions in the best way that we can. I think that is what provides the stability for the industry to continue to innovate and invest moving forward. That is what drives innovation and provides 

them a level playing field across the board to make sure that development is happening in a way that’s safe and responsible. 

So I think we share the same goals, I just want to make sure 

that we’re doing it in a way that’s consistent with current law and 

that provides us the opportunity to continue to work together. 

Senator HOEVEN. The biggest thing that would help with that 

right now, particularly on Section 114, is your commitment to get 

your people to work with our taskforce on Section 114. That’s really 

my ask, that’s the ask. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I certainly know that the meetings continue. 

Senator HOEVEN. Pardon me. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I certainly know that the meetings continue, sir, 

but I do take a fairly hands-off approach when it’s an enforcement 

issue, but I’m kept abreast of the discussions, and I will keep doing 

that. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All right. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thanks. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

And, Administrator, I appreciate the exchange here on the issue 

of methane. As I noted in my opening comments, what we’ve seen 

is that, even as we have added new wells into the system, we have 

seen our methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas falling. That indicates to me that something is working here. Our 

States are doing what they need to do to regulate emissions from 

oil and gas. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And so your comments that you’re not looking to regulate, you’re not looking to one-up, I think was the terminology that you used—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. To try to bring some stability. 

This is what we’re hoping for here—making sure that we are looking to the States and what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. 

My observation is that this is an issue where the EPA does not 

need to take a top-down, command and control approach. A better 

approach is to work with the industry, and work with the States 

on a more narrowly tailored basis. It sounds like your words are 

in agreement, and that that’s how you would like to proceed. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we certainly want to collaborate with the 

States, because I do agree with you, there are many States that are 

doing a great job, and we’re learning from them and hopefully 

working with them. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. I mentioned in my comments about 

some concerns that I’m seeing as you’re proposing to move some 

funds that people are looking very critically because of what’s going 

on with our water and waste water infrastructure. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 
33 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I mentioned that the budget reduces fund- ing for State Revolving Funds by approximately $257 million. So 

you not only have the Flint issue that is still in the news daily, but 

we just had a report that 28 public and private entities in Alaska 

have water systems with lead levels that exceed the Federal standard. And it’s not just Michigan, it’s not just Alaska, I’m hearing it 

from colleagues all over. So at the same time we’re seeing this reduction in the State Revolving Funds (SRF), we are looking at a 

proposal within the Agency to increase the core regulatory programs by more than $237 million. 

I raise this because, as people are focused on the issues that are 

most concerning to them, and quite honestly, having drinking 

water is—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Where you don’t need to rely on this. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes, you don’t need to rely on this. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. The people in Flint have to have it in the 

bottle. The stories about people being fearful of bathing in the 

water. 

So I guess the specific question is, why is the Agency choosing 

to make such large cuts from the State Revolving Fund to pay for 

effectively additional personnel? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, we’re trying to shift the funds 

that are available to us while still having an operating Agency to 

be able to implement those and move forward with all of the core 

needs that we intend to provide. I think the big challenge that we 

have is, how do we use a combination of SRF dollars, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) dollars, and creative 

economic solutions that we can work with to generate more private 

sector investment in water and wastewater? You’re right that we 

would all like to have more funds, and I’m sure that the subcommittee will or the subcommittee will recommend and the subcommittee will look at this issue. But we’re trying to respect the 

constraints that we have on the bipartisan budget agreement and 

still provide an opportunity for the Agency to function in a budget 

that really is very consistent with what we might have looked at 

in 2010, and we are well beyond that in terms of our obligations 

and our commitments and the needs we see. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I concur that these are constrained budgets, but you’ve got a tough job—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. And that tough job is 

prioritization—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. And, again, when it comes to 

something as basic as safe drinking water, there is nothing that is 

capturing the news more clearly and more directly than what we’re 

seeing. It’s confusing to me that, within the administration, you 

would take from that very fund that can help the people of Flint, 

that can help these 28 communities, that can help the people in 

Ohio or wherever. We are looking at this issue as a subcommittee, 

but the signal that comes out of the administration, I don’t think— 

if I were the people in Flint, I wouldn’t be feeling too good about 

that as a direction. 
34 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, the only thing I would actually 

point out is that we are increasing the drinking water fund commensurate with our concern for drinking water. I think the challenge we have is, how do we do that in a way that doesn’t really 

reduce the level we have for clean water, our wastewater challenges? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And it’s a very difficult one, but you will see that 

we are significantly proposing an increase in the drinking water 

side. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask two very, very quick questions 

here and then we’ll wrap up because we’ve kept you over the time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. All right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Fish grinding. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You know, you don’t get any other Senators 

that are going to talk to you about fish grinding, but it is something that I had actually thought that we were on the verge of a 

solution, getting down to the standard here. I was disheartened to 

hear that now Region 10 is saying we could be years away from 

a solution, which is astonishing to me that we could be going backwards that far. So do you have any update in terms of where we 

are with fish grinding on the seafood processing vessels? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I’m glad you raised it because it’s an issue 

that I told you we would try to resolve, and I really would like to 

do that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes. We thought it was going to be easier 

than this. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I did, too. We have looked at the data, and 

I think there are a lot of comments that we have received on it. 

And the original data really wasn’t as good as the data we have 

available today, which says if we make a shift in these requirements, we’ll still be able to maintain really good water quality 

standards. So we are looking forward to moving that along. There 

are apparently some concerns with endangered species impacts 

that we have been getting the fish community together with the 

services to try to resolve. I think the only way we can do this 

quickly is to try to elevate those issues, and I’ve asked the region 

to do those so that we can understand how we can move forward 

with the reissuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit at a time when we both still talk 

to each other. [Laughter.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I would appreciate that. There has 

been considerable headway made within the industry to reduce the 

amount of waste, and it’s been quite notable, but I also recognize 

that you’ve got investment in new processing facilities that is basically put on hold right now until we know what the requirement 

is going to be. So, again, it was not unlike some of the issues that 

were raised here at the dais earlier. You’ve got a willingness to 

move forward with new technologies and new investment that 

make everything more efficient, and yet no one is going to make 

that capital commitment until we have some greater certainty. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And the industry is being very good and at the 

table all the time, and I would really like to be able to acknowledge 
35 

that and to be able to make the adjustments that the environment 

says we can make. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I’m with you. Yes. Let’s elevate this 

then and see what we can’t do. And in that same vein, I will continue to raise the issue about our small remote incinerators. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And, again, we’ve been talking about this 

for a number of years, but it doesn’t seem at this point in time like 

there’s any solution outside of legislation. So as we talk, as we get 

our senior teams together, know that that remains a priority as 

well as the fish grinding, and then the IGAP, the backhaul program. We’re making some headway on that. I think I mentioned to 

you in my phone call where we’re working on an adopt-a-barge program. We’re trying to come up with everything that we possibly 

can to be creative, to be innovative, and to deal with some of the 

trash and the junk that just doesn’t have a way out of a State 

when you don’t have roads. 

We want to try to work through many of these issues while you 

are still at the helm there, and so if you can dedicate some manpower to help us out, it would be greatly appreciated. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We certainly—on the backhaul issue, there 

needs to be a solution here. We are provided some opportunity 

through October 2019 to resolve this. Every Federal agency that 

has anything to do with Alaska is at the table and looking at funding strategies as well as systemic plans to be able to address it. 

You know, the small incinerator issue, we do have to resolve it. 

My concern is not just that I have limited time, but 2018 is the 

compliance window here, and we still have yet to engage in a way 

that’s going to be productive. And so your leadership, continued 

leadership, on this and our engagement one-on-one together to figure out a path forward will be really helpful. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. I appreciate it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All right. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. GINA MCCARTHY

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

CO2 EMISSIONS—AIRCRAFT

Question. On February 8, 2016, the International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) unanimously 

agreed to establish new standards for aircraft CO2 emissions. ICAO successfully developed the new standard with the unanimous support of 23 member countries including the United States. Last summer, in anticipation of this milestone the EPA 

published for public comment a proposed endangerment finding and advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking that it would regulate aircraft greenhouse gas emissions 

subsequent to ICAO’s pending actions. The EPA has always followed the precedent 

developed by ICAO for previous aircraft emissions standards and this CO2 standard 

will now provide the basis for the Agency to proceed with a rulemaking process to 

establish U.S. Standards. 

What are the anticipated milestones and projected schedule for proceeding with 

the rulemaking process for the U.S. Standards? 

Does the Agency intend to propose an aircraft CO2 emissions regulation that includes a standard equivalent to the one the U.S. Government supported at ICAO? 
36 

Answer. The EPA is currently evaluating, under the Clean Air Act, whether emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) from certain classes of aircraft engines cause or 

contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public 

health or welfare. To set aircraft engine emission standards for GHGs, the EPA 

must first complete this ‘‘endangerment finding,’’ and conclude that Greenhouse Gas 

(GHG) emissions from such classes of aircraft engines meet these criteria. In 2015, 

the EPA proposed a positive endangerment finding, and is expected to take final action regarding the proposed endangerment finding this summer. If the EPA finds 

that GHG emissions from such classes of aircraft engines do cause or contribute to 

endangerment under the Clean Air Act, the EPA would then undertake a domestic 

rulemaking with an opportunity for public input, to adopt appropriate aircraft engine emissions standards that are at least as stringent as the ICAO standards. The 

EPA would look to propose domestic GHG emissions standards for aircraft in 2017, 

consistent with agency priorities and available resources. 

SEDIMENT GUIDANCE AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT POLICIES REPORT

Question. Last year, the subcommittee requested the agency to submit within 90 

days of enactment an analysis of the degree to which sediment guidance and adaptive management policies are being applied at sediment sites. Can the agency provide an update on the status of that report? 

Answer. At the request of Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) began an audit of Superfund Sediment Sites (100205) in August 2015. Based 

upon the GAO’s questions, this audit is expected to include an evaluation of how 

the EPA applies the recommendations in the 2005 sediment remediation guidance. 

On June 30, 2016, an exit conference with the EPA and GAO was held to share 

findings of the audit. In light of the GAO audit’s completion, the EPA will review 

the audit results to determine if additional analysis or information is needed. After 

completing our review of the audit, the EPA would like to discuss with the subcommittee whether a report is still needed. 

CLEAN POWER PLAN—25 STATES

Question. In earlier testimony you stated that 25 States continue to work on implementation of the Clean Power Plan. Has this number changed since you made 

that statement and, if so, in what manner? 

Answer. Since the stay was issued, many States have said they intend to move 

forward voluntarily to continue to work to cut carbon pollution from power plants 

and are seeking the agency’s guidance and assistance. The agency will be providing 

such assistance, which is not precluded by the stay. In particular, they have asked 

us to move forward with our outreach and to continue providing support and developing tools, including the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), the proposed 

model rules, and the proposed evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) 

guidance. For example, on April 28, 2016, a group of 14 State environmental agency 

officials wrote the EPA to request that we provide a final model rule or rules, additional information on the Clean Energy Incentive Program, and other information 

and assistance. 

Many organizations are tracking State actions and statements related to CPP. 

These include the E&E Publishing Clean Power Plan hub (http://www.eenews.net/ 

interactive/cleanlpowerlplan), National Association of Clean Air Agencies 

(NACAA), Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), and Environmental Council of States (ECOS). 

CLEAN POWER PLAN—LIST OF 25 STATES

Question. Can you provide a list of the 25 States you believe continue to work on 

the CPP and your understanding of the work they have on-going? 

Answer. Since the stay was issued, many States have said they intend to move 

forward voluntarily to continue to work to cut carbon pollution from power plants 

and are seeking the agency’s guidance and assistance. The agency will be providing 

such assistance, which is not precluded by the stay. In particular, they have asked 

us to move forward with our outreach and to continue providing support and developing tools, including the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), the proposed 

model rules, and the proposed evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) 

guidance. For example, on April 28, 2016, a group of 14 State environmental agency 

officials wrote the EPA to request that we provide a final model rule or rules, additional information on the Clean Energy Incentive Program, and other information 

and assistance. 

Many organizations are tracking State actions and statements related to CPP. 

These include the E&E Publishing Clean Power Plan hub (http://www.eenews.net/ 
37 

interactive/cleanlpowerlplan), National Association of Clean Air Agencies 

(NACAA), Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), and Environmental Council of States (ECOS). 

MARKET CAPACITY STUDY COMPANY LIST

Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA’s implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the following information. 

A list the company names EPA has consulted within the financial and insurance 

sectors to prepare the market capacity study required by the fiscal year 2016 omnibus. 

Answer. The EPA is conducting a market study that addresses requests for information included with several committee reports. The draft study examines both the 

current state and future outlook of the markets for financial responsibility instruments based on publically available and attributable data from the U.S. Department 

of Treasury, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), S&P Global Ratings, industry leaders, and non-profit institutions. 

The draft study report is currently undergoing internal review. The EPA expects 

to make the report available before it issues the proposed hard rock mining rule. 

As part of its ongoing efforts to develop the proposed Hard Rock Mining rule 

under CERCLA 108(b), the EPA has met with XL Catlin, ACE group, Great American Insurance, Zurich, Liberty Mutual, Deutsche Bank, U.S. Bank, JP Morgan 

Chase and Argo Surety. The EPA also has met with the American Banking Association, the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice, and the Surety Fidelity Association of America. These discussions focused primarily on the agency’s current thinking related to the mechanics of the financial responsibility instruments 

that owners and operators would need to obtain under the rule. 

MARKET CAPACITY STUDY COMPANY—DETAILED INFORMATION

Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA’s implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the following information. 

In addition to the list of company names, detailed information on the initial outreach to the financial and insurance sectors, including: the date of the first communication; and the letter, e-mail, or other form of written communication regarding 

the consultation process. 

Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA’s implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the following information. 

Detailed information on the consultation process, including: the dates of each 

meeting or conference call held with the financial and insurance sectors; the participants of each meeting or conference call (including EPA headquarters and regional 

staff); and all materials shared with the financial and insurance sectors during this 

consultation process. 

Answer. Below are the dates of each meeting or conference call held with the financial and insurance sectors. The EPA also includes numbers and affiliations of 

participants. No EPA regional staff participated in the meetings or calls. 

December 8, 2015 meeting with insurance community. Meeting participants included Great American Insurance (one representative), XL Catlin (three representatives), ACE group (one representative), EPA Headquarters (HQ) (13 representatives), and two representatives of ICF International (an EPA contractor). 

January 12, 2016 meeting with banking community. Meeting participants included Institute of International Banking Law and Practice (four representatives), 

J.P. Morgan Chase (one representative), U.S. Bank (one representative), EPA HQ 

(8 representatives) and two representatives of ICF International (an EPA contractor). 

January 14, 2016 meeting with surety community. Meeting participants included 

Zurich (one representative), Argo Surety (one representative), Liberty Mutual (two 

representatives), the Surety Fidelity Association of America (two representatives), 

EPA HQ (6 representatives) and two representatives of ICF International (an EPA 

contractor). 
38 

January 28, 2016 meeting with banking community. Meeting participants included Deutsche Bank (two representatives), U.S. Bank (five representatives), American Banking Association (one representative), EPA HQ (8 representatives), and two 

representatives of ICF International (an EPA contractor). 

February 1, 2016—Follow-up clarification call with JP Morgan (one participant) 

and EPA HQ (3 representatives). 

February 1, 2016—Follow-up clarification call with Zurich (one participant) and 

EPA HQ (3 representatives). 

February 3, 2016—Follow-up clarification call with Argo (one participant) and 

EPA HQ (3 representatives). 

February 29, 2016—Follow-up call with U.S. Bank (five participants) and EPA 

HQ (5 representatives). 

MARKET CAPACITY STUDY—EPA PLAN

Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA’s implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the following information. 

Please describe the agency’s plans to continue this consultation process as it develops the proposed rule this year. 

Answer. The EPA has completed its consultation process. The draft study report 

is currently undergoing internal review. The EPA expects to make the report available before it issues the proposed hard rock mining rule. Members of the financial 

and insurance industry will have additional opportunity to provide input during the 

public comment period on the proposed rule. The EPA intends to monitor how the 

market responds to any final CERCLA 108(b) regulations. 

CERCLA—HARDROCK

Question. EPA states in its ‘‘CERCLA Section 108(b) Hardrock Mining Rule Structure Overview’’ filed with the D.C. Circuit on August 31, 2015: ‘‘To determine the 

amount of financial assurance responsibility required for response costs, the Agency 

is developing a model that would identify an amount of financial responsibility to 

reflect the primary site conditions that may result in future costs.’’ Has the agency 

shared a draft of the model, or at minimum elements of the model, with the financial and insurance sectors? 

If yes, please include these materials with your response. If not, please provide 

a detailed explanation of why such materials were not shared to date and provide 

a specific timeline for when these materials will be shared in the consultation process. Answer. The EPA is developing a cost formula for determining the amount of financial assurance obligations that owners and operators will be required to cover 

under the rule, as noted above. The process for determining the required financial 

assurance amount was not relevant to the EPA’s consultation with the financial and 

insurance sectors, which was focused primarily on the mechanics of the financial responsibility instruments that owners and operators would need to obtain under the 

rule. 

The development of this cost formula has been one of the more complex components in developing the CERCLA 108(b) proposed rule for hard rock mining. Data 

collection and formula development have been very time consuming endeavors. The 

formula is currently in the process of being reviewed and tested. The EPA also is 

drafting preamble language and regulatory text addressing how the formula is to 

be used by owners and operators. The EPA provided descriptive information on the 

formula and associated inputs in a May public Webinar, which attracted more than 

400 participants. Many participants were from the financial and insurance sectors. 

The Webinar is available at https://clu-in.org/conf/tio/108b/slides/CERCLA-108bwebinar.pdf. 

CERCLA—108B RULE

Question. I understand that the EPA has consulted with the U.S. Department of 

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on potential duplication between the CERCLA 

108(b) rule and their existing programs. Please indicate the dates and duration of 

any consultation meetings or conference calls between the Agency and BLM and 

USFS and provide the materials shared with the departments for this consultation. 

Answer. Below is a summary listing of dates upon which the EPA held consultation meetings with BLM and USFS. These meetings were designed to begin devel-
39 

oping a joint path forward for requirements for hard rock mining financial responsibility on Federal lands. Through these meetings, the EPA learned about the other 

agencies’ financial responsibility regulations for hard rock mining and their implementation, technical staff from all three agencies looked at selected issues regarding 

cost estimating and financial instruments, and the EPA communicated about 

CERCLA 108(b) and current thinking regarding potential approaches for the development of a proposed rule. 

EPA—BLM—USFS Meetings on CERCLA 108(b) 

Policy Group 

July 5, 2012 

August 8, 2012 

September 12, 2012 

October 10, 2012 

April 10, 2013 

November 18, 2013 

December 11, 2013 

Workgroups 

Kick Off Both Groups 

January 25, 2013 

Technical Workgroup Financial Workgroup 

January 30, 2013 February 19, 2013 

February 13, 2013 March 5, 2013 

February 20, 2013 March 19, 2013 

March 20, 2013 

As the EPA thinking has progressed, the Agency has held additional meetings 

with BLM and USFS. In addition, these agencies have participated in a meeting 

with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) in advance of the EPA’s planned SBREFA (Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act) panel for the rulemaking: 

—July 2, 2015.—The EPA met with BLM and USFS regarding the EPA’s current 

thinking and approach for CERCLA 108(b) proposed regulations for hard rock 

mines. Meeting duration: 1 hour. 

—May 10, 2016.—The EPA met with BLM and USFS regarding the EPA’s current 

thinking and approach for CERCLA 108(b) proposed regulations for hard rock 

mines. Meeting duration: 1 hour. 

—May 11, 2016.—BLM and USFS participated in meeting with the EPA, OMB 

and SBA. Meeting duration: 1.5 hours. 

CERCLA—108B REQUIREMENTS

Question. Please provide the legal analysis and supporting materials the agency 

relied on for concluding that Section 108(b) requirements are distinct from Federal 

closure and reclamation bonding requirements imposed under other statues. 

Answer. The EPA is scheduled to propose CERCLA Section 108(b) regulations for 

the hard rock mining industry by December 1, 2016. The objective is to promulgate 

stand-alone financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA, for CERCLA liabilities, and not for any obligations under other statutes. The agency does not expect the proposed rule to include technical requirements regulating the operation, 

closure, or reclamation of hardrock mining facilities, nor to provide for financial responsibility to ensure closure or reclamation requirements made applicable to 

hardrock mining facilities through a permit. Furthermore, the regulations are not 

expected to determine that a CERCLA response is required at any given regulated 

facility, nor affect CERCLA liability when an owner or operator provides evidence 

of financial responsibility. 

The EPA is studying how CERCLA 108(b) requirements may relate to or interact 

with other Federal laws; however, this rulemaking is still ongoing and is currently 

at the pre-proposal development stage. Neither legal conclusions nor factual findings 

have been made. 
40 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROY BLUNT

PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM—SECTION 1

Question. Please articulate the ‘‘clear and consistent approach for avoidance and 

minimization of, and compensatory mitigation for, the impacts of (the agency’s) activities and the projects (the agency) approve(s)’’ that EPA will adopt in accordance 

with Section 1 of the Presidential Memorandum (PM). How does this approach compare to current EPA policy and practice? 

Answer. The EPA’s approach for mitigating adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, 

and other aquatic resources (i.e., avoidance, minimization and compensation) is described in the agency’s regulations 40 CFR Part 230, promulgated in 1980. In 2008, 

the EPA, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, revised these regulations to include more detailed standards for compensatory mitigation. The agency’s regulations, and corresponding policies and practices, are consistent with Section 1 of the Presidential Memorandum (PM) and, therefore, we do not anticipate 

the need to make significant changes in response to the PM. 

PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM—NET GAIN

Question. Does EPA believe the PM establishes a ‘‘net gain’’ goal for mitigation 

activities required or recommended by Federal agencies as articulated by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in its draft revised Mitigation Policy? If so, please define 

‘‘net gain,’’ including how it will be measured and how much will be required or recommended? 

Answer. The Presidential Memorandum (PM) encourages agencies to establish a 

net benefit goal or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal for certain natural resources 

the agencies manage ‘‘[t]o the extent permitted by each agency’s legal authorities.’’ 

While the Fish and Wildlife Service’s draft Mitigation Policy does seek to incorporate this goal, the EPA is currently evaluating how a ‘‘net gain’’ goal might be 

applied to its programs. 

PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM—CLEAN WATER ACT—SECTION 404

Question. Does EPA believe ‘‘Section 404 of the Clean Water Act codifies the significance of wetlands and other waters of the United States as important public resources for their habitat value, among other functions’’ as stated by U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in its draft revised Mitigation Policy? How does the PM affect respective jurisdictional responsibilities for EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

under the Clean Water Act? 

Answer. The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 230 that implement Clean Water 

Act section 404 identify wetlands and other specified resources as special aquatic 

sites and provide specialized requirements aimed to afford such resources greater 

protections. The Presidential Memorandum does not alter existing jurisdictional responsibilities for the EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Clean 

Water Act. 

PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM—LARGE-SCALE PLANS

Question. Please explain how EPA’s use of ‘‘large-scale plans’’ in ‘‘identifying how 

proposed projects potentially impact natural resources and to guide better decisionmaking for mitigation’’ as directed in Section 3 of the PM will compare to current 

practice in terms of procedures and outcomes. 

Answer. The Presidential Memorandum’s recommendations regarding the use of 

large-scale plans to inform mitigation decisionmaking are consistent with the watershed approach to mitigation adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

EPA joint regulations issued in 2008. The watershed approach encourages reliance 

on watershed plans to make more informed decisions about the type and location 

of mitigation projects. The ultimate goal of the watershed approach is to maintain 

and improve the quality and quantity of aquatic resources within watersheds 

through strategic selection of mitigation sites. For additional information see 33 

CFR Part 332.3(c) and 40 CFR Part 230.93(c). 

NATIONAL DROUGHT RESILIENCE PARTNERSHIP—GOALS #4 AND #5

Question. As presented in the Federal Action Plan of the National Drought Resilience Partnership issued in concert with the PM, what is EPA’s role relative to implementation actions ‘‘Enhance Federal drought resilience investments at the watershed scale’’ (Goal #4) and ‘‘Support state local strategies for more flexible water 

management’’ (Goal #5)? 
41 

Answer. The EPA will continue to fully engage with the National Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP) in support of the Goals and Implementation Actions described in the Federal Action Plan. With respect to Goal 4 Implementation Action 

‘‘Enhance Federal Drought Resilience Investments at the Watershed Scale’’ and 

Goal 5 Implementation Action ‘‘Support State and Local Strategies for More Flexible 

Water Management,’’ the EPA is listed as a supporting agency to USDA and DOI. 

Over the coming months, specific activities pertaining to these and other Implementation Actions found in the Action plan will be developed. The exact nature of each 

agency’s role also will be developed as the agencies move forward. 

As it states within the NDRP Action Plan, the overall objective of Goal 4 is to 

improve coordination and integration of drought-related activities to enhance the 

collective benefits of Federal programs and investments. The best way to accomplish 

this is through better coordination and collaboration within the Federal Government 

and with stakeholders on the ground. The EPA is in a position to promote this type 

of work based upon our strong working relationship with the States, specifically in 

terms of the State Revolving Funds (SRF). While specific activities have not yet 

been determined as stated above, the EPA’s assistance could entail a review of each 

State’s SRF intended use plans. These plans outline a State’s list of priority projects 

for SRF funding. Working within the Federal partnership, the EPA can share information as to where and when projects will be underway and assist in identifying 

potential leveraging opportunities for other Federal funds. 

In terms of Goal 5, specific implementation has not been fully determined; however, the EPA anticipates its role to be related to working with communities that 

are experiencing drinking water shortages. The EPA has many strong relationships 

with small communities and tribes that could benefit from increased water use flexibility and working with their on the ground partners, as these small communities 

and tribes are usually disproportionally impacted during drought. An important aspect of this action is ensuring that the EPA is fully partnering with the appropriate 

State agencies. 

PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM—WILDWOOD MISSOURI

Question. Residents of Wildwood, Missouri remain very concerned with the public 

health risks that may still remain within the Ellisville Site and its subsites. Past 

removal actions have been undertaken, but I have heard from constituents that certain areas still remain contaminated at concentrations above residential standards. 

This is despite numerous existing residences being located adjacent to the site and 

other new residences currently proposed to be developed. Has the EPA considered 

a complete cleanup to residential standards and the reinstitution of the 5-year 

CERCLA Review to address these concerns? 

Answer. Yes, the EPA continues to consider conducting Five-Year Reviews (FYRs) 

where appropriate. The Ellisville Superfund Site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 and is comprised of three non-contiguous subsites near 

Wildwood, Missouri, with subsite designation as OU1 (Rosalie), OU2 (Bliss), and 

OU3 (Callahan). With regards to cleanup standards and, as discussed below, the 

EPA does not consider affected areas at OU2 Bliss to be ‘‘residential’’ and, therefore, 

applied recreational site-specific cleanup goals to reflect this area’s current and projected land use. 

—OU1 Rosalie: In 1980, more than 200 buried drums were encountered and subsequently removed from the Rosalie subsite. The EPA followed that work with 

a remedial investigation and feasibility study, which resulted in a Record of Decision that selected off-site disposal of contaminated soil, drums, cans and debris to be followed by backfill and re-seeding. In 1986, the State conducted an 

investigation to determine if any residual contamination was left behind at the 

former excavation areas. The investigation showed that all test results were 

below the EPA’s residential screening levels for soil. The Rosalie subsite is not 

subject to FYRs because the subsite is being cleaned up to allow for residential 

use, with no contamination left in place. The EPA is not considering the Rosalie 

subsite for deletion at this time. 

—OU2 Bliss: The EPA conducted on-site soil sampling that included an area 

north of a planned residential development and within the planned residential 

development itself. The sampling results within the planned residential development did not exceed residential screening levels. In the area north of the 

planned residential area, results identified soil with elevated concentrations of 

dioxin. The EPA determined that site conditions could pose a threat to public 

health and welfare and completed the removal and the disposal of 1,545 tons 

of dioxin-contaminated waste in March 2015. A residential standard was not 

deemed appropriate because, among other reasons, it is an area of brush, trees, 
42 

meadow and drainage that do not meet the residential use. The EPA continues 

to engage in discussions with the community, State agencies, and elected officials to collaboratively ensure long-term stewardship and protectiveness. 

—OU3 Callahan: After a 2012 removal action, the partial NPL deletion process 

was started for the Callahan subsite since no waste was left in place. An evaluation of all subsite data concluded that the Callahan property no longer posed 

unacceptable human health risks for any type of exposure, including residential 

use. The Callahan subsite is not subject to FYRs because the subsite is being 

cleaned up to allow for residential use, with no contamination left in place. 

Based on all requirements in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300.425(e)) being met, the EPA concluded that 

the Callahan subsite could and should be deleted from the NPL. The proposed 

partial deletion was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2016, and 

the EPA is currently evaluating public comments on the proposed partial deletion. 

COMMUNITY AFFORDABILITY

Question. EPA was asked to work with the National Academy of Public Administrators to conduct an independent study to create a definition of community affordability, this being a situation where a community might be protected from their 

water rates going up too quickly, but they might not be protected from their water 

rates hitting that cap and two or three other things in the community hitting that 

cap. Can EPA provide an update on where we are on this study? 

Answer. The EPA is discussing possible approaches for the study with the National Academy of Public Administrators and will proceed with funding once a plan 

is finalized. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR STEVE DAINES

METHANE EMISSIONS

Question. As you are aware, many States, including Montana, have already implemented regulations to address methane emissions. Montana has set a flaring limit 

of 100MCFG per day, and other States, including Wyoming, have set even stricter 

rules. Can you confirm that your pending rules on methane will allow those State 

existing regulations, which meet the EPA’s rule for new sources, to apply, thereby 

avoiding unnecessary conflict and administrative burden for the States, EPA, and 

industry while resulting in no added environmental benefit? 

Answer. On May 12, 2016, the EPA issued three final rules that together will curb 

emissions of methane, smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and toxic 

air pollutants, such as benzene, from new, reconstructed and modified oil and gas 

sources, while providing greater certainty about Clean Air Act permitting requirements for the industry. 

A number of States regulate, or are considering regulating, air pollution from the 

oil and natural gas industry, and the EPA’s rules allow them to continue to do so. 

Under the Clean Air Act, States have the authority to regulate air emissions from 

sources within their boundaries, provided their requirements are at least as protective as Federal requirements. Because the EPA recognizes the importance of not requiring industry to comply with duplicative requirements, the final rule provides a 

pathway for companies to demonstrate that State requirements to which they may 

be subject are equivalent to the requirements established in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). This pathway is in addition to States’ ability to seek 

an equivalency determination from the EPA. 

CLEAN AIR ACT

Question. In an attempt to regulate air quality, BLM has proposed a rule that will 

regulate existing sources on Federal and Indian lands. BLM has claimed their rule 

is necessary, and that it doesn’t conflict with EPA’s pending methane rules because 

your rules cover only new sources. However, you recently announced that EPA will, 

under the Clean Air Act, pursue the nationwide regulation of methane from the very 

same existing sources that BLM proposes to regulate. This appears to be in direct 

conflict. Will you recommend that BLM remove the overlapping requirements to 

avoid the conflict of two agencies contemporaneously implementing rules on the 

exact same facilities? 

Answer. The EPA is currently developing an ICR that will allow the agency to 

collect the information that it needs to develop a proposal regarding existing sources 
43 

of oil and gas methane, so it is premature to identify the requirements as overlapping. 

As with the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new, modified, and reconstructed sources, EPA and BLM, where there is the potential for overlap on existing source requirements, will coordinate closely to ensure that the regulations do 

not conflict and that they minimize any potential for duplication. BLM is still working to complete its final rule and the EPA will continue to work with them to identify ways to minimize potential conflicting requirements and will continue to coordinate through the agencies’ respective proposals and final rulemakings. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BILL CASSIDY

NAAQS—2008 STANDARD

Question. EPA is requesting $5.3 million to support the timely issuance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) guidance and implementation tools. 

The 2015 revised ground level ozone standard resulted from a 7-year review period at a time when the 2008 standard had not fully been implemented. The implementation rules for the 2008 standard were not even released until February 2015. 

Then, in October 2015, EPA subsequently lowered the 2008 ozone standard from 75 

parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. 

In the Agency’s budget request, it says, ‘‘The agency will continue to engage communities to be full partners in agency programs that make a visible difference in 

their community by working to provide holistic central mechanisms to support, assist, and engage with disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations, including tribal populations, rural communities and children. 

In 2015, I and several of my colleagues with medical backgrounds wrote you to 

express our concern with lowering the ozone standard. In that letter, it says, ‘‘If the 

true intent here is to improve public health, then the Agency should factor how its 

ozone proposal affects every aspect of human health—including impacts from unemployment, poverty, and reduced access to health insurance. Public health should not 

be viewed in a vacuum, but rather considered holistically, mindful of the correlation 

between health and the economy.’’ 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) predicts that ozone levels will continue to improve through the next decade and that a vast majority of these counties 

will attain a 70 ppb standard by 2025 under other existing Federal, State, and local 

requirements and industry efforts. 

Doesn’t it makes sense to get the 2008 standard implemented before burdening 

States with double-regulation? 

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies testified to EPA that the new 

ozone standard ‘‘will have a profound impact on the work of State and local air pollution control agencies.’’ Did EPA assess what impact implementing the new ozone 

standards would have on State and local agencies already implementing the 2008 

standard—shouldn’t these standards be harmonized? 

EPA chose to project the costs of its new ozone standard to 2025. Since EPA bases 

its entire economic analysis on predicted 2025 air quality, will the Agency support 

extending compliance deadlines under the standards to 2025? 

EPA chose to project the costs of its new ozone standard to 2025 since that would 

be the year in which most counties would have to attain the standards if granted 

compliance extensions. If EPA assumed longer compliance deadlines, would it support legislation extending those deadlines? 

EPA has said that most counties won’t need to attain its stringent ozone standards until 2025. But counties in nonattainment areas will face severe regulatory 

consequences in just 3 years, and the new standards become immediately effective 

for permits to expand business. EPA seems to want us to think these standards are 

a ‘‘next decade’’ problem, but aren’t they a now problem? 

Answer. The EPA and State co-regulators share a long history of managing ozone 

air quality under the Clean Air Act (CAA), underpinned by previously issued EPA 

rules and guidance. The overall framework and policy approach reflected in the implementing regulations for the 2008 ozone standards provide an effective and appropriate template for the general approach States would follow in planning for attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Planning and implementation work to meet the 

2015 ozone standard will build on progress States already have made to plan for 

and meet the 2008 standards. In particular for areas where States are still actively 

working toward attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is committed to helping 

air agencies identify and take advantage of potential planning and emissions control 

efficiencies that may occur within the horizon for attaining the 2015 standards. Fol-
44 

lowing past precedent, the EPA intends to propose revoking the 2008 standards and 

provide transition rules intended to help avoid any potential inefficiencies as States 

begin implementing the Clean Air Act’s requirements for the 2015 standards. Accordingly, States’ planning will not need to focus on the 2008 and 2015 standards 

concurrently. 

The Clean Air Act governs the process and timing for initial area designations 

and associated compliance deadlines after the EPA establishes a new or revised 

NAAQS. 

Following Clean Air Act requirements, the EPA anticipates the following schedule 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS: 

—By October 2017: The EPA will issue final area designations. Those designations 

likely will be based on 2014–2016 air quality data. If preconstruction permitting 

program requirements for the nonattainment area do not already exist, Federal 

permitting regulations will apply until they are replaced by State-adopted programs. 

—2019: States will submit area specific inventories of ozone-producing emissions. 

—2020 to 2021: For nonattainment areas classified as ‘‘moderate’’ and above, 

States, and any tribes that choose to do so will complete development of implementation plans, outlining how they will reduce pollution to meet the standards. State and tribal plans can include Federal measures and any local or 

statewide measures needed to demonstrate that a nonattainment area will meet 

the standards by its attainment date. 

—2020 to 2037: Nonattainment areas are required to meet the primary (health) 

standard, with deadlines depending on the severity of an area’s ozone problem. 

The EPA views any delay in implementation of the ozone standards as unnecessary and harmful to public health and the environment. Delaying the implementation schedule for the 2015 ozone standard would jeopardize progress toward cleaner 

air and delay health protections for millions of Americans, including children, older 

adults, and people with asthma. For ozone, the EPA estimates that meeting the 70 

ppb standard will yield health benefits valued at $2.9 billion to $5.9 billion annually 

in 2025 nationwide, not counting the health benefits that will be achieved in later 

years in California. These benefits include avoiding 320 to 660 premature deaths; 

230,000 asthma attacks in children; and 160,000 days when children do not attend 

school. Delaying the designations process also would deny citizens in potential nonattainment areas the information they need about air quality to protect their families from ozone exposure. Forty-five years of clean air regulation have shown that 

a strong economy and strong environmental and public health protection go handin-hand. 

ECOLABELS

Question. Last September, EPA published an interim recommendation for environmental standards as well as ecolabels for use in Federal procurement. EPA’s recommendation for lumber includes the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified 

but excludes other credible sources such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) 

and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS). In Louisiana, nearly 4 million acres 

or 85 percent of all certified lumber is SFI or ATFS certified. 

During the hearing you said, ‘‘. . . EPA recognizes that their needs to be an expansion of that certification so that others can be readily recognized, because I want 

what you want which is to have our forests sustainably managed and to use whatever leverage we have to provide the economic incentive for that so we are talking 

to folks and looking at that in seeing how we can expand the certifications that are 

recognized′′ 

How is EPA reconsidering its lumber recommendations to ensure that other credible and certified standards SFI and ATFS are recognized? 

Answer. The implementing instructions for Executive Order 13693, Planning/or 

Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, directed the EPA, in consultation with 

the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality, 

to issue these recommendations in order to assist Federal purchasers in identifying 

and procuring environmentally sustainable products. The basis for our interim recommendations on wood/lumber was the DOE GreenBuy program. The EPA is pursuing several options to determine if an update to the lumber/wood interim recommendations is appropriate, and the agency has updated the Web site to reflect 

this (see the footnote for Lumber/Wood under the Construction sector at https:// 

www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/epas-recommendations-specifications-standards-andecolabels). 
45 

The EPA is engaging with both the Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a high-level review to determine the effectiveness of these 

standards in protecting human health and the environment. Furthermore, the 

EPA’s standards executive is currently reviewing the forestry standards to determine if they were developed through a voluntary consensus approach consistent 

with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–119. Finally, Sustainable Forestry 

Initiative (SFI), American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have each volunteered to have 

their forestry standards assessed against the criteria developed through a multistakeholder consensus process in the guidelines pilot for the flooring and furniture 

sectors. The results of that pilot assessment can help inform whether those standards would meet the EPA’s baseline criteria for environmental performance as specified in the EPA’s draft guidelines for Environmental Performance Standards and 

Ecolabels for use in Federal procurement. 

ECOLABELS DETERMINATION

Question. Last September, EPA published an interim recommendation for environmental standards as well as ecolabels for use in Federal procurement. EPA’s recommendation for lumber includes the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified 

but excludes other credible sources such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) 

and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS). In Louisiana, nearly 4 million acres 

or 85 percent of all certified lumber is SFI or ATFS certified. 

During the hearing you said, ‘‘. . . EPA recognizes that their needs to be an expansion of that certification so that others can be readily recognized, because I want 

what you want which is to have our forests sustainably managed and to use whatever leverage we have to provide the economic incentive for that so we are talking 

to folks and looking at that in seeing how we can expand the certifications that are 

recognized′′ 

When will this determination be made? 

Answer. The EPA will consider the input received from other Federal agencies, 

stakeholders, and experts, along with information obtained during our assessment 

of forestry standards during the pilot process, to inform the further refinement and 

finalization of the EPA’s guidelines and recommendations. The agency believes it 

can decide on a path forward within the next several months. 

DICAMBA

Question. Given your past public statements on concluding your agency’s registration for new uses of dicamba in conjunction with soybean and cotton products already in the market, will your agency finalize the registration by the end of this 

summer so that corresponding State registrations will enable farmers to have the 

full flexibility of weed control options for the 2017 growing season? 

Answer. On April 1, 2016, the EPA released the proposed decision to register 

dicamba for public comment. The public comment period, originally 30 days, was extended to May 31, 2016. The comment period having now closed, the EPA will consider the comments received and make a registration decision. The EPA expects to 

issue a decision by late summer or early fall of 2016. 

CORN ROOTWORM

Question. I understand that the EPA has been reviewing a new mode of action 

to control corn rootworm for a number of years and has recently completed a preliminary step in the process. As growers will need additional modes of action to 

most effectively deal with this pest, can you please provide the subcommittee with 

an update on when registration for his new mode of action to control corn rootworm 

might be expected? 

Answer. The EPA recognizes that the corn rootworm is one of the most troublesome pests confronting the Nation’s corn growers. At this time, the use of Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs), including Bt corn, is one of the safest methods of insect control. If used properly, PIP crops greatly reduce the need for conventional 

pesticides and the risks they may pose to human health and the environment. For 

these methods to continue to be available, it is essential that they remain effective. 

Recognizing this, on February 18, 2016, the EPA released new requirements to address corn rootworm resistance to Bt corn. The goal of the requirements is to maintain the effectiveness of Bt corn by delaying resistance and applying corrective 

measures if resistance is confirmed. The EPA believes that these requirements will 

help growers effectively deal with corn rootworm now and in the future. 
46 

The EPA is currently reviewing a corn rootworm application for commercial use. 

This application represents a new mode of action to control corn rootworm. This new 

mode of action is based on a natural process that occurs in all living organisms 

called ‘‘RNA interference’’, or ‘‘RNAi’’. Using RNAi, an organism can control when 

key substances needed to grow and survive are turned on and off, and how much 

is produced. The pesticide proposed for corn rootworm control co-opts the RNAi process to shut off a key housekeeping function that the corn rootworm needs to grow 

and live. 

The agency plans to consult with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in 

the fall of 2016 on our risk assessment, which is informed in part by an earlier SAP 

convened in January 2014 on considerations for the assessment of RNAi used as a 

pesticide. The agency hope to make a decision on the current application in the 

spring 2017. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

SNEP

Question. Can you share your thoughts on the value of efforts like SNEP in taking 

a regional and integrated approach to issues of combating nutrient pollution, ocean 

acidification, and other problems with water quality? How can we make such efforts 

even more effective? 

Answer. The EPA and Southern New England partners recognize that addressing 

the impacts of nutrient pollution, loss of habitat, and climate change on our coastal 

watersheds requires targeted regional and watershed-wide solutions that reach upstream and downstream and across State boundaries. The EPA also recognizes that 

these broad solutions are best implemented at the local and municipal level. Since 

2014, the Southern New England Program (SNEP) has solicited and funded project 

proposals that range from broad policy, technology, and management innovations to 

municipal capacity-building and resource sharing. Projects selected include testing 

innovative methods to treat and remove nutrients, such as ‘‘nature-based’’ approaches involving shellfish aquaculture and green infrastructure, exploring new financing approaches, and data-sharing for wastewater management, including septic 

systems. Other projects have fostered improved collaboration across city and State 

lines to develop shared monitoring programs and integrated planning, and have provided access to tools such as GIS, improved septic system technology, and 

stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) design and construction improvements. 

GRANT FUNDING

Question. As you know, the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act allowed 

EPA to adjust the distribution of air monitoring categorical grants. The problem is 

that without additional funding for these grants, some States could lose important 

resources as the formula is changed. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management is particularly concerned about losing funding and possibly 

staff because of changes in distribution of these resources. Can you explain how you 

are working within a limited budget to make sure that States don’t lose funding and 

capacity because of the change in formula? 

Answer. The EPA recognizes the challenges posed to State and local air agencies 

in any region that might experience decreased resources and the agency has consistently stated its intent to limit any region’s loss of resources to no more than 5 percent of its prior year funding as a result of the revised allocation. 

The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to apply additional mitigating 

measures to prevent disruptions to ongoing State and local air program operations 

in this first year of transition, given that the EPA and State and local air agencies 

are well into fiscal year 2016. 

For fiscal year 2016, the EPA is implementing the revised allocation as follows: 

—All regions will receive at least their fiscal year 2015 post rescission funding 

levels. 

—Regions slated to gain resources using the revised allocation methodology from 

2010 with updated data will receive modest increases in funding. 

BEACH ACT GRANT

Question. Can you please help me to understand why the fiscal year 2017 budget 

request eliminates funding for the Beach Act grant program? 
47 

Answer. After more than 15 years of States and tribes receiving BEACH Act 

grants, they now have the technical expertise and procedures in place to run beach 

monitoring programs. The agency is proposing to eliminate certain mature program 

activities that are well-established, well understood, and where there is the possibility of maintaining the human health benefits through implementation at the local 

level. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JON TESTER

SUPERFUND SITES

Question. Can EPA provide a list of all Superfund sites that have been cleaned 

up and others that have been de-listed? 

Answer. Deletion of a site from the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) signifies that all remedial action objectives for the site have been achieved and no further response actions are required to protect human health and the environment. 

The EPA equates deleted NPL sites to the list of sites that have been ‘‘cleaned up’’ 

as stated in the question, though institutional controls may be in place if waste remains at the site at levels that prohibit unrestricted access. As of May 19, 2016, 

391 sites have been deleted from the NPL. The list of deleted sites below is sorted 

by State and then site name. The EPA’s Superfund Web site contains current information on deleted sites: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/npl-site-totals-status-andmilestone. EPA’s Superfund Web site also contains current information on sites 

where all physical cleanup construction has been completed: https://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/construction-completions-npl-sites-state. 

TABLE 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

AK ALASKA BATTERY ENTERPRISES FAIRBANKS 99701 FAIRBANKS NORTH 

STAR 

7/26/1996 

AK ARCTIC SURPLUS FAIRBANKS 99701 N/A 9/25/2006 

AK STANDARD STEEL & METAL SALVAGE 

YARD (USDOT) 

ANCHORAGE 99501 ANCHORAGE 9/30/2002 

AL MOWBRAY ENGINEERING CO. GREENVILLE 36037 BUTLER 12/30/1993 

AL REDWING CARRIERS, INC. (SARALAND) SARALAND 36571 MOBILE 9/28/2015 

AR CECIL LINDSEY NEWPORT 72112 JACKSON 9/22/1989 

AR FRIT INDUSTRIES WALNUT RIDGE 72476 LAWRENCE 10/14/1997 

AR GURLEY PIT EDMONDSEN 72332 CRITTENDEN 11/6/2003 

AR INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL FORT SMITH 72901 SEBASTIAN 4/7/2008 

AR JACKSONVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL JACKSONVILLE 72076 LONOKE 3/14/2000 

AR MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT CO. 

(PARAGOULD PIT) 

PARAGOULD 72450 GREENE 9/29/2014 

AR ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPAL LANDFILL JACKSONVILLE 72076 PULASKI 10/12/2010 

AR SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL WEST MEMPHIS 72301 CRITTENDEN 9/28/2004 

AS TAPUTIMU FARM PAGO PAGO 96799 N/A 3/7/1986 

AZ LUKE AIR FORCE BASE GLENDALE 85309 MARICOPA 4/22/2002 

AZ MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE HOME ESTATES GLOBE 85501 GILA 4/18/1988 

AZ NINETEENTH AVENUE LANDFILL PHOENIX 85041 MARICOPA 9/25/2006 
48 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

CA CELTOR CHEMICAL WORKS HOOPA 95546 HUMBOLDT 9/30/2003 

CA COALINGA ASBESTOS MINE COALINGA 93210 FRESNO 4/24/1998 

CA DEL NORTE PESTICIDE STORAGE CRESCENT CITY 95531 DEL NORTE 9/18/2002 

CA FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. (SALINAS 

PLANT) 

SALINAS 93901 MONTEREY 4/21/2005 

CA JIBBOOM JUNKYARD SACRAMENTO 95814 SACRAMENTO 9/10/1991 

CA LIQUID GOLD OIL CORP. RICHMOND 94804 CONTRA COSTA 9/11/1996 

CA LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP. OROVILLE 95965 BUTTE 11/21/1996 

CA RALPH GRAY TRUCKING CO. WESTMINSTER 92683 ORANGE 9/28/2004 

CA SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 3) GLENDALE 91209 LOS ANGELES 10/12/2004 

CA SOLA OPTICAL USA, INC. PETALUMA 94952 SONOMA 10/31/2013 

CA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 

(VISALIA POLEYARD) 

VISALIA 93277 TULARE 9/26/2009 

CA T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO. FRESNO 93727 FRESNO 8/21/2006 

CA WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. OROVILLE 95965 BUTTE 8/29/2001 

CO SAND CREEK INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE CITY 80022 ADAMS 12/20/1996 

CO SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN ASPEN 81611 PITKIN 9/23/1999 

CO WOODBURY CHEMICAL CO. COMMERCE CITY 80022 ADAMS 3/22/1993 

CT CHESHIRE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION CHESHIRE 6410 NEW HAVEN 7/2/1997 

CT NUTMEG VALLEY ROAD WOLCOTT 6716 NEW HAVEN 9/23/2005 

CT REVERE TEXTILE PRINTS CORP. STERLING 6377 WINDHAM 9/2/1994 

DE COKER’S SANITATION SERVICE LANDFILLS CHESWOLD 19936 KENT 8/2/2011 

DE NEW CASTLE SPILL NEW CASTLE 19720 NEW CASTLE 6/12/1996 

DE NEW CASTLE STEEL NEW CASTLE 19720 NEW CASTLE 3/17/1989 

DE SEALAND LIMITED MIDDLETOWN 19709 NEW CASTLE 7/1/1997 

DE SUSSEX COUNTY LANDFILL NO. 5 LAUREL 19956 SUSSEX 9/28/2001 

DE TYLER REFRIGERATION PIT SMYRNA 19977 KENT 3/29/2004 

DE WILDCAT LANDFILL DOVER 19901 KENT 3/14/2003 

FL ALPHA CHEMICAL CORP. LAKELAND 33810 POLK 6/28/1995 

FL ANACONDA ALUMINUM CO./MILGO ELECTRONICS CORP. MIAMI 33147 MIAMI-DADE 7/9/1998 

FL B&B CHEMICAL CO., INC. HIALEAH 33010 MIAMI-DADE 8/5/2014 

FL BEULAH LANDFILL PENSACOLA 32506 ESCAMBIA 6/22/1998 
49 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

FL BMI-TEXTRON LAKE PARK 33403 PALM BEACH 11/18/2002 

FL BROWN WOOD PRESERVING LIVE OAK 32060 SUWANNEE 9/22/1995 

FL CALLAWAY & SON DRUM SERVICE LAKE ALFRED 33850 POLK 8/4/2009 

FL CHEMFORM, INC. POMPANO BEACH 33069 BROWARD 7/28/2000 

FL COLEMAN-EVANS WOOD PRESERVING CO. WHITEHOUSE 32220 DUVAL 5/27/2014 

FL DAVIE LANDFILL DAVIE 33314 BROWARD 8/21/2006 

FL DUBOSE OIL PRODUCTS CO. CANTONMENT 32533 ESCAMBIA 10/1/2004 

FL GOLD COAST OIL CORP. MIAMI 33155 MIAMI-DADE 10/9/1996 

FL HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL DUVAL COUNTY 32222 DUVAL 2/27/2011 

FL KASSAUF-KIMERLING BATTERY DISPOSAL TAMPA 33619 HILLSBOROUGH 10/2/2000 

FL MUNISPORT LANDFILL NORTH MIAMI 33161 MIAMI-DADE 9/24/1999 

FL NORTHWEST 58TH STREET LANDFILL HIALEAH 33012 MIAMI-DADE 10/11/1996 

FL PARRAMORE SURPLUS MOUNT PLEASANT 32352 GADSDEN 2/21/1989 

FL PIONEER SAND CO. WARRINGTON 32506 ESCAMBIA 2/8/1993 

FL SCHUYLKILL METALS CORP. PLANT CITY 33566 HILLSBOROUGH 8/22/2001 

FL SIXTY-SECOND STREET DUMP TAMPA 33619 HILLSBOROUGH 10/1/1999 

FL STANDARD AUTO BUMPER CORP. HIALEAH 33010 MIAMI-DADE 10/26/2007 

FL TRI-CITY OIL CONSERVATIONI ST, INC TAMPA 33617 HILLSBOROUGH 9/1/1988 

FL VARSOL SPILL MIAMI 33159 MIAMI-DADE 9/1/1988 

FL WILSON CONCEPTS OF FLORIDA, INC. POMPANO BEACH 33069 BROWARD 4/4/1995 

FL WOODBURY CHEMICAL CO. (PRINCETON 

PLANT) 

PRINCETON 33032 MIAMI-DADE 11/27/1995 

FL YELLOW WATER ROAD BALDWIN 32234 DUVAL 5/18/1999 

FM PCB WASTES PALAU 96950 N/A 3/7/1986 

GA CEDARTOWN INDUSTRIES, INC. CEDARTOWN 30125 POLK 9/19/2006 

GA CEDARTOWN MUNICIPAL LANDFILL CEDARTOWN 30125 POLK 3/10/1999 

GA LUMINOUS PROCESSES, INC. ATHENS 30622 CLARKE 12/30/1982 

GA MONSANTO CORP. (AUGUSTA PLANT) AUGUSTA 30903 RICHMOND 3/9/1998 

GA POWERSVILLE SITE PEACH COUNTY 31074 PEACH 11/1/2010 

HI SCHOFIELD BARRACKS (USARMY) SCHOFIELD 96857 HONOLULU 8/10/2000 

IA AIDEX CORP. MINEOLA 51554 MILLS 10/21/1993 

IA E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., INC. 

(COUNTY ROAD X23) 

WEST POINT 52656 LEE 9/25/1995 
50 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

IA FARMERS’ MUTUAL COOPERATIVE HOSPERS 51238 SIOUX 11/13/2001 

IA JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS LANDFILLS) OTTUMWA 52501 WAPELLO 1/22/2001 

IA LABOUNTY CHARLES CITY 50616 FLOYD 10/6/1993 

IA MID-AMERICA TANNING CO. SERGEANT BLUFF 51054 WOODBURY 9/24/2004 

IA NORTHWESTERN STATES PORTLAND CEMENT CO. MASON CITY 50401 CERRO GORDO 8/31/1995 

IA RED OAK CITY LANDFILL RED OAK 51566 MONTGOMERY 9/26/2005 

IA SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL KEOKUK 52632 LEE 9/24/2001 

IA WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP CHARLES CITY 50616 FLOYD 10/30/2000 

ID ARRCOM (DREXLER ENTERPRISES) RATHDRUM 83858 KOOTENAI 12/23/1992 

ID PACIFIC HIDE & FUR RECYCLING CO. POCATELLO 83201 BANNOCK 11/4/1999 

ID UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. POCATELLO 83201 BANNOCK 9/22/1997 

IL A & F MATERIAL RECLAIMING, INC. GREENUP 62428 CUMBERLAND 6/11/2012 

IL BELVIDERE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL BELVIDERE 61008 BOONE 2/9/2015 

IL ILADA ENERGY CO. EAST CAPE 

GIRARDEAU 

62957 ALEXANDER 1/8/2001 

IL KERR-MCGEE (REED-KEPPLER PARK) WEST CHICAGO 60185 DUPAGE 2/8/2010 

IL KERR-MCGEE (SEWAGE TREATMENT 

PLANT) 

WEST CHICAGO 60185 DUPAGE 4/22/2013 

IL PETERSEN SAND & GRAVEL LIBERTYVILLE 60048 LAKE 2/11/1991 

IN CARTER LEE LUMBER CO. INDIANAPOLIS 46222 MARION 7/9/1996 

IN COLUMBUS OLD MUNICIPAL LANDFILL #1 COLUMBUS 47201 BARTHOLOMEW 1/24/2014 

IN INTERNATIONAL MINERALS (E. PLANT) TERRE HAUTE 47802 VIGO 2/11/1991 

IN NEAL’S DUMP (SPENCER) SPENCER 47460 OWEN 10/4/1999 

IN POER FARM HANCOCK COUNTY 46117 HANCOCK 2/11/1991 

IN SOUTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL INDIANAPOLIS 46221 MARION 7/3/1997 

IN TRI-STATE PLATING COLUMBUS 47201 BARTHOLOMEW 7/14/1997 

IN WASTE, INC., LANDFILL MICHIGAN CITY 46360 LA PORTE 10/20/2008 

IN WEDZEB ENTERPRISES, INC. LEBANON 46052 BOONE 9/10/1991 

IN WHITEFORD SALES & SERVICE INC./ 

NATIONALEASE 

SOUTH BEND 46619 ST. JOSEPH 9/6/1996 

KS 29TH & MEAD GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION WICHITA 67219 SEDGWICK 4/29/1996 

KS ARKANSAS CITY DUMP ARKANSAS CITY 67005 COWLEY 3/1/1996 
51 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

KS BIG RIVER SAND CO. WICHITA 67205 SEDGWICK 10/14/1992 

KS HYDRO-FLEX INC. TOPEKA 66618 SHAWNEE 11/9/1993 

KS JOHNS’ SLUDGE POND WICHITA 67212 SEDGWICK 1/6/1992 

KY A.L. TAYLOR (VALLEY OF DRUMS) BROOKS 40165 BULLITT 5/17/1996 

KY GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER CO. (MAYFIELD 

LANDFILL) 

MAYFIELD 42066 GRAVES 10/27/2000 

KY HOWE VALLEY LANDFILL HOWE VALLEY 42732 HARDIN 7/26/1996 

KY LEE’S LANE LANDFILL LOUISVILLE 40216 JEFFERSON 4/25/1996 

KY NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM CO. HAWESVILLE 42348 HANCOCK 10/5/2015 

KY NEWPORT DUMP NEWPORT 41072 CAMPBELL 6/3/1996 

KY RED PENN SANITATION CO. LANDFILL PEEWEE VALLEY 40014 OLDHAM 9/14/2001 

LA BAYOU SORREL BAYOU SORREL 70764 IBERVILLE 9/29/1997 

LA CENTRAL WOOD PRESERVING CO. SLAUGHTER 70722 EAST FELICIANA 9/18/2009 

LA CLEVE REBER SORRENTO 70778 N/A 12/30/1997 

LA D.L. MUD, INC. ABBEVILLE 70510 VERMILION 3/7/2000 

LA DELATTE METALS PONCHATOULA 70454 N/A 8/8/2005 

LA DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT PLANT ASCENSION PARISH 70734 N/A 11/16/1999 

LA GULF COAST VACUUM SERVICES ABBEVILLE 70510 N/A 7/23/2001 

LA MALLARD BAY LANDING BULK PLANT GRAND CHENIERE 70542 N/A 9/19/2005 

LA OLD INGER OIL REFINERY DARROW 70725 N/A 8/12/2008 

LA PAB OIL & CHEMICAL SERVICE, INC. ABBEVILLE 70510 N/A 1/3/2000 

LA RUSTON FOUNDRY ALEXANDRIA 71302 N/A 7/13/2010 

LA SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING SLIDELL 70459 N/A 6/16/1998 

MA CANNON ENGINEERING CORP. (CEC) BRIDGEWATER 2324 PLYMOUTH 9/24/2013 

MA FORT DEVENS-SUDBURY TRAINING ANNEX SUDBURY 1775 MIDDLESEX 1/29/2002 

MA MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY 

(USARMY) 

WATERTOWN 2172 MIDDLESEX 11/21/2006 

MA NORWOOD PCBS NORWOOD 2062 NORFOLK 5/31/2011 

MA PLYMOUTH HARBOR/CANNON ENGINEERING CORP. PLYMOUTH 2360 PLYMOUTH 11/19/1993 

MA SALEM ACRES SALEM 1970 ESSEX 7/23/2001 

MD CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES, INC. BALTIMORE 21230 BALTIMORE CITY 12/30/1982 

MD MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS, INC. HARMANS 21077 ANNE ARUNDEL 7/18/2000 

MD MIDDLETOWN ROAD DUMP ANNAPOLIS 21401 ANNE ARUNDEL 4/18/1988 
52 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

MD SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATING HOLLYWOOD 20636 ST. MARY’S 4/5/2005 

ME O’CONNOR CO. AUGUSTA 4330 KENNEBEC 7/22/2014 

ME PINETTE’S SALVAGE YARD WASHBURN 4786 AROOSTOOK 9/30/2002 

ME SACO TANNERY WASTE PITS SACO 4072 YORK 9/29/1999 

MI ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT CO. ADRIAN 49221 LENAWEE 1/26/1996 

MI AVENUE ‘‘E’’ GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION TRAVERSE CITY 49684 GRAND TRAVERSE 3/20/2007 

MI BERLIN & FARRO SWARTZ CREEK 48473 GENESEE 6/24/1998 

MI BURROWS SANITATION HARTFORD 49057 VAN BUREN 7/14/2015 

MI CARTER INDUSTRIALS, INC. DETROIT 48208 WAYNE 3/25/1997 

MI CEMETERY DUMP ROSE CENTER 48442 OAKLAND 4/19/1995 

MI CHARLEVOIX MUNICIPAL WELL CHARLEVOIX 49720 CHARLEVOIX 12/2/1993 

MI CLIFF/DOW DUMP MARQUETTE 49855 MARQUETTE 11/17/2000 

MI FOLKERTSMA REFUSE GRAND RAPIDS 49504 KENT 4/10/1996 

MI GRATIOT COUNTY GOLF COURSE ST. LOUIS 48880 GRATIOT 9/8/1983 

MI H & K SALES BELDING 48809 IONIA 5/21/1998 

MI KENT CITY MOBILE HOME PARK KENT CITY 49330 KENT 3/20/1995 

MI LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP WYANDOTTE 48192 WAYNE 7/1/2005 

MI MASON COUNTY LANDFILL PERE MARQUETTE 

TWP 

49431 MASON 9/9/1999 

MI METAL WORKING SHOP LAKE ANN 49650 BENZIE 12/23/1992 

MI NOVACO INDUSTRIES TEMPERANCE 48182 MONROE 7/14/1998 

MI OSSINEKE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION OSSINEKE 49766 ALPENA 1/31/1996 

MI SPIEGELBERG LANDFILL GREEN OAK TOWNSHIP 48116 LIVINGSTON 6/13/2011 

MI WASTE MANAGEMENT OF MICHIGAN (HOLLAND LAGOONS) HOLLAND 49424 OTTAWA 1/14/2013 

MI WHITEHALL MUNICIPAL WELLS WHITEHALL 49461 MUSKEGON 2/11/1991 

MN ADRIAN MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD ADRIAN 56110 NOBLES 12/30/1992 

MN AGATE LAKE SCRAPYARD FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP 56473 CASS 8/1/1997 

MN BOISE CASCADE/ONAN CORP./ 

MEDTRONICS, INC. 

FRIDLEY 55432 ANOKA 2/15/1995 

MN DAKHUE SANITARY LANDFILL CANNON FALLS 55031 DAKOTA 7/24/1995 

MN EAST BETHEL DEMOLITION LANDFILL EAST BETHEL TOWNSHIP 55011 ANOKA 5/7/1996 
53 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

MN KOCH REFINING CO./N-REN CORP. ROSEMOUNT 55058 DAKOTA 6/15/1995 

MN KUMMER SANITARY LANDFILL BEMIDJI 56601 BELTRAMI 4/26/1996 

MN LAGRAND SANITARY LANDFILL LAGRAND TOWNSHIP 56308 DOUGLAS 10/23/1997 

MN MORRIS ARSENIC DUMP MORRIS 56267 STEVENS 3/7/1986 

MN NL INDUSTRIES/TAR ACORP/GOLDEN AUTO ST. LOUIS PARK 55426 HENNEPIN 5/21/1998 

MN OAK GROVE SANITARY LANDFILL OAK GROVE TOWNSHIP 55011 ANOKA 10/17/1996 

MN OLMSTED COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL ORONOCO 55960 OLMSTED 2/15/1995 

MN PINE BEND SANITARY LANDFILL DAKOTA COUNTY 55075 DAKOTA 6/23/1998 

MN ST. AUGUSTA SANITARY LANDFILL/ENGEN 

DUMP 

ST. AUGUSTA TOWNSHIP 56301 STEARNS 11/14/1996 

MN TWIN CITIES AIR FORCE RESERVE BASE 

(SMALL ARMS RANGE LANDFILL) 

MINNEAPOLIS 55450 HENNEPIN 12/16/1996 

MN UNION SCRAP IRON & METAL CO. MINNEAPOLIS 55411 HENNEPIN 9/10/1991 

MN UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA (ROSEMOUNT 

RESEARCH CENTER) 

ROSEMOUNT 55068 DAKOTA 2/6/2001 

MN WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL LAKE ELMO 55042 WASHINGTON 5/16/1996 

MN WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING ANDOVER 55304 ANOKA 6/5/1996 

MN WHITTAKER CORP. MINNEAPOLIS 55418 HENNEPIN 2/11/1999 

MN WINDOM DUMP WINDOM 56101 COTTONWOOD 10/6/2000 

MO KEM-PEST LABORATORIES CAPE GIRARDEAU 63701 CAPE GIRARDEAU 9/20/2001 

MO NORTH-U DRIVE WELL CONTAMINATION SPRINGFIELD 65801 GREENE 9/8/1994 

MO SHENANDOAH STABLES MOSCOW MILLS 63362 LINCOLN 9/25/2001 

MO TIMES BEACH TIMES BEACH 63025 ST. LOUIS 9/25/2001 

MO WHEELING DISPOSAL SERVICE CO., INC., 

LANDFILL 

AMAZONIA 64421 ANDREW 10/30/2000 

MP PCB WAREHOUSE GARAPAN 96950 SAIPAN 3/7/1986 

MS FLOWOOD SITE FLOWOOD 39208 RANKIN 2/16/1996 

MS NEWSOM BROTHERS/OLD REICHHOLD 

CHEMICALS, INC. 

COLUMBIA 39429 MARION 9/27/2000 

MS WALCOTTE CHEMICAL CO. WAREHOUSES GREENVILLE 38701 WASHINGTON 12/30/1982 

NC MARTIN-MARIETTA, SODYECO, INC. CHARLOTTE 28214 MECKLENBURG 1/20/2012 

NC NEW HANOVER CNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT WILMINGTON 28401 NEW HANOVER 9/20/2012 

NC ROADSIDE PCB SPILL 210 MILES OF 

ROADS 

27589 WARREN 3/7/1986 

ND ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SITE SOUTHEAST 58053 N/A 7/5/1996 
54 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

ND MINOT LANDFILL MINOT 58701 WARD 4/1/1997 

NE WAVERLY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION WAVERLY 68462 LANCASTER 11/20/2006 

NH TOWN GARAGE/RADIO BEACON LONDONDERRY 3053 ROCKINGHAM 7/21/2014 

NJ ASBESTOS DUMP MILLINGTON 7946 MORRIS 7/12/2010 

NJ BEACHWOOD/BERKELEY WELLS BERKELEY TOWNSHIP 8722 OCEAN 1/6/1992 

NJ COMBE FILL NORTH LANDFILL MOUNT OLIVE TOWNSHIP 7828 MORRIS 6/2/2004 

NJ COOPER ROAD VOORHEES TOWNSHIP 8043 CAMDEN 2/22/1989 

NJ CROWN VANTAGE LANDFILL ALEXANDRIA TOWNSHIP 8848 HUNTERDON 8/28/2015 

NJ DELILAH ROAD EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP 8221 ATLANTIC 10/13/2009 

NJ DENZER & SCHAFER X-RAY CO. BAYVILLE 8721 OCEAN 12/29/1998 

NJ FEDERAL CREOSOTE MANVILLE 8835 SOMERSET 6/18/2014 

NJ FLORENCE LAND RECONTOURING, INC., 

LANDFILL 

FLORENCE TOWNSHIP 8518 BURLINGTON 5/13/2004 

NJ FORT DIX (LANDFILL SITE) PEMBERTON TOWNSHIP 8562 BURLINGTON 9/24/2012 

NJ FRIEDMAN PROPERTY UPPER FREEHOLD 

TWP 

8514 MONMOUTH 3/7/1986 

NJ GLEN RIDGE RADIUM SITE GLEN RIDGE 7028 ESSEX 9/2/2009 

NJ GRAND STREET MERCURY HOBOKEN 7030 HUDSON 9/18/2007 

NJ HOPKINS FARM PLUMSTEAD TOWNSHIP 8533 OCEAN 8/27/2002 

NJ INDUSTRIAL LATEX CORP. WALLINGTON BOROUGH 7057 BERGEN 4/21/2003 

NJ JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL JACKSON TOWNSHIP 8527 OCEAN 9/13/1995 

NJ KRYSOWATY FARM HILLSBOROUGH 

TOWNSHIP 

8853 SOMERSET 2/22/1989 

NJ LODI MUNICIPAL WELL LODI 7644 BERGEN 12/29/1998 

NJ M&T DELISA LANDFILL ASBURY PARK 7755 MONMOUTH 3/21/1991 

NJ MANNHEIM AVENUE DUMP GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP 8213 ATLANTIC 8/27/2007 

NJ MONROE TOWNSHIP LANDFILL MONROE TOWNSHIP 8520 MIDDLESEX 2/3/1994 

NJ MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE RADIUM SITE MONTCLAIR/WEST 

ORANGE 

7044 ESSEX 9/2/2009 

NJ PEPE FIELD BOONTON 7005 MORRIS 7/11/2003 
55 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

NJ PIJAK FARM PLUMSTEAD TOWNSHIP 8533 OCEAN 3/3/1997 

NJ POMONA OAKS RESIDENTIAL WELLS GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP 8240 ATLANTIC 5/7/1998 

NJ RENORA, INC. EDISON TOWNSHIP 8837 MIDDLESEX 3/20/2000 

NJ SAYREVILLE LANDFILL SAYREVILLE 8872 MIDDLESEX 9/29/2011 

NJ SOUTH BRUNSWICK LANDFILL SOUTH BRUNSWICK 8852 MIDDLESEX 2/27/1998 

NJ SPENCE FARM PLUMSTEAD TOWNSHIP 8533 OCEAN 3/3/1997 

NJ TABERNACLE DRUM DUMP TABERNACLE TOWNSHIP 8088 BURLINGTON 5/8/2008 

NJ UPPER DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP SANITARY 

LANDFILL 

UPPER DEERFIELD 

TOWNSHIP 

8302 CUMBERLAND 6/9/2000 

NJ VINELAND STATE SCHOOL VINELAND 8360 CUMBERLAND 5/7/1998 

NJ W.R. GRACE & CO., INC./WAYNE INTERIM 

STORAGE SITE (USDOE) 

WAYNE TOWNSHIP 7470 PASSAIC 9/30/2012 

NJ WILSON FARM PLUMSTEAD TOWNSHIP 8533 N/A 9/8/2009 

NJ WITCO CHEMICAL CORP. (OAKLAND PLANT) OAKLAND 7436 BERGEN 9/29/1995 

NM AT & SF (CLOVIS) CLOVIS 88101 CURRY 3/17/2003 

NM CAL WEST METALS (USSBA) LEMITAR 87823 SOCORRO 12/20/1996 

NM CLEVELAND MILL SILVER CITY 88062 GRANT 7/23/2001 

NM PAGANO SALVAGE LOS LUNAS 87031 VALENCIA 10/14/1992 

NY ACTION ANODIZING, PLATING, & 

POLISHING CORP. 

COPIAGUE 11701 SUFFOLK 9/29/1995 

NY ANCHOR CHEMICALS HICKSVILLE 11801 NASSAU 9/30/1999 

NY BATAVIA LANDFILL BATAVIA 14020 GENESEE 11/29/2005 

NY BEC TRUCKING VESTAL 13850 BROOME 10/14/1992 

NY BIOCLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. BOHEMIA 11716 SUFFOLK 9/9/1994 

NY C & J DISPOSAL LEASING CO. DUMP HAMILTON 13346 MADISON 9/20/1994 

NY CLOTHIER DISPOSAL TOWN OF GRANBY 13069 OSWEGO 2/8/1996 

NY CONKLIN DUMPS CONKLIN 13748 BROOME 4/25/1997 

NY CONSOLIDATED IRON AND METAL NEWBURGH 12550 ORANGE 12/3/2014 

NY HITEMAN LEATHER WEST WINFIELD 13491 HERKIMER 2/13/2011 

NY HOOKER (102ND STREET) NIAGARA FALLS 14304 NIAGARA 8/5/2004 

NY HOOKER (HYDE PARK) NIAGARA FALLS 14304 NIAGARA 10/23/2013 

NY JONES SANITATION HYDE PARK 12538 DUTCHESS 9/23/2005 
56 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

NY KATONAH MUNICIPAL WELL TOWN OF BEDFORD 10536 WESTCHESTER 3/20/2000 

NY KENMARK TEXTILE CORP. FARMINGDALE 11735 SUFFOLK 5/1/1995 

NY LOVE CANAL NIAGARA FALLS 14304 NIAGARA 9/30/2004 

NY LUDLOW SAND & GRAVEL CLAYVILLE 13322 ONEIDA 12/2/2013 

NY MARATHON BATTERY CORP. COLD SPRINGS 10516 PUTNAM 10/18/1996 

NY NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE WHEATFIELD 14150 NIAGARA 7/30/2004 

NY NORTH SEA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL NORTH SEA 11968 SUFFOLK 9/27/2005 

NY PASLEY SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS, INC. HEMPSTEAD 11530 NASSAU 9/26/2011 

NY PETER COOPER CORPORATION 

(MARKHAMS) 

DAYTON 14138 CATTARAUGUS 9/20/2010 

NY PFOHL BROTHERS LANDFILL CHEEKTOWAGA 14225 ERIE 9/22/2008 

NY RADIUM CHEMICAL CO., INC. QUEENS 11377 QUEENS 3/24/1995 

NY SMS INSTRUMENTS, INC. DEER PARK 11729 SUFFOLK 9/13/2010 

NY SUFFERN VILLAGE WELL FIELD VILLAGE OF SUFFERN 10901 ROCKLAND 5/28/1993 

NY SYOSSET LANDFILL OYSTER BAY 11791 NASSAU 4/28/2005 

NY TRONIC PLATING CO., INC. FARMINGDALE 11735 SUFFOLK 10/15/2001 

NY VESTAL WATER SUPPLY WELL 4-2 VESTAL 13850 BROOME 9/30/1999 

NY WARWICK LANDFILL WARWICK 10990 ORANGE 7/6/2001 

NY WIDE BEACH DEVELOPMENT BRANT 14027 ERIE 8/30/1994 

OH ALSCO ANACONDA GNADENHUTTEN 44629 TUSCARAWAS 11/5/2001 

OH ARCANUM IRON & METAL DARKE COUNTY 45304 DARKE 8/31/2001 

OH BOWERS LANDFILL CIRCLEVILLE 43113 PICKAWAY 10/29/1997 

OH CHEMICAL & MINERALS RECLAMATION CLEVELAND 44102 CUYAHOGA 12/30/1982 

OH COSHOCTON LANDFILL FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP 43812 COSHOCTON 10/7/1998 

OH LASKIN/POPLAR OIL CO. JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP 44047 ASHTABULA 9/5/2000 

OH REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. QUARRY ELYRIA 44035 LORAIN 11/12/2002 

OK COMPASS INDUSTRIES (AVERY DRIVE) TULSA 74107 TULSA 7/18/2002 

OK DOUBLE EAGLE REFINERY CO. OKLAHOMA CITY 73152 OKLAHOMA 8/21/2008 

OK FOURTH STREET ABANDONED REFINERY OKLAHOMA CITY 73117 OKLAHOMA 8/21/2008 

OK IMPERIAL REFINING COMPANY ARDMORE 73402 CARTER 9/19/2013 

OK MOSLEY ROAD SANITARY LANDFILL OKLAHOMA CITY 73117 OKLAHOMA 9/26/2013 

OK SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX SAND SPRINGS 74063 TULSA 3/17/2000 
57 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

OK TENTH STREET DUMP/JUNKYARD OKLAHOMA CITY 73111 OKLAHOMA 11/21/2000 

OR ALLIED PLATING, INC. PORTLAND 97211 MULTNOMAH 11/14/1994 

OR GOULD, INC. PORTLAND 97208 MULTNOMAH 9/30/2002 

OR HARBOR OIL INC. PORTLAND 97217 MULTNOMAH 6/5/2014 

OR JOSEPH FOREST PRODUCTS JOSEPH 97846 WALLOWA 11/4/1999 

OR MARTIN-MARIETTA ALUMINUM CO. THE DALLES 97058 WASCO 7/5/1996 

PA ALADDIN PLATING SCOTT TOWNSHIP 18411 LACKAWANNA 11/16/2001 

PA AMBLER ASBESTOS PILES AMBLER 19002 MONTGOMERY 12/27/1996 

PA AMP, INC. (GLEN ROCK FACILITY) GLEN ROCK 17327 YORK 10/2/1996 

PA AUSTIN AVENUE RADIATION SITE DELAWARE COUNTY 19050 DELAWARE 4/18/2002 

PA BERKLEY PRODUCTS CO. DUMP DENVER 17517 LANCASTER 3/19/2007 

PA BERKS LANDFILL SPRING TOWNSHIP 19608 BERKS 11/14/2008 

PA BRODHEAD CREEK STROUDSBURG 18360 MONROE 7/23/2001 

PA BRUIN LAGOON BRUIN BOROUGH 16022 BUTLER 9/18/1997 

PA CRAIG FARM DRUM PARKER 16049 ARMSTRONG 9/30/2013 

PA ENTERPRISE AVENUE PHILADELPHIA 19153 PHILADELPHIA 3/7/1986 

PA HEBELKA AUTO SALVAGE YARD WEISENBERG TOWNSHIP 18062 LEHIGH 9/20/1999 

PA HRANICA LANDFILL BUFFALO TOWNSHIP 16055 BUTLER 9/18/1997 

PA LACKAWANNA REFUSE OLD FORGE 18518 LACKAWANNA 9/28/1999 

PA LANSDOWNE RADIATION SITE LANSDOWNE 19050 DELAWARE 9/10/1991 

PA LEHIGH ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING CO. OLD FORGE 18518 LACKAWANNA 3/7/1986 

PA MCADOO ASSOCIATES MCADOO BOROUGH 18237 SCHUYLKILL 12/13/2001 

PA METROPOLITAN MIRROR AND GLASS CO., 

INC. 

FRACKVILLE 17931 SCHUYLKILL 8/16/2005 

PA MIDDLETOWN AIR FIELD MIDDLETOWN 17057 DAUPHIN 7/10/1997 

PA MOYERS LANDFILL EAGLEVILLE 19426 MONTGOMERY 5/27/2014 

PA PRESQUE ISLE ERIE 16505 ERIE 2/13/1989 

PA PUBLICKER INDUSTRIES INC. PHILADELPHIA 19148 PHILADELPHIA 11/1/2000 

PA REESER’S LANDFILL UPPER MACUNGIE 

TWP 

18051 LEHIGH 5/31/1990 

PA RESIN DISPOSAL JEFFERSON BOROUGH 15025 ALLEGHENY 10/21/2003 

PA RIVER ROAD LANDFILL (WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.) HERMITAGE 16148 MERCER 1/29/2004 
58 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

PA ROUTE 940 DRUM DUMP POCONO SUMMIT 18350 MONROE 11/30/2000 

PA TAYLOR BOROUGH DUMP TAYLOR BOROUGH 18517 LACKAWANNA 9/30/1999 

PA VOORTMAN FARM UPPER SAUCON TWP 18034 LEHIGH 5/31/1989 

PA WADE (ABM) CHESTER 19013 DELAWARE 3/23/1989 

PA WESTLINE WESTLINE 16740 MCKEAN 10/14/1992 

PA YORK COUNTY SOLID WASTE AND REFUSE 

AUTHORITY LANDFILL 

HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP 17363 YORK 2/14/2005 

PR BARCELONETA LANDFILL FLORIDA AFUERA 617 N/A 10/3/2011 

PR FRONTERA CREEK RIO ABAJO 661 HUMACAO 12/29/1998 

PR GE WIRING DEVICES JUANA DIAZ 665 N/A 10/16/2000 

PR NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACTIVITY SABANA SECA 749 N/A 10/7/1998 

PR RCA DEL CARIBE BARCELONETA 617 N/A 6/17/2005 

PR V&M/ALBALADEJO ALMIRANTE NORTE 

WARD 

763 VEGA BAJA 10/22/2001 

RI DAVIS (GSR) LANDFILL GLOCESTER 2828 PROVIDENCE 8/13/1999 

SC GEIGER (C & M OIL) RANTOULES 29494 CHARLESTON 1/6/2014 

SC GOLDEN STRIP SEPTIC TANK SERVICE SIMPSONVILLE 29681 GREENVILLE 9/10/1998 

SC INDEPENDENT NAIL CO. BEAUFORT 29902 BEAUFORT 4/3/1995 

SC KOPPERS CO., INC. (FLORENCE PLANT) FLORENCE 29503 FLORENCE 9/13/2013 

SC PALMETTO RECYCLING, INC. COLUMBIA 29203 RICHLAND 10/13/2000 

SC ROCHESTER PROPERTY TRAVELERS REST 29690 GREENVILLE 10/9/2007 

SD WHITEWOOD CREEK WHITEWOOD 57793 LAWRENCE 8/13/1996 

SD WILLIAMS PIPE LINE CO. DISPOSAL PIT SIOUX FALLS 57107 MINNEHAHA 4/2/1999 

TN AMNICOLA DUMP CHATTANOOGA 37406 HAMILTON 4/30/1996 

TN CHEMET CO. MOSCOW 38057 FAYETTE 10/9/1996 

TN GALLAWAY PITS GALLAWAY 38036 FAYETTE 4/29/1996 

TN ICG ISELIN RAILROAD YARD JACKSON 38301 MADISON 1/7/2002 

TN LEWISBURG DUMP LEWISBURG 37091 MARSHALL 2/21/1996 

TN NORTH HOLLYWOOD DUMP MEMPHIS 38108 SHELBY 12/31/1997 

TX BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL BRIDGE CITY 77611 ORANGE 10/15/2007 

TX BIO-ECOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC. GRAND PRAIRIE 75051 DALLAS 8/5/1996 

TX BRIO REFINING, INC. FRIENDSWOOD 77089 HARRIS 12/28/2006 

TX CRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT CRYSTAL CITY 78839 ZAVALA 3/23/1995 
59 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

TX DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS, INC. FRIENDSWOOD 77546 HARRIS 8/21/2006 

TX HARRIS (FARLEY STREET) HOUSTON 77034 HARRIS 4/18/1988 

TX ODESSA CHROMIUM #2 (ANDREWS HIGHWAY) ODESSA 79762 ECTOR 7/19/2004 

TX PALMER BARGE LINE PORT ARTHUR 77640 JEFFERSON 2/6/2012 

TX PESSES CHEMICAL CO. FORT WORTH 76110 TARRANT 9/28/1995 

TX STATE MARINE OF PORT ARTHUR JEFFERSON COUNTY 77642 JEFFERSON 2/6/2012 

TX STEWCO, INC. WASKOM 75692 HARRISON 10/4/1995 

TX TRIANGLE CHEMICAL CO. BRIDGE CITY 77611 ORANGE 4/8/1997 

UT INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING TOOELE 84074 TOOELE 10/11/2011 

UT MIDVALE SLAG MIDVALE 84047 SALT LAKE 4/8/2015 

UT MONTICELLO RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES MONTICELLO 84535 SAN JUAN 2/28/2000 

UT PETROCHEM RECYCLING CORP./EKOTEK 

PLANT 

SALT LAKE CITY 84116 SALT LAKE 6/30/2003 

UT ROSE PARK SLUDGE PIT SALT LAKE CITY 84116 SALT LAKE 6/30/2003 

UT SHARON STEEL CORP. (MIDVALE TAILINGS) MIDVALE 84047 SALT LAKE 9/24/2004 

VA DIXIE CAVERNS COUNTY LANDFILL SALEM 24153 ROANOKE 9/28/2001 

VA MATTHEWS ELECTROPLATING ROANOKE 24153 ROANOKE CITY 1/19/1989 

VA RHINEHART TIRE FIRE DUMP FREDERICK COUNTY 22601 FREDERICK 9/30/2005 

VA SUFFOLK CITY LANDFILL SUFFOLK 23434 SUFFOLK CITY 1/24/1995 

VI ISLAND CHEMICAL CORP/VIRGIN ISLANDS 

CHEMICAL CORP. 

CHRISTIANSTED 820 ST. CROIX 10/16/2009 

VT DARLING HILL DUMP LYNDON 5851 CALEDONIA 9/29/1999 

VT TANSITOR ELECTRONICS, INC. BENNINGTON 5404 BENNINGTON 9/29/1999 

WA ALCOA (VANCOUVER SMELTER) VANCOUVER 98660 CLARK 9/30/1996 

WA BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION 

ROSS COMPLEX (USDOE) 

VANCOUVER 98666 CLARK 9/23/1996 

WA FORT LEWIS (LANDFILL NO. 5) TACOMA 98433 PIERCE 5/22/1995 

WA HAMILTON ISLAND LANDFILL (USA/COE) NORTH BONNEVILLE 98648 SKAMANIA 5/25/1995 

WA HANFORD 1100-AREA (USDOE) BENTON COUNTY 99352 BENTON 9/30/1996 

WA MCCHORD AIR FORCE BASE (WASH RACK/ 

TREATME NT AREA) 

TACOMA 98438 PIERCE 9/26/1996 

WA NAVAL AIR STATION, WHIDBEY ISLAND 

(SEAPLANE BASE) 

WHIDBEY ISLAND 98278 ISLAND 9/21/1995 

WA NORTHWEST TRANSFORMER EVERSON 98247 WHATCOM 9/28/1999 
60 

TABLE—Continued 

State Site Name City Zip County 1 Deleted Date 

WA NORTHWEST TRANSFORMER (SOUTH 

HARKNESS STREET) 

EVERSON 98247 WHATCOM 9/26/1997 

WA OLD INLAND PIT SPOKANE 99216 SPOKANE 8/31/1999 

WA PESTICIDE LAB (YAKIMA) YAKIMA 98902 YAKIMA 9/1/1993 

WA PORT HADLOCK DETACHMENT (USNAVY) INDIAN ISLAND 98358 JEFFERSON 6/14/2005 

WA SILVER MOUNTAIN MINE LOOMIS 98827 OKANOGAN 9/22/1997 

WA SPOKANE JUNKYARD/ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES SPOKANE 99207 SPOKANE 9/23/1997 

WA TOFTDAHL DRUMS BRUSH PRAIRIE 98606 CLARK 12/23/1988 

WA TULALIP LANDFILL MARYSVILLE 98270 SNOHOMISH 9/18/2002 

WA YAKIMA PLATING CO. YAKIMA 98902 YAKIMA 8/23/1994 

WI EAU CLAIRE MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD EAU CLAIRE 54701 EAU CLAIRE 5/27/2014 

WI FADROWSKI DRUM DISPOSAL FRANKLIN 53132 MILWAUKEE 9/6/2005 

WI NORTHERN ENGRAVING CO. SPARTA 54656 MONROE 10/29/1997 

WI OMEGA HILLS NORTH LANDFILL GERMANTOWN 53022 WASHINGTON 12/11/1996 

WI TOMAH FAIRGROUNDS TOMAH 54660 MONROE 8/20/2001 

WI WASTE RESEARCH & RECLAMATION CO. EAU CLAIRE 54701 EAU CLAIRE 2/5/1993 

WI WHEELER PIT LA PRAIRIE TOWNSHIP 53545 ROCK 4/20/2004 

WV FOLLANSBEE FOLLANSBEE 26037 BROOKE 1/16/2004 

WV LEETOWN PESTICIDE LEETOWN 25430 JEFFERSON 8/29/1996 

WY BAXTER/UNION PACIFIC TIE TREATING LARAMIE 82070 ALBANY 12/6/1999 

1 Please note that not every location listed has a County (i.e., Tribal lands, U.S Territory, etc.). 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. And with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., Wednesday, April 20, the hearings 

were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.]