(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:38 p.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

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

Present: Senators Murkowski, Alexander, Cochran, Blunt, 

Hoeven, McConnell, Daines, Cassidy, Udall, Leahy, and Reed. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID BLOOM, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good afternoon. We’ll call to order the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies. Welcome to all. 

I apologize for our late start. I was in another appropriations 

hearing with the Secretary of Homeland Security trying to secure 

an icebreaker, so I’m sure that you would understand. 

Administrator McCarthy and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for your indulgence here this afternoon. We are here to 

examine the fiscal year 2016 budget request for the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Administrator McCarthy, I appreciate the time that we were able 

to spend in my office last week talking about some of the priorities 

that I have. I think it was constructive dialogue, and I look forward 

to that today. I also appreciate your commitment to ask the Deputy 

Administrator to convene a senior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) team to sit down with me and my staff to see if we can’t 

make some progress on some of the issues that are outstanding, 

and some of them more high profile than others, but issues that 

are of significance to my State and important within EPA’s operations. 

Mr. Bloom, welcome to the subcommittee to you. 

Today’s hearing comes at a critical time for two of the EPA’s 

most controversial proposals, the rulemaking to redefine what the 

EPA will regulate under the Clean Water Act and the proposed 
2 

rule for existing power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air 

Act. 

The EPA’s proposal to redefine what they will regulate under the 

Clean Water Act was recently sent to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for final review. It’s expected to be released 

pretty soon. Just last week, Administrator McCarthy reiterated 

that the final power plant rule, which will require dramatic 

changes to our electricity sector, will be finalized by midsummer. 

I am concerned, and I’ve expressed this to you, Administrator 

McCarthy, about these proposals. The EPA’s proposal to change the 

definition of waters of the United States under the Clean Water 

Act has been described by some as a simple clarification, but in reality, the change will substantially increase the EPA’s regulatory 

reach and will likely subject countless new projects to permitting 

requirements that I think will be very hard to satisfy. 

Roughly two-thirds of the State of Alaska is already considered 

wetlands, and the rule has potential to engulf even more of our 

State. I have described the water rule as a potential showstopper 

for new development in Alaska. I continue to have serious concerns 

as we near the final rule’s release date. 

The EPA’s efforts to regulate existing electric power plants will 

increase energy prices and negatively impact the economy in Alaska and throughout the United States. The same can be said about 

a companion rule addressing new power plants. And in spite of the 

fact that the EPA released a preemptive legal justification for its 

actions, there does remain a legitimate question about whether the 

EPA is acting outside its legal authority to enact this policy. 

I am particularly concerned about the EPA’s treatment of Alaska 

in the Clean Power Plan. Not only has EPA failed to present a 

clear rationale to support the application of this Clean Air Act proposal to Alaska, it even failed to evaluate the impacts of the proposal to the State. And this lack of analysis is very troubling, because we lack this interconnected grid that the EPA cites as the 

key to maintaining reliable and affordable electricity. 

You have stated Administrator, that the final rule will include 

substantial flexibilities, but this is a really tough one for us. We’re 

trying to figure out how, in Alaska, even with the level of flexibility, there could be a reasonable path forward. So again, this is 

an issue of considerable concern. 

These are just two of the issues that are being brought to my attention on a consistent basis within and beyond Alaska. On a national level, I continue to hear about EPA’s efforts on ozone, methane, and hydraulic fracturing. This is just a few of them. Up in the 

State, I’m consistently hearing a message that the EPA is overstepping in its appropriate role. 

We touched briefly on a laundry list of issues that, while not receiving the same level of scrutiny as the Clean Water Act or the 

power plant rules, these are of tremendous importance, and we 

have to address them. We discussed the need to find a workable 

solution for small, remote incinerators that are the only option to 

deal with solid waste in some areas in the State and back up diesel 

generation concerns. We know that those continue to be an issue. 

We agreed upon the need for a workable solution for the PM 2.5 

problem in Fairbanks and to find a fix so that EPA can continue 
3 

to help. We have issues as it relates to back haul in our rural villages. We talked about the need to deal with our abandoned oil 

tanks, the contaminated lands, the sensible option to dispose of fish 

waste. Some of this is so very parochial, but these are issues that 

consume residents. 

As I shared with you last week, Alaskans are ready to find some 

commonsense solutions to protect our environment, but we need 

the Federal Government to recognize some of the unique challenges 

that we face. So we’re willing to work with the EPA to find solutions, but we need to be working and talking together. 

When it comes to budget request, as I noted in all of the Interior 

Subcommittee hearings, the President’s budget was written without regard to the spending limits that Congress is compelled to operate within. Because that’s the case, the President’s budget requests substantial funding increases for some programs that I believe are unrealistic given the budget environment. 

The EPA’s request is no different in that regard. The budget re- quests an increase of $451 million, approximately 6 percent above 

the enacted level for fiscal year 2015, even though we don’t expect 

to have substantially more money this year. We all know that. Beyond the overall increase, I’m concerned about the specific areas 

the budget request proposes to increase and to cut. 

The budget requests approximately $239 million to fund the 

President’s climate change agenda. This is an $80 million increase 

from last year’s enacted. The budget requests money to hire additional attorneys to defend controversial rule makings that States 

and others argue are unlawful. It also requests additional money 

to expand a hydraulic fracturing study far beyond what Congress 

has envisioned when EPA was directed to study the topic 5 years 

ago. 

At the same time we see these funding increases, the EPA proposes eliminating important programs to protect against radon exposure. This is the second leading cause of lung cancer behind 

smoking. And it proposes to reduce funding for grants to clean up 

some diesel emissions. 

I would suggest some of the Agency’s choices are troubling. It is 

my hope that this subcommittee will be able to find a way to fund 

on the ground clean-up work while reducing what many of us believe very strongly to be the agency’s regulatory overreach. 

Administrator, I thank you for being here today and for the very 

direct conversations that we are able to have on issues that are 

possibly and probably contentious. We’ve got to be working together to resolve them. 

With that, I turn to my ranking member, and look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, and good 

morning and welcome—or good afternoon. I’m a little behind here. 

Welcome, Administrator McCarthy. Great to have you here today, 

and thank you for joining us as we discuss the fiscal year 2016 

budget request for the EPA. 

This is a pivotal time for your agency. That’s clear. You’re talking on tough issues, environmental protection, air quality, water 
4 

quality, and climate change. It’s also clear that many of these 

issues are controversial. But let’s remember our landmark environmental laws, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, were controversial, too, but folks on both sides 

worked together, and they got the job done. I’m hopeful that we can 

do the same with bipartisan solutions that move us forward instead 

of using controversial riders that hold us back. 

We need to make critical changes to improve the quality of air 

we breathe and the health of the environment. We can’t wait another decade or two. I know making these changes won’t be easy, 

but American innovation is legendary and limitless. In particular, 

I think it’s time to channel that innovation into finding solutions 

to stop and even to begin to reverse the effects of climate change. 

So I’m pleased the EPA’s budget request for fiscal year 2016 makes 

a bold statement about the need to address climate change and 

also the means to get there. 

EPA’s funding request for its work to stop climate change represents a 50 percent increase to the fiscal year 2015 level. The increase is overwhelmingly for grants to support the States to plan 

and implement new greenhouse gas standards and for providing 

vital technical support to States as they develop these plans. 

I think EPA’s emphasis on supporting States is remarkable. All 

the more so given that, over the past 3 years, EPA has just barely 

been able to avoid furloughs. During the past 2 years, most Federal 

agencies were finally able to start getting back to normal, normal 

business after years of budget cuts. 

But EPA has still effectively been operating at the sequestered 

level, and this wasn’t something new. EPA’s budget has dropped 8 

percent in real terms, and it lost 12 percent of its staff in the last 

decade. This concerns me a lot. EPA faces a tight budget for day 

to day operations, but I appreciate the agency is living within these 

constraints in order to prioritize its climate change work. 

I also appreciate that the budget supports programs important to 

New Mexico, especially uranium cleanup on Navaho lands and a 

$30 million increase for grants to revitalize brownfields. Yet I’m 

worried about some of the proposed offsets, especially eliminating 

radon grants, I believe Chairwoman Murkowski also mentioned 

that, and the 1.5 percent cut to State revolving fund (SRF) grants 

for clean water and drinking water, and I look forward to discussing those programs today. 

Finally, yesterday, the Environmental and Public Works Committee reported bipartisan legislation to reform how we regulate 

the safety of chemicals. I think we did exactly what the American 

people have complained we don’t do enough of in Washington, we 

sat down the Republicans, Democrats, advocates, and business. We 

worked together to find a common sense solution. 

The legislation creates a predictable and transparent Federal 

system to regulate the safety of chemicals based on the latest 

science. It provides greater regulatory certainty to the chemical 

manufacturing industry and updates a 40-year old law that fails to 

protect the American people. The administration drafted helpful 

principles to guide effective reform of chemical management. We 

have followed those principles, and I think we’ve done a remarkable job. 
5 

I look forward to hearing from you, Administrator McCarthy, and 

to discussing these important matters today, and that’s it. Thank 

you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Udall. Let’s go to you, 

Administrator McCarthy. Welcome to the subcommittee, and we’ll 

look forward to your comments, and then we’ll have an opportunity 

for questions. Welcome. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chairwoman 

Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to 

discuss the EPA’s proposed fiscal year 2016 budget. I’m joined by 

the Agency’s Acting Chief Financial Officer, David Bloom. 

The EPA’s budget request of $8.592 billion in discretionary funding for the 2016 fiscal year provides the resources that are vital to 

protecting human health and the environment while building a 

solid path for sustainable economic growth. 

Since 1970 when EPA was founded, we have seen, over and over 

again, that a safe environment and a strong economy go hand in 

hand. This budget supports essential work to address climate 

change, improve air quality, protect our water, safeguard the public 

from toxic chemicals, support community’s environmental health, 

maintain core enforcement strength, support needed research, and 

work towards a sustainable future for all Americans. 

Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of EPA, the 

States, and our tribal partners. We’re setting a high bar for continued partnership efforts in looking for opportunities for closer collaboration and targeted joint planning and governance processes 

through efforts like E-Enterprise governance approach. 

That’s why the largest part of our budget, $3.6 billion or 42 percent, is provided directly to our State and tribal partners. In fiscal 

year 2016, our requests include an increase of $108 million for 

State and tribal categorical grants. 

This budget requests $1.1 billion to address climate change and 

to improve air quality. These resources will help protect those most 

vulnerable to climate impacts and the harmful health effects of air 

pollution through common sense standards, guidelines, and partnership programs. 

Climate change is not just an environmental challenge. It’s a 

threat to our public health, our domestic and global economy, and 

to our national and international security. The request supports 

the President’s Climate Action Plan, and in particular, the Clean 

Power Plan which establishes carbon pollution standards for power 

plants. 

In addition, the President’s budget calls for a $4 billion Clean 

Power State Initiative Fund to support State efforts to accelerate 

carbon pollution reductions in the power sector. 

Protecting the Nation’s waters remains a top priority for the 

EPA. In fiscal year 2016, we will finalize and support implementation of the Clean Water Rule, which will clarify types of waters covered under the Clean Water Act and foster more certain and efficient business decisions to protect our Nation’s waters. 
6 

Recognizing the need for water infrastructure, the SRF and re- lated efforts are funded at over $2.3 billion, and we will work with 

our partners to help communities by focusing on issues such as financial planning for future public infrastructure investments and 

expanded efforts with States to identify financial opportunities for 

resilient drinking water, waste water, and storm water infrastructure. 

The Agency recently launched the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Center. It’s a key component of our effort to expand our investment in water infrastructure. 

We are proposing a multifaceted effort to help our communities. 

However, low income neighborhoods, rural communities, and communities of color need special assistance. This includes targeted 

funding and on the ground community assistance through EPA regional coordinators in a network of circuit riders. An investment of 

$16.2 million will help local communities improve safety and security at chemical facilities and to prevent and prepare for oil spills. 

These efforts represent a shared commitment among those with a 

stake in chemical facility safety and security ranging from facility 

owners to first responders. 

The fiscal year 2016 budget request will let us continue to make 

a real and visible difference to communities every day. It will give 

us a foundation to improve infrastructure across the country, and 

it will sustain State, tribal, and Federal environmental efforts 

across all our programs. 

With this proposed budget, the President is not only sending a 

clear signal about the resources EPA needs to work effectively and 

efficiently with States and tribes to protect public health and the 

environment, it is also part of an overall Federal budget proposal 

that does not accept the bad public policy embodied and sequestration and does not hold back needed resources in non-defense spending in order to increase needed defense spending or vice versa. Instead, the President’s proposed fiscal year 2016 budget finds a path 

forward to avoid sequestration and properly support both domestic 

and national security interests. 

Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

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 2016 budget. I’m joined by the 

agency’s Acting Chief Financial Officer, David Bloom. The EPA’s budget request of $8.592 billion in discretionary funding for the 2016 

fiscal year starting October 1, 2015 provides the resources vital to protecting human 

health and the environment while building a solid path for sustainable economic 

growth. Since the EPA was founded in 1970, we have seen over and over again that 

a safe environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. In the last 45 years, 

we have cut air pollution 70 percent and cleaned up half of our Nation’s polluted 

waterways. Meanwhile, the U.S. GDP has tripled, which shows that investments in 

public health and environmental protection are consistent with strong economic 

growth. Economic prosperity and quality of life depends on public health protection 

that ensures clean air; clean water; and safe, healthy land. 

This budget will let us continue that trend. It funds essential work to address climate change, improve air quality, protect our water, safeguard the public from toxic 

chemicals, support communities’ environmental health, maintain core enforcement 

strength and work toward a sustainable future for all Americans. Central to this 
7 

work is supporting our State, local, and tribal partners, working with them to deliver on our environmental and health improvements as a shared responsibility. We 

are doing this while supporting a strong workforce at the EPA 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 focused on continuing our work with partners to make a visible difference 

in communities and across the country—especially in areas overburdened by pollution—including low-income neighborhoods, rural communities, and communities of 

color. 

This budget proposes a multifaceted effort to enable communities of all sizes, 

rural and urban, to find needed assistance and support for capacity building, planning, and implementation of environmental protection programs. In fiscal year 2016, 

EPA will support this effort by providing targeted funding and regional coordinators 

to help communities find the best programs to address local environmental priorities. This budget also provides for a network of ‘‘circuit riders’’ to provide on-theground assistance to communities to build and strengthen the adaptive capacity and 

resilience to climate change. EPA will also a support community revitalization and 

economic redevelopment by investing $110 million dollars, an increase of $30 million 

from last year, to plan, assess, clean up and reuse brownfields. 

This request also includes an additional investment of $16.2 million over our current resources to help local communities improve safety and security at chemical facilities, and to prevent and prepare for oil spills. This investment will improve compliance outreach to industry, emergency planning assistance to local communities, 

updates to existing guidance and regulations, and enhancements to software used 

by emergency responders. 

The EPA will also 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 close to $540 million in the Superfund Remedial program and another $191 million in the Superfund Emergency Response and 

Removal program, which is an increase of $48 million across the two programs. 

ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY

The fiscal year 2016 budget request for the agency’s work to address climate 

change and to improve air quality is $1.1 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 is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Climate change is 

not just an environmental challenge, it is a threat to public health, to our domestic 

and global economy, and to our national and international security. The U.S. has 

already and will continue to shift the international discussion on climate change 

from one that focuses on mitigation costs to one that embraces new investment opportunities. If done right, we can cut the carbon pollution that is fueling climate 

change and 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 already 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. 

This request supports the President’s Climate Action Plan and makes climate action a priority. In particular, the Clean Power Plan, which establishes carbon pollution standards for power plants, is a top priority for the EPA and will help spur 

innovation and economic growth while creating a clean energy economy. The Plan 

gives States the flexibility they need to design and implement plans that reduce 

their carbon pollution while meeting the needs of their residents and businesses. 

The budget request includes an increase of $25 million in direct grant support to 

States to establish the programmatic infrastructure necessary for effective implementation as well as resources for EPA to provide critical support to the States 

through technical assistance, developing guidance, modeling, and other tools. 

In addition, the President’s budget calls for a $4 billion Clean Power State Incentive Fund to be administered through a mandatory spending account to support 

State efforts to accelerate carbon pollution reductions in the power sector. This 

funding will enable States to invest in a range of activities that complement and 

advance the Clean Power Plan, including but not limited to direct investments and 

financing for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; funding for low-income communities to address disproportionate impacts from environmental pollu-
8 

tion; and assistance and incentives for businesses to expand infrastructure for innovative projects that reduce carbon pollution. 

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

the transportation sector by increasing fuel economy standards. With input from industry and stakeholders, the EPA, working with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, expects to finalize Phase II greenhouse gas and fuel 

efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles. These standards will deliver significant 

savings at the pump, reduce carbon pollution, and reduce fuel costs for businesses 

while improving the efficiency of moving goods across the United States. 

PROTECTING THE NATION’S WATERS

Protecting the Nation’s waters remains a top priority for the EPA. We will continue to build upon decades of efforts to ensure our waterways are clean and our 

drinking water is safe. Water pollution endangers wildlife, compromises the safety 

and reliability of our drinking water sources and treatment plants, and threatens 

the waters where we swim and fish. In fiscal year 2016, we will begin implementation of the Clean Water Rule, which will clarify types of waters covered under the 

Clean Water Act and foster more certain and efficient business decisions to protect 

the Nation’s waters. 

Aging systems and the increasing impacts of climate change create opportunities 

for innovation and new approaches for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Building on the strong funding level of $2.3 billion provided through the Clean 

Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, $50 million is included for technical assistance, training, and other efforts to enhance the capacity of communities 

and States to plan and finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. The EPA will work with States and communities to promote innovative 

practices that advance water system and community resiliency and sustainability. 

Dedicated funding through the Clean Water SRF will advance green infrastructure 

design and practices such as incorporating permeable permanent natural structures, 

green roofs, and wetlands which can help cost-effectively meet Clean Water Act requirements and protect and restore the Nation’s water resources. 

In January 2015, the agency launched a key component of this expanded effort, 

the Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center. We will work with our 

partners to help communities across the country by focusing on issues such as financial planning for future public infrastructure investments and expanded efforts with 

States to identify financing opportunities for resilient drinking water, wastewater 

and stormwater infrastructure. We will enhance our partnership and collaboration 

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on training, technical assistance, and funding opportunities in rural areas. The Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance 

center is part of the Build America investment initiative, a governmentwide 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. 

Separately, EPA will continue efforts to protect and restore ecosystems through 

its geographic programs. EPA and its Federal partners are making steady progress 

on reducing unexpended balances of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding, and 

will continue and strengthen efforts to further reduce these balances and examine 

potential ways to increase expenditure rates in future years. 

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. Our 

funds 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. 

In fiscal year 2016, we will increase the Superfund Remedial program by $39 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 will expand the successful Brownfields program, providing 

grants, and supporting area-wide planning and technical assistance to maximize the 

benefits to the communities. In fiscal year 2016, the EPA is investing $110 million 

in funding for Brownfields Project grants to local communities, an additional $30 
9 

million over the fiscal year 2015 Enacted Budget, increasing the number of grants 

for assessment and cleanup of contaminated sites. This investment builds on the 

program’s successful community-driven approach to revitalizing contaminated land 

and further supports the agency’s efforts to make a visible difference in communities. 

TAKING STEPS TO IMPROVE CHEMICAL FACILITY SAFETY

In support of the White House Executive Order 13650 on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, the EPA is requesting $27.8 million for the State and 

Local Prevention and Preparedness program, an increase of $12 million above the 

fiscal year 2015 enacted level. This increase will allow the EPA to continue 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, 

tribal, and Territorial governments; regional entities; nonprofit organizations; facility workers; first responders; environmental justice and local environmental organizations; and communities. In fiscal year 2016, we are implementing actions to 

strengthen community planning and preparedness, enhance Federal operational coordination, improve data management, modernize policies and regulation, and incorporate stakeholder feedback and best practices. 

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 2016, we are requesting $528 million for research and development to evaluate and predict potential environmental and human health impacts including impacts related to air pollution, 

water quality, climate change and biofuels. This will allow all decision makers at 

all levels of government to have the science needed to develop and implement environmental policies and strategies. This request will also support expanding the 

EPA’s computational toxicology effort—which is letting us study chemical risks and 

exposure exponentially faster and more affordably than ever before. We are also 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. 

SUPPORTING STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNERS

Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of 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, $3.6 billion dollars or 42 percent, is provided directly to our State and tribal partners. In fiscal year 2016, we are requesting an increase of $108 million in funding for State and Tribal Assistance categorical grants. The increase for State and Tribal Assistance includes an additional $31 

million over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level for the Tribal General Assistance Program, supporting tribes in the development of sustainable and robust environmental 

regulatory programs for Indian Country. 

As one example of our efforts, we are also including opportunities for closer collaboration and targeted joint planning and governance processes. One example is 

the E-Enterprise approach, a transformative 21st century strategy to modernize the 

way in which government agencies deliver environmental protection. With our coregulatory partners, we are working collaboratively 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 by making government more efficient and effective. 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. Projects following the E-Enterprise 

approach will yield the benefits of increased transparency, efficiency, and burden reduction for communities, businesses, and government agencies when implemented. 
10 

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 by optimizing and renovating critical agency space. That includes our 

laboratory buildings across the country, where we conduct critical scientific research 

on behalf of the American public. In the past 3 years, the EPA realized $8.3 million 

in rent avoidance by releasing over 225 thousand square feet of space nationwide. 

We’ve taken a careful look at our workforce and facility needs so we can continue 

to optimize and update our physical footprint in fiscal year 2016. We’ll also target 

resources to prepare our outstanding agency workforce for the future, and continue 

our E-Enterprise effort with States to improve and modernize joint business processes—for instance, replacing outdated paper processes for regulated companies 

with electronic submissions. 

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

purpose and accomplished their mission. The fiscal year 2016 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 State Indoor Air and Radon grants, the Targeted Airshed grants and the 

Water Quality Research and Support grants, totaling $44.6 million. 

The EPA’s fiscal year 2016 budget request will let us continue to make a real and 

visible difference to communities 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. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. While my testimony reflects only 

some of the highlights of the EPA’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Administrator. I appreciate, 

again, you being here. 

We’re joined this afternoon by the majority leader, and I’m told 

that he has a meeting with the Prime Minister here very shortly, 

so I would like to defer to Senator McConnell for his questions 

first. 

FEDERAL PLAN—CARBON REGULATIONS

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Administrator McCarthy, as you know, things are not well in the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky. We have a depression in Eastern 

Kentucky. 

Your agency’s proposed budget request, if approved, would facilitate the EPA’s plan to shut our coal plants in my State, put countless more of my constituents out of work, all in service of a regulatory agenda, the actual benefits of which neither you nor anyone 

else can seem to explain. 

My constituents want their dignity restored. They want to be 

able to work. They want to be able to provide for their families. 

You cannot guarantee your carbon regulations won’t cost my constituents jobs. You cannot guarantee your carbon regulations won’t 

raise their utility bills. You refused my multiple invitations to come 

to our State and discuss these regulations with my constituents. 

And one of your deputies, listen to this, added insult to injury 

when she said, EPA only held hearings, she said, on carbon regulations in areas where your colleagues, ‘‘were comfortable coming to.’’ 

I assume that’s places unlike Pikeville, Kentucky. 

Now, I know that the Obama administration points to Kentucky 

as a State where your plans are actually underway. But according 
11 

to our Governor’s office, my State will not be able to submit a State 

plan that meets your demands before the current Governor leaves 

office, which is December of this year, 2015. 

So you might be interested to know that all the major candidates 

for Governor this year, one of whom will take office in December 

of this year, have said they’re not going to submit a plan. The current Governor, who’s working with you, will be gone. He says he 

can’t finish it by December. And none, the Democrat and multiple 

Republican candidates, none of them are going to submit a plan. 

So my question is, how in the world do you intend to force my 

State to comply with a Federal plan? What are you going to require 

Kentucky to do, run coal plants less of the time, build gas plants, 

erect wind mills, put up solar panels, build pipelines? Does EPA 

really know how to do all these things? Do you think you can really 

require these things under the Clean Air Act? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Leader McConnell, thank you for your questions, 

and I appreciate your concerns. Let me try to answer them. 

I believe that EPA has designed this plan in a way that we are 

respecting the current situation in States and their energy mix, designing our standards to accommodate reasonable benefits in terms 

of reducing carbon pollution and what those States can do and 

leaving tremendous flexibility to the individual States in the most 

respectful way that we can. 

I am more than happy to take your comments and to work with 

any Governor of any State at any time, whether they’re here or 

Governors in the future. We have been working closely with this 

Governor and clearly with his staff to try to look at what options 

are available and how they can address the issues associated with 

their carbon emissions in ways that are reasonable and appropriate 

for their State, which is the interest that you share as well, sir, in 

protecting your communities and your families. 

To the extent that we can continue to work with future Governors, I would love that opportunity. When you take a look at the 

comments that have been received, they are thoughtful, they are 

critical, and they are supportive. We are looking at each and every 

one of them, so this final rule can be something that every State 

can achieve and be proud of, and that we would continue to encourage every State to take the opportunity we have given them in this 

rule, which is to design the solution themselves in a way that 

meets their own needs and their energy projections. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Well, if I may, I hate to interrupt, but I’d 

like to make sure I get some more in before I run out of time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s fine. No problem, sir. 

CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATIONS

Senator MCCONNELL. So you got a current Governor who can’t 

finish before he leaves all of this in December, and the next Governor who’s not going to file a plan. So I assume you’ll have to 

wrestle with that. 

So let me move onto another issue. You and your colleagues like 

to imply that Congress won’t have a role in this process when you 

proposed the plan last year. You cited, for example, multistate programs as a basis to ensure ‘‘more flexibility and lower costs.’’ Recently, one of your deputies told the Federal Energy Regulatory 
12 

Commission (FERC) that the multistate plans are a significant 

part of your strategy. 

I’d like to acquaint you with section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act 

requirements, requires Congressional consent for cooperative agreements. That’s section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act requires Congressional consent for cooperative agreements. The law reads, ‘‘No such 

agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any 

State unless and until it’s been approved by Congress.’’ Unless and 

until it’s been approved by Congress, doesn’t seem ambivalent to 

me. 

I can assure you that, as long as I’m majority leader of the Senate, this body is not going to be signing off on any back door energy 

tax. 

One final point. You have assured international officials that the 

United States is serious about imposing climate change regulations. I’d say what we have learned from your recent time on Capitol Hill, this is not the case. I would remind you, the executive 

branch is only one-third of the U.S. Government. The Congress, of 

course, didn’t pass Cap and Trade back in 2009 and 2010 when the 

Democrats had very large majorities here. So the failure of Congress to sign off should signal to other countries that they should 

proceed with caution into the December 2015 climate talks in 

Paris. 

Any further thoughts? I’m about out of time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m sorry. Let me just indicate, sir, that I believe 

that we’re acting under the authority that Congress gave us under 

the Clean Air Act, and we are going to be producing a rule that 

will stand its test of time in the courts. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Yes, well, that’s going to be the test. You’re 

going to have to prove it in court as you know. In the meantime—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. As we most often do. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Yes, in the meantime, we’ve got a grim, 

grim situation in Kentucky. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Leader. 

Let’s go to our ranking member for his questions, and then we’ll 

come back to the Republican side. 

CLIMATE CHANGE RULES

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. Let me get my microphone there. 

Administrator McCarthy, New Mexico and the Southwest are, as 

you probably know, are really in the bull’s eye when it comes to 

climate change. The effects can readily be seen. We are experiencing serious decreases in snow pack and river flows, which has 

led to one of the longest and most severe droughts in history. 

Climate change is a serious problem. The American people know 

it’s serious, and they want something done. EPA is answering the 

call, and I fully support your efforts. That’s why I’m glad to see 

that EPA is tackling emissions reductions on multiple fronts by 

proposing lower standards for greenhouse gas emissions, including 

new standards focusing specifically on methane. 
13 

Administrator McCarthy, I know we hear a number of concerns 

this morning about potential impacts that your proposed climate 

rules will have on jobs and the cost of the reliability of our energy 

supply. I’d like to take a moment to ask you to address a couple 

of those concerns. 

Can you share with us why you believe your proposed framework 

offers States the proper flexibility to comply with the new standards, and why in particular you are confident that the rules will 

protect the reliability of the Nation’s energy supply? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you for the questions. 

The way in which we designed this rule was to make sure that 

we did what the States and most were asking us to do, which was 

to use our science to establish standards and to allow maximum 

flexibility for the States to achieve that in a way in which they 

were planning to grow their energy, but to do it in a way that 

would reduce the carbon emissions from those energy supplies. 

There is tremendous effort on the part of every State to actually 

look at their energy system now. It is in transition. We are seeing 

changes, and this rule should underpin that. 

What we have understood is the need for us to take a look at 

where every State is and what their options are, to be reasonable 

in what we think they can achieve, and to give a long period of 

time for that achievement to happen, which sends a long market 

signal but provides ultimate flexibility for the States to design their 

own future for themselves. What we are seeing is that even heavily 

carbon emitting sources like coal facilities, you still have coal significantly in the mix in 2030. It’s now at about 37 at the most, 34 

percent of the energy mix. It’s still going to be 30 percent in 2030. 

So we are not picking and choosing among energy systems here. 

We’re looking what States are doing. We’re looking at where the 

energy supply is heading. We’re allowing States to get there, and 

we are ensuring that we provide the time and the flexibility so that 

reliability will never be threatened and affordability of our energy 

systems can be maintained. 

CLIMATE CHANGE—FINAL RULES

Senator UDALL. The draft rules have been open for public comment and feedback. I think you’ve done that pretty extensively. 

Can you discuss how you plan to address some of the concerns 

raised by stakeholders in the final rules? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can. Thank you for mentioning the outreach efforts, because it really was unprecedented. I think we’ve been 

working at that for about 3 years. We have been talking about this 

rule and the opportunities for reductions. We received close to 4 

million comments and have been working extensively with the 

stakeholders. We are confident that every State has an opportunity 

here to move forward, given the flexibility we have to design their 

own plans. 

We are confident, again, that everyone can do it in a way that 

continues to advance their own economy, that will not threaten 

jobs, that will not threaten the reliability and affordability of our 

energy system. We are looking at this as real opportunities economically for the United States to do what you suggested, Governor—I mean, Governor, past tense—Senator. What you have in-
14 

dicated is to unleash the innovation in our economy so that the 

United States can lead the charge to a low carbon future, and we’re 

confident that we will get there. 

Senator UDALL. And really what you’re talking about, by setting 

these guidelines and these standards, companies can then innovate 

and try to really move in the direction where we can meet all the 

specific targets that we’ve put in place. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We know that the comments have provided us 

significant opportunity to do two things, to look at the State targets 

individually and to look at the framework itself. We got significant 

technical comments on this. We’re paying attention to each and 

every one of them. 

We know that, if we pay attention to those, and we pay attention 

to what States are telling us, and the utility world as well and 

stakeholders, that we will make adjustments that will make everybody look at this final rule and recognize that we have paid respect 

through the common process in what has been provided to us in 

the way of real data. 

CLEAN AIR ACT COMPLIANCE COSTS

Senator UDALL. The history of the Clean Air Act Amendment 

shows that compliance costs have been far lower than expected 

when laws are implemented. Can you remind us about the experience of implementing the 1990 amendments and talk about what 

lessons that experience have shown? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Congress wisely asked us to pull together 

basically a Federal advisory committee that had an extensive make 

up to look at the 1990 amendments and do sort of a 20-year review. 

Did we get there? What was the cost? 

We found that the benefits of the Clean Air Act absolutely tremendous. They have saved countless lives and billions and billions, 

if not trillions, of dollars. They have protected our families. 

One thing I would indicate to you as well, Senator, is that, in my 

short time, I have seen basically my partnership with utilities to 

look at how to do this reasonably, has meant that they have always 

achieved more than what our standards required and at cheaper 

cost. Because once they embrace the direction in which our rules 

ask them to head, they run as fast and as far as they can. 

In a rule like this, every time you run farther, you will save more 

money, and you’ll save your consumers more money, and that is basically a win for everyone. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Administrator, I want to follow on with the majority leader’s 

comments about the Clean Power Plan. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

CLEAN POWER PLAN

Senator MURKOWSKI. As you know, I have been raising the concern, the alarm about reliability of our electricity in our grids 

across the country and the impact of this proposed carbon rule on 

the aspect of reliability. We saw the analysis last week from the 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) that didn’t 

do much to calm my fears on that. 
15 

But I mentioned in my opening statement that the technical 

analysis that was done, the integrated planning model and regulatory impact analysis, failed to evaluate the application of the rule 

to my entire State, didn’t even look at it. And I think the lack of 

analysis was there was because Alaska is so unique. We’re not connected to anybody else’s grid. The size and the scope is pretty considerable as we know. But there’s very little comparison to other 

States, and our electricity sector is substantially different than 

what you have in the lower 48. 

We have five facilities that we’re talking about here, four of 

which are natural gas, one is coal. So when you’re talking about 

how you’re going to get to that 26 percent reduction, there’s not a 

lot of give. And as a consequence, Alaska has looked at this very 

critically and says, there is no way that we can achieve what has 

been set out. 

You use the word flexibility quite a lot, but the concern, of 

course, is that there is no level of flexibility that will make a proposal like this work in a State like Alaska, and so our State’s leaders have asked that Alaska be exempted in the final rule. 

How carefully are you considering this request for an exemption, 

and what can you give me in terms of your reaction to that request? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Madam Chairwoman, let me explain. The 

analysis we did in our rule is a national analysis and a regional 

analysis looking at issues like reliability, which we believe is really 

the most significant way to analyze it, especially when you give so 

much flexibility to individual States. 

Having said that, we find ourselves often talking about the 

uniqueness of Alaska. This is another instance in which that is, 

again, the case, because they are not interconnected in a way that 

other States are. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So are you considering the State’s request 

for a full exemption? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually have, in the rule itself, solicited that 

comment, because we indicated that this was our assessment of 

what could be achieved, but we asked specifically for comment on 

this specific issue. So we will, of course, take this under very serious consideration. 

But you should be, I believe, heartened by the fact that we acknowledged the uniqueness, and we solicited that comment. So it 

gives us every ability to take whatever action we think that the 

data justifies and would indicate to us is appropriate. 

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Senator MURKOWSKI. And of course, right now, our concern is, 

where is the data? 

Let me turn to waters of the United States, because this is, 

again, an area of extreme concern. I mentioned the wetlands that 

we have in Alaska, 63 percent of the wetlands in the entire United 

States are in Alaska. And so the concern that we have is the expansion of the scope that EPA may regulate will lead to a situation 

where development of any kind is next to impossible, the smallest 

development. 
16 

And it’s coming from folks not necessarily associated with the oil 

and gas industry, but it’s home builders, it’s farmers, it’s energy, 

it’s mining companies, it’s the transportation sector. There is major 

concern across the board. And I know that I’m speaking for not just 

Alaska when I talk about the various constituencies that are really 

quite rattled about the application of this proposed rule. 

You have suggested that these concerns are overblown. At one 

point, you called some of the issues that have been raised ludicrous. Folks back home don’t think it’s ludicrous. They are scared 

to death about what we may see with application of this rule. 

And you keep using the word clarification, or this is just to clarify. But again, I’m hearing from too many different sectors saying, 

this is not clarification. This is a limitation on our ability to not 

only move but to breathe. 

And I guess the question to you today is, why should we trust 

the assessment that this rule is just a clarification when across the 

spectrum, you have different voices, not just in Alaska, but different voices around the country that are saying, this is going to 

increase our cost, it’s going to limit our ability to conduct business? 

How can you convince me that this is a clarification? 

And then the follow on question that I’d like you to address is, 

the Ag Committee has been quite loud in its objection, you’ve suggested that you’re working to address some of their issues. We 

don’t have as much agriculture in Alaska, but we sure have a lot 

of upset and angry miners, developers. What are you doing to address the concerns that they have raised as well? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me just begin by saying, the reason 

we’re down this road in terms of doing a rule making is actually 

to provide clarification. Let me explain that. 

It is because the Supreme Court, in recent decisions, have told 

us that we need to do a better job at making sure we’re doing— 

taking the closest look at the science available to us. We are ensuring that we are protecting those waters that are most important for 

all of the virtues of water that we love, which is to provide us 

drinking water supplies, help us with natural resource protections 

that we all care about. 

I know that this is important not just to folks in Alaska but 

throughout the United States. It is a difficult rule. Everybody is engaged, but I would also indicate that I have just as many constituents, if not more, telling us how important it is to complete this 

rule because of the lack of clarity, because we know we are not protecting some waters and streams which science tells us we should 

be more carefully protecting. 

This is not an expansion of our jurisdiction. This is a way to 

focus attention where it’s deserved, so that there can be increased 

clarity about what’s in and what’s not in. What we are also seeing 

is work being done where it’s unnecessary to do, because the 

science can clearly tell us what we should be focusing our attention 

on it and what not. 

So we’re working very closely with the agriculture community. 

We have done absolutely nothing to take away the exemptions or 

exclusions that are in current rules and law, and we have, in fact, 

done more exclusions than under current law. 
17 

So we have to be clearer about what we’re saying as well as 

being very clear about waters that are important to protect, and 

that’s what this rule is all about. We sought to do this in a guidance, apparently before I took this position, but the clear, overwhelming message to us was, do it in a rule. Give us a chance to 

comment on it. Let us take a look at it. 

What we are trying to do is make sure that we’re paying attention to the comments. This is not ludicrous, nor is any comment. 

This is serious business, and we need to get this final rule right, 

and we understand that, and science can allow us to do that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, and I think you understand that the 

heart of this debate is, is this a clarification or is this yet that overreach, that creep of an agency that so many of us are concerned 

with. While your words are articulate this afternoon, I don’t think 

it does much to calm the fears of the farmer—or excuse me, the 

miner out in 40 Mile, who is worried about whether or not they’re 

going to be able to move forward with their small placer mining activity. 

Let’s go to Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Administrator McCarthy, you and I have had a lot of discussions, 

and I appreciate you coming to Vermont when you have. I know 

you get a lot of strong reactions from the public, even from some 

of my colleagues in the Senate. 

But in the 44-year history at EPA, you cleaned the country’s 

drinking water, something of great significance to the health of all 

of us and our children and our grandchildren. You’ve reduced our 

exposure to dangerous chemicals. You’ve penalized polluters. That’s 

why most Vermonters applaud what you’ve done with the environment, and they applaud EPA. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

RESIDENTIAL WOOD STOVES

Senator LEAHY. There’s one issue I mentioned before we started. 

Burning wood provides a local, affordable, renewable, efficient heat 

source. Vermont actually has the highest percentage of homes that 

use wood stoves as a main source of heat. We do in our own home 

in Vermont. Our chairman and ranking member’s home States of 

Alaska and New Mexico are the ninth and seventh in the country, 

so major ones. 

Now, EPA has adopted new emission standards for wood stoves. 

These standards haven’t been updated since, I believe, 1988. We 

know we need them, the standards. We know there are dangerous 

air quality impacts when conditions trap smoke emissions around 

the hill towns. I’ve seen them when I’ve come across the brow of 

the hill, and there’s a town in the valley enclosed in smoke. 

I strongly support the Step 1 standards U.S. manufacturers already meet. I am concerned about Step 2 and the compliance 

timeline, the testing for it, that they may not be achievable for 

small businesses, and they could drive out the makers of some 

great products along with some small town manufacturing jobs. 

So my question is, what resources does this funding request include to develop and standardize testing methods to reliably measure emissions from residential woodstoves burning both cord wood 
18 

or crib wood? And will the methods be certified and available to industry with enough lead time to design, build, and test new product lines ahead of the 2020 Step 2 compliance deadline? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you for both the support for moving 

forward and for your concern about the small business implications, because EPA agrees with you that these are significant 

sources of pollution. We do recognize that where we can work most 

effectively is to look at these new standards. 

The reason why we did this two phase in is to protect small businesses so they would have the time to be able to understand how 

to certify their stoves but also to have the time for those who are 

a little bit behind in modern technology to be able to innovate and 

be able to continue to support their businesses. 

The final rule took cognizance of a very extensive communication 

with the Small Business Administration Advocacy Office and with 

small businesses in this field. We have assured them, and I think 

they’re more than comfortable for the most part, that we gave them 

additional time in order to meet these second phase standards. 

We will have, basically, testing processes, so they can feel confident that they can move forward and have products to sell in the 

marketplace that will achieve these phase two standards. 

Senator LEAHY. I may want to follow up with you more as we go 

along, because some of the companies, Hearthstone is one, in 

Vermont, they’re concerned about meeting these standards. We 

also see woodstoves used far longer than the 20-year lifespan assumed in your rule. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Senator LEAHY. That’s my home, in Middlesex, Vermont, and 

well, the stove is not quite as old as I am. It has been there more 

than 20 years. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’re certainly not doing anything to impact people’s ability to use their existing stoves, but it is important 

that we make progress. 

Senator LEAHY. But I got an idea on this. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. We did the auto bailout. We had a cash for 

clunkers. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, yes. 

WOOD STOVE CHANGEOUT PROGRAM

Senator LEAHY. That got a lot of old cars off the road. If we had 

one, I’m probably not going to take use of it. I’ll buy my own if I 

need a new stove. But what about a cash for clunkers for wood 

stoves? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I do think that there have been some 

States that have administered that type of a program, in particular, I think, in some of the valleys in California, where the particulate matter is so high. I’m not sure whether EPA has sufficient 

funding to support that or whether that came from some of the 

local air boards. But we should look—— 

Senator LEAHY. Maybe we should talk about getting the funding 

for it, because it’s something to consider. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It’s a big deal, yes. 
19 

LAKE CHAMPLAIN FUNDING CUTS

Senator LEAHY. Also, you know, Vermont has got to work with 

EPA to achieve goals on phosphorous levels in Lake Champlain, 

and I appreciate you coming to Vermont to see the Lake. But the 

administration’s proposal in fiscal year 2016 to cut by nearly 70 

percent the funding for the Lake Champlain Geographical Area 

Program is overwhelming to a small State like ours. 

So can we continue to work together on that? I know the Governor wants to, and the other members of the delegation want to. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Of course. I have to congratulate the Governor 

and the legislature in Vermont for really moving forward with their 

own State initiatives. It was very impressive to see how much work 

is getting done there, and I’d love to be able to support that effort. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, we’ll see. We’ll talk to you more. 

And thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Think about this, getting some money for this cash for clunkers. 

And again, I assure you, I’m not looking to get rid of mine. I just 

want this opportunity—a lot of these towns might get rid of them 

in Alaska and New Mexico. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, this is a big deal in the Chairwoman’s district up in Fairbanks. This is one of their major sources. They’ve 

had an extensive program trying to get the old ones out. 

Senator LEAHY. Yes, they got a lot more money than we did in 

Vermont. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would just tell my friend from Vermont, 

we have been engaged in this woodstove exchange in Fairbanks as 

we’re dealing with a particulate matter up there. And in terms of 

getting the newer technologies into people’s homes, it works. 

What we’re trying to check on now is exactly how much of the 

funding for that exchange was through EPA grants. So hopefully, 

we’ll have that by the time I’m up for the next round of questioning, but we’ll keep you posted on that. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let’s go to Senator Alexander. 

OAK RIDGE—MERCURY CONTAMINATION

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam 

Administrator, welcome. 

I’ve got a couple of questions about matters pending before you. 

In May of 2013, the Department of Energy said it would build a 

water treatment plant to reduce mercury contamination at Oak 

Ridge that’s left over from the cold war, it is badly needed. 

EPA is currently negotiating with the Department of Energy and 

the State of Tennessee to allow the design and construction to 

move forward. The final agreement is expected in May. 

Will you commit to me that you will work to resolve this matter 

as expeditiously as possible, so we can move quickly to begin to reduce mercury contamination in Oak Ridge? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I will. 

CLEAN AIR ATTAINMENT STATUS

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Administrator. 
20 

Second pending matter, last November the State of Tennessee on 

behalf of three Tennessee counties, Anderson, Blount, and Knox, 

applied for clean air attainment status with the EPA, that has to 

do with ozone. The good news is, this air around the Great Smoky 

Mountains is cleaner, demonstrably cleaner. Our conservation 

groups have noticed that. Most of us who live there notice that. 

The local community is eager for the EPA to consider and approve the State’s request for a determination that the air is cleaner. That helps them with economic development. Can I ask you to 

move as expeditiously as possible to review those applications? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You can, sir, and I will. 

OZONE STANDARDS

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator. 

Now, along that line, in November, the EPA announced it might 

further lower the ozone standard. Now, I understand that the 

Clean Air Act says every 5 years, you’re supposed to review that, 

but not necessarily change the standards. 

I’d like to ask you to consider this. Now, think of it from my perspective. I live in this area that I’m talking about. I voted for the 

cross State air pollution rule, the Utility MACT Rule. I support the 

ultra low-sulfur regulations. I applauded TVA for the agreement it 

made with EPA to operate its coal plants cleanly. I am certain that 

all those actions are the reason why the air is cleaner in East Tennessee and in other parts of our State. 

I think it would be better if you would allow those new laws, regulations, and agreements to continue for a while, because they’re 

all trending in the right direction, rather than change the ozone 

standard, which would bring to a halt economic development. We’re 

a manufacturing State. So if an auto supplier is coming in, say to 

Maryville or Oak Ridge or Knoxville, the first thing they ask is, are 

you in attainment? Today, the answer would be, the State says we 

are. We hope the EPA says we are. But if they say the EPA is 

about to move the ball and lower the standards, then that stops job 

growth in the area. 

So will you seriously consider a review, but a review that recognizes that it might be better to allow these new laws, which are 

substantial laws, to continue before you change the ozone standard 

and affect the ambient air quality in Tennessee? If you lower them, 

you will throw every metropolitan area in our State out of compliance and bring to a halt a lot of important job growth. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, I am following through in the obligation under the Clean Air Act in a couple of ways. One, I’m 

happy that some of the national rules and some of the efforts of 

individual States have allowed us to start entertaining these applications to redesignate, and all of that is good news. 

But my job under this particular section of the Clean Air Act is 

to take a look at what the health data, what the science is telling 

us, are the levels that we should be trying to achieve that are protective of human health and—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes, Madam Administrator, I understand 

that. But these laws are new. They’ve just begun to take effect. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 
21 

Senator ALEXANDER. The coal plants are just beginning to have 

these scrubbers installed. The actions we’ve already taken may 

take us to a level that is fine without having an interruption that’s 

unnecessary. That’s all I’m asking. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, I think maybe the most important 

thing for you to think about is that the proposal that we put out 

looked at a recommendation that I had as the administrator that 

I’m asked to make in these, is that I recommended that we consider a standard between 65 and 70 as most appropriate for protection of public health. The current standard is 75. I have asked for 

comments up to that level, and I have—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, this is part of my comment—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Down to 60. 

Senator ALEXANDER [continuing]. And it comes from somebody 

who likes and votes for clean air. I have one other question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. Thank you. 

TREATMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN CLEAN POWER PLAN

Senator ALEXANDER. You talked about the State clean power 

plans. Sixty percent of the country’s carbon-free electricity, emission-free electricity comes from nuclear power. Wind produces 13 

percent. Solar produces 1 percent. Now, if you’re really serious 

about climate change, if you’re really serious about clean air, then 

why would you disadvantage nuclear power and treat wind and 

solar better? 

Again, 60 percent of our carbon-free electricity comes from nuclear, yet when we’re developing a clean power plan in Tennessee 

under this proposal, we don’t get credit—we get credit for all of the 

existing windmills and solar panels we have, which don’t amount 

to much, not only in our State, but anywhere else, and we get credit for 6 percent of the nuclear power generation. And you don’t 

count, for example, the new Watts Bar reactor that’s coming online, 

which is 1,500 megawatts of absolutely clean electricity. 

So what we have in our region is a State that’s really doing a 

terrific job of making agreements with the EPA, cleaning up the 

coal plants, building nuclear plants, having hydro plants, and 

they’re being penalized, because you’re preferring wind and solar, 

which produce little, over nuclear, which produces a lot of what we 

want. It’s the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats when 

the nuclear Navy is available. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I like the analogy. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Why the difference? You said you didn’t 

want to pick and choose technologies, when, in fact, you are. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’ve received some comments on both 

sides. Did we look at how important the current nuclear fleet is to 

where we’re beginning in terms of our challenge of reducing—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, my time is up, but you don’t give 

equal credit to a new nuclear plant and a new wind and solar 

plant. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is—right. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Or to an existing nuclear plant and an existing windmill or solar panel, and they ought to be the same. 
22 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That point has been made very clear. That has 

been made very clear in comments, and we’re really looking at 

that. And I appreciate it. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Good. Thank you, Madam Administrator. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We do do a good job of picking winners and 

losers around here, don’t we? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, and sometimes we’re at fault. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Absolutely. Absolutely. We’re not always 

right, and that’s the problem. Let’s go to Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Administrator, thank you very much. 

First, let me thank you for the Southern New England Geographic Program. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Good. 

Senator REED. Which is doing a lot to restore our coastal watershed, and it’s not just Rhode Island, it’s Massachusetts, Connecticut. And Curt Spalding is doing a great job as the regional administrator, so thank you very much. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

BEACH ACT GRANT PROGRAM

Senator REED. But let me raise at least one issue of concern, and 

that’s the proposed elimination of the Beach Act Grant Program. 

We have 400 miles of coastline, probably the longest coastline per 

size of State in the United States. I’m guessing, but 10,000 visitors 

a day to our beaches in the summertime, and it’s very important. 

So anything you could do to help us restore that, I’d appreciate. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. 

STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

Senator REED. Let me focus on the State revolving funds. Absolutely critical. I think in every part of the country, there is a recognition that infrastructure is either inadequate or obsolete, needs 

to be replaced or needs to be built because of the growing areas in 

some parts of the country. I don’t have to tell you, because you talk 

just like I do really. 

We have wooden water piping systems in certain communities 

that are 100 plus years old. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Isn’t it amazing? 

Senator REED. Yes. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. In a good way amazing. 

Senator REED. Yes. It’s amazing, but they’re not going to last 

that much longer. And there is a top line increase in the budget. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator REED. I appreciate that. But what I find interesting and 

want to ask you about is there is a shift from the clean water revolving fund. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator REED. Essentially sewage piping, which is critical to our 

ability to mitigate flood risk, to resilience to climate change, to improve water quality, a shift there into the drinking water account, 

which obviously, it’s necessary also. Why are you shifting limited 

resources? Frankly, even with this increase, it’s a fraction of what 

we need to just stay on pace. So why are we shifting it from drink-
23 

ing water to clean water—or excuse me, the other way, clean water 

to drinking water? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we’re trying to take sort of a current look 

at where the greatest need is as well as look at how we can be a 

little more comprehensive than reliance on SRF funds. I think as 

you can see from discussions last year, we’re doing a better job in 

the President’s budget at moving almost a little close to a half a 

billion higher in our recommends here, which is a little bit short 

of what was funded last year in the 2015 enacted. 

But the shift was because of where the greatest need is. We see $348 billion in need in drinking water supplies today that extend 

over the next 20 years. In the clean water, our wastewater facilities, we see the need at $298 billion. 

Now, I realize that that’s a close call either way, but we really 

wanted to make a concerted effort to recognize that we are facing 

some very significant drinking water challenges today. We’ve seen 

problems over the past year that we have never seen before, and 

we wanted an opportunity to continue to move forward. 

This is not a dramatic shift but one I think that is a signal that 

we have been more heavily investing in wastewater for a while, 

and we’re trying to balance that out. 

But I wanted to also indicate that the challenge that Congress 

or opportunity Congress gave us with the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) is something we want to tee up 

for an opportunity in the future. We’re going to be spending funds 

to at least stand that up and be ready to catch if there is opportunities to fund grants in those ways. 

But also there is an opportunity, I think, with our new Water Infrastructure and Resilience Finance Center to really look at publicprivate partnerships and how to bring them to the table. We just 

need a lot more investment than we’re ever going to get with our 

State revolving fund, and we need to think creatively about how 

water is going to be essential for our continued economic growth. 

The private sector recognizes that and many are coming back to 

the United States to enjoy the clean water we have here for their 

manufacturing. We have to work with them to support the infrastructure in a more robust way. 

Senator REED. Right. And there’s another challenge, too, and 

that is—and this might be reflected in the need you perceive for 

drinking water, that is the climate changing issues that are out 

and about. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

Senator REED. Which, you know, a lot of the estimates that were 

made about the State revolving funds were assuming sort of a 

steady state and not the dramatic changes we’ve seen, particularly 

on the West Coast and in the Southwest, in terms of drought, in 

terms of the need to move water further. So that would be another 

reason why we need more—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is. We’re looking at the harmful algal blooms 

that we’re seeing, both in Senator Leahy’s area at Lake Champlain 

but also certainly in the Great Lakes, in particular, western Lake 

Erie. They’re actually growing everywhere, and that is, in many 
24 

ways, a reflection of the increased temperature that is allowing 

those to grow, and the cyanotoxins are getting to be something that 

I think many of us are very concerned about managing more effectively in our drinking water supply. 

Senator REED. And some of that will require additional infrastructure. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It will, yes. 

Senator REED. Additional revolving fund resources, etc. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s correct. 

Senator REED. In fact, I would assume, as you’re sitting down 

with your staff and your predecessor 10 years ago was making a 

bold estimate of X, that probably is 2X or something. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, it certainly couldn’t have factored the 

changes we’re seeing today. 

Senator REED. Right. Well, thank you very much. We want to 

work with you to understand better the shift of the resource funds. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Senator REED. And try to be helpful in providing more resources. 

Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I appreciate that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Reed. And I appreciate 

your leadership on these areas of the State water revolving funds. 

It’s something that, when you were chairing this subcommittee and 

I was ranking, we worked together on it. It was a good thing. 

Senator REED. You mean when I was over there, way over there? 

No. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. He looks more relaxed than last year. That’s all 

I have to say. 

Senator REED. No, this is a fun hearing this year. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It is good. 

Senator REED. But I can’t leave without commending you for 

your leadership and for your collegiality. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Good to work with you. Let’s go 

to Senator Cassidy. 

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES RULE

Senator CASSIDY. Sorry, I had to leave to another subcommittee 

hearing, so you may have answered some of these questions already. 

On the Waters of the U.S. Rule, do you have a cost-benefit analysis? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Do I have—I’m sorry? 

Senator CASSIDY. A cost-benefit analysis. How much will this 

cost? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. There is a cost-benefit analysis. We’re actually doing a revised cost-benefit analysis for the final rule as well. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, is this the cost to businesses, local governments, homeowners, etc.? Does it include that as well? So 

there’s the direct cost to the Federal Government, obviously. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Senator CASSIDY. But it’s actually the indirect cost. And in fact, 

I was reviewing one of your documents, and it said actually the indirect cost is the greater of the two, that to the Federal Govern-
25 

ment relatively low, that to private industry, to individuals, small 

businesses, etc., relatively great. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, what the costs are and the indirect costs 

that we’re calculating are costs associated with mitigation should 

someone seek to pollute or otherwise damage a water that is jurisdictional. That is what—— 

Senator CASSIDY. So the expanded—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY [continuing]. There is no cost unless you’re actually wanting to destroy or pollute a water of the United States as 

it will be—— 

Senator CASSIDY. But in your rule, you expand your jurisdiction, 

so there will be more waters. Again, as I’m told, a seasonal stream 

in a forest that when it rains it fills up would now be under jurisdiction. And so there would have to be not just if there is some pollutant which enters, there would have to be some mitigation. But 

it’s also the cost of, oh, my gosh, we got to comply at the rule and 

make sure something doesn’t happen, and they would have to think 

about not necessarily environmental problems, but how to keep 

from getting sued by the EPA. 

So it seems a little bit more than just if they spill oil that they 

have to clean up. It seems substantially more than that. Wouldn’t 

you agree? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I don’t believe that we are expanding the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act, and I think—— 

Senator CASSIDY. I’m sorry, Clean Water Act. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m sorry, Clean Water Act. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now, in your—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’m getting my media confused. I apologize. 

Senator CASSIDY. That’s okay. I got that from your document 

that says there’s going to be a 3 percent increase in the waters 

under your jurisdiction, which 3 percent is small, until you think 

of the Federal Government and until you think of the United 

States. United States, 3 percent is pretty big in terms of absolute 

numbers. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think what that number actually reflected is 

the fact that we are going to be more precise about waters that require to be protected under the Clean Water Act. It is not an indication that we are expanding jurisdiction or that anyone will have 

to worry, particularly in agriculture, over the impact associated 

with this, because we continue to maintain all of the exemptions 

and exceptions in the current Clean Water Act. 

Senator CASSIDY. Now let me ask you then on something else. 

Thank you for that answer. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. You’re welcome. 

Senator CASSIDY. I’ll see if my agriculture people are satisfied, 

but I suspect they—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, have them call. I’ve been meeting with 

folks. I would be more than happy to talk to people if there are concerns, and we can certainly take their concerns into account as 

we’re finalizing the rule. 

CLEAN POWER PLAN

Senator CASSIDY. Now, your carbon rule, which you know better 

than I, so I’m going to speak kind of from a gestalt if you will. 
26 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Senator CASSIDY. Senator Vitter and I had a field hearing last 

year in Lake Charles, which is Louisiana, which is having a big increase in investment. And the wonderful thing about this is they’re 

going to create like 20,000 blue collar jobs over the next decade, I 

mean, really good jobs with good wages, good benefits. 

So when we came in, we’re talking about the ozone rule and need 

for credits and how you’re going to comply. And someone says, 

what will happen is a bigger company will buy a smaller refinery 

or plant and just shut it down, and they will take credit for shutting it down. Now, that company may move their operations overseas, but in the locality or the jurisdiction, Region 6, I suppose, 

they will show that they are on net not increasing the amount of 

whatever you are concerned about emitting. 

Now, my concern about that is that the—my concern about that 

is that all those jobs are lost. So we’re complying shipping jobs 

overseas, and we’re not really complying, because carbon is a global 

emittent. Now, that’s just common sense, but for some reason, that 

argument doesn’t seem to weather very much. 

It looks like I’m 5 minutes over. Madam Chair, is that correct? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You’re not 5 minutes over. 

Senator CASSIDY. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’m being told you’re 5 minutes over. You’re 

a little bit over. 

Senator CASSIDY. Well, I’ll finish with that, if you could just answer to that. And I apologize for going over. I don’t know how that 

happened. I thought I was keeping an eye on it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I want to assure you that we believe 

that this rule is designed in a way that would reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel power plants in a way that would actually 

continue to allow the growth of the economy and jobs. 

The scenario you are talking about is not a scenario that we had 

ever contemplated or we believed would ever come out of a rule 

that is properly designed that we can reduce carbon pollution while 

we continue to grow jobs. 

Senator CASSIDY. My reply will be, that’s what industry tells me 

that’s going to happen. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I understand. But I don’t believe that that is a 

legitimate compliance scenario under any standard that EPA has 

ever initiated, including this one. 

Senator CASSIDY. Okay. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. Senator 

Daines. 

IMPACT OF EPA REGULATIONS ON COAL

Senator DAINES. Ms. McCarthy, thank you for being here today. 

As you know, coal is an important fuel for electricity, not only in 

my home State of Montana, but nationwide. In fact, more than half 

our electricity in Montana comes from coal, nationally, about 40 

percent. 

It is all about our good paying jobs in Montana. It’s for our tribal 

members in Montana as well as generating nearly $120 million in 

tax revenues that we depend on for our schools, our teachers, our 

infrastructure. In fact, it’s Montana coal that goes out to the Mid-
27 

west and powers Detroit Edison that powers our automobile industry. And so it’s very, very important here we maintain and grow 

this industry. And the bottom line is, it keeps electrical prices low 

and puts food on the table for Montana families. 

But I can tell you, we are very frustrated. We are frustrated with 

the lack of meaningful consultation from your agency as it’s been 

developing the regulations for coal-fired plants. Studies have shown 

that wholesale electric prices will spike as high as 25 percent in 

Montana and Montana households, which results in about $110 a 

year in increased prices. 

I’m very concerned your agency is not taking into account potential impacts back in Montana. Let me give you an example. There 

was a listening session regarding these proposed regs. It was two 

States away from Crow Agency, which is really ground zero for 

much of our coal activity. That’s the headquarters of the Crow 

Tribe of Montana. Two States away, 500 miles. That would be the 

equivalent of having a listening session in Washington, DC, and 

telling the folks in Detroit to drive to Washington to let their voices 

be heard. 

The Crow Tribe, in fact, there’s two Crow Tribe members here 

today, they rely on coal production for their jobs. In fact, two-thirds 

of their annual budget depends on coal. This is how we fund the 

Crow Elder Programs, higher education for Tribal Youth and other 

essential services for the 13,000 rural citizens. 

In fact, the unemployment rate today in Crow country is 47 percent. Without these coal jobs, it goes up north of 80 percent unemployment. It is a path into poverty if we eliminate these coal jobs. 

Ninety percent of the coal mines and the mine near Crow Agency 

is sold to power plants in Minnesota, which would be strongly encouraged to retire their plants because of the EPA’s Clean Power 

Plan standards. 

In fact, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which I serve 

on, we just held the first ever energy and jobs Indian affairs U.S. 

Senate field hearing in Crow Agency in Montana. We invited the 

EPA to testify. They declined. And we think it’s very important. In 

fact, I again make an offer, if you come to Montana, I’ll pick you 

up in my Ford, and we’ll drive from Billings. And I’d love to have 

you really listen to the people there in Crow country and hear their 

heartfelt concerns around where this is all headed for their livelihoods in Montana. 

So we had this great field hearing. We had 200 people show up 

in a room, primarily from the Crow Tribe. And so my first question, 

have you had a chance to review the input that was given at that 

field hearing? It just happened right after Easter. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, I myself have not. I have had certainly a 

number of discussions with the folks who work in Montana that 

are looking at developing plans. I’ve been encouraged by those discussions, because as far as I know, coal will continue to be a significant source, and they feel there’s many opportunities to move 

forward under compliance. 

If there are concerns that we haven’t heard, or if there’s discussion I should catch up with you on, I’m more than happy to do that. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, I would like to get a follow up, so you could 

hear directly from the Crow people. We had a member from the 
28 

Navajo Tribe come up as well and testify at that hearing. In fact, 

our attorney general testified as well. He’s filed joint comments 

with the Crow Nation on the rule. And I don’t know who’s reviewed 

them. Have you seen those comments yet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we received close to 4 million comments on 

this rule, so I haven’t reviewed them all myself, but I certainly can 

consult with my staff who are looking at all of them now. 

Senator DAINES. Yes, I just would ask, you know, we’ve got a nation, the Crow Nation, as well as our attorney general, to make 

sure that that testimony is heard. Most of their comments surrounded the impact that’s going to happen in the Midwest utilities 

who are customers of Crow coal and how their concerns can be 

mitigated. 

I know there was discussion about working with the Governors, 

and so forth. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. Our Governor also filed comments on the EPA’s 

Power Plan. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. Our Governor is a Democrat. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. He’s filed comments on this, and we’ve all expressed concerns over these proposed changes, importantly, allowing the States, let me just say this, to submit their own implementation plans does nothing to fix the issue that the Montana Crow 

Nation will lose, because their customer base, 90 percent of this 

coal, is used outside of Montana. So it’s really dependent on what 

Minnesota and Michigan are going to be inputting on these rules, 

not just what Montana has to say on it, because we’re mining it 

and shipping it out to the Midwest. 

So I guess my question is, when can you review the input from 

that field hearing, because the livelihood of these Crow tribal members depends on what happens with the coal industry? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I want you to know, we will look at each 

and every comment. I’m more than happy to look at those comments myself, and I will certainly do that. 

Senator DAINES. I appreciate that, because again, what’s at stake 

here is literally, there is not another path right now for good paying jobs in the Crow Reservation without these coal jobs. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you for calling it to my attention. I 

will do that. 

Senator DAINES. I appreciate that, and thanks for looking into it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Cochran. 

OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Senator COCHRAN. Madam Chair, thank you for convening this 

hearing specifically to review EPA’s budget request for next fiscal 

year, 2016. 

EPA’s mission is a very big one and a very important one. We 

understand that. Helping protect human resources, human health, 

and preserving the environment are all very worthy and important 

considerations for this subcommittee. 

So it’s not unexpected that EPA’s regulations and proposed regulations sometimes run counter to our Nation’s economic interests, 
29 

and that shouldn’t be surprising. But the balancing of those interests in a fair-minded way that’s consistent with our national economic interests as well as our health interests is something that 

we’re trying to approach to a state of reasonableness that will be 

applauded and appreciated. 

The Senator from Louisiana raised a question about agriculture 

and the fact that many States are concerned about proposed rules 

to reduce ground level ozone standards. What is the status of your 

work in that area, and what do we tell agricultural and timber resources, people who are involved in that in our State, what the 

goals are in—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the status is that the courts have told us 

that we had to move forward with a review of our Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality standards. We have put a proposal out that 

looks at current science and makes some recommendations. The 

comment period on that proposal closed and we are looking at an 

October deadline that the courts have given us to finalize that rule. 

Let me make sure I got that exactly right. Yes. 

OZONE LEVELS

Senator COCHRAN. How are you planning to take into account 

naturally occurring ozone levels and how that impacts, too, on the 

bottom line? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, the proposal itself, which we solicited 

extensive comment on, does talk about background ozone levels, because in some areas of the country, it is high, and we’re looking 

at how much that actually impacts an ability of a State to achieve 

a health-based standard. 

But in the rule itself, our obligation is to look at the science as 

to what is protective of human health and welfare and what’s sufficient protections. Then when we implement a standard, we pay 

careful attention to what we’re requiring States to do in order to 

comply. We’re accounting for background levels to ensure that 

States have an ability to achieve the levels that are required. 

Senator COCHRAN. In that connection, do you have occasion to 

consult with representatives of the Department of Agriculture or 

with local agricultural interests? I’m just thinking about farmers in 

my State of Mississippi who feel as though EPA doesn’t have any— 

or hasn’t had many, if any, hearings in public in the Mississippi 

Delta, where agricultural interests are so important, to talk about 

some of these conflicts that are going to naturally arise because of 

the nature of your responsibilities and the interests that the general public and a large segment of our economy has in the wellbeing of agriculture. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, this rule is particularly interesting, because we are proposing a secondary standard. That has been an 

issue that the agriculture industry has had significant input on, as 

a member of a science advisory board quite a while ago to advise 

us on that. We also have a Federal advisory committee under the 

Clean Air Act that gets together and talks about these issues. 

I’m quite certain that the agriculture industry has also provided 

significant comment on the rule that we proposed. What we’re looking at in terms of our proposal is establishing a primary standard 

for public health but recognizing our obligation that the court con-
30 

firmed to us, that we have to look at establishing a more reasonable secondary standard. We proposed a secondary standard that 

would be met through the obligations that the States would accrue 

to achieve a primary standard. 

So we will certainly continue to listen to the comments that agriculture has provided to us, but it’s not clear to me that there are 

additional concerns with this rule that are unique in some way. I’m 

more than happy to take a look at those comments in the traditional way. I think the concern might be uniqueness of establishing 

a secondary standard, which we feel will not be particularly challenging in terms of an implementation process. I’ll take a look at 

those again, and we’ll give them due consideration. 

I share your interest in making sure that we’re moving forward 

with our environmental rules in a way that is entirely consistent 

with economic goals as well. That remains my gold standard, as it 

does yours. 

SECTION 319 GRANTS

Senator COCHRAN. I also understand that section 319 grants are 

very helpful to conservation districts and local governments who 

are working to meet EPA erosion and sediment control requirements. Your agency has indicated that the implementation of watershed-based plans helps States meet water quality standards. 

And our State’s conservation district members have worked with 

the Department of Agriculture trying to work out how to deal with 

this so that we benefit both interests. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator COCHRAN. What is your agency saying in response to the 

question that this is a positive step in improving water quality and 

it’s working, if it is, to improve the environment as well as attract 

additional grant resources to eligible areas? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Our effort to support nonpoint source pollution 

319 grants reduction is an extremely important effort for us. I 

know that in fiscal year 2015, the level of funding was $159 million. We are proposing in this budget in 2016 to increase that by 

$6 million, so that we can achieve $165 million in 319 grant allocations. That will give us an opportunity for about 30 additional watershed restoration projects for the overall problem. Mississippi, in 

particular, will see an increase from $2.9 million to $3 million. 

Now, I realize that we’d all like to have lots more, but I think 

it’s a continued indication that EPA thinks these programs are 

very important, and we want to continue to support them as best 

we can. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. My time is expired. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Cochran, and I appreciate your leadership on the full committee. Senator Blunt. 

LEAD MINING

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairwoman. It is nice to have you 

here. 

While people are inviting you to travel, by the way, I wanted to 

talk a little bit about a lead issue. This is Doe Run lead mining 

in Missouri. It’s my understanding that there are some discussions 
31 

going on that may bring final resolution to those issues involving 

EPA and Doe Run. 

If sometime you can stop, I’d like you to see what happens in 

that part of our State, which is where, I believe, most of the lead 

in the country is. There’s some natural outcroppings of lead and 

other things. And I think that Doe Run is developing some new 

technology that will change the way they smelt that lead to reduce 

emission by at least 90 percent. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That’s right. 

Senator BLUNT. And so I know you’ve kept in that discussion. 

Sometime if we could get you to stop, I think it might be helpful 

just to see both the opportunity and the challenge. 

There’s a reason that Moses Austin moved to Missouri before he 

moved to Texas to become a lead miner, and that’s been our sort 

of lead mining center even before that part of the country was 

added to the United States, and so it obviously has its own challenges. And anything you can do to personally stay connected to 

that, I think there’s a solution here within reach, and that solution, 

as everything else at the Department, obviously benefits from the 

more you know about the problem, the jobs included, the alternative places we have to go to get lead if we don’t get it in our own 

country, I think are helpful, and I’d just encourage that. 

And I would love for you to put that on a trip—it’s close to St. 

Louis, easy to get in and out, and I’d love to see you come sometime. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I was in Missouri not too long ago. I 

have also met separately at EPA with folks from Doe Run. I know 

that we have an opportunity for some mediation coming up. I do 

want to let you know that I will continue to pay attention to this. 

If there is a resolution we can reach, you can rest assured that 

we’re going to be really trying to find that resolution. 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Senator BLUNT. Well, good. I’m glad to know that. I think you’re 

moving in that direction, and I hope we wind up at a good place 

there. 

Another question I wanted to ask, there’s some experience in our 

State, but really all over the country, communities all around the 

country are facing regulation on wastewater, on storm water, on 

solid waste, on air quality, and many of them, more than one of 

those coming at a time—as far as I know, there’s only one place 

where there’s sort of a guideline already issued. The affordability 

of water is based on a 2.5 percent median household income metric. 

But communities can be involved in many of these things at one 

time. They really only have one source of income. No matter how 

many problems they’re trying to solve, there’s really only one 

source of income. 

And I’d like any thoughts you might have on the ability that 

EPA might have to assess the regulations in a cumulative way. I 

think Springfield, Missouri is one place, my home town, where 

they’ve got a proposal before Region 7 now of here’s a long-term 

plan to deal with a number of problems in the priority that I’m 

sure that the EPA would have a lot to say about the priority, but 

a price tag that can be afforded, because again, let me go back to 
32 

there’s only one place to pay this bill, and that’s the people who 

live in the community, either through the actual bill itself, the 

water, the sewer, the whatever bill, or a tax bill that they also 

would pay. And some kind of cumulative look at these as they come 

before the Department, I think, could be really reasonable and 

helpful. Your thoughts on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, we have been looking at these issues, and 

I know we’ve been working really closely, primarily with the Conference of Mayors, to understand how we could better look at the 

affordability issues, because it is unquestionably very challenging. 

We’ve been trying to encourage integrated planning so that every 

community doesn’t think about these issues separately but thinks 

about them in a coordinated way. We’ve had some success in looking at integrated planning with water and wastewater. We’re trying to understand how storm water could also be factored in as 

well. 

We have revised our affordability criteria. I can’t say that I can 

answer your question as to whether or not there is a way in which 

we can look at a broader context of planning efforts and requirements, because every statute has different requirements about how 

we look at cost in consideration in making decisions. 

But I certainly understand the direction in which you’re thinking, and I think it is a direction that EPA has been willing to head 

to the extent that the laws allow us to do that. We have had more 

success in terms of working with communities to actually reopen 

even past consent agreements to look at opportunities for things 

like green infrastructure, which can really help with storm water, 

can also help with drinking water and wastewater issues. 

So to the extent that we can find an opportunity to keep looking 

at the most economical opportunities to achieve these environmental goals that we all aspire to jointly and do it in a way that 

continues to be consistent with the law, is we will continue with 

those discussions. If there is something in particular, a forum for 

that that you’d like to suggest, I’m certainly more than happy to 

think about how we would do that. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, again, I think Region 7 has a proposal. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BLUNT. And a number of national groups, I’m told, have 

looked at it and said this could be the model for how we move forward. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. 

Senator BLUNT. If there are legislative obstacles to that kind of 

model, I believe I would be willing and others would be willing to 

help you remove some of those obstacles, because what you can’t 

have is a community that can’t afford to do what needs to be done, 

and no matter how they set the priorities, if your hands are tied, 

the bill can’t be paid. And that’s terrible for the community, and 

whatever you’re trying to achieve there is not going to happen. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you, Senator, for raising it. 

Senator BLUNT. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Hoeven. 
33 

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Administrator McCarthy, the Waters of the U.S. Rule, WOTUS, is creating 

tremendous problems for our farmers and ranchers, tremendous 

uncertainty, and I think it should be rescinded. And undoubtedly, 

you are hearing many of the same concerns, not only from farmers 

and ranchers, but from many others, many other industry sectors 

and just private individuals in terms of their private property 

rights. 

My question to you is, what are you doing about it, and how are 

you addressing these concerns? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, we certainly are going out and 

about. We’ve had more than 400 meetings with individuals as well 

as groups of stakeholders. We have received a number of comments. I’ve even tasked my local government advisory committee. 

They’ve been great at going out and even extending the reach that 

we can have on our own to take a look at what these issues are 

and how best to advise us to address them. 

I think I understand the issues that folks have raised and their 

concerns. I think my concern is to make sure that I’m developing 

a final rule that respects those, that fully integrates those concerns 

and provides as much clarity and certainty as we can. I know that 

there have been folks in your State that have raised concerns. 

We’ve met with people. I certainly have individually. We’ll continue to do that to make sure that the final rule reflects their concerns and establishes more certainty without creating more layers 

of bureaucracy or more extensive reach of the jurisdiction of the 

Clean Air Act. Those are things we cannot do and we will not do. 

But what we will do is hopefully use—and I shouldn’t say hopefully—we will use the best science available to us, so we’re protecting only what needs to be protected in insuring that people 

have certainty to continue to do their work as they’ve been doing 

it. 

Senator HOEVEN. But your authority extends to navigable bodies 

of water. How can you issue a rule like WOTUS that goes beyond 

your legal authority? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, I’m doing exactly what the Supreme 

Court told us. It was as far back as more than 10 to 15 years ago 

that the Supreme Court told us that it’s not navigable in a traditional sense, it’s protecting waters that are important for drinking 

water. So we have to look not just at those navigable waters but 

all the waters that feed into those that have an ability not just to 

be connected but significantly impact the quality of those downstream waters that are so important to drinking water protection. 

That’s what they’ve told us. They’ve told us we have to look at 

what they call a significant nexus and that we have to look at waters that act as an ecosystem. We’ve done years of research trying 

to answer those questions so that people could be certain about 

what their obligations are and we could be certain that we’re protecting the drinking water that’s so important for people across this 

country. 

Senator HOEVEN. Under that argument, what is the limitation on 

your authority? 
34 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The limitation on our authority is that we are 

only supposed to protect those waters that are necessary to protect 

those downstream areas. Period. 

Senator HOEVEN. But again, that leaves it entirely subject to 

your interpretation, does it not? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, no. That’s what this rule is trying to 

do is to provide clarity. That’s why we put out a rule. That’s why 

the rule is so important to finalize. 

Senator HOEVEN. But it’s done just the opposite. It’s created even 

more uncertainty and indicated to, like I say, not only farmers and 

ranchers but private individuals that there is no limit to your authority, it’s whatever you decide you want it to be, and that’s the 

problem. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Certainly, that’s never—I don’t think that EPA 

has ever asserted jurisdiction in that way. We’re working very hard 

with the Army Corps to understand what our history of knowledge 

is now, about where we find it important to require mitigation or 

to protect, and to make sure that we’re as clear as possible in a 

final rule, so that people can be assured that we are not expanding. 

This is not unlimited, and to make sure that we not only say 

what’s in, but we’d be a lot clearer about what is out. 

Senator HOEVEN. I would encourage you to talk to farmers and 

ranchers, private landowners, as well as industries, the whole 

gamut of industry sectors on this rule, and I think you’ll find that 

they’re very concerned about it and that it is very much a problem 

for them. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think, Senator, you’re right. There are absolute 

concerns, and we’re taking them with great seriousness. 

COAL ASH LEGISLATION

Senator HOEVEN. Let me switch to coal ash legislation that I put 

forward on a bipartisan basis and will do so again. Actually, I have 

spent a lot of time with EPA working to get something that I think 

your people feel is workable. 

I know you’ve come out with your regulation in regard to coal 

ash. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. But that regulation really relies on citizen lawsuits for enforcement. So my question is, wouldn’t it better to actually pass legislation that addresses both coal ash recycling as well 

as impoundments and give the States primacy in terms of enforcement rather than relying on citizen lawsuits? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we continue to be available to provide 

technical assistance, and I will let Congress consider what they 

wish. 

But the one thing I would just remind you is that I think there’s 

a significant opportunity under the coal ash rule that we proposed. 

I think that the industry was pleasantly surprised by the final rule 

in how much we paid attention to the comments and made it reasonable and rational. 

There is another mechanism that takes away this citizen lawsuit 

enforcement type system and puts it directly in the control of the 

States, and that’s if States want to take control of these facilities 

in terms of regulating them themselves under their solid waste 
35 

master plans, which we would work with them very closely on. 

That would make it regulated by the State, not by the Federal Government, and that would ensure States having ability to even extend some of the timelines in our rule if they felt like that was 

most appropriate and the data indicated that that was advisable. 

So there are other mechanisms that we’re working with States 

on, but we’re more than happy to continue to provide technical assistance on anything that you would be considering. Our judgment 

in the end will certainly be reserved to whether or not we think 

that it will achieve the environmental goals we’re all looking for. 

Senator HOEVEN. I understand that, but I’d encourage you to 

look at the legislation, because I think, in many respects, it accomplishes what we’re trying to do both in terms of coal ash recycling, 

good environmental stewardship as far as management of impoundments, and does it in a framework that provides more certainty to the industry, which is a new benefit. So I’d encourage you 

to take a look at it. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay, sir. Thank you. 

COAL FIRED ELECTRIC INDUSTRY

Senator HOEVEN. And ask you to work with us on it. 

And Madam Chairwoman, if I may, just one final. 

There’s just a tremendous amount of regulation that has come 

out in regards to use of coal for energy production, coal fired electricity. In our State, we not only convert coal to electricity but also 

to natural gas, and you’ve actually been out to see the facility. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. And I appreciate you coming out. But there’s 

so many regulations coming out that it’s making it very difficult 

and very expensive for the coal fired electric industry to continue 

to operate their plants. 

And that effect is that we’re exporting more coal than ever, and 

other parts of the world are using coal to produce energy with environmental stewardship that is not as good as the environmental 

stewardship in this country. And it also is having the effect of slowing down our development and deployment of the new technologies 

that will produce energy both more cost effectively and with environmental stewardship. 

So I’d ask, why can’t you take a look at all of that and say, hey, 

we need to find a way to make sure that we’re working with the 

industry to actually help them deploy these new technologies, and 

it has to be cost effective, right? Because if it’s too costly, they just 

go out of business. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HOEVEN. So you defeat that development and deployment of the new technology. How do you actually help our industry 

work to deploy these new technologies? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I certainly agree with you that we have to 

continue to work with the industry. I think, all in all, we have 

managed to get through a number of rules and to recognize the 

overlap between those rules and how they have to complement one 

another and be reasonable. I think even with the advent of the 

Clean Power Plan, we’re still seeing, in 2030, a significant amount 

of coal being used. 
36 

The challenges of today are not just EPA regulations, but the 

marketplace itself, which, with the advent of inexpensive natural 

gas, coal, in many places, is noncompetitive. The age of our coal 

fleet now, it’s going to be an average of 42 years or something. So 

there are challenges here where investments need to be made. 

I think there are opportunities for technology advancements. 

We’re trying to recognize some of those, and in the President’s 

budget, it includes some incentives for DOE to be able to develop 

and help develop and support a new range of technologies, like carbon capture and sequestration, to see if there are opportunities to 

lower that cost even more than it is today, so that it’s more readily 

available. 

I have no doubt that innovation will happen. I think the thing 

that I’m hoping to do is to recognize that every fuel has an opportunity to continue. My rule just needs to be reasonable about making a path forward to reduce carbon pollution, but not to make 

choices, so that in the end, I’m not going to make a choice between 

what fuel is best. I’m going to look at reasonable strategies to work 

with States to lower carbon pollution while at the same time trying 

to support and send a very long-term market signal that innovation 

will be welcome, innovation will be supported, and we will, as a 

Federal Government, be able to support the technologies of the future. 

Senator HOEVEN. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the indulgence, going over my time. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Senator. 

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Senator MURKOWSKI. No, all important issues. 

Administrator McCarthy, your words ring true to all of us. I 

don’t think that we’re trying to get to a different point. But, I must 

convey the sense of frustration, because as you’re saying, we must 

use these technologies to get us to that point where we have cleaner water, cleaner air, some of what we see come out of the agency 

is so confounding to common sense. 

One simple example that we have up in Alaska that I mentioned, 

that you and I have talked about, is our remote backup generators. 

We thought we had worked out an acceptable definition of what 

rural Alaska is and now we have a different Clean Air Act rule. 

We’ve got the sea ice rule. The definition of Alaska isn’t updated. 

So what it’s doing, in this land of unintended consequences, is 

saying even though you have an older diesel generator that needs 

to be replaced, compliance with this new rule is so expensive, that 

our rural utilities are in a situation where they’re not going to replace their older generators, no matter how much they might be 

polluting, because of these new compliance costs. You have this impact where you know where you want to go, but it’s our own regulations that are limiting our ability to get there. 

Another example is what we’re doing with our small incinerators 

up north and trying to wrestle through this problem. On the one 

hand, you’re saying, we’re going to hold you to these standards for 

emissions for your air, which you’re not going to be able to meet 

up there. And so the alternative is we’re going to remove this waste 

by slinging loads through helicopters that are going to be going 
37 

back and forth over the North Slope. You want to talk about increased emissions. 

And this is where the frustration is. What you’ve heard from 

members and the subcommittee here today is this frustration because we’re on the ground with these folks. Whether it’s the Crow 

Nation in Montana, farmers and ranchers in North Dakota, the 

people in Kentucky in the coal mines, or my miners in the 40 Mile 

District, they’re saying, hello, is anybody using common sense back 

there in Washington, DC. 

You tell us that you want us to weigh in. You want us to come 

to these hearings. You want us to submit my comments. Let me 

tell you, for these miners, these small operators out in the middle 

of the interior, for them to put pen to paper and put comments to 

some face back in Washington, DC, this is—you want to talk about 

true foreign correspondence, this is it. But they’re willing to do it, 

because they are so desperate, and they so need to know that they 

are being heard. 

You have said, we’ve got all these comments coming in, we’re 

weighing them, we’re considering them. But then at the end of the 

day, what we get are, well, we’ve got these new regulations. What 

they’re doing is, they are either putting expectations that, in a 

place like Alaska or in places in rural America, it’s impossible, if 

not highly unexpected, unanticipated, the costs are so high, you 

just can’t get there from here. 

And so we talk about flexibility. And you’re using the word clarification. For so many of the people that we are hearing from, it’s 

not clarifying. It is confusing and confounding and making people 

very angry at their government. Because they’re saying, why aren’t 

you guys listening to us? And as those who represent these farmers 

and ranchers and miners and Alaska natives and Indians, we’re 

going back to them and saying, we’re pounding as hard as we can 

on this one. 

But I hope that you truly are listening to the concerns that people have. Nobody that I’m talking with is saying I want to rape, 

pillage, ruin, I don’t care about the air, I don’t care about the 

water. We do care. We do care. But we need to have the ability to 

provide for livelihoods. And sometimes, these livelihoods are not 

clean. You get pretty grubby as a placer miner. You probably get 

pretty grubby in the coal mines in Kentucky. But it’s good, honest 

work for these people and their families. 

They want to be there for clean air, clean water, but work with 

me, government. And, this is where our disconnect is, and this is 

where I have my constituents coming to me and saying, ‘‘Lisa, 

we’re counting on you. You’ve got to shut the EPA down, and you 

got to do it yesterday.’’ And I remind them that there is a clear and 

a legitimate role for the Environment Protection Agency. 

We want our environment to be protected, and we need to have 

these permits issued. We want to have levels of monitoring. I want 

to work with Senator Reed to make sure that we have our revolving water funds. I want to make sure that we’re doing our radon 

monitoring. There is a clear and legitimate role. But what we need 

to ensure is that clear and legitimate role has boundaries and definitions that are set in law by statute and that we’re not pushing 

out regulations that go beyond. 
38 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That go beyond. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And that’s the fear that we’re seeing with 

the 111 rule and with WOTUS. Listen to our language, 111(d), 

WOTUS. What the heck? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I know. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What we’re talking about is trying to find 

the balance between protection for our environment and care and 

concern for the men and women who are trying to support their 

families in economies that make sense in their regions. 

So I meant to go through the host of other things that I’ve got. 

I mentioned the backup generators. I still want to talk about back 

haul program, our rural fuel storage tanks, the renewable fuel 

standards, and, of course what we’re doing with the fish grinding. 

We’ve had an opportunity to talk about that in our exchange in the 

office. 

I still need to get back to my constituent Paddy in Girdwood 

about fluoride. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And you were going to work with me on 

that. But I implore you, listen to the people across the country on 

these issues that are so critical and important to them. We need 

to find this balance. We want to work with you, but I think you 

know the pressures that are on us to just stop it cold, stop it cold 

in its tracks. There’s got to be some path forward, but you need to 

understand where the people are coming from on this. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I’ll do the very best I can, and I absolutely share 

your goals. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And with that, I’m going to turn my colleague, my ranking member. 

SEQUESTER LEVEL

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And I know you’ve been here a long time, so I’ll try to just run 

through two quick questions here. 

Funding for EPA’s day to day operations has remained close to 

the sequester level for 3 years. What have been the impacts on the 

Agency? Can you confirm that the fiscal year 2016 request would 

prioritize programs that help States and that basic operations 

would still remain at fiscally restrained levels? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think the Agency is doing the best it can. 

We are actually working very hard to make sure that we both 

maintain an adequate number of FTEs to get our job done. I think 

this budget reflects our ability to support our core programs and 

also to support some issues like the issue of climate that are so important for us to invest in and with the States. 

But the level that we’re looking at here is again only a level that 

is even falling short in terms of inflation adjusted numbers of what 

we were able to do in 2006. We all know nothing stood still in 

2006. So I really would encourage you to continue to support this 

budget at this level so that we can maintain the core services that 

are so necessary to protect public health and the environment. 
39 

TSCA REFORM LEGISLATION

Senator UDALL. And Administrator McCarthy, I know you’re 

aware that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

reported the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform legislation yesterday on a strong bipartisan basis. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. I introduced that bill with Senator Vitter and a 

broad array of bipartisan cosponsors. Our goal is to finally make 

some headway and give EPA the ability to set protective standards 

based on science to protect all Americans from toxic chemicals, especially the most vulnerable populations like pregnant women and 

young children. The American people would be shocked to know 

that EPA has not regulated a toxic chemical under the primary law 

in over 20 years. 

I had a hearing on the bill. Your Assistant Administrator, Jim 

Jones, testified that the bill met all of this administration’s principles for reform, and yesterday’s markup involved even further 

key improvements. 

Can you confirm that the bill as amended meets the EPA’s goals 

for TSCA reform, and are you encouraged by the bipartisan momentum on this bill? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I am aware that Mr. Jones identified a 

couple of areas where the bill fell short of the administration’s 

principles, but I am also pleased that the most recent amendments 

really address those issues. I am encouraged that we’re moving forward with a bipartisan bill. 

ASBESTOS

Senator UDALL. Great. The poster child for TSCA reform is asbestos. The Fifth Circuit threw out EPA’s asbestos rule in 1991 in 

a case called corrosion-proof fittings, citing the difficult standards 

in the law, which led us to the situation today of no real Federal 

chemical regulation. 

Would the bill reported yesterday by the Environment and Public 

Works (EPW) committee give EPA the tools it needs to act on asbestos, and if a law is enacted, would EPA consider asbestos a 

strong candidate for early action? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, EPA would have the authority to make asbestos what we call now a high priority chemical, and with that, 

the Agency would be on a schedule for assessing and making regulatory determinations for asbestos. 

FIVE-YEAR PLAN—NAVAJO MINING

Senator UDALL. Thank you. And then just finally, I’m not going 

to ask a question on this, but as you know, the last 5 years, there 

has been a 5 year working plan on Navajo mining, and it’s a very 

extensive situation where there’s been 4 million tons of uranium 

mined on the Navajo Nation from 1944 to 1986. And there are 500 

abandoned mines, 145 in New Mexico. 

And so we’re at the point we started working on this with you. 

It was way back in the House where we really got all the agencies 

focused. And so I hope, as we move down the road, we can get into 

the next 5-year plan. There’s still a lot of work to do. And I’ll sub-
40 

mit some questions for the record, but I’m not going to overburden 

us here at this point after an excellent hearing. 

Senator UDALL. So Madam Chair, thank you for your courtesies. 

And thank you, Madam Administrator and your assistant there, 

Mr. Bloom, who seemed to be on the ball and giving you some good 

advice. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, he was. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And thank you, Administrator McCarthy. 

As you hear, we’ve got a lot of work to do. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We do. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I was informed, just back to Senator Leahy’s point about the woodstoves, the woodstove exchange that we 

have had underway in the State of Alaska has been made possible 

through State grant moneys, not through EPA grants. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator MURKOWSKI. We have long tried to find some flexibility, 

as you know, working with the community there, and it’s been difficult. And I think it’s made even more difficult, because we haven’t 

had much assistance from the Agency in terms of whether it’s finding support for programs like a woodstove exchange or otherwise. 

So know that continues to be an extraordinarily pressing problem. 

I know you’re very up to speed on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

[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

Question. At last year’s EPA budget hearing, I asked how much more land in 

Alaska would be subject to the Clean Water Act as a result of the Waters of the 

U.S. (WOTUS) rule. Administrator McCarthy stated that she didn’t know its ‘‘exact 

impact on Alaska.’’ Do you know now, over a full year later, what the exact impact 

on Alaska would be according to EPA? 

Answer. The EPA has not conducted analyses by State. As a general matter, the 

agencies believe that the proposed rule would more clearly define which waters are 

covered by the Clean Water Act, and which are not. In doing so, the agencies seek 

to reduce current uncertainty about whether or not particular waterbodies are, or 

are not, jurisdictional, and we expect similar clarity for Alaska. 

Question. I also asked EPA to commit to holding at least one—if not more—public 

hearings on the WOTUS rule in Alaska, so that resource producers and other stakeholders could express their views and concerns directly to the agency. You said you 

would ‘‘take that back.’’ Did EPA ever hold any public events on the WOTUS rule 

in Alaska, after that request? 

Answer. The EPA did support efforts for Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule public 

hearings or meetings with interested or affected parties in Alaska. One such meeting was held on May 21, 2014, in Anchorage. In addition, the EPA Region 10 conducted three different Webinars on November 5–6, 2014, for tribal government representatives, the general public, and State and local government representatives. 

Question. In 2012, the EPA updated its national emission standards for reciprocating internal combustion engines in what is known as the RICE NESHAP rule, 

I worked with the EPA to find an acceptable definition of ‘‘rural Alaska.’’ After substantial data collection, the EPA determined that Alaska utilities not located in the 

urban Railbelt could not afford to buy new diesel generators and did not need to 

do so on air quality grounds. 

EPA collected substantial data in 2012 when the definition of rural Alaska was 

updated in the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule. Why can’t you use that 
41 

data to update the Compression Ignition (CI) Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) 

rule so that rural Alaskan utilities have a sensible option to replace their diesel generators? 

Answer. The EPA received a letter from the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) in late 2014 requesting that the definition of remote Alaska 

used in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Stationary Compression 

Ignition Internal Combustion Engines be updated to be consistent with the definition that was adopted in the 2013 RICE NESHAP amendments. Since receiving the 

letter, the EPA has been working with ADEC and the Alaska Energy Authority 

(AEA) to gather additional information to explain why the considerations that 

prompted the change in the NESHAP, which applied to existing engines, were also 

applicable considerations for the new engines regulated by the NSPS. Based on the 

additional information provided by ADEC and AEA, the EPA is considering proposing amendments to the NSPS to align the definition of remote Alaska in the 

NSPS with the definition in the NESHAP. 

Question. As of October 1, 2016, EPA will no longer allow Indian General Assistance Program funds to be used for the solid waste implementation program. I recognize that this decision stems from an Inspector General report stating that the use 

of funds in this manner violated the letter of the law. Have you examined the definition of ‘‘capacity’’ to determine whether there may be an administrative option for 

continuing with traditional activities in Alaska? 

If you do not believe there is a solution outside of the legislative process, please 

provide me with language that would allow for the back haul program to continue 

with traditional solid waste collection. 

Answer. The 2013 update to the GAP Guidance clarified the agency’s position that 

funding general government services fall outside the purposes of GAP, which are to 

develop tribal government capacity to implement programs administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and the development and implementation of solid 

and hazardous waste programs for Indian lands. As reflected in the GAP Guidance, 

EPA interprets capacity building activities to include training staff; developing 

codes, ordinances, regulations, and management plans; creating inventories; monitoring and assessing baseline conditions; conducting assessments; and enhancing 

compliance and enforcement capabilities. Under the GAP Guidance, solid waste implementation activities funded under GAP do not include costs for delivering tribal 

government utility services, such as trash collection and recycling services, or the 

operation and maintenance of sanitation facilities. 

EPA believes this limited restriction in the use of GAP funds is consistent with 

the appropriate uses of GAP in the context of supporting tribal capacity for implementing environmental regulatory programs. Few tribes have achieved sufficient capacity to administer Federal environmental regulatory programs. At current funding 

levels, GAP resources are inadequate and tribes struggle to recruit and retain qualified environmental professionals. Tribes across the country face a myriad of serious 

environmental and human health threats; contamination resulting from improper 

solid waste management is only one facet of the challenges faced by tribes, and environmental protection in Indian Country generally lags behind the rest of the country. 

The President’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposed a $31 million increase in GAP 

resources to bring total funding for tribal capacity building to $96 million. This increase in funding would raise the average allocation to tribes, allowing them to hire 

environmental professionals who can develop sustainable and robust environmental 

programs. Without this baseline environmental program capacity developed through 

GAP, EPA will continue to see limited progress establishing sustainable tribal environmental protection programs. 

EPA acknowledges that many tribes lack funding to provide sustainable utility 

services, including solid waste collection and recycling services and the operation 

and maintenance of sanitation facilities. Therefore, EPA is continuing to explore 

near term administrative flexibilities to support tribes in protecting their people and 

their environment from risks from improper solid waste management. 

EPA has provided a temporary, 3-year transition period (covering GAP awards 

made in fiscal year 2014, 2015 and 2016) to give grantees additional time before 

the restriction to use GAP funding for trash and recycling services is implemented. 

This transition period was originally 2 years, but was recently extended for another 

year (for a total of 3 years) to provide tribal grantees and EPA more time to explore 

alternative funding strategies and long-term sustainable solutions. Thus, EPA may 

award financial assistance agreements under GAP in fiscal years 2014, 2015 and 

2016 that contain trash and recycling service activities through fiscal year 2017. 
42 

The agency also is collaborating currently with Alaska Native Villages, other Federal agencies, and the State of Alaska to develop comprehensive and long-term solutions for sustainable solid waste management on tribal lands. 

—EPA is a member of the ‘‘Infrastructure Task Force’’ along with the Indian 

Health Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, and Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 

purpose of the task force is to improve Federal coordination to deliver sanitation 

solutions to Indian Country. —In addition, EPA recently invested over $500,000 to assess solid waste management options for tribes in Alaska, including an assessment that will help estimate backhauling costs per household, identify backhauling options, and support the development of MOUs between tribes and backhaulers. 

—EPA is also exploring collaborative options for sustainable solid waste management in Alaska. Partners include Alaska Native Villages, Federal agencies (including the Indian Health Service and Department of Agriculture), the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation and local agencies, businesses, and 

not-for-profit organizations. 

—Sanitation facility operations, maintenance, and utility service delivery costs 

(i.e., solid waste and recovered materials collection, storage, transportation, and 

disposal costs) also may be expressly authorized under programs administered 

by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of the 

Interior. 

EPA recently provided technical assistance outlining options for congressional action on this topic in response to a request from the Senate Appropriations Committee. The agency welcomes future opportunities to discuss the issue of environmental protection program implementation by tribes and to provide technical assistance to Congress as requested. 

Question. There are 1,600 abandoned oil tanks in Alaska that are safety hazards, 

and in some cases environmental hazards. More than a third of these tanks are 

from former Federal facilities. What resources does the EPA have to help us clean 

up and dispose of the abandoned oil tanks? In particular, is there any program within the EPA that can help the State of Alaska deal with the abandoned oil tanks 

that come from former Federal facilities? 

Answer. The EPA has Clean Water Act Section 311 (CWA 311) response authority, and may access the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), when there is a discharge, or substantial threat of discharge, of oil to navigable waters. EPA’s authority under CWA 311 is limited to navigable waters in the inland zone. For EPA to 

exercise its CWA 311 authority, the abandoned tanks must contain oil and that oil 

must have discharged, or be under a substantial threat of discharge, into or upon 

inland navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or which may affect natural resources under the exclusive management authority of the United States. 

Grant funding may be available under the Brownfields program to assist in certain circumstances dictated by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Sections 104, 128, and other relevant provisions, 

however, grants awarded under section 104 are subject to a number of eligibility 

and ranking criteria. Among the statutory limitations are the following: (1) Alaska 

tribes are ineligible to apply for Brownfields competitive grant funding and (2) all 

sites contaminated with petroleum will have to satisfy the petroleum site eligibility 

requirements in addition to other Brownfields requirements stated in the law. For 

Alaska or Alaskan tribes awarded grants under section 128, cleaning up abandoned 

oil tanks must meet the statutory criteria for establishing or enhancing a voluntary 

cleanup program/tribal response 

Question. If the court injunction is lifted before the Inspector General’s report is 

completed, would EPA proceed with its proposed 404(c) restrictions? Do you think 

it’s appropriate for EPA to take further action, if your IG is still conducting an open 

investigation? 

Answer. The EPA will act in a manner that is consistent with decisions of the 

district court and in support of the Inspector General’s review. 

Question. Two of my biggest concerns with EPA’s actions at Pebble relate to the 

precedent that would be set and the standard that would govern future preemptive 

actions in Alaska or other States. 

—During this administration, has EPA considered preemptive action—in the form 

of restrictions or an outright veto—under section 404(c) for any other project in 

Alaska or elsewhere? 

—Can you assure us that EPA will not target additional projects for preemptive 

restriction or veto in the future? 
43 

—If EPA does take preemptive action in the future, how will that be decided? 

What standards govern whether or not EPA will listen to, say, a national environmental group that wants to stop a project? 

Answer. The EPA works constructively with the Corps, the States, and other partners to assist applicants in developing environmentally sound projects in cases 

where a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. is proposed. 

The procedures for implementation of section 404(c) provide for a science based and 

transparent review of projects, with opportunity for meaningful dialogue among the 

EPA, the Corps, the permit applicant or project proponent, the State, and the public. 

Key aspects of the 404(c) review process include an opportunity for discussion between the EPA and the project proponent and opportunities for public involvement. 

The EPA’s careful use of its 404(c) authority is demonstrated by the fact that the 

agency has completed just 13 Final Determinations since 1972. To put this in perspective, over the same period of time, the Corps of Engineers is estimated to have 

authorized more than 2 million activities in waters of the U.S. under the CWA Section 404 Regulatory Program. As these numbers demonstrate, the EPA has worked 

successfully with the Corps and permit applicants to resolve concerns without exercising its section 404(c) authority in all but a miniscule fraction of cases. We expect 

this judicious use of 404(c) to continue. 

Question. Very few of us understand EPA’s implementation of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. It is very telling that at the hearing, neither of us knew what the RFS 

for 2014 is going to be even though the year has already been over for 4 full months. 

How is it that EPA has been able to finish discretionary rulemakings—such as 

Tier 3 and climate—but unable to finish the annual rules specifically required by 

Congress for the RFS, to establish renewable volume obligations? 

Approximately how many people at EPA are working on the RFS rule, which Congress required? And how many are working on EPA’s climate rules, which Congress 

did not order? 

Answer. The EPA understands the importance of the RFS program, and is committed to the program’s goals, namely, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from 

the transportation sector and increasing American energy security. The agency is 

aware that the agricultural community, as well as renewable fuel producers and 

other stakeholders, have invested significant time, energy, and resources into ensuring that the objectives of the RFS program become a reality. Renewable fuel use 

has increased substantially over the past decade, and we have seen significant advancements in renewable fuel production capacity and efficiency. Congress intended 

most of the growth in the program over time to come from advanced biofuels, and 

we have also seen forward progress in this area, including recent advancements in 

the commercial-scale production of cellulosic biofuel. 

The annual rule-setting process under the statute has proven to be very challenging, and we recognize that the delay in issuing the 2014 and 2015 standards 

has exacerbated uncertainty in the market for both renewable fuel producers and 

obligated parties. The magnitude of the statutory volumes for 2014, coupled with 

real-world constraints in the ability of the marketplace to produce and utilize renewable fuels, introduced new and challenging issues such that by the time the proposal could be finalized, the facts on the ground had shifted. Any standard issued 

at that point could no longer influence market choices, so a re-proposal was necessary. However, the EPA is committed to getting this program back on the statutory timeline to provide needed market certainty and to support the development 

and use of renewable fuels. We recently issued a proposal to set the RFS standards 

for 2014, 2015, and 2016, and the biomass-based diesel applicable volume for 2017 

(80 FR 33100, June 10, 2015); we intend to finalize these provisions by November 

30, 2015. 

The EPA follows the authorities and responsibilities Congress provides under the 

Clean Air Act when promulgating and implementing rules. The work associated 

with the RFS stretches across several government agencies in addition to the EPA, 

including USDA and DOE. Within the EPA, we have 3 to 4 Full-Time Equivalent 

(FTE) that work on the RFS program’s annual rules, with an additional 3 to 4 program staff and attorneys providing support depending on the stage of the rulemaking. 

Question. I am a strong believer that the EPA must use the best available science 

when making determinations that will have a major impact on public health. The 

forthcoming Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment related to formaldehyde is one example of where the EPA must be sure it gets it right particularly 

considering the critical recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences 

after the release of the draft assessment. A 2010 UC Berkeley study of Chinese 

workers by Zhang et al. has been a key component of the EPA’s assessment of form-
44 

aldehyde. It is my understanding that, while the study has been criticized in the 

published literature, its findings have never been replicated. 

Given the importance of the EPA’s formaldehyde assessment to public health and 

recognizing the need to ensure that the final document is scientifically defensible; 

will the Agency consider collaborating with a team of experts and support an independent study to reproduce the findings of the Zhang study before finalizing the 

IRIS assessment of formaldehyde? 

Answer. The EPA is reviewing numerous studies that examine the relationship 

between formaldehyde inhalation and potential carcinogenic effects. In conducting 

its assessment, the EPA will closely examine the database as to possible mechanisms by which formaldehyde might cause leukemia or lymphomas and include all 

relevant peer-reviewed published literature available to us consistent with the IRIS 

stopping rules. These stopping rules and the considerations for inclusion of new 

studies are described in detail at http://www.epa.gov/iris/pdfs/ 

IRISlstoppingrules.pdf. The 2010 paper (Zhang et al.), and a subsequent 2015 publication (Lan et al.), by researchers at UC Berkeley and collaborators from the National Cancer Institute, examine evidence as to whether formaldehyde exposure 

could cause genotoxicity in a particular type of cell (myeloid progenitor cells) circulating in the bloodstream. There are also other studies of the relationship between 

inhaled formaldehyde and circulating blood cells of other types (mature, non-progenitor cells). 

While it can be helpful to identify known or accepted mechanisms by which a 

chemical could cause an increased cancer risk, it is not necessary under EPA’s Cancer Guidelines in order to determine whether a chemical causes a carcinogenic effect. The National Research Council (NRC) took a similar view in their 2014 review 

of the National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens, in which the NRC 

wrote that ‘‘while it would be desirable to have an accepted mechanism that fully 

explains the association between formaldehyde exposure and distal cancers, the lack 

of such mechanism should not detract from the strength of the epidemiological evidence that formaldehyde causes myeloid leukemia.’’ 

The EPA’s revised draft assessment will undergo public comment and independent scientific peer review. A major topic in peer review will be the overall 

weight of the evidence from the epidemiology studies of leukemia or lymphomas in 

exposed workers, and considering any mechanistic information from studies in exposed animals or humans. We fully expect the strengths and limitations of the existing information, including mechanistic data in cells and tissues relevant to leukemia 

and lymphomas, will be a focus in upcoming scientific peer reviews. Thus, based on 

there being an extensive database on formaldehyde and a strong public health interest in assessing the potential health effects of formaldehyde, the EPA believes it is 

appropriate to proceed with evaluating the existing body of data regarding formaldehyde. 

Question. While I am supportive of the goals of the EPA’s IRIS program, we need 

to ensure that assessments use the best available science and reflect the highest 

standard of scientific inquiry. The subcommittee has been interested in the EPA’s 

efforts to implement the Chapter 7 recommendations from the National Academy 

of Sciences (NAS) report that offers some ‘‘suggestions for improvements’’ in the 

IRIS process. 

The NAS recommends that, within the process, the EPA clearly provide two doseresponse estimates, a central tendency estimate and its traditional lower-bound estimate that is designed to be an over-estimate of the potential hazard. In its study, 

the NAS noted that a central tendency estimate might improve public risk communication and is consistent with the EPA’s own guidelines. Please provide the subcommittee with an update on your agency’s ability and commitment to implement 

this particular high priority reform in the IRIS program and whether the EPA intends to provide central tendency estimates for completed assessments. 

Answer. The EPA has provided central estimates of cancer risk in IRIS assessments since 2007 as recommended in the OMB memorandum M–07–24 (Updated 

Principles for Risk Analysis). The IRIS Program is committed to continuing to include information on central estimates of risk and will clarify their presentation in 

future assessments. 

Question. Does the EPA have an established process for incorporating new scientific analyses and for updating IRIS assessments when new data is available? 

Within this process, what are the thresholds that must be met in order to initiate 

an update? 

Answer. One of the challenges the IRIS Program faces is to ensure that the most 

up-to-date scientific information is incorporated in assessments. Recently, the IRIS 

Program announced the establishment of rules for the IRIS process which transparently describe criteria for the inclusion of new studies during the development 
45 

of ongoing assessments. These stopping rules and the considerations for inclusion 

of new studies are described in greater detail at http://www.epa.gov/iris/pdfs/ 

IRISlstoppingrules.pdf. 

The EPA is at the beginning stages for developing a process to update finalized 

assessments that are on the IRIS database that may warrant reevaluation due to 

the availability of significant new research or methods after the existing assessment 

was completed. Details on the development of the IRIS update project and how the 

public can be involved will be available on the IRIS Program’s Web site 

(www.epa.gov/iris). 

Question. I understand there are several outstanding trade related issues dealing 

with pesticide standards that are disrupting U.S. exports of specialty crops to the 

EU. What is the EPA doing to foster the expedited development of acceptable and 

science-based Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) to expand U.S. agricultural exports? 

Answer. The EPA works diligently with numerous entities around the globe on 

matters concerning the setting of tolerances or pesticide residue limits to increase 

the likelihood that the US MRL decisions are harmonized with those of other nations. For example, the EPA works with U.S. stakeholders, European Union (EU) 

Member States, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU Commission to ensure that there are no data gaps or unnecessary lapses that prevent MRLs 

from being adopted as expeditiously as possible. EPA regularly shares its risk assessments and science methodology to assist the EU in establishing its MRLs. In 

ongoing negotiations with the EU on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the EPA has worked closely with stakeholders to develop U.S. proposals designed to address current trade concerns as well as prevent future trade 

concerns. EPA is a member of the U.S. delegation to the World Trade Organization’s 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards Committee and is an active member of other 

interagency teams dealing with SPS issues. EPA is also very active in the Codex 

and OECD, where international standards and guidance for pesticides are established. 

In addition to the work with the EU, the EPA has been very instrumental in resolving MRL-related trade concerns with Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Mexico, 

Peru, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Honk Kong, Chile, India, 

Brazil, China, Vietnam and many other countries by providing policy and technical 

expertise on a bilateral or multilateral basis. In many cases, the EPA has provided 

its risk assessments as the basis for setting tolerances in these countries and in 

Codex. EPA also organizes and participates in global joint reviews as a means to 

promoting harmonized MRLs. The EPA will continue to work on these issues as it 

facilitate trade for U.S. farmers and reduces barriers to the adoption of pesticides 

with superior human health and environmental profiles. 

Question. In January 2015, the administration announced plans to develop additional regulations aimed at reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. The upcoming EPA rulemaking immediately follows the new oil and gas air regulations EPA that went into effect in January 2015 and coincides with new ozone 

regulations the agency is pursuing that also impact the oil and gas sector. EPA is 

planning to move forward with some type of methane regulation in spite of the fact 

that EPA and academic studies estimate that methane emissions from the oil and 

gas industry have declined significantly at the same time that oil and gas production has skyrocketed. 

Is EPA formally engaging the States regarding potential methane regulations, 

available technology, and implementation costs? 

What is the estimated cost and staff required in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 

2016 for drafting a proposed rule and supporting materials and for reviewing public 

comment on the various aspects of a proposed rulemaking? 

Has EPA developed a ‘‘social cost of methane’’? If such a metric has been developed, will the agency use the metric in calculating and justifying the health benefits 

for new regulations aimed at reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector? 

Answer. The January 2015 announcement marked the beginning of the agency’s 

process to develop proposed standards for methane and VOC emissions for new and 

modified sources in the oil and gas sector. As is the case with all of our regulatory 

actions, the EPA will develop a robust regulatory impact analysis that will include, 

among other issues, a rigorous analysis of projected future emissions from this sector that would be avoided by the implementation of the proposed standards. To ensure the agency’s projections are based on the very best data available, EPA’s analysis will take into account additional information from industry, States, and other 

stakeholders and will be consistent with statute, Executive order, and OMB guid-
46 

1Please see: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-04/documents/fraud-settlementkerrmcgee-tronox.pdf 2Please see: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-will-pay-132-million-cleanup-evaluation-16- 

abandoned-uranium-mines-navajo-nation. 

ance. The agency’s analysis will be issued along with a proposal this summer and 

will be available for public review and comment. 

The EPA has also engaged with State and tribal partners early on in the pre-proposal stage of this rulemaking through a series of outreach calls aimed at helping 

inform the EPA of concerns from the regulated community. The EPA also convened 

a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations 

from small entity representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule’s requirements. 

Implementation of a proposed rulemaking crosses multiple fiscal years and regulatory programs, making resource estimates for any one rulemaking particularly difficult. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

URANIUM CLEANUP ON NAVAJO LAND

Question. From 1944 to 1986, 4 million tons of uranium ore were mined from 

lands belonging to the Navajo Nation in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. More than 

500 abandoned uranium mine claims remain in Navajo Nation, including 145 in 

New Mexico. EPA has been working in partnership with other Federal agencies to 

clean up contaminated sites and structures. 

—What progress did EPA make during the first cleanup plan? 

—What are EPA’s goals for the second round of cleanup? 

—How much is set aside in the fiscal year 2015 budget for cleanup, and when 

will estimated funding be identified for fiscal year 2016? 

—EPA materials note that the highest priority site is Church Rock Mine near 

Gallup, New Mexico. What is the timeframe expected to complete cleanup of 

this site? 

Answer. Under the initial 2008–2012 5-Year Plan, Federal agencies invested more 

than $100 million, including $50 million provided by the EPA, to reduce the highest 

risks to human health on the Navajo Nation. The EPA remediated 34 contaminated 

homes and 18 yards, provided safe drinking water to 1,825 families in partnership 

with the Indian Health Service, assessed 521 former mines, and conducted urgent 

cleanup actions at 9 mine claims. A full report of the accomplishments is available 

on-line: http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo-nation/pdf/NavajoUranium 

Report2013.pdf. 

The 2014–2018 5-Year Plan builds upon the work of the first 5-Year Plan, makes 

adjustments based on information and lessons learned during this period, and plans 

the next steps in addressing the most significant risks to human health and the environment. Specifically, the EPA will remediate additional contaminated homes, increase water infrastructure in mining areas, clean up 46 priority mines, clean up 

Northeast Church Rock, and expand interagency outreach. For more information, 

see: http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo-nation/5-yr-plan-2014.html. 

The EPA also will begin cleanup of the approximately 50 Kerr-McGee mines located on or very near the Navajo Nation. On April 3, 2014, the United States entered into a settlement agreement with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and some 

of its affiliates that provides nearly $1 billion for the EPA to clean up the 50 mines 

operated by Kerr-McGee. This is part of the largest environmental cleanup settlement in U.S. history.1 Use of these funds is limited to 50 of the more than 500 abandoned uranium mines on the Reservation. 

On May 1, 2015, the U.S. Government and the Navajo Nation entered into a settlement agreement that provides more than $13 million to assess 16 additional high 

priority mines.2 This is a significant step forward in addressing high priority abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation. 

In fiscal year 2015, the EPA estimates $4.4 million of appropriated resources will 

be available plus an additional $5.3 million in Superfund Special Accounts from the 

Anadarko settlement. The agency will determine fiscal year 2016 funding allocations 

after congressional appropriations legislation is enacted. 

On April 27, 2015, the EPA and the United Nuclear Corporation and General 

Electric Company (UNC/GE) entered into a settlement agreement that requires 

UNC/GE’s complete the design of the Northeast Church Rock Mine (NECR) Site 
47 

cleanup and disposal facility at the UNC Mill Site. This settlement is a significant 

milestone in the process to clean up the NECR Mine. 

The EPA estimates this design phase will be completed in 2 to 3 years, and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) estimates another 2 to 5 years to secure the 

required NRC license amendment, given the time required for safety and environmental reviews and a potential public hearing. Those dates give an estimated completion of between 2019 and 2023. These completion dates could vary, however, if 

circumstances do not unfold as anticipated. 

MEXICO BORDER WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Question. EPA’s budget request includes $5 million for the Mexico Border Water 

Infrastructure program. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2015 level. This 

program is critical for border States like New Mexico because it provides drinking 

and wastewater services—often for the first time—to underserved areas in both the 

United States and Mexico. 

—What is approximate estimated need for water infrastructure projects on the 

U.S.-Mexico border? 

—What does EPA plan to do to meet the long-term needs of our border communities? 

Answer. EPA uses the results of the last U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure 

Program (BWIP) grant solicitation to estimate existing border infrastructure needs. 

The fiscal year 2011 request for proposals resulted in 200 applications with an estimated construction cost of $800 million; funding is available for the construction of 

20 of those projects totaling $156 million. 

U.S. border communities can and do work with their State partners to access 

funds through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds to help 

meet their water infrastructure needs. The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure 

program has built strong partnerships with U.S. and Mexican Federal, State, and 

local governments to address the water and sanitation needs of underserved border 

communities by leveraging resources and coordinating policies and procedures. As 

a funder of last resort, EPA’s Border Environmental Infrastructure Program funds 

projects that would most likely not proceed without this support. EPA will continue 

to work with our program partners to maximize exiting resources while requesting 

funding at a level that is balanced by the many competing funding priorities across 

the Agency. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

CLEAN POWER PLAN

Question. Under EPA’s 111(d) rule, it is my understanding that if a State submits 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) and if EPA accepts that SIP, then all elements 

of that SIP become federally enforceable. Is that correct? 

With regards to Building Block 2 of the Clean Power Plan, if a State fails or refuses to submit a State plan under EPA’s Section 111d rule, does EPA have Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) authority to require greater dispatch rates of natural gas 

combined cycle units in that State? If so, what is the source of that authority? 

With regard to Building Block 3, if a State fails or refuses to submit a State plan 

under EPA’s Section 111d rule, does EPA have FIP authority to create and impose 

a renewable energy standard on that State? If so, what is the source of that authority? 

With regard to Building Block 4, if a State fails or refuses to submit a State plan 

under EPA’s Section 111d rule, does EPA have FIP authority to create and impose 

mandates on energy efficiency? If so, what is the source of that authority? 

Answer. Under CAA Section 111(d), a State must submit its plan to the EPA for 

approval. States will have the flexibility to choose from a range of numerous approaches and measures, and this final rule allows and encourages States to adopt 

the most effective set of solutions for their circumstances, taking into account cost 

and other considerations. Once a State receives the EPA’s approval of its plan, the 

plan becomes federally enforceable. 

To maximize the range of choices available to States in implementing the standards and to utilities in meeting them, the EPA established interim and final statewide goals in three forms: (1) a rate-based State goal measured in pounds per megawatt hour (lb/MWh); (2) a mass-based State goal measured in total short tons of 

CO2; and (3) a mass-based State goal with a new source complement measured in 

total short tons of CO2. States may choose between two plan types to meet their 

goals: 
48 

1 U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3. 

—An Emission standards plan includes source-specific requirements ensuring all 

affected power plants within the State meet their required emissions performance rates or State-specific rate-based or mass-based goal. 

—A State measures plan includes a mixture of measures implemented by the 

State, such as renewable energy standards and programs to improve residential 

energy efficiency that are not included as federally enforceable components of 

the plan. The plan may also include federally enforceable source-specific requirements. The State measures, alone or in conjunction with federally enforceable requirements, must result in affected power plants meeting the State’s 

mass-based goal. The plan must also include a backstop of federally enforceable 

standards on affected power plants that fully meet the emission guidelines and 

that would be triggered if the State measures fail to result in the affected 

plants achieving the required emissions reductions on schedule. States may use 

the final model rule, which EPA proposed on August 3, for their backstop. 

If a State does not submit an approvable plan, then the EPA will implement a 

plan for that State. Section 111(d)(2)(A) authorizes the EPA to promulgate a Federal 

plan for any State that ‘‘fails to submit a satisfactory plan’’ establishing standards 

of performance under section 111(d)(1). Please refer to the Agency’s Legal Memorandum Accompanying Clean Power Plan for Certain Issues (http://epa.gov/ 

airquality/cpp/cpp-legal-memo.pdf) for further associated legal basis. 

In response to requests from States and stakeholders since the proposed Clean 

Power Plan was issued, the EPA proposed a Federal plan to implement emission 

guidelines for power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and affected 

power plants that began construction on or before January 8, 2014. Comments on 

the proposed Federal plan requirements, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQOAR– 

2015–0199, must be received within 90 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. 

Question. The Clean Power Plan, as unveiled in June of 2014, touts multi-State 

cooperative agreements at various points throughout the plan as a feasible option 

for States in the drafting of their State plans. Most recently in February 2015, 

EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe told the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that multi-State agreements are a 

significant part of EPA’s strategy to implement the Clean Power Plan (CPP). 

As such, compliance with a multi-State agreement must be required by a SIP that 

is ultimately approved by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. As you are aware, SIPs 

impose mandatory, binding obligations on sources in a State. Regarding compacts 

specifically, without a compact, a State might be at risk if another State involved 

in the compact could not meet its commitments. This is why the Constitution provides for compacts and is why they are required to be approved by Congress. As 

such, are you aware that section 102(c) of the Clean Air Act requires congressional 

consent for such cooperative agreements? On what basis could your agency effectively argue that section 102(c) does not apply to the CPP? 

Answer. The EPA provided unprecedented outreach on the proposed Clean Power 

Plan and has addressed the 4.3 million comments it received in response to the proposal. States will develop and implement plans that ensure that the power plants 

in their State—either individually, together or in combination with other measures—achieve the interim CO2 emissions performance rates over the period of 2022 

to 2029 and the final CO2 emission performance rates, rate-based goals or massbased goals in 2030 and thereafter. The ‘‘multi-State plans’’ envisioned under this 

rule are sets of independently and voluntarily adopted and enforced State laws that 

mirror (or allow for interaction with) other State laws. States are allowed to cooperate in this way without obtaining congressional approval under either the Compact 

Clause 1 or section 102(c) of the CAA. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BILL CASSIDY

DIESEL IMBALANCE

Question. For refiners who produce significantly more diesel than gasoline, the 

Renewable Identification Numbers (RINS) situation is further exacerbated by 

changes implemented in the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) by EISA 

2007 when diesel fuel was added. Ethanol can’t be blended into diesel, and customers are reluctant to buy diesel with much biodiesel added. At most, 2–5 percent 

can be blended, depending on the location and climatic conditions. Yet, the total renewable factors are applied to diesel production just as to gasoline, leaving the obli-
49 

gated parties (the refiners) no choice but to purchase the additional RINS required 

with no better economic option to blend and separate the RINS. 

As the EPA works to finalize the proposed Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) 

under the consent decree, are you considering the disadvantage placed on refiners 

of diesel? Gasoline and diesel should be decoupled in the RVO calculation. 

Answer. The EPA implemented the statute as Congress prescribed in such a way 

that the impacts on all obligated parties are proportional to their fuel production 

and import. As a result, the burden on diesel refiners is no different than that 

placed on any other refiner or importer. In recognition of the fact that different obligated parties are in different markets with different business plans, EPA provided 

in the RFS regulations a range of compliance options to all obligated parties. The 

RIN system itself was designed specifically to allow all obligated parties to take advantage of the flexibility of the marketplace to ease compliance and minimize overall compliance costs. If an obligated party does not choose to blend the requisite 

amount of renewable fuels themselves, they can purchase RINS on the open market 

from those that have accumulated excess RINS. 

Question. Last week during your address at IHS CERA Week you stated that the 

administration’s Clean Power Plan makes economic sense because ‘‘you’re already 

making those investments.’’ ‘‘Industry is right now investing in clean energy because 

it’s the marketable thing to do.’’ 

It seems based upon your comments that you agree that industry decisions to invest in all forms of energy is market driven and not due to government mandates. 

Would you agree that market driven investments in diverse forms of energy to 

provide low cost choices to Americans is preferable to government mandates that 

may limit choice? 

Power Plan.—This $4 billion is not included in the EPA’s $8 billion budget request and would need to be authorized by Congress. Congress is limited by the discretionary spending caps in the Budget Control Act. Does the Agency have a proposal for where it believes the additional funding should come? 

Answer. Climate change induced by human activities is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It already threatens human health and welfare and our economic 

well-being, and if left unchecked, it will have devastating impacts on the United 

States and the planet. Power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed rule builds on what States, cities and businesses 

around the country are already doing to reduce carbon pollution and establishes a 

flexible process for states to develop plans to reduce carbon dioxide that meet their 

needs. 

The fiscal year 2016 President’s budget includes an incentive fund for States 

choosing to go beyond the Clean Power Plan, which will be finalized this summer. 

The Clean Power State Incentive Fund will provide $4 billion to support States exceeding the minimum requirements established in the Clean Power Plan for timing 

of State plans and the pace and extent of carbon pollution reductions from the 

power sector. This funding will enable States to invest in a range of activities that 

complement and advance the Clean Power Plan, including efforts to address disproportionate impacts from environmental pollution in low-income communities and 

support for businesses to expand efforts in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and 

combined heat and power through, for example, grants and investments in muchneeded infrastructure. The President’s budget includes funding for the Clean Power 

State Incentive Fund within the mandatory budget (please refer to page 1132 of the 

fiscal year 2016 President’s budget appendix found at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/epa.pdf). 

Question. Last week during your address at IHS CERA Week you stated that the 

administration’s Clean Power Plan makes economic sense because ‘‘you’re already 

making those investments.’’ ‘‘Industry is right now investing in clean energy because 

it’s the marketable thing to do.’’ 

It seems based upon your comments that you agree that industry decisions to invest in all forms of energy is market driven and not due to government mandates. 

Would you agree that market driven investments in diverse forms of energy to 

provide low cost choices to Americans is preferable to government mandates that 

may limit choice? 

Answer. Response same as previous question above. 

Question. Since 2010, President Obama has failed to pass his signature cap-andtrade legislation even with a previous Democratically controlled Senate. Among the 

concerns was that the expensive, onerous mandates placed on manufacturers and 

energy producers would destroy jobs and lead to increased energy costs for consumers and businesses. 
50 

Heeding the concerns of the American people, Congress chose not to pass such destructive and far-reaching mandates. Undeterred, President Obama has taken an alternate route of pursuing his cap-and-trade and other energy policies through back 

door regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

In October, EPA will issue a final rule to regulate ground level ozone. However 

2 months ago, EPA finalized the implementation rule for the 2008 standard—75 

parts per billion—but just announced in November 2014 that it will lower that 2008 

standard to a level between 65 and 70 parts per billion. Since 1980, the United 

States has reduced ozone pollution by 33 percent according to EPA’s own data. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I have spent nearly my entire professional career in medicine. When working with patients determinations on the appropriate treatment to administrator or medications to prescribe must be based upon 

what we know and not necessarily what we think. I had an opportunity to see many 

patients suffering from the effects of unemployment and how that impacts their 

quality of life and health. 

—Would you agree that employment is an important factor in evaluating the mental and/or physical health of an individual? 

—How did the Agency consider those health impacts when it was determining 

‘‘projected’’ health outcomes of a revised ozone standard? 

—Does EPA examine the interconnectivity between employment and mental 

health issues such as depression and suicide or the linkage between employment and heart attack or stroke when it examines health benefits of a proposed 

rule? 

Answer. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001), that under section 109 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA 

may not consider the costs of implementation in setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Court indicated specifically that EPA was not to consider potential job losses due to implementation of a standard, even if such job 

losses ‘‘might produce health losses’’. 531 U.S. at 466. Moreover, if EPA were to consider such costs, it would be ‘‘grounds for vacating the NAAQS, because the Administrator had not followed the law’’. Id. at n. 4. 

Based on a significantly expanded body of scientific evidence, including more than 

1,000 new studies since the last review of the standards, the EPA is proposing that 

the current primary ozone standard set at a level of 0.075 ppm is not requisite to 

protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and that it should be revised to provide increased public health protection. 

Question. In addition, Dr. Julie Goodman from the Harvard School of Public 

Health wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year where she said, ‘‘Most 

studies examining connections between ozone and health effects do not adequately 

account for smoking or other factors such as diet and exercise that could contribute 

to diseases attributed to ozone. By not fully considering these other factors, the EPA 

assumes that ozone causes more health effects than what the science supports.’’ 

How did EPA factor in diet and exercise when considering health outcomes of a 

lower ozone standard? 

Answer. In evaluating the mechanisms by which ozone causes health effects, the 

EPA uses a weight of evidence approach and evaluates all types of studies, many 

of which adequately account for factors such as smoking. There is a large body of 

evidence that has examined the association between ozone-related respiratory 

health effects and diet, smoking, and obesity (related to exercise). These associations 

are discussed in the Integrated Science Assessment (section 8.4, pp. 8–30, http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492#Download). 

Question. The lowered standard that the EPA is proposing (between 60 and 70 

ppb) is very close to levels of ozone that are found naturally in some regions of the 

country. For example, the ozone level at Big Bend National Park in southwest 

Texas, where there are no industrial facilities, is 71 ppb. 

EPA’s models have shown that decreasing human-made sources of ozone could actually lead to increased natural ozone in some areas. This happens because ozone 

formation is complex, and nitrogen oxides both form and destroy ozone. By controlling human sources of nitrogen dioxide to achieve lower ozone levels, many parts 

of the country may not meet current ozone standards solely because of naturally 

formed ozone. 

Because the Clean Air Act only mandates that EPA review not revise the ozone 

standard, how is EPA taking into consideration the fact that there are parts of the 

country that have not and will not meet the 1997 standards, the 2008 standards, 

and any potential new standard offered by the Agency? 

Answer. In the Policy Assessment, the EPA analyzed the influence of background 

ozone and concluded that areas with the highest background influence are locations 
51 

in the intermountain western United States. On most days, and at most locations, 

the background influence on observed ozone is expected to be much lower than the 

revised ozone NAAQS levels that have been proposed. 

The EPA’s improved modeling approaches allow us to more accurately simulate 

how ozone levels change in response to reducing nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) cause both the formation and destruction of ozone. As a general rule, as NOX

emissions reductions occur, ozone values may increase in areas that tend to have 

much lower observed ozone concentrations, while higher ozone values would be expected to decrease. A more detailed discussion of this phenomenon can be found in 

the Policy Assessment (section 2.2). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/ 

data/20140829pa.pdf 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

ELECTRONIC PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TOOL (EPEAT)

Question. Why has the administration taken the action to specifically delete 

EPEAT? 

Answer. The administration developed the Executive order (E.O.) to allow the use 

of multiple private-sector registries or methods that currently exist and any new 

ones that may be developed in the future, provided they meet the sustainable electronics provisions in the E.O. 

Question. Can you reassure us that the Federal Government will continue to adhere to using EPEAT standards in its procurements? 

Answer. Section 4 (e) of the new Executive order directed the Council on Environmental Quality to issue Implementing Instructions to provide more clarity for Federal purchasers on how to achieve compliance with the Executive order. These Instructions were issued on June 11, 2015, and are located here: https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/eol13693limplementinglinstructions 

ljunel10l2015.pdf. 

On Page 65 of the implementing instructions, EPEAT is identified as the only tool 

that currently meets the sustainability mandate specified in the E.O. 

Question. There is currently no standard that evaluates environmentally sound 

lifecycles of electronics that has any comparable worldwide market share to EPEAT. 

Given this, why does the administration not continue to require EPEAT until an 

adequate alternate structure is in place? 

Answer. EPEAT is identified in the implementing instructions for E.O. 13693 as 

the only tool that currently meets the sustainability mandate specified in the E.O. 

Question. Can you assure me and the public that next steps in issuing implementing instructions and guidance will be transparent and open to public comment? 

Answer. The E.O. Implementing Instructions were issued on June 11th, 2015 and 

are available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/eol13693l 

implementinglinstructionsljunel10l2015.pdf. 

Within 90 days of the issuance of the Instructions, the EPA is required to provide 

updated guidance on recommended specifications, labels, and standards that designate environmentally preferable products and services, in consultation with the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). EPA is developing interim recommendations to post on its Web site. 

Question. I would urge the administration to make clear in the Executive order 

implementing instructions that are expected to be issued in the first week of May 

by Kate Brandt, the country’s Federal Sustainability Officer, that EPEAT is an accepted compliance pathway for Federal agencies for electronics’ procurement. 

Answer. On Page 65 of the instructions, EPEAT is identified as the only tool that 

currently meets the sustainability mandate specified in the E.O. 

Question. Finally, I ask the administration to ensure that EPA, Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of Federal Sustainability promulgate guidance 

and directives to ensure that EPEAT is used in Federal procurements, and that future development of ‘‘Ecolabels’’ by the EPA also adheres to at least a minimum 

standard of EPEAT. 

Answer. EPEAT is identified in the implementing instructions as the only tool 

that currently meets the sustainability mandate specified in the E.O. The application of the EPA Guidelines to the electronic products sector will allow a fair and 

objective process to evaluate any upcoming non-governmental eco-labels and standards addressing these products for consideration for use in Federal procurement. 
52 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. And with that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., Wednesday, April 29, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.]