```

[Senate Hearing 114-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

                              ----------                              

                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016

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

    The subcommittee met at 11:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Murkowski, Udall, Tester, Cassidy, Blunt, 
Leahy, Daines, and Hoeven.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID BLOOM, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

    Senator Murkowski. Good morning. I would like to welcome 
everyone to today's hearing in the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee. Sorry that we are starting a little bit later 
than scheduled, but we had an energy bill that we wanted to 
move across the floor. Thanks to my colleagues for on that bill 
support.
    We are here to examine the fiscal year 2017 budget request 
for the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here. Thank you 
for your work. I hope that we have a constructive dialogue 
today.
    Mr. Bloom, welcome back to the subcommittee as well.
    Ms. McCarthy, we had a chance to visit briefly on the phone 
about some of the issues that are front and center in Alaskans' 
minds, and as you know, there is angst, there is anxiety, there 
is a view by many within my State that EPA is overstepping its 
appropriate role. I hear from these folks all the time.
    There is a concern that, rather than focusing on the core 
mission of attending to and cleaning up the environment, the 
Agency is pumping out rule after rule based on questionable 
legal authority. I hear about the Agency's Waters of the United 
States proposal repeatedly, the so-called Clean Power Plan, and 
several other rules that come up repeatedly in conversation. 
Several of these are rules have such questionable legal grounds 
that they've been stayed in the courts. Numerous other rules 
are being challenged by States and other impacted entities who 
are concerned that EPA continues to push an agenda that lines 
up more with those that are seeking to stop development rather 
than working with the States or working with the tribes.
    Although the court stay offers a temporary respite, I 
continue to be very concerned about the Agency's Waters of the 
United States proposal. I've described this rule as a 
showstopper in the past. I know that it will have negative 
consequences for my State and many others if it is allowed to 
move forward. Approximately two-thirds of the State of Alaska 
is considered wetlands, and this proposal could subject even 
more of the most routine projects to EPA's scrutiny and 
possible delay.
    I'm also concerned about the Agency's efforts to use the 
Superfund statute to require potentially duplicative financial 
assurance requirements on hardrock mining. From the time when 
States and Federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) and the Forest Service updated their bonding requirements 
for mining, no hardrock mining site has been placed on 
Superfund's National Priorities List, and yet, the EPA 
continues to move forward with a rule that has the potential to 
make mining prohibitively expensive.
    I appreciate that your staff has signaled a willingness to 
work with us as the rulemaking process proceeds, and I hope 
that we can have continued dialogue on this proposal. It is 
very important.
    I'm also hearing substantial concern with the Agency's 
latest proposal to regulate methane at existing oil and gas 
wells. In spite of the fact that natural gas production is up 
significantly, methane emissions from the oil and gas industry 
are either flat or in decline. In fact, one study suggests that 
methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas 
wells have fallen approximately 79 percent since 2005. At a 
time when low oil prices are creating a challenging situation 
for the industry, I'm concerned that this proposal has the 
potential to perhaps limit investment, hamper domestic 
production, and drive up costs for the consumers.
    While I have concerns with many of the major rules that the 
Agency is moving forward with, I am hopeful we can find a path 
forward on a laundry list of proposals that will have a real 
impact on cleaning up the environment. For example, the fiscal 
year 2016 omnibus included $20 million for Targeted Air Shed 
Grants. My understanding is that the city of Fairbanks is 
eligible for some of these grants to help deal with the 
particulate matter problem that you are very familiar with. I 
am hoping that we can work with you to ensure that this type of 
cleanup can occur.
    Additionally, I was pleased that we were able to double the 
funding for the Alaska Native Villages Water Program in the 
fiscal year 2016 omnibus to $20 million. I am also pleased that 
we were able to find a way to ensure that the backhaul program 
can continue to collect trash and other things that need to be 
disposed of from villages in rural Alaska.
    I am also hopeful that we can find common ground on a 
number of lower profile issues this year that are still very 
important to Alaskans. We still need to find a workable 
solution for small remote incinerators that are the only option 
to deal with solid waste in some areas in Alaska. This is 
something we've been working on for a long period of time. We 
need to deal with backup diesel generator concerns in rural 
Alaska and find a way to clean up abandoned oil tanks and 
contaminated lands. We are willing to find some sensible 
solutions, and I want to work with the Agency on those issues.
    Turning to the fiscal year 2017 budget request, I have some 
very serious concerns with the choices the Agency has made. The 
budget prioritizes funding for controversial regulatory 
programs over on-the-ground cleanup, and it shifts money away 
from programs that have demonstrated results in favor of 
funding the bureaucracy. I think the most glaring example of 
this is the Agency's decision to cut the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund by more than $414 million. While the Agency has 
proposed an increase in funding for the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund, the fiscal year 2017 budget shortchanges the 
State Revolving Funds (SRFs) by approximately $257 million. At 
a time when there is ever-increased focus on the need to 
improve our Nation's water infrastructure because of events 
like those that occurred in Flint, Michigan and in other cities 
with water quality issues, I am very concerned about the 
direction the budget takes here.
    Additionally, the Agency once again proposes to eliminate a 
program to protect against radon exposure, the second leading 
cause of lung cancer behind smoking, and it proposes to 
eliminate the grant program that I mentioned earlier that has 
the potential to help improve air quality in areas with 
particulate matter and ozone issues.
    At the same time the Agency proposes these cuts to programs 
with proven records of success, the budget requests 
approximately $235 million to fund the President's climate 
change agenda. This is a 48 percent increase over last year's 
level, even though the Clean Power Plan has been stayed by the 
Federal court. Similarly, the Agency has asked for a $27.5 
million increase in the Agency's enforcement budget, even 
though I'm hearing concerns from folks back home about the 
Agency's enforcement activities.
    These are areas that I would like to explore with you, and 
working with the subcommittee, find a way to ensure that the 
actions of the Agency are consistent with what most people in 
the country believe the priorities should be.
    Again, thank you for being here. And my apologies that 
we're starting so late.
    With that, I will turn to my ranking member, Senator Udall.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

    Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Chairman Murkowski. And 
what she didn't say was we just came off a big victory on the 
floor, bipartisan victory, in terms of an energy bill. We 
haven't had an energy bill since 2007. And Senator Murkowski 
and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell I think came up with a very 
solid proposal, and we hope the House will work with us, and I 
just want to congratulate you for that, and also say I hope 
those same bipartisan credentials we can both work on together 
in this subcommittee to get things done.
    Welcome, Administrator McCarthy, and thank you for joining 
us today. It's been quite a year since you last testified 
before this subcommittee. The EPA finalized the Clean Power 
Plan. This is a critical step. It will reduce carbon pollution 
and will make real progress on climate change. The EPA also 
proposed standards for methane to protect public health and the 
environment. We worked together on last year's omnibus bill and 
fought off dangerous environmental riders. And we made history 
when the United States took part in the Paris agreement to 
fight climate change. The United States and 200 other countries 
agreed to work together to fight rising sea levels and climbing 
temperatures.
    On Friday, Earth Day, Secretary of State Kerry will sign 
the agreement for the United States. It will be a monumental 
step. It will seal our commitment with our global partners to 
fighting climate change. The EPA's Clean Power Plan will frame 
our efforts to meet that commitment.
    While the Supreme Court did issue a stay on the Clean Power 
Plan, that decision was not on the merits of the case, and I'm 
confident that the Clean Power Plan will prevail. It will be 
flexible and it will meet the unique needs of each State.
    I'm pleased to see that EPA has not skipped a beat. It will 
keep helping States that are working to reduce carbon 
pollution, providing funding and technical help, ensuring that 
these plans are tailored to each State's needs. I want to hear 
more about how the EPA plans to build on these efforts in 
fiscal year 2017. It takes time, effort, and resources to make 
progress on international agreements and new standards.
    But that's why I'm also worried. Last year, the budget deal 
allowed us to make targeted investments for many agencies, but 
not so for the EPA. Its operating budget was frozen in last 
year's budget deal, left at the sequester level. Over the past 
decade, its budget has dropped 10 percent in real terms, and 
the Agency has lost 10 percent of its staff. The fiscal year 
2017 budget request proposes important increases to support 
clean air, clean water, and basic Agency functions. I think the 
EPA has reached a critical point, and I think it's time for us 
to get realistic about providing the resources that the EPA 
needs.
    Administrator McCarthy, I want to thank you for making sure 
your draft budget supports programs that are important to New 
Mexico, especially uranium cleanup, but I think we need to look 
closely at the proposed offsets, in particular, the 11 percent 
cut to State grants for clean water and drinking water. Across 
our country, communities like Flint, Michigan, face serious 
water contamination. In my State of New Mexico, over 20 water 
systems exceed the EPA's lead level, lead action level, 
including St. Vincent's Hospital in Santa Fe, New Mexico. This 
is very troubling to me.
    I'm also concerned about EPA's proposal to reverse progress 
on the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Program. This is critical to 
ensure our border communities have clean water.
    But, Administrator McCarthy, my top priority today is to 
get firm answers about EPA's response to communities in New 
Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado after the Gold King Mine spill. 
The spill was an accident, but the EPA made several serious 
mistakes, and the EPA owes it to the Navajo Nation and the 
State of New Mexico to make things right as soon as possible. I 
appreciate that $2 million was made available for long-term 
water quality monitoring. This funding is greatly needed by 
affected States and tribes, but the EPA must sustain that 
commitment. And I'm very disappointed at how long it has taken 
the EPA to process reimbursements submitted by the State and 
the Navajo Nation, and I'm frustrated that 8 months later, we 
still don't have an official finding of tort responsibility 
despite public assurances that EPA takes full responsibility 
for the spill. We need a fair compensation process up and 
running for those who were affected so that people can file 
claims and receive compensation. I look forward to getting 
clear answers from you and when this will be corrected.
    Administrator, I want to add one note, and thank you to you 
and your team for all your technical assistance as we work on 
the many drafts of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The 
program office and the general counsel have been invaluable, 
and I hope you feel as optimistic as I do that we can get this 
done.
    Thank you again for appearing before us today, and I look 
forward to a good discussion.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
    With that, let us turn to Administrator McCarthy. Again, 
welcome to the subcommittee, and we look forward to your 
comments and the opportunity to engage in questions.

                SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GINA MCCARTHY

    Ms. McCarthy. Well, first of all, thank you very much, 
Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall for the opportunity 
to speak here as well as members of the subcommittee. It's an 
opportunity for me to be here before you to discuss EPA's 
proposed fiscal year 2017 budget, and I'm joined by the 
Agency's Deputy Chief Financial Officer, David Bloom.
    EPA's budget request of $8.267 billion for the 2017 fiscal 
year lays out a strategy to ensure steady progress in 
addressing environmental issues that affect public health. For 
45 years, our investments to protect public health and the 
environment have consistently paid off many times over. We have 
cut air pollution by 70 percent and cleaned up half of the 
Nation's polluted waterways, all the while our national economy 
has tripled.
    Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of 
EPA, the States, as well as our tribal partners. That's why the 
largest part of our budget, $3.28 billion, or almost 40 
percent, is provided directly to our State and tribal partners.
    In fiscal year 2017, we are requesting an increase of $77 
million in funding for State and tribal assistance categorical 
grants in support of critical work in air and water protection 
as well as continued support for our tribal partners. This 
budget request also reinforces EPA's focus on community support 
by providing targeted funding and support for regional 
coordinators to help communities find and determine the best 
programs to address their local environmental priorities.
    The budget includes $90 million in Brownfield Project 
grants to local communities, and that's an increase of $10 
million, which will help to return contaminated sites to 
productive use. This budget prioritizes actions to reduce the 
impacts of climate change and supports the President's Climate 
Action Plan. It includes $235 million for efforts to cut carbon 
pollution and other greenhouse gases through commonsense 
standards, guidelines, as well as voluntary programs.
    The EPA's Clean Power Plan continues to be a top priority 
for the EPA and for our Nation's inevitable transition to a 
clean energy economy. Though the Supreme Court has temporarily 
stayed the Clean Power Plan rule, States are not precluded from 
voluntarily choosing to continue implementation planning, and 
EPA will continue to assess those States that voluntarily 
decide to do so.
    As part of the President's 21st Century Clean 
Transportation Plan, the budget also proposes to establish a 
new mandatory fund at the EPA, providing $1.65 billion over the 
course of 10 years to retrofit, replace, or repower diesel 
equipment, and up to $300 million in fiscal year 2017 to renew, 
as well as increase, funding for the Diesel Emission Reduction 
Grant Program.
    The budget also includes a $4.2 million increase to enhance 
vehicle engine and fuel compliance programs, including critical 
testing capabilities. We also have to confront the systemic 
challenges that threaten our country's drinking water and 
infrastructure that delivers it. This budget includes a $2 
billion request for the State Revolving Fund and $42 million in 
additional funds to provide technical assistance to small 
communities, loan financing program to promote public-private 
collaboration, and training to increase the capacity of 
communities and States to plan and finance drinking water and 
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
    The EPA requests $20 million to fund the Water 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, the WIFIA program, 
which will provide direct financing for the construction of 
water and wastewater infrastructure by making loans for large 
innovative projects of regional or national significance. The 
budget also provides $22 million in funding to expand the 
technical, managerial, and financial capabilities of drinking 
water systems. Included is $7.1 million for the Water 
Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center and the Center for 
Environmental Finance that will enable communities across the 
country to focus on financial planning for upcoming public 
infrastructure investments, to expand work with States to 
identify financing opportunities, particularly for rural 
communities, and to enhance partnership and collaboration with 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    EPA is also seeking a $20 million increase to the Superfund 
Remedial program to accelerate the pace of cleanups, to support 
States, local communities, and tribes in their effort to both 
assess as well as clean up and return contaminated sites to 
productive use.
    EPA's fiscal year 2017 budget request will let us continue 
to make a real and visible difference to communities and public 
health every day, as well as provide us with a foundation to 
revitalize the economy and improve infrastructure across the 
country.
    I want to again thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Gina McCarthy
    Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to 
discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed fiscal year 2017 
budget. I'm joined by the agency's Deputy Chief Financial Officer, 
David Bloom.
    The EPA is, at its very core, a public health agency. The simple 
fact is you cannot have healthy people without clean air, clean water, 
healthy land, and a stable climate. We have worked hard to deliver 
these and made significant progress over the years for the American 
people. This budget request of $8.267 billion (in discretionary 
funding) for the 2017 fiscal year, starting October 1, 2016, lays out a 
strategy to ensure that steady progress is made in addressing 
environmental problems. This strategy includes actions to protect 
public health and it ensures that the agency and its partners in 
environmental protection, States and tribes, are positioned to meet the 
challenges of the future. The request is $127 million above the 
agency's enacted level for fiscal year 2016. For 45 years, the EPA's 
investments to protect public health and the environment have helped 
make the Nation's air, land, and waters cleaner.
    However, in many ways we are now at a turning point. As science 
advances, it improves our ability to measure pollution and provide 
better and more complete access to environmental information, but we 
know that the technologies and tools that we have relied on to date 
cannot be expected to meet all of today's challenges, like climate 
change and aging infrastructure. This budget supports efforts to 
leverage investments in technology, and be even more innovative and 
responsive, while reflecting an understanding that a strong economy 
depends on a healthy environment. It funds essential work to support 
our communities, address climate change, protect our waters, protect 
our land, ensure chemical safety, encourage pollution prevention, 
advance research and development and promote innovation and 
modernization to streamline processes.
    Supporting our State, local, and tribal partners is a central 
component of our work to protect public health and the environment. 
This budget builds on a history of addressing environmental and public 
health challenges as a shared responsibility. We are doing this while 
supporting a strong workforce at the EPA and maintaining a forward and 
adaptive organization with the tools necessary to ensure effective use 
of the public funds provided to us.
     making a visible difference in communities across the country
    We are committed to continuing our work with our partners to make a 
visible difference in communities across the country--especially in 
areas overburdened by pollution--including distressed urban and rural 
communities.
    The EPA has made community support a top priority and this budget 
reinforces that focus. It includes a multi-faceted effort that builds 
and strengthens capacity using innovative tools, comprehensive 
training, technical assistance, and increased access to the most up-to-
date scientific data. The EPA is committed to assisting communities in 
addressing their most pressing environmental concerns and will continue 
to innovate by taking full advantage of advances in technology to 
detect air and water pollution.
    In fiscal year 2017, the EPA will provide targeted funding and 
support for regional coordinators to help communities find and 
determine the best programs to address local environmental priorities. 
The fiscal year 2017 budget also provides $17 million for the Alaska 
Native Villages infrastructure assistance program, and an additional 
$2.9 million within the Integrated Environmental Strategies program 
will support these communities in conducting resiliency planning 
exercises and capacity-building. This will build upon previous 
collaborative efforts with FEMA, NOAA and HUD.
    Across the budget, activities help communities adopt green 
infrastructure, provide technical assistance for building resilience 
and adapting to climate change, and help communities to reduce 
environmental impacts through advanced monitoring technology and 
decisionmaking tools. The EPA's budget also includes $90 million in 
Brownfields Project grants to local communities, an increase of $10 
million. These funds will help to return contaminated sites to 
productive reuse by increasing investments in technical assistance and 
community grants for assessment and cleanup of areas where we work, 
live and play.
    The EPA will continue work to limit public exposure to uncontrolled 
releases of hazardous substances and make previously contaminated 
properties available for reuse by communities through a request of 
approximately $521 million in the Superfund Remedial program and 
another $185 million in the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal 
program. An increase of $24 million in Superfund cleanup programs will 
enable the remedial program to maximize the preparation of ``shovel-
ready'' projects, and provide funding to reduce the backlog of new 
construction projects that address exposure to contaminated soil and 
groundwater. It also supports critical resources with the Emergency 
Response and Removal program giving us the ability to quickly respond 
to simultaneous emergencies.
          addressing climate change and improving air quality
    The fiscal year 2017 budget request for the agency's work to 
address climate change and to improve air quality is $1.132 billion. 
These resources will help protect those most vulnerable to climate 
impacts and the harmful health effects of air pollution through 
commonsense standards, guidelines, and partnership programs.
    Climate change remains a threat to public health, our economy, and 
national security and the U.S. recognizes our role and our 
responsibility to lead in cutting carbon pollution that is fueling 
climate change. To do so, our work will position the business 
community, its entrepreneurs, and its innovators to lead the world in a 
global effort while at the same time, expanding the economy. States and 
businesses across the country are working to build renewable energy 
infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, and cut carbon pollution--
creating sustainable, middle class jobs and displaying the kind of 
innovation that has enabled this country to overcome so many 
challenges. Over the last decade, the U.S. has cut its total carbon 
pollution more than any other nation on Earth. And last November, we 
set a goal of reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 
percent by 2025. Even so, we are still ranked just behind China as the 
second largest emitter of CO2, so we need to continue to 
lead by example as we work to address this global challenge.
    The fiscal year 2017 budget prioritizes actions to reduce the 
impacts of climate change, one of the most significant challenges for 
this and future generations, and supports the President's Climate 
Action Plan. The budget includes $235 million for efforts to cut carbon 
pollution and other greenhouse gases through common sense standards, 
guidelines, and voluntary programs. The EPA's Clean Power Plan, which 
establishes carbon pollution reduction standards for existing power 
plants, is a top priority for the EPA and will help spur innovation and 
economic growth while creating a clean energy economy. Although the 
Supreme Court has stayed the CPP rule, the stay does not preclude all 
continued work on the CPP and does not limit States that want to 
proceed with planning efforts or other actions to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions from power plants. During the stay, EPA will continue to 
assist States that voluntarily decide to move forward, helping to pave 
the way for plans that will involve innovative approaches and 
flexibility for achieving solutions.
    The President's Climate Action Plan also calls for greenhouse gas 
reductions from the transportation sector by increasing fuel economy 
standards. These standards will represent significant savings at the 
pump, reduce carbon pollution, and reduce fuel costs for businesses, 
which is anticipated to lower prices for consumers. The budget includes 
a $4.2 million increase to enhance vehicle, engine and fuel compliance 
programs, including critical testing capabilities, to ensure compliance 
with emission standards. An additional $1 million is included in the 
President's request to share the agency's mobile source expertise and 
technical assistance internationally with a focus on heavy duty trucks.
    As part of the President's 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan, 
the President's budget proposes to establish a new mandatory fund at 
the EPA. The existing fleet of cars, trucks, and buses is aging, 
contributing to climate change and putting our children's health at 
risk. To protect the health of the most vulnerable populations and 
reduce childhood exposure to harmful exhaust, the EPA will provide a 
total of $1.65 billion through the Fund over the course of 10 years to 
retrofit, replace, or repower diesel equipment. The proposed funding, 
which is separate from the agency's discretionary funding request, will 
provide up to $300 million in fiscal year 2017 to renew and increase 
funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program (DERA), which 
is set to expire in 2016. This budget also provides $10 million in 
discretionary funding to support our existing DERA program to provide 
national grants and rebates to reduce diesel emissions in priority 
areas.
                     protecting the nation's waters
    Protecting the Nation's waters remains a top priority for the EPA. 
In fiscal year 2017, the agency will continue to build upon decades of 
work to ensure our waterways are clean and our drinking water is safe. 
There are far reaching effects when rivers, lakes, and oceans become 
polluted. Polluted waters can make our drinking water unsafe, threaten 
the waters where we swim and fish, and endanger wildlife. To meet these 
needs and to protect public health, we need to expand our impact 
through innovation. The State Revolving Funds (SRF) alone, while 
important, cannot and should not be relied upon to solve all 
infrastructure needs. New funds available under the Water 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) credit program, as 
well as technical assistance to help communities plan future 
investments and better leverage Federal, State, and local resources are 
necessary to get us there.
    We have to confront the systematic challenges that threaten our 
drinking water; a resource essential to every human being and living 
thing on Earth. The EPA will continue to partner with States to invest 
in our Nation's water infrastructure. This budget includes a combined 
$2 billion request for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State 
Revolving Funds and $42 million in additional funds to provide 
technical assistance to small communities, loan financing to promote 
public-private collaboration and training to increase the capacity of 
communities and States to plan and finance drinking water and 
wastewater infrastructure improvements.
    The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) 
established a new financing mechanism for water and wastewater 
infrastructure projects. In this budget, the EPA requests $20 million 
to fund the WIFIA program, which will provide direct financing for the 
construction of water and wastewater infrastructure by making loans for 
large innovative projects of regional or national significance. The 
WIFIA program also will work to support investments in small 
communities and promote public-private collaboration. $15 million of 
the $20 million increase in the budget will allow EPA to begin making 
loans for WIFIA projects. The program is designed to highly leverage 
these funds, translating into a potential loan capacity of nearly $1 
billion to eligible entities for infrastructure projects.
    This budget provides $22 million in funding to expand the 
technical, managerial, and financial capabilities of drinking water and 
wastewater systems to provide safe and reliable services to their 
customers now and into the future. Included is $7.1 million for the 
Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center and the Center for 
Environmental Finance that will enable communities across the country 
to focus on financial planning for upcoming public infrastructure 
investments, expand work with States to identify financing 
opportunities for rural communities, and enhance partnership and 
collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Water 
Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center is part of the Build 
America Investment Initiative, a government-wide effort to increase 
infrastructure investment and promote economic growth by creating 
opportunities for State and local governments and the private sector to 
collaborate on infrastructure development.
                          protecting our land
    The EPA strives to protect and restore land to create a safer 
environment for all Americans by cleaning up hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes that can migrate to air, groundwater and surface 
water, contaminating drinking water supplies, causing acute illnesses 
and chronic diseases, and threatening healthy ecosystems. We preserve, 
restore, and protect our land, for both current and future generations 
by cleaning up contaminated sites and returning them to communities for 
reuse. Funding will assist communities in using existing infrastructure 
and planning for more efficient and livable communities, and 
encouraging the minimization of environmental impacts throughout the 
full life cycle of materials.
    Approximately 53 million people in the U.S. live within 3 miles of 
a Superfund remedial site, roughly 17 percent of the U.S. population, 
including 18 percent of all children under the age of five. In fiscal 
year 2017, we will increase the Superfund Remedial program by $20 
million to accelerate the pace of cleanups, supporting States, local 
communities, and tribes in their efforts to assess and cleanup sites 
and return them to productive reuse, and encourage renewable energy 
development on formerly hazardous sites when appropriate. We also will 
expand the successful Brownfields program's community-driven approach 
to revitalizing contaminated land, providing grants, and supporting 
area-wide planning and technical assistance to maximize the benefits to 
the communities.
            taking steps to improve chemical facility safety
    The EPA is requesting $23.7 million for the State and Local 
Prevention and Preparedness program, an increase of $8.4 million above 
the fiscal year 2016 enacted level.
    In support of the White House Executive Order 13650 on Improving 
Chemical Facility Safety and Security, the requested increase will 
allow the EPA to continue to expand upon its outreach and technical 
assistance to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities 
and reduce the risks of hazardous chemicals to facility workers and 
operators, communities, and responders.
    These efforts represent a shared commitment among those with a 
stake in chemical facility safety and security: facility owners and 
operators; Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments; 
regional entities; nonprofit organizations; facility workers; first 
responders; environmental justice and local environmental 
organizations; and communities. The EPA therefore plays a significant 
and vital role.
    In fiscal year 2017, the EPA will develop, initiate and deliver 
training to aid with expansive outreach and planning for local 
communities, emergency planners, and responders. This will assist local 
emergency planners and first responders in using the risk information 
available to them, educating the public about what to do if an accident 
occurs. The EPA also will work effectively with facilities to reduce 
the risks associated with the chemicals that are stored, used, or 
produced on site to help prevent accidents from occurring.
    continuing epa's commitment to innovative research & development
    In building environmental policy, scientific research continues to 
be the foundation of EPA's work. Environmental issues in the 21st 
century are complex because of the interplay between air quality, 
climate change, water quality, healthy communities, and chemical 
safety. Today's complex issues require different thinking and different 
solutions than those used in the past. In fiscal year 2017, we will 
continue to strengthen the agency's ability to develop solutions by 
providing $512 million to evaluate and predict potential environmental 
and human health impacts for decision makers at all levels of 
government. Activities in the fiscal year 2017 budget include providing 
support tools for community health, investigating the unique properties 
of emerging materials, such as nanomaterials, and research to support 
the Nation's range of growing water-use and ecological requirements. 
The Chemical Safety and Sustainability program will continue to place 
emphasis on computational toxicology (CompTox), which is letting us 
study chemical risks and exposure exponentially faster and more 
affordably than ever before. The EPA's ToxCast program has screened 
nearly 2,000 chemicals and Tox21 has screened over 8,000. In fiscal 
year 2017 we have an opportunity to further enhance CompTox and broaden 
its application, adding significant efficiency and effectiveness to 
agency operations.
                  supporting state and tribal partners
    Effective environmental protection is a joint effort of the EPA, 
States and our tribal partners, and we are setting a high bar for 
continuing our partnership efforts. That's why the largest part of our 
budget, $3.28 billion dollars, or almost 40 percent, is provided 
directly to our State and tribal partners. In fiscal year 2017, we are 
requesting an increase of $77 million in funding for State and Tribal 
Assistance categorical grants in support of critical State work in air 
and water protection as well as continued support for our tribal 
partners.
    The EPA is focused on opportunities to continue building closer 
collaboration and targeted joint planning and governance processes. One 
example is the E-Enterprise for the Environment approach, a 
transformative 21st century strategy to modernize the way in which 
government agencies deliver environmental protection. With our co-
regulatory partners, we are working to streamline, reform, and 
integrate our shared business processes and related systems. These 
changes, including a shift to electronic reporting, will improve 
environmental results, reduce burden, and enhance services to the 
regulated community and the public. State-EPA-Tribal joint governance 
serves to organize the E-Enterprise partnership to elevate its 
visibility, boost coordination capacity, and ensure the inclusiveness 
and effectiveness of shared processes, management improvements, and 
future coordinated projects.
             maintaining a forward looking and adaptive epa
    The EPA has strategically evaluated its workforce and facility 
needs and will continue the comprehensive effort to modernize its 
workforce. By implementing creative, flexible, cost-effective, and 
sustainable strategies to protect public health and safeguard the 
environment, the EPA will target resources toward development of a 
workforce and infrastructure that can address current challenges and 
priorities.
    We are requesting funding in this budget to help us fast-track 
efforts to save taxpayer dollars over the long term by optimizing and 
renovating critical agency space. That space includes laboratory 
buildings across the country, where we conduct critical scientific 
research on behalf of the American public. Since fiscal year 2012, the 
EPA has released over 250,000 square feet of office space nationwide, 
resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of nearly $9.2 million 
across all appropriations. Additional planned consolidations and moves 
could release another 336,000 square feet of office space in the next 
several years.
    The agency will continue on-going work to improve processes and 
advance the E-Enterprise effort--replacing outdated paper processes for 
regulated companies with electronic submissions. The EPA's goals for 
process improvements are: leveraging technology, streamlining workflow, 
and improving data quality, and increasing data sharing and 
transparency. The agency also is making necessary investments to 
improve internal IT services to support productivity and address 
cybersecurity needs.
    In fiscal year 2017, the EPA requests $3.3 million to expand 
Program Evaluation and Lean efforts as a part of the High Performing 
Organization Cross-Agency Strategy. We continue to eliminate non-value 
added activities to focus more directly on all tasks that support its 
mission of protecting public health and the environment.
    The EPA continues to examine its programs to find those that have 
served their purpose and accomplished their mission. The fiscal year 
2017 President's budget also eliminates some mature programs where 
State and local governments can provide greater capacity. Those grant 
programs are the Beaches Protection categorical grants, the Multi-
purpose categorical grants, the Radon categorical grants, the Targeted 
Airshed grants and the Water Quality Research and Support grants, 
totaling $85 million.
    We are committed to do the work that is necessary to meet our 
mission and protect public health. The EPA's fiscal year 2017 budget 
request will let us continue to make a real and visible difference to 
communities and public health every day. It will give us a foundation 
to revitalize the economy and improve infrastructure across the 
country. And it will sustain State, tribal, and Federal environmental 
efforts across all our programs.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 
While my testimony reflects only some of the highlights of the EPA's 
fiscal year 2017 budget request, I look forward to answering your 
questions.

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Administrator.
    And we will now move to a round of 6-minute questions.
    Let me begin with a real softball for you because this is 
something that we have tried to do working with your folks. 
Each year we convene a senior EPA team to sit down with my 
staff to go through the laundry list of things that come to my 
attention from constituents. They're not as high profile as 
Waters of the United States or methane, but they're critically 
important. I'm hopeful we will be able to continue these 
discussions. I know that things are winding down within the 
administration, but having as much dialogue back and forth on 
these as we can is appreciated, and I would hope that we would 
have your commitment to convene this type of a meeting perhaps 
later this spring.
    Ms. McCarthy. These meetings have been enormously important 
and productive, and I would be happy to do that. We do have 
limited time, but we're certainly looking to make progress 
moving forward.
    Senator Murkowski. Good. If we can keep these issues from 
expanding into bigger, more complicated problems, then we're 
all ahead.
    I mentioned the issue with city of Fairbanks and their 
eligibility to apply for a portion of this $20 million that's 
in these Targeted Air Shed Grants. I know that you are very 
familiar with the issue and the limited options that the 
community of Fairbanks has. I would like your commitment this 
morning that you'll look closely at what the city of Fairbanks 
is doing as they're attempting to improve their air quality in 
this manner and their ability to perhaps use these grant funds 
for a wood stove change-out effort.
    Ms. McCarthy. I am familiar with the concerns in Fairbanks, 
and I'd be happy to work with them. I do know that they need to 
get in a proposal by July.
    Senator Murkowski. Right.
    Ms. McCarthy. But the unfortunate thing is they'll be very 
competitive for that proposal given their challenge.
    Senator Murkowski. I understand, and one thing that we can 
do in Alaska is try our best to compete, and we will do that.
    Let me ask about Waters of the United States. I mentioned 
in my comments that the Agency's rule is currently stayed, but 
I have heard from some that there is concern that EPA regional 
offices may be trying to implement parts of the WOTUS rule in 
spite of the fact that it is stayed. My question to you this 
morning is whether or not EPA is taking any actions related to 
Waters of the United States while the rule is stayed in the 
courts.
    Ms. McCarthy. We're not doing anything to implement the 
rule given its stay, so if there are concerns, Senator, please 
pass them along or have folks give us a call.
    Senator Murkowski. So you are giving me your assurance that 
the Agency is not planning on taking any actions to implement 
the rule until there is final action by the courts.
    Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay. Thank you. I also mentioned 
financial assurance for mining and the Agency's effort that 
could result in potentially duplicative financial assurance 
requirements on the hardrock mining industry using the 
Superfund statute. The omnibus bill included a directive that 
required the Agency to submit a market capacity study to the 
subcommittee 90 days prior to the release of a rule. Included 
within that omnibus measure with the study was a requirement 
that the Agency would engage in extensive consultation with the 
surety and with the insurance industries and then share with 
the surety and the insurance industries the model that the 
Agency is using to estimate the costs.
    What I'm hearing now, and the concern that I want to raise, 
is that the outreach to the surety and the insurance industries 
at this stage has been limited to initial meetings with very 
little follow-up. There is also some concern that the model has 
not been shared. Can you commit to getting to me, within the 
next couple weeks, a list with the names of the commercial 
insurers, the financial companies, the other entities that you 
are consulting with to date and who you have plans to consult 
with this year? Additionally, can you advise me as to whether 
you'll commit to sharing a draft of the model or the specific 
components of the model with both the subcommittee as well as 
these insurers and financial companies just as we laid out in 
the omnibus provision?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, we do intend to comply with the 
language in the omnibus provision. I think you know that by 
December 1st, we have to have a proposal out according to our 
court order. So we will do that, and we recognize that we need 
to do consultation early in order to be able to get the study 
out 90 days in advance.
    You know, I would say I've also heard from some of the 
western Governors looking to make sure that we also provide 
significant consultation so that we don't duplicate things and 
we understand what is already being managed and handled at the 
State level and what our responsibility would then be at the 
Federal level.
    So I'll do my best to get you the information I can in a 
timely way, but we will comply.
    Senator Murkowski. As timely as you can make this, I think 
it is going to be important. There is a great deal of concern 
within the industry, at least in my State, that this is yet one 
more add-on when they're already providing these financial 
assurances to other Federal agencies.
    Let me turn to my----
    Senator Udall. Senator Tester.
    Senator Murkowski. He is the best ranking member, he will 
always defer to one of his other colleagues first.
    Senator Tester.
    Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Udall, and 
thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple questions.
    First of all, thank you for being here, Gina.
    Brownfield utilization, you said it's at $90 million. Did 
you spend all the money last year, in last year's budget, in 
Brownfield?
    Ms. McCarthy. We could spend that and much more.
    Senator Tester. Okay. So the question is, and I know you've 
got to fall within budget lines, but this is a program that I 
am told in Montana is a very popular program that does a lot of 
really good work. And so you wouldn't be opposed if we plussed 
that up a little?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, it depends on where you get it from. 
[Laughter.]
    But certainly we recognize that the Brownfields program is 
a valuable one for many States, and we are increasing that 
budget, but we certainly understand that it could go a long 
way.
    Senator Tester. Just one more quick question. Is this a 
grant based on need? How do you allocate the dollars? The $90 
million to the communities, how is it----
    Ms. McCarthy. It's a competitive grant process.
    Senator Tester. And how many of those grant processes do 
you do a year? Is it just one bite at the apple?
    Ms. McCarthy. Do we know? Yes, just one.
    Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you. Let me talk to you about 
Superfund designation for a second.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Tester. Has there ever been a Superfund that's been 
designated that has been cleaned up?
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes, there has been.
    Senator Tester. Can you give any examples?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, I know that we've had more than 300 
sites nationwide----
    Senator Tester. That have been cleaned up.
    Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. That have been de-listed.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Ms. McCarthy. We have over a thousand, even beyond that, 
that have been de-listed with the exception that you have 
ongoing groundwater treatment that's required.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Ms. McCarthy. I'm happy to provide you a list following the 
meeting, if you'd like, with specific examples.
    Senator Tester. I would appreciate that if you could, and 
thank you.

    [Clerk's note: The list of all Superfund sites that have 
been cleaned up and others that have been de-listed are in the 
``Additional Committee Questions'' at the end of the hearing 
under the heading ``Questions Submitted by Senator Jon 
Tester.'']

    Water quality for cities and towns. Almost without 
exception, one of the things--and I'm not going to preface it 
with anything--one of the things that cities and towns talk to 
me about is that EPA comes down with regulations that they have 
to meet, and there is not money associated with it. Can you 
tell me in this budget if it's adequate in that regard?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think we're doing our best to 
increase the money that would go to States and tribes and the 
money that we can provide in assistance to local communities.
    Senator Tester. Okay.
    Ms. McCarthy. We're looking at a $77 million increase and 
$30 million specifically for the tribes.
    Senator Tester. Okay.
    Ms. McCarthy. It is a very challenging situation for all of 
us to make ends meet.
    Senator Tester. Okay. So tell me how you would answer this 
argument, where cities and town, the water we're dumping back 
into our water source is cleaner than the water we pull out; we 
think the regulations are too tight. Tell me how you would 
answer that.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think we want to make sure that the 
drinking water that we provide meets health-based standards. 
That's our primary goal.
    Senator Tester. Okay. And how about the return water, the 
wastewater that they're claiming is cleaner than the water that 
they drew out before it went through the shower or the toilet 
or wherever it went?
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Well, part of the challenge that we have 
is to just work with States so we understand the water quality 
so that our discharges matched to how States prioritize their 
own rivers and streams.
    Senator Tester. Good. Good, good, good. Real quickly, and I 
appreciate your brief answers, because I'll get through this, I 
want to talk about your research budget, and you've got 
research for air and climate and energy and for safe and 
sustainable water resources, and there's a lot of good stuff in 
here. A couple things. How much research dollars are actually 
dedicated towards technology that will help those cities and 
towns meet--where are we at on--meet the standards that are put 
out? Are we woefully inadequate or are we adequate? Where are 
we at on that? And then I've got another question on that, too.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think on technology, we certainly do 
some work. We're focused a lot on monitoring technologies 
because they're ever evolving.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Ms. McCarthy. I think we have significant challenges to 
look at how we push towards the type of water and wastewater 
technologies that are going to be amenable to what we're seeing 
today in the emerging technologies of the future.
    We clearly have challenges there on the water side. Where 
the Clean Air Act tends to push and motivate technology 
improvements----
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. That kind of motivation doesn't 
exist as heavily when you look at drinking water and clean 
water.
    Senator Tester. And water. Okay. Okay. Thank you. One more 
real life example. Because we had pretty good crops in Montana 
the last 5, 6 years, I've been able to swap out my equipment, 
my tractors.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Tester. And so the air coming out of those stacks 
are a lot cleaner in these ones than it was in my 1985 model. 
Okay. But here's the hitch: my cost per acre I was doing for a 
third of a gallon, now it's two-thirds of a gallon, it's 
doubled. And I asked the manufacturer, the dealer, I said, 
``How come efficiency is not as good?'' and they said, ``It's 
the Clean Air standards on those engines.'' I don't know if 
that's BS or not, but I've heard that from many, many, many 
people, that there is so much stuff attached to reduce the 
output.
    The question is, and it goes back to your research fund, is 
there any money dedicated to the industrial side of engines to 
make sure that--because I believe in the Clean Air portion of 
it, but I'd like to have a little efficiency in the process, 
too.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, I mean, we clearly look at efficiency 
because we are now looking at regulating for both greenhouse 
gases and traditional pollutants.
    Senator Tester. Right.
    Ms. McCarthy. We don't want tradeoffs.
    Senator Tester. Right.
    Ms. McCarthy. I want them to be cleaner and more efficient.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Ms. McCarthy. That's the only way we're going to get there.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Ms. McCarthy. I will come--Senator, I'm happy to come back 
to you on the question of how much research we have directed at 
industrial equipment as opposed to on-road.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Ms. McCarthy. I know a lot about light duty and heavy duty, 
which is somewhat what you're talking about, but there's a real 
challenge.
    Senator Tester. Yes. And by the way, when it comes to 
highway vehicles, we've accomplished both, we've accomplished 
fuel efficiency and cleaner air.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Tester. It seems to me it would be nice to have it 
the other way. Thank you.
    I'm sorry I ran over. Appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. 
Chairman and ranking member.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Hello, Administrator. Again, thank you for 
being here.
    Ms. McCarthy. Nice to be here. Thank you.
    Senator Cassidy. We had Chief Tidwell from the U.S. Forest 
Service--let me start over.
    The Paris Accords--in the Paris Accords, the use of forests 
as carbon sinks has increased by 100 percent.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Cassidy. Now, frankly, there are some that are 
skeptical that that can be achieved because of the land that 
would be required to so achieve, but let's just leave it as if 
that could potentially occur.
    Now, last September, EPA published an interim 
recommendation for environmental standards as well as eco 
levels--ecolabels for use in Federal procurement, and the 
recommendation that EPA made for lumber includes the Forest 
Stewardship Council's certification, but it excludes other 
credible sources, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative 
and the American Tree Farm System.
    Now, Chief Tidwell from the National Forest Service came a 
while ago. I've learned that the Forest Service does not use 
these third-party certifications, which means that the National 
Forest could not supply wood for this purpose. Secondly, that 
these standards are very similar. I'll just say in Louisiana 
there's about 4 million acres and 85 percent of it is certified 
with either the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) or the 
American Tree Farm System (ATFS), but not the one that you all 
have favored, the Forest Stewardship Council.
    Now, all of this may seem arcane, but Tidwell made the 
point that unless a tree farmer can make money off of his 
trees, he's going to use that land for its highest best use.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Cassidy. This recommendation would seem somewhat 
arbitrary, again according to Chief Tidwell, excludes his 
ability to market his wood. Now, if on the one hand, our goal 
is to increase the amount of forests in the United States by 
100 percent, and on the other hand, the EPA has just diminished 
the economic value of all this other land, it seems as if these 
are two goals that are frankly incompatible. Your thoughts.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, first of all, I think with the 
continued threat of climate change and potential for 
significant wildfires, sustainable forest management is 
valuable in many different ways, it needs to be heavily 
invested in.
    Senator Cassidy. I'm not disputing that.
    Ms. McCarthy. No, no, I'm agreeing with you.
    Senator Cassidy. Gotcha.
    Ms. McCarthy. Okay. So in terms of the ecolabels, I know 
that when EPA made a limited decision here, it was based on 
what was already being used by Federal agencies, in this case, 
DOE. We recognize that there needs to be an expansion of that 
certification so that others can be readily recognized because 
I want what you want, which is to have a forest sustainably 
managed and to be able to use whatever leverage we have to 
provide the economic incentive for that. So we are talking to 
folks and looking at that and seeing how we can expand the 
certifications that are recognized.
    Senator Cassidy. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
    Secondly, in a previous conversation we've had, I made the 
point that if the Clean Power Plan rule raises energy costs, 
that will put our economy at a economic disadvantage relative 
to countries overseas, which, frankly, will continue to pollute 
or emit carbon. Now, we wanted to test this hypothesis, so we 
took all of the States in the United States, and we looked at 
those which have the easiest compliance with the Clean Power 
Plan rule, i.e., they currently emit the less, and those States 
that are going to have the hardest time, they emit the most. 
And it turns out there is kind of an inverse correlation with 
electricity costs. So if you look at Regional Greenhouse Gas 
Initiative (RGGI) States, for example, the Northeast, they have 
electricity costs that are three times higher than that for a 
State like Montana.
    Now, I think I remember you saying, no, it's possible to 
lower emissions without raising the costs, but I'll just say at 
baseline, these States which have the lowest emissions of 
carbon already have tripled the cost of their electricity.
    Now, if we're going to have an input cost, and it's going 
to be energy, intuitively, if you raise that input cost, you're 
going to have some industries that will move to an area of the 
world with a lower input cost. As an aside, we had a question 
to a group and we asked, ``What nation has successfully grown 
their economy and lowered their emissions?'' they pointed out 
six, all of which have de-industrialized, my point being that 
de-industrialize, it doesn't the industry is not there, they 
just moved to a country where they can emit as much as they 
wish plus release other pollutants, so on net, on a global 
issue, we're worse off. Now, I have a sense you're not going to 
agree with what I just said, but I would like your thoughts on 
that.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, it's just one way to look at it, but, 
you know, I have kind of intimate knowledge about the Northeast 
and why the energy costs are higher because I live there. And 
the one thing I think you need to consider is if those States 
are such high cost and they're taking action on climate, 
they're either incredibly dedicated to greenhouse gas 
reductions or they find value in taking those actions. And if 
you look at Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, and the 
revenues that it has produced, has been a significant benefit 
to those communities because it invested in energy efficiency, 
and it resulted in lower costs. So there are two ways to----
    Senator Cassidy. May I interrupt just for a second?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well----
    Senator Cassidy. The analysis I read was that probably the 
lower costs were more of a product of substitution of low cost 
natural gas than it was for the, quote/unquote, investment.
    Ms. McCarthy. If you look at it, they've done studies, and 
I know that RGGI has done a study on how much it actually 
reduced costs, so I just want you to think about that. I don't 
think the direct relationship, as you've outlined it, is the 
most productive way to look at it or the one that best reflects 
the facts on the ground.
    Senator Cassidy. Empirically, though, it is true, those 
States that emit the most carbon have the lowest energy costs, 
those that emit the least have the highest, in some cases, 
triple, and if input--if your cost of energy is an input into 
your cost of production, intuitively, companies are going to 
move where that cost is lower.
    Ms. McCarthy. I guess I'm not disagreeing with the facts 
that you've outlined there. My disagreement may be with, what 
would the impact of regulating greenhouse gas emissions have? 
And if RGGI is moving forward, even when they're not required 
to, and they're saying it's building a clean energy economy and 
jobs and lowering their costs, then maybe there is an inverse 
relationship about the ability of climate action to actually 
benefit every State, and I would argue that if you do it well 
and let States design it, as we've done with the Clean Power 
Plan, they're smart enough to understand the economics, and 
we'll be able to make that work.
    Senator Cassidy. I wish we could continue, but we're way 
over, and I yield back.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    We will turn to Senator Udall.
    Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
    The EPA's Gold King Mine accident was devastating, 
Administrator McCarthy, as you know, to the people downstream 
in New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. The EPA is responsible 
for a number of serious mistakes, technical failures, and 
management failures, and these are deeply disappointing, and 
they've had a serious long-term impact. After the accident, the 
EPA was slow to notify downstream communities, communities that 
depend on the river for their livelihood, and the Navajo Nation 
and the people of northwestern New Mexico are still frustrated. 
They spent several million dollars to respond to the emergency, 
but 8 months after the spill, the State and the Navajo Nation 
are still waiting to be reimbursed, and 8 months after the 
spill, we're waiting for a legal decision from EPA about 
whether it is responsible for individual damages so that people 
can be compensated. Those impacted deserve compensation. And I 
want reimbursements for New Mexico taxpayers and for the 
Navajo, long-term water monitoring, and a promise that the Gold 
King Mine, the source of this pollution, will be cleaned up.
    Administrator McCarthy, you've said publicly several times 
that EPA takes full responsibility for the spill, but the EPA 
hasn't made the legal finding of tort responsibility. When will 
we have that decision so that the affected communities can 
finally begin seeking compensation for damages? What specific 
steps have to be taken for the tort finding to be made? And can 
you give us a firm date on when we will have that decision?
    Ms. McCarthy. I wish I could give you a firm date. I 
believe it's happening soon, sir, but I have to be independent 
and hands-off of that process. It's being done by a claims 
individual that's in a fairly insulated process working with 
the Department of Justice. So I do know that people are 
anxious. We have about 57 Federal tort claims that have been 
submitted, and we certainly want to get information out to 
people as soon as we can.
    Senator Udall. Thank you. The tort finding is just one of 
many issues raised by stakeholders. The Navajo recently sent 
you a letter detailing their priorities to address the damage 
caused by the spill. EPA responded in writing yesterday with a 
general commitment to continue working with the Navajo Nation, 
but we still need to know what specific steps EPA is going to 
take to address the Navajo's concerns, and I will follow up 
with you on those questions for the record. Yet specifically I 
do want to ask, what is the status of claims submitted by the 
Navajo and the State of New Mexico? And can I get your 
commitment right now on a date certain for all of these 
requests to be fully processed?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, in terms of reimbursements, we have 
reimbursed the Navajo for their expenses of $158,000. There are 
significant additional claims where we're working with them to 
get the information we need to determine what's eligible for 
payment under the law. Likewise, for New Mexico, we have 
reimbursed $328,000.
    You know, in total, we're working through the system in as 
best a collaborative way as we can with the States and with the 
tribes. We've also identified and continue with monitoring in 
the area, and we've also identified $2 million to be able to 
work with those States and tribes to define a longer term 
strategy moving forward so that we can identify whether or not 
there continues to be challenges moving forward.
    And as you know, we have also put the Bonita Mine area as a 
proposed Superfund site with the support of the local 
communities as well as the State of Colorado, and we much 
appreciate that significant step forward.
    Senator Udall. And they really appreciate that work. And 
thank you for the work on the Superfund site. I know working 
through some of those local issues was very difficult.
    I think it would go a long way if you could reiterate EPA's 
commitment to the Navajo and other stakeholders. Could you 
state for the record again that the EPA intends to make things 
right for the Navajo and others affected by the spill?
    Ms. McCarthy. You know, right after the spill, I went to 
the area and I said EPA would take full responsibility. I still 
intend to do that, and the Agency will.
    Senator Udall. Great. Administrator McCarthy, as you talked 
about Superfund and getting this on the National--Gold King 
Mine on the National Priorities List, can you confirm that 
finalizing this proposal will make the site eligible for full 
and complete remediation? And does your budget request provide 
enough resources to begin the cleanup?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, the fiscal year budget that we're 
proposing does increase our Superfund funds by about $20 
million, and so we do think that will give us an ability 
certainly to add more sites into the mix. It will take, I 
think, a significant amount of time to both assess that area 
and to determine what to do and how to take the steps moving 
forward we need to. And so we'll continue to work through that 
process, and we'll continue to make steady progress. It's been 
a long time coming. Now that we have it in the system, we don't 
want to fail to get the work done.
    Senator Udall. Administrator McCarthy, as you know, the 
Clean Power Plan provides a lot of flexibility to States to 
craft their particular emission targets. Has the EPA provided 
guidance to States that are working on strategies under the 
Clean Power Plan? And can you explain more about how EPA is 
helping States develop plans to meet the new standards? And 
does your budget request continue support in fiscal year 2017?
    Ms. McCarthy. It does. It includes support of about $50.5 
million to continue to work with States that voluntarily want 
to continue moving forward to develop their plans as well as 
funding to support tools that the Agency would be able to 
develop for that purpose, including an accounting system. You 
know, States want to work together on this. They want to know 
and be prepared for when the court concludes its review of 
this, to be able to move forward quickly, and we're trying to 
respond to that, and that's what these monies are all about, to 
provide them direct money for States to be able to develop 
their plans and for us to be able to support them with the 
tools they'll need to get that work done.
    Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
    Senator Murkowski. Senator Blunt.
    Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks for holding 
this hearing.
    In the bill we did last year, Director McCarthy, I asked 
for a--I asked you all to work with the National Academy of 
Public Administrators to conduct an independent study to create 
a definition of community affordability, this being a situation 
where a community might be protected from their water rates 
going up too quickly, but they might not be protected from 
their water rates hitting that cap and two or three other 
things in the community hitting that cap. And I just wonder if 
you would give us a little bit of an update on where we are on 
that study. And I have a couple of other questions, too, so I 
don't need a 5-minute update, but are we----
    Ms. McCarthy. I'm happy to provide you a more detailed 
update. My understanding is that a meeting has been planned, 
but I'll go back and check and make sure that we're moving 
aggressively. I absolutely agree with you that an integrated 
planning process is the best thing to do, and we should be 
looking at affordability with a more comprehensive approach to 
ensure that they can move forward with integrated planning and 
be comfortable that that can be done in a reasonable way.
    Senator Blunt. Well, and you understand, as other 
discussions we've had on this, I do believe you understand the 
purpose of this is to be sure that we don't have three or four 
things, or even two things, happening at the same time that 
happened as if they were not having an impact----
    Ms. McCarthy. Not related. That's correct.
    Senator Blunt [continuing]. On those very same families 
that they deal with. And in terms of impact of cost, under the 
Clean Power proposal----
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Blunt [continuing]. Certainly one of the things 
that I've had a lot of input from the rural electric co-ops 
that really do serve many of our lower income counties in the 
country, and serve about over 70 percent of the geography of 
the country, we have more than one county in Missouri where the 
customers from that rural electric co-op are already at the 20 
percent level of their income. If the kinds of increases in 
rates occur and utility bills occur that have been anticipated 
with Clean Power, what can be done to minimize the impact of 
those dramatic power increases on rural electric co-op 
families?
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes. Well, we have spent a lot of time with 
the rural electric co-ops, and I think rightly so, to continue 
to work with their fairly unique challenges given the 
constituencies, the customer base, that they serve. We're 
working really closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
both Rural Energy for America Program as well as the Energy 
Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program. So we can provide 
whatever support the Federal Government has to offer as they're 
thinking about their strategies.
    I would also point out that given the flexibilities that we 
have provided, there are opportunities for rural co-ops to 
actually think beyond their own borders about what they're able 
to actually do that could provide them significant economic 
opportunities.
    And I would lastly point out that a lot of the utilities 
are reaching out to the rural co-ops, the larger utilities, 
because they are very much interested in renewable energy 
projects because in rural communities there's a lot of wind and 
there are a lot of solar opportunities, and they are becoming 
very big customer bases.
    So there is a dynamic in the Clean Power Plan that could 
very much provide opportunities for rural co-ops to expand the 
diversity of how they provide electricity but also economically 
benefit from the Clean Power Plan in a very direct way.
    Senator Blunt. In that case, that would involve an outside 
investor you would expect?
    Ms. McCarthy. It would involve just a collaboration between 
them and some of the larger utilities to think about 
opportunities to actually join together in a joint plan and to 
be able to allow the utility that wants to make investments to 
offset their greenhouse gas emissions to be able to utilize the 
renewable energy that's in rural communities as an inexpensive 
way to get reductions, but also a way that will reduce energy 
costs for those communities.
    So there are wonderful relationships that we can build, and 
we'll continue to sit down and work with the rural co-ops and 
try to make sure that there are no opportunities lost in terms 
of their ability, not just to meet these challenges, but also 
to benefit from them.
    Senator Blunt. Well, you know Missouri is 80 percent 
dependent on coal.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Blunt. We were 82 percent dependent on coal just a 
few years ago, so we must be headed in the direction that you 
would like to see us head, but 80 percent--and the rural co-ops 
are more than 80 percent dependent on coal.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Blunt. The impact in those counties and those areas 
is going to be greater, you know, in counties like Pemiscot 
County or Shannon County, and in the southeast and south-
central Missouri, already are at the 20 percent family income 
rate for utilities, and anything that impacts that has a 
tremendous impact on what those families can do.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Blunt. On the Waters of the United States, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that EPA had 
violated the Anti-Deficiency Act when conducting a social media 
campaign promoting Waters of the United States, one of many 
criticisms of how that rule came together. What are you doing 
about that?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, we have a report into the Office of 
Management and Budget. Senator, we didn't agree with the GAO's 
findings, but it doesn't mean we're not going to respect the 
process. And we have a corrective action or a report into the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and we're going to do a 
couple of things. We followed all the rules of OMB in terms of 
how you do social media outreach. There were two issues which 
the GAO found that they had concerns with, and we're going to 
provide an opportunity in particular for when we do a blog post 
that has what they call a hyperlink that goes to another Web 
site. We found that some agencies can provide better and 
clearer acknowledgement that you're leaving the Federal Web 
site when you use that hyperlink. We have already taken the 
same action. That should provide a, I think, level of 
insulation that GAO might be looking for, but we're waiting for 
OMB to do a full review of that report, but any funding that we 
use was limited at best, if we use any, in terms of the two 
social media outreach issues or efforts that they had concerns 
with.
    Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. I'm out of time. I'm 
sure I'll have some questions for the record. And on that issue 
generally of who's paying for advertisements or things that 
show up on social media Web sites, I think people should see 
that that's clearly paid for by taxpayers if it's being paid 
for by taxpayers.
    Thank you.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
    Senator Leahy.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
    Administrator McCarthy, we talked earlier about the time 
you joined me on the shores of Lake Champlain to see some 
portions of the lake that are affected repeatedly by nutrient 
pollution as a result of decades of pollution that's built up 
in the lake. And Vermont wants to do the right thing. The 
Environmental Protection Agency has been working for 5 years to 
develop a new Total Maximum Daily Load plan, I believe you call 
it TMDL, for Vermont to address this problem. Vermont has to 
know how to react, but there have been many delays and that, 
but we have yet to see the final document. And interestingly 
enough, while developing this aggressive new plan, the 
administration has not increased funding requests for work on 
Lake Champlain.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Leahy. A number of areas have been able to get 
additional funding that they thought that could help on Lake 
Champlain, but it seems to go elsewhere.
    This year, the administration requested a significant 
reduction compared to last year's total funding level. I'm 
afraid we may be getting into some kind of a Hobson's choice 
here.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Leahy. When will Vermont see a Lake Champlain 
phosphorus TMDL issued by EPA Region 1? And when we do see it, 
how are you going to help fund this important and very 
expensive undertaking?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, we do----
    Senator Leahy. I say it because this lake has the most--
outside of the five Great Lakes, has the most freshwater in the 
country. It affects New York, Vermont, and Canada, hundreds of 
feet deep in parts. So it's a real jewel, but only if it's 
constantly worked at to keep clean.
    Ms. McCarthy. And I certainly recognize your championship 
efforts on this, and, frankly, as well as the Governor in the 
State. I couldn't be more pleased with the response, including 
in your State legislature on this issue.
    This spring EPA intends to issue the final TMDL for Lake 
Champlain. We're working closely with the State of Vermont so 
that we can respond to the public comments effectively and make 
sure that the revisions are really going to be whatever 
everybody expects to see to get Lake Champlain where it needs 
to be. I do recognize that there is disappointment in the 
funding for the geographic program. I wish I had an ability to 
be able to fund those programs at higher levels. I think we all 
know the challenges in the Agency's budget.
    The good news is that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, 
as well as the Section 319 grants, are really the primary way 
in which we can be supportive of Vermont's implementation to 
the TMDL. So I'll work with Region 1 to make sure that there is 
a commensurate commitment. I do not want any State to feel like 
they have to bear this burden themselves, even one that's been 
as generous and aggressive as the State of Vermont.
    Senator Leahy. And our legislature goes out of session in a 
couple weeks till next year, so as soon as we can know that, 
the better.
    Another area is a dangerous chemical known as 
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Apparently it's gotten into 
private wells and municipal water supplies in Vermont, in North 
Bennington panel. I went and visited them a couple of weeks 
ago. I talked to a number of the homeowners who are hurt by 
this. I've heard their concerns firsthand. Also, invited the 
head of the company that now owns the manufacturing site 
believed to be responsible for the North Bennington 
contamination. There are more cases popping up all the time. 
It's not going to be taken care of overnight.
    I mention this, and some will be up in the EPA, and I want 
to tell you I've heard nothing but praise for EPA Region 1 and 
their reaction. Some were there when I came there, but they 
weren't there just the day I was there, they were days before 
and days afterward. The only problem we have with EPA is you 
have to issue a uniform guidance on what level should be 
considered a risk.
    And I'll tell you why. Some of this is showing up in New 
York just across the border from Vermont. They may be following 
the EPA provisional health advisory of 400 parts per trillion 
for the contamination at Hoosick Falls. Eight miles away in 
North Bennington, Vermont, we have 20 parts per trillion, and 
everybody wants to do the right thing, everybody wants to 
protect their people, but we want to know what the numbers 
should be. And actually it's going to be we're probably going 
to find this in other parts of the country.
    So, one, when can we have uniform guidance? And can you 
tell me what your funding requests are going to be for this?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, at this point, we have been doing 
national testing on PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), 
we call them perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), and we have been 
doing it as an unregulated contaminant, and we identified it 
and we've been doing extensive monitoring for about a year. 
That is to underpin a health advisory that we want to get out 
this spring and hopefully very soon. We know there is a lot of 
anxiety about EPA providing some guidance on this issue.
    The good news is that while we are seeing it nationally, we 
are seeing it connected with localized problems, as you 
indicate, and there are opportunities for current technologies 
to be able to bring those levels down considerably.
    So, Senator, if you can be just a short while more patient, 
we're trying to make sure that we get the science right and 
we're able to explain this with States and local communities so 
they can understand what the health advisory is and isn't 
moving forward.
    Senator Leahy. Okay. Thank you. Also, I'll submit a 
question for you. This is something that the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska and I and others have raised, those from 
States that use a lot of wood stoves.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Leahy. We know new standards are coming, but we 
don't know when and what they're going to be, and you have 
manufacturers say, okay, we've got to test or retest and set 
up, and if they come at the last minute and they say, ``Here's 
what you've got to do,'' they're going to be out of business 
because, you know, it takes some retooling. And if that 
happens, and I think the Senator from Alaska would probably 
agree, if that happens, people are going to--you're going to 
have worse problems, and they'll say, ``Heck, I'm not going to 
spend money on one of the new ones, they don't know what 
they're doing, they can't manufacture, so we'll just keep on 
using the old ones.''
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, we did actually work really 
hard with the small businesses, which there are many in the 
wood stove industry, to make sure that the rule that was passed 
a while ago and those standards actually have an extended 
compliance period so that those small businesses that aren't 
yet prepared to deliver stoves that can meet those standards 
have an opportunity to design and construct those so they don't 
lose step in terms of their ability to compete.
    So we've worked hard at it. We think the standards are 
pretty clear, and we think they're done in a way that's very 
sensitive of small businesses.
    Senator Leahy. My time--I've gone over my time, but we may 
have to talk more on that. Thank you.
    Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
    Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Welcome back, Gina, to the subcommittee.
    Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Daines. Your budget proposal includes $235 million 
for the EPA efforts to cut carbon pollution and greenhouse 
gases included in the Clean Power Plan.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Daines. Given the Supreme Court's issue to stay the 
final rule for the Clean Power Plan, I want to ask about the 
costs and benefits about this final rule. You stated in the 
EPA's regulatory analysis of the Clean Power Plan that the 
purpose of the rule is to cut CO2 emissions from the 
contribution to climate change, quoting. The EPA Web site 
defines climate change to include major changes in temperature. 
I'm trained in engineering, chemical engineering, looking at 
numbers. Can you tell me what the impact of global warming 
would be from the Clean Power Plan?
    Ms. McCarthy. Actually, the Supreme Court asked us a very 
similar question and agreed with us that while we can't define 
the exact reductions that would be achieved from any one action 
in climate, there is absolutely no reason to do that because we 
know it will take a lot of efforts to actually make those 
reductions. And the President's move to actually push forward 
with this Climate Action Plan and the Clean Power Plan was to 
recognize that the energy sector is our largest source, 
stationary source, of emissions, and it will make big progress 
moving forward domestically and internationally.
    Senator Daines. But I think it's important to quantity 
because we have quantified the tremendous impact----
    Ms. McCarthy. Oh, okay.
    Senator Daines [continuing]. On people----
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Daines [continuing]. In Montana specifically 
because we're one of the States hardest hit by this plan.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Daines. Cato ran the numbers through the magic 
algorithm and assessed that the change in climate temperature 
for the world would be .02 degrees Centigrade between now and 
the year 2100 as a result of these regulations, which says it's 
a rounding error, and yet as we look at what impact it will 
have on the people of Montana, it's a loss of 7,000 jobs. This 
is a study done by the University of Montana. This wasn't some 
conservative think tank. This is objective, they're very 
respected back home, the University of Montana, 7,000 lost 
jobs, $145 million of lost tax revenues we use to support our 
schools and teachers and infrastructure, double-digit increases 
in utility rates, and a loss of $1.5 billion of economic 
activity in Montana per year, and the conclusion was it's the 
single largest economic impact and event to occur in Montana in 
over 30 years.
    So we've quantified the impact to families. I've stood and 
looked at the families there that are going to lose their jobs 
because of this. For what? For one quantitative analysis for 
.02 degrees Centigrade change in temperature between now and 
the year 2100. Why are we doing this?
    Ms. McCarthy. Sir, the actual net benefits of this rule are 
very large, not just in terms of our ability to generate the 
kind of actions on climate change that are necessary to protect 
those very families, but there is also----
    Senator Daines. But wait a minute, but wait a minute, if 
the impact on temperature is virtually negligible, what impact 
are we trying to drive here?
    Ms. McCarthy. We're trying to get actual domestic and 
international agreements, which this Clean Power Plan has 
helped to initiate to get worldwide response to what is 
essentially a worldwide problem, but----
    Senator Daines. So by getting at--by killing the coal 
industry, which your regulations are doing----
    Ms. McCarthy. No.
    Senator Daines [continuing]. They're killing coal-fired 
plants, the regulations are going to result in the shutdown of 
Colstrip Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. It's a significant--where we--
over 50 percent of the electricity generated in Montana is from 
coal-fired plants. You're going to shut them all down with 
these regulations. And I lived in China for 5 years, I've 
breathed the air. We need to help China continue to become 
better in terms of managing their environment, but to 
completely step away from the coal-fired business and to take 
American innovation out of the equation to let America lead in 
clean coal technology versus ceding it to the Chinese I think 
is a grave strategic mistake as it relates to overall 
stewardship of the planet.
    Ms. McCarthy. I think there are many ways in which Montana 
can achieve these standards. We've tried very hard to make sure 
they're both reasonable and flexible, but, sir, you have to 
look at both the positive benefits of the rule.
    Senator Daines. No, wait, the proposed rule was very 
different from what was actually generated. You gave us a 
proposal.
    Ms. McCarthy. It was correct.
    Senator Daines. When the actual rule came out, it was a 
bait-and-switch in Montana. It is correct. And so we've been 
caught absolutely here with we're cornered.
    Ms. McCarthy. No, what happened was the number did shift, 
but the way in which you're allowed to achieve that number and 
the flexibilities very much changed to allow that number to be 
very commensurate, with the same strategy you would have used 
to achieve the proposal, you can still find as an amenable 
strategy----
    Senator Daines. We don't--we're struggling right now. We 
don't see a path forward on this at the moment other than to 
have to literally look at shuttering our Colstrip Units 1, 2, 
3, and 4. This is a big, big issue. And again the study says 
the single biggest economic impact to hit my State in over 30 
years. These are real families. This is tax revenues for our 
teachers and our schools. It's $1.5 billion a year to my State. 
We can't replace that.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, we share the concern for families. I 
think we--I just view certainly climate change as being a very 
large----
    Senator Daines. Well, but wait a minute. Come back to 
quantifying it, though. I challenge you to come back and tell 
me why the Cato study is wrong, .02 degrees Centigrade between 
now and the year 2100, it's been quantified through the magic 
algorithm done for the EPA.
    Ms. McCarthy. Sir, that's not the benefit that you're 
trying to establish or quantify here. There are both costs and 
benefits. Our regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this rule 
showed that in 2030 we are looking at upwards of $45 billion 
every year in benefits. And so there are benefits from 
traditional pollutant reductions, and there are certainly going 
to be benefits, as Paris showed, in the United States providing 
domestic leadership that will underpin strong international 
efforts, and that international effort, it is what is going to 
allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is 
going to provide a more stable world for our kids.
    Senator Daines. China, as you know, China consumes 50 
percent of the world's coal right now. We're about 10 percent 
here in the United States, and so we've got the tail wagging 
the dog here. This is where we have got to--I think the better 
strategy, and you're hearing from somebody here who is a 
passionate outdoorsman, loves spending time at 10,000 feet with 
my backpack on, and an ardent protector of clean water and 
clean air, as a fifth generation Montanan, but we've got to 
also I think have the right balance here, and I think 
strategically by working with us to develop clean coal 
technology is a better strategic bet. And we can help the 
Chinese with this ultimately, because if they don't change, 
you're not going to solve some of these challenges we face 
globally----
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, we're certainly trying to do that as 
well.
    Senator Daines [continuing]. And so I just think we're 
making a grave mistake by killing the industry and taking away 
American innovation from boilermakers, the trade unions, and so 
forth, who want to work to solve this problem, and instead 
you're going to put them out of work, and that's the reality of 
it.
    Ms. McCarthy. All right, sir. Thank you.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    Senator Murkowski. Senator Udall.
    Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your 
courtesies.
    Administrator McCarthy, reducing methane emissions is a 
critical part of our Nation's fight against climate change. 
Methane is a serious problem. It has 25 times the heat-trapping 
potential of carbon dioxide. And a recent EPA study found that 
methane emissions from oil and gas production are even higher 
than we had estimated. It's a serious budget issue, too. In New 
Mexico alone, venting and flaring has cost the State more than 
$42 million in lost royalty revenues since 2009. Reducing 
methane emissions is a win-win for the environment and for our 
State budgets, and that's why I'm supportive of the 
administration's goal to cut methane emissions by 40 to 45 
percent.
    I think the proposed regulations on new and modified 
sources are a good start, but we need EPA to set effective 
workable standards for leak detection and repairs and to 
investigate emerging technologies that could cut emissions even 
more.
    What is the timeline for the proposed standards? And what 
is the plan for a proposal on existing sources of methane 
emissions? And does the proposed rule consider industry 
feedback to minimize the potential impact on production when 
oil prices are low?
    Ms. McCarthy. We do have proposals moving forward to 
finalization this spring, but relative to the existing sources 
right now, one of the biggest challenges we see is that the 
most recent greenhouse gas data shows us there are a lot of 
methane emissions that we had not accounted for previously. And 
what we are doing instead of immediately moving to proposal is 
we are putting out an information collection request to the 
industry because we need to understand better where those 
emissions are being generated, we need to understand exactly 
what you've asked us. What are the technologies that we can 
take advantage of? And what are the costs associated with those 
so we could provide reasonable standards moving forward and 
continue to work with States that have really good knowledge of 
the industry in their own States? And many of them are 
regulating them, and some very effectively, so that we're not 
duplicating and we're providing the kind of benefits that we 
all are looking for.
    Senator Udall. Thank you. That's encouraging to hear that.
    From--now talking about Navajo uranium cleanup.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Udall. From 1944 to 1986, 4 million tons of uranium 
ore were mined in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico from lands 
belonging to the Navajo Nation. The demand for uranium mining 
skyrocketed during World War II, when little was known about 
the dangers. Even as we learn more, the Federal Government 
repeatedly failed to take steps to protect workers and their 
families. I visited the homes of workers impacted by uranium 
contamination. I've met the widows of men who worked in the 
mines and died in their early 30s.
    Uranium mining has a tragic legacy, and it's our 
responsibility to prevent more deaths. Over 500 abandoned 
uranium mine claims remain in the Navajo Nation, including 145 
in New Mexico. The areas around the Church Rock Mine spill, the 
site of the largest accidental radiation release in U.S. 
history, still needs extensive cleanup.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Udall. I appreciate the EPA's efforts to clean up 
uranium on Navajo land during the Agency's first 5-year plan, 
we worked very closely with you on that, but more work still 
needs to be done given the extent of the contamination. EPA is 
now starting a second 5-year cleanup plan. What are EPA's 
specific goals for this second round of cleanup? And how much 
funding is set aside in the budget for this year and next year?
    And the Church Rock Mine near Gallup is the EPA's top 
priority. I am concerned about how long cleanup is scheduled to 
take. We have heard it may not begin until 2020 and may take 7 
to 9 years to finish. Why will the cleanup take so long to 
start and finish? And can we speed it up?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, just specific to this year, we plan to 
spend $16.6 million this year looking at 46 high priority mines 
that are located near homes and streams, and the work will 
include replacing contaminated homes and providing water. But 
the good news is with the settlements that we have been able to 
achieve with Tronox, there is significant funding that we're 
working on with the States in, and, in particular, with the 
Navajo Nation as well, to try to continue to make steady 
progress.
    Relative to Church Rock Mine, you're right, it is a 
complicated site. It is projected to take a little longer. I 
think part of that is related to the fact that we have to go 
through some Nuclear Regulatory permitting obligations 
associated with that. But I will do the best I can to make sure 
that we're providing the kind of prompt response that we can.
    Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much. Talking a little 
bit about the Mexico border water funding.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Udall. Chairman Murkowski, thank you for your work 
to prioritize the Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program in 
2016. Our funding is tight these days, and I appreciate you 
recognize the clean water challenges we face on the border.
    Many border communities lack water and sewer services. This 
program helps ensure that these underserved areas finally get 
their basic sanitary services. It's critical in New Mexico, but 
I'm concerned about the program's future. There are at least 
$800 million in remaining projects that we have a huge need out 
there, and I'm disappointed that the budget request is just $5 
million. It's hard to imagine how we make progress at that 
pace.
    Administrator McCarthy, can you share more information 
about the estimated need for water infrastructure projects on 
the U.S.-Mexico border? What can EPA do to better meet the 
long-term needs of our border communities?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, I happened to spend a little 
bit of time along that border, and the needs are rather 
dramatic, as you well know. It's been a very successful 
opportunity to look at how we support projects in that area 
that will both be protective of local public health as well as 
our tremendous water resources in those areas.
    We have a number of projects that are in the pipeline that 
have been funded. You're right, we are looking at a fiscal year 
2017 proposal of $5 million. That will allow us to continue to 
add new projects into the system, but we're trying very hard to 
work within limited resources to be able to continue to 
construct the 14 projects that are already funded and in the 
system as well as to continue to add in a reasonable way. But 
certainly the more funding we have, the more that we can get 
done.
    Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much.
    And thank you again, Chairman Murkowski, for your 
courtesies.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall.
    And we will now go to Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Administrator McCarthy, thank you for being here today. The 
number one regulation opposed by our farmers and ranchers, not 
just in North Dakota, but really across the country, is WOTUS, 
Waters of the United States, and, in fact, in Federal district 
court in Fargo, North Dakota, the judge, Judge Ralph Erickson, 
stayed that regulation, and that stay was upheld by the circuit 
court in Cincinnati.
    And so my question to you is, what are you doing to address 
the concerns that WOTUS has created? And it's not just our 
farmers and ranchers, it's the energy industry and many others. 
But what are you doing to try to address their concerns?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think we tried very hard to try to 
address their concerns in the Clean Water Rule that we put 
forward. You're absolutely right, that rule is stayed, and 
we're respecting that stay. We will see what the courts say 
when they look in detail at the merits, and we'll do our best, 
hopefully we'll succeed, in sticking through the courts, we're 
confident of that. But in the meantime, I think we need to 
continue to work with agriculture to provide the level of 
certainty they're looking for.
    One of the reasons we did this rule in the first place was 
the uncertainty and the costs associated with that both in time 
and money. And I think we tried very hard to have this proposal 
be not just respectful of the exemptions and exceptions for 
agriculture that were in place already, but to better define 
those, to expand those, and to make this an easier opportunity 
for agriculture to keep producing the food, fuel, and fiber we 
rely on.
    Now, clearly we have work to bridge the gap between how 
people are perceiving this rule and what we think is the clear 
written rule when you look at it and look at its merits. But 
right now we have to respect the court's decision and make sure 
that they have an opportunity for all sides to be heard, and 
I'm sure they'll make a decision quickly.
    Senator Hoeven. And I would encourage you to, between 
yourself and your people, engage with the farm and ranch 
groups, sit down and talk to them.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Hoeven. You know, they want to be good stewards out 
there, but, as you say, they do produce the food, fuel, and 
fiber for this country. And you need to sit down and have your 
people sit down and talk to them and find out, you know, maybe 
what you can do to actually help address their very real 
concerns on this regulation.
    Ms. McCarthy. Senator, thank you.
    Senator Hoeven. Next I would say on the CO2 
rules that the EPA has put forward.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Hoeven. In the case of North Dakota, we went from, 
in the preliminary rule of reduction, of 11 percent to now a 
required reduction of 45 percent in terms of CO2. 
How are we supposed to meet that without just closing power 
plants? What are you willing to do to help the industry?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, we're certainly--I think we've been to 
North Dakota a number of times----
    Senator Hoeven. You have come to North Dakota. We 
appreciate that.
    Ms. McCarthy. Not at all. We're trying to make sure that we 
work with the utilities and with the States and with, 
obviously, the energy regulators. One of the reasons why that 
reduction number changed is we really opened this up to be seen 
as much more of a regional way of approaching an issue because 
that's how the energy sector works.
    Senator Hoeven. Mm-hmm.
    Ms. McCarthy. And part of the whole rule is trying to 
follow the sector that we're regulating in a way that we don't 
limit the flexibility that is already in the system.
    So I would continue to encourage if you--we will be at any 
meeting you want to hold so that we can try to continue to work 
and talk about this while the court is reviewing the rule 
itself.
    Senator Hoeven. We have engaged Janet McCabe.
    Ms. McCarthy. Good.
    Senator Hoeven. The industry is working on this, but 
they're going to need help. Obviously, we think there are real 
problems with it. We're going to continue to work on it, as you 
know, in terms of our concerns about it, but we do need your 
support for Janet McCabe to work with our industry as they try 
to address some of these issues. We met with her, but we need 
your continued support to get all the flexibility and help 
possible.
    Ms. McCarthy. Senator, you have been terrific to work with 
in terms of agreeing that while we don't agree on everything--
--
    Senator Hoeven. Right.
    Ms. McCarthy [continuing]. That we continue to work 
together, and I very much appreciate that.
    Senator Hoeven. Along that line, for our oil industry----
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Hoeven [continuing]. Which you know right now is 
challenged by oil prices, but it's a very vibrant industry, 
they're very technologically savvy, they're working very hard, 
not only to produce more oil, but to continue to improve 
environmental stewardship. That means continued developments in 
directional drilling that reduces the footprint on the surface, 
finding ways to produce more oil with less impact, reducing the 
amount of water that's required for things like hydraulic 
fracturing, even going to CO2, sequestration using 
CO2, sequestration as a way to fracture and produce 
oil rather than even using water.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Hoeven. A lot of new technologies that can produce 
more energy most effectively with better environmental 
stewardship, but they need to have a regulatory environment 
where they can work and deploy the investment and deploy these 
new technologies to accomplish both, more energy and better 
stewardship.
    Right now, they're facing about, the oil industry is facing 
about, 50 different regulations that they're trying to comply 
with, not all from EPA, but a number of them from EPA, but 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). How do we get a 
rationalized structure so that they can actually innovate? 
Which is I think what you want as well as what we want.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sure do.
    Senator Hoeven. But we need--all these different 
regulations, and they've got to figure out how to work with 
them. One regulation might stop them from putting in gas-
gathering systems on Federal land at the same time they're 
trying to reduce methane emissions from flares. You see? And 
the two regulations work against each other, right?
    So, and, for example, in Section 114, we're right in the 
middle of that, we have a State taskforce that's trying to work 
with that. Again, I'm asking for some help from you to work 
with our State taskforce on Section 114, that's the specific; 
and, second, somehow to pull all these things together so our 
industry can actually get an understanding of what it is they 
need to do, particularly when we have conflicting regulations.
    What can you offer? [Laughter.]
    Ms. McCarthy. On Section 114, it is an enforcement 
mechanism, and I know there are discussions with our 
enforcement staff, and I think that's more than appropriate.
    Senator Hoeven. The biggest thing would be if you could 
encourage your staff to work with our taskforce that is working 
on that. Our State taskforce is working on that very issue, 
including our State health department and others.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, we consistently try to work with the 
States so that we're making sure I think you know that we're 
moving towards regulating methane from existing sources. We've 
had a brief discussion about that. And there are States that 
are doing a very effective job at regulating. And so I'm not 
looking to reinvent the wheel, I'm not looking to one-up, but I 
am looking to see what kind of technologies are available and 
cost effective to take care of these emissions in the best way 
that we can. I think that is what provides the stability for 
the industry to continue to innovate and invest moving forward. 
That is what drives innovation and provides them a level 
playing field across the board to make sure that development is 
happening in a way that's safe and responsible.
    So I think we share the same goals, I just want to make 
sure that we're doing it in a way that's consistent with 
current law and that provides us the opportunity to continue to 
work together.
    Senator Hoeven. The biggest thing that would help with that 
right now, particularly on Section 114, is your commitment to 
get your people to work with our taskforce on Section 114. 
That's really my ask, that's the ask.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, I certainly know that the meetings 
continue.
    Senator Hoeven. Pardon me.
    Ms. McCarthy. I certainly know that the meetings continue, 
sir, but I do take a fairly hands-off approach when it's an 
enforcement issue, but I'm kept abreast of the discussions, and 
I will keep doing that.
    Senator Hoeven. Okay.
    Ms. McCarthy. All right.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
    Ms. McCarthy. Thanks.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
    And, Administrator, I appreciate the exchange here on the 
issue of methane. As I noted in my opening comments, what we've 
seen is that, even as we have added new wells into the system, 
we have seen our methane emissions from petroleum and natural 
gas falling. That indicates to me that something is working 
here. Our States are doing what they need to do to regulate 
emissions from oil and gas.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski. And so your comments that you're not 
looking to regulate, you're not looking to one-up, I think was 
the terminology that you used----
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski [continuing]. To try to bring some 
stability. This is what we're hoping for here--making sure that 
we are looking to the States and what they're doing and how 
they're doing it. My observation is that this is an issue where 
the EPA does not need to take a top-down, command and control 
approach. A better approach is to work with the industry, and 
work with the States on a more narrowly tailored basis. It 
sounds like your words are in agreement, and that that's how 
you would like to proceed.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, we certainly want to collaborate with 
the States, because I do agree with you, there are many States 
that are doing a great job, and we're learning from them and 
hopefully working with them.
    Senator Murkowski. Right. I mentioned in my comments about 
some concerns that I'm seeing as you're proposing to move some 
funds that people are looking very critically because of what's 
going on with our water and waste water infrastructure.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski. I mentioned that the budget reduces 
funding for State Revolving Funds by approximately $257 
million. So you not only have the Flint issue that is still in 
the news daily, but we just had a report that 28 public and 
private entities in Alaska have water systems with lead levels 
that exceed the Federal standard. And it's not just Michigan, 
it's not just Alaska, I'm hearing it from colleagues all over. 
So at the same time we're seeing this reduction in the State 
Revolving Funds (SRF), we are looking at a proposal within the 
Agency to increase the core regulatory programs by more than 
$237 million.
    I raise this because, as people are focused on the issues 
that are most concerning to them, and quite honestly, having 
drinking water is----
    Ms. McCarthy. Where you don't need to rely on this.
    Senator Murkowski. Yes, you don't need to rely on this.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski. The people in Flint have to have it in 
the bottle. The stories about people being fearful of bathing 
in the water.
    So I guess the specific question is, why is the Agency 
choosing to make such large cuts from the State Revolving Fund 
to pay for effectively additional personnel?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, we're trying to shift the 
funds that are available to us while still having an operating 
Agency to be able to implement those and move forward with all 
of the core needs that we intend to provide. I think the big 
challenge that we have is, how do we use a combination of SRF 
dollars, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
(WIFIA) dollars, and creative economic solutions that we can 
work with to generate more private sector investment in water 
and wastewater? You're right that we would all like to have 
more funds, and I'm sure that the subcommittee will or the 
subcommittee will recommend and the subcommittee will look at 
this issue. But we're trying to respect the constraints that we 
have on the bipartisan budget agreement and still provide an 
opportunity for the Agency to function in a budget that really 
is very consistent with what we might have looked at in 2010, 
and we are well beyond that in terms of our obligations and our 
commitments and the needs we see.
    Senator Murkowski. I concur that these are constrained 
budgets, but you've got a tough job----
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski [continuing]. And that tough job is 
prioritization----
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski [continuing]. And, again, when it comes 
to something as basic as safe drinking water, there is nothing 
that is capturing the news more clearly and more directly than 
what we're seeing. It's confusing to me that, within the 
administration, you would take from that very fund that can 
help the people of Flint, that can help these 28 communities, 
that can help the people in Ohio or wherever. We are looking at 
this issue as a subcommittee, but the signal that comes out of 
the administration, I don't think--if I were the people in 
Flint, I wouldn't be feeling too good about that as a 
direction.
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, the only thing I would 
actually point out is that we are increasing the drinking water 
fund commensurate with our concern for drinking water. I think 
the challenge we have is, how do we do that in a way that 
doesn't really reduce the level we have for clean water, our 
wastewater challenges?
    Senator Murkowski. Right.
    Ms. McCarthy. And it's a very difficult one, but you will 
see that we are significantly proposing an increase in the 
drinking water side.
    Senator Murkowski. Let me ask two very, very quick 
questions here and then we'll wrap up because we've kept you 
over the time.
    Ms. McCarthy. Sure. All right.
    Senator Murkowski. Fish grinding.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski. You know, you don't get any other 
Senators that are going to talk to you about fish grinding, but 
it is something that I had actually thought that we were on the 
verge of a solution, getting down to the standard here. I was 
disheartened to hear that now Region 10 is saying we could be 
years away from a solution, which is astonishing to me that we 
could be going backwards that far. So do you have any update in 
terms of where we are with fish grinding on the seafood 
processing vessels?
    Ms. McCarthy. Well, I'm glad you raised it because it's an 
issue that I told you we would try to resolve, and I really 
would like to do that.
    Senator Murkowski. Yes. We thought it was going to be 
easier than this.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes, I did, too. We have looked at the data, 
and I think there are a lot of comments that we have received 
on it. And the original data really wasn't as good as the data 
we have available today, which says if we make a shift in these 
requirements, we'll still be able to maintain really good water 
quality standards. So we are looking forward to moving that 
along. There are apparently some concerns with endangered 
species impacts that we have been getting the fish community 
together with the services to try to resolve. I think the only 
way we can do this quickly is to try to elevate those issues, 
and I've asked the region to do those so that we can understand 
how we can move forward with the reissuance of the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit at a time 
when we both still talk to each other. [Laughter.]
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate that. There has 
been considerable headway made within the industry to reduce 
the amount of waste, and it's been quite notable, but I also 
recognize that you've got investment in new processing 
facilities that is basically put on hold right now until we 
know what the requirement is going to be. So, again, it was not 
unlike some of the issues that were raised here at the dais 
earlier. You've got a willingness to move forward with new 
technologies and new investment that make everything more 
efficient, and yet no one is going to make that capital 
commitment until we have some greater certainty.
    Ms. McCarthy. And the industry is being very good and at 
the table all the time, and I would really like to be able to 
acknowledge that and to be able to make the adjustments that 
the environment says we can make.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I'm with you. Yes. Let's elevate 
this then and see what we can't do. And in that same vein, I 
will continue to raise the issue about our small remote 
incinerators.
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski. And, again, we've been talking about 
this for a number of years, but it doesn't seem at this point 
in time like there's any solution outside of legislation. So as 
we talk, as we get our senior teams together, know that that 
remains a priority as well as the fish grinding, and then the 
IGAP, the backhaul program. We're making some headway on that. 
I think I mentioned to you in my phone call where we're working 
on an adopt-a-barge program. We're trying to come up with 
everything that we possibly can to be creative, to be 
innovative, and to deal with some of the trash and the junk 
that just doesn't have a way out of a State when you don't have 
roads.
    We want to try to work through many of these issues while 
you are still at the helm there, and so if you can dedicate 
some manpower to help us out, it would be greatly appreciated.
    Ms. McCarthy. We certainly--on the backhaul issue, there 
needs to be a solution here. We are provided some opportunity 
through October 2019 to resolve this. Every Federal agency that 
has anything to do with Alaska is at the table and looking at 
funding strategies as well as systemic plans to be able to 
address it.
    You know, the small incinerator issue, we do have to 
resolve it. My concern is not just that I have limited time, 
but 2018 is the compliance window here, and we still have yet 
to engage in a way that's going to be productive. And so your 
leadership, continued leadership, on this and our engagement 
one-on-one together to figure out a path forward will be really 
helpful.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay. I appreciate it.
    Ms. McCarthy. All right.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
               Questions Submitted to Hon. Gina McCarthy
             Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                   co2 emissions--aircraft
    Question. On February 8, 2016, the International Civil Aviation 
Organization (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 
(CAEP) unanimously agreed to establish new standards for aircraft 
CO2 emissions. ICAO successfully developed the new standard 
with the unanimous support of 23 member countries including the United 
States. Last summer, in anticipation of this milestone the EPA 
published for public comment a proposed endangerment finding and 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking that it would regulate aircraft 
greenhouse gas emissions subsequent to ICAO's pending actions. The EPA 
has always followed the precedent developed by ICAO for previous 
aircraft emissions standards and this CO2 standard will now 
provide the basis for the Agency to proceed with a rulemaking process 
to establish U.S. Standards.
    What are the anticipated milestones and projected schedule for 
proceeding with the rulemaking process for the U.S. Standards?
    Does the Agency intend to propose an aircraft CO2 
emissions regulation that includes a standard equivalent to the one the 
U.S. Government supported at ICAO?
    Answer. The EPA is currently evaluating, under the Clean Air Act, 
whether emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) from certain classes of 
aircraft engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. To set 
aircraft engine emission standards for GHGs, the EPA must first 
complete this ``endangerment finding,'' and conclude that Greenhouse 
Gas (GHG) emissions from such classes of aircraft engines meet these 
criteria. In 2015, the EPA proposed a positive endangerment finding, 
and is expected to take final action regarding the proposed 
endangerment finding this summer. If the EPA finds that GHG emissions 
from such classes of aircraft engines do cause or contribute to 
endangerment under the Clean Air Act, the EPA would then undertake a 
domestic rulemaking with an opportunity for public input, to adopt 
appropriate aircraft engine emissions standards that are at least as 
stringent as the ICAO standards. The EPA would look to propose domestic 
GHG emissions standards for aircraft in 2017, consistent with agency 
priorities and available resources.
       sediment guidance and adaptive management policies report
    Question. Last year, the subcommittee requested the agency to 
submit within 90 days of enactment an analysis of the degree to which 
sediment guidance and adaptive management policies are being applied at 
sediment sites. Can the agency provide an update on the status of that 
report?
    Answer. At the request of Congress, the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) began an audit of Superfund Sediment Sites 
(100205) in August 2015. Based upon the GAO's questions, this audit is 
expected to include an evaluation of how the EPA applies the 
recommendations in the 2005 sediment remediation guidance. On June 30, 
2016, an exit conference with the EPA and GAO was held to share 
findings of the audit. In light of the GAO audit's completion, the EPA 
will review the audit results to determine if additional analysis or 
information is needed. After completing our review of the audit, the 
EPA would like to discuss with the subcommittee whether a report is 
still needed.
                      clean power plan--25 states
    Question. In earlier testimony you stated that 25 States continue 
to work on implementation of the Clean Power Plan. Has this number 
changed since you made that statement and, if so, in what manner?
    Answer. Since the stay was issued, many States have said they 
intend to move forward voluntarily to continue to work to cut carbon 
pollution from power plants and are seeking the agency's guidance and 
assistance. The agency will be providing such assistance, which is not 
precluded by the stay. In particular, they have asked us to move 
forward with our outreach and to continue providing support and 
developing tools, including the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), 
the proposed model rules, and the proposed evaluation, measurement and 
verification (EM&V) guidance. For example, on April 28, 2016, a group 
of 14 State environmental agency officials wrote the EPA to request 
that we provide a final model rule or rules, additional information on 
the Clean Energy Incentive Program, and other information and 
assistance.
    Many organizations are tracking State actions and statements 
related to CPP. These include the E&E Publishing Clean Power Plan hub 
(http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan), National 
Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), Association of Air Pollution 
Control Agencies (AAPCA), and Environmental Council of States (ECOS).
                  clean power plan--list of 25 states
    Question. Can you provide a list of the 25 States you believe 
continue to work on the CPP and your understanding of the work they 
have on-going?
    Answer. Since the stay was issued, many States have said they 
intend to move forward voluntarily to continue to work to cut carbon 
pollution from power plants and are seeking the agency's guidance and 
assistance. The agency will be providing such assistance, which is not 
precluded by the stay. In particular, they have asked us to move 
forward with our outreach and to continue providing support and 
developing tools, including the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), 
the proposed model rules, and the proposed evaluation, measurement and 
verification (EM&V) guidance. For example, on April 28, 2016, a group 
of 14 State environmental agency officials wrote the EPA to request 
that we provide a final model rule or rules, additional information on 
the Clean Energy Incentive Program, and other information and 
assistance.
    Many organizations are tracking State actions and statements 
related to CPP. These include the E&E Publishing Clean Power Plan hub 
(http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan), National 
Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), Association of Air Pollution 
Control Agencies (AAPCA), and Environmental Council of States (ECOS).
                   market capacity study company list
    Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA's 
implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the 
fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to 
understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial 
consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the 
following information.
    A list the company names EPA has consulted within the financial and 
insurance sectors to prepare the market capacity study required by the 
fiscal year 2016 omnibus.
    Answer. The EPA is conducting a market study that addresses 
requests for information included with several committee reports. The 
draft study examines both the current state and future outlook of the 
markets for financial responsibility instruments based on publically 
available and attributable data from the U.S. Department of Treasury, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), S&P Global Ratings, 
industry leaders, and non-profit institutions.
    The draft study report is currently undergoing internal review. The 
EPA expects to make the report available before it issues the proposed 
hard rock mining rule.
    As part of its ongoing efforts to develop the proposed Hard Rock 
Mining rule under CERCLA 108(b), the EPA has met with XL Catlin, ACE 
group, Great American Insurance, Zurich, Liberty Mutual, Deutsche Bank, 
U.S. Bank, JP Morgan Chase and Argo Surety. The EPA also has met with 
the American Banking Association, the Institute of International 
Banking Law and Practice, and the Surety Fidelity Association of 
America. These discussions focused primarily on the agency's current 
thinking related to the mechanics of the financial responsibility 
instruments that owners and operators would need to obtain under the 
rule.
          market capacity study company--detailed information
    Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA's 
implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the 
fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to 
understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial 
consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the 
following information.
    In addition to the list of company names, detailed information on 
the initial outreach to the financial and insurance sectors, including: 
the date of the first communication; and the letter, e-mail, or other 
form of written communication regarding the consultation process.
    Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA's 
implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the 
fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to 
understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial 
consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the 
following information.
    Detailed information on the consultation process, including: the 
dates of each meeting or conference call held with the financial and 
insurance sectors; the participants of each meeting or conference call 
(including EPA headquarters and regional staff); and all materials 
shared with the financial and insurance sectors during this 
consultation process.
    Answer. Below are the dates of each meeting or conference call held 
with the financial and insurance sectors. The EPA also includes numbers 
and affiliations of participants. No EPA regional staff participated in 
the meetings or calls.
    December 8, 2015 meeting with insurance community. Meeting 
participants included Great American Insurance (one representative), XL 
Catlin (three representatives), ACE group (one representative), EPA 
Headquarters (HQ) (13 representatives), and two representatives of ICF 
International (an EPA contractor).
    January 12, 2016 meeting with banking community. Meeting 
participants included Institute of International Banking Law and 
Practice (four representatives), J.P. Morgan Chase (one 
representative), U.S. Bank (one representative), EPA HQ (8 
representatives) and two representatives of ICF International (an EPA 
contractor).
    January 14, 2016 meeting with surety community. Meeting 
participants included Zurich (one representative), Argo Surety (one 
representative), Liberty Mutual (two representatives), the Surety 
Fidelity Association of America (two representatives), EPA HQ (6 
representatives) and two representatives of ICF International (an EPA 
contractor).
    January 28, 2016 meeting with banking community. Meeting 
participants included Deutsche Bank (two representatives), U.S. Bank 
(five representatives), American Banking Association (one 
representative), EPA HQ (8 representatives), and two representatives of 
ICF International (an EPA contractor).
    February 1, 2016--Follow-up clarification call with JP Morgan (one 
participant) and EPA HQ (3 representatives).
    February 1, 2016--Follow-up clarification call with Zurich (one 
participant) and EPA HQ (3 representatives).
    February 3, 2016--Follow-up clarification call with Argo (one 
participant) and EPA HQ (3 representatives).
    February 29, 2016--Follow-up call with U.S. Bank (five 
participants) and EPA HQ (5 representatives).
                    market capacity study--epa plan
    Question. Based on our discussion regarding the EPA's 
implementation of the directive for a market capacity study in the 
fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill, I am seeking more information to 
understand the extent to which EPA is engaged in substantial 
consultation to inform that study. As such, please provide the 
following information.
    Please describe the agency's plans to continue this consultation 
process as it develops the proposed rule this year.
    Answer. The EPA has completed its consultation process. The draft 
study report is currently undergoing internal review. The EPA expects 
to make the report available before it issues the proposed hard rock 
mining rule. Members of the financial and insurance industry will have 
additional opportunity to provide input during the public comment 
period on the proposed rule. The EPA intends to monitor how the market 
responds to any final CERCLA 108(b) regulations.
                            cercla--hardrock
    Question. EPA states in its ``CERCLA Section 108(b) Hardrock Mining 
Rule Structure Overview'' filed with the D.C. Circuit on August 31, 
2015: ``To determine the amount of financial assurance responsibility 
required for response costs, the Agency is developing a model that 
would identify an amount of financial responsibility to reflect the 
primary site conditions that may result in future costs.'' Has the 
agency shared a draft of the model, or at minimum elements of the 
model, with the financial and insurance sectors?
    If yes, please include these materials with your response. If not, 
please provide a detailed explanation of why such materials were not 
shared to date and provide a specific timeline for when these materials 
will be shared in the consultation process.
    Answer. The EPA is developing a cost formula for determining the 
amount of financial assurance obligations that owners and operators 
will be required to cover under the rule, as noted above. The process 
for determining the required financial assurance amount was not 
relevant to the EPA's consultation with the financial and insurance 
sectors, which was focused primarily on the mechanics of the financial 
responsibility instruments that owners and operators would need to 
obtain under the rule.
    The development of this cost formula has been one of the more 
complex components in developing the CERCLA 108(b) proposed rule for 
hard rock mining. Data collection and formula development have been 
very time consuming endeavors. The formula is currently in the process 
of being reviewed and tested. The EPA also is drafting preamble 
language and regulatory text addressing how the formula is to be used 
by owners and operators. The EPA provided descriptive information on 
the formula and associated inputs in a May public Webinar, which 
attracted more than 400 participants. Many participants were from the 
financial and insurance sectors. The Webinar is available at https://
clu-in.org/conf/tio/108b/slides/CERCLA-108b-webinar.pdf.
                           cercla--108b rule
    Question. I understand that the EPA has consulted with the U.S. 
Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on potential 
duplication between the CERCLA 108(b) rule and their existing programs. 
Please indicate the dates and duration of any consultation meetings or 
conference calls between the Agency and BLM and USFS and provide the 
materials shared with the departments for this consultation.
    Answer. Below is a summary listing of dates upon which the EPA held 
consultation meetings with BLM and USFS. These meetings were designed 
to begin developing a joint path forward for requirements for hard rock 
mining financial responsibility on Federal lands. Through these 
meetings, the EPA learned about the other agencies' financial 
responsibility regulations for hard rock mining and their 
implementation, technical staff from all three agencies looked at 
selected issues regarding cost estimating and financial instruments, 
and the EPA communicated about CERCLA 108(b) and current thinking 
regarding potential approaches for the development of a proposed rule.

EPA--BLM--USFS Meetings on CERCLA 108(b)
Policy Group
    July 5, 2012
    August 8, 2012
    September 12, 2012
    October 10, 2012
    April 10, 2013
    November 18, 2013
    December 11, 2013
Workgroups
  Kick Off Both Groups
      January 25, 2013
  Technical Workgroup Financial Workgroup
      January 30, 2013 February 19, 2013
      February 13, 2013 March 5, 2013
      February 20, 2013 March 19, 2013
      March 20, 2013

    As the EPA thinking has progressed, the Agency has held additional 
meetings with BLM and USFS. In addition, these agencies have 
participated in a meeting with the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) in advance of the 
EPA's planned SBREFA (Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act) panel for the rulemaking:

  --July 2, 2015.--The EPA met with BLM and USFS regarding the EPA's 
        current thinking and approach for CERCLA 108(b) proposed 
        regulations for hard rock mines. Meeting duration: 1 hour.
  --May 10, 2016.--The EPA met with BLM and USFS regarding the EPA's 
        current thinking and approach for CERCLA 108(b) proposed 
        regulations for hard rock mines. Meeting duration: 1 hour.
  --May 11, 2016.--BLM and USFS participated in meeting with the EPA, 
        OMB and SBA. Meeting duration: 1.5 hours.
                       cercla--108b requirements
    Question. Please provide the legal analysis and supporting 
materials the agency relied on for concluding that Section 108(b) 
requirements are distinct from Federal closure and reclamation bonding 
requirements imposed under other statues.
    Answer. The EPA is scheduled to propose CERCLA Section 108(b) 
regulations for the hard rock mining industry by December 1, 2016. The 
objective is to promulgate stand-alone financial responsibility 
requirements under CERCLA, for CERCLA liabilities, and not for any 
obligations under other statutes. The agency does not expect the 
proposed rule to include technical requirements regulating the 
operation, closure, or reclamation of hardrock mining facilities, nor 
to provide for financial responsibility to ensure closure or 
reclamation requirements made applicable to hardrock mining facilities 
through a permit. Furthermore, the regulations are not expected to 
determine that a CERCLA response is required at any given regulated 
facility, nor affect CERCLA liability when an owner or operator 
provides evidence of financial responsibility.
    The EPA is studying how CERCLA 108(b) requirements may relate to or 
interact with other Federal laws; however, this rulemaking is still 
ongoing and is currently at the pre-proposal development stage. Neither 
legal conclusions nor factual findings have been made.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
                   presidential memorandum--section 1
    Question. Please articulate the ``clear and consistent approach for 
avoidance and minimization of, and compensatory mitigation for, the 
impacts of (the agency's) activities and the projects (the agency) 
approve(s)'' that EPA will adopt in accordance with Section 1 of the 
Presidential Memorandum (PM). How does this approach compare to current 
EPA policy and practice?
    Answer. The EPA's approach for mitigating adverse impacts to 
wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources (i.e., avoidance, 
minimization and compensation) is described in the agency's regulations 
40 CFR Part 230, promulgated in 1980. In 2008, the EPA, in coordination 
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, revised these regulations to 
include more detailed standards for compensatory mitigation. The 
agency's regulations, and corresponding policies and practices, are 
consistent with Section 1 of the Presidential Memorandum (PM) and, 
therefore, we do not anticipate the need to make significant changes in 
response to the PM.
                   presidential memorandum--net gain
    Question. Does EPA believe the PM establishes a ``net gain'' goal 
for mitigation activities required or recommended by Federal agencies 
as articulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its draft 
revised Mitigation Policy? If so, please define ``net gain,'' including 
how it will be measured and how much will be required or recommended?
    Answer. The Presidential Memorandum (PM) encourages agencies to 
establish a net benefit goal or, at a minimum, a no net loss goal for 
certain natural resources the agencies manage ``[t]o the extent 
permitted by each agency's legal authorities.'' While the Fish and 
Wildlife Service's draft Mitigation Policy does seek to incorporate 
this goal, the EPA is currently evaluating how a ``net gain'' goal 
might be applied to its programs.
         presidential memorandum--clean water act--section 404
    Question. Does EPA believe ``Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
codifies the significance of wetlands and other waters of the United 
States as important public resources for their habitat value, among 
other functions'' as stated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its 
draft revised Mitigation Policy? How does the PM affect respective 
jurisdictional responsibilities for EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service under the Clean Water Act?
    Answer. The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 230 that implement Clean 
Water Act section 404 identify wetlands and other specified resources 
as special aquatic sites and provide specialized requirements aimed to 
afford such resources greater protections. The Presidential Memorandum 
does not alter existing jurisdictional responsibilities for the EPA and 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Clean Water Act.
               presidential memorandum--large-scale plans
    Question. Please explain how EPA's use of ``large-scale plans'' in 
``identifying how proposed projects potentially impact natural 
resources and to guide better decisionmaking for mitigation'' as 
directed in Section 3 of the PM will compare to current practice in 
terms of procedures and outcomes.
    Answer. The Presidential Memorandum's recommendations regarding the 
use of large-scale plans to inform mitigation decisionmaking are 
consistent with the watershed approach to mitigation adopted by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA joint regulations issued in 
2008. The watershed approach encourages reliance on watershed plans to 
make more informed decisions about the type and location of mitigation 
projects. The ultimate goal of the watershed approach is to maintain 
and improve the quality and quantity of aquatic resources within 
watersheds through strategic selection of mitigation sites. For 
additional information see 33 CFR Part 332.3(c) and 40 CFR Part 
230.93(c).
        national drought resilience partnership--goals #4 and #5
    Question. As presented in the Federal Action Plan of the National 
Drought Resilience Partnership issued in concert with the PM, what is 
EPA's role relative to implementation actions ``Enhance Federal drought 
resilience investments at the watershed scale'' (Goal #4) and ``Support 
state local strategies for more flexible water management'' (Goal #5)?
    Answer. The EPA will continue to fully engage with the National 
Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP) in support of the Goals and 
Implementation Actions described in the Federal Action Plan. With 
respect to Goal 4 Implementation Action ``Enhance Federal Drought 
Resilience Investments at the Watershed Scale'' and Goal 5 
Implementation Action ``Support State and Local Strategies for More 
Flexible Water Management,'' the EPA is listed as a supporting agency 
to USDA and DOI. Over the coming months, specific activities pertaining 
to these and other Implementation Actions found in the Action plan will 
be developed. The exact nature of each agency's role also will be 
developed as the agencies move forward.
    As it states within the NDRP Action Plan, the overall objective of 
Goal 4 is to improve coordination and integration of drought-related 
activities to enhance the collective benefits of Federal programs and 
investments. The best way to accomplish this is through better 
coordination and collaboration within the Federal Government and with 
stakeholders on the ground. The EPA is in a position to promote this 
type of work based upon our strong working relationship with the 
States, specifically in terms of the State Revolving Funds (SRF). While 
specific activities have not yet been determined as stated above, the 
EPA's assistance could entail a review of each State's SRF intended use 
plans. These plans outline a State's list of priority projects for SRF 
funding. Working within the Federal partnership, the EPA can share 
information as to where and when projects will be underway and assist 
in identifying potential leveraging opportunities for other Federal 
funds.
    In terms of Goal 5, specific implementation has not been fully 
determined; however, the EPA anticipates its role to be related to 
working with communities that are experiencing drinking water 
shortages. The EPA has many strong relationships with small communities 
and tribes that could benefit from increased water use flexibility and 
working with their on the ground partners, as these small communities 
and tribes are usually disproportionally impacted during drought. An 
important aspect of this action is ensuring that the EPA is fully 
partnering with the appropriate State agencies.
               presidential memorandum--wildwood missouri
    Question. Residents of Wildwood, Missouri remain very concerned 
with the public health risks that may still remain within the 
Ellisville Site and its subsites. Past removal actions have been 
undertaken, but I have heard from constituents that certain areas still 
remain contaminated at concentrations above residential standards. This 
is despite numerous existing residences being located adjacent to the 
site and other new residences currently proposed to be developed. Has 
the EPA considered a complete cleanup to residential standards and the 
reinstitution of the 5-year CERCLA Review to address these concerns?
    Answer. Yes, the EPA continues to consider conducting Five-Year 
Reviews (FYRs) where appropriate. The Ellisville Superfund Site was 
added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 and is comprised of 
three non-contiguous subsites near Wildwood, Missouri, with subsite 
designation as OU1 (Rosalie), OU2 (Bliss), and OU3 (Callahan). With 
regards to cleanup standards and, as discussed below, the EPA does not 
consider affected areas at OU2 Bliss to be ``residential'' and, 
therefore, applied recreational site-specific cleanup goals to reflect 
this area's current and projected land use.

  --OU1 Rosalie: In 1980, more than 200 buried drums were encountered 
        and subsequently removed from the Rosalie subsite. The EPA 
        followed that work with a remedial investigation and 
        feasibility study, which resulted in a Record of Decision that 
        selected off-site disposal of contaminated soil, drums, cans 
        and debris to be followed by backfill and re-seeding. In 1986, 
        the State conducted an investigation to determine if any 
        residual contamination was left behind at the former excavation 
        areas. The investigation showed that all test results were 
        below the EPA's residential screening levels for soil. The 
        Rosalie subsite is not subject to FYRs because the subsite is 
        being cleaned up to allow for residential use, with no 
        contamination left in place. The EPA is not considering the 
        Rosalie subsite for deletion at this time.
  --OU2 Bliss: The EPA conducted on-site soil sampling that included an 
        area north of a planned residential development and within the 
        planned residential development itself. The sampling results 
        within the planned residential development did not exceed 
        residential screening levels. In the area north of the planned 
        residential area, results identified soil with elevated 
        concentrations of dioxin. The EPA determined that site 
        conditions could pose a threat to public health and welfare and 
        completed the removal and the disposal of 1,545 tons of dioxin-
        contaminated waste in March 2015. A residential standard was 
        not deemed appropriate because, among other reasons, it is an 
        area of brush, trees, meadow and drainage that do not meet the 
        residential use. The EPA continues to engage in discussions 
        with the community, State agencies, and elected officials to 
        collaboratively ensure long-term stewardship and 
        protectiveness.
  --OU3 Callahan: After a 2012 removal action, the partial NPL deletion 
        process was started for the Callahan subsite since no waste was 
        left in place. An evaluation of all subsite data concluded that 
        the Callahan property no longer posed unacceptable human health 
        risks for any type of exposure, including residential use. The 
        Callahan subsite is not subject to FYRs because the subsite is 
        being cleaned up to allow for residential use, with no 
        contamination left in place. Based on all requirements in the 
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 
        Plan (40 CFR 300.425(e)) being met, the EPA concluded that the 
        Callahan subsite could and should be deleted from the NPL. The 
        proposed partial deletion was published in the Federal Register 
        on March 18, 2016, and the EPA is currently evaluating public 
        comments on the proposed partial deletion.
                        community affordability
    Question. EPA was asked to work with the National Academy of Public 
Administrators to conduct an independent study to create a definition 
of community affordability, this being a situation where a community 
might be protected from their water rates going up too quickly, but 
they might not be protected from their water rates hitting that cap and 
two or three other things in the community hitting that cap. Can EPA 
provide an update on where we are on this study?
    Answer. The EPA is discussing possible approaches for the study 
with the National Academy of Public Administrators and will proceed 
with funding once a plan is finalized.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Steve Daines
                           methane emissions
    Question. As you are aware, many States, including Montana, have 
already implemented regulations to address methane emissions. Montana 
has set a flaring limit of 100MCFG per day, and other States, including 
Wyoming, have set even stricter rules. Can you confirm that your 
pending rules on methane will allow those State existing regulations, 
which meet the EPA's rule for new sources, to apply, thereby avoiding 
unnecessary conflict and administrative burden for the States, EPA, and 
industry while resulting in no added environmental benefit?
    Answer. On May 12, 2016, the EPA issued three final rules that 
together will curb emissions of methane, smog-forming volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs), and toxic air pollutants, such as benzene, from new, 
reconstructed and modified oil and gas sources, while providing greater 
certainty about Clean Air Act permitting requirements for the industry.
    A number of States regulate, or are considering regulating, air 
pollution from the oil and natural gas industry, and the EPA's rules 
allow them to continue to do so. Under the Clean Air Act, States have 
the authority to regulate air emissions from sources within their 
boundaries, provided their requirements are at least as protective as 
Federal requirements. Because the EPA recognizes the importance of not 
requiring industry to comply with duplicative requirements, the final 
rule provides a pathway for companies to demonstrate that State 
requirements to which they may be subject are equivalent to the 
requirements established in the New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS). This pathway is in addition to States' ability to seek an 
equivalency determination from the EPA.
                             clean air act
    Question. In an attempt to regulate air quality, BLM has proposed a 
rule that will regulate existing sources on Federal and Indian lands. 
BLM has claimed their rule is necessary, and that it doesn't conflict 
with EPA's pending methane rules because your rules cover only new 
sources. However, you recently announced that EPA will, under the Clean 
Air Act, pursue the nationwide regulation of methane from the very same 
existing sources that BLM proposes to regulate. This appears to be in 
direct conflict. Will you recommend that BLM remove the overlapping 
requirements to avoid the conflict of two agencies contemporaneously 
implementing rules on the exact same facilities?
    Answer. The EPA is currently developing an ICR that will allow the 
agency to collect the information that it needs to develop a proposal 
regarding existing sources of oil and gas methane, so it is premature 
to identify the requirements as overlapping.
    As with the EPA's New Source Performance Standards for new, 
modified, and reconstructed sources, EPA and BLM, where there is the 
potential for overlap on existing source requirements, will coordinate 
closely to ensure that the regulations do not conflict and that they 
minimize any potential for duplication. BLM is still working to 
complete its final rule and the EPA will continue to work with them to 
identify ways to minimize potential conflicting requirements and will 
continue to coordinate through the agencies' respective proposals and 
final rulemakings.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Cassidy
                          naaqs--2008 standard
    Question. EPA is requesting $5.3 million to support the timely 
issuance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) guidance and 
implementation tools.
    The 2015 revised ground level ozone standard resulted from a 7-year 
review period at a time when the 2008 standard had not fully been 
implemented. The implementation rules for the 2008 standard were not 
even released until February 2015. Then, in October 2015, EPA 
subsequently lowered the 2008 ozone standard from 75 parts per billion 
(ppb) to 70 ppb.
    In the Agency's budget request, it says, ``The agency will continue 
to engage communities to be full partners in agency programs that make 
a visible difference in their community by working to provide holistic 
central mechanisms to support, assist, and engage with disadvantaged 
communities and vulnerable populations, including tribal populations, 
rural communities and children.
    In 2015, I and several of my colleagues with medical backgrounds 
wrote you to express our concern with lowering the ozone standard. In 
that letter, it says, ``If the true intent here is to improve public 
health, then the Agency should factor how its ozone proposal affects 
every aspect of human health--including impacts from unemployment, 
poverty, and reduced access to health insurance. Public health should 
not be viewed in a vacuum, but rather considered holistically, mindful 
of the correlation between health and the economy.''
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) predicts that ozone 
levels will continue to improve through the next decade and that a vast 
majority of these counties will attain a 70 ppb standard by 2025 under 
other existing Federal, State, and local requirements and industry 
efforts.
    Doesn't it makes sense to get the 2008 standard implemented before 
burdening States with double-regulation?
    The National Association of Clean Air Agencies testified to EPA 
that the new ozone standard ``will have a profound impact on the work 
of State and local air pollution control agencies.'' Did EPA assess 
what impact implementing the new ozone standards would have on State 
and local agencies already implementing the 2008 standard--shouldn't 
these standards be harmonized?
    EPA chose to project the costs of its new ozone standard to 2025. 
Since EPA bases its entire economic analysis on predicted 2025 air 
quality, will the Agency support extending compliance deadlines under 
the standards to 2025?
    EPA chose to project the costs of its new ozone standard to 2025 
since that would be the year in which most counties would have to 
attain the standards if granted compliance extensions. If EPA assumed 
longer compliance deadlines, would it support legislation extending 
those deadlines?
    EPA has said that most counties won't need to attain its stringent 
ozone standards until 2025. But counties in nonattainment areas will 
face severe regulatory consequences in just 3 years, and the new 
standards become immediately effective for permits to expand business. 
EPA seems to want us to think these standards are a ``next decade'' 
problem, but aren't they a now problem?
    Answer. The EPA and State co-regulators share a long history of 
managing ozone air quality under the Clean Air Act (CAA), underpinned 
by previously issued EPA rules and guidance. The overall framework and 
policy approach reflected in the implementing regulations for the 2008 
ozone standards provide an effective and appropriate template for the 
general approach States would follow in planning for attainment of the 
2015 ozone NAAQS. Planning and implementation work to meet the 2015 
ozone standard will build on progress States already have made to plan 
for and meet the 2008 standards. In particular for areas where States 
are still actively working toward attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 
EPA is committed to helping air agencies identify and take advantage of 
potential planning and emissions control efficiencies that may occur 
within the horizon for attaining the 2015 standards. Following past 
precedent, the EPA intends to propose revoking the 2008 standards and 
provide transition rules intended to help avoid any potential 
inefficiencies as States begin implementing the Clean Air Act's 
requirements for the 2015 standards. Accordingly, States' planning will 
not need to focus on the 2008 and 2015 standards concurrently.
    The Clean Air Act governs the process and timing for initial area 
designations and associated compliance deadlines after the EPA 
establishes a new or revised NAAQS.

    Following Clean Air Act requirements, the EPA anticipates the 
following schedule for the 2015 ozone NAAQS:

  --By October 2017: The EPA will issue final area designations. Those 
        designations likely will be based on 2014-2016 air quality 
        data. If preconstruction permitting program requirements for 
        the nonattainment area do not already exist, Federal permitting 
        regulations will apply until they are replaced by State-adopted 
        programs.
  --2019: States will submit area specific inventories of ozone-
        producing emissions.
  --2020 to 2021: For nonattainment areas classified as ``moderate'' 
        and above, States, and any tribes that choose to do so will 
        complete development of implementation plans, outlining how 
        they will reduce pollution to meet the standards. State and 
        tribal plans can include Federal measures and any local or 
        statewide measures needed to demonstrate that a nonattainment 
        area will meet the standards by its attainment date.
  --2020 to 2037: Nonattainment areas are required to meet the primary 
        (health) standard, with deadlines depending on the severity of 
        an area's ozone problem.

    The EPA views any delay in implementation of the ozone standards as 
unnecessary and harmful to public health and the environment. Delaying 
the implementation schedule for the 2015 ozone standard would 
jeopardize progress toward cleaner air and delay health protections for 
millions of Americans, including children, older adults, and people 
with asthma. For ozone, the EPA estimates that meeting the 70 ppb 
standard will yield health benefits valued at $2.9 billion to $5.9 
billion annually in 2025 nationwide, not counting the health benefits 
that will be achieved in later years in California. These benefits 
include avoiding 320 to 660 premature deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in 
children; and 160,000 days when children do not attend school. Delaying 
the designations process also would deny citizens in potential 
nonattainment areas the information they need about air quality to 
protect their families from ozone exposure. Forty-five years of clean 
air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong 
environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand.
                               ecolabels
    Question. Last September, EPA published an interim recommendation 
for environmental standards as well as ecolabels for use in Federal 
procurement. EPA's recommendation for lumber includes the Forest 
Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified but excludes other credible sources 
such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree 
Farm System (ATFS). In Louisiana, nearly 4 million acres or 85 percent 
of all certified lumber is SFI or ATFS certified.
    During the hearing you said, ``. . . EPA recognizes that their 
needs to be an expansion of that certification so that others can be 
readily recognized, because I want what you want which is to have our 
forests sustainably managed and to use whatever leverage we have to 
provide the economic incentive for that so we are talking to folks and 
looking at that in seeing how we can expand the certifications that are 
recognized"
    How is EPA reconsidering its lumber recommendations to ensure that 
other credible and certified standards SFI and ATFS are recognized?
    Answer. The implementing instructions for Executive Order 13693, 
Planning/or Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, directed the 
EPA, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Council on Environmental Quality, to issue these recommendations in 
order to assist Federal purchasers in identifying and procuring 
environmentally sustainable products. The basis for our interim 
recommendations on wood/lumber was the DOE GreenBuy program. The EPA is 
pursuing several options to determine if an update to the lumber/wood 
interim recommendations is appropriate, and the agency has updated the 
Web site to reflect this (see the footnote for Lumber/Wood under the 
Construction sector at https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/epas-
recommendations-specifications-standards-and-ecolabels).
    The EPA is engaging with both the Department of Energy and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture in a high-level review to determine the 
effectiveness of these standards in protecting human health and the 
environment. Furthermore, the EPA's standards executive is currently 
reviewing the forestry standards to determine if they were developed 
through a voluntary consensus approach consistent with the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119. Finally, Sustainable 
Forestry Initiative (SFI), American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Canadian 
Standards Association (CSA), and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have 
each volunteered to have their forestry standards assessed against the 
criteria developed through a multi-stakeholder consensus process in the 
guidelines pilot for the flooring and furniture sectors. The results of 
that pilot assessment can help inform whether those standards would 
meet the EPA's baseline criteria for environmental performance as 
specified in the EPA's draft guidelines for Environmental Performance 
Standards and Ecolabels for use in Federal procurement.
                        ecolabels determination
    Question. Last September, EPA published an interim recommendation 
for environmental standards as well as ecolabels for use in Federal 
procurement. EPA's recommendation for lumber includes the Forest 
Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified but excludes other credible sources 
such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the American Tree 
Farm System (ATFS). In Louisiana, nearly 4 million acres or 85 percent 
of all certified lumber is SFI or ATFS certified.
    During the hearing you said, ``. . . EPA recognizes that their 
needs to be an expansion of that certification so that others can be 
readily recognized, because I want what you want which is to have our 
forests sustainably managed and to use whatever leverage we have to 
provide the economic incentive for that so we are talking to folks and 
looking at that in seeing how we can expand the certifications that are 
recognized"
    When will this determination be made?
    Answer. The EPA will consider the input received from other Federal 
agencies, stakeholders, and experts, along with information obtained 
during our assessment of forestry standards during the pilot process, 
to inform the further refinement and finalization of the EPA's 
guidelines and recommendations. The agency believes it can decide on a 
path forward within the next several months.
                                dicamba
    Question. Given your past public statements on concluding your 
agency's registration for new uses of dicamba in conjunction with 
soybean and cotton products already in the market, will your agency 
finalize the registration by the end of this summer so that 
corresponding State registrations will enable farmers to have the full 
flexibility of weed control options for the 2017 growing season?
    Answer. On April 1, 2016, the EPA released the proposed decision to 
register dicamba for public comment. The public comment period, 
originally 30 days, was extended to May 31, 2016. The comment period 
having now closed, the EPA will consider the comments received and make 
a registration decision. The EPA expects to issue a decision by late 
summer or early fall of 2016.
                             corn rootworm
    Question. I understand that the EPA has been reviewing a new mode 
of action to control corn rootworm for a number of years and has 
recently completed a preliminary step in the process. As growers will 
need additional modes of action to most effectively deal with this 
pest, can you please provide the subcommittee with an update on when 
registration for his new mode of action to control corn rootworm might 
be expected?
    Answer. The EPA recognizes that the corn rootworm is one of the 
most troublesome pests confronting the Nation's corn growers. At this 
time, the use of Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs), including Bt 
corn, is one of the safest methods of insect control. If used properly, 
PIP crops greatly reduce the need for conventional pesticides and the 
risks they may pose to human health and the environment. For these 
methods to continue to be available, it is essential that they remain 
effective. Recognizing this, on February 18, 2016, the EPA released new 
requirements to address corn rootworm resistance to Bt corn. The goal 
of the requirements is to maintain the effectiveness of Bt corn by 
delaying resistance and applying corrective measures if resistance is 
confirmed. The EPA believes that these requirements will help growers 
effectively deal with corn rootworm now and in the future.
    The EPA is currently reviewing a corn rootworm application for 
commercial use. This application represents a new mode of action to 
control corn rootworm. This new mode of action is based on a natural 
process that occurs in all living organisms called ``RNA 
interference'', or ``RNAi''. Using RNAi, an organism can control when 
key substances needed to grow and survive are turned on and off, and 
how much is produced. The pesticide proposed for corn rootworm control 
co-opts the RNAi process to shut off a key housekeeping function that 
the corn rootworm needs to grow and live.
    The agency plans to consult with the FIFRA Scientific Advisory 
Panel (SAP) in the fall of 2016 on our risk assessment, which is 
informed in part by an earlier SAP convened in January 2014 on 
considerations for the assessment of RNAi used as a pesticide. The 
agency hope to make a decision on the current application in the spring 
2017.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                                  snep
    Question. Can you share your thoughts on the value of efforts like 
SNEP in taking a regional and integrated approach to issues of 
combating nutrient pollution, ocean acidification, and other problems 
with water quality? How can we make such efforts even more effective?
    Answer. The EPA and Southern New England partners recognize that 
addressing the impacts of nutrient pollution, loss of habitat, and 
climate change on our coastal watersheds requires targeted regional and 
watershed-wide solutions that reach upstream and downstream and across 
State boundaries. The EPA also recognizes that these broad solutions 
are best implemented at the local and municipal level. Since 2014, the 
Southern New England Program (SNEP) has solicited and funded project 
proposals that range from broad policy, technology, and management 
innovations to municipal capacity-building and resource sharing. 
Projects selected include testing innovative methods to treat and 
remove nutrients, such as ``nature-based'' approaches involving 
shellfish aquaculture and green infrastructure, exploring new financing 
approaches, and data-sharing for wastewater management, including 
septic systems. Other projects have fostered improved collaboration 
across city and State lines to develop shared monitoring programs and 
integrated planning, and have provided access to tools such as GIS, 
improved septic system technology, and stormwater Best Management 
Practice (BMP) design and construction improvements.
                             grant funding
    Question. As you know, the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus Appropriations 
Act allowed EPA to adjust the distribution of air monitoring 
categorical grants. The problem is that without additional funding for 
these grants, some States could lose important resources as the formula 
is changed. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management is 
particularly concerned about losing funding and possibly staff because 
of changes in distribution of these resources. Can you explain how you 
are working within a limited budget to make sure that States don't lose 
funding and capacity because of the change in formula?
    Answer. The EPA recognizes the challenges posed to State and local 
air agencies in any region that might experience decreased resources 
and the agency has consistently stated its intent to limit any region's 
loss of resources to no more than 5 percent of its prior year funding 
as a result of the revised allocation.
    The EPA has determined that it is appropriate to apply additional 
mitigating measures to prevent disruptions to ongoing State and local 
air program operations in this first year of transition, given that the 
EPA and State and local air agencies are well into fiscal year 2016.

    For fiscal year 2016, the EPA is implementing the revised 
allocation as follows:

  --All regions will receive at least their fiscal year 2015 post 
        rescission funding levels.
  --Regions slated to gain resources using the revised allocation 
        methodology from 2010 with updated data will receive modest 
        increases in funding.
                            beach act grant
    Question. Can you please help me to understand why the fiscal year 
2017 budget request eliminates funding for the Beach Act grant program?
    Answer. After more than 15 years of States and tribes receiving 
BEACH Act grants, they now have the technical expertise and procedures 
in place to run beach monitoring programs. The agency is proposing to 
eliminate certain mature program activities that are well-established, 
well understood, and where there is the possibility of maintaining the 
human health benefits through implementation at the local level.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
                            superfund sites
    Question. Can EPA provide a list of all Superfund sites that have 
been cleaned up and others that have been de-listed?
    Answer. Deletion of a site from the Superfund National Priorities 
List (NPL) signifies that all remedial action objectives for the site 
have been achieved and no further response actions are required to 
protect human health and the environment. The EPA equates deleted NPL 
sites to the list of sites that have been ``cleaned up'' as stated in 
the question, though institutional controls may be in place if waste 
remains at the site at levels that prohibit unrestricted access. As of 
May 19, 2016, 391 sites have been deleted from the NPL. The list of 
deleted sites below is sorted by State and then site name. The EPA's 
Superfund Web site contains current information on deleted sites: 
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/npl-site-totals-status-and-milestone. 
EPA's Superfund Web site also contains current information on sites 
where all physical cleanup construction has been completed: https://
www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-npl-sites-state.

                                  TABLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Deleted
  State       Site Name       City      Zip     County \1\       Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK        ALASKA BATTERY    FAIRBANK   99701   FAIRBANKS       7/26/1996
           ENTERPRISES       S                  NORTH STAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK        ARCTIC SURPLUS    FAIRBANK   99701   N/A             9/25/2006
                             S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK        STANDARD STEEL &  ANCHORAG   99501   ANCHORAGE       9/30/2002
           METAL SALVAGE     E
           YARD (USDOT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL        MOWBRAY           GREENVIL   36037   BUTLER         12/30/1993
           ENGINEERING CO.   LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL        REDWING           SARALAND   36571   MOBILE          9/28/2015
           CARRIERS, INC.
           (SARALAND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR        CECIL LINDSEY     NEWPORT    72112   JACKSON         9/22/1989
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR        FRIT INDUSTRIES   WALNUT     72476   LAWRENCE       10/14/1997
                             RIDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR        GURLEY PIT        EDMONDSE   72332   CRITTENDEN      11/6/2003
                             N
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR        INDUSTRIAL WASTE  FORT       72901   SEBASTIAN        4/7/2008
           CONTROL           SMITH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR        JACKSONVILLE      JACKSONV   72076   LONOKE          3/14/2000
           MUNICIPAL         ILLE
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR        MONROE AUTO       PARAGOUL   72450   GREENE          9/29/2014
           EQUIPMENT CO.     D
           (PARAGOULD PIT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR        ROGERS ROAD       JACKSONV   72076   PULASKI        10/12/2010
           MUNICIPAL         ILLE
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR        SOUTH 8TH STREET  WEST       72301   CRITTENDEN      9/28/2004
           LANDFILL          MEMPHIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS        TAPUTIMU FARM     PAGO       96799   N/A              3/7/1986
                             PAGO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ        LUKE AIR FORCE    GLENDALE   85309   MARICOPA        4/22/2002
           BASE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ        MOUNTAIN VIEW     GLOBE      85501   GILA            4/18/1988
           MOBILE HOME
           ESTATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ        NINETEENTH        PHOENIX    85041   MARICOPA        9/25/2006
           AVENUE LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        CELTOR CHEMICAL   HOOPA      95546   HUMBOLDT        9/30/2003
           WORKS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        COALINGA          COALINGA   93210   FRESNO          4/24/1998
           ASBESTOS MINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        DEL NORTE         CRESCENT   95531   DEL NORTE       9/18/2002
           PESTICIDE         CITY
           STORAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        FIRESTONE TIRE &  SALINAS    93901   MONTEREY        4/21/2005
           RUBBER CO.
           (SALINAS PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        JIBBOOM JUNKYARD  SACRAMEN   95814   SACRAMENTO      9/10/1991
                             TO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        LIQUID GOLD OIL   RICHMOND   94804   CONTRA COSTA    9/11/1996
           CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        LOUISIANA-        OROVILLE   95965   BUTTE          11/21/1996
           PACIFIC CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        RALPH GRAY        WESTMINS   92683   ORANGE          9/28/2004
           TRUCKING CO.      TER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        SAN FERNANDO      GLENDALE   91209   LOS ANGELES    10/12/2004
           VALLEY (AREA 3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        SOLA OPTICAL      PETALUMA   94952   SONOMA         10/31/2013
           USA, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        SOUTHERN          VISALIA    93277   TULARE          9/26/2009
           CALIFORNIA
           EDISON CO.
           (VISALIA
           POLEYARD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        T.H. AGRICULTURE  FRESNO     93727   FRESNO          8/21/2006
           & NUTRITION CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA        WESTERN PACIFIC   OROVILLE   95965   BUTTE           8/29/2001
           RAILROAD CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO        SAND CREEK        COMMERCE   80022   ADAMS          12/20/1996
           INDUSTRIAL        CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO        SMUGGLER          ASPEN      81611   PITKIN          9/23/1999
           MOUNTAIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO        WOODBURY          COMMERCE   80022   ADAMS           3/22/1993
           CHEMICAL CO.      CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT        CHESHIRE GROUND   CHESHIRE    6410   NEW HAVEN        7/2/1997
           WATER
           CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT        NUTMEG VALLEY     WOLCOTT     6716   NEW HAVEN       9/23/2005
           ROAD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT        REVERE TEXTILE    STERLING    6377   WINDHAM          9/2/1994
           PRINTS CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE        COKER'S           CHESWOLD   19936   KENT             8/2/2011
           SANITATION
           SERVICE
           LANDFILLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE        NEW CASTLE SPILL  NEW        19720   NEW CASTLE      6/12/1996
                             CASTLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE        NEW CASTLE STEEL  NEW        19720   NEW CASTLE      3/17/1989
                             CASTLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE        SEALAND LIMITED   MIDDLETO   19709   NEW CASTLE       7/1/1997
                             WN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE        SUSSEX COUNTY     LAUREL     19956   SUSSEX          9/28/2001
           LANDFILL NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE        TYLER             SMYRNA     19977   KENT            3/29/2004
           REFRIGERATION
           PIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE        WILDCAT LANDFILL  DOVER      19901   KENT            3/14/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        ALPHA CHEMICAL    LAKELAND   33810   POLK            6/28/1995
           CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        ANACONDA          MIAMI      33147   MIAMI-DADE       7/9/1998
           ALUMINUM CO./
           MILGO
           ELECTRONICS
           CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        B&B CHEMICAL      HIALEAH    33010   MIAMI-DADE       8/5/2014
           CO., INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        BEULAH LANDFILL   PENSACOL   32506   ESCAMBIA        6/22/1998
                             A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        BMI-TEXTRON       LAKE       33403   PALM BEACH     11/18/2002
                             PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        BROWN WOOD        LIVE OAK   32060   SUWANNEE        9/22/1995
           PRESERVING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        CALLAWAY & SON    LAKE       33850   POLK             8/4/2009
           DRUM SERVICE      ALFRED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        CHEMFORM, INC.    POMPANO    33069   BROWARD         7/28/2000
                             BEACH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        COLEMAN-EVANS     WHITEHOU   32220   DUVAL           5/27/2014
           WOOD PRESERVING   SE
           CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        DAVIE LANDFILL    DAVIE      33314   BROWARD         8/21/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        DUBOSE OIL        CANTONME   32533   ESCAMBIA        10/1/2004
           PRODUCTS CO.      NT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        GOLD COAST OIL    MIAMI      33155   MIAMI-DADE      10/9/1996
           CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        HIPPS ROAD        DUVAL      32222   DUVAL           2/27/2011
           LANDFILL          COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        KASSAUF-          TAMPA      33619   HILLSBOROUGH    10/2/2000
           KIMERLING
           BATTERY
           DISPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        MUNISPORT         NORTH      33161   MIAMI-DADE      9/24/1999
           LANDFILL          MIAMI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        NORTHWEST 58TH    HIALEAH    33012   MIAMI-DADE     10/11/1996
           STREET LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        PARRAMORE         MOUNT      32352   GADSDEN         2/21/1989
           SURPLUS           PLEASAN
                             T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        PIONEER SAND CO.  WARRINGT   32506   ESCAMBIA         2/8/1993
                             ON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        SCHUYLKILL        PLANT      33566   HILLSBOROUGH    8/22/2001
           METALS CORP.      CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        SIXTY-SECOND      TAMPA      33619   HILLSBOROUGH    10/1/1999
           STREET DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        STANDARD AUTO     HIALEAH    33010   MIAMI-DADE     10/26/2007
           BUMPER CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        TRI-CITY OIL      TAMPA      33617   HILLSBOROUGH     9/1/1988
           CONSERVATIONI
           ST, INC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        VARSOL SPILL      MIAMI      33159   MIAMI-DADE       9/1/1988
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        WILSON CONCEPTS   POMPANO    33069   BROWARD          4/4/1995
           OF FLORIDA,       BEACH
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        WOODBURY          PRINCETO   33032   MIAMI-DADE     11/27/1995
           CHEMICAL CO.      N
           (PRINCETON
           PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL        YELLOW WATER      BALDWIN    32234   DUVAL           5/18/1999
           ROAD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FM        PCB WASTES        PALAU      96950   N/A              3/7/1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA        CEDARTOWN         CEDARTOW   30125   POLK            9/19/2006
           INDUSTRIES,       N
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA        CEDARTOWN         CEDARTOW   30125   POLK            3/10/1999
           MUNICIPAL         N
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA        LUMINOUS          ATHENS     30622   CLARKE         12/30/1982
           PROCESSES, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA        MONSANTO CORP.    AUGUSTA    30903   RICHMOND         3/9/1998
           (AUGUSTA PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA        POWERSVILLE SITE  PEACH      31074   PEACH           11/1/2010
                             COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI        SCHOFIELD         SCHOFIEL   96857   HONOLULU        8/10/2000
           BARRACKS          D
           (USARMY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        AIDEX CORP.       MINEOLA    51554   MILLS          10/21/1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        E.I. DU PONT DE   WEST       52656   LEE             9/25/1995
           NEMOURS & CO.,    POINT
           INC. (COUNTY
           ROAD X23)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        FARMERS' MUTUAL   HOSPERS    51238   SIOUX          11/13/2001
           COOPERATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        JOHN DEERE        OTTUMWA    52501   WAPELLO         1/22/2001
           (OTTUMWA WORKS
           LANDFILLS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        LABOUNTY          CHARLES    50616   FLOYD           10/6/1993
                             CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        MID-AMERICA       SERGEANT   51054   WOODBURY        9/24/2004
           TANNING CO.       BLUFF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        NORTHWESTERN      MASON      50401   CERRO GORDO     8/31/1995
           STATES PORTLAND   CITY
           CEMENT CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        RED OAK CITY      RED OAK    51566   MONTGOMERY      9/26/2005
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        SHELLER-GLOBE     KEOKUK     52632   LEE             9/24/2001
           CORP. DISPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA        WHITE FARM        CHARLES    50616   FLOYD          10/30/2000
           EQUIPMENT CO.     CITY
           DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID        ARRCOM (DREXLER   RATHDRUM   83858   KOOTENAI       12/23/1992
           ENTERPRISES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID        PACIFIC HIDE &    POCATELL   83201   BANNOCK         11/4/1999
           FUR RECYCLING     O
           CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID        UNION PACIFIC     POCATELL   83201   BANNOCK         9/22/1997
           RAILROAD CO.      O
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL        A & F MATERIAL    GREENUP    62428   CUMBERLAND      6/11/2012
           RECLAIMING,
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL        BELVIDERE         BELVIDER   61008   BOONE            2/9/2015
           MUNICIPAL         E
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL        ILADA ENERGY CO.  EAST       62957   ALEXANDER        1/8/2001
                             CAPE
                             GIRARDE
                             AU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL        KERR-MCGEE (REED- WEST       60185   DUPAGE           2/8/2010
           KEPPLER PARK)     CHICAGO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL        KERR-MCGEE        WEST       60185   DUPAGE          4/22/2013
           (SEWAGE           CHICAGO
           TREATMENT
           PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL        PETERSEN SAND &   LIBERTYV   60048   LAKE            2/11/1991
           GRAVEL            ILLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        CARTER LEE        INDIANAP   46222   MARION           7/9/1996
           LUMBER CO.        OLIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        COLUMBUS OLD      COLUMBUS   47201   BARTHOLOMEW     1/24/2014
           MUNICIPAL
           LANDFILL #1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        INTERNATIONAL     TERRE      47802   VIGO            2/11/1991
           MINERALS (E.      HAUTE
           PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        NEAL'S DUMP       SPENCER    47460   OWEN            10/4/1999
           (SPENCER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        POER FARM         HANCOCK    46117   HANCOCK         2/11/1991
                             COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        SOUTHSIDE         INDIANAP   46221   MARION           7/3/1997
           SANITARY          OLIS
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        TRI-STATE         COLUMBUS   47201   BARTHOLOMEW     7/14/1997
           PLATING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        WASTE, INC.,      MICHIGAN   46360   LA PORTE       10/20/2008
           LANDFILL          CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        WEDZEB            LEBANON    46052   BOONE           9/10/1991
           ENTERPRISES,
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN        WHITEFORD SALES   SOUTH      46619   ST. JOSEPH       9/6/1996
           & SERVICE INC./   BEND
           NATIONALEASE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS        29TH & MEAD       WICHITA    67219   SEDGWICK        4/29/1996
           GROUND WATER
           CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS        ARKANSAS CITY     ARKANSAS   67005   COWLEY           3/1/1996
           DUMP              CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS        BIG RIVER SAND    WICHITA    67205   SEDGWICK       10/14/1992
           CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS        HYDRO-FLEX INC.   TOPEKA     66618   SHAWNEE         11/9/1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS        JOHNS' SLUDGE     WICHITA    67212   SEDGWICK         1/6/1992
           POND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY        A.L. TAYLOR       BROOKS     40165   BULLITT         5/17/1996
           (VALLEY OF
           DRUMS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY        GENERAL TIRE &    MAYFIELD   42066   GRAVES         10/27/2000
           RUBBER CO.
           (MAYFIELD
           LANDFILL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY        HOWE VALLEY       HOWE       42732   HARDIN          7/26/1996
           LANDFILL          VALLEY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY        LEE'S LANE        LOUISVIL   40216   JEFFERSON       4/25/1996
           LANDFILL          LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY        NATIONAL          HAWESVIL   42348   HANCOCK         10/5/2015
           SOUTHWIRE         LE
           ALUMINUM CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY        NEWPORT DUMP      NEWPORT    41072   CAMPBELL         6/3/1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY        RED PENN          PEEWEE     40014   OLDHAM          9/14/2001
           SANITATION CO.    VALLEY
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        BAYOU SORREL      BAYOU      70764   IBERVILLE       9/29/1997
                             SORREL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        CENTRAL WOOD      SLAUGHTE   70722   EAST            9/18/2009
           PRESERVING CO.    R                  FELICIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        CLEVE REBER       SORRENTO   70778   N/A            12/30/1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        D.L. MUD, INC.    ABBEVILL   70510   VERMILION        3/7/2000
                             E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        DELATTE METALS    PONCHATO   70454   N/A              8/8/2005
                             ULA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        DUTCHTOWN         ASCENSIO   70734   N/A            11/16/1999
           TREATMENT PLANT   N
                             PARISH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        GULF COAST        ABBEVILL   70510   N/A             7/23/2001
           VACUUM SERVICES   E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        MALLARD BAY       GRAND      70542   N/A             9/19/2005
           LANDING BULK      CHENIER
           PLANT             E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        OLD INGER OIL     DARROW     70725   N/A             8/12/2008
           REFINERY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        PAB OIL &         ABBEVILL   70510   N/A              1/3/2000
           CHEMICAL          E
           SERVICE, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        RUSTON FOUNDRY    ALEXANDR   71302   N/A             7/13/2010
                             IA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LA        SOUTHERN          SLIDELL    70459   N/A             6/16/1998
           SHIPBUILDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA        CANNON            BRIDGEWA    2324   PLYMOUTH        9/24/2013
           ENGINEERING       TER
           CORP. (CEC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA        FORT DEVENS-      SUDBURY     1775   MIDDLESEX       1/29/2002
           SUDBURY
           TRAINING ANNEX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA        MATERIALS         WATERTOW    2172   MIDDLESEX      11/21/2006
           TECHNOLOGY        N
           LABORATORY
           (USARMY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA        NORWOOD PCBS      NORWOOD     2062   NORFOLK         5/31/2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA        PLYMOUTH HARBOR/  PLYMOUTH    2360   PLYMOUTH       11/19/1993
           CANNON
           ENGINEERING
           CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA        SALEM ACRES       SALEM       1970   ESSEX           7/23/2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD        CHEMICAL METALS   BALTIMOR   21230   BALTIMORE      12/30/1982
           INDUSTRIES,       E                  CITY
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD        MID-ATLANTIC      HARMANS    21077   ANNE ARUNDEL    7/18/2000
           WOOD
           PRESERVERS,
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD        MIDDLETOWN ROAD   ANNAPOLI   21401   ANNE ARUNDEL    4/18/1988
           DUMP              S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD        SOUTHERN          HOLLYWOO   20636   ST. MARY'S       4/5/2005
           MARYLAND WOOD     D
           TREATING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME        O'CONNOR CO.      AUGUSTA     4330   KENNEBEC        7/22/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME        PINETTE'S         WASHBURN    4786   AROOSTOOK       9/30/2002
           SALVAGE YARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME        SACO TANNERY      SACO        4072   YORK            9/29/1999
           WASTE PITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        ANDERSON          ADRIAN     49221   LENAWEE         1/26/1996
           DEVELOPMENT CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        AVENUE ``E''      TRAVERSE   49684   GRAND           3/20/2007
           GROUND WATER      CITY               TRAVERSE
           CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        BERLIN & FARRO    SWARTZ     48473   GENESEE         6/24/1998
                             CREEK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        BURROWS           HARTFORD   49057   VAN BUREN       7/14/2015
           SANITATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        CARTER            DETROIT    48208   WAYNE           3/25/1997
           INDUSTRIALS,
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        CEMETERY DUMP     ROSE       48442   OAKLAND         4/19/1995
                             CENTER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        CHARLEVOIX        CHARLEVO   49720   CHARLEVOIX      12/2/1993
           MUNICIPAL WELL    IX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        CLIFF/DOW DUMP    MARQUETT   49855   MARQUETTE      11/17/2000
                             E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        FOLKERTSMA        GRAND      49504   KENT            4/10/1996
           REFUSE            RAPIDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        GRATIOT COUNTY    ST.        48880   GRATIOT          9/8/1983
           GOLF COURSE       LOUIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        H & K SALES       BELDING    48809   IONIA           5/21/1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        KENT CITY MOBILE  KENT       49330   KENT            3/20/1995
           HOME PARK         CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        LOWER ECORSE      WYANDOTT   48192   WAYNE            7/1/2005
           CREEK DUMP        E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        MASON COUNTY      PERE       49431   MASON            9/9/1999
           LANDFILL          MARQUET
                             TE TWP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        METAL WORKING     LAKE ANN   49650   BENZIE         12/23/1992
           SHOP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        NOVACO            TEMPERAN   48182   MONROE          7/14/1998
           INDUSTRIES        CE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        OSSINEKE GROUND   OSSINEKE   49766   ALPENA          1/31/1996
           WATER
           CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        SPIEGELBERG       GREEN      48116   LIVINGSTON      6/13/2011
           LANDFILL          OAK
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        WASTE MANAGEMENT  HOLLAND    49424   OTTAWA          1/14/2013
           OF MICHIGAN
           (HOLLAND
           LAGOONS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI        WHITEHALL         WHITEHAL   49461   MUSKEGON        2/11/1991
           MUNICIPAL WELLS   L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        ADRIAN MUNICIPAL  ADRIAN     56110   NOBLES         12/30/1992
           WELL FIELD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        AGATE LAKE        FAIRVIEW   56473   CASS             8/1/1997
           SCRAPYARD         TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        BOISE CASCADE/    FRIDLEY    55432   ANOKA           2/15/1995
           ONAN CORP./
           MEDTRONICS,
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        DAKHUE SANITARY   CANNON     55031   DAKOTA          7/24/1995
           LANDFILL          FALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        EAST BETHEL       EAST       55011   ANOKA            5/7/1996
           DEMOLITION        BETHEL
           LANDFILL          TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        KOCH REFINING     ROSEMOUN   55058   DAKOTA          6/15/1995
           CO./N-REN CORP.   T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        KUMMER SANITARY   BEMIDJI    56601   BELTRAMI        4/26/1996
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        LAGRAND SANITARY  LAGRAND    56308   DOUGLAS        10/23/1997
           LANDFILL          TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        MORRIS ARSENIC    MORRIS     56267   STEVENS          3/7/1986
           DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        NL INDUSTRIES/    ST.        55426   HENNEPIN        5/21/1998
           TAR ACORP/        LOUIS
           GOLDEN AUTO       PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        OAK GROVE         OAK        55011   ANOKA          10/17/1996
           SANITARY          GROVE
           LANDFILL          TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        OLMSTED COUNTY    ORONOCO    55960   OLMSTED         2/15/1995
           SANITARY
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        PINE BEND         DAKOTA     55075   DAKOTA          6/23/1998
           SANITARY          COUNTY
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        ST. AUGUSTA       ST.        56301   STEARNS        11/14/1996
           SANITARY          AUGUSTA
           LANDFILL/ENGEN    TOWNSHI
           DUMP              P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        TWIN CITIES AIR   MINNEAPO   55450   HENNEPIN       12/16/1996
           FORCE RESERVE     LIS
           BASE (SMALL
           ARMS RANGE
           LANDFILL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        UNION SCRAP IRON  MINNEAPO   55411   HENNEPIN        9/10/1991
           & METAL CO.       LIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        UNIVERSITY OF     ROSEMOUN   55068   DAKOTA           2/6/2001
           MINNESOTA         T
           (ROSEMOUNT
           RESEARCH
           CENTER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        WASHINGTON        LAKE       55042   WASHINGTON      5/16/1996
           COUNTY LANDFILL   ELMO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        WASTE DISPOSAL    ANDOVER    55304   ANOKA            6/5/1996
           ENGINEERING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        WHITTAKER CORP.   MINNEAPO   55418   HENNEPIN        2/11/1999
                             LIS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN        WINDOM DUMP       WINDOM     56101   COTTONWOOD      10/6/2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO        KEM-PEST          CAPE       63701   CAPE            9/20/2001
           LABORATORIES      GIRARDE            GIRARDEAU
                             AU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO        NORTH-U DRIVE     SPRINGFI   65801   GREENE           9/8/1994
           WELL              ELD
           CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO        SHENANDOAH        MOSCOW     63362   LINCOLN         9/25/2001
           STABLES           MILLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO        TIMES BEACH       TIMES      63025   ST. LOUIS       9/25/2001
                             BEACH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO        WHEELING          AMAZONIA   64421   ANDREW         10/30/2000
           DISPOSAL
           SERVICE CO.,
           INC., LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP        PCB WAREHOUSE     GARAPAN    96950   SAIPAN           3/7/1986
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS        FLOWOOD SITE      FLOWOOD    39208   RANKIN          2/16/1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS        NEWSOM BROTHERS/  COLUMBIA   39429   MARION          9/27/2000
           OLD REICHHOLD
           CHEMICALS, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS        WALCOTTE          GREENVIL   38701   WASHINGTON     12/30/1982
           CHEMICAL CO.      LE
           WAREHOUSES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC        MARTIN-MARIETTA,  CHARLOTT   28214   MECKLENBURG     1/20/2012
           SODYECO, INC.     E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC        NEW HANOVER CNTY  WILMINGT   28401   NEW HANOVER     9/20/2012
           AIRPORT BURN      ON
           PIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC        ROADSIDE PCB      210        27589   WARREN           3/7/1986
           SPILL             MILES
                             OF
                             ROADS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND        ARSENIC TRIOXIDE  SOUTHEAS   58053   N/A              7/5/1996
           SITE              T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND        MINOT LANDFILL    MINOT      58701   WARD             4/1/1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE        WAVERLY GROUND    WAVERLY    68462   LANCASTER      11/20/2006
           WATER
           CONTAMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH        TOWN GARAGE/      LONDONDE    3053   ROCKINGHAM      7/21/2014
           RADIO BEACON      RRY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        ASBESTOS DUMP     MILLINGT    7946   MORRIS          7/12/2010
                             ON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        BEACHWOOD/        BERKELEY    8722   OCEAN            1/6/1992
           BERKELEY WELLS    TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        COMBE FILL NORTH  MOUNT       7828   MORRIS           6/2/2004
           LANDFILL          OLIVE
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        COOPER ROAD       VOORHEES    8043   CAMDEN          2/22/1989
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        CROWN VANTAGE     ALEXANDR    8848   HUNTERDON       8/28/2015
           LANDFILL          IA
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        DELILAH ROAD      EGG         8221   ATLANTIC       10/13/2009
                             HARBOR
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        DENZER & SCHAFER  BAYVILLE    8721   OCEAN          12/29/1998
           X-RAY CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        FEDERAL CREOSOTE  MANVILLE    8835   SOMERSET        6/18/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        FLORENCE LAND     FLORENCE    8518   BURLINGTON      5/13/2004
           RECONTOURING,     TOWNSHI
           INC., LANDFILL    P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        FORT DIX          PEMBERTO    8562   BURLINGTON      9/24/2012
           (LANDFILL SITE)   N
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        FRIEDMAN          UPPER       8514   MONMOUTH         3/7/1986
           PROPERTY          FREEHOL
                             D TWP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        GLEN RIDGE        GLEN        7028   ESSEX            9/2/2009
           RADIUM SITE       RIDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        GRAND STREET      HOBOKEN     7030   HUDSON          9/18/2007
           MERCURY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        HOPKINS FARM      PLUMSTEA    8533   OCEAN           8/27/2002
                             D
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        INDUSTRIAL LATEX  WALLINGT    7057   BERGEN          4/21/2003
           CORP.             ON
                             BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        JACKSON TOWNSHIP  JACKSON     8527   OCEAN           9/13/1995
           LANDFILL          TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        KRYSOWATY FARM    HILLSBOR    8853   SOMERSET        2/22/1989
                             OUGH
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        LODI MUNICIPAL    LODI        7644   BERGEN         12/29/1998
           WELL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        M&T DELISA        ASBURY      7755   MONMOUTH        3/21/1991
           LANDFILL          PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        MANNHEIM AVENUE   GALLOWAY    8213   ATLANTIC        8/27/2007
           DUMP              TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        MONROE TOWNSHIP   MONROE      8520   MIDDLESEX        2/3/1994
           LANDFILL          TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        MONTCLAIR/WEST    MONTCLAI    7044   ESSEX            9/2/2009
           ORANGE RADIUM     R/WEST
           SITE              ORANGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        PEPE FIELD        BOONTON     7005   MORRIS          7/11/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        PIJAK FARM        PLUMSTEA    8533   OCEAN            3/3/1997
                             D
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        POMONA OAKS       GALLOWAY    8240   ATLANTIC         5/7/1998
           RESIDENTIAL       TOWNSHI
           WELLS             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        RENORA, INC.      EDISON      8837   MIDDLESEX       3/20/2000
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        SAYREVILLE        SAYREVIL    8872   MIDDLESEX       9/29/2011
           LANDFILL          LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        SOUTH BRUNSWICK   SOUTH       8852   MIDDLESEX       2/27/1998
           LANDFILL          BRUNSWI
                             CK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        SPENCE FARM       PLUMSTEA    8533   OCEAN            3/3/1997
                             D
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        TABERNACLE DRUM   TABERNAC    8088   BURLINGTON       5/8/2008
           DUMP              LE
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        UPPER DEERFIELD   UPPER       8302   CUMBERLAND       6/9/2000
           TOWNSHIP          DEERFIE
           SANITARY          LD
           LANDFILL          TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        VINELAND STATE    VINELAND    8360   CUMBERLAND       5/7/1998
           SCHOOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        W.R. GRACE &      WAYNE       7470   PASSAIC         9/30/2012
           CO., INC./WAYNE   TOWNSHI
           INTERIM STORAGE   P
           SITE (USDOE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        WILSON FARM       PLUMSTEA    8533   N/A              9/8/2009
                             D
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ        WITCO CHEMICAL    OAKLAND     7436   BERGEN          9/29/1995
           CORP. (OAKLAND
           PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM        AT & SF (CLOVIS)  CLOVIS     88101   CURRY           3/17/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM        CAL WEST METALS   LEMITAR    87823   SOCORRO        12/20/1996
           (USSBA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM        CLEVELAND MILL    SILVER     88062   GRANT           7/23/2001
                             CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM        PAGANO SALVAGE    LOS        87031   VALENCIA       10/14/1992
                             LUNAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        ACTION            COPIAGUE   11701   SUFFOLK         9/29/1995
           ANODIZING,
           PLATING, &
           POLISHING CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        ANCHOR CHEMICALS  HICKSVIL   11801   NASSAU          9/30/1999
                             LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        BATAVIA LANDFILL  BATAVIA    14020   GENESEE        11/29/2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        BEC TRUCKING      VESTAL     13850   BROOME         10/14/1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        BIOCLINICAL       BOHEMIA    11716   SUFFOLK          9/9/1994
           LABORATORIES,
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        C & J DISPOSAL    HAMILTON   13346   MADISON         9/20/1994
           LEASING CO.
           DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        CLOTHIER          TOWN OF    13069   OSWEGO           2/8/1996
           DISPOSAL          GRANBY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        CONKLIN DUMPS     CONKLIN    13748   BROOME          4/25/1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        CONSOLIDATED      NEWBURGH   12550   ORANGE          12/3/2014
           IRON AND METAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        HITEMAN LEATHER   WEST       13491   HERKIMER        2/13/2011
                             WINFIEL
                             D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        HOOKER (102ND     NIAGARA    14304   NIAGARA          8/5/2004
           STREET)           FALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        HOOKER (HYDE      NIAGARA    14304   NIAGARA        10/23/2013
           PARK)             FALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        JONES SANITATION  HYDE       12538   DUTCHESS        9/23/2005
                             PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        KATONAH           TOWN OF    10536   WESTCHESTER     3/20/2000
           MUNICIPAL WELL    BEDFORD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        KENMARK TEXTILE   FARMINGD   11735   SUFFOLK          5/1/1995
           CORP.             ALE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        LOVE CANAL        NIAGARA    14304   NIAGARA         9/30/2004
                             FALLS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        LUDLOW SAND &     CLAYVILL   13322   ONEIDA          12/2/2013
           GRAVEL            E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        MARATHON BATTERY  COLD       10516   PUTNAM         10/18/1996
           CORP.             SPRINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        NIAGARA COUNTY    WHEATFIE   14150   NIAGARA         7/30/2004
           REFUSE            LD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        NORTH SEA         NORTH      11968   SUFFOLK         9/27/2005
           MUNICIPAL         SEA
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        PASLEY SOLVENTS   HEMPSTEA   11530   NASSAU          9/26/2011
           & CHEMICALS,      D
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        PETER COOPER      DAYTON     14138   CATTARAUGUS     9/20/2010
           CORPORATION
           (MARKHAMS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        PFOHL BROTHERS    CHEEKTOW   14225   ERIE            9/22/2008
           LANDFILL          AGA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        RADIUM CHEMICAL   QUEENS     11377   QUEENS          3/24/1995
           CO., INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        SMS INSTRUMENTS,  DEER       11729   SUFFOLK         9/13/2010
           INC.              PARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        SUFFERN VILLAGE   VILLAGE    10901   ROCKLAND        5/28/1993
           WELL FIELD        OF
                             SUFFERN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        SYOSSET LANDFILL  OYSTER     11791   NASSAU          4/28/2005
                             BAY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        TRONIC PLATING    FARMINGD   11735   SUFFOLK        10/15/2001
           CO., INC.         ALE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        VESTAL WATER      VESTAL     13850   BROOME          9/30/1999
           SUPPLY WELL 4-2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        WARWICK LANDFILL  WARWICK    10990   ORANGE           7/6/2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY        WIDE BEACH        BRANT      14027   ERIE            8/30/1994
           DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH        ALSCO ANACONDA    GNADENHU   44629   TUSCARAWAS      11/5/2001
                             TTEN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH        ARCANUM IRON &    DARKE      45304   DARKE           8/31/2001
           METAL             COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH        BOWERS LANDFILL   CIRCLEVI   43113   PICKAWAY       10/29/1997
                             LLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH        CHEMICAL &        CLEVELAN   44102   CUYAHOGA       12/30/1982
           MINERALS          D
           RECLAMATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH        COSHOCTON         FRANKLIN   43812   COSHOCTON       10/7/1998
           LANDFILL          TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH        LASKIN/POPLAR     JEFFERSO   44047   ASHTABULA        9/5/2000
           OIL CO.           N
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH        REPUBLIC STEEL    ELYRIA     44035   LORAIN         11/12/2002
           CORP. QUARRY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK        COMPASS           TULSA      74107   TULSA           7/18/2002
           INDUSTRIES
           (AVERY DRIVE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK        DOUBLE EAGLE      OKLAHOMA   73152   OKLAHOMA        8/21/2008
           REFINERY CO.      CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK        FOURTH STREET     OKLAHOMA   73117   OKLAHOMA        8/21/2008
           ABANDONED         CITY
           REFINERY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK        IMPERIAL          ARDMORE    73402   CARTER          9/19/2013
           REFINING
           COMPANY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK        MOSLEY ROAD       OKLAHOMA   73117   OKLAHOMA        9/26/2013
           SANITARY          CITY
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK        SAND SPRINGS      SAND       74063   TULSA           3/17/2000
           PETROCHEMICAL     SPRINGS
           COMPLEX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK        TENTH STREET      OKLAHOMA   73111   OKLAHOMA       11/21/2000
           DUMP/JUNKYARD     CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR        ALLIED PLATING,   PORTLAND   97211   MULTNOMAH      11/14/1994
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR        GOULD, INC.       PORTLAND   97208   MULTNOMAH       9/30/2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR        HARBOR OIL INC.   PORTLAND   97217   MULTNOMAH        6/5/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR        JOSEPH FOREST     JOSEPH     97846   WALLOWA         11/4/1999
           PRODUCTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR        MARTIN-MARIETTA   THE        97058   WASCO            7/5/1996
           ALUMINUM CO.      DALLES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        ALADDIN PLATING   SCOTT      18411   LACKAWANNA     11/16/2001
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        AMBLER ASBESTOS   AMBLER     19002   MONTGOMERY     12/27/1996
           PILES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        AMP, INC. (GLEN   GLEN       17327   YORK            10/2/1996
           ROCK FACILITY)    ROCK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        AUSTIN AVENUE     DELAWARE   19050   DELAWARE        4/18/2002
           RADIATION SITE    COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        BERKLEY PRODUCTS  DENVER     17517   LANCASTER       3/19/2007
           CO. DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        BERKS LANDFILL    SPRING     19608   BERKS          11/14/2008
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        BRODHEAD CREEK    STROUDSB   18360   MONROE          7/23/2001
                             URG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        BRUIN LAGOON      BRUIN      16022   BUTLER          9/18/1997
                             BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        CRAIG FARM DRUM   PARKER     16049   ARMSTRONG       9/30/2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        ENTERPRISE        PHILADEL   19153   PHILADELPHIA     3/7/1986
           AVENUE            PHIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        HEBELKA AUTO      WEISENBE   18062   LEHIGH          9/20/1999
           SALVAGE YARD      RG
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        HRANICA LANDFILL  BUFFALO    16055   BUTLER          9/18/1997
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        LACKAWANNA        OLD        18518   LACKAWANNA      9/28/1999
           REFUSE            FORGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        LANSDOWNE         LANSDOWN   19050   DELAWARE        9/10/1991
           RADIATION SITE    E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        LEHIGH ELECTRIC   OLD        18518   LACKAWANNA       3/7/1986
           & ENGINEERING     FORGE
           CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        MCADOO            MCADOO     18237   SCHUYLKILL     12/13/2001
           ASSOCIATES        BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        METROPOLITAN      FRACKVIL   17931   SCHUYLKILL      8/16/2005
           MIRROR AND        LE
           GLASS CO., INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        MIDDLETOWN AIR    MIDDLETO   17057   DAUPHIN         7/10/1997
           FIELD             WN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        MOYERS LANDFILL   EAGLEVIL   19426   MONTGOMERY      5/27/2014
                             LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        PRESQUE ISLE      ERIE       16505   ERIE            2/13/1989
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        PUBLICKER         PHILADEL   19148   PHILADELPHIA    11/1/2000
           INDUSTRIES INC.   PHIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        REESER'S          UPPER      18051   LEHIGH          5/31/1990
           LANDFILL          MACUNGI
                             E TWP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        RESIN DISPOSAL    JEFFERSO   15025   ALLEGHENY      10/21/2003
                             N
                             BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        RIVER ROAD        HERMITAG   16148   MERCER          1/29/2004
           LANDFILL (WASTE   E
           MANAGEMENT,
           INC.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        ROUTE 940 DRUM    POCONO     18350   MONROE         11/30/2000
           DUMP              SUMMIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        TAYLOR BOROUGH    TAYLOR     18517   LACKAWANNA      9/30/1999
           DUMP              BOROUGH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        VOORTMAN FARM     UPPER      18034   LEHIGH          5/31/1989
                             SAUCON
                             TWP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        WADE (ABM)        CHESTER    19013   DELAWARE        3/23/1989
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        WESTLINE          WESTLINE   16740   MCKEAN         10/14/1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA        YORK COUNTY       HOPEWELL   17363   YORK            2/14/2005
           SOLID WASTE AND   TOWNSHI
           REFUSE            P
           AUTHORITY
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR        BARCELONETA       FLORIDA      617   N/A             10/3/2011
           LANDFILL          AFUERA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR        FRONTERA CREEK    RIO          661   HUMACAO        12/29/1998
                             ABAJO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR        GE WIRING         JUANA        665   N/A            10/16/2000
           DEVICES           DIAZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR        NAVAL SECURITY    SABANA       749   N/A             10/7/1998
           GROUP ACTIVITY    SECA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR        RCA DEL CARIBE    BARCELON     617   N/A             6/17/2005
                             ETA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR        V&M/ALBALADEJO    ALMIRANT     763   VEGA BAJA      10/22/2001
                             E NORTE
                             WARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RI        DAVIS (GSR)       GLOCESTE    2828   PROVIDENCE      8/13/1999
           LANDFILL          R
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC        GEIGER (C & M     RANTOULE   29494   CHARLESTON       1/6/2014
           OIL)              S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC        GOLDEN STRIP      SIMPSONV   29681   GREENVILLE      9/10/1998
           SEPTIC TANK       ILLE
           SERVICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC        INDEPENDENT NAIL  BEAUFORT   29902   BEAUFORT         4/3/1995
           CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC        KOPPERS CO.,      FLORENCE   29503   FLORENCE        9/13/2013
           INC. (FLORENCE
           PLANT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC        PALMETTO          COLUMBIA   29203   RICHLAND       10/13/2000
           RECYCLING, INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC        ROCHESTER         TRAVELER   29690   GREENVILLE      10/9/2007
           PROPERTY          S REST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD        WHITEWOOD CREEK   WHITEWOO   57793   LAWRENCE        8/13/1996
                             D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD        WILLIAMS PIPE     SIOUX      57107   MINNEHAHA        4/2/1999
           LINE CO.          FALLS
           DISPOSAL PIT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN        AMNICOLA DUMP     CHATTANO   37406   HAMILTON        4/30/1996
                             OGA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN        CHEMET CO.        MOSCOW     38057   FAYETTE         10/9/1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN        GALLAWAY PITS     GALLAWAY   38036   FAYETTE         4/29/1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN        ICG ISELIN        JACKSON    38301   MADISON          1/7/2002
           RAILROAD YARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN        LEWISBURG DUMP    LEWISBUR   37091   MARSHALL        2/21/1996
                             G
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN        NORTH HOLLYWOOD   MEMPHIS    38108   SHELBY         12/31/1997
           DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        BAILEY WASTE      BRIDGE     77611   ORANGE         10/15/2007
           DISPOSAL          CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        BIO-ECOLOGY       GRAND      75051   DALLAS           8/5/1996
           SYSTEMS, INC.     PRAIRIE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        BRIO REFINING,    FRIENDSW   77089   HARRIS         12/28/2006
           INC.              OOD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        CRYSTAL CITY      CRYSTAL    78839   ZAVALA          3/23/1995
           AIRPORT           CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        DIXIE OIL         FRIENDSW   77546   HARRIS          8/21/2006
           PROCESSORS,       OOD
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        HARRIS (FARLEY    HOUSTON    77034   HARRIS          4/18/1988
           STREET)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        ODESSA CHROMIUM   ODESSA     79762   ECTOR           7/19/2004
           #2 (ANDREWS
           HIGHWAY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        PALMER BARGE      PORT       77640   JEFFERSON        2/6/2012
           LINE              ARTHUR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        PESSES CHEMICAL   FORT       76110   TARRANT         9/28/1995
           CO.               WORTH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        STATE MARINE OF   JEFFERSO   77642   JEFFERSON        2/6/2012
           PORT ARTHUR       N
                             COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        STEWCO, INC.      WASKOM     75692   HARRISON        10/4/1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX        TRIANGLE          BRIDGE     77611   ORANGE           4/8/1997
           CHEMICAL CO.      CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT        INTERNATIONAL     TOOELE     84074   TOOELE         10/11/2011
           SMELTING AND
           REFINING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT        MIDVALE SLAG      MIDVALE    84047   SALT LAKE        4/8/2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT        MONTICELLO        MONTICEL   84535   SAN JUAN        2/28/2000
           RADIOACTIVELY     LO
           CONTAMINATED
           PROPERTIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT        PETROCHEM         SALT       84116   SALT LAKE       6/30/2003
           RECYCLING CORP./  LAKE
           EKOTEK PLANT      CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT        ROSE PARK SLUDGE  SALT       84116   SALT LAKE       6/30/2003
           PIT               LAKE
                             CITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT        SHARON STEEL      MIDVALE    84047   SALT LAKE       9/24/2004
           CORP. (MIDVALE
           TAILINGS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA        DIXIE CAVERNS     SALEM      24153   ROANOKE         9/28/2001
           COUNTY LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA        MATTHEWS          ROANOKE    24153   ROANOKE CITY    1/19/1989
           ELECTROPLATING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA        RHINEHART TIRE    FREDERIC   22601   FREDERICK       9/30/2005
           FIRE DUMP         K
                             COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA        SUFFOLK CITY      SUFFOLK    23434   SUFFOLK CITY    1/24/1995
           LANDFILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI        ISLAND CHEMICAL   CHRISTIA     820   ST. CROIX      10/16/2009
           CORP/VIRGIN       NSTED
           ISLANDS
           CHEMICAL CORP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VT        DARLING HILL      LYNDON      5851   CALEDONIA       9/29/1999
           DUMP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VT        TANSITOR          BENNINGT    5404   BENNINGTON      9/29/1999
           ELECTRONICS,      ON
           INC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        ALCOA (VANCOUVER  VANCOUVE   98660   CLARK           9/30/1996
           SMELTER)          R
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        BONNEVILLE POWER  VANCOUVE   98666   CLARK           9/23/1996
           ADMINISTRATION    R
           ROSS COMPLEX
           (USDOE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        FORT LEWIS        TACOMA     98433   PIERCE          5/22/1995
           (LANDFILL NO.
           5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        HAMILTON ISLAND   NORTH      98648   SKAMANIA        5/25/1995
           LANDFILL (USA/    BONNEVI
           COE)              LLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        HANFORD 1100-     BENTON     99352   BENTON          9/30/1996
           AREA (USDOE)      COUNTY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        MCCHORD AIR       TACOMA     98438   PIERCE          9/26/1996
           FORCE BASE
           (WASH RACK/
           TREATME NT
           AREA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        NAVAL AIR         WHIDBEY    98278   ISLAND          9/21/1995
           STATION,          ISLAND
           WHIDBEY ISLAND
           (SEAPLANE BASE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        NORTHWEST         EVERSON    98247   WHATCOM         9/28/1999
           TRANSFORMER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        NORTHWEST         EVERSON    98247   WHATCOM         9/26/1997
           TRANSFORMER
           (SOUTH HARKNESS
           STREET)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        OLD INLAND PIT    SPOKANE    99216   SPOKANE         8/31/1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        PESTICIDE LAB     YAKIMA     98902   YAKIMA           9/1/1993
           (YAKIMA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        PORT HADLOCK      INDIAN     98358   JEFFERSON       6/14/2005
           DETACHMENT        ISLAND
           (USNAVY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        SILVER MOUNTAIN   LOOMIS     98827   OKANOGAN        9/22/1997
           MINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        SPOKANE JUNKYARD/ SPOKANE    99207   SPOKANE         9/23/1997
           ASSOCIATED
           PROPERTIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        TOFTDAHL DRUMS    BRUSH      98606   CLARK          12/23/1988
                             PRAIRIE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        TULALIP LANDFILL  MARYSVIL   98270   SNOHOMISH       9/18/2002
                             LE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA        YAKIMA PLATING    YAKIMA     98902   YAKIMA          8/23/1994
           CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI        EAU CLAIRE        EAU        54701   EAU CLAIRE      5/27/2014
           MUNICIPAL WELL    CLAIRE
           FIELD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI        FADROWSKI DRUM    FRANKLIN   53132   MILWAUKEE        9/6/2005
           DISPOSAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI        NORTHERN          SPARTA     54656   MONROE         10/29/1997
           ENGRAVING CO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI        OMEGA HILLS       GERMANTO   53022   WASHINGTON     12/11/1996
           NORTH LANDFILL    WN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI        TOMAH             TOMAH      54660   MONROE          8/20/2001
           FAIRGROUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI        WASTE RESEARCH &  EAU        54701   EAU CLAIRE       2/5/1993
           RECLAMATION CO.   CLAIRE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI        WHEELER PIT       LA         53545   ROCK            4/20/2004
                             PRAIRIE
                             TOWNSHI
                             P
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV        FOLLANSBEE        FOLLANSB   26037   BROOKE          1/16/2004
                             EE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV        LEETOWN           LEETOWN    25430   JEFFERSON       8/29/1996
           PESTICIDE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WY        BAXTER/UNION      LARAMIE    82070   ALBANY          12/6/1999
           PACIFIC TIE
           TREATING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that not every location listed has a County (i.e.,
  Tribal lands, U.S Territory, etc.).

                         CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you. And with that, the 
subcommittee stands adjourned.
    Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., Wednesday, April 20, the 
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to 
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
```