[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley (Chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Merkley, Leahy, Reed, Tester, Van Hollen,
Heinrich, Murkowski, and Capito.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY
Senator Merkley. Welcome everyone. I am so pleased to get
this hearing underway for the Environmental Protection Agency
Budget. And so, pleased to have with us today, Administrator
Regan, and also acting CFO for the EPA, David Bloom. And so
welcome. And welcome to my colleagues who are here today, in
this hearing on the fiscal year 2022 budget request for the
Environmental Protection Agency.
After 10 years of painful budget caps, EPA's budget today
is 25 percent lower in real dollars, than its fiscal year 2010
funding level. EPA staffing levels have dropped 20 percent. We
are at a low point for the resources desperately needed to
tackle the breadth and depth of the public health and
environmental challenges facing our Nation.
The administration's requested budget increase for EPA is a
little under $2 billion, or 22 percent compared to the fiscal
year 2021. These levels would help reverse the funding and
staffing losses EPA has suffered. But we are not here to simply
recreate the old EPA. These levels would begin to remake the
Agency to confront the enormous challenges of today.
It is an essential step environmental protection funding
that enables a robust response to the threats communities face
across our Nation, from contaminated air and water, to
Superfund sites, to environmental injustices, to climate chaos.
In Oregon, and all over United States and the world, climate
chaos is a fact of life. Last summer, devastating wildfires
incinerated several of the towns in my home State of Oregon,
destroying hundreds of homes, leveling businesses to the
ground, tragically killing 11 individuals.
I drove from the northern border to the southern border and
back again, for more than 600 miles and never got out of the
smoke. I have never seen anything like that before. But these
types of fires are increasingly common, as fire season gets
longer and hotter, the forests are drier. And even this summer
is shaping up to be another emergency, with historic drought
conditions present across the West. For the first time in 105
years, there is no water for irrigation in the Klamath Basin.
It is inescapable, climate chaos is a present day crisis
and urgent action is essential. The prior administration rolled
back clean air and climate protections. They walked away from
our global commitment to address climate change. We lost ground
at a moment when we need to supercharge our ambition. It is
encouraging to see the Biden administration reverse that
dangerous course, commit to follow the science and work to
tackle this challenge.
The $1.8 billion in climate-related funding included in
this proposal is a breath of fresh air after the slash and burn
budget requests from the last administration. We need to treat
this crisis as an emergency and act with boldness, these
investments are an important step forward, a step towards
right-sizing our climate investment. We also need urgency and
boldness in addressing our Nation's long history of
environmental injustice.
It is a tragic fact that our laws and our lack of
enforcement of laws have failed to protect overburdened
communities that all too often, are low-income communities of
color. The administration's nearly $1 billion proposed
investment Environmental Justice Initiatives is historic and
long overdue.
This proposal appropriately aims, prioritize and mainstream
environmental justice across all of EPA, providing the
resources needed for EPA to elevate environmental justice
voices within Agency programs, and decisionmaking. And I
appreciate that the budget request includes more than $3
billion in funding for water infrastructure, for grants, and
loans, other support, including WIFIA, Water Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act program that I championed through
the authorization and funding process years ago.
I am pleased that WIFIA has made possible a long list of
clean water projects that serve 31 million Americans. But more
progress is needed a path forward for families that are facing
steep water bills and shutoffs after falling behind during the
pandemic. And we need programs that prioritize the small
communities, often low-end communities that I hear from across
Oregon, where their clean water supply and their wastewater
treatment is unable to keep up with the deteriorating
infrastructure built more than half-a-century ago, including
wooden pipes that often go back 100 years, to keep up with the
new and important standards for clean water and for wastewater,
or simply prepare for the possibility of expanding the size of
a town.
So we have to come up with a lot of help for these small
communities. And I am heartened by the increases in grant
funding in the--in the budget requests that are directed to
this challenge. We need to rebuild our environmental protection
framework, which is battered and battered over the last decade
by budget caps and the last administration's tenure.
We need to rebuild the EPA and provide long overdue relief
to its State, Tribal and local partners on the frontlines of
implementing our environmental laws. And I am pleased to see
the proposed budgets attention to this challenge.
Administrator Regan, you started your career at EPA, and I
know you understand the contributions of the Agency and its
dedicated professionals to clean air and clean water across the
country. The staffing numbers at EPA have been cut to a level
not in almost 40 years. The President's budget request before
us today would return 1,000 staff to the Agency, an important
step.
We need to rebuild this Agency that has lost 3,000
scientists, toxic cleanup specialists, environmental engineers,
drinking water technicians, toxicologists, and other experts
over the course of the last decade. From your leadership at the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, you are
familiar with EPA's role in partnering with local leadership.
In fact, half of EPA's funding is passed on to State,
Tribal and community partners to support State environmental
agencies, air quality monitoring, clean water infrastructure
projects, and local priorities. This has certainly been
important in my home State of Oregon.
We need urgency, but we also need consistency, and the
President's American Jobs Plan prioritized investments to
tackle climate change and environmental injustice, but it is
also important these programs are increased in the annual
budget.
Right sizing our annual funding for these priorities,
otherwise a one-time infrastructure investment we followed by
years of neglect and backsliding. There is no more important
statement of our values than a budget. And I like the values I
see in this budget and I stand ready to help the administration
provide the resources we need to tackle these really important
challenges.
Let me turn to my colleague, Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski
from the State of Alaska for any comments she would like to
make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. And to you, Administrator Regan, good morning, and
welcome to your first budget hearing before this subcommittee.
I am glad to be joining Chairman Merkley for this very
important discussion about EPA's fiscal year 2022 budget
request.
I would like to open by first thanking you. It is always
good to start with a thank you, and notes of appreciation. But
you made an early commitment to work with me on a number of
issues that uniquely affect my State, that are important to
Alaska. You and your staff have been responsive in engaging
with me and my team. And I truly do appreciate that. It is my
sincere hope that this level of outreach and coordination will
continue throughout your tenure as administrator.
And on that note, as the Agency, under this administration,
reviews and potentially rescinds regulations that were
promulgated under the previous administration, it is imperative
that you engage with Congress and consider all perspectives
before taking action.
The Agency, under the previous administration, I think,
struck the right regulatory balance on a number of key issues,
and I would point to WOTUS as a specific example. You stated in
a previous hearing that you are, ``Not satisfied'', close quote
with the existing WOTUS rule, and WOTUS and many other
regulations that significantly affect Alaska, and the Nation,
my hope is this administration not engage in the regulatory
overreach that we saw under the Obama administration.
So I credit you for your goal of finding common ground
among varying stakeholders. And again, I cannot stress how
important that will be, in practice, on these issues. Another
issue where it is important to find common ground among diverse
stakeholders is on long-term protections for the Bristol Bay
watershed. Last week, I had an opportunity to visit Dillingham,
out in the Bristol Bay region, to begin discussions on what
protections may be needed and really the overall future of the
region.
I was able to reiterate my commitment to developing a long-
term, durable solution, and begin the process to develop a
legislative proposal based off of input from regional
stakeholders.
And, Administrator Regan, as I shared with you and the
other EPA nominees that I have had an opportunity to speak
with, I have been--I think I have been pretty clear in my
concerns about the use of the 404(c) veto for the Pebble
Deposit. I hope you will be working with us on legislative
protections and not relying solely on heavy-handed
administrative approaches. Again, my interest here is to find
an enduring solution here. And I would like to work with you on
that.
Now, turning to fiscal year 2022, the EPA's budget request
totals approximately $11.2 billion. That is almost a 22 percent
increase over last year's funding level. This along with $116
billion proposed in the American Jobs Plan is really a stunning
amount of proposed funding for the Agency.
This budget request and the American Jobs Plan are both
proposals as of now, and of course Congress will ultimately
decide the fate of both. There are a number of proposed
increases in the request that I can support and a number that I
cannot. I appreciate the request commitment to State, and
tribal grant, and loan programs that lead to on-the-ground
improvements for communities across the country.
In my time with this subcommittee, and particularly as
chair, I have worked hard to provide increases to the many EPA
programs that achieve the real substantive results in attaining
cleaner air, water, and lands for the people of Alaska, and
across this great country. And I will continue to do so.
I will say that I am disappointed to see that the Alaska
Native Villages Program and the targeted Airshed Program are
held flat in a request that does include so many increases.
These are grant programs that really help to address some
important and significant problems in the State of Alaska. So I
would hope that we would see increases in future requests for
both.
On the American Jobs Plan and infrastructure spending, if
an infrastructure bill is passed, and I am one of those that is
working to try to do just that, it is critical that remote and
rural communities are able to easily access funding, which is a
challenge many such communities face. The administration's
proposal makes mention of funds for underserved communities,
but lacks details that provide assurance that the funding will
be meaningfully helpful in remote communities, such as we have
in so many of our Native villages across the State.
It is critical that you, and really all of us, work to
ensure that steep barriers to entry on infrastructure funding,
such as high matching requirements, are avoided for these very
smaller communities.
So to close, I will reiterate that I do appreciate your
commitment to working with me on so many of these issues that
are important to Alaska, but also, very, very unique. And I
think you have noted that. I will be asking you about a number
of them in my questions this morning. And I look forward to
your continued help towards making progress on these, and so
many issues that are important to our country.
Thank you, Administrator. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Leahy, did you wish to make an opening statement?
Senator Leahy. No. I will have questions later.
Senator Merkley. Okay.
Very good; Administrator Regan, we will turn it over for
your opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Regan. Thank you Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
Murkowski, and Members of the subcommittee. I am grateful for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the EPA's
President's budget request for fiscal year 2022.
For half a century, EPA has worked hard to provide the
American people with clean air to breathe, clean water to
drink, and safe, healthy land. EPA's dedicated career staff at
our headquarters in Washington, D.C., and throughout the 10
regions, work every day to improve the lives of our people
across this great Nation, and have risen to the occasion
presented to us through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Earlier this month, President Biden sent to Congress EPA's
budget request for $11.2 billion. If enacted this budget would
help ensure that EPA continues to meet its essential mandate by
providing the resources necessary to confront our environmental
challenges, especially in our overburdened communities. EPA's
mission is to protect human health and the environment.
To achieve these goals, we must have resources to help all
communities across the Nation who are on the frontlines of
protecting public health and cleaning up pollution. That is why
almost 50 percent of the President's budget request for EPA
supports EPA's State and Tribal partners through the State and
Tribal Assistance Grant Program. State and tribal leaders know
their communities better than the Federal Government ever
could.
It is also why the budget of every place-based program,
from the San Francisco Bay to the Chesapeake Bay was increased.
These programs are key to managing and accelerating the
restoration of our Nation's treasured water bodies which helps
sustain local and regional economies, ensuring access to clean
and safe water for all Americans is another priority for this
administration.
At EPA, we have seen that investing in water infrastructure
is a win-win for public health and for economic development.
The 2022 budget provides $3.6 billion to EPA to rebuild our
water infrastructure with targeted increases to our State
revolving loan funds. These programs assist States, Tribes, and
territories with infrastructure projects that help provide
clean water and safe water management in all communities across
the country. Water infrastructure investments, however, only
represent one aspect of clean and safe water.
The Agency will also invest resources and expand efforts to
address the pervasive and persistent chemicals known as PFAS in
our drinking water. As part of the President's commitment to
tackle PFAS pollution, the budget provides approximately $75
million to accelerate toxicity studies and funds research to
inform our regulatory process, additional funds for technical
assistance grants have also been set aside for State and local
governments to deal with PFAS contamination in their own
communities.
Under the President's leadership we are taking action to
tackle climate change, to ensure a livable planet for future
generations. This budget invests in programs that will help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including $100 million for air
quality grants directly to States and Tribes to tackle emission
levels on a local and regional scale.
An additional $30 million will help improve the knowledge
of the impacts of climate change on human health and the
environment through our scientific research programs. Much like
climate change, environmental justice underpins all of our
work. The pandemic ignited a perfect storm for communities of
color and low-income communities who already bear the highest
burdens of pollution, suffer the highest rates of mortality
from heart and lung disease, and recently, COVID-19 as well.
The budget invests $936 million toward new, accelerating,
environmental and economic justice initiatives for efforts
across the Agency that will help create jobs, clean up
pollution, and secure environmental justice for communities who
have been left behind far too often. In the 40 years since
Congress' creation of the Superfund program, we have made
significant progress, but much work remains to be done. Under
my leadership EPA would do everything in its power to hold
responsible parties accountable for environmental degradation,
and return land to safe and productive use for communities.
Our budget provides $882 million for Superfund remedial
programs to clean up America's most contaminated land. That is
a $293 million increase. Our budget provides $882 million for
Superfund remedial programs to clean up America's most
contaminated land, reduce emissions of toxic substances, and
respond to environmental emergencies, oil spills, and natural
disasters.
Chairman, and Members of the subcommittee, the fiscal year
2022 budget will help ensure EPA can meet the interconnected
health and environmental crisis we face, lift up communities
who have long been left behind, and put the Nation on a
prosperous path to economic recovery. And EPA is ready to meet
those challenges.
So, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to your continued partnership, and welcome any
questions that you might have. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael S. Regan
Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the bold vision laid out in the American Jobs Plan. This
plan is a transformational investment that puts working people first
and will help ensure we reduce pollution and help create good quality
jobs.
the american jobs plan
In March, President Biden released the American Jobs Plan. This
plan recognizes that now is the time for a bold, once-in-a-generation
investment in America to put millions of people to work and lay the
foundation for economic growth for decades to come by investing in
infrastructure.
Infrastructure in the 21st century extends far beyond just roads
and bridges. It means investing in our electrical grid and building
more resilient transmission. It means revitalizing digital
infrastructure to expand access to reliable, high-speed broadband
Internet in every pocket of the country, especially rural areas and
underserved communities. And it also means investing in our drinking
water and wastewater infrastructure, cleaning up and restoring our
land, and investing in programs to reduce air pollution for our kids.
Guaranteeing clean water for all
The American Jobs Plan proposes a $111 billion investment in water
infrastructure, including a $45 billion investment to replace 100
percent of lead service lines and pipes through the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act grants. Replacing
lead service lines is vital for public health and yet EPA estimates
that six to 10 million homes in the United States and up to 400,000
schools and daycare centers have lead service lines. The impact of lead
exposure, including through drinking water, is a serious public health
issue and its adverse effects on children are all too well known. In
children, lead can cause irreversible and life-long health effects,
including decreasing IQ, focus, and academic achievement.
The plan also would invest $56 billion in grants and low-cost
flexible loans to States, Tribes, territories, and disadvantaged
communities across the country to upgrade and modernize America's
drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems, tackle new
contaminants, and support clean water infrastructure across rural
America. The American Jobs Plan also provides $10 billion in funding to
monitor and remediate PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in
drinking water and to invest in rural small water systems, and
household well and wastewater systems, including drainage fields.
In total, these investments will create millions of good paying
jobs, including union jobs.
We know from experience that water infrastructure investments not
only improve public health--they also create good-paying jobs. Through
our State Revolving Funds, EPA has already provided more than $189
billion in financial assistance to nearly 43,000 water quality
infrastructure projects and 16,500 drinking water projects. This has
created over 300,000 jobs in the last 2 years alone. Through the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan program, EPA has
provided $9 billion in credit assistance to help finance more than $19
billion for water infrastructure while creating nearly 47,000 jobs and
saving ratepayers $4 billion.
Investing in clean buses for kids
When I was a kid growing up in Eastern North Carolina I had to use
an inhaler, an experience familiar for far too many kids. That is why
the American Jobs Plan proposes to electrify at least 20 percent of our
yellow school bus fleet through a new Clean Buses for Kids Program at
EPA. We know this type of investment works and that it is important to
protect kids on their way to and from school. Since 2008, Congress has
provided funding through EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA)
for more than 28,000 school bus upgrades, including more than 4,000
school bus replacements. The Clean Buses for Kids Program is a new
program, which would build on the lessons learned from DERA while
leaving the existing program intact.
Reducing emissions from school buses has demonstrated positive
health benefits for the children who ride them, the drivers, people
around school bus loading areas, and the communities in which they
operate. These investments will also boost market demand to create
jobs, build out infrastructure and support U.S. manufacturing.
Cleaning up and restoring our land
In the 40 years since the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was signed into law, we have
significant progress on cleaning up and restoring our land, but the
work is far from over. Under my leadership, EPA will do everything in
its power to hold bad actors accountable for environmental degradation
and return land to safe and productive use for communities. Communities
located within one mile of Superfund sites are disproportionately
communities of color and low-income. Remediation of these sites will
strengthen climate resilience, improve public health, and expand job
opportunities both in these communities, and the Nation at large.
The American Jobs Plan proposes a $5 billion investment in the
remediation and redevelopment of Brownfield and Superfund sites, as
well as related economic and workforce development programs. Cleaning
up contaminated sites so they can be returned to productive use can be
an engine for economic development across the country. Since Congress
started the Brownfields program, Federal investments have leveraged
$34.6 billion, supported over 176,000 jobs, and thousands of properties
have been cleaned up or made ready for reuse.
the fiscal year 2022 discretionary funding request
President Biden's proposed fiscal year 2022 discretionary request
for the Environmental Protection Agency of $11.2 billion advances key
EPA priorities, including tackling the climate crisis, delivering
environmental justice, and rebuilding core functions at the Agency. The
fiscal year 2022 discretionary funding request prioritizes working with
and supporting State, local and Tribal leaders in expanding capacity in
community development, cleaning up toxic waste, and investing in water
infrastructure projects that create good paying jobs. Within the EPA
topline, $1.8 billion will support investments related to tackling the
climate crisis, with more than half supporting environmental justice
work. In addition, the request dedicates resources to restoring
scientific integrity at the Agency and ensuring the foundation of our
decisionmaking process is grounded in science.
EPA is also seeking additional resources and staff to enforce the
environmental laws that Congress has passed so that all companies play
on a level playing field and our communities share in public health
benefits.
Restoring the Agency
Responding to the environmental crises at hand requires a systemic
approach in expanding the Agency's capacity. EPA lost nearly 1,000
dedicated staff over the past 4 years, and it has affected the Agency's
ability to carry out its core duties and functions to protect public
health and the environment. The discretionary request invests over $110
million to restore EPA's staff capacity and to rebuild programmatic
capabilities that focus on protecting clean air, land, and water.
Restoring capacity across the Agency will strengthen our ability to
tackle multiple priorities, from clean air and water, to cutting edge
research at the Agency. Restoring the voice of our employees and
supporting their efforts--through the best available science--to
advance the mission of the Agency has never been more important.
Tackling the climate crisis
Under the Biden-Harris administration, EPA is reprioritizing
addressing climate change with the urgency the crisis demands. The
discretionary request invests $1.8 billion in programs to tackle the
climate crisis while also delivering environmental justice to
marginalized and over-burdened communities, growing the economy, and
creating good paying jobs.
This request invests in programs to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, including an additional $100 million for air quality grants
to States and Tribes to tackle emission levels on a local and regional
scale. An additional $30 million is included to improve knowledge of
the impacts of climate change on human health and the environment
through our research programs--more than doubling EPA's climate change
research while providing additional investments to decrease emissions
of methane and hydrofluorocarbons.
Prioritizing environmental justice
The communities hardest hit and struggling the most under the
weight of the pandemic are often communities of color, lower income
communities, and Tribal nations. For decades, many of these same
communities have been overburdened with air pollution and other
environmental hazards. An individual's skin color or their zip code
shouldn't determine whether they have clean air to breathe and water to
drink.
This request invests $936 million towards a new Accelerating
Environmental and Economic Justice Initiative that will help secure
environmental justice for communities who too often have been left
behind while creating jobs, cleaning up pollution, and implementing the
Justice40 Initiative to advance racial equity. Like climate change,
environmental justice underpins the work of the Agency and is an
integral part of this national conversation surrounding equality and
equity in the Nation's communities.
The environmental justice initiative invests in a new community air
quality monitoring and notification program, provides additional funds
to enforce existing laws meant to protect communities from hazardous
pollution, and allocates resources to hold polluters liable in civil
and criminal suits. As part of the Justice40 Initiative, $100 million
will support development and implementation of a community notification
program to monitor and provide real-time data to the public on current
environmental pollution. These investments build on the funds provided
by the American Rescue Plan, which will help address disproportionate
environmental or public health risks in minority and low-income
populations resulting from exposure to pollution and the COVID-19
pandemic.
american rescue plan
I also want to acknowledge and thank Congress for recognizing EPA's
critical role in addressing human health and environmental disparities
through the American Rescue Plan. Polluted air, contaminated water, and
hazardous waste continue to threaten public health, and the COVID-19
pandemic has compounded the seriousness of such inequities for
communities for color and low-income communities across the Nation. The
American Rescue Plan provides $100 million for the EPA to address these
issues; $50 million targeted specifically to advance environmental
justice and $50 million to help States, Tribes, and localities improve
air quality for their communities. As we work to implement programs and
projects to best maximize the use of this funding, I am focused on
ensuring these vital funds have the highest and best impact on the
ground.
conclusion
In closing, I want to reiterate how crucial the American Jobs Plan
is to achieve our shared goal of reducing pollution and putting people
to work. With these investments we can tackle the climate crisis with
the urgency it requires and ensure the benefits of a cleaner
environment are enjoyed by all Americans.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to
our continued partnership to achieve these ambitious yet necessary
goals and welcome any questions you may have.
STAFFING STRATEGY
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Administrator Regan.
And it is a real chance for us to dive into different elements
that the senators are interested in. I wanted to start with the
staffing strategy that you are laying out in this budget. Folks
may say: You want to hire a thousand more people. What are
those thousand more people going to do? Why are they essential?
Mr. Regan. You know, it is essential that we have the
adequate resources and workforce to protect America's
resources, air, water, and land. In 2008, we had over 18,000
employees. We have seen a decline over quite a few years,
especially the last 4 years, and now we are right around
14,000. That is not an adequate workforce to protect America's
people.
So, we are asking for the increase of just over 1,000
employees, a significant number that we lost over the past 4
years. The numbers, we believe, need to focus on providing the
appropriate research, scientific research, the analytical
capabilities to inform our regulations, but more importantly,
the capabilities and capacity in our regional offices to
provide the partnership and the technical expertise for
activities that are occurring on the ground.
Senator Merkley. So you are saying that even with this
increase, you will still be 3,000 employees fewer than where
you were at 4 years ago?
Mr. Regan. In 2008 we were at 18,000. And so, yes, with
this increase we will still have a significantly reduced
workforce. On top of that, like many agencies, we have a
workforce that is in transition, an aging workforce. What we
hope to do with this 1,000 employees is replenish the capacity
that we have lost, but also build the capacity that we need for
future activities to protect our air, water, and land.
STATE EPA FUNDING
Senator Merkley. Well, that is pretty important. And I was
very struck that almost half your workforce is retirement-
eligible in just 5 years, we are going to continue to see
rebuilding a younger team that will be there for the next
generation to take us forward.
I wanted to turn to the funding that you send out to the
States and you were--you saw it directly in your role in North
Carolina. So, can you give me a sense from your work on the
ground, how important that Federal EPA funding was in
supporting your efforts inside North Carolina, or more broadly
in other States?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. It is critical. When you think about
the awesome responsibilities that the States have through a
delegated authority, they are responsible for protecting their
communities. So, these precious resources that we pass through
to the States are critical for their success. Whether that be
repairing aging water infrastructure, protecting individual
communities from PFAS pollution, or looking at the equal
distribution of protection through environmental justice
inequity.
Senator Merkley. Is there any one particular example you
can draw from North Carolina of a project that was advanced
because of those Federal funds?
Mr. Regan. You know, there are a number that we can talk
through. I think when we look at the mixture of economic
development, and environmental protection, the resources we got
for our Brownfields programs were critical. I actually got the
chance to oversee the 600th Brownfield site redeveloped in
North Carolina. The amount of revenue that flows from these
redeveloped lands are just awesome.
The same goes for water infrastructure. We have got an
aging water infrastructure across this country. North Carolina
was no different, significant needs there. Without adequate
Federal State partnership, we risk vulnerabilities to our good
quality drinking water.
Senator Merkley. Do you still have communities with wooden
pipes like we do in the west?
Mr. Regan. You know, we have communities with wooden pipes,
we have communities with lead pipes, we have communities with
pipes that are over 100 years old. This is absolutely no way to
deliver good quality drinking water to the American citizens.
CLIMATE CHALLENGES
Senator Merkley. Thank you. So the most important
challenge, the most--the biggest challenge to humanity on this
planet is climate, climate chaos. And, you are dedicating a
significant amount of resources in your budget to tackling this
challenge. Can you paint maybe what are the two or three most
important aspects of your effort, proposed effort are?
Mr. Regan. The funding there is critical to ensure that we
have the science to inform the decisions that we have to make.
Those resources are really critical in terms of the scientific
integrity, the quantification of the impact, and ensuring that
we know how to predict where we are going to be and provide the
right solutions.
So, as we think about solutions, and what I mean in terms
of solutions is, as we look at potential rulemakings, that will
capture the imagination of the future using the latest
technologies to get deep cuts, like in pollution, like methane,
we really need those resources for the ability to quantify the
technologies available, understand the science, but more
importantly, engage with our partners on the ground so that we
are providing the right solutions for each State.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you very much.
We are going to turn now to Senator Murkowski.
WOTUS RULE--STATUS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot to talk about here this morning, so I appreciate this
conversation; let me, let me begin, Administrator, with the
subject that I raised in my opening statement, concerns about
the likelihood of the Agency, potentially, rewriting the
current WOTUS rule.
I have described the Obama administration's approach to
WOTUSs as a showstopper, certainly negative consequences to
Alaska, approximately two-thirds of the State of Alaska is
already considered wetlands. And so if you have an overreaching
WOTUS rule, you have got--you have got real complications in
terms of what most we would consider relatively minor and
routine projects that would then be subject to a level of
review that most would say is just beyond--beyond belief.
So, the question for you this morning is: What is the
current status of the review of the rule? Whether or not the
Agency has any timeline for future actions on the existing
rule?
Mr. Regan. What I would say is, I have been traveling and
talking with a number of individuals, the industry, State
leaders. I was in North Dakota last week discussing this very
rule. I am being consistent with what I have said before, which
is we are evaluating the path forward because we believe that
we have got some lessons learned from previous actions. We look
at some of the complexities that you have referenced, and many
have referenced in the Obama rule.
We are looking at what I believe to be an abdication of
some responsibilities for water quality protection under the
current rule. There are lessons learned for both. What I am
committed to do is engaging with the Secretary of USDA, with
the Army Corps of Engineers, with the agriculture community,
and with the communities that are impacted, and Congress, to
best understand how do we have a long-term, durable solution
and not continue to have the ping-pong and back and forth.
LISTENING SESSIONS--ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that, and the fact
that you are going out, whether it is to North Dakota, or other
places, you are holding listening sessions, you have indicated
that you are going to be doing that this summer with
stakeholders. I appreciate that. Can you tell me if you are
planning to hold any such sessions in Alaska?
Mr. Regan. You know, I don't believe we have mapped out.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Regan. But I do know that we can definitely consider
your request as we map out listening sessions. I was in North
Dakota last week during the confirmation for the assistant
administrator of water. She committed to holding a listening
session in North Dakota. Our goal really is to hold listening
sessions in places that felt that they did not get a chance to
voice their concerns. So, we are mapping that out, and will
continue to work closely with our partners.
PFAS CONTAMINATION
Senator Murkowski. Well, and if you can just keep us
apprised of that in your progress along the way. Because,
again, critically important in a State like ours. Another issue
that people are talking about everywhere, some more lively in
other communities than others, is the issue that you have
raised of PFAS. I was out in Dillingham this past week, I have
been in Fairbanks this past week, and the issue of PFAS is
considerable to both of them, but we have other communities.
Down in Gustavus they are trying to do some repairs or
extension of a small, little airstrip there, and they have got
PFAS contamination that is really quite a concern to that small
community, up in the North Slope, the community of Utqiagvik. I
am very concerned about the implications for health, and what
we are doing.
As when I was chairman of this subcommittee I prioritized
PFAS funding from both the research and the need for regulatory
actions, and for getting money to the States to help with
remediation in the absence of Federal guidelines. So, I
appreciate that the Agency under your leadership is building on
the previous administration's PFAS action place, with the
establishment of the EPA Council on PFAS.
So can you kind of walk me through, and I know other
Members are very concerned about this as well, what the
Agency's timeline is for listing PFAS, or any of the specific
compounds, listing as a hazardous substance. And I am just
trying to understand because when we don't have Federal
guidelines it is difficult to help the States and local
communities take on this matter of PFAS contamination.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Well, I will tell you, in the budget
we are requesting at least $75 million to focus on accelerating
some of the toxicity studies that we have underway to inform
our regulatory approach. Part of that $75 million again, we are
really focused on State and State partnerships. We provide
grants to help State and local governments deal with PFAS
contamination right now.
We started the process of setting the primary drinking
water regulation for both PFOA and PFOS, and developing a
monitoring rule to improve EPA's understanding of the
occurrence of this and our Nation's drinking water. We have
also issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to
solicit data, to improve our understanding of the treatment of
PFAS in our wastewater discharge. We sent a proposed rule to
OMB that would require manufacturers to import PFAS chemicals
to report on the historic uses, the production volumes, just a
lot of information that we have never collected and don't have.
We have announced the policy designed to prevent the
introduction of new unsafe PFAS into commerce, something we are
working with the Department of Commerce on. So those
activities, plus the $75 million budget request, overlaid with
what you have identified, which is the establishing a PFAS
Council, we have got all hands on deck. I can assure you, being
on the receiving end of a PFAS issue in the State of North
Carolina, it is a priority for me, and it is a priority for
this Agency.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that my time has
expired, Mr. Chairman. But again, what I am hearing from folks
back home is when are they going to be listing this? You have
outlined, I think, very thoroughly what we are doing to put
resources in place to make sure that we are getting this--the
research, and an understanding again about the toxicity. But if
there--if there is any semblance of a timeline that you think
might be realistic, I think that that helps people.
Mr. Regan. I will have staff provide you with that
information.
pfas: timeline for proposed rulemaking
The administration is currently discussing options for moving
forward with the hazardous substance designation of PFOA and PFOS and
is committed to protective steps guided by science and law moving
forward.
Senator Murkowski. Super. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Leahy.
EPA'S GEOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Senator Murkowski for having this hearing.
And, Administrator, it is great to see you here. Thank you
for being here. Now, you may find, and I am sure this will not
be totally surprising to you, that in hearings before the
Appropriations Committee, sometimes, some of the questions may
seem a tiny bit parochial, and I just wanted to alert you to
that had you not been aware.
I do like President Biden's budget with his commitments on
climate change, environmental protection, justice, community,
resilience, and they are not empty gestures. They are the
cornerstones of this administration, and the budget proposal is
a statement of values. I have been concerned about some of the
dismantling attacks that subverted science threatened our basic
environmental laws. And in our State Republicans and Democrats
are agreed, we want to protect the environment.
So, I am pleased that the request includes funding for
EPA's geographic programs, including $20 million for Lake
Champlain. The funding for Lake Champlain, which the previous
administration repeatedly sought to eliminate, is fundamental
to your mission. The dollars leveraged abroad, the network of
stakeholders, experts, funding streams, to support our goal of
a drinkable, and swimmable, and fishable lake, that is outside
of the five Great Lakes. It is the largest body of fresh water
in our country. We are doing a lot to reduce runoff, combat
invasive species.
So, my question is: In what ways do EPA's different
geographic programs, like those for Lake Champlain and the
Great Lakes, benefit when one another? And why is it important
to continue these programs?
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that question, and the
acknowledgement. We all acknowledged that these are national
treasures. You know, Lake Champlain, our bays, our pocosins.
This is really important, and I think the President's budget
reflects that priority, $36 million increase over last year's
budget to focus on the protection of these water bodies.
It is critical that we, number one, partner with our States
to protect these national treasures for a couple of reasons:
the first, because we want to preserve the ecological vitality
and what they mean to us all culturally, but from an economic
standpoint, significant revenue driver for our local
communities as well. What you will see in the President's
budget is not only resources dedicated to the geographical
programs, as I have mentioned, but in the infrastructure
resources, in general, you will see that we are going to focus
on both hardened infrastructure that is resilient to climate
change, but we are also focused on natural infrastructure that
will help to protect and preserve our national treasures as
well.
PCB RISKS
Senator Leahy. You are going to have more work than you can
possibly handle, but if you want a chance to see what this
looks like, you have an open invitation from me, and I will
come with you and show you what I think is a very attractive
area, with New York on one side of us and Canada to the North.
So you have an open invitation to join me there at any time.
And, you know, last September, just as people are getting
ready to return to in-person learning, the students at
Burlington High School, and Burlington is our largest city,
very small by other States' standards, large by Vermont's, they
were forced to relocate to the temporary site, actually a
former Macy's department store, because testing found levels of
PCBs in the school that exceeded the State threshold.
The building is going to be torn down, and they have got to
build on another site. Of course these PCBs were used a lot in
school construction through the 1960s and 1970s. So I suspect
you are going to see this all over the country and I appreciate
your setting out standards.
My one question is this: The threat to the health of the
students at Burlington High School was discovered only by
chance as the school prepared for new renovations. Many more
schools were built in my State of Vermont and every State
represented here, before EPA ban PCBs in 1979. What proactive
steps can EPA take to ensure that the full scope for this risk
is understood and dealt with?
Mr. Regan. That is a great question, and part of it really
flows to the core of this budget, which is ensuring that the
States have the resources, and that we have the resources to
have the proper partnership. As we evaluate the toxicity level
of many of these chemicals, past and present, that we care so
much about, it really does boil down to EPA's ability to
provide technical assistance and partnership with the States.
And so, as we see States all across the country, struggling
with PCB, asbestos, and the like, we are looking at the risk
evaluation of these pervasive chemicals and the partnership
opportunities with how the States can take the lead with the
Federal backing to address some of these issues that are more
localized.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Reed.
CYBERSECURITY PRACTICE FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
welcome Administrator Regan.
One of the issues that we have worked on is the Drinking
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. And I was involved in
with colleagues in trying to include significant resources of
cybersecurity, which is the issue de jour, and the issue for
the next generation, perhaps. And also I noticed that the EPA
budget includes $3.8 million boost to improve cybersecurity
practice for public water systems.
Can you comment on how you would implement this funding and
coordinating with other agencies, particularly Homeland
Security, Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency? And
again, from my experience on the defense panel, cybersecurity
is not a passing fad. It is going to be a compelling factor, as
long as we are around. So please?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. And,
you know, cyber attacks against our water and wastewater are
occurring more frequently, something that I thought about quite
often as a secretary in the State of North Carolina. In
addition to the resources, we are asking under the umbrella of
the infrastructure requests that the President has proposed,
about $4 million of that, as described in the President's
budget, and then I think we are looking at about 6 FTE that
would be focused squarely on cybersecurity.
You know, I would say Homeland Security is an invaluable
partner, but we have also got the State emergency officials,
and the partnerships with the Governors that are critical there
as well. So, when we think about the resiliency of our water
infrastructure, we are thinking about that physical resiliency,
but we are also thinking about that sort of software-hardware
piece that cybersecurity is invaluable for.
Senator Reed. And of particular concern is the coordination
with the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency. There
has to be a central point where information is gathered and
disseminated, and you feel comfortable that you have
established that rapport, yes?
Mr. Regan. I do. I feel comfortable that we have an
established rapport that we will continue to work and
strengthen as this issue becomes more prevalent.
DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT (DERA)
Senator Reed. Thank you. I am also pleased to see the EPA
budget proposed a significant increase in the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act, the DERA program, it is critical in my State,
and it is particularly critical in low-income communities of
color, which typically suffer from more exposure to these types
of pollution.
We have in the Port of Providence, for example, a great
deal of diesel activity was shipping and other vehicles coming
in and out, and no surprise located to relatively low-income
communities. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Regan. I could not agree with you more. The DERA
program is such an important program, and I hate to continue to
refer to my time as Secretary of North Carolina, but we
received DERA funds and it made all the difference in the
world. I think the President's budget recognizes the importance
of the DERA program, which is why we are asking for an increase
of about 67 percent.
The goal, obviously, is to transition to an electric
future, but looking at the placement of cleaner diesel
technologies right now is so important, especially in our lower
income communities, and especially when we think about
transportation like school buses that carry some of the most
precious cargo in this country.
CLIMATE CHANGE THREATS
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. The final point
is that the Clean and Drinking Water Revolving Funds are
critical to every State. I am sure North Carolina was no
exception. And we have been experiencing severe storms, et
cetera, and with this in mind, and thinking about these
revolving funds, what steps are you taking to ensure that when
we rebuild infrastructure, that we do it with climate change in
mind. Not just the history, or not just the next year or two,
but looking ahead at some of the projections that go out about
10 or 20 years?
Mr. Regan. You know that we have significant strong
partnerships with our States on these long-fund programs. At
the core of all of the conversation has been that topic of
resiliency from cyber attacks, but as well as from climate
threats as well. It is critical that we don't just put Humpty
Dumpty back together the same way, we know that we have to be
prepared. One important point I want to make is the reason that
EPA is so focused on the science is so that we can predict the
intensity of these storms so that we know how to design the
infrastructure to withstand the inevitable.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Administrator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
And Senator Heinrich.
WOTUS RULE
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. And Administrator,
thank you so much for being here this morning.
I want to start with the statement and just say how deeply
unsatisfied I am with the current WOTUS rule. According to the
New Mexico Environment Department, 96 percent of the wetlands
and waterways in New Mexico are not covered by that rule. I
will give you an example, major portions of the Santa Fe River,
which provides 40 percent of the drinking water for the City of
Santa Fe is not covered by that rule because the nature of
waterways in New Mexico are that they are seasonal.
That is what happens when you have snowpack in a desert
environment, and to disregard the critical nature of those
waterways in producing clean water for drinking, producing
water for agriculture, producing water for industry, and the
importance of protecting those waterways, I just think this
rule was horribly written, and I would urge you to revisit it
as soon as possible.
And I would invite you to engage with the New Mexico
Environment Department, because they are in the difficult
position of not having backup rules for the State of New
Mexico, because they actually relied on the Federal, previous
WOTUS rules under the Obama administration.
I want to talk a little bit, and some of my colleagues have
focused on this, but many rural and small communities need
financial assistance to maintain their clean drinking water and
wastewater systems. But the system that we have in the
revolving funds, the grants, they really rely heavily on local
matching funds. And as you probably recognize, with your
experience, in some of these low-income communities that have
had historic underinvestment in infrastructure, and simply
don't have the tax base, those matching funds are unrealistic.
So, we have a lot of communities where, because even a 10
percent match, much less a 25 or 50 percent match, we are
simply not upgrading the water infrastructure as a result of
the matches.
So, I wanted to ask you if you had given consideration to
this, if you have thought about how we can--you know, in
communities where the community can afford that. You know, I
have communities where clearly the tax base is there to make
that match, but I also have communities where it is absolutely
prohibitive to have that kind of match. So have you given much
thought to how we, you know, reevaluate the structure to make
sure we are making those investments in, historically,
underserved communities?
TAX BASED FUNDS FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
Mr. Regan. Yes. Thank you for that question. We have given
it a lot of thought and I have thought carefully about how we
really partner with the States at the State level. There is
enough autonomy for the States to determine some of these
matching levels. We see it swing from 10 percent to 40 percent.
I think we want to look at some consistency there. We want to
do it in a way that we partner with the States, not to have
Federal overreach, but encourage a scenario that addresses
exactly what you have laid out.
We have also collectively, in the States and the Federal
Government, have to take a look at what flexibilities we have
in our fund programs to determine which are loans at a normal
rate, which are zero-interest loans, and then what
flexibilities do we have just for grant programs? We know for
sure that there are communities out there that just don't have
the capacity or the resources to take out a loan. So, we have
given careful thought to that, and we will continue to partner
with you all on that.
THE RURAL COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PARTNERSHIP
Senator Heinrich. If you need additional authorities,
please ask for them, because I think this is critical. If you
look at a very remote village in States like Alaska or, you
know, we have communities in New Mexico that are hours away
from the nearest major city that actually has a more
traditional wastewater system, et cetera. We need to be able to
serve those communities. So ask us for that.
And, you know, one example of that is the colonias that we
have along the border, those are communities where there simply
is not the tax base. Unfortunately, I am disappointed to learn
that the EPA's U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program
was flat funded. The Rural Community Assistance Partnership
estimates the need there at $10 billion. And yet that was flat
in a budget that is largely very robust. So I would urge you to
look at that program and consider how we can better meet that
need, because if you think about historic frontline and
historically underserved communities, I would think that those
colonias would be very much within that definition.
Mr. Regan. Yes. We have carefully looked at that. One of
the things that you will see in this budget is the overlay,
whether it is infrastructure, Brownfields, Superfund, you see
the overlay of environmental justice inequity. There are
considerable grant dollars in those programs that address
unique challenges for underserved communities, whether that be
air quality monitoring, water quality, and water
infrastructure. So, we would love to work with your staff to
see if you don't see it line itemed in one category where there
may be some supplementation in other categories.
Senator Heinrich. I very much look forward to that.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Senator Murkowski has a comment on that
topic. And I will turn to Senator Van Hollen.
HONEY BUCKETS
Senator Murkowski. Yes. And I will be brief so that Senator
Van Hollen can go. But I want to speak to this issue of
environmental justice in water, and wastewater, and what it
means to communities that don't have the ability to make this
match. I asked my staff to bring up this poster, and I don't
know if you can see it back there, but what this is, this is a
four-wheeler here.
Two gentlemen are dumping the contents of a honey bucket. A
honey bucket is basically a Home Depot plastic bucket where
people--people go to the bathroom. And so he is dumping human
waste from honey buckets that have been just dumped into a
bucket. They run the four-wheeler down the Boardwalk. And this
is the dumping station, which is basically a lagoon on the
Tundra. This is the water--wastewater sanitation system in some
of the villages that I have in my State.
And Senator Heinrich, you have talked about, some of the
conditions in areas of New Mexico. Our reality is that this is
a--this is an injustice that most Americans would say: I cannot
believe that this is happening. I cannot believe that we would
allow this in a community in the United States of America. And
yet this is not just one example.
In the winter time this waste freezes, we call it a
``shitsicle''. And I don't mean to make light of it, but this
is the reality that we face and in some of our communities, so
when we talk about environmental justice, it is really about
some pretty basic things. It is water and it is sanitation, and
these kinds of pictures need to really be put in the history
books. So I wanted to just add my concern. I raised it in my
opening statement, but when you have communities that don't
have the ability to put together these matching requirements,
we have great funds that are available at the Federal level,
but they are not accessible to the very small, small
communities. And so they take the situation into their own
hands, and this is the result.
So, thank you, Ms. Chairman for letting me jump in before
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief.
But the point that the Ranking Member is making, is many of
these communities never got infrastructure in the first place.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Senator Heinrich. And we should address that.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen.
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED CLEANUP
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; Ranking Member
Murkowski. Mr. Administrator, good to see you.
I am going to start by talking about the Chesapeake Bay. We
have talked about it before. As you know, 6 States and the
District of Columbia drain into the Chesapeake Bay. That is why
about 50 years ago those States and the Federal Government
agreed that the EPA had to play a vital role in protecting the
bay.
In April, a group of Chesapeake Bay senators sent you a
letter outlining the challenge. And what I am looking for today
is your commitment to work with us, to make sure that we meet
the cleanup goals by 2025. Do we have that commitment?
Mr. Regan. I do.
WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Now, if you look at the, you
know, implementation plans, the watershed implementation plans
of the various States, one State stands out is not being in
compliance. And that is the State of Pennsylvania. If you just
look at their current cleanup plan, they will acknowledge that
they only will achieve 75 percent of the target needed to reach
the cleanup goals by 2025. So do we have your commitment that
you will work with us to make sure that Pennsylvania meets its
goals under the 2025 agreement?
Mr. Regan. We want to facilitate this process so that
everyone meets the goals that have been set out for protecting
this national treasure.
Senator Van Hollen. Okay. If you could get back to us with
your plan for how you are going to hold everybody accountable,
can you do that? Thanks.
Mr. Regan. We can do that.
watershed implementation plans: plan for pennsylvania to meet the goals
under the 2025 agreements
In fiscal year 2022, EPA will focus on supporting implementation of
the 2-year Logic & Action Plans for the 25 Management Strategies
developed under the Agreement, with particular focus on accelerating
implementation of outcomes where progress is lagging. EPA will
specifically support and prioritize implementation of the
jurisdictions' commitments for having all practices in place by 2025 to
achieve the necessary pollutant reductions. EPA will focus its
enforcement and programmatic resources to assist the jurisdictions in
achieving their commitments. President Biden's fiscal year 2022 budget
proposes an increase of approximately $3 million to increase support
for projects to accelerate the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
focusing on a number of outcomes, including improving water quality and
promoting climate resiliency.
VACANT POSITION--DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Senator Van Hollen. Now, way to really, you know,
coordinate this effort, because it does require coordination.
You know, a lot of the runoff into the Bay that needs to be
addressed is from agriculture runoff, which doesn't come
necessarily directly under the jurisdiction of the EPA in all
cases. And there are grants supplied by the Department of
Agriculture that could be helpful to farmers. So we need much
better coordination, which is why the Obama administration had
appointed kind of a quarterback at EPA, the senior advisor to
the administrator who could work with other agencies. I believe
it is your intent, but can you confirm that you plan to fill
that position?
Mr. Regan. We are looking at filling that position, and we
are trying to determine the Director of the Office of the
Chesapeake Bay, Region 3. What we want to do with these
resources that we are pushing forward is make that office more
muscular and have that office and that position as the
expertise that is whispering in the administrator's ear.
So, we are evaluating whether or not it is making that
office more muscular, and having the right leadership there, or
having someone in the administrator's office, what I would
perceive to be--could be detached from what we have started
there. So I think we are looking at, what is the best scenario
for me to have the best advice on the ground on how to
coordinate on these efforts.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Senator Van Hollen. Well, Mr. Administrator, okay. My
understanding was that, at the Agency you had decided to move
forward with this other position. Let me just stress that I
think that the Maryland delegation, others think it is really
important. I am glad--I would like to see a more muscular
Region 3, I am all for that. I don't see this as an either or
situation. As I mentioned, the Region 3 administrator could be
muscular within EPA's authority, but there are many other
pieces to this cleanup puzzle, including the Department of
Agriculture.
And you are going to need somebody who is 24/7, making sure
all the other agencies that are involved in the cleanup effort
are at the table and doing their job. So we will follow up with
you on that.
Let me ask you a question about your sort of air pollution
control systems, and including climate change. If you look at
the City of Baltimore, we have talked about this. Asthma-
related hospitalizations were three times the National average
in 2010, twice the Maryland average, and that is due to
heightened air pollution from 13 fossil fuel burning power
generation plants in that area.
How will community air monitoring in the budget expand
efforts of air pollutant control agencies to reduce greenhouse
gases that EPA regulates, also have a beneficial impact in
these areas?
Mr. Regan. In this budget, we have asked for, approximately
$100 million specifically for air quality monitoring in these
communities of concern, the communities that have been
disproportionately impacted, underserved. It will be of great
help to have the adequate monitoring in these communities so
that we have the data on the ground so that we can enforce the
regulations at the level we do to reverse the trends that we
have seen with this disproportionate impact.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I would
be remiss if I didn't say I support your budget. I was glad to
see the budget request for the Chesapeake Bay, the previous
administration, at first zeroed that out and then dramatically
cut it. So we are grateful for the budget. Thank you.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. In our effort to go back and forth between
Ds and Rs, we only have one Republican team Member with us, and
so we are going to return to Lisa Murkowski, and then Senator
Tester.
THE TARGETED AIRSHED GRANT PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Administrator, we have had an
opportunity to talk about the Targeted Airshed Grant Program.
As I have shared with you, I have many, many residents in the
Fairbanks North Star Borough who rely on woodstove heating, and
they have had real difficulties over the years meeting EPA air
quality requirements. The Targeted Airshed Grant Program has
been really helpful for them. So I am pleased that we were able
to secure a $14.7 million grant Fairbanks North Star Borough to
take actions like woodstove change out.
I had an opportunity when I was home in Fairbanks last week
to speak with the three mayors in the region, and this issue
was raised. The problem that we have faced, and I have raised
with you is that, there has been this recent report that finds
that EPA's oversight of certification standards and testing,
have led to this systematic failure where, effectively, these
newer stoves do not provide the pollution reduction that has
promised. And so, as I mentioned to you, we have got to address
this. We cannot be in a situation where, the EPA continues find
that Fairbanks is not meeting the air quality standards, while
at the same time it is allowing wood stoves to enter the
market, and don't have the Agency's standard.
So the question for you today is whether or not the Agency
is planning on revising its standards for the woodstoves? And
where we are with the timeline? And really, perhaps more broad
to the problem is: What is the Agency doing to conduct proper
testing and oversight of the woodstoves that are entering the
market? We want people to be making wise investment for all the
right reasons. And the right reasons will be they will be able
to keep their homes warm, while at the same time working to
reduce emissions.
THE TARGETED AIRSHED GRANT PROGRAM
Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, thank you for that. We have talked
about that, and I have pressed folks on that very issue. We
recognize the unique situation there. I think we have been
actively working to improve the testing and the certification
on that side of the ledger. I think we are making progress
there. The air quality in Alaska is improving considerably, but
we do have some of those remaining issues.
So, what we have done in this budget, as a reflection, have
put forth resources that we would push to the States, as well
as EPA has a responsibility to help to ensure that the proper
woodstoves are coming to market. We are collectively working
with you guys on the ground to get those change outs done as
needed.
I think we are also reevaluating test methods that will
specifically capture the uniqueness of Alaska to be sure that
we are measuring the right thing, and not having a one-size-
fits-all, and then also really focused again on the woodstove
change out program. So we have recognized that uniqueness. I
believe that we have been responsive in terms of the questions
that your staff have posed, but also the questions that the
States have posed to us. I think we are working with them hand
in glove on that.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Well, if we can just keep really
close on this because, again, people want to make the
investments. But they also want to know that--that the wood
stoves that they are purchasing are actually going to be in
compliance, and that they are not going to see, they are not
going to see EPA regs coming out next year saying: What you
bought, what you spent money on does not cut it right now. So
this is--this is important. So let us keep working on this.
Mr. Regan. Okay.
BROADER INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE
Senator Murkowski. Another issue in Fairbanks and kind of
Fairbanks-centric today. This relates to a building that has a
fair amount of history in Fairbanks. It is the tallest building
in town, it is 11 stories. But it has been vacant for a period
of years. It is not only an eyesore, but it is a hazard. It is
filled with contaminants like asbestos. It desperately needs to
be remediated, redeveloped, but it sits right in the core of
downtown.
The City of Fairbanks cannot demolish and redevelop in this
area without some option for remediation. And part of our
problem is you--we have no place to dispose of hazardous
materials, basically any hazardous materials that we have, we
have to ship down to the Lower 48. So that is--that is a
considerable cost and a challenge. So we have just been stymied
with how to deal with this extreme liability, environmental
liability, and liability to the community.
So, we have been looking for sources of funding within EPA
to help address this. I use this as a specific example of a
larger problem, which is how we can take steps to make
remediation of contaminated sites in Alaska more affordable,
because right now our projects get stopped before we even get
started because it is too expensive on paper, because we can't
get rid of the contaminated materials.
So, this is--and my time has expired. I want to be
courteous to Senator Tester here. But this is a big, big, big
issue for us. And as we are thinking about this broader
infrastructure package and how we--how we put in place
infrastructure, whether it is expanding airports or docks, the
fact of the matter is, is in most places in this country,
before you can put something new in, you have got to get rid of
the old, and the old has contamination.
So, we are looking at spending a lot of dollars to build
things. I think we are going to be surprised at how expensive
it is to start with the building, because we are dealing with
so much when it comes to issues of contamination. You are
talking about Superfund, but we are talking about just how do
you--how do you make the plate clean so that you can start
something new? Whether it is in Fairbanks for the Polaris
Building, or what we are going to be trying to do with this
broader infrastructure package?
polaris building and alaska waste
The Polaris Building, a former hotel located in the downtown
Fairbanks Opportunity Zone, has been vacant since 2002, and was
acquired by the City of Fairbanks in 2018. While a variety of potential
funding opportunities exist for project development, there are very few
available for the deconstruction of the building. Remediation and
removal of the structures are hurdles in preparing the site for an
anchor project for downtown revitalization and in appealing to a
private partner.
EPA Region 10 has directly supported the Polaris Building site by
conducting a Targeted Brownfields Assessment in 2018, which estimated
demolition costs ranged from $2 to $4 million. Additionally, EPA and
other Federal agencies (HUD, EDA, FEMA, EPA, etc.) have met with the
Fairbanks Polaris Building Redevelopment Team to explore Federal
funding opportunities and offer technical assistance.
In 2021, the City of Fairbanks applied for an $800,000 brownfields
multipurpose grant to address contamination at the Polaris Hotel.
Unfortunately, the City was not selected for funding through this
year's competitive grant program due to lack of program funding.
Additionally, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
uses about $400,000 each year of their Brownfields 128a funding to
address sites through their technical assistance for brownfields. These
funds could possibly be used to address the Polaris Building.
addressing accessibility and reliability of household hazardous waste
collection: backhaul alaska
Backhaul Alaska will provide rural Alaska Native Villages with a
consistent and reliable service that will coordinate the transportation
of household hazardous waste and materials to appropriate recycling or
disposal facilities. The program seeks to reduce the cost of backhaul
by coordinating hazardous material transport and leveraging economies
of scale, while reducing liability risks to transporters and recyclers.
In June 2021, EPA and the Denali Commission announced they will
award $3 million over 3 years to Kawerak, Inc., the regional Native
non-profit corporation serving the Bering Strait region, to implement
and expand the Backhaul Alaska program for removing household hazardous
wastes from rural Alaska communities.
Under the one-time, 3-year grant, Kawerak will fund implementation
and logistics of backhaul services, communications, coordination with
Tribes and advisors, development of a sustainable funding plan,
backhaul training for communities, recruitment of participants and
partners, and associated capacity-building.
Kawerak will initially target electronic waste; spent mercury-
containing lamps such as fluorescent bulbs, compact fluorescent
lightbulbs, high intensity discharge lights; and lead-acid batteries
from vehicles, boats, heavy equipment, and all-terrain vehicles. These
materials represent over 95 percent by weight of toxic wastes in rural
Alaska landfills.
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. And what I can do is
commit to get the details about that specific, situation there
to see which program it may fit in, or what aspect of that
applies to what we are asking for in our budget and in the
American Jobs Plan.
Senator Murkowski. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.
Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Senator Tester.
LAKE KOOCANUSA, CANADA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, and Ranking
Member Murkowski.
And I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you,
Administrator Regan. I don't know. And I asked this question in
good faith, if you are familiar with the selenium issue in Lake
Koocanusa that is coming out of a mine in Canada.
Mr. Regan. I am not.
Senator Tester. Okay. That is good. Well, actually it is
not good, but that is okay. Canada has a mine that has been
releasing enough selenium into the water that Canada fined the
company $60 million for threatening fish health with their
wastewater. It is the largest fine in Canadian history.
Mr. Regan. Okay.
Senator Tester. That water flows directly in the Lake
Koocanusa, which is in my State. And that selenium continues to
be elevated all the way down to Idaho. And the company up in
Canada is operating--is operating these mines, and posing a new
untested treatment technology to stop the selenium
contamination. Unfortunately, and back in 2017 the same
watershed, they had a spectacular failure which, once again,
didn't solve the problem.
So, the question is, is that, we have got a pressure
Canada. Okay. It is similar to a statement that I made in ENR
yesterday. There are some places where we should mine, and
there are some places we should not. Headwaters of a river,
probably is not the best place to mine, if you know what I
mean. So the question is: What is the EPA doing--do you know?
If you don't know, you can say, I don't know, which is fine,
because now it is on your radar screen.
Mr. Regan. Yes. It is on my radar screen now.
Senator Tester. Okay, good.
Mr. Regan. I can commit to you that we will take a look at
that. What I can say is I have been in constant communication
with my Canadian counterpart and Mexican counterpart to better
understand these types of issues.
Senator Tester. So there is one other thing you have got to
do. You have got to get a hold of your counterpart, the State
Department, because they are a part of this equation, and
engage with them, and the International Joint Commission, it
is--this is a big deal. Water is life. You know, if we don't
have good water, it ain't just the fish that are going to die.
Okay?
Mr. Regan. That is right.
TSCA REGULATIONS
Senator Tester. So, it is really important. Now I want to
talk to you about asbestos, one of those great issues that you
have to deal with. Up in Libby they have been struggling with
it. I am sure you are familiar with it, a huge, Superfund site.
By the way that we have done some good work up there, but there
is a lot more work to be done.
Look, I got a guy to come bid on the siting of my house,
and I live a long ways from Libby, and he pointed out to me
that he has, I believe, 18- or 20-percent lung dysfunction
because of mesothelioma, because he was raised in Libby. Okay.
Not as whole life either, just a few years. So it is a big
issue.
And asbestos, you know, we can go down the list, tens of
thousands of people have died from it. It is not banned
outright yet. And so the question is: Do you believe the EPA
has authority under TCSA to regulate legacy issues of asbestos?
Mr. Regan. We are closely looking at that. I do believe
that one of the initial catalysts for TCSA was focused on
asbestos cities. One of the top 10 that we're looking and doing
a risk evaluation to determine what regulatory action we should
take as it regards to asbestos.
Senator Tester. So, let me back it up a little bit, because
my hearing is not very good. You did say that you believe that
EPA has the ability to regulate under TCSA?
Mr. Regan. Yes, I do believe that.
Senator Tester. Okay. And you did say that you are working
on a risk evaluation.
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Senator Tester. When do you anticipate that will be out?
Mr. Regan. I will have to get you that timeline, but I do
know it is one of the top 10 chemicals listed under the TCSA
law that requires a risk evaluation immediately, as
prioritized.
Senator Tester. Yes. So you will get me that timeline?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
timeline of risk evaluation of asbestos
Because of the complexity of Asbestos and the multitude of legacy
uses, EPA chose to divide the TSCA risk evaluation of asbestos into two
parts. The decision to bifurcate this risk evaluation was a result of
the previous Administration's decision to exclude legacy uses and
associated disposal from the risk evaluation. The Agency was
subsequently sued and lost in the 9th circuit court. Thus, the Agency
developed the approach to finalize the current part of the risk
evaluation focused on on-going uses and initiate a second part that
will focus on legacy use and associated disposal, as well as other
fiber types that were also excluded.
Part one focused on chrysotile asbestos which is the only form of
asbestos that remains in active commerce in the United States. That
risk evaluation was completed in December 2020 and is now serving as
the basis for risk management rules that the Agency is currently
working to prepare. On June 30, 2021 the Agency announced the path
forward on this and the other nine risk evaluations completed under the
previous Administration. For all chemicals going forward we intend to
issue the unreasonable risk determination on the whole chemical as
opposed to the previous practice of making them on a condition of use
by condition of use basis. Additionally, we intend to no longer assume
the proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by workers in the
risk determination, as doing so could result in an underestimation of
risk to workers. What this means for asbestos Part 1 is that this
summer/early fall, the Agency intends to issue a draft revised risk
determination that reflects these changes and take public comment. The
public comment will be considered and the Agency will issue a final
revised risk determination before the end of the calendar year. The
Agency does not believe any additional analysis for Part 1 of the risk
evaluation will be required and upon this issuance the Agency will
quickly move to propose risk management actions. The risk management
rule for Asbestos Part 1 is likely to be one of the first TSCA rules
the Agency will propose.
Part 2 of the asbestos risk evaluation will focus on legacy uses of
chrysotile and current and legacy uses of the additional asbestos
fibers. We are currently gathering and reviewing scientific literature
on legacy asbestos, and we anticipate publishing the scope of this part
of the risk evaluation by the end of 2021, and a final Risk Evaluation
by the end of 2024.
Senator Tester. That would be great. And then based on that
evaluation, you should probably be able to tell me whether
asbestos is going to remain on the market or go off the market.
Was that a fair assessment?
Mr. Regan. We will have to wait to see what the science
says in terms of the regulation under the TCSA law. Once we
make that determination of how we regulate it, I think we will
be able to answer that question for you.
Senator Tester. Yes. But let me get this straight. The
evaluation you are going to do is based on science. It is not
just somebody coming out and throwing darts at a dartboard,
right?
Mr. Regan. A very thorough risk analysis. There is a
rigorous course that we have to pursue based on the TCSA law
that we intend to follow.
Senator Tester. Okay, sounds good. I have got another
question on Butte America, which also has a Superfund site due
to some water contamination, due to, you know, copper
extraction that wired this country, but we will put that for
the record and you can get back to me on it. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Thank you.
Senator Merkley. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you administrator. It is good to see you again. I
get to see you on EPW Committee quite a bit. So I appreciate
that.
Mr. Regan. Thank you.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTIVITIES
Senator Capito. And I know that you are working to get
things underway. I wanted to ask on the--the EPA's budget
justification would devote millions--hundreds of millions of
dollars to environmental justice activities. You and I have
talked about environmental justice and a little bit how I
differ and--or I would expand that definition, I think would be
a better way to put it.
And last month the White House Environmental Justice
Advisory Council concluded that carbon capture utilization and
storage, and the procurement of nuclear power do not benefit
environmental justice communities. So I guess I would ask if
you agree with that assessment, and is that reflected in your
budget in terms of your environmental sections of your budget?
Mr. Regan. I think the administration has been clear that
carbon capture and storage and sequestration is one of our
options for curbing these climate pollutants that we care so
much about. I was just in North Dakota last week with both
Senators and the Governor, looking at the advanced research and
development done, not only in the technology but the
understanding of the geological infrastructure that would
support it. Our goal is to look at all of the technologies that
are available that get the deepest emission cuts to curb the
climate crisis.
Senator Capito. So, I guess what I am asking more
specifically, is in your environmental justice part of your
budget, which I am not sure exactly. I cannot, I cannot figure
out how much exactly that is, but I know it is a dedicated part
of where you want to take the--and the President wants to take
the Agency.
Is there an exclusion, I guess, to what would be covered
under environmental justice grants for a certain--for certain
communities? Would that be determined at the local level? Is
this going to be determined by the committee who has concluded
that nuclear power and carbon capture or not part of where you
would see environmental justice inequities?
Mr. Regan. We would describe those as site by site. I mean,
carbon capture and sequestration and storage cannot be done
everywhere. I think that is part of our permitting process, if
we got to that stage, we would look at the implications of the
application of that technology on surrounding communities to be
sure that we are preserving the health of those communities. I
cannot say that we have looked at CCS as an environmental
justice issue because we have not gotten to the point where we
are actually permitting projects to determine the implications
on potential sites.
PERMITTING OF PIPELINES
Senator Capito. Mm-hmm. Let me ask you, just generally
what--I know this is an issue that you dealt with in North
Carolina on pipelines, and I know you are not the principal.
You do have a peripheral responsibility on the permitting of
pipelines, certainly in the water area and all that. Have you
made any changes in that area, in terms of what was going on
during the Trump administration, as opposed to what you plan to
do in the future?
Mr. Regan. We have not made any changes at EPA. I maintain
the same position that as a State regulator, FERC, has
jurisdiction over that siting. We believe that communities
should be engaged with FERC when sites are chosen. We believe
that public participation in the NEPA process should inform
where these routes are sited.
Our job at EPA is to be sure that once these projects are
sited, that we look at the implications from a water quality
standpoint, environmental degradation standpoint, and sort of
what that means to the communities that are in closest
proximity. Site-by-site determinations; and that is what we are
doing at EPA.
LOST OF PROFESSIONALS
Senator Capito. In Committee, in the EPW, and also here you
have mentioned, and in your written testimony, you have
mentioned, too, losing 1,000 professionals out of EPA. I think
some of the folks at EPA actually went to the border; am I
correct on that? Some of the folks that work at EPA went to the
border, when the President called for additional help?
Mr. Regan. We have EPA employees that have volunteered for
the assistance at the border for time periods of 30 to up to, I
believe, 60 days. So, there is a time where an employee can
take 30 to 60 days, go and help with that humanitarian crisis,
and then back.
Senator Capito. Even if you are down 1,000 people at the
Agency, you can afford to have that occur?
Mr. Regan. In 2008 we had 18,000 employees. We are down
about 14,000 employees now. The 1,000 employees that we are
looking at, not only replenish those that we lost, but just
like every other Agency, it is part of our succession planning.
We have an aging workforce. So, we have to plan for the future
and think ahead. So, there is, sort of looking at the snapshot
of now and in the foreseeable future, all of the challenges
that this Agency faces.
To answer your question directly, yes, employees that want
to take 30 to 60 days to volunteer for the humanitarian crisis,
they have the ability to do so. We have a structure in place
where they work with their management to be sure that their
duties are covered or don't interrupt the timelines for what we
are on the hook to deliver.
Senator Capito. Okay. All right. Thank you. It is good to
see you again.
Mr. Regan. Good to see you too.
JUSTICE40 COMMITMENT
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Administrator. A number of
colleagues have raised the question of environmental justice,
and I am so glad it is becoming part of the regular discussion
in this subcommittee and in your budget. Can you explain the
Justice40 commitment, and how you are planning to carry it out?
Mr. Regan. So, the Justice40 commitment, as outlined by the
President, looks at all of the direct and indirect implications
of investments that go into infrastructure development, climate
pollutant remediation, and the like. What we have at EPA is a
strong partnership with all of our agencies to ensure that the
criteria that flow from that Justice40 fits into the way we
conduct our business through our grant making and through our
regulatory responsibilities.
So, we very interested in not only looking at how we
enforce the laws to ensure that we reduce the disproportionate
impact, but as we move forward to rebuild these communities,
that our grant programs and all of our technical assistance
efforts match the President's desire to have 40 percent of
those investments go back into these communities.
Senator Merkley. Is it fair for me to describe
environmental justice as a recognition that pollutants are
often concentrated in low-income communities, and communities
of color, and we need to make a special effort to address that
challenge and remedy that situation?
Mr. Regan. The data clearly shows that there are
communities that disproportionately bear the brunt of many
types of air and water quality pollution. And so, yes, it is
our responsibility to be sure that we take a look at how we
remedy those situations through our programs, but also
proactively as we look to the future, ensure that they don't
happen again.
U.S. RECYCLING SYSTEMS--PLASTICS
Senator Merkley. So, I want to turn to plastics, plastics
have an enormous impact on the environment. We talk about the
idea of reduce, reuse, recycle, but the reality for plastics is
they are burned, buried, or borne out to sea. And it is not
just those visible pieces of plastic that float out and fill
the guts of our Marine animals, and kill life, or litter our
beaches. It is also the microplastics that are ingested. It is
now estimated that each of us, because of how microplastics now
permeate our air, water and food, eat the equivalent, or
consume the equivalent of a credit card's worth of plastic
every week. Plastics full of chemicals including endocrine
disruptors that have a significant impact on human health. So
what is EPA doing about plastics?
Mr. Regan. Under our purview and jurisdiction, we are
focused on a few areas. The first is bolstering our partnership
with the States around recycling programs. We really do have
the capacity to help States build stronger recycling programs.
I will put in, there is another piece to that, and that is the
education and outreach as well. We are really grappling with
sort of the market conditions around recycling, and what that
means today versus what it meant 4 years ago.
But nevertheless, through our grant programs, there are
significant resources that go to States, to help with the
recycling programs that they have right there on the ground. As
you can imagine, the recycling programs and the level of effort
varies State to State, and we are there to help the States lead
on that.
Senator Merkley. Are you familiar with the term ``wish-
cycling''?
Mr. Regan. Wish cycling?
Senator Merkley. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Regan. No.
Senator Merkley. It is when you throw your plastic into a
recyclable bucket, thinking that you are recycling, but almost
none of it is recycled. And in fact, in major institutions, and
I would say, this is probably true of the U.S. Senate, we have
recycling buckets, people put plastic in it, and it just gets
dumped into the trash. So it is something perhaps we should
look at right here. But there is--reasons for it, because it is
all kinds of materials, of all kinds of sizes, single-use.
Here, at the subcommittee where we have the dais littered
with plastic bottles, there is no recycling program for these,
there is no national bottle bill. Oregon, which has one of the
strongest recycling for plastic bottles, is about 80 percent. I
think it may be the highest, which means 20 percent is not
recycled, tremendous amount of plastic being burned. It puts
these same poisons into the air. I really think EPA has to
really up their effort on this. Do you share that opinion?
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I think we could, do a lot to
strengthen the U.S. recycling systems, and it is a priority. I
think, in our traditional program, in the example you just gave
is an example of where we have a strong suit, which is
education and helping the States have the right structures in
place. Obviously, Oregon has an opportunity to help EPA
understand what certain States are doing in that leadership
capacity and replicate that across the United States.
Senator Merkley. I will just say that, despite Oregon's
recycling, because it has a returnable deposit on bottles, it
still--it still recycles only a very small proportion of
plastics. We have to think about different items being used and
single-use that are biodegradable, or that do not come from
fossil fuels. There is a lot of work to be done. Otherwise we
are just going to be amplifying the pretense that we are
addressing the problem, rather than the reality of addressing
it.
Senator Murkowski.
RECYCLING--PLASTICS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And know that I
share your interest in what is going on with recycling. I think
that this is--this is an area that is so often overlooked, or
to use your term, a wish recycling, and I think we need to be
honest. And if people are going to take that extra step,
thinking that what they are doing is helping to solve the
problem, we need to be honest about that.
We are an exceptionally wasteful country when it comes to--
whether it is things like plastics or--and I noted, I think
that you were drinking out of a water bottle, Mr. Chairman, you
know, not a plastic one. So I think you are setting a good
standard and a model there, but this is, yes.
Senator Merkley. Future meetings of this subcommittee are
not going to see plastic bottles on the dais.
Senator Murkowski. I will bring my own water bottle. It is
one of my favorites. And we will lead by example.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
SENIOR LEADERSHIP MEETINGS
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. But I do think that
this is an area that we can and must do more. I showed earlier
a picture that was pretty horrible in terms of what goes on
with our--our waste in the sanitation issues in villages. But
one of the things that I have been following with great
interest, and really quite great concern, is what is happening
with our smaller landfills.
In Alaska it seems like all of our landfills came on at the
same time. They are not very sophisticated. There is kind of a
plastic lining, and you fill it up, and when you get to the top
you bulldoze it over, and make another--make another hole
somewhere else. And our reality is that the maxing out of our
landfills is going to be--is already and will be, going
forward, an issue that we have just got to get our hands around
it.
So, the more that we can be doing with recycling is
important, and using those technologies that will allow us to
get rid of some of this waste is a big, big issue, and one that
I would like to work with you on.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any more questions, but just a
specific ask of the Administrator. As I mentioned in my outset,
I have appreciated the level of back and forth that we have--
already have I mentioned to you that in previous
administrations I had worked out an agreement where we could
have quarterly meetings with my team and a senior EPA team,
usually led by the deputy administrator.
These have really worked to solve some of the things that
are very local, very parochial, and that really should not
occupy the time of a broader gathering of Members. But I would
just ask for your continued commitment, Administrator Regan, to
hold quarterly meetings with my team on some of these punch-
list items so that we can get to them before they become real
problems. And I would hope that we would be able to continue
that.
Mr. Regan. Yes. I think we can definitely continue these
senior leadership meetings, and continue to focus on solving
these problems. So I don't see a problem with that at all. And
hopefully whoever that senior leader we choose, will be joining
me when we visit Alaska in August.
Senator Murkowski. Very good. We look forward to that.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the good
conversation this morning's subcommittee.
TSCA IMPLEMENTATION
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
Murkowski. And I appreciate your interest in working together
on this plastics challenge. We see the beaches in Oregon
covered, we see marine life that is dying because their guts
are full of plastic. We have increased prostate and breast
cancer that many believe is being affected by the endocrine
disruptors that come out of plastics prevalence. And it really
is an area that has not gotten the attention it needs. And so
it is worth our efforts, and thank you for your offer to work
on that.
And I appreciate your dramatic presentation of the sanitary
water infrastructure challenge of Alaska. And in my State, if
you think about the small towns that have just been burned by
fires and people are trying to rebuild their homes, but the
requirements for sanitary systems are different than they were
60, 70, 80 years ago when a lot of these homes were built.
And small towns, 500 to 1,000 people, the cost of a modern
sanitary system is absolutely about the same, whether you have
1,000 people or you have 5,000 people, and it is such an
impossible charge. And so in order to prevent these towns from
being paralyzed or decimated by the challenge of sanitary water
systems, and clean water systems, we need a significant grant
component, low-interest loans just is not enough. There is
waiver of power under these programs, but I think we need to
explore. It has come up with many folks here.
I was just out visiting a community that was burned to the
ground, Blue River, and the first infrastructure we got--put
back in place was the post office. That is the kind of the
heart of a community. And it is kind of a symbolic bridge to
the outside world, but the homes all around have not been
rebuilt, and figuring out the sanitary system is a big part of
that. And a lot of these small towns, all the governing
officials are volunteers, and they are addressing, trying to
address a very complicated issue.
And when they hear about the fees it cost just to get an
engineering assessment of what the best practices are, or best
possibilities. Can they pipe their sanitary--sewage to another
town down the--down the road? Can they use various forms of
biotreatment for tertiary treatment? They need--they need help
with the grants for the upfront costs of understanding their
best options.
And I had proposed, and we now have launched a circuit
rider program for the ability to help small towns evaluate, but
this, I think you have heard from so many Members today about
the importance of water infrastructure in small--in small
towns. They are trying to meet modern standards; they are
trying to provide for the possibility of the towns growing.
Some of these small towns have a very exciting development
because of COVID, and because people became so familiar with
Zoom, they found: Hey, I don't have to live in a city in order
to participate in the modern economy, if I have a role that can
be accomplished over Zoom. That is a real opportunity for our
small towns, but they need help with that infrastructure.
Let us turn to TCSA, and it was really a major effort, of
bipartisan effort, amazing bipartisan accomplishment back in
about 2016, when we adopted the Lautenberg restructuring of
TCSA. To try to say: Hey, TCSA is--Americans are astounded to
find out that there is no real regulation of the chemicals that
go into ordinary household products.
So here we are now 4 years into the implementation of the
Lautenberg rewrite of TCSA, and I hear you talking about doing
risk analysis on the top 10 chemicals. Risk analysis should
have been completed years ago. I mean, every major developed
country has gotten rid of asbestos except for us.
So, I am kind of frightened by the idea of we are still
stuck in evaluating the risk when this is one of the best
understood issues that faces the modern world, and that every
other nation has taken action on. Can you tell me how we can
get out of this cycle of being forever moving the bureaucratic
pieces around on asbestos, and actually take action on it?
Mr. Regan. I can tell you that the President ordered a
reexamination of some of the science and the decisions that
were made on the previous administration. The thing that is
slowing us down is the scientific integrity and the record that
was built the last 4 years.
So, what is slowing us down is the lack of action that
occurred the last 4 years, but I can assure you that we are
making up for lost time, and taking the latest science and
doing the proper risk evaluation so that when we get to the
point of regulation of asbestos. We will not have any concerns
in terms of scientific integrity.
And also in this budget, I think you will see that we have
requested $15 million to add 87 positions to be sure that we
can play catch up on the work that was lost on implementing
TCSA.
tsca lautenberg restructuring
In the case of chrysotile asbestos, the only fiber type which is
still currently in commerce, the risk evaluation was completed at the
end of 2020. As announced by the Agency on June 30, 2021, and as
explained in my response to Senator Tester, we will be re-issuing
revised risk determinations with updated policy decisions that are more
reflective of the law and more protective of human health. These
updated risk determinations will not require additional analysis and
after public comment the final versions will be issued and the Agency
will move directly to propose risk management rules to address
unreasonable risk. We are aiming to have this proposed rule published
in the first half of 2022. We are also continuing with the risk
evaluation for legacy uses of asbestos, with a goal of completing the
risk evaluation by the end of 2024.
Senator Merkley. Well, I hope that every day you can spend
part of the day calling and pushing to get TCSA underway,
because it is--or let us take that top 10 list, dry cleaning,
carcinogens of fluid, TCE. No action that I know of. Am I
right?
Mr. Regan. They are in the top 10 that we are currently
doing a risk evaluation that we believe, in the near future, we
will be able to take action on.
CHEMICAL STUDIES
Senator Merkley. Methylene chloride, a paint stripper,
still, no action. This is not, obviously you just came to the--
came to the team. We have a new administration. My point is
that almost every week I find out about a friend or an
associate who has cancer, almost every week. And I think that
is true, probably everyone in this--in this room. A lot of that
stems from complicated chemicals we have introduced that have
impacts.
Other nations are saying: Let's get those things out of our
products. And we have passed a law to get that done. That is
now in your hands.
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Senator Merkley. And so it is a pretty significant
responsibility. I appreciate your taking it on seriously, but I
think you have to constantly push, because otherwise it is
always: Well, we can get a little more perfect science, or get
one more study. We have thousands of studies on many of these
chemicals. And so the point comes, you cannot study things
forever. There is a point, this is a risk, let us get it out of
our products.
That is your job. And I am looking forward to your being
able to tell me: We have now gotten that chemical out of the
products that ordinary people experience every day.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
WILDLIFE SMOKE
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Not just asbestos, but many,
many, many others.
So, I want to turn to smoke. It is something that we hear
about in terms of firefighters entering buildings, and the
people dying in buildings, not just of fire, but of smoke
inhalation, but now we have the problem of forest fires which
are leaving smoke lingering the air with people breathing it,
great aggravation of asthma, the small particulates are very,
very harmful. Has EPA started to think about wildfire smoke as
a significant pollutant that needs to be addressed?
Mr. Regan. We are really taking a close look at what we are
seeing before our eyes, in terms of the increase--intensity
from the byproducts of climate change. What I will say is the
answer is, we are taking the wildfire smoke very serious, which
is why in this budget we are asking for an increase in our air
quality monitoring system.
Not only do we want to get better at predicting the climate
science, and when we think we will see this occur, but we want
to be able to have the monitors in place so that we can
measure, verify and inform the public of how to be--how to be
most protective of their public health.
TAILPIPE EMISSIONS
Senator Merkley. Well, obviously I like to see these big
fires not happening in the first place, and that includes
forest management strategies that make forests more resilient.
And it certainly means a major effort to tackle the methane
gases and carbon dioxide gases that are heating our planet--
planet so quickly. But we also need to help communities live
with better health, when there is smoke as there is regularly.
And there is a variety of strategies to help address that.
And my final question is just to turn to tailpipe emissions
because they are such a large source of climate warming gases.
And this question was asked before, but I just wanted to raise
it again. The Diesel Emission Reduction Act Program, can this
help us in pursuing an EV transition? And are there other key
regulatory opportunities to help drive the transmission to
radically reduce carbon dioxide from ordinary vehicles?
TAILPIPE EMISSIONS
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. The tailpipe emissions and
transportation emissions are the largest contributor. We are
laser-focused on it. I believe DERA is absolutely a mechanism.
We also have the regulatory authority to pursue this as well.
In mid-July, you will see EPA do a notice of proposed
rulemaking for tailpipe emissions for cars. We are also focused
on heavy-duty vehicles as well.
The transportation sector is so important from a climate
change, global warming perspective, but also from a localized
pollution and environmental justice perspective. We have got
the tools to address it. We are moving forward quickly. And the
last thing I will say is also the reestablishment of the
statutory authority of States like California and others who
want to take a leadership role and expedite that timeline. We
support that as well.
Senator Merkley. Often we think about electric vehicles
might work well for passenger vehicles, but maybe not for heavy
machinery. And I am very interested in visiting a pilot project
in Oregon that involves electric tractors, and farmers who are
experimenting with whether they work effectively. The early
reports are--they sure are impressed by the torque on electric
tractors.
Is there anything else you would like to add in closing,
Senator?
Senator Murkowski. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Well, thank you so much, Administrator
Regan. And if my eyesight was better, I would repeat the name
of your assistant.
Mr. Regan. Mr. David Bloom.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Bloom for standing by with
a lot of expertise on the budget.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If there are no other statements, the hearing record will
be open until close of business on January 23.
[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. Michael S. Regan
Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
Question 1. For decades, the State of Maryland has worked
diligently to address transported pollution to meet air quality
standards and to protect the health of our constituents. In 2018, the
Trump EPA denied Maryland's Good Neighbor Petition under Section 126(b)
of the Clean Air Act regarding 36 upwind electric generating units in 5
other States to provide Maryland with relief from downwind air
pollution.
On May 9, 2020, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals granted Maryland's
Good Neighbor Petition for review in part and remanded this issue to
the EPA. On March 15, 2021, EPA finalized the Revised Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update--first proposed in October 2020--in order
to resolve outstanding interstate pollution transport obligations for
the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Maryland has had a multi-year effort to address cross-State
pollution and I thank you for work to revise the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule to address issues like ours. How will the CSAPR Update
reduce the interstate transport of nitrogen oxide pollution, and
support States like Maryland in meeting our clean air standards?
Answer. On March 15, 2021, EPA finalized the Revised Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Starting in the 2021 ozone season, the rule
will require additional emissions reductions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) from power plants in 12 States in the eastern United
States, improving air quality and public health for millions of
Americans. EPA estimates that the Revised CSAPR Update will reduce
NOX emissions from power plants starting in 2021, with
reductions reaching 18,000 tons in 2022 compared to projections without
the rule. Over the period from 2021 to 2040, EPA estimates that the
rule will yield public health and climate benefits that are valued, on
average, at up to $2.8 billion each year.
Question 2. Many best management practices or BMPs that are
utilized to improve water quality in the Bay watershed have other co-
benefits as it pertains to climate resilience, wildlife or ecosystem
restoration or in helping to solve other environmental challenges. Does
the EPA have or plan to create any system for quantifying these co-
benefits for specific BMPs?
Answer. EPA collaborates with other Chesapeake Bay Program partners
to develop science and tools to advance understanding of the possible
co-benefits associated with implementation of water quality BMPs. EPA
has several ongoing efforts to quantify ecosystem services and co-
benefits of best management practices, including co-benefits related to
climate resilience, wildlife, and ecosystem restoration. Early work
provided a qualitative approach to understanding co-benefits of BMPs
used for water quality improvements.
Building on this effort, EPA is currently developing a methodology
to identify and quantify ecosystem service co-benefits of nutrient and
sediment-reducing BMPs, utilizing the EPA-developed National Ecosystems
Classification System-plus framework. EPA is evaluating options for
integrating information generated from this research into the
Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool.
Question 3. We are at a very critical junction in the
implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
and our mutual goal of clean water by 2025. In April, I and my Bay
Watershed colleagues sent you a letter detailing our concerns with the
watershed's ability to meet the Bay TMDL without sufficient assistance
and accountability.
While I am grateful for your response and commitment to ``providing
funding and technical assistance, tracking and reporting progress,
[and] coordinating and facilitating partnerships to support pollution
reduction efforts,'' I also note the absence of any commitment to take
necessary enforcement measures. What specific actions within your
enforcement authorities under the Clean Water Act are you prepared to
take to ensure all watershed States get back on track to meet their
2025 goals?
Answer. EPA is committed to taking the action needed to help ensure
the jurisdictions meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL's 2025 goals in order to
protect this national treasure. I have asked our team to consider all
appropriate tools and actions available to EPA to help accelerate
progress where it is lagging, including the use of EPA's enforcement
authorities where warranted.
EPA will focus its enforcement and programmatic resources to assist
the jurisdictions in achieving their commitments. Reflecting the Bay's
high priority for EPA, President Biden's fiscal year 2022 budget
proposes an increase of approximately $3 million to increase support
for projects to accelerate the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
focusing on a number of outcomes, including improving water quality and
promoting climate resiliency.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
Question 1. The budget justification for the Environmental
Protection Agency notes several priorities related to its management
and implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard. In addition to
setting the statutory deadlines for setting the volume requirements
under the law, page 24 details additional efforts centered upon:
(1) revising and improving the RFS regulations to improve its
operation;
(2) reviewing and approving the use of new biofuels and/or their
feedstocks;
(3) registering new facilities to enable them to generate RINs
(the credits under the Program);
(4) operating and upgrading the electronic moderated transaction
system (EMTS) to provide oversight and verify compliance with the RFS
Program;
(5) ensuring the integrity of the RFS Program through enforcement
actions against those using the program for fraudulent gain; and
(6) supporting the Department of Justice in defending the Agency's
implementation of the RFS Program in the numerous challenges in court.
The Environmental Protection Agency has not made progress for
several years on the review and approval of qualified D3 RIN-qualified
cellulosic biofuel. This is unfortunate as the delays have stifled
innovation that could result in a significant increase in ethanol
output from the same bushel of corn.
To that end, under the work plan enumerated in the budget
justification, does the Environmental Protection Agency intend to renew
its efforts to review and approve D3 registrations under Title 40 CFR
Part 80, especially those related to corn kernel fiber? If so, can you
provide certainty that this effort will not preclude the use of peer
reviewed analytical chemistry methods with appropriate guidelines to be
finalized, published, and followed?
Answer. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program remains a high
priority for EPA, and we continue to strive to improve our
implementation of the program. Over the past several years, EPA has
approved numerous new RFS fuel pathways, and we are constantly
evaluating new pathway applications and registration requests under the
program. We continue to prioritize processing additional applications
and registrations, however, some of the new fuel pathway applications,
including some for certain pathways such as ethanol from corn kernel
fiber, are complex in nature and often take a significant amount of
time to process. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy's (DOE)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed and published a new
public analytical procedure for corn kernel fiber. We will continue
working with interested stakeholders to leverage DOE's new method. In
implementing the RFS program, we are committed to moving forward in a
way that follows the law, follows the science, is transparent,
preserves the integrity of the program, and provides certainty.
Question 2. President Biden's climate plan calls for ``doubling
down on the liquid fuels of the future, which make agriculture a key
part of the solution to climate change.'' Yet, scores of facility
registrations submitted by American entrepreneurs across rural America
for cellulosic ethanol made from corn fiber against a pathway under the
RFS that is already approved have been sitting at EPA, awaiting action,
some for more than 4 years. What has the administration done to make it
a priority to move these cellulosic biofuel facility registrations?
Answer. The RFS program has played a key role in driving the
development and use of biofuels, especially advanced biofuels, and that
will continue during the Biden administration. Over the past several
years, EPA has approved numerous new RFS fuel pathways, and we are
constantly evaluating new pathway applications and registration
requests under the program. We continue to prioritize processing
additional applications and registrations, however, some of the new
fuel pathway applications, including some for certain pathways such as
ethanol from corn kernel fiber, are complex in nature and often take a
significant amount of time to process. Earlier this year, the
Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory
developed and published a new public analytical procedure for corn
kernel fiber. We will continue working with interested stakeholders to
leverage DOE's new method. In implementing the RFS program, we are
committed to moving forward in a way that follows the law, follows the
science, is transparent, preserves the integrity of the program, and
provides certainty.
Question 3. Last week the Acting Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA gave an interview in which he
declined to answer whether biofuels have reduced carbon emissions,
saying he had not yet had time to look into this. Yet, since the Biden
administration took office, the United States has:
--Adopted a commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by 50-52 percent by 2030;
--Released a comprehensive infrastructure proposal focused in part on
cutting carbon emissions
--Extended the RFS compliance deadlines for refiners for 2020 until
January 31, 2022;
--Failed to prioritize facility registration applications for
production of the lowest carbon fuel we have today--cellulosic
ethanol from corn fiber--that have been languishing in some
cases for 5 years at the Agency;
--Failed to move a proposed rule for the 2021 RFS blending volumes a
full 6 months into the compliance year; and
--Failed to fulfill the requirements of a Court remand from 2017 to
restore 500 million gallons of blending volumes that were
inappropriately waived from the 2016 RVO.
Administrator Regan, in your experience to date, is this
administration planning to make biofuels a centerpiece of its
commitment to innovation, climate mitigation, and job creation?
Answer. The RFS program has played a key role in driving the
development and use of biofuels, especially advanced biofuels, and that
will continue during the Biden administration.
Question 4. The Energy Information Administration projects that
about 80 percent of new vehicle sales will be gasoline or flex-fuel
powered, not to mention the ongoing use of gasoline for decades to come
by cars on the road today. Given the new goals adopted by President
Biden to cut emissions by 50-52 percent by 2030, we must deploy every
solution we have to meet this goal, including cutting greenhouse gas
emissions by 46%-120 percent in the case of ethanol and 74 percent in
the case of biodiesel from every gallon of fuel we use. Investing in
biofuel infrastructure will help deliver higher blends of ethanol and
biodiesel into the marketplace to speed decarbonization of the vehicle
transportation sector. Does the Administration intend to use funding
proposed in the American Jobs Plan for biofuel infrastructure?
Answer. The American Jobs Plan and the President's budget are
complementary policies that work together to address the major
challenges of our time. The American Jobs Plan would make a one-time,
transformational investment that America has put off for too long. It
would invest in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and allow us to
achieve the dual goals of reducing pollution and creating jobs. The
President's plan will create a more resilient grid, lower energy bills
for middle class Americans, improve air quality and public health
outcomes, and create good jobs, with a choice to join a union, on the
path to achieving 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035.
The President's budget proposes the investments needed to advance
EPA's mission across the board, including major investments to support
the Agency's work on climate and environmental justice. The President's
budget proposes a $13 million increase in funding for the Federal
Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification program, which houses the
RFS program. A large portion of the EPA's efforts on fuels will support
the ongoing implementation of the RFS program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
Question 1. During the hearing, Senator Murkowski posed several
questions to you on PFAS, including requesting details on the Agency's
timeline for listing PFAS as a hazardous substance. In response, you
stated that, ``I will have staff provide you with that information.''
As you know from our previous discussions and my April 19, 2021 letter
to you on EPA's PFAS actions, I am interested in being kept up to date
on all of the Agency's actions addressing PFAS. Do you commit to
providing me with regular updates on all PFAS actions, including any
activities related to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA)?
Answer. EPA is looking at various types of scientific information
related to designating certain PFAS, specifically PFOA and PFOS, as
CERCLA hazardous substances. This information includes the most up to
date chemical and physical characteristics, toxicity and kinetics,
environmental prevalence, and manufacturing and use data.
I understand the importance of Congress' need to obtain information
necessary to perform its legitimate oversight functions and I am
committed to working with EPA staff to accommodate your interests.
Question 2. One of the issues I raised with you during the hearing
was the EPA's budget request of hundreds of millions of dollars for
environmental justice activities. Do you agree with the White House
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) that investment in
carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), nuclear power,
and fossil fuel-related infrastructure projects do not benefit
environmental justice communities?
Answer. The fiscal year 2022 President's budget is rooted in EPA's
commitment to advancing environmental justice, tackling climate change,
protecting public health, improving infrastructure, and rebuilding the
EPA workforce to accomplish the EPA's mission. The budget includes an
increase of $1.8 billion in programs across EPA to tackle the climate
crisis while also delivering environmental justice to marginalized and
over-burdened communities, investing in local economies, and creating
good-paying jobs.
As you reference, in response to charge questions from the White
House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the White House
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) issued recommendations
on the administration and implementation of Justice40 in May 2021.
After receiving those recommendations, the White House issued interim
implementation guidance for the President's Justice40 Initiative. EPA
is committed to implementing this guidance in accordance with our
statutory authorities to achieve the 40-percent goal.
Question 3. In response to my question related to eligibility of
nuclear power and CCUS projects for environmental justice grants, you
stated that EPA has not yet ``looked at CCUS as an environmental
justice issue because [EPA has not] gotten to the point where we're
actually permitting projects to determine the implications on potential
sites.'' You explained that considering CCUS and nuclear power as an
environmental justice issue is a ``site-by-site'' issue. Do you commit
to providing an update to the committee once EPA encounters a ``site-
by-site'' issue regarding CCUS or nuclear power?
Answer. I understand the importance of Congress' need to obtain
information necessary to perform its legitimate oversight functions and
I am committed to working with EPA staff to accommodate Congress'
interests.
Question 4. Can you provide details on the role EPA has and the
parameters that would be used by the Agency in evaluating projects on a
site-by-site basis, including how EPA plans to evaluate environmental
justice funding related to CCUS and nuclear projects?
Answer. EPA is committed to implementing the interim implementation
guidance for the President's Justice40 Initiative in accordance with
our statutory authorities to achieve the Administration's 40-percent
goal.
Question 5. In one of his early Executive Orders,\1\ President
Biden set a goal of ensuring 40 percent of Federal investments are
directed to disadvantaged communities. Do you believe the term
``disadvantaged communities'' as used in the Justice40 initiative
includes energy communities, like coal communities in West Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exec. Order No. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
Answer. EPA is committed to implementing the interim implementation
guidance for the President's Justice40 Initiative in accordance with
our statutory authorities to achieve the Administration's 40-percent
goal. The interim guidance calls for agencies to ``consider appropriate
data, indices, and screening tools to determine whether a specific
community is disadvantaged based on a combination of variables that may
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
include, but are not limited to, the following:
--Low income, high and/or persistent poverty
--High unemployment and underemployment
--Racial and ethnic residential segregation, particularly where the
segregation stems from discrimination by government entities
--Linguistic isolation
--High housing cost burden and substandard housing
--Distressed neighborhoods
--High transportation cost burden and/or low transportation access
--Disproportionate environmental stressor burden and high cumulative
impacts
--Limited water and sanitation access and affordability
--Disproportionate impacts from climate change
--High energy cost burden and low energy access
--Jobs lost through the energy transition
--Access to healthcare . . .''
Question 6. In March, you fired all 44 members of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) and the seven members of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC). You stated the move was necessary since the
panels were ``out of balance,'' and that the members were ``not
representative of the needs'' of the Agency. On June 18th, you instated
members of CASAC, but members of SAB have not yet been selected.\2\ Can
you explain how you plan to undertake technical rulemakings under the
Clean Air Act that would be supported by this year's budget without SAB
membership in place?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/559069-epa-
announces-new-clean-air-advisors-after-firing-trump-appointees
Answer. After joining the EPA as Administrator in March, I
consulted with career staff and career scientists and determined that
the Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
needed a fresh start to ensure the quality and independence of their
science advice. In 2019, the Government Accountability Office concluded
that the previous Administration did not follow EPA's normal,
established process for recruiting and appointing experts to these
boards, which are critical to the integrity of EPA's regulatory
process. This is a process that Democratic and Republican
administrations have always followed, until the Trump administration.
To move forward, we thanked current members for their service and sent
out a Federal Register notice to recruit new members.
Following the EPA's request for nominations in April 2021,
significant public interest resulted in 352 candidates seeking
membership on the SAB. The membership solicitation, evaluation, and
selection of these members used the Agency's time-tested, fair, and
transparent process--correcting for process irregularities made in
recent years. I selected 47 members for the Chartered SAB, including
six prior members. The SAB will be comprised of 22 women and 25 men,
including 16 people of color, making it the most diverse SAB since the
committee was established. These selections are well-qualified experts
with a cross-section of scientific disciplines and experience needed to
provide advice to EPA leadership to help advance the Agency's mission.
I believe this highly qualified, diverse group of experts will ensure
that EPA is receiving sound science-based advice to inform our work to
protect people and the environment from pollution. We worked
expeditiously and deliberately to finalize the new SAB, and now we can
move forward knowing EPA's work is guided by the most credible,
independent expertise.
Question 7. During the hearing, I raised concerns about your recent
announcement that EPA planned on revisiting the Clean Water Act section
401 certification rule and the general issue of infrastructure
permitting. You stated that, while the Agency had not made any changes
yet, you maintained the same position you had as a State regulator in
North Carolina. Can you explain that position you held while in your
role as a State regulator in North Carolina under the Clean Water Act
and why it has not changed now that you are instated as EPA
Administrator?
Answer. As a former State regulator, the lack of certainty had been
discouraging for us who are trying to get the business of our States
done. As EPA Administrator, I have the opportunity to look back at what
we have learned, what worked and what didn't, and apply those lessons
to how we move forward.
EPA believes that Congress provided authority to States and Tribes
under Clean Water Act section 401 to protect the quality of their
waters from adverse impacts resulting from federally licensed or
permitted projects. EPA recently announced its intent to revise the
2020 Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule after determining
that the rule erodes State and Tribal authority. Through this process,
EPA intends to strengthen the authority of States and Tribes to protect
their vital water resources.
Question 8. During the hearing, we discussed pipeline permitting.
In your comments, you mainly deferred to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (FERC) jurisdiction on siting and said that EPA's role was
solely focused on review of site-by-site environmental impacts. On May
26, 2021, EPA's Office of Policy filed general comments \3\ to FERC on
the certification of new interstate natural gas facilities. Do you
endorse these comments filed by your Agency?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rick Weber, Kerry Rejects Notion Of Gas Pipelines As `Stranded'
In Low-Carbon Shift, InsideEPA (June 14, 2021), https://insideepa.com/
climate-news/kerry-rejects-notion-gas-pipelines-stranded-low-carbon-
shift (EPA comment letter cited, https://insideepa.com/sites/
insideepa.com/files/documents/2021/jun/epa2021_1111.pdf).
Answer. On May 26, 2021, EPA responded to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) invitation to submit comments on the
Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities. EPA reviewed
FERC's notice and provided updated comments and recommendations for
consideration based on the technical expertise, experience, and past
reviews of FERC's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's career staff.
Question 9. In response to Senator Reed's questions during the
hearing on cybersecurity in the water sector, you noted the
Administration's additional budget request of $4 million and 6 FTEs for
cybersecurity at EPA. Can you provide further details on this specific
request, including what additional capabilities the proposed funding
would provide, what the proposed 6 FTEs would be used for, and where
the proposed 6 FTEs would be located in EPA and geographically?
Answer. Cybersecurity represents a substantial concern for the
water sector, given the ubiquitous access to critical water treatment
systems from the Internet. Recent attacks perpetrated by State and
other actors and their clear potential to disrupt essential lifeline
services, such as drinking water supplies, are prompting a growing
recognition that the Federal Government should adopt a more aggressive
posture towards cybersecurity. EPA will work with States, territories,
and Tribes to develop and train a cadre of technical assistance
providers who can work directly with individual water systems to assess
and enhance their cybersecurity practices. This multi-year effort
requires EPA to work with the Nation's 52,000 community water systems,
many of which have limited or no technical capacity to address cyber
issues. EPA also would seek to train individuals on how to integrate
cyber training into their sanitary survey assessments.
In addition to expanding direct technical assistance, and in
discussions with the National Security Council, EPA is pursuing
regulatory options in the near-term for addressing cybersecurity in the
water sector. Under this effort, EPA also is requesting resources to
develop policies and/or regulations and associated activities. EPA will
publish guidance for public water systems on what cybersecurity
practices are recommended for safe operation and EPA will develop a
nationwide training effort for all States, sanitary survey inspectors,
and all public water systems on compliance and cybersecurity in
general.
In fiscal year 2022, EPA will continue to fulfill its obligations
as the Sector Risk Management Agency for the water and wastewater
systems sector. EPA will partner with the water sector to promote
cybersecurity practices and gauge progress in the sector's
implementation of these practices as directed by the Cybersecurity
Enhancement Act of 2014. EPA will be conducting nationwide exercises
and providing technical support on cybersecurity threats and
countermeasures for about 200 water and wastewater utilities. The EPM
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection Program also can
support cybersecurity related work.
Specifically, EPA will:
--Conduct one-day classroom exercises, at locations distributed
nationally, on water sector cybersecurity. The exercises will
address cybersecurity threats (including ransomware),
vulnerabilities, consequences, best practices, and incident
response planning;
--Update and/or develop new course materials owing to the evolving
nature of cyber threats, such as the recently documented role
of Russian state actors in infiltrating water system industrial
control processes and business enterprise functions;
--Develop brief, targeted guidance documents for underserved segments
of the water sector, such as small systems and technical
assistance providers; and
--Continue to implement a new training program for technical
assistance providers that will create a nationwide, state-level
network capable of providing direct assistance to water
utilities in adopting and tracking cybersecurity practices in
adopting and tracking cyber security practices as recommended
in the sanitary survey guidance.
Question 10. Can you please detail your coordination with the
Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) regarding the water
sector, including specifically whether EPA serves or would serve as the
central repository where water utilities provide information on
security issues?
Answer. Under Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), Critical
Infrastructure Security and Resilience, each of the 16 critical
infrastructure sectors has a Sector Risk Management Agency (SRMA),
which serves as the Federal lead responsible for that sector's security
and resilience. PPD-21 designates EPA as the SRMA charged with ensuring
that the water sector is prepared for any hazard, including cyber
risks. EPA fulfills its critical mission in water sector cybersecurity
in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s
Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Water Sector
Coordinating Council of industry representatives, and other Federal,
State, local, Tribal and territorial, and private sector partners by
helping water and wastewater utilities prepare for, respond to, and
recover from cyber-attacks. With respect to generating alerts and
intelligence reports for the water sector, CISA is effective in
translating intelligence information about new threats and
exploitations into alerts with actionable mitigation procedures that
water systems can follow, with EPA ensuring that these alerts reach a
broad swath of the sector. In terms of the Federal response to a cyber
incident, PPD 41 identifies three general concurrent lines of effort in
responding to a significant cyber incident with CISA having the lead
Federal role for asset response (meaning that they provide technical
assistance to affected entities to protect assets, mitigate
vulnerabilities, and reduce impacts), while EPA as the Sector Risk
Management Agency (SRMA) leads the Federal Government's efforts to
understand the business or operational impacts of a cyber incident in
the water sector. EPA encourages water sector entities to report cyber
incidents to the FBI and CISA, which relay incident information to EPA
and also may request EPA assistance in following up with the affected
entity.
Question 11. I also submitted questions for the record to you
following an April 28, 2021 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works (EPW), of which I am Ranking Member. Those
questions are reproduced here as an attachment. I am disappointed that
I have not received responses to those questions, approximately six
weeks after the questions were sent to you. When can I and the other
members of EPW expect responses to their questions for the record?
Answer. EPA responded on July 12, 2021.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., Wednesday, June 9, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]