[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 14, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-892 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
C O N T E N T S
November 14, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
The Honorable Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Discussion....................................................... 20
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 68
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement for the record by Representative Elizabeth H.
Esty, Member, Committee on Science, Space and Technology....... 134
Report submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Member,
Committee on Science, Space and Technology..................... 136
Letter submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Member,
Committee on Science, Space and Technology..................... 146
Letters submitted for the record by Representative Mark Takano,
Member, Committee on Science, Space and Technology............. 149
STRENGTHENING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Welcome everyone to today's
hearing titled Strengthening Transparency and Accountability
Within the Environmental Protection Agency. I am going to
recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement, and
then I will recognize the Ranking Member for hers.
The Environmental Protection Agency, like every other
governmental institution, should answer to the American people.
Everyone agrees that we need to protect the environment, but we
should do so in a way that is open and honest. Democracy
requires transparency and accountability.
Yet EPA's justifications for its regulations are cloaked in
secret science. It appears the EPA bends the law and stretches
the science to justify its own objectives.
Americans impacted by the Agency's regulations have a right
to see the data and determine for themselves independently if
these regulations are based on sound science or a partisan
agenda. The EPA's efforts to expand its regulatory reach across
the U.S. represent a troubling trend.
For example, take EPA's current attempt to redefine its
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It seeks to expand the
definition of Waters of the U.S. to give the Agency
unprecedented new authority over private property.
According to media reports, this expansion of EPA
regulatory power could include almost all man-made and natural
streams, lakes and ponds in the U.S. This undermines states'
rights and increases Federal control of private property and
could lead to the EPA telling us what to do in our own back
yard.
The EPA's efforts to demonize hydraulic fracturing are
another example of an Agency implementing a partisan agenda
before it takes the time to get the facts. The EPA made wild
claims of groundwater contamination but was forced to retract
those claims when it could produce no evidence. Perhaps the
most worrisome examples of the Agency's disregard for
transparency and accountability are found in the EPA's Clean
Air Program.
We all agree that ensuring clean air is essential, but the
EPA has a responsibility to establish rules that balance our
environmental concerns and our economic needs.
Nearly all of this Administration's air quality regulations
are justified on the basis of hidden data. These regulations
cost billions of dollars but the EPA claims that the benefits
of these rules justify the costs. These claims can't be
verified if the EPA uses secret science.
More than two years ago, before this Committee, then
Assistant Administrator McCarthy said this information was
available for independent review and verification. And a few
months ago, the President's own Science Advisor took the same
position. When the EPA failed to live up to those commitments,
the Committee issued a subpoena requiring the Agency to produce
the data. Three months later, the Agency still hasn't provided
the data necessary to verify the Agency's claims.
Let me be clear: It is the EPA's responsibility to ensure
that the science it uses is transparent and that its claims can
be verified independently.
Recently, the EPA provided us with copies of letters it
received from scientists explaining why they believe this data
cannot be released to the public. It is unfortunate that it
took us two years and a subpoena to get here, but now even the
EPA knows the truth: The Agency itself cannot publicly verify
its own claims.
So not only do we have a lack of transparency, we have an
Agency that is regulating without the facts to back up its
claims.
We need to know whether the Agency is telling the truth to
the American people. The EPA must either make the data public
or commit to no longer use secret science to support its
regulations. Without this, Congress will have no choice but to
prohibit the EPA's use of secret data moving forward.
I will introduce legislation in the next few weeks that
will stop the EPA from basing regulations on undisclosed and
unverified information.
We can and should continue to look for ways to protect our
environment. But these efforts must be open, transparent and
based on sound science. Only then can the American people
decide whether the costs of EPA's regulatory agenda is
supported by the facts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), like every other
governmental institution, answers to the American people. Everyone
agrees that we need to protect the environment, but we should do so in
a way that is open and honest. Democracy requires transparency and
accountability.
Yet EPA's justifications for its regulations are cloaked in secret
science. It appears the EPA bends the law and stretches the science to
justify its own objectives.
The Americans impacted by the Agency's regulations have a right to
see the data and determine for themselves independently if these
regulations are based on sound science or a partisan agenda. The EPA's
efforts to expand its regulatory reach across the U.S. represent a
troubling trend.
For example, take EPA's current attempt to redefine its
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It seeks to expand the
definition of ``Waters of the U.S.'' to give the Agency unprecedented
new authority over private property.
According to media reports, this expansion of EPA regulatory power
could include almost all man-made and natural streams, lakes and ponds
in the U.S. This undermines states' rights and increases federal
control of private property and could lead to the EPA telling us what
to do in our own back yard.
The EPA's efforts to demonize hydraulic fracturing are another
example of an Agency implementing a partisan agenda before it takes the
time to get the facts. The EPA made wild claims of groundwater
contamination, but was forced to retract those claims when it could
produce no evidence. Perhaps the most outrageous examples of the
Agency's disregard for transparency and accountability are found in the
EPA's clean air program.
We all agree that ensuring clean air is essential, but the EPA has
a responsibility to establish rules that balance our environmental
concerns and our economic needs.
Nearly all of this Administration's air quality regulations are
justified on the basis of hidden data.
These regulations cost billions of dollars but the EPA claims that
the benefits of these rules justify the costs. These claims can't be
verified if the EPA uses secret science.
More than two years ago, before this Committee, then Assistant
Administrator McCarthy said this information was available for
independent review and verification. And a few months ago, the
President's own Science Advisor took the same position.
When the EPA failed to live up to those commitments, the Committee
issued a subpoena requiring the Agency to produce the data. Three
months later, the Agency still hasn't provided the data necessary to
verify the Agency's claims.
Let me be clear: It is the EPA's responsibility to ensure that the
science it uses is transparent and that its claims can be verified by
the public.
Recently, the EPA provided us with copies of letters it received
from scientists explaining why they believe this data cannot be
released to the public. It's unfortunate that it took us two years and
a subpoena to get here, but now even the EPA knows the truth: the
Agency itself cannot publicly verify its own claims.
So not only do we have a lack of transparency, we have an Agency
that is regulating with reckless abandon and without the facts to back
up its claims.
We need to know whether the Agency is telling the truth to the
American people. The EPA must either make the data public, or commit to
no longer use secret science to support its regulations. Without this,
Congress will have no choice but to prohibit the EPA's use of secret
data moving forward.
I will introduce legislation in the next few weeks that will stop
the EPA from basing regulations on undisclosed and unverified
information.
We can and should continue to look for ways to protect our
environment. But these efforts must be open, transparent and based on
sound science. Only then can the American people decide whether the
costs of EPA's regulatory agenda is supported by the facts.
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, is recognized
for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, and good morning. I am
very pleased to welcome Administrator McCarthy to today's
hearing. She has had a distinguished record at the
Environmental Protection Agency prior to her being selected to
be EPA Administrator. And by all accounts, she has been doing
an exemplary job since assuming the position.
While I think her record of performance and her integrity
speaks for themselves, I thought it was important to review the
mission of the Agency. First, the mission of EPA is to protect
human health and the environment. As someone who worked in
public health before I entered politics, I can think of no
mission of the Federal Government that is more important or
noble than that. As a Member of Congress, I think I should be
doing all I can to encourage EPA as it attempts to carry out a
very challenging mission. I think too often EPA is made a
target for funding cuts and its leadership subjected to
harassment and denigration. Unfortunately, our own Committee
has not been immune from employing these tactics.
Mr. Chairman, I am a Texan. From birth to death, I am a
Texan, and I am no stranger to the oil and gas industries and
the economic benefits they can bring or to the pollution and
health and environmental impacts those industries can also
bring. I know that EPA's actions have consequences for
companies that sometimes are negative. However, I also know
that EPA's actions have important consequences for the health
of our constituents, especially those who are young, infirmed
or elderly. And those consequences have been very positive
indeed over the 40 years that EPA has been in existence.
We all want a healthy economy, but we also want a healthy
quality of life for our citizenry. And EPA's efforts have
played a critical role in achieving both these goals since its
inception.
As Members of Congress, I think we should strive to educate
our constituents, not scare them. I hope today I can resist the
temptation to try for provocative sound bites for my district
and instead use today's hearing to better understand what EPA
has been tasked to accomplish, how it is doing on those tasks
and how we in Congress can help it to do its job more
effectively.
Administrator McCarthy, I know you have a very tough job,
and I want to commend you for your willingness to take it on in
spite of all the hurdles that you and your Agency face. I look
forward to your testimony, and I look forward to working with
you to help EPA achieve the goals that the Nation has asked us
to carry out.
I thank you and yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning. I am very pleased to welcome Administrator McCarthy
to today's hearing. She had a distinguished record at the Environmental
Protection Agency prior to her being selected to be EPA Administrator,
and by all accounts she has been doing an exemplary job since assuming
that position.
While I think her record of performance and her integrity speak for
themselves, I thought it important to review the mission.
First the mission of the EPA is to ``protect human health and the
environment.'' As someone who worked in public health before I entered
politics, I can think of no mission of the federal government that is
more important or noble than that. As a Member of Congress I think I
should be doing all that I can to encourage EPA as it attempts to carry
out a very challenging mission. I think, too often EPA is made a target
for funding cuts and its leadership subjected to harassment and
denigration. Unfortunately, our own Committee has not been immune from
employing such tactics.
Mr. Chairman, I am a Texan from birth to death, and I'm no stranger
to the oil and gas industries and the economic benefits they can
bring--or to the pollution and health and environmental impacts those
industries can also bring. I know that EPA's actions have consequences
for companies that sometimes are negative. However, I also know that
EPA's actions have important consequences for the health of our
constituents--especially those who are young, infirm, or elderly. And
those consequences have been very positive indeed over the forty-odd
years that EPA has been in existence. We all want a healthy economy,
but we also want a healthy quality of life for our citizenry--and EPA's
efforts have played a critical role in achieving both those goals since
its inception.
As Members of Congress, I think we should be strive to educate our
constituents, not scare them. I hope today I can resist the temptation
to try for provocative ``sound bites'' for my district, and instead use
today's hearing to better understand what EPA has been tasked to
accomplish, how it is doing on those tasks, and how we in Congress can
help it to do its job more effectively.
Administrator McCarthy, I know you have a very tough job, and I
want to commend you for your willingness to take it on in spite of all
the hurdles that you and your agency face. I look forward to your
testimony, and I look forward to working with you to help EPA achieve
the goals that the nation has asked us to carry out.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Members who have
opening statements can submit them for the record, and they
will appear at this point.
[The information follows:]
Chairman Smith. Our witness today is The Honorable Gina
McCarthy, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Prior to her appointment as Administrator, she was the
Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation
where she advocated to protect public health and the
environment. During her career, which spans over 30 years, she
has worked at both the state and local levels on environmental
issues and helped coordinate policies on economic growth,
energy, transportation and the environment.
Administrator McCarthy received a bachelor of arts degree
in social anthropology from the University of Massachusetts and
a master's of science and environmental health, engineering and
planning from Tufts University.
At this time I will yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut, Ms. Esty, for additional comments.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Johnson for holding today's hearing on the Environmental
Protection Agency. I am very pleased to welcome Administrator
Gina McCarthy who served as Commissioner of Connecticut's
Department of Environmental Protection and then as Assistant
Administrator of the U.S. EPA.
Administrator McCarthy, it is wonderful to see you again.
Congratulations on your confirmation. You have an important
role and responsibility as head of an agency charged with
protecting the environment and the public's health. I
appreciate all of your hard work to that end, and we are very
proud of you in Connecticut and very pleased to see you here
today.
Thank you so much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty. Administrator
McCarthy, we welcome your testimony, and please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GINA MCCARTHY,
ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCarthy. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, and--oh, I am so sorry. Good morning, Chairman Smith
and Ranking Member Johnson, other distinguished Members of the
Committee. I am pleased to be here to talk about the central
role that science plays at the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Let me begin by stating that science is and always has been
the backbone of the EPA's decision-making. The Agency's ability
to pursue its mission to protect human health and the
environment depends upon the integrity of the science upon
which it relies. I firmly believe that environmental policies,
decisions, guidance, and regulation that impact the lives of
all Americans must be grounded, at the most fundamental level,
in sound, high quality, transparent, science.
Because we rely so heavily on science to meet our mission
on behalf of the American people, it must be conducted in ways
that are transparent, that is free from bias and conflict of
interest and of the highest quality, integrity, and
credibility. These qualities are important not just within our
own organization and the Federal Government, but across the
scientific community, with its long-established and highly
honorable commitment to maintaining strict adherence to ethical
investigation and research. That is why the agency has
established and embraced a Scientific Integrity Policy that
builds upon existing Agency and government-wide policies and
guidance documents, explicitly outlining EPA's commitment to
the highest standards of scientific integrity. And that
commitment extends to any scientist or organization who wishes
to contribute to our efforts. All EPA-funded research projects,
whether they are conducted by EPA scientists or outside
grantees or collaborators, must comply with the Agency's
rigorous quality assurance requirements.
To ensure we have the best possible science, we are
committed to rigorous, independent peer review of the
scientific data, the models and analyses that support our
decisions. Peer review can take a number of forms, ranging from
external reviews by the National Academy of Sciences or the
EPA's federal advisory committees to contractor-coordinated
reviews.
Consistent with OMB's guidance, we require peer review of
all EPA research projects and for all influential scientific
information and highly influential scientific assessments.
Among the external advisory committees is the EPA's Science
Advisory Board. Our SAB reviews are conducted by groups of
independent non-EPA scientists with the range of expertise
required for that particular advisory topic. We invite the
public to nominate experts for the SAB panels and to comment on
candidates being considered by the EPA for SAB panels. The EPA
evaluates public comments and information submitted about SAB
nominees. The EPA's review experts' confidential financial
information is available to ensure that there are no conflicts
of interest.
SAB peer reviews are conducted in public sessions in
compliance with the open-government requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. The public is invited to send and to
provide oral and written testimony for consideration by the
SAB. Public comments help to ensure that all relevant science
and technical issues are available to the SAB as it reviews the
science that will support our environmental decisions.
Another example of how well we do science and maintain our
integrity is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee which
provides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the
science that supports EPA's National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. The CASAC reviews the EPA's Integrated Science
Assessments which deliver science in support of the Clean Air
Act.
Through a transparent and open process, we have also
committed to enhancing the Agency's Integrated Risk Information
System assessment program. A strong, scientifically rigorous
IRIS Program is of critical importance, and the EPA is in the
process of enhancing the scientific integrity of assessments,
enhancing the productivity of that Program and increasing
transparency so that issues are identified and debated early on
in the process. In 2009, the EPA made significant enhancements
to IRIS by announcing a new 7-step assessment development
process. Since that time, the National Research Council has
made recommendations related to enhancing the development of
the IRIS assessments. The EPA is making changes still to the
IRIS program to enhance our ability to respond to those
recommendations and to maintain our science integrity. These
changes will help the EPA produce more high-quality IRIS
assessments each year in a timely and transparent manner to
meet the needs of the Agency and the public. A newly released
NRC report is largely supportive of the enhanced approach that
EPA is now taking to develop the IRIS assessment, in this case,
for inorganic arsenic.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman,
science is the backbone of our decision making, and our work is
based on the principles of scientific integrity and
transparency that are both expected and deserved by the
American people. I am proud of the EPA's research efforts and
the sound use of science and technology to fulfill EPA's
important mission to protect public health and safeguard the
natural environment.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to meet with the
Committee for the first time and to provide testimony, and I am
happy to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy. I will
recognize myself for some questions.
The first one is this. When you testified before this
Committee in September 2011, you promised to provide the data
behind EPA's health benefit claims. And yet, to my knowledge,
you have not done that. Yet, the Agency continues to justify
major regulations based upon these studies. Now, you have given
the Committee some information, but do you agree that the
information you have given us so far is insufficient to
validate these findings?
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we
have submitted information that you requested.
Chairman Smith. I don't deny that, but is the information
you have given us sufficient to validate the findings that you
have come to?
Ms. McCarthy. It is sufficient for you to understand the--
--
Chairman Smith. I know. I know it is sufficient to
understand, but can we validate it independently? Is the
information you have given us sufficient to validate
independently the findings that you have concluded?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe that it is sufficient for you to
understand that we have relied on peer-reviewed science.
Chairman Smith. Well, let me say that we get a letter from
the EPA saying that it was not sufficient, so you might want to
check with other individuals within the EPA. We have not gotten
sufficient information to validate the findings.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, if you are looking to replicate
the studies, I would agree with you that all of that
information isn't available to the Agency, but we have sought
to get that information for you and we have provided that
information to you.
Chairman Smith. Right. The information you have provided--I
will just make that statement again--and is validated by a
letter we received from the EPA which is not sufficient to
validate your findings.
Let me go onto my next question. Next year the EPA is
seeking to change its national ozone standards, a move that the
Agency admits could be the most expensive regulation in
history, I think perhaps exceeding the cost of $100 billion to
the American people. Will you specifically commit to not rely
on secret science and hidden data in the rule making for the
ozone standards? In other words, will you make the underlying
data public?
Ms. McCarthy. The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee that
we rely on as our peer-review entity to take a look at our
National Ambient Air Quality Standards ensures that we are
public, that we make our information publically available. As
far as transparency----
Chairman Smith. Okay. So the----
Ms. McCarthy. --the EPA----
Chairman Smith. --information will be made publically
available that you rely upon to issue the ozone----
Ms. McCarthy. In the same way in which we have done it
before, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Well----
Ms. McCarthy. We are very public----
Chairman Smith. --the same way----
Ms. McCarthy. --with the information.
Chairman Smith. The same way before wasn't sufficient, so I
am kind of wondering if you are saying it will be made public,
if it is really going to be made public.
Ms. McCarthy. We rely on thousands of studies. We provide
an integrated science assessment that is thoroughly looked at
for the peer-review process.
Chairman Smith. Let me take you at your word. You said that
the information would be made public, that the data that you
rely upon for the issuance of the ozone----
Ms. McCarthy. In the same way we have done it always, Mr.
Chairman, yes.
Chairman Smith. Well, okay. We have to disagree on that. I
don't think you have always done it, but if you will say you
will do it now, I will take you at your word.
Let me ask you this. Have you given the Committee all the
subpoenaed data in the EPA's possession?
Ms. McCarthy. If you are referring to the PM data that you
have requested from the Agency?
Chairman Smith. No, I am saying----
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. What----
Chairman Smith. --have you----
Ms. McCarthy. We have a number of subpoenas.
Chairman Smith. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. I just want to make sure----
Chairman Smith. I am just talking about the one from the
Science Committee. Have you given the Committee all the
information that we have subpoenaed that is in your possession?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe we have as of September 20.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. Those were related to some specific studies.
One was outstanding until September 20 so we could make sure
that we had looked at confidentiality and privacy issues.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. Will the EPA produce all
of its correspondence with outside entities regarding the
efforts to comply with the subpoena, and this would include
emails, text and other electronic communications?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe we are responding to that request
today, Mr. Chairman. If you have further questions after that
response or you don't believe it is adequate, we will certainly
get staff together----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --and we can converse as well.
Chairman Smith. But otherwise you will say it is going to
Freedom of Information Act and give us all that correspondence,
is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. We actually respond to a number of Freedom of
Information Act requests, Mr. Chairman. If that is your
preference, we can do that.
Chairman Smith. No, don't let me confuse the issue. You are
going to give us the correspondence that you have engaged in
with the third parties to try to get them to comply with the
subpoena?
Ms. McCarthy. We are going to respond to your request for
that----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --I believe today.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you for that. My last question
is this. The EPA has a draft Clean Water Act rule that could
give EPA unprecedented authority over private property. The law
clearly states that at the time such a proposal is sent to
other Federal agencies, it must also be made available to EPA's
Science Advisory Board, the SAB, for peer review. In September
EPA sent its proposal to OMB for interagency review, but
according to your SAB, the draft has not been made available to
the Board. Why didn't you comply with this requirement before
formally proposing the rule?
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that we
are going to be and we are complying with our statutory
obligations. What you are referring to is a rule that is very,
very early in the process of science----
Chairman Smith. Right, but you submitted it to OMB, and
according to the law, when you submit it to OMB, you have got
to submit it to your Science Advisory Board, and that hasn't
been done yet.
Ms. McCarthy. We actually have a process that is
established at EPA for how we communicate with the Science
Advisory Board on those issues. It is a process that they have
agreed to and we have. It is consistent----
Chairman Smith. The submissions are supposed to be----
Ms. McCarthy. --with the law.
Chairman Smith. The submissions are supposed to be
concurrent, and yet you have submitted the rule to OMB but not
to the Science Advisory Board. Are you expected to do that
immediately?
Ms. McCarthy. Again, Mr. Chairman, the Science Advisory
Board right now has an opportunity to look at the science that
would underpin that rule, but we are very early on in the
process and will make sure to comply with the law.
Chairman Smith. Regardless of where you are in the process,
the law says you have to submit it to the advisory board at the
same time you give it to other agencies. But you haven't done
that, and I am just wondering why.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it is not a question that we haven't
done it. It is a question that we have a process in place--
Chairman Smith. So you have----
Ms. McCarthy. --where we work those issues----
Chairman Smith. So you have submitted the----
Ms. McCarthy. --with the Science Advisory Board.
Chairman Smith. You have submitted the rule to the advisory
board and I am just not aware of it?
Ms. McCarthy. As far as I know, I don't believe the
advisory board has the rule, but we are very early in the
process. Unfortunately, you may have it, and they are likely to
have it as well because it has been publically released. But it
is in a very early stage.
Chairman Smith. If there is a law that says you are
supposed to submit it to them immediately and you haven't done
that and that is not following the proper process----
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to supply you with
the articulated process that we use to----
Chairman Smith. No, I understand----
Ms. McCarthy. --comply with that.
Chairman Smith. The process is----
Ms. McCarthy. But we believe we are in compliance with the
law.
Chairman Smith. Yeah, the process is very clear because it
is the process required by law that you are not following at
this point and I hope you will.
That concludes my question, and the Ranking Member is
recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I am a little confused
myself. I am seeing stacks, huge stacks of materials that have
been submitted, and I don't know what is missing that you have
access to that has been requested. Do you understand what is
being requested or----
Ms. McCarthy. We believe that we do, and we believe that we
have complied with those requests to the best of our ability.
EPA has provided thousands of pages of material that is been
requested of us, and we have done it because we agree with this
Committee and its mission to ensure that we have sound science
and transparency. That is the commitment of this Agency, and we
will fulfill that commitment.
Ms. Johnson. Well, thank you. I am really trying to follow
the line of question of the Chair to understand exactly what
the real problem is. How do you interpret what the questions
have been for your understanding and what else do you think
that can happen, what can be given?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we have provided the information. When
we do rule making, like National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
we look at the thousands of peer-review studies that are
available to us. We also fund studies ourselves, and we conduct
studies ourselves. When we fund those studies and the
information and the data that we gather to fund those, we have
to make sure now under the Shelby Amendment that that
underlying data is available to us. We have done that. But
there is much information that we look at that is peer-reviewed
literature, which is really how science works, Ranking Member,
is that we rely on rigorous peer-review data. EPA relooks at
that to make sure it is been peer reviewed before we rely on
it. But we don't have the wealth of data underneath all of the
thousands of studies. But clearly researchers, including EPA,
can enter into agreements to gather that data, but much of it
ends up being confidential or private and we have obligations
under other statutes as well as OMB guidance to protect that
privacy. In the case of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, we have the data on air quality, we have the data on
deaths. What we don't have available to us with the full
breadth of raw data is the cohort data which really follows
individuals. So when we have that data, we have to protect it,
but we don't need to see the wealth of raw data under every
study to know that it has been rigorously peer reviewed and we
can rely on it for our decision making.
Ms. Johnson. Has there ever been a time when the Congress
has requested raw data that--or is this a unique time?
Ms. McCarthy. We did actually face similar questionings,
frankly, about the exact same issues, the PM studies, the
particulate matter studies, from Harvard University and from
American Cancer Society. And we were asked similar questions
back in the early '90s is my understanding, and we funded
through a contractor 30 researchers to look for three years at
all of that underlying data they had available to it because
they could enter into a confidential contract with the
researchers to access that data so the private information was
protected. They did a complete reanalysis of that data and the
methodologies used, and they came out with the same types of
conclusions. So we have verified even with that underlying data
available that these are studies that can be relied on. These
are in fact studies that the world relies on, not just EPA.
They are well-done, they are credible and they have not changed
their methodology substantially since the last time we even
looked at the raw data. So we are very confident in the
underlying science and that we have done the right thing and
paid attention to that, which is what EPA is supposed to do.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I yield.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. The gentleman from
Wisconsin, our former Chairman of this Committee, Mr.
Sensenbrenner is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
McCarthy, on June 27, 2012, you sent a letter to me relative to
the issue of ethanol and the waiver on E-15. And I asked the
question, does the EPA remain confident that E-15 will not
damage car engines from vehicles of model years 2001 and later.
The letter you signed responded the EPA remains confident in
the technical basis for the E-15 partial waiver decision. This
question can be answered simply yes or no. Do you remain
confident in the technical basis for the E-15 decision?
Ms. McCarthy. I do.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay. Now here is what others are
saying. Ford says it doesn't support the introduction of E-15
into the marketplace for the legacy fuel. Ford does not
approve. In the owner's manual it is considered misfueling and
any damage resulting from misfueling is not covered by the
warranty. Mercedes-Benz states that any ethanol blend above E-
10 including E-15 will harm emission control systems in
Mercedes-Benz engines leading to significant problems. Honda
states that vehicle engines were not designed or built to
accommodate the higher concentrations of ethanol. There appears
to be the potential for engine failure. The AAA. AAA's
automotive engineering experts have reviewed the available
research and believe that additional assessment is warranted to
more fully document to what extent the sustained use of E-15 in
both newer or older vehicles will cause significant problems
such as accelerated engine wear, fuel system damage and false
check-engine lights. And the Coast Guard finds that increasing
the blend to E-15 can be expected to exacerbate any fuel system
deterioration now being reported with E-10 blend gasoline. Fuel
leaks cause an unacceptable risk of fire and explosion. My
question to you is are the auto manufacturers, the AAA, the
small engine makers and the U.S. Coast Guard wrong and how can
the EPA continue to ignore these concerns?
Ms. McCarthy. Congressman, I am not going to speak to their
issues that particularly the car manufacturers might have
relative to their liability and warranty considerations. What I
can tell you is that EPA with DoE did extensive testing of E-15
on cars. We understand that there are challenges prior to 2001
which is when some new, more robust engines were required in
those vehicles. We have done extensive testing. We continue to
believe that E-15 is appropriate, and if it were available it
would be being used by individuals for vehicles that are 2001
and younger.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, that is not what the manufacturers
say. That is not what the AAA says. They don't make cars. They
represent motorists' interest. That is not even what the Coast
Guard said because we are dealing with small engines including
marine engines, lawn mowers, snow mobiles and things like that.
Ms. McCarthy. Congressman, we never----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Now, ma'am. Ma'am? I am going to ask you
a question.
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am going to ask you a question.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Because I have a limited amount of time.
Ms. McCarthy. All right.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. You will make a very good senator if you
would like to filibuster. I have a bill that this Committee has
reported favorably out to require the National Academies of
Science to conduct an unbiased assessment of the science
surrounding E-15. There seem to be enough questions relating to
EPA's conclusions on this. So why don't you support further
testing of E-15, and why are you opposed to having an unbiased
referee making call on this fuel?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't recall, Congressman, that I have
spoken to this issue. EPA----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will you support----
Ms. McCarthy. Again----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. --my bill for more testing on this
issue?
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry. I have not read the bill but if
you are asking me----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, the bill has been around for a
long time because it was sponsored in response to your letter
where there's a disagreement on whether the EPA has conducted
unbiased research. Now, how about having another look at this
before people's engines get wrecked?
Ms. McCarthy. Additional research that is done credibly and
transparent is also--always welcome, Congressman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Fine. I would appreciate a letter from
the EPA and from you supporting my bill, and then maybe we can
put it on the floor.
Ms. McCarthy. But I do feel that we have sufficiently done
our analysis, and I continue to rely on it.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, then I guess having an unbiased
view is something that you won't always support.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. The
gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized for
questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Administrator McCarthy for appearing before us today. The
work that you do to protect the health of our constituents is
very important and very much appreciated.
I want to briefly mention the EPA's work on the Portland
Harbor Superfund Site, an issue that's been important for years
in the district I represent and in the region but one where I
think we could all agree the work has not progressed as
expeditiously as it should. And when I met with you in April of
this year to discuss the issue, you had yet to be confirmed as
administrator, but we still had a very productive conversation
and I want to say an encouraging conversation about increased
cooperation between the EPA headquarters, the Oregon
Congressional delegation, and you also expressed an interest in
improving the relationship between the EPA Region 10 and our
local stakeholders. And so far I have seen positive signs of
that happening, and I wanted to say that I look forward to
working with you and the EPA to, we hope, finally take care of
that superfund site in the Portland Harbor. So thank you for
your work on that.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. On the topic of EPA protecting public health,
in your testimony you focus on how important it is that good
science be used to determine when public health is in danger.
After all, that is one of EPA's critical missions. And in the
first hearing held by the Environment Subcommittee--oh, in a
hearing held by the Environment Subcommittee earlier this year,
a look at the state of the environment, one witness, Richard
Truesbeck, said that looking too closely at a problem can sort
of overestimate the need for a solution. He said when one puts
anything under a microscope, one necessarily will find
something ugly to gawk at.
When considering public health, it is hard to imagine that
just because something is small or microscopic, it should not
be evaluated to determine its impacts on public health. Surely
our constituents can be harmed by pollutants that they cannot
see.
So can you talk about the process that EPA goes through to
determine when a problem is severe enough to address through
Federal action, and then I do want to save time for another
question.
Ms. McCarthy. We address the science in many different ways
depending upon what we are actually focusing on and where
authorities lie. EPA doesn't agree with a statement that says
that we shouldn't be focused on both our mission as well as
appropriately doing our job that Congress gave us. We look at
both doing independent reviews of the science. We do that
rigorously. We do it through something we call the IRIS process
which I mentioned earlier, which is really a health assessment
that underpins many of the decisions that we do that helps us
understand what the science implications are, what the health
implications are for people that are exposed to chemicals and
other hazards in the environment. And it is extremely important
for us to look at those issues.
Then we look at what authorities Congress has given us,
what responsibilities we have and we address those
responsibilities in the way in which Congress gave us to
address those.
Ms. Bonamici. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. That is how we make improvements in public
health. That is how we have successfully done that for 40-
almost 3 years.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. In March of this year the
Environment Subcommittee had a hearing on EPA's Science
Advisory Board, and since then the committee has passed
legislation modifying the makeup of those boards. And
throughout the process, some on this Committee have asserted
that industry voices are not represented and that academic
interests dominate, and others of us acknowledge that the
industry perspective should be heard but we are concerned about
making sure that we don't have conflicts of interest.
So you discussed this a bit in your opening testimony, but
will you please expand on how industry scientists might
contribute to the Science Advisory Boards while also avoiding
conflicts of interest? And how do you as Administrator ensure
that the advice that you are receiving from those bodies are
not tainted with policy-related judgments?
Ms. McCarthy. For the Science Advisory Board, we believe
the EPA meets and exceeds our responsibilities under FACA, our
legal requirements, and we are more transparent and we look
more closely so that we can make sure that we look at the
Ethics in Government Act as well. The Science Advisory Board in
our process for doing that is something that we are very proud
of. When we do panels and we put them together, we publish our
consideration of who the panel members should be. We ask for
comments on that. We respond to that. We look at making sure
that the panels we put together are well-balanced and that they
have all of the range of expertise we are looking for as well
as a variety of perspectives.
Ms. Bonamici. And can you please discuss the conflict of
interest issue because I want to make sure you get that in.
Ms. McCarthy. We actually look very closely at conflict of
interest which we look at both whether or not there are
financial problems that are real or the appearance is there,
and we make sure that we do a thorough analysis of both any
investment opportunities or financial considerations. We just
recently established a new process where we are looking at that
as well and more rigorously for external contractors as well.
So we look at the issues, whether they are perceived or
real. We do them publically, transparently. We take comments
every step of the way to ensure that our panel has the
expertise as well as the credibility it needs to speak from a
sound science and transparency perspective.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. I see my time has
expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, the Vice Chairman
of this Committee, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
following up with my colleague from Oregon's line of
questioning. I appreciate her setup, and we appreciate you
being here with us today.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. About the Science Advisory Boards--and
there is serious concern that the EPA's regulatory science has
become somewhat of a closed loop that the Agency sets
regulatory goals based on whatever motives those goals are
based upon and then develops the funds and the science that it
needs to justify those goals. The Agency then creates its own
regulations and is solely responsible for interpreting those
regulations. Making matters even worse, the courts largely
defer to the EPA especially when questions involve the analysis
of science.
Therefore, the most critical requirement for America to
trust this regulatory policy or system and especially the
regulations that are set forth by the EPA is scientific
integrity. Unfortunately, as I say, there are worries, and at
least I believe there seems to be some very serious reasons for
being worried about this being a closed loop. A closed loop is
not going to give us the type of science that we need. We
believe that especially this is evident in a matter that you
were just discussing with my colleague from Oregon, the
independent peer review of EPA science and we believe, and I
would like to ask you a few questions about whether or not this
has been compromised.
You are responsible for appointing members of the EPA's
Scientific Advisory Boards, and let's take a look at Science
Advisory Boards such as, number one, the Science Advisory Board
and number two, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. And
you have called these panels independent review boards.
Ms. McCarthy. Um-hum.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And your predecessor described them as
being made up totally of independent expert scientists. And
that is pretty well what you still agree with?
Ms. McCarthy. Um-hum. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You are still acknowledging that that is
still what your goal is and what we are trying to do? I would
like to put into the record some information prepared by the
Congressional Research Service that calls into serious question
the independence of the experts that sit on these committees.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, it will be made a part
of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Rohrabacher. According to the CRS, almost 60 percent of
the members of these two panels have received EPA grants since
2000. That is totaling taxpayer-funded grants worth roughly
$140 million. Perhaps even worse, a majority of the members of
the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, the panel tasked with
critically evaluating the EPA's particulate matter standards
that was finalized at the end of 2012, a majority had received
EPA grants directly related to particulate matter since 2010.
So you have someone investigating or passing judgment on things
that they themselves have been given grants and been involved
in the research they are supposedly overseeing. And Ms.
Administrator, in the past we have heard EPA witnesses express
the point of view that scientists who have received EPA grants
are somewhat immune from any potential conflicts associated
with these grants that they are involved with or future grants.
Do you consider that the recipient of EPA grants, do you
consider that if someone has actually been involved and had a
grant and done study about something they are supposed to now
review that that would compromise that person's ability to have
an independent judgment?
Ms. McCarthy. No, not in and of itself, as long as we have
procedures to ensure that they are fair-minded, that they are
there because of their expertise.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, fair-minded just means that they
don't have any bias. We are talking about a built-in bias here.
You are trying to say that somebody who has already been given
a grant and has reached conclusions is someone that we can then
trust to have an unbiased view, after we have paid them in
order to have a biased view?
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, we understand that there have
been concerns expressed about that. We also understand that
others have expressed concern about having people who are in
the industry that we are discussing that would be impacted.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is correct. That is a whole----
Ms. McCarthy. That is a----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is something someone would be
concerned about.
Ms. McCarthy. But I would say that we use----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You think government employees are immune
from the same sort of bias that you would find in an----
Ms. McCarthy. No, I am not saying they are immune, sir. I
am saying that we have a process in which we rigorously pursue
those issues to ensure that they are there to represent their
expertise and that the panel is balanced, that it is fair, it
meets all requirements, ethical requirements----
Mr. Rohrabacher. The question isn't whether they are----
Ms. McCarthy. --and technical requirements.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --isn't balanced. The question is whether
there are members who are involved, sometimes at very high
levels, and guiding the direction of those panels who actually
have a built-in bias in that they have already been granted
grants to make a conclusion before you now are asking them for
an unbiased conclusion.
Ms. McCarthy. We----
Mr. Rohrabacher. In fact, sometimes, Administrator, they
are asked to give assessments of their own work in other words,
we are now paying someone to give an unbiased assessment of
something that is his or her work.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Kilmer, is recognized for his
question.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for coming
to take our questions today.
Ms. McCarthy. It is good to be here, thank you.
Mr. Kilmer. I have got a question regarding EPA funding and
prioritization. I represent the 6th District of Washington
State which is bordered by the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound
and also includes some of the most pristine natural areas in
the country. I want to commend the work of your Agency and all
of our Federal agencies in the State of Washington for some of
the work that has been done to protect our resources. But there
is a lot more to be done. Ocean acidification, storm water
runoff, ecosystem restoration are just a few of the issues that
we are only beginning to understand, not to mention the effects
that these issues have on our marine industries and on the
Puget Sound economy.
Faced with this task, myself and Representative Denny Heck
along with several of our colleagues created the Puget Sound
Recovery Caucus to gather support and try to figure out what we
can do on a Federal level to solve these direct problems that
we are facing in the Puget Sound and also how to be proactive
in issues that are just beginning to emerge.
With a limited Federal budget and sequestration, receiving
funding for these types of vital problems is an uphill battle
that we are still climbing and we need to continue to climb,
not just because it affects our environment but because it
affects jobs and our economy. I realize the issues that we face
in the Puget Sound are similar to many other issues across the
nation, and we want to find ways not only to highlight the
Puget Sound but we want to make progress, get projects off the
ground and fix the problems we need to ensure the vitality of
Puget Sound, not just now but in the future.
So first an invitation and then a few questions. One, I
would like to invite your partnership with our caucus. I would
love to invite you to meet with our members, and would even
love to invite you to come out and meet with the folks who are
working on this in our State. And then my question are can you
give insights into how we can actually make some progress,
particularly in light of this budget environment, how we can
fast track and give greater priority to regional efforts like
this where the science is clear, the need is clear, and we need
to start making some progress.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I do hope that the indiscriminate way
that the sequestration has impacted all of the agencies is
something that is looked at in the budget, upcoming budget
discussions so that everybody can agree on a more sensible and
common-sense way to make any reductions that are necessary and
to implement the budget effectively.
I do know that we have folks who are working in this area,
and you probably know Dennis McLerran. There is nobody in the
world that knows or cares more about the issues that you have
just identified than he does. I do think there are ways in
which we can work together through a variety of shared
technical expertise as well as potentially grant funding. We
work on those issues together. I have an opportunity over the
next three years to make sure we enhance those partnerships. So
I would be looking forward to it, and we should have a
discussion about how best to do it.
Mr. Kilmer. Great. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer. The gentleman from
Texas, the Chairman Emeritus of this Committee, Mr. Hall is
recognized.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCarthy, I thank
you for being here today, and the Committee has worked for
several years to ensure sound scientific processes and
transparency at the EPA. I think we need a study on the EPA's
lack of transparency and accountability some time, and you
would be one of the witnesses that we would want you back
again.
One of the areas that concerns us is the EPA's very poor
track record of science relating to hydraulic fracturing. The
EPA is zero for three on that. In Parker County, Texas, Dimock,
Pennsylvania, and Pavilion, Wyoming, you and the Agency alleged
that hydraulic fracturing had been responsible, and three times
the agency had to back away from these allegations after proper
scientific analysis and review exposed these to be totally
unfounded.
We have had a number of regulators and scientists testify
where you sit today about hydraulic fracturing, and you have
sat there and you testified here and you have also testified in
the Energy and Commerce Committee. Nearly all of those that
have sat before us have confirmed the safety of these
unconventional oil and gas techniques. Not one testified that
there has been any incidents of groundwater contamination from
fracking, not one of them. We have also received testimony from
both the President's Science Advisor as well as the President's
Assistant Secretary sitting right where you are under the oath
that you have taken for the Department of Energy, said that
there has not been a single documented case of groundwater
contamination from fracking in this country. You probably won't
be surprised that I reference once again in a comment that you
made in 2011 that I gave you a chance to take back. I have not
seen where you have made any apology for it when you said--and
I hope you have backed off of this remark since then. You said
I certainly don't want to give the impression that the EPA is
in the business to create jobs. A cruel statement I think to
those families that can't support their children, can't make a
car payment, because according to a 2012 study by the research
company IHS Global Insight, hydraulic fracturing, estimated 1.7
million jobs in the United States. That number is projected to
go over 3.5 million jobs by 2035. And according to the Energy
Information Administration, natural gas production is expected
to rise an estimated 44 percent through 2040. Without the use
of hydraulic fracturing technology, the nation's energy
security and economy would seriously be compromised. Those
millions of jobs would be lost.
With that in mind, you stated recently in the interview
with The Globe, Boston Globe, I quote, ``There's nothing
inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering
practices can't accomplish.''
So do you agree that hydraulic fracturing is safe and that
there has not been a single documented case of groundwater
contamination from fracking? Yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy. I can't answer it that way. I will agree with
you----
Mr. Hall. Well, then yes, you have answered it. If you
can't answer it that way, you don't know or you refuse to
answer it.
Ms. McCarthy. No, I meant I would like to explain it a
little bit if I could.
Mr. Hall. I am not asking for your explanation. I just
asked you for a yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know of a documented case----
Mr. Hall. I will go on.
Ms. McCarthy. --of groundwater contamination.
Mr. Hall. I will take that as you don't know or you don't
care because you didn't know and you didn't care about people
having jobs back then. That was a terrible statement that you
made, and it is of----
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, it was taken out of context.
Mr. Hall. --record. It was not taken out of direct context.
I read it exactly out of the CR, and you know that. Now why
don't you admit it?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it was actually celebrating the fact
that we have been successful in reducing environmental
pollution while we have grown jobs.
Mr. Hall. Let me go on. So you agree that this hydraulic
fracturing is safe. Do you agree to that?
Ms. McCarthy. I cannot agree.
Mr. Hall. Okay. You haven't agreed. These experts that have
testified before you have also agreed that state regulators
have the expertise, competence and experience necessary to
oversee hydraulic fracturing. Do you agree that the state
regulators are generally quite knowledgeable about local
geologic conditions in the drilling operations they oversee?
Yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy. I believe they are knowledgeable and they
often seek EPA's technical advice.
Mr. Hall. I think your answer is led to be yes. Do you
think the EPA is better suited to regulate hydraulic fracturing
operations than the state regulators who are already doing so?
Yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy. I believe that with water quality, the state
is the line of first defense and EPA is with the state in
those----
Mr. Hall. I am not asking you to filibuster anymore. Yes or
no.
Ms. McCarthy. I am trying to understand how to--in the
context of the authority we are given.
Mr. Hall. You are not making me understand. Maybe I can't
understand anything you say because----
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Hall. --you are hard to believe, ma'am. Do you believe
that natural gas prices will remain low if EPA promulgates
regulations that restrict production? Yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy. I actually think that a large component of
the nation's energy security relies on the safe and responsible
development of oil and natural gas, sir.
Mr. Hall. Our nation depends on an all-of-the-above energy
strategy, and the use of technologies like hydraulic fracturing
have been an important role in helping achieve energy security.
We need you to support it, not deter it and not deter these
efforts.
Ms. McCarthy. And I would hope not, sir.
Mr. Hall. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The gentlewoman from
Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized for her questions.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator, again. Connecticut, as you know exceptionally
well, has been the beneficiary of substantial improvements to
health through the Clean Air Act, and so I would like you to
talk a little bit about the situation now. Many utilities have
already installed pollution control devices on their
facilities. If EPA at this time were to pull back on clean air
regulations governing these utilities, would they have and do
you believe they would have an incentive to run these pollution
control devices and what would be the associated impact on air
quality and public health, particularly for those of us, I
would have to say, on the Eastern Seaboard who with west-to-
east winds are the recipient of what is burned in Indiana, Ohio
and elsewhere?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we know even with the control equipment
working that the power sector remains the largest single
stationary source sector in terms of the amount of pollution
that it emits. We have been working hard with them, but there
is no question that there is financial incentive to bypass
equipment when it is available to be done.
So I would assume that if we were to pull back on our
regulations, what you are going to see is increased emission.
And that increased emission results directly in public health
impacts that are as severe as thousands of premature deaths.
Ms. Esty. I know in our own State, we have seen those
asthma rates rise very substantially in our cities, and those
are costs that are borne primarily by state governments who
then have to pick up the tab and by insurance companies to----
Ms. McCarthy. And many because of pollution, that comes to
you from facilities run very far away.
Ms. Esty. Exactly. If we could turn for a moment to the
scientific review process, certainly we have heard some
commentary today and elsewhere from Members of Congress who
have stated that or suggested that EPA develops regulations
based on faulty scientific evidence. Can you explain to us in a
little more detail--and I will ask my question and then
listen--how the scientific process that underpins EPA
regulations is peer reviewed, what you believe to be the
importance of peer-review process, and flesh that out a little
bit more for us, please.
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah. The process that we use is to actually
establish peer-review panels. We can do them by seeking advice
from the National Academies of Sciences. We can establish it
through our Science Advisory Board, and we can use consultants
that follow similar processes and establish again transparent,
robust, balanced peer review.
The Science Advisory Board is a highly transparent,
professional entity. We are--as a FACA, we comply with those
regulations. We also comply with ethics requirements. We follow
all of the guidance that is given to us in the directives by
the Office of Management and Budget in how to do our work. I
believe that we are a model for transparent, solid, high-
quality science.
The Clean Air Act Science Advisory Committee was mentioned.
That advisory committee was just recently looked at by our own
IG, our Office of Inspector General, who just issued a report
commending us for how solid our panel was in our ability to
have that balanced and appropriate. Now we are always working
to enhance that, but I am incredibly proud of the science this
Agency relies on, and I know the high quality of our science is
what is going to keep EPA relevant and make us and allow us to
do the right thing in terms of meeting our mission which is
public health protection.
Ms. Esty. And if I may--I am shuttling between hearings,
and currently in the Transportation and Infrastructure hearing,
we are talking about the cost of Sandy and the underwater rail
lines in the State of Connecticut and Newark, New Jersey, the
impacts of the severe weather systems that we see. Can you talk
a little bit about how EPA--other than the curbing of
greenhouse gas emissions, what other work is EPA doing to look
at the scientific but also the very real economic impacts, I
have to say, on the Eastern Seaboard we are seeing from climate
change and severe weather conditions?
Ms. McCarthy. Congresswoman, in 2012 the costs associated
with disaster response topped $120 billion. That is not planned
expenses. That is what happens. And what we know is that in the
face of a changing climate, these types of disasters are going
to become more and more prevalent if we don't reduce greenhouse
gases.
If you look at the work of this Agency, we have not only
been funding efforts at the local level and the state level to
look at how you can adapt to a changing climate, we have put
out a plan that requires and shows a pathway forward, for EPA
to look at how it does its business working with the
communities. So we look at a changing climate, and we factor
that into our decision making, in our ability to work more
carefully and collaboratively with local communities and states
moving forward. And my heart goes out to Connecticut. I know it
was very hard hit, and it is my home away from home.
Ms. Esty. Thank you for your service, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty. The gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administer
McCarthy, thank you for appearing before this hearing today.
Ms. McCarthy. Thanks for inviting me.
Mr. Neugebauer. I have several questions, and so if you
could keep your answers pretty short and direct. First, as you
know, setting the levels for the New Source Performance
Standards, the Clean Air Act requires you to select the best
system of emission reductions for technology that has been
adequately demonstrated.
Ms. McCarthy. Um-hum.
Mr. Neugebauer. Now, we have had several hearings in this
Committee on the new standards where we have heard testimony
whether the CCS technology necessary to meet these standards
has actually been adequately demonstrated at the full-scale
power plants.
I have asked your colleagues from the Department of Energy
on a number of occasions if they could give me examples of
where full-scale power plants are located, and their testimony
is none of them are operating anywhere in the world. If this is
true that full-scale power plants operating now are not
operating with CCS technology, how can you say that it has been
adequately demonstrated?
Ms. McCarthy. We believe, sir, that CCS technology has been
adequately demonstrated. The technology is proven, it is
available. In fact, the coal technologies in facilities that
you see being constructed today are actually utilizing CCS.
Mr. Neugebauer. So can you give me, provide me an example
of a full-scale power plant that is currently operating with
this technology?
Ms. McCarthy. I can give you examples of two that are 75
percent completed, and I can give you an example of others that
are coming up that are also in the planning stages. So CCS for
coal----
Mr. Neugebauer. So what would those be?
Ms. McCarthy. --is actually what is being invested in.
Mr. Neugebauer. What would those be?
Ms. McCarthy. We have the Kemper facility that is 75
percent complete, and there is another project in Canada that
is also utilizing it at levels much higher than the types of
reductions that EPA has proposed in its new source data.
Mr. Neugebauer. Are any of those facilities that you
mentioned receiving clean coal power initiative funding, excuse
me?
Ms. McCarthy. It is my understanding that there has been
funding supported by DoE. DoE continues to have funding
available for these types of projects.
Mr. Neugebauer. So they are receiving clean coal power
initiative funding?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, it is kind of interesting then
because the Energy Policy Act of 2005 clearly states that
projects receiving funding from this program can't be used to
prove technology is adequately demonstrated. So the examples
that you are using are receiving funding, and the 2005 act says
that you can't use those. So can you explain your logic on
that?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, sir, I think we are regulating and
proposing this regulation under the Clean Air Act which is very
specific in both its intent as well as its history of
application. There is no question that CCS technology is
available. The components of CCS have been in place and
demonstrated for decades. So the question really is, is it
reasonable in cost and is it available for this sector? EPA
believes it is, but we have proposed that. We are welcome and
open to comments. We will be getting to that public comment
process shortly. But I think through that public comment
process you will see that this technology is well-known, it is
available, it is being invested in today and it is going to
work and it is going to be a pathway forward for coal into the
future.
Mr. Neugebauer. No, but I think to summarize what you have
said is, one, there is no full-scale power plants operating
with this technology today. Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. I am aware of--these components being
operated in many different applications.
Mr. Neugebauer. I didn't say components, but there is no
full-scale power plant operating with these----
Ms. McCarthy. No, but the ones being invested in would be
operating----
Mr. Neugebauer. No, that is right. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --at much higher levels than we would be
requiring.
Mr. Neugebauer. So and then you are using federally funded
CCS projects to argue technology is adequately demonstrated,
yet the 2005 act prohibits you from doing that.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, we think it has been adequately
demonstrated, but the support----
Mr. Neugebauer. But not on a full-scale basis, right?
Ms. McCarthy. --from DoE will help advance the technology.
Mr. Neugebauer. Not on a full-scale basis? We don't have
that yet.
Ms. McCarthy. We have it on full scale in other
applications, sir, other industry sectors.
Mr. Neugebauer. But not on these----
Ms. McCarthy. It is only--it is being invested in today and
in two facilities are 75 percent complete and on their way.
Mr. Neugebauer. But what you are saying under these new
rules is no new coal plants can be built without utilizing this
technology, and we don't know that it is adequately
demonstrated for these plants because we don't have a full-
scale model.
Ms. McCarthy. We believe it has been adequately
demonstrated.
Mr. Neugebauer. But not on a full-scale model.
Ms. McCarthy. It has been fully utilized in other industry
sectors.
Mr. Neugebauer. But not on these coal plants, not on a
full-scale coal plant.
Ms. McCarthy. I have already indicated to you. We know of
two that are being constructed today, and they are----
Mr. Neugebauer. That they are being constructed, but we
don't have any history that that technology is, one, will
accomplish that, but secondly, that it meets any kind of cost-
benefit analysis, do we?
Ms. McCarthy. The cost-benefit analysis? Is that what we
are talking about, sir?
Mr. Neugebauer. No, but that would be a part of that. I
mean, you don't know for sure because you don't have a model
where this technology is----
Ms. McCarthy. No, but we do know that the industry sees CCS
technology as a pathway forward. We also see it as one that is
available to it and ones that we are hoping with DoE assistance
it will continue to progress. It will get less and less
expensive. That is how technology gets developed. But in this
case, all of the components of CCS as well as those together
have been demonstrated over and over as being viable and
effective, and we believe that they will be the path forward
for coal. Coal is a big part of our energy supply. I know it is
going to continue to be a big part of our energy supply. We
have tried very hard to make sure that we look at the
technologies available to it today so it continues to have a
path forward.
Mr. Neugebauer. But we don't tend to use research funds for
things that have already been determined adequately
demonstrated, do we? And so we are using research funds to try
to prove this up, and you are using it as an example that it is
adequately demonstrated. It doesn't make sense to me.
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, we are coordinating very closely
with DoE, and if you have listened and heard from the DoE folks
today, you will know that they share our opinion about its
availability and that it is been demonstrated. But it is
exciting to think that we could make it more cost-effective
moving forward and that you could expand the range of
sequestration opportunities. So they are actually working very
hard with the industry to continue to move that technology
forward. That is only good news, sir. That is not bad news.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's----
Mr. Neugebauer. But we still don't know whether it is
adequately demonstrated.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you, Mr. Neugebauer.
Pursuant to the discussion earlier about the sufficiency of
the data provided by EPA relating to the Committee's subpoena,
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality the Committee
received just last week that makes clear, ``that the data
provided to date lacks critical information, making it
impossible to replicate the findings'' of the EPA. Without
objection, that will be made a part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. We will go now to the gentlewoman from
Maryland, Ms. Edwards, for her questions.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Madam
Administrator. I really appreciate your being here, and I
certainly appreciate your patience.
We have heard described on this Committee and throughout
the Congress frankly questions about EPA's reliance on faulty
and secret science, questions about EPA's transparency and
accountability. First of all, I want to thank you for the
transparency and accountability the EPA has provided for the
volumes of data and correspondence that this Committee has
received. And I am just curious that sometimes the
correspondence asks for information, sometimes for documents or
data as evidenced by testimony, by questions here today. I am a
strong supporter of Congressional authority, but I really am
concerned about whether we may be overstepping our authority in
terms of what we are requiring of the Agency. We are just one
committee of many who's making these types of requests to the
EPA. And so I wonder if you could just tell me how much time
and energy is spent by you and your colleagues at the EPA in
responding to these volumes of requests?
Ms. McCarthy. Congresswoman, we know how important it is to
be transparent, and we will do our very best to respond to any
request that Congress brings to us. It is a significant burden
in terms of resources. But that is just the amount. I don't
mean burden in the negative sense. We want to be open. We want
to be responsive. But we receive thousands of these types of
requests. We do our best to answer them as expeditiously as we
can. I think the times when we have had difficulties is when we
have been asked to release data that the EPA doesn't have
available to it. Then it becomes an extra effort for us to try
to make sure we bridge those gaps with scientists when we fully
expect that researchers themselves will access that data as
they have always done and work it out that way.
Ms. Edwards. Well, let me just ask you this because we have
heard some discussion of conflicts of interest. I can
understand, and we have heard testimony in this Committee, that
when you are forming--when there's peer review done and you are
delving into some area of expertise that is a very narrow area,
there are only so many folks out there who have the kind of
experience that you can draw upon. Some of those may be in
industry, some of those may be academics who receive grants.
When you assess conflict of interest and, you know, I am just
like a cheap lawyer. And so I always thought that the idea
behind conflicts is revealing those conflicts, having them
assessed and then making a determination about whether that
conflict would prohibit performance, adequate performance, and
independence of performance in a peer-review situation. Is that
how the EPA looks at conflict of interest?
Ms. McCarthy. That is exactly how we do that. You are
right. There are opportunities or instances where we have a
very narrow expertise that is not represented that is critical
to a thorough look at a science question or a technical
question. In that case we do a thorough investigation. We post
the results of that so that people can know the background and
we can make sure that it is a balanced, fair, equitable
discussion and as transparent as we possibly can be. And so we
do that both for folks who are the scientists as well as folks
that bring their history in the industry to the table.
Ms. Edwards. And is there anything necessarily exclusionary
whether a person receives billions of dollars or a company in
profits from an industry or whether a person receives thousands
of dollars from the Administration in terms of doing research?
Is there anything exclusionary about that that would prohibit
service on a scientific advisory panel?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't believe so. What it really means is
we must have a rigorous and transparent peer-review process and
we must rigorously share that information with the public so
they can--before the panel is empanelled, they can offer their
suggestions and comments and criticisms, and we can make sure
that we have the most robust fair, comprehensive science
available to us.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. I want to ask you about your work
around climate change because there has been a lot of
discussion also. Is it your view from the Administration that
you have sufficient data to back the work that you are doing
around climate change, that in fact it is happening and that
there are certain causal effects that would enable you to do
rule-making in that area?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe that I have a wealth of data that
is more than sufficient. I believe that the Supreme Court has
agreed with me, which is nice.
Ms. Edwards. Great. And so can you tell me about some of
the rule-making that you are engaged in going in that direction
and then relate that to the mission of EPA protecting our
public health and the environment?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, the President's Climate Action Plan
identifies mitigation opportunities and reductions in
greenhouse gases as well as addressing adaptation and then
international issues. EPA is to some extent involved in all
three. But I think the most important I want to get at is our
opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases so we can try to
mitigate significant impacts associated with increased
emissions in higher levels of climate change.
And so what we are really looking at is first and foremost
regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, both
the new facilities and existing. We have already issued a
proposed rule for new facilities, and we are beginning
listening sessions and discussions on how we best put out a
proposal next June for existing facilities. The reason why we
want to do this is that climate change is not an environmental
problem. It is a serious public health and economic problem as
well as an environmental challenge. And so what happens with a
changing climate is that the weather gets hotter. When the
weather gets hotter, the ozone levels increase. When the ozone
levels increase, your kids go to the hospital more often with
asthma. In this country today, one out of ten children have
chronic asthma. We are talking about serious public health
challenges. Allergy seasons extend. We are seeing health
impacts from different types of mosquitoes and other vector-
borne diseases moving north as the weather gets warmer. Things
are changing, and things are not changing for the best in terms
of public health in a changing climate. It threatens the
health, safety and well-being of communities and individuals.
It is something we must address and now.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much for your testimony, and
thank you so much for the work that you do to protect all of
us.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. The gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Administrator McCarthy for coming and testifying today. I do
honestly believe that what you are doing is important. That
being said, I have a number of problems with how EPA has done
its job. Putting forward rules without adequate stakeholder
input or a full grasp of the negative impacts proposed rules
will have on regular Americans. I think it is important to
point out how far we have come, even according to your own
data. Since the implementation of the Clean Air Act, aggregate
emissions have dropped by 72 percent, all while energy
consumption has increased by 47 percent. Vehicle miles traveled
has increased by 165 percent, and most importantly, GDP has
increased by 219 percent.
That is why I will continue pushing your Agency to base
regulations on sound scientific principles and practices, make
your data sets open to the public for review and to utilize
common-place statistical measures and methods, all of which EPA
has seemed adverse to when the facts don't necessitate what
often appears to be a politically predetermined regulatory
approach.
As you know, Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires
the best technology available to minimize harm to aquatic
organisms living in water that are withdrawn through cooling
water intake structures for power plants. For the last three-
and-a-half decades, states and permitting authorities have been
setting necessary controls on a site-specific basis. But
unfortunately, it now appears that the EPA is again attempting
to rewrite the rules to expand your regulatory power. When
relying on the science, EPA has not been able to justify this
rule-making. This is because the costs always outweigh the
benefits. Your agency has recognized that there will be no
benefit to human health, and the economic benefits from
potential improvements to commercial fisheries and recreation
bodies, the use benefits, will not justify the new rules cost,
either.
Since the Agency has been unable to justify these rules
with their standard methods, I am troubled with the idea of
non-use benefits that you are now attempting to put in place.
Even more troubling is the way EPA intends to assign values to
these benefits through polling. I think every member in this
room can attest to the inaccuracies of polling, and it is
troubling to me that the EPA would turn away from science and
to a public opinion poll to promulgate regulations. When EPA
did their survey asking how much money the public was willing
to spend to save a given number of fish, the numbers
predictably came back inflated. Then EPA punted the issue to
the Science Advisory Board.
Also troubling with the rule is that it could be
interpreted to force power plant owners to monetize these non-
use benefits and perform willingness to pay surveys for
specific control technologies on a site-specific basis.
Although 316(b) is the EPA's first attempt to justify rule-
making with this willingness to pay surveys, I am also worried
that this controversial methodology will only encroach into
other rule-making. If this happens, public opinion polling will
become the backbone of many EPA regulations instead of science.
I think it is important that states are allowed to continue
exercising permitting discretion. I am asking could you confirm
that the EPA's final 316(b) rule will not require states to
consider non-use benefits or require plant owners to conduct
willingness to pay surveys in the NPDES permitting process?
Ms. McCarthy. The final 316(b) is at the Office of
Management and Budget, so I am constrained about getting into
too much detail. But we have heard similar comments during the
public process. The survey that we did was appropriate on the
national level to get a handle on people's willingness to pay
for the types of improvements that these technologies would
bring. We don't expect that to be the way in which states and
permittees make case-by-case decisions.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, again, I think the most important thing
is to base this on science, not on public opinion polls.
Ms. McCarthy. I understand.
Mr. Hultgren. You can ask all of us how we feel about
public opinion polls and the accuracy of them. Certainly for us
to be basing----
Ms. McCarthy. I understand.
Mr. Hultgren. --the scientific decisions and significant
costs on them is very troubling. I have another quick question
that I hope to get an answer. It is regarding when EPA plans on
publishing rules, adjusting the volume requirements for the
renewable fuel standard. As you know, with the predictions that
were made when designing the RFS not being realized, those
predictions have not been realized, your Agency is who are
farmers and everyone else downstream must get answers from
regarding the early adjustment for this requirement. I think
everyone was pleased that the first two adjustments came in a
timely manner which helped to bring certainty for all parties
involved. The final rule for the 2011 adjustment was published
in the beginning of December in 2010, and the 2012 rule came in
January of that year.
What is troubling is how long it took EPA to issue their
final rule for 2013. It didn't happen until the middle of
August. As it is important that our businesses and farmers be
able to plan ahead for this, can you give this Committee
assurance that you will focus on getting a final rule out in a
reasonable amount of time this year and wonder if you could
give a perspective date or timeframe when you expect to have
this rule published?
Ms. McCarthy. The rule to establish limits for 2014 is soon
to be proposed. It will take some time. We did tee this issue
up in our 2013 proposal. The only thing I want to make sure
that the Committee is aware of is the levels that we are
talking about for renewable fuels to get into the system in
2014 are not predictions. They are Congressional mandates that
we are dealing with in trying to understand the authority that
Congress gave us to----
Mr. Hultgren. Well, my time is winding down, and I want to
be respectful of the 5 minutes.
Ms. McCarthy. I apologize. Me, too.
Mr. Hultgren. So anyhow, the issue is bringing certainty to
our businesses and farmers.
Ms. McCarthy. I agree with you.
Mr. Hultgren. The sooner we can get these----
Ms. McCarthy. I agree with you.
Mr. Hultgren. --again, earlier over the last few years,
this did happen quickly. I would just ask you for my farmers,
for my businesses, to have it as quickly as possible----
Ms. McCarthy. I agree with you.
Mr. Hultgren. --to bring certainty back.
Ms. McCarthy. I agree.
Mr. Hultgren. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is recognized for his
questions.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Administrator McCarthy, for your
testimony today and your appearance before this Committee.
I have to tell you, it is frustrating to me to sit here and
listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle beating
up on the EPA. My colleagues and I have seen first-hand how the
EPA--not my colleagues, my constituents and I have seen first-
hand how the EPA and the Clean Air Act have improved air
quality and advanced public health in my district. Nationally,
the stories are just as compelling. A study by the EPA shows
that by 2020 the benefits of the Clean Air Act will outweigh
the costs by more than 30 to 1. The Clean Air Act has helped
improve public health by cutting down cases of asthma, heart
disease and infant mortality, and by 2020, it is expected to
prevent 17 million lost work days because people are healthier.
I believe the EPA is a driver of innovation, pushing the
industry to adopt new standards that protect the environment,
improve public health and create jobs in emerging fields.
Administrator McCarthy, could you go into more detail about how
the EPA rules have actually created jobs in our country and
what new structures have grown because of EPA action?
Ms. McCarthy. Actually, thank you for asking that. It helps
me to put the job code in a little bit more perspective. I
think you would see as we have done a considerable amount of
analysis as we do with every rule, about every significant rule
looking at job implications, we have been able to make these
considerable pollution reductions at the same time as we have
been able to continue to grow the economy here in the U.S.
We are looking at actually a pollution control technology
industry that now tops around $2 billion annually. We are
leaders internationally in those issues. It is because we have
been moving at a concerted pace to get better and better at how
we reduce pollution, and we are doing it in a way that is
affordable and that is extremely beneficial to the public
health. We are talking about saving millions of lives. We are
talking about really improving the health of our most
vulnerable populations, our children and our elderly. I mean,
we are talking about growing jobs, not taking them away, and we
can provide you with significant more detail, Congressman. But
I appreciate your asking the question because EPA is about
public health. But we do it always conscious of how we can
reduce economic impacts and actually build the economy at the
same time.
Mr. Takano. Madam Administrator, I just wanted to clarify
something. My colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, cited a CRS report
which indicated an inherent conflict of interest found among
members, academic members of its advisory committees. However,
this report, which I have right here, made no such conclusion.
Rather, it noted that these grants are actually to academic
institutions----
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah.
Mr. Takano. --where the member is employed. And not the
member and only a very small proportion of any of the grant may
be paid in the form of salary to a member. Is that your
understanding as well?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Thank you,
Congressman, for raising that.
Mr. Takano. Yes. With the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with
the discussion of the Committee's subpoena regarding the
Harvard and American Cancer Society studies, I would like to
enter into the record letters that the Chairman received on
October 30 from Harvard, Brigham-Young University, the ACS and
the American Cancer Society and the Health Effects Institute.
These letters highlight the serious legal, ethical and policy
concerns regarding the release of individual health
information.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection, those letters will
be made part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]***************
COMMITTEE INSERT ***************
Chairman Smith. But just for clarification, those letters
were actually addressed to the EPA, not to me.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Administrator, if I understand these science advisory
committees, the industry is--in your opinion, is the industry
adequately represented on these committees for a full balance
of use?
Ms. McCarthy. The members on these panels don't represent
specific sectors. They do represent expertise and knowledge and
experience. And from my experience in working with these panels
is that folks who have worked in the industry usually provide a
perspective that is necessary on these panels. So it is a broad
and balanced panel when we pull them together. That is required
under law, and we even go above and beyond to ensure that that
is the case.
Mr. Takano. So in your view there was no such closed loop,
that these are open-minded panels that are not contained by a
particular ideology?
Ms. McCarthy. That is exactly what we are required to do
under the law, and I think we do a very good job at ensuring
that it is not at all closed. It is very open. We just look for
good expertise so we can get the best science.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Takano. The gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Broun, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator McCarthy,
I have a very limited amount of time and very many questions,
so please answer as quickly as you possibly can so we can get
through.
I am a physician, and I want to make sure that we are on
the same page about basic principles of toxicology, one of
which is that the dose makes the poison. A good example is two
aspirins will help relieve the headache, 50 aspirins is a toxic
dose. Would you agree with that premise that the dose makes the
poison? Yes or no.
Ms. McCarthy. I don't want to speak to the science----
Mr. Broun. Yes or no, please.
Ms. McCarthy. --but the dose is very important to us, yes.
Mr. Broun. So the answer is yes. Even though fine
particulate emissions have dropped 55 percent over the last two
decades, it is noted on your website, EPA's own website for air
quality trends, your Agency has been very concerned with the
health effects associated with fairly low dosage, low levels of
particulate matter, or PM. It has been the basis of most of
your recent Clean Air Act regulations. Agency analysis suggests
that hundreds of thousands of Americans die from PM exposure
every year. According to your website, ``Numerous scientific
studies have linked particulate particle pollution exposure to
premature death, cancer, non-fatal heart attacks and aggravated
asthma.'' Does the science suggest that PM can cause cancer?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know. I cannot answer that question,
sir. I am sorry.
Mr. Broun. Okay. Well----
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know what the word suggests is, and I
don't know how the scientists would interpret that. I wait
until they tell me.
Mr. Broun. Well, okay. EPA's most recent assessment of PM
stated that there was ``strong epidemiological evidence linking
short-term exposure to PM as measured in hours, cardiovascular
and respiratory mortality and morbidity.'' Is that still true?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe so.
Mr. Broun. Okay. If the dose makes the poison, as you just
indicated you believe that they do and I do, too, and you think
that hundreds of thousands of people die from fine particulate
levels at the lowest level, why has your Agency conducted a
series of human tests in North Carolina that exposes unknowing
volunteers, that have no knowledge of the exposure, including
those with pre-existing respiratory issues and asthma, to
particulate concentrations as high as 750 micrograms? That is
more than 60 times the standard. Would you explain, please?
Ms. McCarthy. To my knowledge, we have not done that.
Mr. Broun. Yes, ma'am, you have. And, in fact, the
Inspector General has been investigating this, and we found out
about this through the Freedom of Information Act. Were these
individuals informed that they were being subjected to a
pollutant that EPA thinks causes mortality and cancer,
especially since many came from susceptible populations?
Ms. McCarthy. It is my understanding that the human studies
work that we are doing was recommended by the national
academies. It is done with the highest ethical standards. We
medically----
Mr. Broun. Ma'am, I----
Ms. McCarthy. --treat every----
Mr. Broun. --disagree, because these people--according to
the knowledge that we have gotten is they were unknowing that
they were being exposed to these high levels of exposure of
particulate matter. And, as far as I am concerned, as a
physician, as a scientist, this is totally unethical, and
totally unacceptable. Let me ask you one more question, because
my time is running out. Are you signed up for Obamacare?
Ms. McCarthy. No, I am not.
Mr. Broun. Why not?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, because I am lucky enough, as a Federal
Government, that I have health care available to me, which I
have signed up for. In a few years, when that is not the case,
I will be happy to have other available----
Mr. Broun. Well, our President says that----
Ms. McCarthy. --health care----
Mr. Broun. --Obamacare----
Ms. McCarthy. --opportunities----
Mr. Broun. --is much better than forcing most Federal
employees to--into Obamacare. And, obviously, if you are not
signing up, you don't think it is. Mr. Chairman, I have run out
of time. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Broun. The gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, is recognized for questions. We
have had some problems with the audio system. How about that
one? There we go. Okay, there we go.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Madam Administrator, for being here, and I apologize for the
raspy voice. It has been going around a bit, so, apologies. I
just wanted to start off by saying welcome, and thank you. It
is always nice to see another member of Red Sox Nation here
today, so--and certainly in front of our committee.
Ms. McCarthy. Go Sox.
Mr. Kennedy. There you go. I want to thank you for all your
hard work over the past several months, and I look forward to--
very much working with you in the years ahead. I had a couple
of questions, if you don't mind, and first is actually an issue
that is pertaining to my district a bit. Over the past few
decades, the EPA has made really admirable progress in
attacking the lingering pollution and contamination issues in
local municipalities that, left unchecked, would have dire long
term health and safety consequences, not to mention financial
ones.
Back home, in my district, just outside of Boston, the
Fourth District of Massachusetts, I hear concerns about the
cost of compliance with some of those regulations in almost
every city and town I visit. They don't disagree with the
importance of these regulations, but the communities struggle
to get back on their feet post-recession, and deal with an
already crippling loss of state and Federal dollars due to our
budget situation here. That price tag of compliance can seem
nearly impossible.
In 1992, the city of Fall River was ordered to tackle a
combined sewage overflow project that is estimated to cost them
$185 million to date, along with 8 million in debt payments
every year. This is an old industrial city, with an
unemployment rate around 13 percent, median household income
that struggles to break $30,000 a year. Similarly, Milford is
looking at a $100,000 a year additional spending to meet new
regulations for storm water management. They have also included
a new pilot program to reduce phosphorus runoff in local rivers
and waterways, but the price tag around that is about $111
million up front, a price tag which, if borne by the town,
would be felt tremendously by local businesses. The surrounding
towns of Franklin and Bellingham are both looking at bills of
about 75 million and 35 million respectively through the same
pilot program.
When I talk to local officials and businesses, they want--
they have a genuine desire to be EPA compliant. They are
bringing up their children and grandchildren in these same
neighborhoods, and they see the value of clean air and clean
water. They are tremendously concerned about the effects of
contamination, pollution, and other environmental hazards, and
how they wreak havoc on their hometowns, and they know the
associated costs of long term savings. But they are stuck, and
so I wanted to ask you, in your opinion, is there any
assistance that the Federal Government, not just the EPA, but
the Federal Government, can give these already strapped
municipalities that are struggling with the cost of compliance?
And, again, I ask this, of course, given the--understanding the
fiscal constraints that our government is under right now, but
knowing that, obviously, this is an issue that is important to
you as well. So if you could respond for a minute or so, I
would be grateful.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you for raising this, and your voice in
this discussion would be really welcome. We are working on
these issues pretty diligently, primarily with the conference
of mayors, because all of them understand these challenges, why
it is important for their public health and their environmental
resources that we tackle these more challenging water quality
issues. But we are working on this on a number of different
fronts, and EPA clearly has funds available to help support
this. Is it enough to go around? No, it isn't. It is never
expected to be. It will be a challenge. We try to prioritize
that, and make sure that we are getting the biggest bang for
the buck in helping those most in need.
So we are trying to work on a way to make a--this a much
more collaborative process, where we understand the constraints
that the cities and towns are in, and we don't expect things
that they cannot deliver, but we work more in partnership to
find the least cost opportunities to make continued
environmental progress moving forward.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. And then, Madam Administrator, if I
can ask, and I apologize, I had to step out for a moment, but,
my understanding, there has been two studies that have much
discussed today. I can refer shorthand to them as the Harvard
study and the ACS, American Cancer Society study, is that
right?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You do understand me? Would you characterize
those institutions as reputable?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Well known?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Capable, and producing well-regarded and
scientific study, other than these past studies?
Ms. McCarthy. I would.
Mr. Kennedy. Have these two studies been peer reviewed?
Ms. McCarthy. Many times.
Mr. Kennedy. By who?
Ms. McCarthy. By--through contractors for the agency,
through the national community, through EPA.
Mr. Kennedy. Through EPA? And sometimes through public/
private partnerships?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And so that review, is that all government
funded?
Ms. McCarthy. No.
Mr. Kennedy. No? So, in fact, part of that funding was done
by a group that was actually funded by automotive industry, is
that right?
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah, many.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy, you
have elicited the shortest answers of the day, so
congratulations to you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Bucshon.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I just
wanted to give a brief statement about bias. I am a
cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon, so I know quite a bit
about health, and I recently reviewed the data from the
American Lung Association that they put out about particulate
matter, and look at the background on the funding for all the
studies, and, lo and behold, everything that they used was
pretty much very far left leaning global warming activist
foundations that privately funded these things. And, in
addition to that, the potential health benefits are based on
computer modeling, not on actual data, but a computer model
projecting their data results into the future, not based on
actual factual data, with human studies. And, to make matters
worse, the computer modeling was developed by an individual who
had a financial stake in the success of the model going
forward. In fact, I had the Chief Medical Officer from the
American Lung Association come down from New York and discuss
this with him in my office, and voiced my disappointment that
an organization that is so highly esteemed would be using data
which, in my view, was biased.
But my question goes in another direction. In September
your agency proposed a rule that represents perhaps the
clearest, although not certainly the first, in the
administration's war on coal, what I will call war on coal. The
Eighth District of Indiana, that I represent, has nine coal
mines, every coal mine in the state, our state. 88 percent or
so of our power comes from coal. Coal supports the economy, you
know, jobs indirect and direct. It helps families put food on
the table. In fact, I grew up in Illinois. My dad was a coal
miner, so I have known this industry forever. In fact, I
wouldn't be here if it wasn't for that.
But the new source--performance stands for new power plants
will essentially prevent construction of another coal fired
power plant in this country ever, essentially. In the first few
pages of the EPA Cost Benefit Analysis, you admit that this
policy will, and I quote, ``Result in negligible CO2
emission changes, or quantified benefits, through 2022.'' In
your view, should the federal government regulate coal fired
power plants in this manner if there are no clear benefits?
That is an up or down.
Ms. McCarthy. We should be regulating CO2 from
carbon emissions, yes.
Mr. Bucshon. Then your statement that you made was
incorrect, that there is a benefit through 2022? Because the
quote in the first few pages of the Cost Benefit Analysis says,
and I quote again, ``Result in negligible CO2
emission changes, or quantified benefits, through 2022.''
Ms. McCarthy. Which is a reflection of the industry and the
market as it sits today.
Mr. Bucshon. Okay. So what you are saying is they should
regulate that, even in light of the fact the EPA admits there
is no benefit to it?
Ms. McCarthy. The issue is that coal is not being invested
in, except in a few instances where carbon capture and
sequestration is being invested in, where--when we want to make
sure that we take advantage of those new technologies, and make
sure that we do what the Clean Air Act says, which is to
underpin those reductions----
Mr. Bucshon. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --moving forward.
Mr. Bucshon. And that is fair, and I think the industry
would agree that constant innovation and technological advances
is something that the industry also----
Ms. McCarthy. Uh-huh.
Mr. Bucshon. --believes in, as--and would--will invest in.
Ms. McCarthy. They do.
Mr. Bucshon. That said, is the technology currently
commercially available on a large scale for Indiana and the
Midwest to meet the proposed standards?
Ms. McCarthy. On a large scale?
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. I mean, you might quote that the
technology is available in----
Ms. McCarthy. It is.
Mr. Bucshon. --in some academic setting, or in an area of
the country, say, where things are very close--but
specifically, you know, related to CO2 emission
capture, and all, you know, my understanding is currently there
is not the commercially available on a large scale technology
to comply, in Indiana, with the regulation. So the regulation
is in place, but there is no commercially available technology
to comply. Is that true or not true?
Ms. McCarthy. We believe that CCS is commercially
available. Is it going to be broadly disseminated at this
point? No, we don't believe so, because most of the facilities
that are being constructed are actually natural gas facilities.
They are the most competitive. But where coal is being invested
in is being invested in with CCS.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bucshon. The gentleman from
California, Mr. Peters, is recognized for questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam
Administrator, thank you for being here. I should start by
mentioning that the first job I had out of college was at the
EPA in Washington, D.C.
Ms. McCarthy. Really?
Mr. Peters. And I left to pursue other interests, and here
I am back again with you, but it is nice to see you. And
welcome, and thank you for your service. I wanted to ask about
hydraulic fracturing, but, for context, I just wanted to call
your attention to the work at the Institute for Strategy and
Competitiveness at the Harvard Business School. Michael Porter
and Jan Rifkin have done a study, what would make the United
States the most competitive place to do business in the world?
They have identified a lot of things we have heard about, like
highly skilled immigration--or highly--immigration of highly
skilled individuals, corporate tax reform, overseas profits,
international trade, simplifying and streamlining regulation,
improving communication and energy infrastructure, creating a
sustainable Federal budget, and the responsible development of
American shale gas and oil reserves as an important component--
--
Ms. McCarthy. Um-hum.
Mr. Peters. --of competitiveness worldwide. So, first, I
wanted to ask you a little bit about--do you think that it is--
that it is possible to develop these reserves responsibly? Is
that the EPA's position?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe so.
Mr. Peters. And if so--so, if so, tell me a little bit
about what you think the approach should be. And I want to give
you a little bit of time, because I feel like I didn't get--you
were interrupted sometimes when you were trying to give these
answers.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I----
Mr. Peters. What is the--what should be the approach to the
development of this? I would ask you to touch on two things in
particular. One is the--obviously water and--water supply and
quality, but also the emission of gases, including VOCs and
methane, which is a super pollutant, and also how you would
avoid double regulation? Because I understand there is other
agencies in the Federal Government that may be doing things
that are overlapping or inconsistent.
Ms. McCarthy. And there is a lot of State Governments
working on this issue as well.
Mr. Peters. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. I would, first of all, want to agree with you
about the importance of the expanded natural gas availability.
It has been a game changer in many ways, and it is important
for our national security, as well as our continued ability to
have all these energy resources available to us. So I think
what EPA has been doing is in two ways. One is the President
has been very clear about the fact that natural gas, and its
availability, has been incredibly important to the country, but
it also needs to be done safe and responsibly.
And I think the committee knows that we are working on a
very large project with other agencies of the Federal
Government to look at water quality challenges, or
implications, associated with hydro fracking, and new
unconventional oil and gas exploration. We are in the middle of
that study. Again, that is very robust. We have done a lot of
outreach, webinars, and we are gathering as much information as
we can, doing technical workshops. We expect that a draft will
be out for peer review in the end of 2014. So we are tracking
those issues, as well as responding to individual states when
our technical expertise is being requested.
States are also the first line of responsibility in water
quality, so we want to work in partnership with them to make
sure that they are able to meet their own needs, and their--and
fulfill--and get answers to their own questions, when they
arise.
On the air quality side, we have a couple of things
happening. We have actually already put out an air quality
standard to address methane from emissions related to natural
gas facilities--natural gas exploration, in particular
fracking, at which time there are a lot of VOCs emitted. We can
capture those. With that comes the methane. It can be re-used,
and there is an ability to actually move forward in a cost--a
very cost-effective, and actually profitable, way to start
gathering that methane as we are capturing the volatile organic
carbons. We are looking at some other questions that have been
raised about what else we should do, and we are looking at
those issues, again, working in concert with other agencies, as
well as states and local communities.
So while hydro fracking has raised concern about whether it
can be done, or is being done, safe and responsibly, EPA is
working with states, local governments, and the industry to
make sure that we understand how to answer those issues
effectively, from a science perspective, and in a way that
continues to maintain the availability of inexpensive natural
gas that strengthens this economy, as well as helps us reduce
air emissions.
Mr. Peters. And I appreciate that. I think that seems like
a reasonable response. The one thing I would ask you, as a--
someone who practiced environmental law for a long time----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes?
Mr. Peters. --is please do what you can to work with the
administration so we don't have overlapping and potentially
inconsistent regulations? Very frustrating for the public, and
we want it to be done responsibly. We also want it to be done
in a way that people can understand. Again, thank you for being
here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Peters. The gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized for his question.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Administrator, I really only had two things I wanted to walk
through, and for everyone that was in a Committee with us here
yesterday, I am sorry, you are going to hear part of the same
theme again. These large data sets that are used, particularly
in things like PM10, which is a big deal for those us out in
the desert, southwest, where we actually have this thing called
dirt, you know, without grass on it, so it really does affect
our lives.
Why is it so controversial, why is it so partisan, to put
up the data? And what I mean is down to the individual, because
you and I know, with all other types of data--you were a social
anthropologist, so when you were being vetted, and doing a
review of data, you got down to the line item. If there was
something personal there, you do a non-identifier number, you
strip the personal data, and put those data sets up on
websites, where it is egalitarian, where if a, you know,
collectivist group, or a conservative group, or a business
group, or a grad student could get it down to the line item
data, and say, here is the noise from the data, but at least
you have a communal international fight over this is good, this
is bad, and who knows, you know, for those of us on the
conservative side, it may not yield what we think it will, or
the liberal side, but at least there is that purifying effect
of lots and lots and lots of people being able to drive their
analysis through those data sets. Why is that such a difficult
conversation to have around here?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't think there is anything political or
controversial about making data available.
Mr. Schweikert. I should show you the tape from this
committee from earlier in the year, where that was stunningly a
fight.
Ms. McCarthy. All the EPA is really trying to do is its
responsibility under a number of laws, which is basically--we
want to be supporting to the extent we can, openness,
transparency, sharing information, sharing data----
Mr. Schweikert. But----
Ms. McCarthy. --meeting our--but----
Mr. Schweikert. Well----
Ms. McCarthy. May I just finish? The one thing I think we
just need to have--make sure that there is a clear
understanding is we have obligations to protect private
information----
Mr. Schweikert. But there is a----
Ms. McCarthy. --and confident----
Mr. Schweikert. But I will tell you that in many ways that
is a bizarre comment, because--do what everyone else does. You
strip the personal identifiers, and here is your data set.
Ms. McCarthy. We have--and we are actually asking those
very same questions, and if you look----
Mr. Schweikert. Well--but----
Ms. McCarthy. --at the----
Mr. Schweikert. But how do you ask--and then use it as an
excuse to not give us the data?
Ms. McCarthy. There is no--I am not trying to offer
excuses, Congressman. I am trying to be as responsive as I can.
But we need to just be careful in how we maintain that
confidentiality. And we are working with----
Mr. Schweikert. But there is all----
Ms. McCarthy. --all of the researchers----
Mr. Schweikert. But there is----
Ms. McCarthy. --on this.
Mr. Schweikert. But, look, there is all sorts of protocols
in that. I was involved in a very large project, where we were
doing analysis of how much mortgage fraud had happened in our
communities. We did random identifiers, and then we put it out,
and said, everyone study what happened. It is not hard. It is
done every single time it is not that hard. And, if you are
also using proprietary data, inappropriate. You are making
public decisions, for the public, that affect the public,
billions and billions of dollars, maybe for the good, maybe to
the bad. To use proprietary data, I believe, is borders on
perverse.
I have something else I just want to show real quick, can
we put up this slide? And this has sort of been my fixation of
how we accumulate data, how we do analysis and study things. In
Maricopa County and Gila County, Pinal County, I have a
metroplex there with a few million people. We have PM10 and
monitoring sites. And instead of putting monitoring sites where
my population lives, we have chosen, you have chosen, under the
rule sets, and I understand there may be a rule where, once it
is there over a couple of years, it is really hard to move,
because you lose the baseline data, but take a look at this
one, just for the fun of it.
You have put, your predecessor, a monitoring site next to a
very large stockyard, next to a railroad track, next to desert
agriculture, and next to a series of dirt roads. Could you
imagine the data you get from this monitoring site? Yet this is
dozens, and dozens, and dozens, and dozens of miles away from
where my population base is. How does that not create perverse
skewing in your underlying data for trying to really build good
quality statistics, particularly in PM10? This is an outlier,
and you have two other monitoring stations that have almost the
same attributes here. You are getting so much noise in your
data, this is where you--for those of us from sort of
statistical backgrounds, we are just bouncing off the walls
livid.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I am happy to spend some time and bring
my folks in, but when we do these rules, we also propose a
monitoring plan, and we work with states. We take public
comment on those plans as well.
Mr. Schweikert. My county, and my state, and my communities
have been begging for years to put this in a rational spot, and
have been ignored.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we should have that conversation. But I
do think our obligation is to look at ambient air quality
across the country in a way that reflects the----
Mr. Schweikert. The population basis?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, we do the--most of the
monitors are done on a population basis.
Mr. Schweikert. So----
Ms. McCarthy. Some of these are not. Clearly this one was
not one of them.
Mr. Schweikert. But this one didn't even hit the trifecta.
It hit all four, you know, outliers. So----
Ms. McCarthy. But I appreciate your----
Mr. Schweikert. Madam Administrator----
Ms. McCarthy. --raising that point----
Mr. Schweikert. --sorry----
Ms. McCarthy. --and having that----
Mr. Schweikert. --but this is one that is just been a thorn
in our side----
Ms. McCarthy. I actually----
Mr. Schweikert. --for----
Ms. McCarthy. --think I have been there before.
Mr. Schweikert. Well, in that case, I can't believe we
didn't move it the next day. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert. The gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for being
here. The Chairman, in his opening comments, said that he
believes the EPA should answer the American people. Do you
agree with that?
Ms. McCarthy. We work for the American people, yes.
Mr. Weber. Good. Ms. McCarthy, have you ever run a
business?
Ms. McCarthy. Have I ever--no.
Mr. Weber. No? Okay. You said in your comments that you
were here to talk about the central role the science plays----
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Weber. --earlier today. And have you ever heard the
statement that all scientists are only sure about one thing,
and that is that every scientist before them was wrong?
Ms. McCarthy. I have not.
Mr. Weber. You have not heard that? Good. That is, you
might learn, does the science ever change, or get proven wrong?
Ms. McCarthy. Sure. Yes, it does.
Mr. Weber. Frequently, doesn't it?
Ms. McCarthy. I----
Mr. Weber. So if you are here to talk about the central
role the science plays in the EPA's deliberations, what would
you say is the second thing that plays a role in the EPA's
deliberations?
Ms. McCarthy. There are--if I could say three things?
Mr. Weber. Quickly, please.
Ms. McCarthy. Science, law, and transparency.
Mr. Weber. Science, law, and transparency. We are off to a
good start. You said--and I don't remember who the exchange was
with--submitted a rule, was it to OMB?
Ms. McCarthy. OMB.
Mr. Weber. OMB, Office of Management----
Ms. McCarthy. Office of Management----
Mr. Weber. --and Budget. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Weber. But not to the Science Advisory Board? And, by
law, as you said was the second thing that played a part in you
all's deliberations, behind science, or three things, then. So,
by law, you are supposed to submit that same rule on the same
date--or by that date, is that accurate?
Ms. McCarthy. I am not aware that that is specified in the
law, but we certainly engage the SAB, and we have a----
Mr. Weber. And you said you have a process of doing this.
But if it is--if you are to submit it at the same time, or the
same day, that is a pretty exacting science.
Ms. McCarthy. We actually sometimes consult with them even
before it goes in the inter-agency----
Mr. Weber. And you are to be commended. So if you don't
submit that at the same time, as the objection was earlier,
then, in essence, you are going around that law that you just
said you are here to commit science, the American people, and
following the law, right? So you are actually going around that
law, so that exact science of the date, when you submit the law
to OMB and the Science Advisory Panel at the same time, you are
circumventing.
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, I believe I am----
Mr. Weber. You are not--so you are----
Ms. McCarthy. --the law.
Mr. Weber. You are interpreting the law so that as long as
you have the process, in effect, you are good?
Ms. McCarthy. No, sir, that--that is not what I----
Mr. Weber. That is not what you said? Well, I
misunderstood, I apologize. Let me go on. You said that there
are researches that have contracts to verify data, in your
earlier comments.
Ms. McCarthy. --contact----
Mr. Weber. You don't recall that? Well, I was taking notes.
So you have researches that have contracts to verify data, and
my question is do you ever get biased results?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, actually, the--our entire peer review
process is designed to minimize any possibility----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. --of that, and I think we do a good job at
it.
Mr. Weber. And so Mr. Hall mentioned Parker County earlier,
where you had--or the EPA had to retract a statement where they
said that fracking has contaminated the water supply. Are you
aware of that?
Ms. McCarthy. I am aware that the EPA developed data, and
has provided that data publicly.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And when Mr. Sensenbrenner questioned you
on the standard for fuel efficiency, you said, pretty much
quote, you aren't here to speak to manufacturers' warranties
and liabilities.
Ms. McCarthy. I can't speak to their----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. McCarthy. --statements about that, no.
Mr. Weber. So, in essence, if it affects an entire car
industry, it doesn't matter----
Ms. McCarthy. Very much so it matters. It matters to us,
and we----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --appropriate testing for that reason. I just
can't--I am not--that is not my----
Mr. Weber. Let me move quickly. Mr. Rohrabacher said, on
grant recipients, you said in response to him that you have
procedures to ensure that they are fair-minded. Well, let me
submit to you, as a business owner, if we are going to put
businesspeople on the Science Advisory Panel, can't you apply
those same procedures to make sure that they are fair-minded?
Ms. McCarthy. We provide the same procedure that is on----
Mr. Weber. So you would be okay with having more business
and industry experts on a panel, as long as they are fair-
minded?
Ms. McCarthy. Our job is to balance that----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --panel out, and make sure they are doing
their job correctly.
Mr. Weber. Very quickly, I have Valero,a plant----
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah.
Mr. Weber. --carbon capture sequestration in my district
and I am in the Gulf Coast of Texas, District 14. Four hundress
million dollars was the cost of that project. Some 60 percent
of that was supplied by the DEO through the--DOE through the
ARRA, American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, stimulus. So you
said that CCS had been demonstrated to be cost-effective in
your exchange with----
Ms. McCarthy. No, I am sorry, sir, I said it was a
reasonable cost.
Mr. Weber. It was a reasonable cost? Okay. Well, let us go
with that. So out of a $400 million, project, 60 percent of it
$240 million, if I have done--my high school math is holding
up, is going to have to come from the Federal Government. Do
you think it is reasonable to believe that industry can
duplicate that, if 60 percent of the money has to come from the
American taxpayers?
Ms. McCarthy. I think our analysis that has been put out,
that we are taking comment on, would indicate that this cost is
reasonable for new facilities moving forward.
Mr. Weber. Okay. So when Congressman Neugebauer asked you
if you had a cost benefit analysis, you said no, in essence you
have done one, and you made a judgment decision about your
analysis that it is reasonable?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. It is a little----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --different that what we would look at as a--
as being cost----
Mr. Weber. I got you.
Ms. McCarthy. --effective. But----
Mr. Weber. And then finally, very quickly, I know that you
are looking at new projected rules for ozone standards. When
are those coming out?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know the exact date, sir. It is in
the middle of the process with our Clean Air Act Science
Advisory Committee. I know that the next big step in that
process is for them to look at a couple of documents that are--
we are hoping to provide by the end of the year. We are past
our five year time window----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --under the law, but we are working as hard
as we----
Mr. Weber. EPA seems to be in the business of mitigating
hazards, so this might be a tricky question for you. Would you
hazard a guess, will it be before November of 2014 or
afterward?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know the----
Mr. Weber. And go through that?
Ms. McCarthy. It needs to be both proposed and finalized,
and I haven't even been briefed on that, because we are still
looking at the science, and we like to keep the policy and
legal questions----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --aside and work on the science.
Mr. Weber. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, very quickly, you
did a national survey to see willingness of people to pay?
Ms. McCarthy. We are talking about the 316(b)?
Mr. Weber. Um-hum.
Ms. McCarthy. I believe it was a national----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --survey.
Mr. Weber. Did you also survey industry to see if they were
willing to pay for the EPA's opinion on whether or not it was
cost-effective? And did you also do a survey to see if people
were willing to pay for the loss of jobs when jobs are exported
offshore because our plants can't compete? Did you do that
survey?
Ms. McCarthy. I think we are mixing a little bit of apples
and oranges, sir, and I don't know if there is time for me to
clarify what the survey----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --actually was doing, and in what rule it was
applying.
Mr. Weber. We will talk offline.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. All right. Thank you, Mr. Weber. The
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized for his
questions.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Administrator, for being here
today. I am sure you have just enjoyed your morning. You have
been looking forward to this----
Ms. McCarthy. This is----
Mr. Stewart. --for weeks, I hope.
Ms. McCarthy. --part of the public process, and I am
honored to be here.
Mr. Stewart. Well, thank you, and I am sincere when I say I
think we recognize that you have worked hard to serve your
country. But there are so many things that you and I disagree
with, and that I believe that the EPA is working not for, but
actually against the best interest of the American people. And
some of those, not all of them, but some of them have been
brought up to date in this hearing so far, and let me just list
a few of them quickly. Your interpretation of navigable waters,
with the Clean Water Act, RFS standards and the new ozone
standards that my friend, Mr. Weber, mentioned there very
quickly. It is going to affect huge parts of the West.
Hydraulic fracking and clean water, new standards for the
human cost of carbon emissions, and standards that--as we have
spent some time talking about coal fired power plant
generation. All of these things, and there are others, taken
together, I believe that these new rules and proposals make
life harder for hardworking American families. They take away
economic freedom. They take away economic opportunity, I
believe, and they have the effect of making Washington D.C.
more and more powerful, and more and more central to Americans'
lives. And I think, frankly, that they make the American people
less trustful of Washington D.C., and less trustful of the
government, and I am sure you have a sense of that as well. And
very clearly some of the questions and concerns expressed in
this hearing today indicate that to you.
But let me focus on just one of them, if I could, and it is
not a particularly partisan issue. It will affect Democratic
and Republican districts. It will affect Democratic and
Republican states. And I will start with a very simple
question, and it is not intended to be a gotcha question at
all, but do you think it would be appropriate for the EPA to
propose a standard that would be impossible to meet?
Ms. McCarthy. If it is a health based standard about what
is healthy, and impacts associated with it, we need to rely on
the science to say that.
Mr. Stewart. Well, I understand, but, again, would you
propose a standard that would be impossible to meet? Would that
be appropriate for the EPA to do?
Ms. McCarthy. It really depends on what the question is.
Mr. Stewart. Well----
Ms. McCarthy. If it is a health based standard, you set the
standard based on the health impacts----
Mr. Stewart. But once----
Ms. McCarthy. --and then you----
Mr. Stewart. --again, Madam Administrator, if it is
impossible to meet, it doesn't matter what your standard might
be, if it is impossible. And I think everyone would recognize
that.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, we would not require the impossible,
sir.
Mr. Stewart. Okay, and I appreciate that, and that is what
I was hoping you would say. And it wouldn't be appropriate for
the EPA to set standards, for example, that are actually below
naturally occurring background levels. And if I could call your
attention to a slide, and I suppose you have seen this, or
something like this before, regarding ozone standards. The
areas in red reflect EPA controlled monitor counties where a 60
parts per billion standard would be violated. Areas in orange
indicate unmonitored counties that anticipate the violation of
the 60 parts per billion.
And, look, I represent parts of Utah. We have got some of
the most remote areas, they are very beautiful, but they are
some of the most unpopulated areas of our nation. Zion's
Canyon, Bryce, canyon lands. You could include Yellowstone
National Park in this map as well. And yet, using Yellowstone
as an example, naturally occurring ozone, 66 parts per billion,
which is above what some of the proposed standards are being
considered. And I guess I would just ask you, are you aware
that some of the most remote, and in some cases pristine parks
and parts of the country will have ozone that exceeds the range
of this proposed standard?
Ms. McCarthy. There is no proposed standard at this point,
Congressman, let us just make sure that people aren't confused
by that. But I would also say that I know the Science Advisory
Board is looking at this issue with the staff so they can
establish some recommendations to me moving forward----
Mr. Stewart. Yeah.
Ms. McCarthy. --and we can take a look at these issues.
Mr. Stewart. And I appreciate--okay, maybe there isn't a
proposed standard. Maybe this is one of those issues that
depends on what the meaning of the word is is, and we could go
back to very technical definitions, but there is certainly some
consideration of a standard of 60 parts per billion, would you
agree with that?
Ms. McCarthy. I honestly do not know whether that is part
of the consideration----
Mr. Stewart. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. --that the Science Advisory Board will advise
me on.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. In hearings that I chaired earlier this
spring, we were very clearly told that that was the standard
that they were considering. And, in fact, that they were not
only considering, it was one that they were leaning towards,
and we expected it to be the new proposed standard.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mr. Stewart. I guess I would just conclude with this, my
time being ended, and I wish I had more time, but there is
nothing that these Western states can do to achieve that kind
of standard. It will have great economic cost. By the EPA's own
estimate, $90 billion. By some estimates, it may be 10 times
that amount. And I would love to talk to you another time about
just the wisdom, or the sanity, frankly, forget wisdom, just
the sanity of the EPA proposing a standard that is impossible
to meet, that would be incredibly expensive. And, once again,
coming back to my opening statement, and why that generates so
much suspicion----
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah.
Mr. Stewart. --and so much ill will in the body politic of
the American people. So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and I yield back my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. The gentleman from
Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is recognized for his questions.
Sorry. He is not here. We will go to the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Stockman.
Mr. Stockman. Well, hi, Ms. McCarthy. I am over here.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Stockman. I know, we are kind of jumping around. I
think, though, you earlier gave me my favorite tweet of the
day, which is, I am lucky enough--really? The quote is from
you, I love it. It says, I am lucky enough not to have to sign
up for Obamacare. That is wonderful. I wish my constituents
could say the same.
Ms. McCarthy. I actually think I was referring to I am
lucky enough to have access to good health care, which the----
Mr. Stockman. I still will take your quote----
Ms. McCarthy. --Affordable Care Act----
Mr. Stockman. --from the record.
Ms. McCarthy. --will expand.
Mr. Stockman. I wrote it down. It is really good. You said
also in your testimony there was $2 billion in new jobs from
your EPA. I want to point out that one facility alone in my
district is a $7 billion--$7 billion in new construction,
representing 13,000 jobs, and your administration is saying,
because of the two week furlough, that it is going to take many
more months to look at the permits. And I would request that,
given the circumstances of our poor economy, and the fact that
this needs to be done, it is meeting, I believe, all the EPA
requirements, I would ask that you, and I will follow up with
you, that you look at this and expedite it. It is 12,000 jobs.
That is a lot of jobs.
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry----
Mr. Stockman. And I just----
Ms. McCarthy. --what kind of permit are we talking about?
Mr. Stockman. EPA permit. It has been in your office, it
has been sitting there. They have followed all the rules and
regulations.
Ms. McCarthy. I am happy to follow up.
Mr. Stockman. I would appreciate it. There is also another
plant that wants to export coal, so it won't be burned here, in
my district. Altogether we have $52 billion that is being held
up by the EPA, which, by the way, is more than the sequester. I
am just saying to you that there is a lot of jobs in my
district that is dependent, unfortunately, by your decisions,
and I would like to give the information to you so we can
facilitate the jobs that I know this President wants. He is the
jobs president, and I really want to help him out in doing
that.
And this much activity in our district, which, Texas, as
you probably know, represents almost 50 percent of all the jobs
in the United States that are created. And in my district, we
have had 30,000 people move into our district. There has been
over a million wells fracked, as you know. There has been a lot
of fracking. And there is a general history in this United
States of people independently drilling for oil and producing
products that this nation relies on. We are going to produce
more oil than Saudi Arabia, and I think it is because of the
independence and the drive of this American spirit.
I just want the boot off the neck of the Americans so we
can see a future where we have independence from the Middle
East. This has great implications on our foreign policy, great
implications on people's future. And I am real frustrated when
I come back to my district, and I have people coming to my town
hall meetings and saying, we want the jobs. And I have to tell
them, I am sorry, but someone from the EPA is not letting us
have the jobs. I am just begging you, please, open your heart
up, get these permits done. They have done the work. They have
complied with all the regulations. I don't see what it is--for
two weeks they said we shut down the government. It shouldn't
take months to recuperate the two weeks that is lost.
And, I don't know, I even have a plant, that is not in my
district, but a lead plant. Now all the lead plants are closed
in the United States. They were willing to spend $100 million
upgrading the lead plant. Now the Chinese are going to produce
the lead, so now we are not going to have the lead for the
Americans to put on their, you know, when you get X-rays, they
will come from China. The batteries, the lead will be coming
from there.
I am really frustrated that we have so much opportunity in
this country, and again, and again, and again, it comes back to
your administration, where I hear, okay, it is locked up there,
it is locked up there, it is locked up there. And I go to town
hall meetings--I would love for you to come with me, and I will
invite you to a town hall meeting where we can share the
podium, and hear from the people individually who are losing
their jobs because we can't get permits.
And I am troubled that, again, time and time again, I can't
get any satisfaction, quoting from The Rolling Stones, of
course, from your administration. So if we could work
together----
Ms. McCarthy. --to sing.
Mr. Stockman. Yeah.
Ms. McCarthy. I appreciate it.
Mr. Stockman. Go for it. But if we could work together on
this, I would appreciate it. And I will welcome you to any town
hall meeting.
Ms. McCarthy. You know, this is an issue that, frankly, I
just have not heard for a long time. I think we have been
trying to do our best to expedite permits as much as we can,
knowing the economic implications of that. So if you do have
concerns, we really should tackle them together.
Mr. Stockman. I appreciate it. Thank you. I have got one
thing I want to add.
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah?
Mr. Stockman. This is for my colleague, who wanted to
clarify, Dana Rohrabacher. It is my quick clarification on the
CRS report, and place this into the record, if I can, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection.
Mr. Stockman. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stockman. The
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, is recognized.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Administrator,
throughout this hearing you have touted the importance of
transparency, and I agree. Consistent with your promise of
transparency, on September 30, 2013 your agency announced it
would hold public listening sessions on reducing carbon
emissions from existing power plants to consider the public
concerns ahead of development of the EPA rules. But I was
disappointed to learn that all of the EPA's 11 announced
sessions are in major metropolitan areas, and none of these
listening sessions would be in the 10 states most reliant on
coal.
In November, our Congressional delegation sent you a
letter, informing you that Kentucky's already lost more than
6,200 coal jobs in just the last two years, reducing the
state's coal employment to its lowest level since the
Commonwealth began keeping statistics in 1927. Unfortunately,
these job losses are forecasted to continue, to increase, as
additional EPA regulations targeting coal come online. In this
letter, we requested that you hold listening sessions in
Kentucky for the sake of openness and transparency that you
have espoused today. In the eyes of Kentuckians and American
people, will you commit to us today that the EPA will hold
listening sessions in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and other
similar states, like North Dakota, where my colleague, Mr.
Cramer is from, that are reliant on coal production and coal
fired electricity as you seek public comment?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Congressman, we received a number of
requests for additional listening sessions. I would like to
explain to you, those 11 sites are actually our regional
offices, because it is----
Mr. Massie. Certainly you----
Ms. McCarthy. --helps us----
Mr. Massie. We appreciate that, and we appreciate that you
have held before listening sessions outside of your offices. I
think you should get outside of the office, you know, go out
and see the people you are going to affect once in a while. And
hopefully you certainly must realize that if you fail to hold
these listening sessions on greenhouse gas regulations in the
states whose economies most depend on the coal industry and
coal fired electricity, this will be perceived as an effort to
avoid negative public opinion----
Ms. McCarthy. Well, there----
Mr. Massie. --or to ignore the adverse effects of these
regulations.
Ms. McCarthy. I----
Mr. Massie. You realize that is going to be perceived that
way if you don't hold these hearings?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I think people should recognize that
this is even before we are proposing, never mind entering into
the rigorous public----
Mr. Massie. Can you commit----
Ms. McCarthy. --comment process----
Mr. Massie. --today----
Ms. McCarthy. --without making----
Mr. Massie. --to hold this in Kentucky?
Ms. McCarthy. There is also opportunities for individuals
to----
Mr. Massie. Okay, I can't let you take all of my time if
you won't answer the question. You know, smog and most other
air pollution is a function of urban concentration. In fact,
the EPA has recognized 66 of 3,000 counties in the United
States as having air quality issues. Those are urban issues,
for the most part. So residents of rural areas, like myself,
who rely on wood heat as an affordable, abundant, renewable,
and you will like this, carbon neutral source of heat energy,
are perpetually perplexed by the EPA's fascination with
regulating this form of heat, since it is primarily a rural
form of heat. And we believe that a one-sized fits all rule on
wood heat that comes from Washington D.C., from bureaucrats who
have never experienced the warmth of the heat that comes from
wood, or maybe even the exercise of collecting it themselves,
really aren't qualified to regulate our source of energy,
especially when they are taking away our other sources of
energy.
Let me read for you from the EPA's website on these new
rules that are being proposed. Or maybe this is pre-proposal,
but this is certainly from your website. EPA--quote,``EPA is
revising the new source performance standards for new
residential wood heaters.'' I will skip some of it. ``This
action is expected to include the following new residential
wood heating appliances, wood heaters, pellet stoves, hydronic
heaters'', and the list goes on.
Ms. McCarthy. Um-hum.
Mr. Massie. And then it finishes with this, ``These
standards would apply only to new residential wood heaters, and
not to existing residential wood heating appliances.''
Ms. McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Massie. Is that your impression, that these rules would
just apply to new heaters?
Ms. McCarthy. That is all they do apply to, yes.
Mr. Massie. Okay. So you can promise us----
Ms. McCarthy. It would apply to----
Mr. Massie. You can promise us today that if Americans like
the wood stove they have, they can keep it, period?
Ms. McCarthy. This particular part of the Clean Air Act
does not address existing for this--these types of pollutants.
And the only thing----
Mr. Massie. I have one more question, and only 30 seconds
to ask, but I am glad that you can assure us we can keep that
if we like it, period, and I hope that is a promise you can
keep. There is one other issue that affects rural America that
just has us scratching our heads. I hope it is an urban legend.
Is anybody in the EPA really looking at regulating cow
flatulence?
Ms. McCarthy. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Massie. Okay. Yeah, because we have heard that on
farms, are aware of that, at the USDA?
Chairman Smith. Pardon me? You have heard it what?
Mr. Massie. That the methane emissions from cattle, can
you----
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah.
Mr. Massie. --assure us today that you are not----
Ms. McCarthy. I am not looking----
Mr. Massie. --investigating that?
Ms. McCarthy. --at that.
Mr. Massie. Nobody in the EPA is? Thank you very----
Ms. McCarthy. Not that I am----
Mr. Massie. --much.
Ms. McCarthy. --aware of.
Mr. Massie. Thank you. And I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Massie. The gentlewoman from
Wyoming, Ms. Lummis, is recognized.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
Administrator.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mrs. Lummis. In your agency's recently re-proposed New
Source Performance Standards for power plants----
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah.
Mrs. Lummis. --you set levels for coal fired plants based
on the use of carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
You did not require that same technology for gas fired power
plants.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mrs. Lummis. By requiring CCS for coal units only, aren't
you applying a standard that is higher regarding the carbon
that is emitted from coal generated power? It just sounds to me
like this is not an all of the above energy plan. It singles
out coal for punitive treatment. Can this really be defended as
a transparent and equitable application of the Clean Air Act? I
like the administration, that you have testified, supports
opportunities in natural gas. So do I, and I support them also
for new coal fired plants, and coal-to-liquid. All the reasons
that EPA gives for declining to find CCS technologies to be the
best system of emission reduction for gas fired units apply
with equal force to coal fired units. So why require it for
coal?
It strikes me that the answer to that question is to set a
precedent. EPA is under a consent decree to issue New Source
Performance Standards on greenhouse gases for refineries in the
near future. Will that rules best system of emission reduction
also require implementing technology that is unproven on a
commercial scale? That seems to be the new definition of
adequately demonstrated. When EPA requires a technology for new
coal plants that is not yet in commercial operation, what is to
stop it from doing the same for other sources of carbon?
I might add that earlier, in response to Mr. Neugebauer,
you said that CCS technology is ready, according to the DOE.
But DOE was in front of this committee in the summer, and they
couldn't give us a date for the technology to be ready. And
then former Secretary of Energy McConnell was here two weeks
ago, and he testified that commercial CCS technology currently
is not available to meet EPA's proposed rule. So our problem is
this committee has received conflicting testimony from the
former Secretary of DOE at your sister agency.
I find it interesting that the EPA claims that, regardless
of this new rule, no one plans to build traditional coal
plants. So does this rule achieve any of the EPA's carbon
reduction goals? By its own admission, EPA is requiring carbon
reducing technology for plants that will never be built. But,
at the same time, it is requiring no reductions from new
natural gas plants, even though they are being built in greater
numbers than ever before. This doesn't make sense to me, and I
just want to ask if it makes sense to you.
Ms. McCarthy. What--could I address the issues that you
have raised?
Mrs. Lummis. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay. In terms of why we wouldn't be
proposing CCS on natural gas, we do not have the kind of wealth
of data that we have for the demonstration of CCS on natural
gas as we do on coal. We know they run differently. We know the
technology is different. We know the--that the gas stream for
natural gas is different. We did not have the data available to
be able to propose CCS on natural gas. We went with what we
knew to be demonstrated technology moving forward. We do have
data on the coal side that addresses the requirements we have
for being robust. But we will look at comments that come in.
Relative to DOE, I think the DOE employees have been--and
staff, as well as the Secretary, have been very supportive of
the way we are looking at the data in this industry sector
moving forward.
Mrs. Lummis. Thanks. I want to squeeze in one more----
Ms. McCarthy. Okay.
Mrs. Lummis. --question before I run out of time.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay, sorry.
Mrs. Lummis. That is okay. Let me ask you--this is kind of
a yes or no question. Is it EPA's view that Section 111(d) of
the Clean Air Act gives states primacy in the development and
implementation of new source performance standards for existing
power plants?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, it is state implementation plans that
need to be developed.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. So now you have three seconds to
answer my previous question.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, the only other one I wanted to hit was
this idea that we are not going to be making any progress
moving forward because most of them are natural gas. The--what
we are trying to do is make sure that new facilities, like
power plants, that are around for 60 or 70 years take advantage
of the technologies available to them today so that they can be
part of the mix moving forward.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Ms. McCarthy. Coal is important now. It will be in the
future.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lummis. The gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Cramer, is recognized for questions.
Mr. Cramer. I am sorry, did you say from North Dakota?
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Mr. Cramer. Yeah, I thought you did.
Chairman Smith. I thought I said North Dakota.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mister----
Chairman Smith. I misspoke if I said anything other than
North Dakota.
Mr. Cramer. That is fine. Thank you for being here today,
and I want to ask some questions about the hydraulic fracturing
study. But before I do that, I want to follow up on Mr.
Massie's invitation to--for you to go to Kentucky and hold a
listening session on your way to North Dakota to hold a
listening session on the new source performance standards. I
would like to submit my letter of invitation to you of October
18 into the record, if I could, Mr. Chairman?
And it just seems like, in the spirit of transparency, that
having these 11 listening sessions in the cities where you,
granted, have regional offices, is okay as far as it goes, but
what a wonderful opportunity it would be to add some more
listening sessions. And so I would really love to have you
commit to considering these other places, including Bismarck,
North Dakota.
Ms. McCarthy. I appreciate that. And I just want to tell
you that that is not the extent of what we are doing. Those are
the major listening sessions, but the regional offices and our
administrators are really branching out to the individual
states.
Mr. Cramer. And I understand that, but I also understand
that, in a place like North Dakota, where there are 17,000 jobs
at stake, $3-1/2 billion toward our economy is at stake, and
where there are a whole bunch of really wonderful smart experts
and scientists who work in this every single day, could provide
lots of good information to the EPA, that a better way might be
to hold a listening session there in public view, for everybody
to participate. So I would appreciate--in fact, I would love it
if you would just commit. We will work out the details later as
to, you know, what time and what cities, and all of that.
But I also want to get into the hydraulic fracturing study
that you are engaged in, because I have some concerns about it,
especially the study designed and some of the goals of the
study. Because, as we have discussed in this committee
previously with other witnesses, this idea of the EPA searching
for what is possible without attention to what is probable is
problematic I think from a real scientific standpoint, because
one of the primary goals of the study--stated primary goals of
the study is to answer questions, like, what are the possible
impacts of hydraulic fracturing, fluid surface spills, on--near
well pads, on drinking water resources, end quote.
And it appears, in fact, the EPA's independent science
advisory board shares this concern as well. One SAB expert
comment, ``There is no quantitative risk assessment included in
EPA's research effort. Thus, the reader has no sense of how
risky any operation may be in ultimately impacting drinking
water. This is also a significant limitation of the work.'' Is
the mere possibility of an event occurring sufficient to
justify regulatory action, in your mind?
Ms. McCarthy. I actually think that this is purely a
scientific research project so we understand the potential
implications. It is not a regulatory decision.
Mr. Cramer. Sure, but again, the possible versus probable,
as what is the standard, then, of probability before you
continue with more years and more resources, given the fact
that hydraulic fracturing is not exactly a new technology? I
mean, it is----
Ms. McCarthy. No, it has been around----
Mr. Cramer. --been around for----
Ms. McCarthy. --for a while.
Mr. Cramer. --over half a----
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah.
Mr. Cramer. --century.
Ms. McCarthy. Yeah.
Mr. Cramer. So, I mean, is there a line--and you certainly
can understand why industry and states might be concerned that
we are down this path, with the mere possibility as a standard,
and the uncertainty that that creates in the investment
community as we try to become more energy security in this
country.
Ms. McCarthy. My understanding is that this is a number of
research projects that are looking at the potential for impact
on water supplies. It is the first step----
Mr. Cramer. I understand----
Ms. McCarthy. --in looking----
Mr. Cramer. --but, in fact----
Ms. McCarthy. --at this in a more comprehensive way so we
can be sure we are doing things safe and----
Mr. Cramer. While I agree that this is one, and I guess
part of something more comprehensive, because your Office of
Science Policy director, Dr. Hoffman, in May of last year,
stated that the agency was doing ``a pretty comprehensive look
at all the statutes to determine where holes may allow for
additional Federal oversight.'' So is this study part of that
comprehensive look for holes and opportunities to regulate
further?
Ms. McCarthy. My understanding is, and we can certainly
follow up, is that this is purely a research project. It is
not, at this point, talking about what laws we might utilize,
or what regulations we might want to do.
Mr. Cramer. Well, have you found any holes, or do you know
of any regulatory holes that might present an opportunity for
further regulation by the EPA? Because, you know, that standard
is rather frightening in North Dakota.
Ms. McCarthy. I--we are purely looking at whether or not
there are implications that we need to understand from
hydraulic fracturing both--in this case on water quality. That
is it.
Mr. Cramer. All right. Thank you, and my time is expired,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Cramer. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Administrator, for your testimony today, and it has been
largely direct responses, and I really appreciate that.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Posey. Following up on some of the questions that we
had earlier today concerning science based management, how many
Ice Ages have we had on this planet, do you know?
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, sir, I don't.
Mr. Posey. Okay. I have read different things. Some say
three, some say five. Do you think we have had Ice Ages before?
Ms. McCarthy. I am quite sure of reading about those, but I
am not a scientist, and I don't want to pretend to be for you,
sir. But we can get our scientists to respond, if you want a
more direct----
Mr. Posey. Yeah, I really would like that. You know,
normally you can't have seamless Ice Ages. You must have a
warming period between the Ice Ages, and I was just wondering
if you happen to know what the temperature was here on Earth
between the last two Ice Ages.
Ms. McCarthy. I am sorry, sir, I can't answer those
questions.
Mr. Posey. Okay. If I told you the Earth was 30 degrees
warmer before the last Ice Age, would that surprise you, or----
Ms. McCarthy. It would not influence my decision, in terms
of listening to the science and the consensus around climate. I
leave the science to the scientists.
Mr. Posey. But don't you think the history of the Earth
should have some bearing on science?
Ms. McCarthy. I am sure that it does.
Mr. Posey. But----
Ms. McCarthy. I just don't want to pretend that I am a
scientist and have that discussion with you, sir, because I am
not. I do listen to the scientists, and I look--listen to the
consensus that is being drawn.
Mr. Posey. Well, I listen to scientists too, and I don't
claim to be a scientist, but I don't want to put my head in the
sand and----
Ms. McCarthy. Um-hum.
Mr. Posey. --ignore what science----
Ms. McCarthy. I am not.
Mr. Posey. --is inconvenient.
Ms. McCarthy. I am listening.
Mr. Posey. And now I was just wondering what impact you
thought carbon emissions had on previous global warming between
Ice Ages?
Ms. McCarthy. The information that I have available to me
relates to all of the work that is done by the number of
scientists looking at the climate issues. And I pay attention
to that, and I will apply the science in decisions moving
forward. I am not either comfortable or qualified to have a
science discussion with you on these issues.
Mr. Posey. Do you see the promulgation of any rules that
would enact a carbon tax in the future?
Ms. McCarthy. Say that again, sir?
Mr. Posey. Do you see the promulgation of any rules that
would enact a carbon tax for this country in the future?
Ms. McCarthy. Only if Congress provides a--provides that
mechanism, no.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I can't get my questions
answered, so I guess I am pretty much finished and yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey. I don't believe we
have any other members with questions, so, Administrator
McCarthy, thank you for your presence today. And we may have
additional questions that would be submitted to you in writing.
We hope you will reply to those in the next couples of weeks.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, can I ask you one favor?
Chairman Smith. Of course.
Ms. McCarthy. I know you asked me a lot of information in
the front about the subpoena issues.
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Ms. McCarthy. I want to make sure that we both understood
one another, so if we could meet afterwards? I want to make
sure that I gave perfectly correct answers, and that our
expectations are the same on what you are looking for, and
whether or not we have complied with that, and what you are
looking for next.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. McCarthy. I want to be very respectful of you, and the
wishes of this committee.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Well, I am somewhat encouraged
by some of your answers today, and I hope you will give us the
data that we would like to have, and that we would like to have
independently verified. I am not sure it is true or not, but
didn't you once tell us, if you like it, you can have it? I am
just teasing. Thank you for your appearance today. We stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Honorable Gina McCarthy
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement of Representative Elizabeth H. Esty, Member,
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Report submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Letter submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Letters submitted by Representative Mark Takano
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]