[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EPA'S ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM: TAKING THE ENVIRONMENTAL COP OFF THE BEAT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-8
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-523 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Chair
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Ranking Member
Massachusetts, Vice Chair MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
RAUL RUIZ, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
KATHY CASTOR, Florida SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
PAUL TONKO, New York JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 176
Eric Schaeffer, Executive Director, Environmental Integrity
Project........................................................ 52
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Chris Sellers, Ph.D., Professor of History and Director, Center
for the Study of Inequalities, Social Justice, and Policy,
Stony Brook University, on behalf of the Environmental Data and
Governance Initiative.......................................... 67
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Bruce C. Buckheit, Analyst and Consultant, Former Director, Air
Enforcement Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 105
Prepared statement........................................... 107
Jay P. Shimshack, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Public Policy and
Economics, Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy,
University of Virginia......................................... 119
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Bakeyah S. Nelson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Air Alliance
Houston........................................................ 124
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Ronald J. Tenpas, Partner, Vinson and Elkins, LLP, Former
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources
Division, Department of Justice................................ 133
Prepared statement........................................... 135
Answers to submitted questions............................... 209
Submitted Material
Letter of February 25, 2019, from State Senator Jessica Unruh of
North Dakota to Mr. Mullin, submitted by Mr. Mullin............ 157
Report of February 8, 2019, ``Fiscal Year 2018 EPA Enforcement
and Compliance Annual Results,'' Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency,
submitted by Ms. DeGette....................................... 161
EPA'S ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM: TAKING THE ENVIRONMENTAL COP OFF THE BEAT
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Diana DeGette
(chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives DeGette, Kennedy, Ruiz,
Kuster, Castor, Sarbanes, Tonko, Clarke, Peters, Pallone (ex
officio), Guthrie (subcommittee ranking member), Burgess,
McKinley, Griffith, Mullin, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Barragan and Soto.
Staff present: Mohammad Aslami, Counsel; Kevin Barstow,
Chief Oversight Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director;
Chris Knauer, Oversight Staff Director; Brendan Larkin, Policy
Coordinator; Jourdan Lewis, Policy Analyst; Perry Lusk, GAO
Detailee; Jon Monger, Counsel; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary;
Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Mel Peffers, Environment
Fellow; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Nikki Roy, Policy
Coordinator; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications,
Outreach, and Member Services; C. J. Young, Press Secretary;
Jen Barblan, Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Adam
Buckalew, Minority Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief
Counsel, Health; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff
Assistant; Brittany Havens, Minority Professional Staff Member,
Oversight and Investigations; Peter Kielty, Minority General
Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Peter
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment
and Climate Change; and Natalie Sohn, Minority Counsel,
Oversight and Investigations.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations will now come to order.
Today, the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``EPA
Enforcement: Taking the Environmental Cop Off the Beat.'' The
purpose of today's hearing is to explore transit enforcement
measures during the Trump administration and whether the EPA is
ensuring consistent enforcement and an implementation of
Federal environmental regulations and laws, as well as
resulting impacts on human health and the environment.
The Chair recognizes herself for the purpose of an opening
statement.
For decades, this Oversight and Investigations Panel has
worked to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency is
doing its job, including enforcement of our Nation's
environmental laws. This work continues today.
It is important to remember that when we talk about
enforcement what we are really talking about is protecting our
environment and our health from polluters. We are talking about
keeping our rivers and waterways clean and harmful pollutants
out of the air that each and every one of us breathes. If the
EPA isn't enforcing the laws that we already have on the books,
then we all pay the price.
Unfortunately, the price that some of us pay is greater
than others, as some of our Nation's bigger polluters are often
located in or near minority and low-income communities. We have
a responsibility to care for them, as we do every single person
who calls America home. And ensuring the EPA is doing its job
and holding polluters accountable is critical toward protecting
their health and well-being.
Now, I understand that enforcing our environmental laws can
often be a long and intensive process. I also understand that
there is not one single measurement that can be used to
accurately evaluate the Agency's overall efforts to enforce our
laws in any given year. That said, there are some indicators
that are more telling than others and, when combined with
others, can help to paint a pretty clear picture of what is
really going on.
The numbers you will hear today are from the EPA's own
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and were
included in a report released earlier this month detailing the
Agency's 2018 enforcement and compliance activities. I am sure
that the EPA will try to use these numbers today to paint a
rather rosy interpretation of the enforcement efforts last year
and probably they will talk about how proud they are of
everything they did last year. But what I see when I look at
this report is an Agency that simply is just sitting on its
hands. I see an Agency that is giving polluters a free pass,
and it is putting our health and our environment at risk.
When EPA enforcement activities go down, pollution goes up.
That is just a fact. And the latest numbers from the EPA show
its overall enforcement activities for 2018 were at
historically low levels. For example, and again, this is
according to the Agency's own numbers, in fiscal year 2018, the
EPA assessed polluters a total of $69 million in civil
penalties -- $69 million. That is the lowest level of penalties
assessed to polluters since the EPA created the Office of
Enforcement over 20 years ago in 1994.
Now again, I understand that enforcement efforts can often
take months or even years to complete and that some of that
work done in one year may not be accurately reflected in the
overall total for any given year but the numbers seem to
indicate a disturbing trend. And while no one factor can tell
the whole story, there are some indicators that, when taken
together, can help us paint a pretty clear picture of EPA's
overall efforts to enforce our laws.
For example, the total number of facilities that the EPA
inspected last year is the lowest since 1994. The total number
of civil cases it initiated is the lowest since 1982. And the
number of cases it referred to the Department of Justice, the
lowest since 1976, my freshman year in college.
So, while I would like to sit here and believe that the EPA
is serious about enforcing our Federal environmental laws, it
is hard to ignore the facts and it is hard to ignore headline
after headline which suggests the opposite. For example,
Washington Post: ``Under Trump, EPA Inspections Fall to a 10-
Year Low.'' New York Times: ``EPA Enforcement Drops Sharply in
Trump's 2nd Year in Office.'' NBC News: ``EPA Criminal Action
Against Polluters Hits 30-Year Low under Trump.'' Christian
Science Monitor: ``Has the EPA Lost Its Teeth?''
So if the EPA isn't enforcing our environmental laws, who
is? If the EPA isn't acting as the Nation's environmental
watchdog that it was created to be, then it is just simply not
acting in the best interest of the American taxpayers.
The question is why. Why is the EPA sitting on the
sidelines?
Based on data provided by the Agency, the EPA has cut at
least 17 percent of the personnel and that doesn't even include
the personnel of the ten regional offices. We are also going to
hear that the people who have remained at the EPA are facing
even greater challenges when trying to perform their laws.
Congress can do something about this. We need to require
compliance. That is why we are having this hearing and that is
why we expect the EPA to do its job.
So, I am looking forward to the testimony today. I am
looking forward to hearing from everybody.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Diana DeGette
For decades, this oversight and investigations panel has
worked to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency is
doing its job--including enforcing our Nation's environmental
laws.
That work continues today.
It's important to remember, that when we talk about
enforcement, what we are really talking about is protecting our
environment--and our health--from polluters.
We're talking about keeping our rivers and waterways clean;
and harmful pollutants out of the air that each and every one
of us breathes.
If the EPA isn't enforcing the laws that we already have on
the books, then we all pay the price.
Unfortunately, the price some of us pay is greater than
others--as some of our Nation's biggest polluters are often
located in, or near, mostly minority and low-income
communities.
We have a responsibility to care for them, as we do every
single person who calls America home. And ensuring the EPA is
doing its job, and holding polluters accountable, is critical
toward protecting their health and well-being.
Now, I understand that enforcing our environmental laws can
often be a long and intensive process. I also understand that
there is not one single measurement that can be used to
accurately evaluate the Agency's overall efforts to enforce our
laws in a given year.
That said, there are some indicators that are more telling
than others, and when combined with others can help to paint a
pretty clear picture of what's really going.
The numbers you'll hear today are from the EPA's own Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and were included in a
report it released earlier this month detailing the Agency's
2018 enforcement and compliance activities.
I'm sure the EPA will try to use these numbers today to
paint a rather rosy interpretation of its enforcement efforts
last year. And they'll probably going on and on about how proud
they are of all that they did last year.
But what I see when I look at this report is an Agency
that's sitting on its hands. I see an Agency that's giving
polluters a free pass. And it's putting our health and
environment at risk.
When EPA enforcement activities go down, pollution goes
up--that's a fact. And the latest numbers from the EPA show its
overall enforcement activities for 2018 were at a historically
low levels.
For example--and, again, this is according to the Agency's
own numbers--in fiscal year 2018 the EPA assessed polluters a
total of $69 million in civil penalties. $69 million! That's
the lowest total amount of penalties assessed to polluters
since the EPA created the office of enforcement in 1994.
Again, I understand that enforcement efforts can often take
months and even years to complete, and that some of the work
done in one year may not be accurately reflected in the overall
total for that given year. But these numbers seem to suggest a
disturbing trend taking place at EPA.
And while no one figure can tell the whole story, there are
some indicators that--when taken together--can help us paint a
pretty clear picture of the EPA's overall efforts to enforce
our laws.
For example, the total number of facilities that the EPA
inspected last year is the lowest since 1994. The total number
of civil cases it initiated is the lowest since 1982. And the
number of cases it referred to the Department of Justice--the
lowest since 1976.
So, while I'd like to sit here and believe that the EPA is
serious about enforcing our Federal environmental laws, it's
hard to ignore the facts. And it's hard to ignore headline
after headline which suggest the opposite. For example:
* Washington Post [quote]: ``Under Trump, EPA inspections
fall to a 10-year low.''
* New York Times [quote]: ``EPA Enforcement Drops Sharply
in Trump's 2nd Year in Office.''
* NBC News: [quote] ``EPA criminal action against polluters
hits 30-year low under Trump.''
* Christian Science Monitor [quote]: ``Has the EPA Lost Its
Teeth?''
If the EPA isn't enforcing our environmental laws, who is?
If the EPA isn't acting as the environmental watchdog that
it was created to be, then it's not acting in the best interest
of the American taxpayers who fund it.
The question is: why?
Why is the EPA suddenly sitting on the sidelines?
Based on data provided by the Agency, since President Trump
took office, EPA has cut at least 17 percent of the personnel
assigned to its main enforcement office. That doesn't include
any of the personnel they have lost at any one of the EPA's 10
regional office, where much of the enforcement work really gets
done.
We'll also hear today how those who remained at EPA are
facing even greater challenges when trying to perform their
jobs under this administration.
When President Trump announced his plans to cut the EPA by
nearly 25 percent, he sent a pretty clear message to polluters
and to the career staff at EPA where his priorities lied.
Had those proposed cuts been successful, EPA's budget would
have been cut by nearly $2.6 billion and its workforces would
have reduced by more than 3,100 employees.
Thankfully, Congress was able to prevent those massive cuts
from going into effect. But, by simply proposing them in the
first place, this administration accomplished its goal of
sending a pretty clear message.
Our committee has heard from Agency staff who have reported
feeling pressure from EPA political appointees to go easy on
industry. The EPA, under the Trump administration, has even
instituted a new political review process before Agency staff
can move forward with any enforcement actions against a
polluter.
If that weren't enough, the EPA--under the Trump
administration--has continued to delegate more and more of its
enforcement authority to the States--which all have varying
laws and different approaches to enforcing them.
Delegating enforcement of our Nation's environment laws to
the States makes them moot. And to me, that's unacceptable.
The EPA's argument that its enforcement efforts should not
be evaluated simply on the amount of fines it issues or actions
it takes, but instead on how many polluters it's able to bring
into compliance, is a farce. Compliance without enforcement
does not work.
And while encouraging polluters to comply with our
environmental laws is certainly a valiant effort to undertake,
turning a blind eye to some of the worst polluters in the
process will not be tolerated.
If evidence and experience have shown us one thing it's
that the worst polluters are also the most unlikely to
voluntarily raise their hands and ask for help.
And while we are always glad to hear about the EPA's
successes in allowing an industry to self-police itself, I am
always skeptical when I hear of a government Agency allowing
the foxes to guard the henhouse.
It has been widely reported that the Trump administration
has appointed dozens of former industry lobbyists to high-
ranking jobs within the administration. One of the things that
troubles me most is how many of those appointees are at the
EPA.
Just yesterday, in fact, The Washington Post reported that
EPA political leaders may have interfered in several
enforcement matters undertaken by the Agency--including some
that involved former industry clients, which is a clear
violation of ethics rules.
In the past 2 years, we have seen an Agency that's
constantly trying to move the goal posts of what is allowable
under the law.
We have seen leadership at the EPA attempt to roll back
some of our most critical environmental safeguards--including
weakening our protections against mercury, loosening our
oversight of the oil and gas industry, and undoing the highly
successful vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that have worked
so well to help reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Congress has worked too hard, on behalf of the American
people, to enact some of the rules and regulations that work to
protect our environment and health. And this panel will not sit
back and allow this administration to simply ignore those laws.
We expect the EPA to do its job.
We expect it to enforce every single rule and regulation we
have the books.
And we expect it to vigorously protect the American people
and our environment.
Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. And at this point, I am now happy to recognize
the ranking member for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chair DeGette, for holding this
important hearing today.
Congress has enacted several important laws to protect the
environment and human health and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA, is responsible for working within its
State, Tribal, and Federal partners to help to put these laws
into effect. The EPA must develop and enforce environmental
regulations for laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, to name just a few.
I am encouraged by EPA's commitment to ensuring compliance
with these important environmental laws and I want to thank the
thousands of Federal and State workers who spent countless
hours helping to achieve these goals.
Every few years there seems to be a major enforcement
action resulting in a substantial amount of penalties and
fines. For example, the 2013 enforcement numbers included a
settlement with BP following the devastating 2010 Gulf of
Mexico spill. Similarly, the 2017 enforcement numbers included
the record Volkswagen Clean Air Act civil settlement. In this
year, fiscal year 2019, the numbers will include the Fiat
Chrysler settlement finalized just last month. In fact, the
dollar amount for civil judicial administrative penalties in
the fiscal year 2019 is on track to be one of the largest ever.
These enforcement actions are extremely important to help
protect the environment, ensure compliance with Federal laws
and regulations and are the type of enforcement action the
Federal Government is best suited to pursue, rather than the
States. But the large fine amounts in certain years does not
mean the Agency and its partners are any less diligent about
protecting the environment in any other years where these large
settlements do not occur.
Therefore, while monitoring enforcement actions is an
important tool to promote compliance with environmental laws
and regulations, it is important that we don't lose sight of
the most important goals, which are protecting the environment
and protecting human health.
This administration has emphasized the need to focus on
compliance and ensure that a broad range of compliance
assurance tools are available for use by the Agency. We have a
lot of questions today about what EPA is doing to promote
compliance and how programs such as the self-disclosure
violations policies can help achieve compliance.
I am looking forward to hearing more about how the EPA is
working with States to promote State primacy and authorized
programs. As we all know, the EPA works in collaboration with
States and tribal organizations to conduct inspections and
enforcement. In 2017, the EPA formed a workgroup with the
Environmental Council of the States to develop principles and
best practices for State and EPA collaboration on a number of
issues such as inspections and enforcement.
The working group issued their final report in August 2018.
I have heard that these initiatives are working and that States
are beginning to feel like they have a seat at the table. The
EPA also has worked--also works with other Federal agencies
when enforcing some of the environmental laws. That is one
reason I am glad we have the Honorable Ron Tenpas on the second
panel. Mr. Tenpas previously served as an Assistant Attorney
General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of
the U.S. Department of Justice and it will be helpful to hear
how the Environment and Natural Resources Division at DOJ works
with the EPA to ensure robust enforcement of our Nation's
environmental laws.
I think we can all agree that the desired outcome of any
compliance program is to prevent pollution and protect our
environment for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
I am looking forward to hearing about EPA--about how the EPA is
working to accomplish these goals. Considering the ebb and
flows of enforcement fines and penalties within an
administration, let alone between administrations, I hope we
don't get ahead of ourselves today and imply that 1 year of
slightly lower enforcement accomplishments signals that EPA is
not doing its job or ensuring compliance with our Nation's
environmental laws.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie
Thank you, Chair DeGette, for holding this important
hearing today.
Congress has enacted several important laws to protect the
environment and human health and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for working with its
State, Tribal, and Federal partners to help to put these laws
into effect. The EPA must develop and enforce environmental
regulations for laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, to name just a few. I am
encouraged by the EPA's commitment to assuring compliance with
these important environmental laws and I want to thank the
thousands of Federal and State workers that have spent
countless hours helping to achieve these goals.
Every few years, there seems to be a major enforcement
action resulting in a substantial amount of penalties and
fines. For example, the 2013 enforcement numbers included a
settlement with BP following the devastating 2010 Gulf of
Mexico oil spill. Similarly, the 2017 enforcement numbers
included the record Volkswagen Clean Air Act Civil Settlement.
And this year--fiscal year 2019--the numbers will include the
Fiat Chrysler settlement finalized just last month. In fact,
the dollar amount for civil, judicial, and administrative
penalties in fiscal year 2019 is on track to be one of the
largest ever.
These enforcement actions are extremely important to help
protect the environment and ensure compliance with Federal laws
and regulations--and are the type of enforcement actions that
the Federal Government is best suited to pursue rather than the
States--but the large fine amounts in certain years does not
mean the Agency and its partners are any less diligent about
protecting the environment in other years where these large
settlements do not occur.
Therefore, while monitoring enforcement actions is an
important tool to promote compliance with environmental laws
and regulations, it is important that we don't lose sight of
the most important goals--which are protecting the environment
and protecting human health. This administration has emphasized
the need to focus on compliance and ensure that a broad range
of compliance assurance tools are available for use by the
Agency. We have a lot of questions today about what EPA is
doing to promote compliance and how programs such as the self-
disclosure violations policies can help achieve compliance.
I also am looking forward to hearing more about how the EPA
is working with the States to promote State primacy in
authorized programs. As we all know, the EPA works in
collaboration with States and Tribal organizations to conduct
inspections and enforcement. In September 2017, the EPA formed
a work group with the Environmental Council of the States to
develop principles and best practices for State and EPA
collaboration on a number of issues, such as inspections and
enforcement. The working group issued their final report in
August 2018. I've heard that these initiatives are working, and
that States are beginning to feel like they have a seat at the
table.
The EPA also works with other Federal agencies when
enforcing some of the environmental laws, and that's one of the
reasons I'm glad we have the Honorable Ron Tenpas on the second
panel. Mr. Tenpas previously served as an Assistant Attorney
General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of
the U.S. Department of Justice, and it will be helpful to hear
how the Environment and Natural Resources Division at DOJ works
with EPA to ensure robust enforcement of our Nation's
environmental laws.
I think we can all agree that the desired outcome of any
compliance program is to prevent pollution and protect our
environment for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
I'm looking forward to hearing more about how the EPA is
working to accomplish these goals. Considering the ebbs and
flows of enforcement fines and penalties within an
administration, let alone between administrations, I hope we
don't get ahead of ourselves today and imply that 1 year of
slightly lower enforcement accomplishments signals that the EPA
is not doing its job of ensuring compliance with our Nation's
environmental laws.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. The Chair will now recognize the
chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today the committee
begins critical oversight of the Trump EPA's enforcement
program, something that the previous Republican majority
ignored. Congress can pass all the legislation it wants to
protect against air pollution, contaminated drinking water, and
hazardous chemical risks but, ultimately, the EPA must
implement and enforce those laws.
It is, therefore, impossible to assess EPA's effectiveness
without looking at whether the Agency is enforcing the Federal
environmental statutes that are already on the books and there
is no doubt that the Trump EPA's enforcement records is
abysmal, the worst in decades.
Over the past few weeks, news reports suggest that EPA is
simply not maintaining the type of vigorous enforcement that is
needed to protect our environment and communities from the
worst polluters. For example, a report in the Christian Science
Monitor found that the number of inspections conducted by the
Agency in 2018 were the lowest since records began in 1994. It
also reported that the number of civil cases initiated by the
EPA was the lowest since 1982 and the number of judicial
referral cases for 2018 was 110. That is less than half the
average annual number of 239. There is no way to sugar-coat
these numbers.
It appears that the Trump EPA is relying on industry to
voluntarily come forward and disclose when they are not in
compliance. Nobody here can really believe that the worst
offenders of environmental laws would voluntarily come forward
to disclose their violations. EPA must have a robust
enforcement presence. The Agency needs to actively conduct
investigations to determine whether violations are occurring.
It needs to inspect facilities, start cases, and where
appropriate, refer cases to the Department of Justice. And the
EPA needs to issue penalties that not only make polluters pay
when they break the law, but also force polluters to come into
compliance so that they are no longer in violation.
And it takes a lot of people to do all of this difficult
and resource-intensive work but, unfortunately, the number of
staff in the Enforcement Office has continued to drop over the
years. This is not surprising, considering President Trump
promised to reduce the Agency on the campaign trail to, I
quote, ``little tidbits'' and then attempted to fulfill that
threat by proposing a nearly 23 percent budget cut last year.
Now Congress did not let President Trump's draconian
proposal take effect, but industry heard loud and clear that
this President was not prioritizing EPA's work. The Trump EPA
was taking the cop off the beat.
This extreme budget proposal was essentially a message from
the Trump administration to EPA employees that they should
scale back their work, but without these employees, the EPA
simply cannot do its job to make sure our communities are
protected from illegal pollution.
So I just want to send a message to the dedicated career
staff at EPA who are watching today and say a very public thank
you. Thank you for continuing to protect human health and the
environment through the hard work you do each and every day. It
is not an easy task with an administration that simply does not
share your mission.
So let there be no doubt that this committee will continue
to hold the Trump administration accountable.
And let me say, Madam Chair, in closing, you know we talk a
lot in this place about the Constitution and the separation of
powers. Congress enacts the laws and provides the funding. The
Executive is supposed to enforce the law. That is the
separation of powers. It is--you know, you learned this in
civics. And I just wish that the Trump administration would
follow the Constitution. Don't try to enact the laws and decide
where the money goes. Do your job. Enforce the law. That is
what the Executive Branch is supposed to do. Somehow the Trump
administration is simply turning that and the Constitution on
its head. And it is very unfortunate, but I appreciate the
fact, Madam Chair, that we are going to get to the bottom of
this enforcement issue and point out the lack of enforcement of
this administration.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today, the committee begins critical oversight of the Trump
EPA's enforcement program, something that the previous
Republican Majority ignored.
Congress can pass all of the legislation it wants to
protect against air pollution, contaminated drinking water, and
hazardous chemical risks, but ultimately, the EPA must
implement and enforce those laws.
It is, therefore, impossible to assess EPA's effectiveness
without looking at whether the Agency is enforcing the Federal
environmental statutes that are already on the books. And there
is no doubt that the Trump EPA's enforcement record is
abysmal--the worst in decades.
Over the past few weeks, news reports suggest that EPA is
simply not maintaining the type of vigorous enforcement that is
needed to protect our environment and communities from the
worst polluters.
For example, a report in the Christian Science Monitor
found that the number of inspections conducted by the Agency in
2018 were the lowest since records began in 1994. It also
reported that the number of civil cases initiated by the EPA
was the lowest since 1982. And the number of judicial referral
cases for 2018 was 110--that's less than half the average
annual number of 239. There is no way to sugar coat these
numbers.
It appears that the Trump EPA is relying on industry to
voluntary come forward and disclose when they are not in
compliance. Nobody here can really believe that the worst
offenders of environmental laws would voluntarily come forward
to disclose their violations. EPA must have a robust
enforcement presence. The Agency needs to actively conduct
investigations to determine whether violations are occurring.
It needs to inspect facilities, start cases and, where
appropriate, refer cases to the Department of Justice. And the
EPA needs to issue penalties that not only make polluters pay
when they break the law, but also force polluters to come into
compliance so that they are no longer in violation.
It takes a lot of people to do all of this difficult and
resource-intensive work, but unfortunately the number of staff
in the enforcement office has continued to drop over the years.
This is not surprising considering President Trump promised
to reduce the Agency on the campaign trail to, ``little
tidbits,'' and then attempted to fulfill that threat by
proposing a nearly 25 percent budget cut last year.
Although Congress did not let President Trump's draconian
proposal take effect, industry heard loud and clear that this
President was not prioritizing EPA's work. The Trump EPA was
taking the cop off the beat.
This extreme budget proposal was essentially a message from
the Trump administration to EPA employees that they should
scale back their work.
But without these employees, the EPA simply cannot do its
job to make sure our communities are protected from illegal
pollution.
In closing, I'd like to send a message to the dedicated
career staff at EPA who are watching today and say a very
public thank you. Thank you for continuing to protect human
health and the environment through the hard work you do each
and every day. It is not an easy task with an administration
that simply does not share your mission.
Let there be no doubt that, this committee will continue to
hold the Trump administration accountable.
Thank you, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of
the full committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes for purposes of
an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Well good morning, Chair DeGette, and thanks
for holding this important hearing today.
One of the core missions of the EPA is one that I think we
all agree with, for Americans to have clean air, clean land,
and clean water. The EPA works toward this worthy goal through
a variety of means, including partnerships with State and local
governments, grants, the States, nonprofits, educational
groups, and others developing and enforcing regulations,
studying environmental issues, teaching people, particularly
students, about the environment, and through enforcement and
compliance.
The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
recently released its fiscal year 2018 EPA enforcement and
compliance annual results and concerns have been raised
regarding a decline in the 2018 numbers. Well no one is
disputing that some of the numbers from 2018 are lower than in
past years. Compliance is hard to measure. And you can't simply
measure compliance by the number of enforcement actions and the
total amounts of fines generated by the EPA each year. You have
to have a longer term look. Therefore, I would like to put some
of these concerns into context.
First, there has been a steady decline in the number of
Federal inspections and evaluations conducted by the EPA since
2012 and there has been a steady decline in the number of civil
enforcement initiations and conclusions for the past decade. A
decline in these figures is not unique to this administration.
In addition, the EPA's fiscal year 2018 results show the
EPA's voluntary disclosure program continues to see an increase
in the number of facilities that voluntarily disclose
violations. Fiscal year 2018 saw a 47 percent increase in
facilities self-disclosing violations over 2017, with 532
entities at over 1500 facilities voluntarily disclose
violations pursuant to EPA's self-disclosure policies. The
dramatic increase in self-reports is a good thing,
demonstrating that business owners are trying to comply with
the complex laws and regulations enforced by the EPA.
While there is a downward trend with some of these figures
over the course of multiple administrations, some figures
fluctuate drastically year to year. For example, the combined
civil, judicial, and administrative penalties figure has
fluctuated between $69 million and $252 million over the past 3
decades, not accounting for big spikes in years that contained
big cases such as Volkswagen and BP.
While we are only midway through the fiscal year 2019, we
already know the number for this year will be high. The EPA has
already hit $262 million in combined civil, judicial, and
administrative penalties in this fiscal year, Madam Chair. This
is due in part to the resolution of the Fiat Chrysler case,
which was settled just last month for more than $200 million,
including the civil penalties, recall, and mitigation programs.
In addition, the average length of time it takes between
when a case is initially brought to the EPA and when it is
settled can be 2 to 3 years, sometimes more. Solely focusing on
a 2-year window to assess overall enforcement and compliance
trends simply doesn't make sense.
And finally, I think it is critical to today's conversation
to note the importance of EPA's partnership and cooperation
with the States and regions when it comes to enforcement. Now
while EPA plays a critical role in the process, the majority of
inspections and investigations, as well as the day to day work,
are conducted at the State level. Under the theory of
cooperative federalism, the States are the ones monitoring most
of the enforcement, with the EPA stepping in if there is a
failure at the State level or if there is a big and complex
case that requires additional resources or expertise.
There appears to be a lot of pressure for the EPA to step
in and handle cases that aren't necessarily Federal cases but,
as a society, we don't typically do that with other issues. For
example, the local or State authorities would handle most drug-
related offenses and a Federal entity, such as the FBI, would
only step in if the case was a larger complex case or one that
crossed State lines. So why should environmental enforcement
compliance be in any different?
So in that vein, I am encouraged by the work that has been
done by the Environmental Council of States and their
cooperative federalism initiative to improve the working
relationship between State environmental agencies and the EPA,
including the Compliance Assurance Workgroup that has
established--been established to find ways to improve the
Federal-State relationship in the context of compliance
assurance.
So I think these are important partnerships that should be
embraced and improved to ensure that we are working on
environmental enforcement and compliance at all levels of
government, Madam Chair, to work towards a common goal, a
cleaner environment.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and I
look forward to the conversation and hope we can have a
holistic way to ensure and measure compliance.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you, Chair DeGette, for holding this important
hearing today.
One of the core missions of the EPA is one that I think we
all agree with--for Americans to have clean air, clean land,
and clean water. The EPA works toward this worthy goal through
a variety of means, including partnerships with State and local
governments, grants to States, nonprofits, educational groups,
and others, developing and enforcing regulations, studying
environmental issues, teaching people-particularly students-
about the environment, and through enforcement and compliance.
The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) recently released its Fiscal Year 2018 EPA Enforcement
and Compliance Annual Results and concerns have been raised
regarding a decline in the 2018 numbers. While no one is
disputing that some of the numbers from FY 2018 are lower than
in years past, compliance is hard to measure, and you can't
simply measure compliance by the number of enforcement actions
and the total amount of fines generated by the EPA each year.
Therefore, I'd like to put some of these concerns into context.
First, there has been a steady decline in the number of
Federal inspections and evaluations conducted by the EPA since
2012 and there has been a steady decline in the number of civil
enforcement initiations and conclusions for the past decade--
the decline in these figures is not unique to this
administration.
In addition, the EPA's FY 2018 results show that EPA's
Voluntary Disclosure Program continues to see an increase in
the number of facilities that voluntarily disclosed violations.
FY 2018 saw a 47 percent increase in facilities self-disclosing
violations over 2017, with 532 entities at over 1,500
facilities voluntarily disclosed violations pursuant to EPA's
self-disclosure policies. The dramatic increase in these self-
reports is a good thing, demonstrating that business owners are
trying to comply with the complex laws and regulations enforced
by the EPA.
While there is a downward trend with some of these figures
over the course of multiple administrations, some figures
fluctuate drastically year to year. For example, the combined
civil judicial and administrative penalties figure has
fluctuated between$69 million and $252 million over the past
three decades, not accounting for big spikes in years that
contained big cases such as Volkswagen, and BP.
While we are only midway through fiscal year 2019, we
already know that the numbers for this year will be high-EPA
has already hit $262 million in combined civil judicial and
administrative penalties this fiscal year. This is due in part
to the resolution of the Fiat Chrysler case, which was settled
just last month for more than $200 million, including the civil
penalties, recall, and mitigation programs.
In addition, the average length of time it takes between
when a case is initially brought to EPA and when it is settled
can be 2 to 3 years, sometimes more. Solely focusing on a 2-
year window to assess overall enforcement and compliance trends
simply doesn't make sense.
Finally, I think it's critical to today's conversation to
note the importance of EPA's partnership and cooperation with
the States and regions when it comes to enforcement. While EPA
plays a critical role in the process, the majority of
inspections and investigations, as well as the day-to-day work,
are conducted at the State level. Under the theory of
cooperative federalism, the States are the ones monitoring most
of the enforcement, with the EPA stepping in if there is a
failure at the State level or if there is a big and complex
case that requires additional resources or expertise.
There appears to be a lot of pressure for the EPA to step
in and handle cases that aren't necessarily Federal cases, but
as a society we don't typically do that with other issues. For
example, the local or State authorities would handle most drug
related offenses, and a Federal entity, such as the FBI, would
only step in if the case was a larger complex case or one that
crossed State lines--so why should environmental enforcement
and compliance be any different?
In that vein, I'm encouraged by work that has been done by
the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and their
Cooperative Federalism initiative to improve the working
relationship between State environmental agencies and the EPA,
including a Compliance Assurance Workgroup that was established
to find ways to improve the State-Federal relationship in the
context of compliance assurance. I think these are important
partnerships that should be embraced and improved to ensure
that we are working on environmental enforcement and compliance
at all levels of government to work towards a common goal--a
cleaner environment.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I look
forward to today's conversation and hope that we can look at
holistic ways to ensure and measure compliance, and I yield
back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Walden.
I ask unanimous consent that the Members' written opening
statements be made part of the record. Without objection, they
will be entered into the record.
I ask unanimous consent that Energy and Commerce members
not on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations be
permitted to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would now like to introduce our first panel witness for
today's hearing. Our witness is Ms. Susan Bodine, who is the
Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Welcome, Ms. Bodine, and thank you for appearing in front
of our committee. You are aware, I know, that the committee is
holding an investigative hearing and when doing so has had the
practice of taking testimony under oath. Do you have any
objections to testifying under oath?
Ms. Bodine. I have no objection to that, and I am also
aware that whether or not you are under oath, it is a crime to
lie to Congress under Title 18.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And let the record reflect the witness has responded no.
The Chair also advises you that, under the rules of the
House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be
accompanied by counsel. Do you desire to be accompanied by
counsel during your testimony today?
Ms. Bodine. No.
Ms. DeGette. OK, let the record reflect that the witness
has responded no.
If you would, then, please rise and raise your right hand
so you may be sworn in.
[Witness sworn.]
Ms. DeGette. And as you stated, Ms. Bodine, you are subject
to the penalty set forth in Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S.
Code.
And with that now, the Chair will recognize Ms. Bodine for
a 5-minute summary of their written statement. And in front of
you--you can see it--there is a microphone and a series of
lights. The light turns yellow when you have a minute left, and
it turns red to indicate your time has come to an end. And with
that, you are recognized. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Guthrie,
and members of the subcommittee. I am Susan Bodine. I am the
Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance.
Now, you have my written testimony that gives an overview
of our enforcement approach, our ongoing work to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of our enforcement and compliance
assurance work, and the examples of the good work that EPA's
enforcement staff that I am very proud to share with you. So I
want to use my time as an opportunity to begin a dialogue about
EPA's enforcement program.
Now, some are judging our work based on a narrow set of
parameters and then drawing the conclusion that EPA is somehow
soft on environmental violators, that EPA doesn't care about
compliance with the law and I am here to tell you that that is
absolutely not true. This narrative, which appeared in the
press, since the beginning of this administration, discredits
the tremendous work of EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance staff. It makes their job more difficult. If a
company doubts our resolve, it will take longer to reach a
settlement and it could mean that we have to spend the time and
the resources to litigate our claims.
I was confirmed as the Assistant Administrator in December
of 2017. Beginning in March and throughout the spring of 2018,
my headquarters staff and I held video teleconferences with the
enforcement staff of each of the regions, and I followed those
up with regional visits to each of the ten regions over the
summer, and then we did another round of VTCs in the fall. Now
these interactions are critical because about 1800 of the OECA
FTE, the staff, are in the regions and that is where most of
the enforcement and compliance assurance work takes place.
My message to the staff has been consistent on the VTCs, at
all-hands meetings in the regions, and in email messages. And I
want to read to you an excerpt from a message that I sent to
all of the EPA enforcement staff in June of 2018. We are
committed to the protection of human health in the environment
by vigorously enforcing the law. There should be no slowdown in
our efforts to correct noncompliance. You have my support and
my thanks for those efforts. Our goal is to ensure compliance
using all of our enforcement and compliance tools, including
formal administrative and judicial enforcement, as well as more
informal tools, where appropriate. We will not hesitate to
deter serious noncompliance using tools up to and include
criminal enforcement. We are working to more timely get a
return to compliance and cooperative federalism means that we
cooperate with States and we discuss how our combined resources
can best address noncompliance. It does not mean that EPA stays
out of authorized States.
Again, I sent that message to all the staff in June. You
can see that I'm pushing back on this myth--these myths about
our enforcement program. A strong enforcement program does not
mean that we have to collect a particular dollar amount of
penalties or take a particular number of formal actions.
When I had my confirmation hearing, Senator Inhofe asked me
if I was going to impose a quota on enforcement actions and I
assured him that I believe that enforcement is a critical tool
but it's not an end to itself. I don't support enforcement
quotas. I do support making sure that the OECA, the enforcement
staff, are getting credit for their work whether or not they
take a formal enforcement action, as long we're achieving
compliance with the law.
Also at my confirmation hearing, Senator Whitehouse asked
me if I would continue to report the categories of annual
enforcement results that had been reported by the prior
administration and I assured him that I would. However, I want
everyone to understand that these measures do not adequately
represent the progress and the results that we are achieving in
EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program.
For example, one of the cases that is cited in my written
testimony, Harcros, in that case we addressed compliance with
chemical safety regulations at 28 facilities in 18 States. That
case counts in our end-of-year results as one case.
The staff are spending a lot of time building State
capacity as well, for example, with joint inspections. And if
we take a joint inspection in an offer as partnering with the
State, it may be that we find violations and the State takes
the formal enforcement action and not EPA. We call those State
assists but we're getting compliance.
We're also developing new measure to capture those efforts
because I want the staff to get credit for all the work they
are doing.
And I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but the staff--I have to say
this. The staff is not sitting on its hands. They are working
very hard.
And so I'm sorry, I'm going to go a tiny bit over. My
approach isn't identical to my predecessor's. I believe we
should focus our enforcement efforts on solving environmental
problems but not targeting specific industries, but I want to
assure you that our enforcement and compliance assurance
program continues to play a critical role in protecting human
health and the environment.
And I'm happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bodine follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. It is now time for Members to ask
questions. And the Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bodine, thank you for your testimony. And I appreciate
that you sent a memo to your staff saying that we are going to
robustly enforce the laws, but I want to ask you about some of
these statistics, and most of them are about statistics.
And I know the EPA staff are working hard.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. But I also know that their numbers have been
depleted, and I think we have got some questions about that
today.
But and I also know that you are upset about some of this
press but the press that I am looking at is talking about some
of the numbers of the EPA and that is what I want to talk to
you about this morning.
Now injunctive relief represents the estimated cost of
actions taken by a defendant to come into compliance with the
law so they are no longer in violation. Is that generally
correct?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. Now the EPA recently announced that in fiscal
year 2018, adjusted for inflation, the estimated dollar value
of the injunctive relief was $3.95 billion. Is that correct?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, I believe that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, I looked at a report that was done by
the Christian Science Monitor, I mentioned this in my opening
statement, which says that the average annual cost of
injunctive relief is $7.74 billion and the EPA's fiscal year
2018 figure was the lowest it had been in 15 years. Are you
aware of this report, Ms. Bodine?
Ms. Bodine. I read the Christian Science Monitor----
Ms. DeGette. OK, so you are aware of it.
Ms. Bodine. I read the article.
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Ms. Bodine. But the--may I?
Ms. DeGette. Well, OK, so you know the report.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Now, I also understand the inspections, which
are key to EPA's enforcement efforts, are the lowest they have
been in a decade. Is that correct?
Ms. Bodine. I believe so, yes.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, OK, the inspections are the lowest.
So moving on, another measurement of enforcement activity
is civil penalties, which are monetary assessments paid by a
regulated entity because of a violation. Is that generally a
good description of the monetary penalties?
Ms. Bodine. I wouldn't say that it was a good measure of
enforcement results and I believe they go up and down.
Ms. DeGette. OK but here is what I asked you: Monetary
assessments are paid by a regulated entity because of a
violation.
Ms. Bodine. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
annual results for fiscal year 2018 indicate that the EPA
obtained $69.47 million in administrative and civil judicial
penalties. Is that correct?
Ms. Bodine. I believe that is right.
Ms. DeGette. And according to a February 8th Washington
Post report, the $69 million in civil penalties represents the
lowest in nearly a quarter-century. Is that factually accurate?
Ms. Bodine. I believe that it is.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now in your testimony, you say the State
of California and the EPA secured a civil--and I think Mr.
Walden mentioned this, too, secured a civil penalty of $305
million for Clean Air Act violations against Fiat Chrysler. Is
that right?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Now that case was initiated during the Obama
administration. Is that correct?
Ms. Bodine. There was a notice of violation, I believe it
was, in January of 2017.
Ms. DeGette. But it was initiated under the Obama
administration.
Ms. Bodine. So a notice of violation is not formal
enforcement action.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, so I didn't ask you about a formal
enforcement action.
Ms. Bodine. Well----
Ms. DeGette. The investigation was initiated during the
Obama administration.
Ms. Bodine. The investigation was, yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Now, while I appreciate the EPA has brought the important
case to a resolution, I continue to be worried that the 2019
numbers will reflect--I wonder if they will reflect civil
penalties against a large variety of polluters, in other words,
that we won't just have one penalty in this year.
So let me ask you the Christian Science Monitor reports
that for fiscal year 2018 the number of civil cases initiated
by the Agency was the lowest since 1982. Is that correct?
Ms. Bodine. I have no reason to believe it isn't. So I am
not going----
Ms. DeGette. OK. And also, the number of cases referred to
the Department of Justice were the lowest since 1976. Is that
correct?
Ms. Bodine. I don't have that number.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now do you have any reason to doubt that
number or do you just not know it?
Ms. Bodine. I would have to--I could respond for the
record. I would----
Ms. DeGette. That would be great.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. So it is just that you don't know the number.
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now last year, the Trump administration
proposed cutting the EPA's budget by almost 25 percent.
Congress didn't go along with that but I wondered about--
wondering about what message this sends to the employees.
Is it true that your office has lost nearly 17 percent of
its workforce?
Ms. Bodine. No, that is not true.
Ms. DeGette. It is not? What is the status of the workforce
at this point?
Ms. Bodine. So I am talking about the headquarters staff,
the OECA staff, our ceiling is in 2018 and hopefully in 2019 as
well is 649. We currently have 607 people onboard. I think
about nine or more are coming onboard in March.
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Ms. Bodine. I have authorized hiring to bring it up to the
ceiling.
Ms. DeGette. OK. I am sure some others will follow-up. And
my time has expired but I really want to thank you for
answering my questions.
Ms. Bodine. Sure.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the recognition.
Thank you for being here, Ms. Bodine.
Each year, OECA reports 12 different metrics to provide a
high level of overview of the Agency's enforcement and
compliance results for that year, including estimated
environmental benefits, criminal and civil enforcement
accomplishments, and Superfund accomplishments. In your
opinion, can we look at just one of these metrics to determine
the strength of EPA's enforcement and compliance program for
any given year?
Ms. Bodine. No. These results, which I certainly assured
Senator Whitehouse I would continue to report, do not
accurately reflect the great work that the staff is doing.
Mr. Guthrie. So what are some of the limitations of the
metrics that EPA reports on each year to demonstrate EPA's
enforcement and compliance annual results? What are the
shortcomings of the----
Ms. Bodine. So what we report in our formal database are
only formal actions and so it doesn't reflect the work that we
have done cooperating with States. For example, when we go out
and we do joint inspections, and we do that often because we
are trying to help build State capacity, it doesn't reflect
some of the work that we have done even in sophisticated States
and cities.
For example, in Pittsburgh, we did the assessment of the
drinking water program. We are collaborating right now with the
State of New Jersey looking at I think it is Newark and their
pipes, their lead pipes. We do a lot of work that is not
captured in these formal annual results.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. So turning to combined civil, judicial,
and administrative penalties figure, last year's number came in
at $69 million, according to the fiscal year 2018 results. What
is the current number for fiscal year 2019, understanding that
we are only midway through the year?
Ms. Bodine. I know you quoted it, or maybe Ranking Member
Walden quoted it. I don't have the exact number. I do know that
our Fiat Chrysler case, which we lodged, it has not even
entered. We had, you know, with California over $305 million.
We have been collecting other penalties but, yes, that number
is going to be much higher in 2019.
And may I also say that if you look at it, again, as
trends, out of the past 11 years, 8 of the past 11 years the
annual penalties were less than $250 million in 8 of the 11
years. So you can't look at averages when you are looking at--
and suggest that that represents a trend.
We did have 3 years of penalties over a billion and so,
again, that makes the averages completely invalid from a
statistical standpoint.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. So if you look at the over $300 million
that you quoted, that is including California's enforcement is
what you were saying there?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie. So we already know that this year will be at
least the fourth highest year for combined civil, judicial, and
administrative penalties dating back to 1989.
So in addition to formal enforcement actions, EPA engages
in, you mentioned, other activities to promote compliance, such
as State assists.
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Mr. Guthrie. Can you describe some of the activities that
EPA does to promote compliance with the environmental laws
regulations that are not accounted for in these annual metrics?
Ms. Bodine. Sure. So one of the things that we are trying
to do is encourage companies to get back into compliance
quickly. So we revised our inspector guidance so that the
inspectors would actually point out to the facilities what the
problems were so they could fix them right away. We are also
trying to--we have also told the staff that they need to get
the inspection reports back to the facilities so they can fix
their noncompliance and try and do that within 70 days. We are
continuing to have our compliance assurance centers up and
running.
And we also have electronic tools that can help. For
example, we have in the Clean Water Act area for the permit
holders, they have to report electronically. And we can set up
our electronic system, and we have, to automatically give them
a notice if they have failed to submit a report and we are also
developing a new tool where they can automatically get a notice
if their discharge is above the permitted level.
So we are building all these tools in to try and get
compliance back more effectively, more efficiently, and more
quickly.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. The fiscal year 2018
enforcement and compliance results recently released by EPA
show that the number of environmental crime cases opened and
the number of civil enforcement cases initiations have been
gradually declining over the past 10 years. Can you explain why
there has been a gradual decline in the number of civil and
criminal cases opened each year?
Ms. Bodine. So I don't have a good explanation for that. I
do know that we opened--that there had been a decline in the
new cases that we opened on the criminal side over 11 years and
that we are now increasing. They are now increasing that again,
which is wonderful.
Mr. Guthrie. Is it just better compliance by people in the
industries?
Ms. Bodine. It is very hard to measure compliance. And so
we don't have a good measure of compliance.
But it is true that we are doing a much better job in
targeting noncompliance so that goes to the inspection issue.
So we don't need to take a lot of inspections to find--we can
figure out where to expect noncompliance and target
accordingly.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. My time has expired. I
appreciate your answers.
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the full committee
chairman, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I wanted to
follow-up on kind of where you left off.
Ms. Bodine, on the campaign trail, President Trump said he
wanted to dramatically cut the EPA and leave only, I quote,
``little tidbits'' left. Last year, the Trump administration's
budget proposal seemed to try to make good on that threat by
proposing a nearly 25 percent cut to the Agency. Now of course,
Congress didn't go along with that, but that is what he
threatened or that is what he suggested.
And then in September, we had a Washington Post story that
noted that, during the first 18 months of the Trump
administration, nearly 1,600 workers left the EPA, while only
400 were hired. And of course just a few weeks ago, your staff
informed our committee that your office has lost in excess of
130 enforcement staff since January of 2017.
Now, I know you have said that you authorized to bring it
back but how are you going to go about that? I mean do you
intend to replace the roughly 130 staff? And you know what is
your timetable? How are you going to do that?
I guess I am kind of wondering if it is really going to
happen. So tell us how it is going to happen and when.
Ms. Bodine. So I can only hire up to the FTE ceiling that
Congress has provided. And that, again, I believe we have the
2018 bill where we had a ceiling of the 649 I believe----
Mr. Pallone. Well, let me just interrupt you because of
lack of time.
I know you have said you intend to do this. What I would
like to know is what the timetable is to actually accomplish
the goal of reaching this authorized amount.
Ms. Bodine. So our personnel processes are working as
quickly as possible. When I say I authorized, that means the
human resources process is underway. That is what that means.
Mr. Pallone. And how long is it going to take? What is your
timetable?
Ms. Bodine. Can I get back to you on that? Because we are
trying. As an Agency, we are trying to speed up that timetable,
and so let me--may I get back to you on that for the record
about what our----
Mr. Pallone. Yes, but give me like a timetable when this is
going to happen.
Ms. Bodine. Well, the one I am most familiar with is
actually bringing on the criminal investigators, which takes a
very long time because of background checks.
Mr. Pallone. With the Chair's permission, you can provide
this in writing.
Ms. Bodine. OK.
Mr. Pallone. We would like some details.
Ms. Bodine. OK.
Mr. Pallone. Now I also wanted to talk about the EPA's
regional enforcement workforce because, of course, you have ten
regional offices across the country and you know a substantial
amount of the enforcement work occurs at that regional level.
How many regional enforcement staff have left the Agency since
January of 2017 and how many have been hired?
Ms. Bodine. I don't have that number. I would have to
provide it for the record.
Mr. Pallone. All right.
Ms. Bodine. I do know the regions are hiring in the
enforcement space as well.
Mr. Pallone. Well this is just as important, right?
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Mr. Pallone. If you could get back to us----
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Pallone [continuing]. I guess with the permission of
the Chair and tell us how many you have lost, how many you have
hired, and if you intend to make up that difference by
replacing them, you know, what the timetable is for that as
well.
Ms. Bodine. Within the congressionally authorized FTE
ceiling.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Now, the other thing I wanted to ask you
is I made a statement during my opening. I said that it appears
that the Trump EPA is relying on industry to voluntarily come
forward and disclose when they are not in compliance. What is
your response to that? Would you agree that you do have an
effort to have them voluntarily come forward and how do you go
about that?
Ms. Bodine. So EPA's had a self-audit policy in place since
2000. In 2008, we expanded that with a new owner audit policy
and we are now develop--we have developed another oil and gas
new owner policy that is more tailored to that industry. It was
based on a 2016 matter that was done in the previous
administration with a new owner of oil and gas business.
Mr. Pallone. Why should I believe that the worst offenders
would voluntarily come forward? How is that? I mean you know
human nature is such that bad actors don't voluntarily say they
are bad. So how is that going to work? How does that work?
Ms. Bodine. So I would not suggest that the audit policy is
appropriate for the worst offenders. And I would also
completely agree that you can't rely on self-disclosure alone,
that you need an enforcement program to create the incentive.
Mr. Pallone. But how is this of any value? I mean you are
sort of saying it has been in place for years. Does it work? Do
people voluntarily come forward?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, the entities voluntarily come forward,
self-disclose, and then certify that they have returned to
compliance.
Mr. Pallone. What is their incentive to do that?
Ms. Bodine. Well, may I give you an example?
Mr. Pallone. Sure.
Ms. Bodine. So we absolutely do need to still keep
inspecting and keep enforcement to create the very incentive.
And if you voluntarily disclose and you don't come in to
compliance or you don't have full compliance, then there is no
shield to enforcement.
We had a situation where a company they self-disclosed
under a State audit program. They didn't catch all their
violations. And we came in after and did an administrative
enforcement action for the violations they did not self-
disclose. There was no shield from that State self-disclosure.
I mean they didn't know they were out of compliance but it
didn't matter. We came back for the ones they did not self-
disclose. But we came in, followed on, and did take an
enforcement action for the actions that they didn't disclose.
Mr. Pallone. I don't see how that is helpful but whatever.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the
full committee, Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And to our
witness, thank you for being here today and the work you and
your team do around the country day in and day out to protect
American consumers.
Just for the record, I know in my testimony I said in
fiscal year 2018 we saw a 47 percent increase in facility self-
disclosing violations over 2017----
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. 532 entities at 1,500 facilities.
So to follow-up on what Mr. Pallone said, from your
perspective, why do companies come forward?
Ms. Bodine. They come forward because if they self-disclose
before we find it, so we haven't done the inspection, we
haven't taken an action----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Bodine [continuing]. Then they will get relief on
penalties.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Ms. Bodine. So we won't----
Mr. Walden. So it is a carrot-and-stick approach.
Ms. Bodine. Absolutely.
Mr. Walden. And then if you do come in and find things they
haven't disclosed, you have still got the stick----
Ms. Bodine. Absolutely.
Mr. Walden [continuing]. And you are using it.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Walden. Is that accurate?
Ms. Bodine. That is accurate.
Mr. Walden. OK, well that makes sense. And I know it seems
to me, I may be off, but I think in the workforce or workplace
safety, too, like OSHA rules, in Oregon we had something
similar to that, where you could kind of disclose. Bring them
in, they would do a review, and then you could comply and kind
of not be in penalty because most employers want to do the
right thing.
Ms. Bodine. Yes, I will have to take your word for that.
Mr. Walden. Yes. No, I understand. And there are some that
don't and those are the ones we want you to go after.
I think we can all agree the ultimate goal is to safeguard
human health and protect the environment and compliance of
EPA's environmental laws is necessary to achieve that.
So what is OECA doing under your leadership to meet these
goals and what changes, if any, have you made to EPA's
enforcement or compliance priorities in order to do this?
Ms. Bodine. Thank you for that question.
So we are looking at our priorities because, as everyone I
think here recognizes, the vast majority of the enforcement and
inspections happen in the States. And we have very highly
skilled staff and we have very good technical resources. So we
want to be able to target our resources where we will have the
most impact.
So we have looked at what we call the National Compliance
Initiatives and looked at where should we be focusing our
resources. And right now, that is out for public comment. We
had a Federal Register notice asking for the public to comment
on where our priorities should be. And what that notice says is
that we want to make sure that we are focusing on problems, the
environmental problems. So whether it is trying to decrease the
number of water segments that don't meet water quality
standards, whether it is trying to decrease the number of
nonattainment areas in Clean Air Act, as well as trying to
focus on vulnerable populations around the country.
And so we have initiatives already. For example, for air
toxics, we have initiatives like glaring that gets at issues
like the EFCs. We are talking. We are asking the public and
States whether we should expand our initiatives to include a
lead--children's exposure to lead initiative and we are asking
about starting a drinking water initiative so we can work with
States.
And again, what we want to do is focus on these
environmental problems.
Mr. Walden. All right. And then I have certainly seen a
change in the last couple of years when it came to the
Superfund site cleanup, especially in the Portland Harbor
Superfund case.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Walden. It has been dragging on for years, and years,
and years. And this administration stepped in and said, ``Why
don't we get about moving forward and actually cleaning it
up''? And this is in Portland, not a known Trump red territory.
And they were ecstatic that this administration, this EPA was
ready to help clear out the regulatory hurdles, or whatever was
there that was unnecessary, and move forward.
Can you talk a little bit about how you help encourage
contaminated site redevelopment and some of these issues?
Ms. Bodine. Yes. On Portland, yes, I think everybody is in
agreement that that needs to move forward. We need to get that
cleanup moving.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Bodine. And on redevelopment, yes, we recognize that
contaminated properties blight a community and that there are
opportunities to bring back the community with redevelopment.
And so we are using our enforcement tools to help that and that
includes entering into agreements with what we call bona fide
prospective purchasers, people who aren't liable. So we can
give them comfort, we can give them protection, if they are
going to come in and do a redevelopment.
And we have had some great examples of that around the
country. There was one out in Region 5 where McLouth Steel,
they are coming in, it has been a blight on the community for
years. And they are going to come in and tear down buildings
that have been decrepit, again, to get rid of an eyesore and
allow for redevelopment.
So the shift is that we are willing to enter into these
agreements.
Mr. Walden. All right. I know this committee did great work
in the last Congress approving a modernization of the
Brownfields Law, bipartisan, I think it was unanimous out of
Energy and Commerce and signed by President Trump. And so we
want to be your partner in helping clean up these sites at all
levels.
Ms. Bodine. Yes, the BUILD Act. Thank you very much for
that.
Mr. Walden. Thank you and I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Welcome, Ms. Bodine.
I would like to better understand what EPA is doing to make
sure changes in the enforcement program do not
disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities
of color. History shows us time and time again that Federal
action and leadership are necessary to prevent environmental
injustice.
Ms. Bodine, would you agree that EPA needs to ensure
equitable treatment and impact for communities of color and
low-income communities when the Agency enforces Federal
environmental laws and policies?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Ruiz. Last year, EPA's own scientists released a report
in the American Journal of Public Health, April 2018,
confirming what many underserved, rural, and minority
communities already knew, that low-income and people of color
are disproportionately affected by air pollution. These
findings joined an extensive body of research, which have found
that both polluters and pollution are disproportionately
located in low-income and minority communities.
Would you agree that these findings make it all the more
important to the health and safety of these communities that
EPA effectively enforce against those polluters who break the
law and illegally pollute?
Ms. Bodine. So I absolutely agree with the statement. I
haven't read the article but I agree with the statement you
just made.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Ms. Bodine, on our second panel, we will hear from both Dr.
Nelson and Mr. Schaeffer, who both raise important issues about
the critical need for robust EPA enforcement in protecting
minority and poor-resource communities who are often
disproportionately close to polluting facilities. For those
communities that live in close proximity to industrial sites
that pose health risks, can you assure them that you will use
all of EPA's enforcement tools to protect them?
Ms. Bodine. We have made it a priority to address air
toxics, which--and in talking about our National Compliance
Initiatives, focusing on vulnerable populations.
We also have as one of our priorities compliance with
chemical safety regulations. And again, often you can have
chemicals being used in--near----
Mr. Ruiz. What do you define as vulnerable populations?
Ms. Bodine. So there are both low-income and minority
communities I believe with research----
Mr. Ruiz. Because of the environmental injustices.
Ms. Bodine [continuing]. And cumulative effects and
location.
Mr. Ruiz. OK. And due to resource, legal, or political
constraints, some States may lack the will or ability to
provide strong environmental protection.
So can you please explain to me what extra enforcement
measures EPA takes to ensure such communities are adequately
protected if a State is not up to the task?
Ms. Bodine. So in the guidance that we have set out to the
regions interacting with States, we have been very clear that
if it is an authorized program, we are going to look to the
States to take action but if the State doesn't have the
capability or the will to take action and we know there is a
violation, then we absolutely should be stepping in to make
sure we are getting compliance.
Mr. Ruiz. Oftentimes, communities that are resource-poor
that lack social capital do not have the capacity, the knowhow,
or wherewithal to file complaints and to seek the EPA's
assistance in mitigating or preventing some potential
environmental injustice. What does the EPA do to provide those
technical assistance to those low-income, rural, or minority
communities?
Ms. Bodine. So my program doesn't have technical assistance
grants. The Superfund program does but we don't have those kind
of community grants but----
Mr. Ruiz. So currently, there is no--so Superfunds do.
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Mr. Ruiz. If they want to apply for a Superfund----
Ms. Bodine. And there are environmental justice grants that
are run by the Environmental Justice Program. But so we don't
have enforcement grants to communities of the type that you are
describing.
Mr. Ruiz. So----
Ms. Bodine. But we do have our initiatives----
Mr. Ruiz. So oftentimes it is the communities that inform
you of those violations.
Ms. Bodine. Yes and we definitely pay very close attention.
We have a tips and complaint line and we follow-up.
Mr. Ruiz. So there should be probably some outreach to them
and capacity training.
It is a tragedy and true injustice that in America today
the quality of your air and water and the potential exposure to
hazardous and toxic substances is determined to a significant
extent by your income, your ZIP code, and your race. So EPA can
and should be doing more to protect disenfranchised
communities. Would you agree?
Ms. Bodine. I would agree. And I would agree that that is
why we should be focusing on environmental problems when we say
what should be our priorities, where should we direct the
Federal resources.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
West Virginia, Mr. McKinley.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Interesting tone to this discussion so far and it just--I
hope for the audience and those listening in that this is
obviously this is some of the first steps of the election
campaign of 2020.
I was interested in the metrics that were being used as a
measure of success of what your Agency has done, and it seems
to be if someone wants to say that you are successful if you
have more inspections and more fines. That seems to be the only
measure that in this room is being used to find out whether you
are successful, regardless of the outcome of what is happening.
And I was looking for some analogies, thinking some analogies
as I sat here listening to this line of rationale. And I think,
even though it is not yours under the EPA but under maybe OSHA,
is the number of coal mines that have been shut down all across
America. As a result of the fact that there aren't coal mines,
there aren't inspections. If we were to use that metric, it
would mean that maybe OSHA is not doing its job because they
are not doing as many inspections as they have done in previous
years, or there aren't fines. Well, there aren't coal mines.
And the same thing is appropriate for our coal-fired
generating plants. We have had some 300 coal-fired generating
plants shut down over the last 10 years. Therefore, you are
going to have fewer inspections. You are going to have fewer
fines as a result of that.
But that is what people seem to be, on the other side of
the aisle are saying that is the way we should be measuring
this is is how many fines and inspections. But at the same
time, we talk about voluntary compliance. And look what has
happened. We didn't sign the Kyoto treaty. We didn't do the
Paris Accord. We have withdrawn from that. But yet, their
emissions have dropped.
We looked at the SOx and NOx gases that you all were very
much active in pursuing through the EPA. The SOx gases have
dropped, since 1990, 92 percent; NOx gases, 84 percent down.
Just in the last 10 years, the CO2 emissions have dropped by
20-some percent. That is not--maybe it doesn't have as many
fines and inspections but the result is we are accomplishing a
cleaner environment doing it this way.
So having said all that and looking at compliance,
voluntary compliance and self-auditing, you mention in your
report, your written report, that you had talked about MarkWest
providing--they are using some innovative technology----
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. To reduce their methane
emissions and other volatile organic compounds. And they are
sharing that information with other people, other institutions
because we know methane is far worse than CO2 in what it does
to the atmosphere.
So can you elaborate a little bit about how we might
improve on that or the role that technology might play in this?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, some of what you are getting to,
Congressman, is kind of the force amplifier of some of our
settlements. And MarkWest is a great example because they have
gas pipelines. You have a pigging operation. They didn't know
that they had releases but they did and they developed new
technology. And as part of their settlement, they have made it
available to everyone in the industry with no license, cost
whatsoever. So not only do we get the reductions from that
company but also from other companies.
Another example, Amazon, they were selling unregistered
pesticides on their Web site in violation of FIFRA. And as part
of that settlement, they agreed to do training. They agreed to
do a lot of monitoring certification. And so not only is Amazon
in compliance but it is a supply chain issue. Everyone in their
supply chain would be in compliance.
So again, you can't capture that but it is a force
multiplier of some of the work we do.
Mr. McKinley. So let me just close in the 30-some seconds I
have left.
Do you think it is more effective to look at the outcome,
the results that we have had CO2 drop, SOx and NOx gases drop,
or do you think the measure should be what they are talking
about is the number of fines and the number of inspections?
Which is the more effective metric?
Ms. Bodine. Certainly the outcome.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
New Hampshire, Ms. Castor--Ms. Kuster for 5 minutes. We have
Castor and Kuster.
Ms. Kuster, 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much and thank you for being
with us.
I just want to take exception to my colleague, Mr.
McKinley, suggesting that this is politically motivated. The
health and wellbeing of my constituents is not politically
motivated and I think we can find common ground.
But in New Hampshire, we have been dealing with the Saint-
Gobain site in Litchfield that is in my district, which was
pollution by a PFAS, the per-and polyfluorinated compounds. And
fortunately, we have had a settlement but we had to spend
millions of dollars to connect $2.4 million, as well $900,000
in loans, and $600,000 in grants to connect these households to
safe drinking water because their wells were contaminated. It
is not political. The wells didn't distinguish between the Rs
and Ds. These are my constituents and I am trying to keep them
safe.
And my question for you, I have been disappointed by the
EPA's PFAS Action Plan that was published last week because it
doesn't seem to actually include much action. For instance,
while EPA officials said that they intend to move forward to
maximum containment levels for two PFAS chemicals, there was no
commitment in the plan to initiating this regulatory process.
And that means other communities are going to be left to rely
on health advisories that may or may not keep my colleagues'
constituents safe.
What can your office do to help communities that are being
poisoned by PFAS in the air, water, and soil? And I know you
are putting a great deal of reliance on voluntary disclosure
but what makes you think that companies are going to
voluntarily take on this responsibility, when in fact that was
not the case for us? They had to be caught in the act through
testing and through local community efforts before the company
came to the table to negotiate a settlement.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you. First on the PFAS action plan that
the Administrator announced, maybe it was a little over a week
ago, he very clearly makes a commitment to initiate the
regulatory process and establish----
Ms. Kuster. And what is the time line for that?
Ms. Bodine. That I don't know but I would have to take that
back because that is not my program.
Ms. Kuster. Because there is urgency to this. This PFAS is
showing up in water, groundwater all across this country.
Ms. Bodine. And can you tell me the name again of the site
that you are talking about? Because I am familiar with the Air
Force base but I am not----
Ms. Kuster. It is Litchfield, New Hampshire, Saint-
Gobain's.
Ms. Bodine. Oh, OK.
Ms. Kuster. They used to make Teflon and pans, and it has
gone into the water.
Ms. Bodine. OK.
Ms. Kuster. And we have hundreds of families. They were on
bottled water for a long period of time.
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Ms. Kuster. And now, to the expense of millions of dollars,
we have had to connect them to safe drinking water.
Ms. Bodine. So one of the things that actually my office is
involved in is developing a map, GIS map, where we would
identify on the map all of the locations where we might expect
PFAS contamination to be. Because remember when they did the
unregulated contaminant monitoring for PFAS, it ended in--that
was part of the 2015 round of monitoring, they found it above
the health advisory in 1.3 percent of the public water systems
and found it at any detection level in about 4 percent. But
that doesn't capture communities with under 10,000 hookups.
So we want the map so you can go and look has there been a
firefighting center there, is there an industry where they have
been using the PFAS. So again, for the very purpose that you
have talked about, which is targeting so people can go then and
do the testing.
Ms. Kuster. Well let me ask you, is there any enforceable
requirement to report a PFAS release? They know, the companies
that use this technology, use these chemicals know. I mean they
are well aware of the plume right under their facilities and
their sites. In the end, Saint-Gobain's did come to the table
and we were able to negotiate.
But why don't you rely on them? Why do you do this whole--
--
Ms. Bodine. So----
Ms. Kuster [continuing]. Mapping and not just have a
requirement, an enforceable requirement that the company has to
come forward?
Ms. Bodine. That is another action that is in the PFAS
action plan, which is to add PFO and PFAS--and again, this is
another office that would do this. It is a regulatory action--
but add it to the toxics release inventory, which then would
mandate the reporting of release.
Ms. Kuster. And what is the time line for that?
Ms. Bodine. Again, I would have to answer for the record
because it is not my office.
Ms. Kuster. Well I just want to put on the record the
urgency of families that are being exposed. And I want to thank
the Moms Clean Air Action for being with us today and for
families all across this country who care about their children
and the quality. These are families that are drinking the water
and it is not just Flint, Michigan. It is my district. It is
every district across this country. And I urge you to bring
some urgency to this.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
After reading through some of the testimony, I believe that
we may hear some claims this morning in our next panel about
the New Source Review Program. And I have been through this
with the committee before but there are lots of stories like
the ones out of my district where people are not pursuing
improvements because they are afraid of tripping over the New
Source Review Program and then having to spend a whole lot more
money, so they don't do anything. And that has caused a lot of,
I think, a lot of upgrades not to be done and some of which
would have improved the environment.
Now I know the Americans are paying more than necessary
because of this and others things to improve air quality due to
the overlapping air programs. About 13 programs overlap with
the NSR, New Source Review, and I have legislation to fix all
that but it is not likely to come up in the next couple of
years, even though I think it is great, common sense reforms
that will benefit the environment.
Ms. Bodine, would you like to speak to the NSR Program,
because you all are doing some things administratively similar
to what my bill would do, and tell us what you are doing on
that and how that relates to other programs that you all are
working on?
Ms. Bodine. So thank you, Congressman. The NSR Program is
run out of the Air Office. And so they would establish the
policies and the regulations. We obviously enforce.
But I do want to mention that for a number of years there
has been a National Compliance Initiative that deals with New
Source Review. Under that as a result and today, and I think
that has already been mentioned perhaps by Congressman McKinley
that sulfur dioxide is down 90 percent in the power sector.
Nitrogen oxide is down by 85 percent in the power sector since
1997. And so when we look at where we should be focusing and
where we have the opportunity to help communities and to help
noncompliance, we are looking at other areas.
And I would like to mention the fact that we are doing a
lot of work on mobile sources now, and obviously that was the
VW case, it was the Fiat Chrysler case but we also are dealing
with it in terms of defeat devices and the aftermarket and the
catalytic converters. I know that we got a letter from
Congressman Guthrie, Congressman McKinley, and two of your
colleagues about the catalytic converters and we are changing
our tampering policy. We expect to roll that out pretty
shortly.
And the estimate that I have been given is that the State
of California expects that by changing our policy and
encouraging better performing catalytic converters, we can get
rid of 85,000 tons per year of NOx nationwide, again, which is
going to help with ozone nonattainment. It is NOx. It could
help with the deposition of nitrogen.
Mr. Griffith. That wouldn't necessarily show up in these
stats that have been thrown around this morning because----
Ms. Bodine. It would not.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. You are dealing with sometimes
individuals who are doing things they are not supposed to be
doing as opposed to companies.
Ms. Bodine. Yes, you are right. Changing our tampering
policy will not show and to get these kinds of reductions will
not show up in our results.
Mr. Griffith. And you have been working with the States a
lot to make sure that they do because the States do a lot of
the enforcement. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, that is true.
Mr. Griffith. And isn't your goal to move this to the
States? Can you give us some idea of how you have been doing
things with the States and what inefficient duplications you
have seen with the State programs?
Ms. Bodine. So a couple of the Members here mentioned the
ECOS Working Group. So we did hear at the very beginning when--
--
Mr. Griffith. For the folks back home, that would be the
Environmental Council of States.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you. Thank you. I apologize for that.
Mr. Griffith. That is all right.
Ms. Bodine [continuing]. Who represent the State
commissioners and they were complaining that EPA would show up
in their State without even telling them, taking either
inspection or enforcement action without even telling them,
even at a facility that the State perhaps had just inspected.
And so what we have said to the regions is look, you need
to be working in partnership with States. You need to do work
planning together. Everyone has finite resources. You need to
divide up the universe. We absolutely need a compliance
assurance presence. We need inspections. But we should be
working collaboratively so that if the State is doing it, we
don't need to be doing it because that would be wasteful.
Mr. Griffith. Right.
Ms. Bodine. If the State needs to get training and capacity
building, then we should be going out with them and providing
that training.
Mr. Griffith. And you all are obviously monitoring what the
States are doing so that you can make sure that somebody is
covering it. Isn't that correct, yes or no? I am running out of
time. Yes or no?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. All right. And since you have been there,
have you all intervened in any States where they aren't doing
what they are supposed to do and haven't done the inspections
properly or something?
Ms. Bodine. So we have two examples where we--well, we have
leaned heavily on States to take action and they have. So yes,
we do have examples of that.
Mr. Griffith. All right.
Ms. Bodine. But then at the end of the day, the State
finally did take the action and we didn't have to. And all that
work doesn't show up in our results either.
Mr. Griffith. In your data, OK.
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bodine, I would like to spend the next few minutes
talking to you about EPA civil case initiation. Civil
enforcement at the EPA is a tool that you use to hold polluters
accountable for violating Federal environmental laws and to
deter future bad actors. Where EPA identifies a significant
violation and determines that Federal enforcement is
appropriate, the Agency may start an enforcement case. Is that
generally correct?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Ms. Castor. OK. Ms. Bodine, EPA's fiscal year 2018
enforcement and compliance numbers, according to your own
numbers, indicate that the civil case initiations last year
were at their lowest point in a decade, just over 1800.
To add to that, a watchdog group recently reported that
civil enforcement case initiations last year were lower than
any year going back to 1982. That would mean civil case
initiations may be at the lowest level in 36 years.
What is your explanation for that that we are at the--EPA
is at its lowest level of civil case initiations in 36 years?
Ms. Bodine. So Congresswoman Castor, as I had pointed out
earlier, that is a narrow slice of the work that we do. It is
Federal formal enforcement case initiations. And so it doesn't
capture the work that we are doing with States, where we may
develop a case and they may take it over. It doesn't capture
the facilities that are getting back into compliance after
self-disclosing.
So it is important and I would absolutely agree that we
need to maintain enforcement presence but I would not say that
the number of cases is reflective of that. And----
Ms. Castor. Now your predecessor did not agree. Cynthia
Giles, who preceded you as head of EPA's Enforcement Office,
was very recently quoted in a press report saying EPA is trying
to convince media and the public that EPA is still doing its
job on enforcement, despite all the reports showing that isn't
the case.
So I think it is fairly clear EPA is not doing the job that
it should. And so, taking your predecessor's point, as it
relates to case initiations, how can you claim that the EPA is
in fact going after polluters, given the decline? You said it
is a narrow piece but, wow, 36 years, a 10-year decline that
took a hit as the Trump administration came into the Executive
Branch. I am having a hard time seeing how you claim otherwise.
Ms. Bodine. So I am sorry that you feel that way. I know
that the staff are working very hard in developing cases, and
bringing cases, and that we are trying to target our resources
where we have----
Ms. Castor. Here is why it is important because lax
enforcement sends the wrong message to industry and polluters.
And I have a very hard time understanding how the public and
the regulated community are supposed to have confidence in EPA
when you are not enforcing America's bedrock environmental
laws, when they see that an Agency has initiated the lowest
amount of cases in what appears to be three decades.
And did I understand your answer? Did you testify in a
previous answer that we have a low--EPA is initiating a fewer
number of enforcement cases because there are fewer bad actors?
Ms. Bodine. I didn't say that.
Ms. Castor. OK.
Chairwoman DeGette, I am very concerned about this. They
are not going to be able to deter bad actors. These are
extraordinarily low numbers. It really appears to me that the
Trump administration and the EPA, which is supposed to be the
guardian of the public health, is elevating polluter profits
over the public health. This is at a time when they are also
rolling back critically important environmental and public
health protections.
What you do here by not enforcing the law is you further
compound the problem and it is an abdication of your
responsibilities.
Ms. DeGette. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Castor. I yield.
Ms. DeGette. Ms. Bodine, so you had said to Ms. Castor that
the number of enforcement actions filed at the Federal level is
just a narrow slice. Do you know how many additional cases were
filed at the State level, then, with EPA assistance? Did that
number go up dramatically in the last 2 years?
Ms. Bodine. So we haven't started formally tracking State
assists. We have asked the regions to track their State
assists. So I have some data on that, which I can give to you
for the record but it wasn't tracked before----
Ms. DeGette. So you don't----
Ms. Bodine [continuing]. What we are calling State assists.
Ms. DeGette. Right. So you don't really know if the number
of State cases went up. You are just suspecting they might
have.
Ms. Bodine. The States report some of their cases to us in
our reporting system and we can provide you with that data. I
don't have all of their data. The----
Ms. DeGette. OK, thank you very much.
Ms. Bodine. OK.
Ms. DeGette. And Ms. Castor, thank you for letting me use
the rest of your time, which has expired.
I am now going to recognize Mr. Duncan from South Carolina
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In my State, one of my communities has a four-lane highway
running through it. It is not an interstate highway but they
were requesting an intersection, an interchange, off-ramps to
create a new industrial area and the county was under a
nonattainment order from the EPA. Very little industry in that
county in Upstate South Carolina that has emissions issues.
Very little. And very little traffic. It is not an interstate
highway on this four-lane but yet they were denied the ability
to put in that interchange.
And when we started looking at it, the EPA under the Obama
administration had monitors in the county for air quality. And
it was very apparent that the emissions or what was affecting
this county was coming from not another county but another
State, Tennessee primarily, westerly winds coming over the
mountains, settling in Pickens County, South Carolina.
So there is an issue of where we put these monitors for a
lot of different things, whether it is heat sensors or whether
it is air quality sensors. Those are issues that may affect
other Members' communities and I just wanted to raise awareness
of that.
I want to jump to a particular type of case, those being
the Clean Air Act nonattainment cases. The oil and gas new
owner audit program has one interesting approach that the EPA
is taking to reduce nonattainment. Can you tell us more about
this program and other actions EPA has taken to reduce the
Clean Air Act nonattainment?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, thank you. In the oil and gas sector, you
can have leaks from tanks. There can be leaks from wells. The
new owner self-disclosure program encourages a new owner of
these facilities to do their own inspection, and discover their
own violations, and then disclose them, come into compliance,
and then they would have no penalties because they are the new
owner. They weren't responsible for it. And we have seen a lot
of companies come in under our new owner program because of
that incentive. They are starting fresh. And it has been very
valuable.
Again, for the oil and gas sector, it started from a
settlement that was begun in 2016 but then recognized that that
could be a model that could be used more broadly. And so it is
a great opportunity to again get compliance and let the new
owner start fresh.
Mr. Duncan. I would say that is a cost savings for the EPA
and ultimately, the taxpayer.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. To follow up, there has been criticism on the
reduction of the size of the OECA office. I have been
supportive of this administration's effort to peel back some of
the layers of bureaucracy that have embedded themselves in the
Agency. When the EPA is inefficient, they are holding up
capital. How does this new owner audit program capitalize on
the resources of the EPA while still reducing nonattainment.
Ms. Bodine. Well if the new owner is coming in, then you
are right, we don't have to expend our resources then going out
and finding them. We don't have to expend our resources
bringing a case against them. Again, it is far more efficient
and gets compliance more quickly.
Mr. Duncan. And you can focus those resources on other
areas that----
Ms. Bodine. On vulnerable populations, on chemical risk
safety issues, our other National Compliance Initiatives.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, thanks for being here.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms.
Bodine, for being here.
I just want to go back on an exchange you had a moment ago
because you suggested--you seemed to suggest that the reduction
in civil penalties and other things from an enforcement
standpoint at the Federal level has maybe been replaced by
States being more aggressive on that front. Did you say
something to that effect?
Ms. Bodine. I said that we work--that most of the
activities are taking place at the State level, and that has
always been true----
Mr. Sarbanes. Yes.
Ms. Bodine [continuing]. And that we are trying--we are
working with States and States are more sophisticated, and we
are building State capacity if they have lost folks and----
Mr. Sarbanes. Are you aware that the State fines have also
diminished over the last couple of years? When you look at the
record, it shows that between '06 and 2016 the penalties at the
State level were averaging about $91 million a year, but in
2017 they were $38 million, and in 2018 they were $59 million.
A lot of these State agencies are not resourced in a way that
can make up for lack of enforcement at the Federal level. So it
seems to be diminishing on both fronts.
Ms. Bodine. I think I will say what I have said in response
to other questions but I don't believe penalties are a good
measure of enforcement. Penalties are important for deterrence
but that is not a measure of compliance. And you will see in
the data that we have presented, because we go back 10 years,
that penalties go up and down dramatically and, in fact, at the
Federal level they were below $250 million for 8 out of the
last 10 years.
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, it seems many, if not all, of the
indicators which we have at our disposal to judge whether
enforcement is happening at the levels it should or not seem to
be going in the wrong direction, whether you look at the State
efforts or you look at the Federal efforts. To me that would
suggest that the Federal Government needs to step up even more
and occupy this space in an aggressive and responsible way.
But let me talk to you about injunctive relief because that
is an important tool that you have as part of your enforcement
kit of measures that you can undertake. And this is a way that
the EPA can insist on industry players and others coming into
compliance.
So we understand from your staff briefing recently that EPA
enforcement actions resulted in almost $4 billion, $3.95
billion in compliance costs in fiscal year 2018. Does that
sound about right to you?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, I am reading it off the chart right here.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK, you have got it right there.
All right. And according to a January 24th Washington Post
article, the compliance costs for the 2 decades before the
Trump administration roughly averaged $7.8 billion per year,
which is nearly double the amount that the EPA obtained in
fiscal year 2018. Are those numbers correct, as far as you
know?
Ms. Bodine. I don't believe that you can average these
numbers. I mean, you have the chart also. You can see that you
have very, very high----
Mr. Sarbanes. But in any event, they were significantly
higher.
And then in a recent article, I just wanted to note in The
Christian Science Monitor, your predecessor, Cynthia Giles, was
quoted as saying, ``Injunctive relief tells you whether the EPA
is taking on the tough, very hard, big pollution cases'' and
``This data shows the Trump EPA is not doing that.''
Now, I get that the compliance injunctive relief numbers
can vary from year to year, but these are pretty low numbers,
some of the lowest we have seen in a long time. Is Ms. Giles
wrong when she says injunctive relief is a good indicator to
evaluate whether an administration is going after the worst
polluters, in your view?
Ms. Bodine. I think that former Assistant Administrator
Giles knows very well that, when you are talking about these
really big cases, it takes a lot of years to develop and
complete those cases. So if I----
Mr. Sarbanes. Well let me grab onto that because I am going
to run out of time, that idea of taking a long time.
Ms. Bodine. Right.
Mr. Sarbanes. Because that $3.95 billion figure for 2018
apparently, according to the Christian Science Monitor article,
40 percent of that total almost is from cases that were settled
by the EPA under President Obama. So even that low number, that
$3.95 billion low number, if you look at it in terms of what
has actually been undertaken in this administration, it is much
lower still because 40 percent of that is coming from the prior
administration.
Are you aware of those numbers? Can you tell me what the
number is that comes from the previous administration?
Ms. Bodine. So in our results, we count the injunctive
relief in the year that the court enters it. And as well, you
are not going to see numbers from cases that we initiated that
would be big. Small cases, yes, but large cases, because it
takes a long time, so you are going to see that later. So we
are----
Mr. Sarbanes. I get it. There is a timing issue. There is a
snapshot issue.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. There is a range issue----
Ms. Bodine. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. And so forth. But in any event,
I think there is plenty of evidence here that the mission you
have of fair and effective enforcement of environmental laws,
particularly using, as I was discussing here in the injunctive
relief, is not being fulfilled based on the numbers that we are
seeing.
With that, I would yield back my time because I am over.
Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
New York, Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. I thank our chairwoman and ranking member for
hosting this hearing today.
Ms. Bodine, I want to talk about budget because the fiscal
year 2019 budget request called for nearly a 25 percent cut to
the EPA. And to put that in perspective, if those cuts were
enacted, they would push the EPA's budget to its lowest level
since 1991.
I would point out that compliance and enforcement
activities are not spared from these proposed cuts. How would
these proposals, if they were enacted, have impacted
enforcement activities?
Ms. Bodine. I don't know. We would be using the resources
that Congress gives us as effectively and as efficiently as we
can. And we would be focusing on the largest cases.
We do still take a lot of very small cases. A large
percentage of these cases, conclusions that have been discussed
today, are still very small cases. And so we would focus on the
most important cases and we would focus on making sure that we
were providing assistance and training to States.
Ms. Clarke. So we have been talking about sort of the
decline in what we can recognize as enforcement activity. Are
you saying that there would be no correlation in bringing
action between a reduction in your budget and the fact that you
are at a 30-year low in that enforcement?
Ms. Bodine. So what I said was that we would be further
focused on the most important actions. I didn't say it would
have no impact. But in terms of if we were not going to be
taking an action, it would definitely be only in situations
where there wasn't an immediate public health or environmental
threat, situations where we knew the State was already dealing
with the issue.
So again, we would be very strategic.
Ms. Clarke. So Ms. Bodine, even though Congress prevented
those cuts from being enacted, I am deeply concerned that
certain damage was done. I am concerned that those proposed
cuts sent a signal to regulated communities and EPA employees
that the administration doesn't take its responsibility to
enforce environmental laws seriously.
Are you concerned that the previously proposed budget cuts
to EPA sends a message to polluters and EPA staff that the
Agency doesn't take environmental enforcement seriously?
Ms. Bodine. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I have
gone around to the regions, I have talked to my staff to make
sure that they know that we do very much value the work that we
do and that enforcement is incredibly important.
Ms. Clarke. So I want to shift gears just a tad bit. Two-
thirds--I am from New York--of New Yorkers regularly breathe in
unhealthy air due to smog. That is why New York State and City
has actually sued the EPA last month regarding its failure to
enforce the Clean Air Act.
The quote, ``good neighbor,'' end quote, provision of the
Act requires the EPA to police air pollution in States not
living up to Federal standards so it doesn't blow downwind to
States like mine. This lawsuits results from the EPA's decision
to reverse its prior finding that ozone pollution should be
subject to this provision.
Why did the EPA take this action, which harms the health of
New Yorkers?
Ms. Bodine. So, congresswoman, I don't actually have any
background information on that. That would be a regulation that
would come out of the Air Office.
Ms. Clarke. OK and so you wouldn't be looking into a
lawsuit that has implications around enforcement and
regulation.
Ms. Bodine. Our General Counsel's Office would be managing
that lawsuit. My office would not have anything to do with it.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. Well then let me share just this one
last question, since I have a short amount of time.
Will next year's budget propose similar draconian
reductions for EPA like last year's proposal?
Ms. Bodine. I don't know.
Ms. Clarke. You don't know. Will you be advocating for a
more robust budget?
Ms. Bodine. So I believe the President's budget is going to
come out in March, next month.
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely.
Ms. Bodine. So the----
Ms. Clarke. Well, if the past precedent is prologue, what
are your feelings about that, given what has all been revealed
here today?
Ms. Bodine. I support the President's budget.
Ms. Clarke. Oh, very well.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman DeGette, for hosting this
hearing and welcome, Administrator Bodine.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Civil penalties are an important enforcement
tool at EPA. Civil penalties are monetary assessments paid by a
regulated entity because of a violation or noncompliance. They
are designed to recover the financial benefit a company has
obtained by breaking the law and impose added cost to deter
firms from breaking the law again in the future.
So Administrator Bodine, would you agree that civil
penalties are an important enforcement tool for EPA?
Ms. Bodine. Yes. Yes, I do.
Mr. Tonko. And according to EPA's annual enforcement report
for fiscal year 2018, EPA obtained just $69.4 million in
Federal administrative and civil judicial penalties.
A recently released report cited by The Washington Post
states that this is the lowest amount of civil penalties
recovered since the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance was established back in 1994. Even excluding the huge
BP penalty, The Washington Post reports, and I quote, the Trump
administration's civil monetary penalties ``last year
represented a roughly 55 percent drop from the annual
average.'' In fact, according to a February 8th Washington Post
report, the $69 million in civil penalties leveled by EPA
``represents the lowest in nearly a quarter-century.''
So Administrator Bodine, is that accurate?
Ms. Bodine. I can look at the--I know what our results say.
I don't have the data that you have. But I also would note that
penalties go up and down and that----
Mr. Tonko. OK but could you get back to us if it is
accurate?
Ms. Bodine. Certainly.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
In the roughly 25-year history of the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, has the amount of civil penalties
leveled by EPA ever been this low?
Ms. Bodine. In the 11 years of data I have in front of me,
no, but I don't have it back further.
Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you.
And Ms. Bodine, some have suggested that annual total
penalties can be strongly influenced by the presence of one or
two large cases. To illustrate this point, your staff provided
to the committee analysis which shows annual results for civil
penalties after removing two large cases, that being BP and VW.
In your testimony, you had mentioned that for 2019, the
State of California and EPA secured a civil penalty of some
$305 million. So my question, Administrator Bodine: What is the
amount of civil penalties for fiscal year 2019 to date, if you
exclude the large Fiat Chrysler penalty?
I have this chart that was provided by your Agency that
shows this huge spike with the Fiat Chrysler penalty. This has
been adjusted for BP and VW. So I have heard all the talk about
spikes, and peaks, and valleys. I have heard about the
averaging throughout the years. But in a 30-year span, if you
take this out, what is the amount of civil penalties for fiscal
year 2019 to date?
Ms. Bodine. I am going to have to provide that for the
record.
Mr. Tonko. Yes, that is very important information, because
that spike looks like the whole picture for 2019.
Again, Ms. Bodine, on the second panel, Eric Schaeffer, who
spent 12 years at the EPA as the Director of the Agency's
Office of Civil Enforcement, will testify that EPA's
enforcement results for 2018 fiscal year were historically low.
His testimony indicates, and I quote, ``the number of
inspections and investigations, civil cases either referred to
the Justice Department for prosecution or concluded with a
consent decree, criminal cases opened, and defendants charged
with environmental crimes fell to their lowest levels since at
least 2001.
``Looked at another way, inspections and investigations in
the last year were 40 percent below their average level during
the last two administrations. EPA referred 123 cases to the
Justice Department in 2018, compared to an average of 211 per
year under President Obama, and 304 under President Bush.''
Ms. Bodine, that certainly seems like a decrease in
enforcement activities. How do you respond to that?
Ms. Bodine. You can't look at average when you are talking
about enforcement. We don't set quotas. We don't say we are
going to ask the staff to reach an average number of penalties,
and you know you have get $500 million in penalties a year, and
that you have to go out and increase penalties to reach that
number. We don't say you have to reach an average number of
cases. And again, we want them to be very judicious and
strategic and put the resources where it matters.
We do, however, try and set targets for inspections because
we absolutely agree that we need to be out there. We need to be
inspecting for compliance. We need to have the enforcement
presence out there.
Mr. Tonko. I am just concerned that EPA has taken the
environmental cop off the beat and will go on polluting without
fear of repercussions.
So with that, I thank you for your time.
Ms. Bodine. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I ask unanimous consent to include a letter from Senator
Unruh regarding the EPA enforcement into the record.
Ms. DeGette. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Mullin. Thank you.
Ma'am, thank you so much for being here. And I have got to
tell you, coming from a business owner that owns an
environmental company, it is refreshing to have an EPA now that
is willing to work with us. We have DEQ, Department of
Environmental Quality inside Oklahoma that obviously partners
with the EPA. And underneath the last administration, it felt
like every time the EPA showed up at a job site or a place of
business, they were there just to look at ways to write fines.
They were not there trying to work with the industry, trying to
improve it. And in fact, if you even questioned it, you
typically got a supervisor that came back with more penalties.
And so it was to the point where you couldn't work with the
Agency anymore.
So the idea that you are bringing it back to working with
industry, I, personally, appreciate it and I can tell you
industries appreciate it, too.
It has always been in my mindset that the government is
supposed to create an environment for the economy to thrive, to
allow the industry to work with best practices. And I feel like
that that is coming back around to the EPA. So thank you so
much.
I have got a couple of questions here. My understanding is
that OECA is trying to use the right tools to focus on major,
even criminal compliance issues. Is that correct?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mullin. So if that is accurate, then would you
attribute the new efficiencies to the uptick in criminal
enforcement cases open in fiscal year 2018?
Ms. Bodine. I am not sure if it is an efficiency issue but
we have certainly been very, very supportive of the criminal
program. I am happy to see the number of cases that they have
opened for investigation as well now.
Mr. Mullin. What type of compliance issues do you think you
are dealing with right now?
Ms. Bodine. Across the country?
Mr. Mullin. Just for the most. Just give me maybe the top
three.
Ms. Bodine. So we are concerned about, for example, the
number of Clean Water Act permit holders that are in
significant noncompliance with their permits. And so we are
trying to work with States to get that number down.
We are also concerned about drinking water and we are
talking about developing a New National Compliance Initiative
on drinking water because I think everyone around the country
is concerned that we have noncompliance.
You know we have cases underway but we also know that there
are small systems out there that need help.
Mr. Mullin. Are you having issues with discharge permits
for like maybe municipalities?
Ms. Bodine. So they are a big part of the universe that is
in noncompliance with their permits that we track. And again, a
lot municipalities that had both combined sewer overflows and
sanitary sewer overflows, a lot of those are already under
either an administrative order, a consent decree, or a permit
to get them back into compliance.
Mr. Mullin. Does that have to do with their treatment
centers that are maybe outdated and they can't afford to put in
new ones?
Ms. Bodine. That can very much be the case. And when we
deal with those issues, then we look at the time frame over
which they would need to come back.
Mr. Mullin. Let's say when they built it, they were
compliant and then new standards have increased, which made
them out of compliance, or is it because they have equipment
that is down?
Ms. Bodine. It is both.
Mr. Mullin. It is both.
Do you have enough Federal agents to enforce your criminal
investigations?
Ms. Bodine. So I have authorized the hiring to take us up
to 164 agents. We don't have that number onboard right now.
Again, it takes about 6 months to bring on an agent.
Mr. Mullin. How many are you behind?
Ms. Bodine. I think right now we have about 147----
Mr. Mullin. One hundred and forty-seven.
Mr. Burgess [continuing]. But we have a number of hires in
the works. They have to go through a lot. They carry guns. They
have to go through a lot of background checks.
Mr. Mullin. So what is the time frame to be able to get
them up to speed and have them----
Ms. Bodine. Can I answer for the record? It takes a long
time. It is not getting them up to speed. It is getting them
onboarded. It is getting them hired.
Mr. Mullin. Now, what is----
Ms. Bodine. But, again, I authorized that back in June or
July, and so we are working hard to get those folks on.
Mr. Mullin. So what is the total number of vacancies you
have?
Ms. Bodine. Well, I believe--again, I have some people
coming on in March.
Mr. Mullin. OK.
Ms. Bodine. They were supposed to come on in January, but
they didn't because we were shut down. But they are coming on
in March, and so I think today it is about 147. We are trying
to get it up to 164, but I don't know how many are coming in
within the next few weeks.
Mr. Mullin. Real quick, one last question: Why do the EPA
agents need to be carrying guns?
Ms. Bodine. So they go out and they serve search warrants,
and sometimes people resent the fact that they are in fact
searching their facility. And we have had----
Mr. Mullin. So it is for protection purposes.
Ms. Bodine. Absolutely. We have had----
Mr. Mullin. It is not enforcement, it is protection.
Ms. Bodine. It is protection. We have had situations.
Mr. Mullin. Right, well that was what I was hearing.
Ms. Bodine. That is exactly what it is.
Mr. Mullin. It is not for enforcement purposes.
Ms. Bodine. No.
Mr. Mullin. It is for self-protection.
Ms. Bodine. It is absolutely for personal protection, yes.
Mr. Mullin. OK, thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Mr. Mullin. I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Peters, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms.
Bodine, for being here with us.
My first job after graduating college was working as an
economist for the ToSCA section of the Office of Toxic
Substances under ToSCA. And that drove me from being an
economist to going to law school.
And then as a lawyer, one of the first things I did was
work on Superfund as an environmental lawyer after it was
reauthorized in the mid-1980s. And I want to talk about that
program for a few moments.
The Superfund program is a critical public health program
that has made an enormous difference in cleaning up dangerous
contaminated sites across the country and there are a lot of
effective tools and private enforcement but public enforcement,
EPA enforcement staff still has a lot of responsibility for
identifying responsible parties and ensuring that the
appropriate people pay to get the cleanups done.
In 2018, Superfund enforcement generated the lowest level
of private party cleanup commitments in 10 years. Is that your
understanding?
Ms. Bodine. I will take your word for it. I don't have my
Superfund slide in front of me but I can pull it out.
Mr. Peters. OK. And also, I understand that the volume of
contaminated soil and water to be cleaned up also dropped
significantly in that time period. Is that also your
understanding?
Ms. Bodine. So I do know that the volume of hazardous
waste--well, the volume of contaminated soil and water in 2018,
I need my chart. I know that it was higher than it was in 2015,
higher than it was in 2016. I believe it was less than 2017,
however.
Mr. Peters. OK. I am thinking over the last 10 years. That
is my understanding.
In any event, I don't think the need for cleanup has
dissipated. The number of National Priorities List sites, NPL
sites has remained consistent for years and the pace of
cleanups has slowed markedly. Is it fair to attribute that to
lesser enforcement? What do you attribute that to?
Ms. Bodine. So I am not sure. I know that this
administration we have been very focused on increasing the pace
of cleanups in the Superfund program and that is by focusing
management attention, making sure that we don't have logjams
and that if private parties aren't stepping up, that we bring
them to the table through the threat of enforcement.
Mr. Peters. I guess the bottom line is that the number of
NPL sites has not been reduced. Isn't that our goal to get
these things cleaned up and off the list?
Ms. Bodine. It is and, in fact, under this administration,
we have had more deletions. I believe it was I think 22 sites
were deleted from the NPL this past year, which is more than
probably any--I would have to get the exact number but it is
certainly a huge increase over prior years.
Mr. Peters. What would be great is if I can ask you to
follow-up, if you don't have these things in front of you.
Ms. Bodine. Absolutely. Sure.
Mr. Peters. Sometimes it is a little bit of a surprise. I
would love to get those numbers from you on the cleanups.
Ms. Bodine. Sure.
Mr. Peters. The threat of enforcement carries particular
weight in Superfund because the Agency has the authority to
seek treble damages for cleanup costs from responsible parties.
How often have you used the treble damage authority during your
tenure, Ms. Bodine?
Ms. Bodine. So these are 106 actions. I know that we have
threatened them and then the private parties have come to the
parties to the table in some cases that I have been briefed on.
But I wouldn't know every instance and so I will have to get
back because that would happen out in the region. So I will
have to get back to you for the record on the number of 106
orders we have issued.
Mr. Peters. Would you be able to share which cases those
were with us?
Ms. Bodine. I believe those would be public.
Mr. Peters. I would like to compare your threats to the
results, if that is OK with you.
Ms. Bodine. Let me take that back. I believe those are
public. If we actually issued the order, then that would--I
believe those are public.
Mr. Peters. All right, thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Bodine, this concludes your testimony but I did want to
raise a couple things with you.
Number one, several of the Members today asked you to
supplement your answers.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And we expect that in a timely fashion. I am
sure you can do that. When do you think you can get that
information to us?
Ms. Bodine. That I don't know, but I understand completely
the need to be responsive.
Ms. DeGette. Thirty days, do you think? Well, we are going
to hope for 30 days.
Ms. Bodine. OK.
Ms. DeGette. One of the reasons I ask is the majority has
sent your office five letters requesting information and
documents since the beginning of this Congress. And as a rule,
we ask for 2 weeks. We know you can't always get that in the 2
weeks, but we haven't gotten any of the information. So I would
ask you to go back to your office and see if you can get
responses to those five letters as well. Is that OK?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Thanks.
Just one last question, and then I will ask Mr. Guthrie if
he has any last questions.
In your response to Mr. Mullin, you said that you have a
goal of increasing your number of criminal investigators to
164.
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. How many investigators is the EPA required to
have under the law?
Ms. Bodine. There isn't a----
Ms. DeGette. There is no requirement.
Ms. Bodine. There is no requirement.
Ms. DeGette. OK, my staff says it is 200. So that is not
accurate?
Ms. Bodine. The, I believe, Pollution Prosecution Act of,
what, 1990 said that by 1995 the number should be 200, and it
was in 1995. But we don't have an ongoing obligation to
maintain 200.
Ms. DeGette. Under that Act.
Ms. Bodine. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. That is your interpretation of that Act.
Ms. Bodine. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. DeGette. OK, thank you.
Mr. Guthrie, do you have any additional questions?
Mr. Guthrie. No, thank you. I just want to thank you for
coming to testify before us today. And I think there were
several questions asked for timely responses to the questions,
and I think that is appropriate. And I appreciate you coming
before us today. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much. With that you are
dismissed, Ms. Bodine.
And I would now ask the second panel witnesses to please
come to the table.
Thank you so much all for coming. I would now like to
introduce our second panel of witnesses. OK, you guys are not
sitting in the order on this, but I am going to introduce you
in the order of this.
Bruce Buckheit, who is an analyst and consultant and the
former director of the Air Enforcement Division of the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; Dr. Bakeyah Nelson--is
that right, Dr. Nelson, ``Bi-kay-uh''?--Executive Director of
the Air Alliance Houston; Eric Schaeffer, the Executive
Director of the Environmental Integrity Project; Dr. Chris
Sellers, Professor of History and Director of Center for the
Study of Inequality and Social Justice at Stony Brook
University; Dr. Jay Shimshack, who is the Associate Professor
of Public Policy and Economics, Frank Batten School of
Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia; and
the Honorable Ronald J. Tenpas, a partner at Vinson and Elkins,
former Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
I want to thank all of you for appearing today and I am
sure you are aware the committee is holding an investigative
hearing and when we do so, we have a practice of taking
testimony under oath.
Does anyone have an objection to taking your testimony
under oath? Let the record reflect the witnesses responded no.
The Chair then advises you that under the rules of the
House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be
accompanied by counsel.
Does anyone here desire to be accompanied by counsel today?
No. Let the record reflect the witnesses have responded no.
So if you would please rise and raise your right hand so
you may be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. DeGette. You are now under oath and subject to the
penalties set forth in Title 18 Section 1001 of the U.S. Code.
So now the Chair will recognize the witnesses for 5 minutes
for a summary of their written statements.
In front of you is a microphone and a series of lights. The
light will turn yellow when you have a minute left and red to
indicate your time has expired.
And I am going to have you testify in the order in which
you are sitting. So, Mr. Schaeffer, we will start with you, and
thank you so much. You have got 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ERIC SCHAEFFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
INTEGRITY PROJECT; CHRIS SELLERS, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF HISTORY
AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF INEQUALITIES, SOCIAL
JUSTICE, AND POLICY, STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE; BRUCE C.
BUCKHEIT, ANALYST AND CONSULTANT, FORMER DIRECTOR, AIR
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
ASSURANCE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JAY P. SHIMSHACK,
PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AND ECONOMICS,
FRANK BATTEN SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY
OF VIRGINIA; BAKEYAH S. NELSON, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR
ALLIANCE HOUSTON; AND RONALD J. TENPAS, PARTNER, VINSON AND
ELKINS, LLP, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STATEMENT OF ERIC SCHAEFFER
Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member
Guthrie, for the opportunity to testify. I am Eric Schaeffer,
Director of the Environmental Integrity Project, and I did
spend time at the EPA as Director of the Civil Enforcement
Program. And if I may, I would like to address some of the
issues that came up in prior testimony and have my written
statement be in the record.
Ms. DeGette. Without objection.
Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you.
So to take some of the points that were discussed, I just
want to make clear that EPA's enforcement program does not just
measure penalties and fines. It has always, at least for 25
years, measured enforcement outcomes. Those include the amount
of pollution reduced through enforcement action and the amount
of money spent on cleanup. And those measures are reported
faithfully every year. They are also at historic lows in 2018.
I believe the Chair made those points, but I just wanted to
reinforce those outcome measures are also down.
Also, I think it is important just to get back to basics
and understand that enforcement protects people where they live
and work, protects their health and environment where they live
and work. So when a community is exposed to a blast of lead or
a cloud of carcinogens from let's say a petrochemical plant,
you really can't answer the problem by saying you know don't
worry, sulfur dioxide emissions are down nationwide. They
really want something done about what is going on in their
neighborhood. That is enforcement work and I think it is
important to just keep that in front of us.
Next, EPA has had active programs to encourage voluntary
compliance, including the disclosure and correction of
violations for many, many years. They are important. They are
necessary. They work in tandem with enforcement. It's not an
either/or situation. And in fact, I think those voluntary
efforts will start to shrink if enforcement starts to fall off.
Looking at this issue maybe more philosophically, if you
are a large refinery, let's say, or a large power plant, you
aren't supposed to wait until the government comes calling to
start complying with the law. So that kind of voluntary
compliance is not what we should be talking about. It should be
giving people incentives to get ahead of the game and stay in
compliance before the enforcement program finds you.
And when the program does find you, if you're looking at
serious violations, and some of these cases involve thousands
of violations over many years, you should pay a penalty and
there should be no apology for that. And that penalty should
sting. It should make you think twice about doing it again.
That's fundamental. So I just want to say penalties do matter.
They're not unimportant. And if you stop basically making
people pay those penalties and fines, you won't get a lot of
voluntary compliance.
It's good to hear that the Assistant Administrator
appreciates the great work of the enforcement program and I
believe Ms. Bodine means it. I can't help but say these are the
same great people who the administration keeps trying to pink
slip. So the attitude seems to be you do great work; we just
need less of it. That seems to be the message from the
administration. You just can't have it both ways.
You'll hear a lot about cooperative federalism being used
to sell the idea of a retrieving EPA enforcement presence.
That's a handoff of EPA responsibilities to States that do not
have the budgets and, in many cases, do not have the same
authority EPA has to enforce the law.
You violate the Clean Air Act and EPA is coming at you, you
can pay up to $100,000 per day for each violation. That's under
the statutes you wrote. In many States, $10,000 is the maximum.
You're just starting with fewer cards. You can't negotiate an
outcome nearly as well as EPA can in that kind of lopsided
situation.
I just want to close by referring Members to the charts at
the back. There, I've tried to show a list of plants where the
communities face exposure to toxic pollutants and other noxious
chemicals and hazards. And those have been documented by EPA in
inspections or through monitoring records. They have been
sitting for years with no enforcement action. In some cases,
thousands of violations at these plants.
So where's the beef? You know we want to focus on outcome.
We should be asking what's going to happen with those cases.
Last but not least, EPA will never run out of work. I've
given you examples of the tips and complaints called into the
National Enforcement Response Center that involve blowing lead
dust into the environment, burning hexavalent chromium, dumping
pollutants into the air, land, water, sewers, and those need
attention.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaeffer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Dr. Sellers, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS SELLERS
Dr. Sellers. Thank you for inviting me. My name is Chris
Sellers and I'm a professor of environmental history and I'm
director of the Center for the Study of Inequalities, Social
Justice, and Policy at Stony Brook University. But I'm here
today as a member of the Environmental Data and Governance
Initiative, a network of more than 170 academics and other
professionals and volunteers. We've been monitoring change the
U.S. EPA since the beginning of the Trump administration.
I head up an EDGI research team interviewing recently
retired and current EPA employees. Our early findings have been
published in major scholarly outlets like the American Journal
of Public Health. Over the last year, I have joined with EDGI
colleagues Leif Fredrickson, and Marianne Sullivan, and others,
to study this most critical function of the Agency, which we
learned to be threatened, enforcement.
We have researched the EPA's own public data and records
supplemented by internal documents provided by interviewees.
All point with startling unanimity to the same conclusion: Over
the past 2 years, EPA enforcement has declined significantly.
The only question has been just how badly.
Well, fortunately, EPA has now released its fiscal year
2018 data and that's provided us and everyone else with clear
answers. So with my testimony, I've included a 32-page
compendium of charts and other analysis of this data, combining
it with earlier publicly available EPA enforcement data. We
have the links on our Web site, if you wish to follow them.
It shows a decline in enforcement that is dramatic and
alarming with a speed and scale that have only a single rival
in the Agency's half-century history and that's the early
Reagan administration in the early '80s, when they actually
broke up EPA's enforcement wing.
Most of the available measures of the Agency's performance
are registering 10- or 15-year lows at the very least. To find
a lower number of civil judicial referrals, we've talked about
this a little bit, these are for the most egregious offenses to
the Justice Department, you have to go back to 1976 and, as we
said, total civil cases to 1982. People have already talked
about that.
By almost any measures, EPA is doing worse. Other measures
by which EPA assesses its own enforcement don't run as far
back, yet the Trump years still vie with the lowest ever
recorded civil cases concluded to 1994, civil fines levied
lowest since 1987, and I can go on. EPA's been curbing its
ability not just to punish but to find violators.
In 2017 inspections, these you know checking for
compliance, those were the lowest in 25 years and then they
fell still lower in 2017. Drops in inspections, which are the
front end of the enforcement pipeline strongly suggest that the
decline in EPA enforcement has not yet hit bottom. By almost
any measure of its actions, EPA is backing off from its
longstanding role as the Nation's top environmental cop.
What EPA employees have told us in the course of our
interviewing project strongly confirms the picture suggested by
EPA's enforcement numbers, Ms. Bodine's testimony aside.
Over the last 2 years, my team has conducted 100
confidential interviews with recently retired and current EPA
staff, a quarter of whom work directly in enforcement. Of the
last 24 interviews, including those in enforcement and out, all
drawing on Trump administration experience, 75 percent of these
mentioned problems with enforcement. It's widely known.
Their testimony offers a concrete and plausible account
also of what has driven the drop. Environment enforcement staff
have gotten a message that industry is in the driver's seat,
that they are to bow to its request. We've heard stories about
the staff exodus, about members of the regulated communities
becoming emboldened. We've documented a widespread belief among
EPA staff that, in practice, this so-called cooperative
federalism is turning out to mean deregulation, plain and
simple.
With rare uniformity, the evidence we found adds up to a
convincing picture of a sad truth: EPA is extracting its own
teeth. This is not just some bureaucratic reshuffle. Less
enforcement will have real consequences for many Americans,
especially those living nearest to these potential
environmental threats.
In 2008 under George Bush, EPA enforcement actions
protected eight million people's drinking water and last year,
that was down to 500,000. So, a plummet of several-fold. That
level of inaction--that nearly begs for another Flint.
Not only is the enforcement drop corroding the Federal
commitment to protect health and the environment, it is
weakening the ability of States to do so. Already, we believe,
it has all but ensured significant deterioration of our
Nation's public health and environment in the years ahead.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sellers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Mr. Buckheit. Chair DeGette----
Ms. DeGette. Hang on. Mr. Buckheit----
Mr. Buckheit. Yes.
Ms. DeGette [continuing]. For 5 minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE C. BUCKHEIT
Mr. Buckheit. Thank you Chair DeGette, Ranking Member
Guthrie, and Members for inviting me here today.
I have been involved in Clean Air Act enforcement issues in
a variety of roles since 1984. I would like to focus my remarks
this morning on the recent policy statements of the Enforcement
Office and advise the committee of what I think that portrays.
Overall in my--and so I would ask that my written testimony
be submitted for the record.
Ms. DeGette. Without objection, all the witnesses'
testimony will be part of the record.
Mr. Buckheit. Thank you.
Overall, the broad decline in the air enforcement metrics,
in my view, is neither surprising nor accidental. This view is
based on my years of experience in this area, including my
personal interactions on many of these same air enforcement
issues with Acting Administrator Wheeler and Assistant
Administrator Wehrum in the 1998 to 2003 time frame. It is also
based on recent Agency public statements, rulemaking proposals,
and revised enforcement policies. Notably, these new
enforcement policies are devoid of any measures to deter future
violations of the Act.
The administration's push to exit the enforcement arena
ignores the history of air pollution control. Prior to the
1970s, States were primarily responsible for air pollution
control. Federal authority over air pollution was either
entirely missing or merely advisory. Over time, however, it
became clear that deferring to the States did not work and so
Congress adopted the 1970 Clean Air Act to end the race to the
bottom among States. The CAA provides that once EPA has
provided 30 days' notice to a State, EPA may enforce as
appropriate.
Enforcement policies that manage the Federal, State, and
local roles have been developed over the years and worked well
but this does not mean that EPA and State program managers must
always agree. EPA has a job to do and many States do not have
the political will to force their companies to retrofit with
expensive pollution controls. This fact is documented by years
of State enforcement records. There is no reason to believe
that EPA's ceding near total enforcement authority to the
States will alter the value that the different States place on
environmental enforcement.
EPA has now declared mission accomplished and deprioritized
new air enforcement in what's called large emitting sectors. It
has also likely walked away from ongoing investigations
commenced under the previous administrations.
While EPA says that it will complete the ongoing
enforcement cases, that is to say matters that have already
been referred to the Justice Department, it does not commit to
complete the ongoing enforcement investigations in these
sectors that were commenced under the Obama administration.
EPA justifies abandoning the utility sector because
emissions have declined as a result of enforcement actions
taken against some companies years ago and subsequent EPA
regulations. However, the EPA investigations during my tenure,
and more recent investigations in the last few years, each show
substantial noncompliance within the sector and this is the
single largest polluting sector, on a unit-by-unit basis, in
the country. This is where the money is.
This sector also has a fairly substantial percentage of
units that are not well controlled. My recollection is is that
about a quarter of the plants don't have full on SO2 controls
and half or more are not fully controlled for nitrogen oxides.
EPA says that it is done with the other sectors because it
has, quote, ``required controls or commenced investigations
at'' 90 percent or more of the facilities in those sectors.
However, commencing an investigation is not the same thing as
completing an enforcement action.
As it abandons the existing sectors, EPA does not identify
any other large emitting industrial sectors to replace them.
You heard earlier about targeting. Well there is no targeting
in EPA's new plan. To say that you are going to target
nonattainment areas provides no guidance at all. Where and how
are you going to reduce emissions within the nonattainment
areas?
Several months before I left EPA, senior management had
advised me that on a forward-looking basis we would not be
enforcing the rules as they were on the books but as EPA
intended them to be and had proposed them to be under change
regulations. We now see the administration again seeking to
change the New Source Review rules and I strongly suspect that
what enforcement decisions are being made are being made on the
basis of what they would like the new rules to be.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buckheit follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you very much, Mr. Buckheit.
Dr. Shimshack, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAY P. SHIMSHACK
Dr. Shimshack. Chair DeGette, Ranking Member Guthrie,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify. My name is Jay Shimshack. I'm an
associate professor of public policy and economics at the
University of Virginia's Frank Batten School of Leadership and
Public Policy.
I've been conducting research on environmental enforcement
and compliance for nearly 20 years now. Recently, I've devoted
considerable efforts to synthesizing the relevant state of
knowledge in the literature and my testimony today emphasizes
two themes.
First, the evidence indicates that traditional monitoring
and enforcement actions get results. And second, the evidence
indicates that further devolution of environmental oversight
from Federal and regional offices to State or local agencies
may have important consequences for human health and the
natural environment.
Before proceeding, it's worth noting what I mean by the
evidence. A large and growing multi-disciplinary literature
assesses environmental compliance by rigorously analyzing data.
The methods are diverse. The evidence spans air, water, waste,
oil, and other pollution.
So some details on effectiveness: My work and that of many
others shows that environmental inspections and fines enhance
compliance and reduce pollution. Inspections and fines reduce
immediate harm, as evaluations and requirements of
administrative or judicial actions generate pollution
reductions.
Second, inspections and fines improve future environmental
performance at the evaluated or sanctioned facility.
Third, inspections and fines spill over to improve
environmental performance at other facilities located under the
same jurisdiction as the sanctioned facility via regulator
reputation effect.
And fourth, inspections and fines can induce facilities to
go beyond compliance and reduce pollution below their permitted
levels.
The literature on the effectiveness of alternative
approaches to promoting compliance, like enforcement actions
without penalties, voluntary programs, cooperative
arrangements, information disclosure and compliance assistance
is much smaller and the results are considerably more mixed.
My read of this literature is that environmental compliance
tools beyond traditional inspections and fines can be effective
when used as complements to traditional regulatory approaches
but not as substitutes to traditional approaches.
Some details on devolution: As has been stated at several
points today, the majority of environmental permitting,
inspection, and sanction activities are currently delegated to
State and local authorities. Scholars have long-noted
advantages and disadvantages of this system. One advantage is
that State and local agencies may have better information on
local conditions and preferences so activities can be more
carefully tailored to local circumstances. On the other hand,
the literature shows that decentralized oversight has
disadvantages as well. The evidence suggests that devolved
oversight can cause States to perceive a need to compete with
one another to attract new business with lax environmental
enforcement.
Decentralized enforcement can fail to adequately address
pollution impacts crossing State borders or attributable to
large firm operating in many States simultaneously.
Decentralization can heighten incentives for local regulators
to pursue the interest of the regulated community, rather than
the interest of the general public.
My own recent work also illustrates another peril of
devolution. Colleagues and I show that enforcement in a highly
devolved system can lead to unintended enforcement spillovers
across borders. Increases in enforcement pressure in one State
provide incentives for competitors in other States to increase
production and pollution. We show that this happens under the
U.S. Clean Water Act. Pollution reductions from more
enforcement in one State can be offset by increased pollution
by competitors in other States.
Results suggest that enforcement oversight may require more
rigorous regional and national coordination than is currently
available.
Some implications: The evidence suggests that all else
equal, reductions in EPA monitoring and enforcement actions
will sacrifice benefits for environmental quality, human
health, property values, and other endpoints.
In principle, reductions in EPA monitoring and enforcement
could be offset by countervailing increases in State and local
environmental monitoring and enforcement activity. As a matter
of practice, further devolution of oversight comes with risks
for environmental quality, human health, and property values.
Chair DeGette, distinguished Members, this concludes my
remarks. I hope these comments provide a perspective from
academic research on the important matters at hand.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shimshack follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Nelson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BAKEYAH S. NELSON
Dr. Nelson. Thank you, Chair DeGette, Ranking Member
Guthrie, and members of the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify here today about
EPA's enforcement record and the implications for the eight-
county Houston region.
I am the Executive Director of Air Alliance Houston, a
local nonprofit organization that works to improve air quality
and public health through research, education, and advocacy.
Illegal releases of air pollution are all too common in
Texas. Industry says these releases are unavoidable, yet they
also know the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas
Commission for Environmental Quality will not hold them
accountable. This leaves people across Houston and Texas almost
defenseless against harmful air pollution.
More than 400 petrochemical facilities, including two of
the four largest U.S. oil refineries reside in Harris County.
Emissions events in Texas have been found to lead to the
premature deaths of at least 16 people and $148 million in
health-related costs per year. TCEQ, however, fails to penalize
violators 97 percent of the time, according to an analysis by
Environment Texas. This general unwillingness to enforce the
law has essentially given industry a pass to poison.
The Valero Houston Refinery, for example, released
significant amounts of hydrogen cyanide into the air in 2016,
despite not having a permit to do so. The consequence? There
has been none to date. Neither EPA nor TCEQ has taken
enforcement action. This is extremely concerning because the
Valero refinery is located beside Houston's Manchester
community, where 97 percent of the residents are people of
color, 37 percent live in poverty, and 90 percent live within
one mile of an industrial facility that is subject to the EPA's
Risk Management Program. Many homes are within yards of the
refinery, which has self-reported more than 200 unauthorized
releases of toxic air pollutants since January 2003.
High exposures to hydrogen cyanide can be extremely harmful
to people's health and can result in death within minutes,
while exposure at lower concentrations can cause eye
irritation, headache, confusion, nausea, among other health
effects.
Hurricane Harvey serves as a cautionary tale about the
vulnerability of millions of Americans who live near chemical
plants. It also revealed how ill-equipped the State of Texas
and the EPA are to handle disasters. During Harvey, over eight
million pounds of pollution escaped into the air because of
inadequate preparation for the storm by industry, EPA, and
TCEQ.
The biggest emissions release occurred in Galena Park, a
predominately Latin and low-wealth community along the Houston
Ship Channel. Two storage tanks at the Magellan Terminal
released more than 11,000 barrels of gasoline. The company did
not report the incident until 11 days after the spill occurred,
according to the Houston Chronicle.
Life-long Galena Park resident, Juan Flores, who works as a
community organizer for Air Alliance Houston, said he and his
neighbors smelled the strong odor of petroleum for several days
after Harvey. People complained about the extreme stench,
burning eyes, and more. They closed doors and windows but many
still could not escape the odor, yet EPA and TCEQ have taken no
enforcement action against Magellan.
Galena Park is just one of many examples of how communities
suffered public health impacts from the storm and of the
inaction by EPA and TCEQ. During and in the immediate weeks
after the storm, several organizations collected information
and surveyed residents about the public health impacts. Many
reported worsening health conditions yet, EPA and TCEQ are not
holding the polluters accountable and have not yet required
action to prevent similar problems in the future.
Texas needs robust oversight from EPA because the State
also limits the ability of local agencies to pursue enforcement
actions against industrial polluters. Significant challenges
exist to local enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act.
Specifically, one of the challenges to local enforcement of the
Texas Clean Air Act is that, in some types of cases, the city
must notify the TCEQ of a violation and give the State agency
the first opportunity to determine whether to pursue an
enforcement action. However, as previously noted, TCEQ fails to
penalize violators 97 percent of the time.
Enforcement action is particularly critical for communities
of color and low wealth, as hazardous facilities are
disproportionately concentrated in these neighborhoods,
compromising the health and safety of people with some of the
greatest health challenges and the fewest resources to address
these issues.
The overwhelming majority of incidents that occurred during
Harvey took place in or near environmental justice communities.
Years ago, EPA had recognized the need to make preventing
chemical disasters a National Enforcement Initiative. The
communities in Houston haven't seen EPA make good on that
promise.
Even worse, after committing to an increase in enforcement
resources to the most overburdened communities in EPA's
Environmental Justice Strategic Plan, the Agency is, instead,
turning its back on communities that need enforcement the most,
like Houston. These communities simply cannot rely on
compassion or the good will of industry to comply with the law.
In conclusion, I want to thank the subcommittee for
conducting this hearing and for the opportunity to testify
today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Nelson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Tenpas, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RONALD J. TENPAS
Mr. Tenpas. Madam Chair DeGette, Ranking Member Guthrie,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
be here today and offer my perspective on environmental
enforcement efforts.
Just briefly, by way of my background on this, I've spent
approximately 20 of my 30-year legal career focused on issues
of enforcement of Federal law and regulation, seeing it both
from the perspective of the government and the perspective of
those who are subject to those laws and regulations.
I started by spending 12 years at the Justice Department,
beginning as an AUSA indeed in Congressman Castor's home
location as an AUSA in Tampa, Florida. I then spent, after 6
years as a line attorney, I spent 6 years as a political
appointee, including in two Senate-confirmed posts as a United
States Attorney in the Southern District of Illinois, and then
later as the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and
Natural Resources Division, the ENRD, as it is often called in
shorthand. Just like you have been referencing OECA here at
EPA, the ENRD is the group of lawyers that really take on all
of the major Federal environmental cases that end up in the
courts, including, of course, the most significant Federal
environmental enforcement cases.
And then following that time at the Justice Department,
I've spent the last 10 years in private practice assisting
clients, as they say, as they assess their environmental
obligations and address potential violations.
From that there are sort of five overall observations I
would offer to the committee today. First, as there has been a
great deal of discussion, both EPA and DOJ do try to measure
and report on their enforcement results and EPA is currently
using 12 major metrics. This data is, as I often put it, noisy.
Single case outcomes from year to year can drive the annual
results, making it sometimes difficult to discern fundamental
trends.
And so I would urge some amount of caution in drawing
strong conclusions based on any single subset of those metrics
or from even a narrow, relatively narrow period of years, a
single year, or 2 years.
As I look at the most recent EPA data that has been
published and that the committee has been discussing, I see
what I regard as a pretty typical mixed bag. Some enforcement
metrics are up. From what was observed during periods of the
prior administration, some are down, some are roughly in line
with prior history. Thus, to me, that data doesn't overall
suggest there has been an abandonment of environmental
enforcement.
Second, that kind of level of stability there is not
surprising to me, given that between EPA and DOJ there is a
very large and dedicated group of career professionals. And
that group ensures that, regardless of administration, there is
always likely to be a meaningful and continuous enforcement
effort, as there should be.
Third, for all of the attention that these annual
statistics may get, at the end of the day they are proxies and
they are somewhat poor proxies for the real objective here,
which is consistent compliance with our environmental
regulations. Enforcement is not an end in itself. The purpose
of enforcement is to incentivize and, when necessary, to coerce
compliance with our environmental regulations.
And this leads to my fourth point, which is that we should
always be open to the possibilities that there are better ways,
there are alternative ways to secure compliance. Use of the
enforcement stick need not be and likely should not be the only
strategy. In this respect, things like voluntary self-reporting
programs and similar incentive systems that aren't always
accompanied by formal enforcement actions or a formal
enforcement stat, as people in the government sometimes put it,
those programs can be very important nevertheless.
Finally, I will just say I have yet to meet the client who
has taken the view that, because there is some impression or
some reporting as has been discussed here, that enforcement
efforts are down, it's going to cut back on its own
environmental and compliance efforts. And one of the things
that I think the Congress and this country should be proud of
is that we know had a robust body of environmental statutes for
several decades and that has in fact spurred within the
corporate community them to develop large environmental health
and safety professional staff who do believe in and are
committed to complying with the law and who are well aware that
there is an active and effective sect of career professionals
at the enforcement agencies, Federal, State, and local. They
are aware that there is more than one agency on the job,
besides the EPA, under our scheme of cooperative federalism.
Thus to me it is likely a false narrative to assume that
even if enforcement efforts are subject to some adjustment at
the Federal level, the reaction within the regulated world is a
corresponding increase in noncompliance. I simply don't tend to
see that level of cause and effect in my own observations.
So I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I
appreciate the committee's invitation, and I look forward to
addressing any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tenpas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Tenpas, and thanks to
the entire panel.
The Chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
On the first panel today, we heard about some of the key
EPA enforcement mechanisms and how the enforcement figures have
really just plummeted by pretty much any index under this
administration. For example, we heard that EPA performed fewer
inspections last year than it had in over a decade. We heard
that the injunctive relief figure was the lowest in 15 years.
We heard that the civil penalties were the lowest in nearly 25
years, and the number of civil cases initiated was the lowest
since 1982. So I just want to ask some questions about this.
Mr. Schaeffer, in your written testimony, you said quote,
the ``EPA's enforcement results for the 2018 fiscal year were
historically low by almost every measure.'' Is that accurate?
Mr. Schaeffer. That is right.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, you are a former EPA career
enforcement official. And so I don't know if you heard Ms.
Bodine's testimony, but she seemed to think that these
statistics were unimportant and that in fact EPA's enforcement
activities were just fine for a variety of reasons.
What do you think the low numbers tell you about the EPA's
enforcement of environmental laws by this administration? And
are you concerned about some of these indicators and, if so,
which ones?
Mr. Schaeffer. So Madam Chairman, I am concerned. I think
first of all, these are measures that the EPA enforcement
program itself has selected to reflect their performance and
what you get out of enforcement.
Ms. DeGette. So it is their own statistics.
Mr. Schaeffer. Their own statistics and these are
performance measures that are published year after year.
And I think it is true that across the board, with very few
exceptions, they are all very far down. So they are well below
not just prior years, the prior few years, but historical
averages and that is of concern.
Ms. DeGette. Now, Mr. Buckheit, you are also a former EPA
career enforcement official. So do you agree with Mr. Schaeffer
that these indices can be used to see whether the Nation's
environmental laws are being adequately enforced?
Mr. Buckheit. Yes, I do. I mean they are all sort of a
mosaic that look at different parts of the program and when you
put them together, you get an overall picture of decline.
Ms. DeGette. An overall picture of decline?
Mr. Buckheit. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK, thank you.
Now last year, the President's budget request called for a
nearly 25 percent cut to the Agency. Had Congress not prevented
those cuts from taking place, the budget would have been at its
lowest level since 1991.
So Mr. Schaeffer, I wanted to ask you what message did last
year's budget request send to polluters and EPA's own staff
about the approach to environmental enforcement?
Mr. Schaeffer. That enforcement doesn't matter. Enforcement
requires staff. You can't do the work without people. You are
trying to cut the budget by a quarter, you are telling the
staff their work doesn't matter.
Ms. DeGette. Now what did you make of Ms. Bodine's
statement just a few minutes ago that, irrespective of what the
President's budget for next year, she is going to support it?
What do you think that message that sends in terms of
enforcement?
Mr. Schaeffer. Well, I think I suppose she has to, as the--
--
Ms. DeGette. Well, yes, but what do you think? What message
do you think that sends?
Mr. Schaeffer. I think it is confused, anyway. It is pretty
hard to constantly refer to the great work of the program at
the same time that your President is trying to slash it by so
much.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Dr. Shimshack, I wanted to ask you because Ms. Bodine
seemed to indicate that well, some of the national figures
weren't so important because the EPA was working with the
States on enforcement. And I think you would agree that State
enforcement is important. Is that correct?
Dr. Shimshack. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. But is that in a vacuum or is it important to
do that in conjunction with these other efforts?
Dr. Shimshack. So I think provided States have the
resources and the capacity. Even then, my best guess is that
further devolution may result in declines in environmental
quality, as I testified.
Ms. DeGette. Why is that?
Dr. Shimshack. Again, there are issues of spillovers across
States when they are not well coordinated. There are issues of
regulatory capture, et cetera, so the things that I mentioned
in my testimony. I do want to emphasize States do great work.
Ms. DeGette. Well right, but they can't do it in a vacuum.
Dr. Shimshack. But they are already doing the overwhelming
majority of the day-to-day oversight. There is enormous
variation in enforcement intensity across States. And States
are already being asked repeatedly to do more with less.
Ms. DeGette. Speaking about the enormous difference between
enforcement in States, Dr. Nelson, I think that is what your
testimony was about is the enforcement by your State of Texas.
Dr. Nelson. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. So do you think Texas can be relied on to do
the environmental enforcement by itself?
Dr. Nelson. I don't think so.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, the
ranking member, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. So this has been an
important hearing and I appreciate everybody being here.
Mr. Tenpas, in your testimony, you specifically talked
about noisy metrics and that single case outcomes can drive
annual numeric enforcement results reported by EPA and DOJ. Can
you further get into that? I know you only had 5 minutes to
make five points but I would like you to talk about how the
metrics are noisy and how that can show trends in reporting
that may not be accurate.
Mr. Tenpas. So what I meant by noisy is that you can get
particularly significant individual cases in any year that
cause that year to spike. And we have heard some discussions of
those, BP in the year that matter was resolved, Volkswagen in
the year that matter was resolved, and that feeds across the
variety of metrics that you might have.
In addition to some of these penalty ones, as was
referenced, there is data on, for example, what is the level of
commitment to clean up materials that have been achieved
through various agreements and consent decrees. That as well
can be very heavily influenced by a single case resolution with
one big company in a single year.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. You talked about--we have all talked about
other measurements other than just enforcement. And I think
someone said the trends were down across a lot of those
measurements.
Given what EPA measures, what else do you think we should
ask them to measure that would give us a better indication of
what they are doing?
Mr. Tenpas. Well I think you have heard a couple of good
ideas from Ms. Bodine this morning, when she talked about
trying to find ways to capture times when they have worked
effectively with a State to potentially do an inspection and
help identify a problem that then the State takes the lead in
working with the facility in resolving.
You have heard ideas, you know I think the tracking of the
self-reports that they have begun and I think is something of a
more recent development, I mean it precedes this administration
but I think it is more recent, is a very helpful metric for
folks to be watching and to see how--what that produces.
Mr. Guthrie. OK and also, Mr. Tenpas, as you currently note
in your testimony, the objective of EPA is to promote and
ensure compliance with our environmental laws and regulations.
In your opinion, what tool does EPA have that is most helpful
in ensuring compliance with environmental laws and regulations?
Mr. Tenpas. I don't know that I have a single tool. I mean,
part of that is what we are I think here to discuss today. I
think, as said, it is the mosaic of tools, the threat of
investigations, the use of and bringing cases, the use of
inspections, the working very cooperatively with States in the
regime that Congress established of cooperative federalism. I
mean Congress anticipated the States to have a kind of primacy
type role and EPA working with them to support them are
probably the three most important things.
Mr. Guthrie. So I always look in these hearings if
something can result in Congress making corrections and fixes
to this. That is one of the reasons we do this.
So are there any tools that EPA does not have that would be
helpful for it to have to help ensure compliance with
environmental laws and regulations?
Mr. Tenpas. There is nothing that occurs to me immediately.
I think there are always sort of adjustments that you make in
the program as you go along and as conditions change.
I mean as I noted in my testimony, there are some metrics,
you know one of the metrics has been sliding for years, and
years, and years. I take that to be a marker of success because
it is showing that some of the worst problems in terms of
pollution locations and pounds to be corrected have been dealt
with. And now we are at a different point in our enforcement
and compliance approach.
Mr. Guthrie. So I know Kentucky had a program in OSHA not
EPA but had a program that industry could invite OSHA
inspectors in. And if they came in and found negligence, there
were certain exceptions, that they came in and found they
immediately got fined. But what they really did was come in at
the invitation of the company, do inspections, here are things
you need to improve, go back and do follow-up. So the goal with
that was compliance, not necessarily just getting a fine to go
move forward. And I don't know the data because I like
professors to do studies on things because data is data. But I
don't know the result. But I would have to feel like that we
were getting more compliance, even though we were getting this
anecdotal less enforcement dollars.
Mr. Tenpas. And that sounds right to me. There is, as I
say, a variety of facilities they have staff, they do self-
audits, they do inspections, they sometimes bring in third
parties. But the government has a certain level of inspection
expertise as well. And so a program that allows a company to
draw on that expertise without necessarily feeling that its
reward for that if something is identified is going to be a
massive penalty. I can see how that program could be very
successful in improving compliance outcomes.
Mr. Guthrie. All right, well thank you.
And I yield back. My time has expired.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses for
being here today.
I would like to touch on EPA's 2018 annual enforcement
numbers and the trends, including what the overall picture
tells us about the lack of environmental enforcement under this
administration.
Mr. Schaeffer, your organization recently analyzed EPA's
enforcement trends, in light of the Agency's very own 2018
report. Broadly speaking, I think I heard you answer to
Chairwoman DeGette that the message that you take away is that
they do not prioritize enforcement of our bedrock American
environmental laws. Is that correct?
Mr. Schaeffer. I think that is true.
Ms. Castor. Would you go as far as to say that EPA
currently is abdicating its responsibility to the American
public?
Mr. Schaeffer. I would.
Ms. Castor. And Dr. Sellers, do you agree with that as
well?
Dr. Sellers. I agree with both those answers.
Ms. Castor. Because you recently contributed to a report on
the erosion of EPA's enforcement, the same organization that
developed this report analyzed the annual report. What else do
you want the American people to understand is going on at EPA
right now?
Dr. Sellers. Well, I think there are a lot of things going
on kind of below the publicity surface, below the level of the
media, that a lot of the employees feel like that industry is
absolutely calling the shots. This is a quote from one of our
interviewees.
Ms. Castor. Yes, can I just stop you there? You, in your
testimony, you said that your organization conducted hundreds
of interviews with recently retired and current EPA employees.
And you say that many told you of pressures applied by Agency
leadership explicitly urging EPA employees to go easy on
industry.
Give us some examples. What did they say? How many of the
folks you interviewed said that?
Dr. Sellers. I would not say hundreds. We did a hundred
interviews.
Ms. Castor. OK.
Dr. Sellers. I mean, examples include, for instance, Scott
Pruitt parading around the Agency with a trade association
group and then calling people in from the career staff, the
enforcement staff, to berate them and tell them they should
listen to this trade association group.
And I could multiply those stories. They are happening--
they happened all around the Agency, all these kinds of
pressures that staff was under. And it registered. And so I
think that is one of the big reasons.
Also that they have had to report even routine inspection
initiatives now to the political leadership. They have had
pushback from the regulated communities. It has been harder to
do their jobs just on the ground because of all the industries
feeling embolden.
For instance, a person doing a housing inspection for lead,
a childhood brain-damager, found that landlords are not
returning her calls or they were getting angry on the phone
with her.
So there is kind of micro-level pushback also is a big part
of it.
Ms. Castor. And Dr. Nelson, reading your testimony, I
remember well after Hurricane Harvey and all the reports of it,
environmental issues, and spills, and leaks in the Houston
area. And part of your testimony is entitled The Path to
Poison. I think folks would be appalled to understand that
after that--while you had the county grand jury indict
executives of a corporate polluter, EPA did not take any
enforcement action at all. Is that true?
Dr. Nelson. Not to my knowledge.
Ms. Castor. What, in your opinion, has happened with EPA's
interest in enforcing our environmental laws?
Dr. Nelson. I think EPA is behaving in a negligent manner
and communities in Houston and across the country are suffering
the public health impacts as a result.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Schaeffer, given the downward trend of several key
enforcement indicators, I am worried that in some cases that
EPA may not be getting the attention they deserve. I understand
your organization, the Environmental Integrity Project, has
documented certain cases that you have concerns about.
Walk us through a few of those examples.
Mr. Schaeffer. Sure. We have, for example, two plants in
Louisiana. In one case, the EPA inspectors found massive
breakdowns in the compliance system that led to release of
chloroprene, which is very toxic. It is a carcinogen, actually.
The chloroprene levels downwind in the African American
community that has been there forever, are way higher than EPA
thinks is safe.
We have butadiene coming out of the Firestone Polymers
plant because, according again to EPA inspectors, the company
really had no idea what was escaping out of its production
process. And we are talking here about thousands and thousands
of pounds. These are not paperwork violations. These are not
little things.
This is a company that is in the business of making
chemicals, and it should know when they get into the
environment. I don't think that is too much to ask. These cases
have been sitting for years.
We have got many other examples. We have got lead being
blown from facilities that aren't managing their lead emissions
and causing the air quality to exceed health-based standards in
communities downwind. Why are these cases--why have they not
resulted yet, several years later, in some cases 3 or 4 years
later, in an enforcement action?
So you are always going to find these problems out there.
Ms. DeGette. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Schaeffer. If you don't, you are not looking.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Tenpas, we have heard some of the witnesses today
criticize the administration's emphasis on cooperative
federalism, implying that cooperative federalism will diminish
or eliminate the EPA's role in controlling pollution. Is this
how you understand cooperative federalism to work?
Mr. Tenpas. No, sir. I mean EPA has a significant role in
first establishing the rules. It has a significant role
continuing and being able to investigate both civil and
criminal violations, pursuing resolution of those cases. But as
the name implies, cooperative federalism also involves a
substantial robust and important role for the States.
Mr. Griffith. So the EPA's role is not eliminated, is it?
Mr. Tenpas. No.
Mr. Griffith. And in these bad cases that we were just
hearing about, the EPA can take action. Isn't that true?
Mr. Tenpas. I don't know the specifics of those cases but,
generally, as a general matter, yes.
Mr. Griffith. Well it was interesting because I was
listening and it was 3, 4 years. So obviously, it is not
something new that has caused those problems that were just
mentioned.
What do you think the benefits are of the EPA's enhancing
its collaboration with State and Tribal partners to enforce the
environmental laws?
Mr. Tenpas. Well I think you get a variety of things. One
is EPA does have a level of expertise that it can, by working
with the States, transfer to officials in those States as to
the best practices for inspections, as to particular areas of
concern, as to what the regulatory requirements are overall in
discussing and making sure there is a clear understanding of
those.
So I think you know on the one hand bet, you get that. On
the other hand, I think part of what undermines all federalism,
cooperative or otherwise, is a recognition that often local
officials know their communities best and they have an
appreciation for the facilities, they have appreciation for the
issues in the community, and they probably have a sensitivity
and a level of contact with those facilities in a more regular
way that just makes them knowledgeable and effective in trying
to bring compliance to bear.
Mr. Griffith. And in your opinion, how does cooperative
federalism help promote a higher compliance rate?
Mr. Tenpas. Well, as I said, I think it primarily comes
about through drawing on and making robust the capacity that
the State has, those officials who are in their communities in
a regular way, and making them effective in using all of the
tools we have talked about, again, not just enforcement actions
but inspections, self-report and auditing programs. The
effectiveness comes about by making those State officials able
to do their work in a sensible way.
Mr. Griffith. And in many ways, I mean if you have a bad
actor, they are going to be bad actors no matter what. But for
those people that are struggling in the medium-sized
businesses, or even in small and large businesses, if they are
struggling to figure out, ``OK what are the rules here, what do
I need to do?,'' if they are sensing--and you can correct me if
you think I am wrong--if they are sensing that there is a no
win and even if they try hard, they are not going to succeed
and they are going to get fined or penalized, it just becomes
an adversarial proceeding.
Whereas, if you are trying to help them and say ``Look, if
you do it this way, things will be better and we are not going
to fine you,'' doesn't that get more cooperation as well? Isn't
that part of what the EPA is trying to do right now?
Mr. Tenpas. My sense is that is part of what they are
trying to do. And I would say just as a general matter for some
of those, as you say, smaller entities that don't have
necessarily the staff and the sophistication, they are trying
hard. They want to follow the rules; sometimes they can be
quite complicated.
And there is something to the fact that I think for a lot
of folks in that situation, the Federal Government sounds big
and scary. A State government agency feels like a place that
they think they can go to and get that advice that they need to
get them to the place they want to be, which is in compliance.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. In my district you know there are a lot
of people, and I don't adhere to that, and a lot of people have
advocated you know just we will abolish the EPA because they
feel so put down, burdened, oppressed, that they just like
forget it all. And yet I think the EPA can do some good things
and that is why I support what the EPA is currently trying to
do and what you have advocated for here today.
I appreciate it very much and I yield back.
Mr. Kennedy [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I want to start by thanking the witnesses for being here,
and your testimony, and your service. And I wanted to begin by
touching on the importance of deterring those bad actors, some
of which my colleague just mentioned.
I am worried that the most recent EPA numbers, as heard
about earlier this morning, may send the wrong message to
polluters and that the Agency is in fact failing to deter those
future violations.
So Dr. Shimshack, to start with you, sir, your testimony
touches on this point and you have done some academic work in
this area. Can you generally speak to the importance of
deterrence and what approach to enforcement may be needed by
the EPA to inhibit future environmental violations?
Dr. Shimshack. Sure. So deterrence, the fact that
inspections and penalties have implications for deterring
future violations is important not just in the sanction and
inspection facility but also there are spillover effects, what
we call general deterrence of interventions. Those spillover
effects of inspections and enforcement activities increase
compliance and reduce pollution among others. And deterrence
effects can also reduce future pollution beyond compliance
behavior as well.
Mr. Kennedy. So for you, Doctor, and for Mr. Schaeffer,
what specific tools do you believe the EPA has in its arsenal
to deter would-be polluters and do you believe that they are
currently effectively using them now?
Dr. Shimshack first.
Dr. Shimshack. So I will say that the evidence suggests
that interventions with teeth, fines are most effective. I
otherwise defer to Dr. Schaeffer--Mr. Schaeffer.
Mr. Schaeffer. Well, EPA uses a mix of tools and they have
always included giving people compliance assistance and helping
them to understand the rule of the road and those are
important.
I think one of the most important things that EPA does as a
national program is step in against, frankly, some of the
biggest polluters with lots of political connections and power
and take enforcement actions that States will not or cannot
because they don't have the capacity. If the EPA loses that
ability, then we lose something very important.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you concerned they are not leveraging that
capability?
Mr. Schaeffer. I am concerned about the direction the
Agency is going in in that way. And we have, again, examples of
violations that are pretty serious at big plants that just seem
to be sitting there and not getting attention.
Mr. Kennedy. And why is that, do you think?
Mr. Schaeffer. Well, I don't know. I think there is a
reluctance to enforce in this administration. I just have to
put that on the table.
There is a lot of talk about cooperative federalism. It has
its value but there are certain responsibilities that you can't
just push on--push off, rather, to the State agencies and I
think that is letting a lot of these violations just sit.
Mr. Kennedy. And Dr. Nelson, I wanted to see if you could
chime in.
You have noted in your testimony that Texas does not
penalize 97 percent of its air pollution violations. If that
number is accurate, and I am sure it is, the State either lacks
the will or the capacity to deal with a lot of these issues,
even during nonemergency times.
So Doctor, can you comment further on what it may mean if
the State of Texas is failing to penalize air pollution
violations and how important it is for the EPA to deter bad
actors, given the State may not always do so, building off of
what Mr. Schaeffer said?
Dr. Nelson. So if I understand your question correctly:
What are the implications of the State not enforcing?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, and any reason as to why you think a
State would not enforce 97 percent of the violations that would
come up.
Dr. Nelson. I don't think that the culture supports the
State enforcing much of the violations. I think the evidence
speaks for itself.
I think in terms of the implications of that, that
communities on the ground are experiencing the public health
impacts of the State not enforcing the laws of the Texas Clean
Air Act.
I don't think that it is cost-efficient in a State like
Texas for industry to comply with the law, when the risk of
being caught is low and, even if they are caught, the risk of
penalty and the penalties are so low as well. So the State of
Texas can penalize facilities for $25,000 per day, per
violation. And in that most recent report, they collected $1.2
million, which is about two cents per pound of the pollution
that was released.
Mr. Kennedy. Doctor, going off of what I think somebody
taught me in law school way back when, if you judge the
strength of the law by the power of its remedy and you have got
remedies in place but the State just chooses not to enforce it,
is there really any regulation to begin with?
Dr. Nelson. Well the regulation exists. I think the burden
is on the State agency and the State legislature to make it
effective.
Mr. Kennedy. And if there is no cost for compliance?
Dr. Nelson. If there is no cost for compliance, again, I
think that industry is going to behave in a manner that
maximizes its bottom line until it is forced not to.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
I yield to Ms. Kuster. Seeing no more from the witness, Ms.
Kuster, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
I will start with Dr. Sellers, if I could. The report you
contributed to says, quote, ``EPA employees point to budgetary
uncertainty and staff loss as factors that help explain the
downturn in enforcement under the Trump administration.''
Given the budgetary uncertainty and loss of staff that we
have been discussing here today, what did EPA employees tell
you about EPA's ability to enforce environmental laws? And if
you could, give us one or two examples about how EPA was unable
to go after polluters because of understaffing or this
approach.
Dr. Sellers. Sure. Yes, all the employees that we spoke
with mentioned this factor about losing staff. I mean, there
has been a gradual attrition and then there is, on top of that,
the buyouts and so on.
Ms. Kuster. Does that cause a lack of morale?
Dr. Sellers. It does. I mean, it doesn't send a positive
message. I think some of the departures are because people got
that message and decided to leave.
In terms of the kinds of things that are being lost, I
could give you an example, for instance, of someone who is in
charge of the asbestos program, at the enforcement, that left
in one of these departures, and there was no exchange of
knowledge. There was no effort. He had been there 20 years. He
was kind of the expert on this area, and it was not passed
along.
So EPA is now at a loss and there is a big hole there in
terms of what EPA can offer, even just in an advisory capacity,
to industry, much less issues of enforcement.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you.
And I am going to direct this at Mr. Schaeffer but, to
continue on that same theme, returning to my questions this
morning, we in my district, a town called Litchfield, New
Hampshire, had an incident of per- and polyfluorinated
compounds, PFAs, caused by a company, Saint-Gobain's. And I
discussed this morning that we have had to spend millions of
dollars to hook up these households in this community to clean
water because their wells are contaminated. They were on
bottled water the whole time while they waited for that to
happen.
In our case, we were fortunate that it did happen, but I
noticed there was an action plan released on PFAs last week
from the EPA, but it doesn't seem to include any action,
despite being called an action plan. While EPA officials said
they intend to move forward with maximum containment levels,
there is no commitment in the plan. And I am just curious about
your response to that.
And if you could comment, the witness this morning talked a
great deal about voluntary disclosures and we have been given
charts that the voluntary disclosures are going up. How can
they count on these companies to voluntary disclose what they
know about the contaminants that they have put into our soil,
and our water, and our air? And are we doing what is needed to
keep American families safe?
Mr. Schaeffer. So, Congressman, I don't know the specific
facts of the New Hampshire case. I would just say in general,
your fundamental to enforcement and I would say just to justice
is the responsible party should pay for the problems they
created and enforcement has a huge role in that. And so I would
look for that in any EPA strategy to deal with these
contaminants. I think that would be really, really important.
The government does, and I was there, I was part of this,
the government rolls out a lot of plans and makes a lot of
announcements. What you should look for are deadlines, and
numerical targets, and specific outcomes. And that----
Ms. Kuster. And some type of time table. And when I asked
her about the time table this morning, she said oh I will have
to get back to you on that. There is no time table, as far as I
can tell.
Mr. Schaeffer. Well and maybe they will come back with a
time table and it is great that you pushed for one. I think the
government benefits from that kind of push. But without
deadlines, not much happens in government agencies.
Ms. Kuster. And what is your experience, just in my waning
time here, with companies voluntarily disclosing that they have
massive incidents of pollution, knowing that if they were
caught, if there was remedy, they would be on the hook to pay
for that?
Mr. Schaeffer. They would have to pay. Well you know I
think in my experience you can get those kinds of voluntarily
disclosures when you have a strong enforcement program and
people understand the consequences of not coming forward.
They also want to know their competitors will be treated
more or less the same way. If you don't have that level playing
field, then you come forward, you know cut your deal to clean
the mess up, and you are looking sideways at your competitors
and you don't see that happen, then your voluntary compliance
will fall off the cliff.
Ms. Kuster. And given Dr. Nelson's comment about State-by-
State, if you are in a State with very low compliance activity,
why would you? I mean you are going to put yourself at a
competitive disadvantage.
So well, thanks to all of you for coming in today. We
appreciate it.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Sarbanes [presiding]. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding back.
I am going to yield 5 minutes to myself for questions.
I want to thank you all for being here today. I appreciate
your testimony.
I want to come back, as I was this morning, and talk about
injunctive relief. And obviously, this is a really critical
enforcement tool. It is saying to industries, it is saying to
violators, it is saying to polluters you need to adopt a
different way of behaving. You have to come into compliance
with certain rules, there are costs associated with that.
Mr. Buckheit and Mr. Schaeffer, as former EPA enforcement
officials, tell me why you view this within the toolkit that is
available to the EPA as such a critical enforcement mechanism.
Mr. Buckheit. The EPA's enforcement program is not about
collecting money for the Treasury. It is about protecting
public health. Fines are a part of that but the really
important part of that is what measures are installed to reduce
pollution as a result of your actions. And the surrogate for
that is the dollar amount of the injunctive relief. That
reflects the kinds--the amount that must be invested which is
directly related to the pollution reduction.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Schaeffer?
Mr. Schaeffer. I think that answers directly. I think
injunctive relief captures the cost of cleanup. When you see
bigger commitments, that tells you that you are finding the
right cases. You are finding the most serious problems where
you need companies to make a real long-term investment in
cleanup.
Mr. Sarbanes. So I want to go back to the numbers a little
bit because in fiscal year 2018, the EPA enforcement actions,
injunctive relief actions resulted in $3.9 billion in
injunctive relief. According to the Christian Science Monitor,
this figure is the lowest in 15 years.
And in that same article, it was indicated that 40 percent
of that total comes from cases that were settled by the EPA
during the Obama administration, which means that the fiscal
year 2018 numbers could have been worse.
I understand that when you capture these things makes a
difference. You have to look at what the window is and so
forth.
But in any event, given what you know, Mr. Schaeffer, Mr.
Buckheit, about this and these numbers that I just read to you,
I am curious just to get your thoughts on the 2018 numbers.
What do you think they mean and, frankly, is it sending some
kind of signal to industry, and how are they interpreting that
signal?
Mr. Buckheit. Obviously, to state the obvious, they mean
that there is less activity to reduce pollution coming out of
the air.
What I think is happening here is a pipeline issue. You see
a number of years of fairly robust activity under the Obama
administration and you have heard different witnesses talk
about how it takes a period of time to build and maintain this
pipeline of cases that will go through the system.
What I saw in the enforcement policies was, I think, that
the administration is cutting off activity, except for matters
that are already referred to the Justice Department, in the
four key sectors that have been identified as priorities. And
so I think that then creates a gap in the pipeline, which then
leads to the lower numbers in the bigger cases.
Mr. Sarbanes. Which means we could see this trend
continue----
Mr. Buckheit. I think so.
Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. In the future because the number
of initiatives that are being undertaken now, we will see the
results or lack of results of that further down the pipeline.
Mr. Buckheit. I fully agree and I note that they don't have
any sectors that they are focusing on for future activities,
you know which big industrial sectors.
Mr. Sarbanes. Right.
Mr. Schaeffer, do you have any comments on kind of how the
industry is going to interpret this?
Mr. Schaeffer. I think that is a complete answer.
To be fair, the total value of injunctive relief in any one
year can be affected by one or two very large cases. But even
controlling for those outliers, it is a pretty substantial
drop. And I agree with Bruce that it reflects the fact that
kind of less is being put in to enforcement than used to be
and, sooner or later, that plays out in declining results.
Mr. Sarbanes. And again, I just want to emphasize before I
close here that if this isn't being exercised properly as an
enforcement tool, it is sending a signal to industry that, in a
sense, the cop is off the beat. They don't have to be as
conscientious about the measures that need to be undertaken
here.
Whether they were inclined to do that or not absent
somebody is leaning on them is a different question but,
overall, that is not good signaling to have.
Thank you all very much.
Now I would like to yield 5 minutes to Congressman Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you there, Mr. Chair and welcome to our
witnesses.
Mr. Schaeffer, as I understand it, civil penalties are an
important EPA enforcement tool. I heard some of this last
exchange and find it interesting. The penalties are monetary
assessments, obviously, paid by a regulated entity because of a
violation or noncompliance. They are designed to recover the
financial benefit a company has obtained by breaking the law
and they impose added costs to deter firms from breaking the
law again in the future.
So my question to you is, very briefly, could you explain
why civil penalties are an important enforcement tool for EPA?
Mr. Schaeffer. It has to cost you more when you violate the
law you know than--it has to cost you more if you violate the
law and ignore it than not. If there is no sanction, nothing
hits your pocketbook when you fail to comply with your
pollution limits, then you have less incentive to comply.
Some companies with better management will continue to try
to do that but slowly, the system erodes if people realize you
never have to pay anything for violating the law.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Again, Mr. Schaeffer, according to EPA's annual enforcement
report for fiscal year 2018, EPA obtained just over $69 million
in Federal administrative and civil judicial penalties last
year. The Washington Post noted that the number of civil
penalties assessed was the lowest since the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance was established back in
1994. While that seems troubling on its face, I will hold up a
chart that I did in the last for Administrator Bodine that
adding now 2019 to date, and most of that spike, a huge spike,
but it is explained I believe by the Fiat Chrysler situation.
So now we have asked for information we hope to receive
relatively soon what the impact of 2019 is if you take that
Fiat Chrysler out of the picture.
So troubling certainly on the face, is it a legitimate
concern that we ought to have about those numbers?
Mr. Schaeffer. Well I think you can take Fiat out and you
can also take out the very large once in a great while
penalties like the one for the BP----
Mr. Tonko. BP and VW.
Mr. Schaeffer. Right.
Mr. Tonko. And this chart was adjusted for that.
Mr. Schaeffer. Right. If you do take those outliers out, I
think you will still see a decline in 2018 and perhaps
continuing into 2019 as well.
Mr. Tonko. And Mr. Buckheit and Dr. Sellers, do you have
any thoughts on what the latest civil enforcement numbers mean
like those that I just shared? It seems like we had a few cases
that drove things, especially now in 2019.
Mr. Buckheit. I totally agree that the reduction in
numbers, these numbers reflects badly on the program.
And I would just add a comment about the mobile source
enforcement numbers. It is a good thing that the administration
is doing this and assessing a large fine but you have to keep
in mind that California has its own independent enforcement
authorities and California is pursuing this and getting a per
vehicle penalty associated with it.
So again, kudos to the administration for getting involved
in doing this but you know it is a little bit--it is led by
California in terms of pushing towards those large numbers.
Dr. Sellers. Yes, I would just say that it is a mistake
just to focus on the kinds of enforcement numbers that do have
these big penalties or these big chunks that distort the data.
If you look at all the other data that is not distorted by that
kind of sum, and that is most of it, then the declines are even
more marked and unmistakable.
So that was what----
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Dr. Shimshack and Mr. Schaeffer,
do you believe focusing on compliance assistance is a suitable
substitute? Now, I heard some of that exchange that you had but
as a suitable--is it a suitable substitute for enforcement
activity, such as issuing civil penalties?
Mr. Schaeffer. Certainly not. Compliance assistance is very
important. A serious violation, unless there is some
extenuating circumstances especially by large companies with
deep pockets, they should pay. There is no conflict between
compliance assistance and enforcement. You need both.
Mr. Tonko. OK, Dr. Shimshack.
Dr. Shimshack. My view is that they are complementary and
not appropriate as substitutes for one another.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Well you know many of us are concerned about
the mission statement of EPA taken somewhat lightly. And the
improvements we have made through the years and some of the
concerns coming before them, as my colleague from New Hampshire
raised with PFAS, there is real concern that the enforcement of
these statutes and various programs become very, very critical
to the quality of life in the communities that we all
represent.
And so I thank you all for sharing your thoughts today.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. DeGette [presiding]. Thank you, gentlemen. The charts
that Mr. Tonko was referring to are part of the package of
charts that were provided to both Democratic and Republican
staffs by the EPA when we were being briefed. Ms. Castor also
referred to one of these charts.
And so I am going to ask unanimous consent to put these
charts into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. DeGette. I want to thank all the witnesses for their
participation in today's hearing. And I want to remind the
Members that pursuant to committee rules, you have 10 business
days to submit additional questions for the record to be
answered by witnesses who have appeared before the
subcommittee. I would ask all of you, if you do get these
questions, to please respond as quickly as possible.
And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]