[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-664 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
September 19, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 16
Written statement............................................ 18
Witness:
The Honorable Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 22
Discussion....................................................... 26
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 68
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Article submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 116
Article submitted by Representative Brian Babin, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 119
Letter submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 122
Documents submitted by Representative Sean Casten, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 124
Study submitted by Representative Sean Casten, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 126
Additional material submitted by The Honorable Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency................. 137
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie
Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
at any time.
Good morning. The Administrator's staff has informed us
that he must leave this hearing at noon, leaving less than 2
hours for Member questions. So in order to afford more Members
the opportunity to engage with the Administrator, I've asked
that each Member be limited to a total of 4 minutes to ask
questions. Without objection, so ordered.
I want to note for the record that we received
Administrator Wheeler's testimony less than 24 hours before the
start of the hearing. We did give sufficient notice for this
hearing, and it is important for Members and staff to be able
to review testimony prior to the hearing to properly prepare.
We expect that in the future hearings we'll receive the EPA's
testimony at least 48 hours in advance.
I'd like to welcome our Administrator--good morning, Mr.
Wheeler--to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for
the first time. The Members of this Committee look forward to
your testimony today and as we all understand and value the
important role the EPA plays in the health, safety, and
prosperity in our communities.
I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that
our constituents also understand the importance of a strong
EPA, and they are paying attention to the decisions being made
here in Washington. They reach out to us when they hear about
the dismantling of clean air standards because they are
concerned that it could exacerbate their children's asthma.
They reach out to us when EPA's own IRIS (Integrated Risk
Information System) assessments show that chemicals being
released from nearby facilities could pose serious health risks
to their families. They reach out to us because Congress has a
responsibility to the American public to protect their best
interests through dedicated oversight of the Federal agencies
that are supposed to be protecting our health and safety.
This Administration has shown that its priorities do not
lie with the average American. Draconian cuts in the
President's budget requests have sought to cut funding for
EPA's research and development (R&D) nearly in half. The
research that EPA funds has been vital to the development of
its landmark public health protections.
The research conducted and supported by EPA is not
replicated by any other local, State, or Federal agency.
Cutting this critical research to the levels proposed by this
Administration would be an insurmountable loss to environmental
science and public health. It is profoundly disturbing to see
the actions this EPA has taken to dismantle many of its own
standards and regulations that were established primarily to
protect public health.
This Administration's push to deregulate seems to be led by
political ideologies, with limited input from scientific
experts. Remarkably, sometimes this Administration's zeal to
roll back public health protection even exceeds the desires of
industry.
Many Members of the regulated community have come out in
opposition to EPA's recent actions to roll back regulations on
glider trucks, methane emissions from the oil and gas industry,
and EPA's unprecedented and ill-advised revocation of
California's authority to set its own clean car standards.
Since the establishment of the EPA nearly 50 years ago,
this country has shown that we can protect everyone, from our
most vulnerable populations to our most healthy, without
sacrificing economic growth. But it is naive to think that
because the EPA has been so successful in accomplishing its
mission over the past decades that we can now roll back
regulations in order to benefit industry and expect no negative
impacts on public health.
Environmental protection is an ongoing process. It requires
the persistence that is exemplified by the dedicated scientists
and engineers who work at EPA. These committed public servants
have the full support of the American people. But they need
your full support, Mr. Administrator, as well as full support
of Congress, to help them continue to carry out the Agency's
mission. Let me be clear, gutting the roles of science in EPA's
regulatory and decisionmaking processes will not make our air
safer to breath or our water safer to drink.
As the congressional Committee with jurisdiction over
research and development activities at EPA, my colleagues and I
take our oversight role very seriously. We have attempted to
engage with you and your staff on a number of occasions and
issues that directly impact public health. We are still waiting
for adequate responses from the Agency on many of these
inquiries. Simply stating the total number of pages of
documents provided to the Committee does not address whether
they are responsive to the requests.
I hope this will not be the only time that we can see you
before the Committee, and today marks the start of an open
dialog between our Members and yourself. We look forward to
working together with you to ensure that the best interests of
the American public are at the heart of EPA's actions and that
those actions are informed by the high-caliber science that
distinguishes EPA on the world stage.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning. I would like to welcome Administrator Wheeler
to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for the
first time. The Members of this Committee look forward to your
testimony today as we all understand and value the important
role the EPA plays in the health, safety, and prosperity of our
communities.
I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that
our constituents also understand the importance of a strong
EPA, and they are paying attention to the decisions being made
here in Washington. They reach out to us when they hear about
the dismantling of clean air standards, because they are
concerned it could exacerbate their children's asthma. They
reach out to us when EPA's own IRIS assessments show that
chemicals being released from nearby facilities could pose
serious health risks to their families.
They reach out to us because Congress has a responsibility
to the American public to protect their best interests through
dedicated oversight of the Federal agencies that are supposed
to be protecting their health and safety.
This Administration has shown that its priorities do not
lie with the average American. Draconian cuts in the
President's budget requests have sought to cut funding for
EPA's research and development nearly in half. The research
that EPA funds has been vital to the development of its
landmark public health protections. The research conducted and
supported by the EPA is not replicated by any other local,
state, or federal agency. Cutting this critical research to the
levels proposed by this Administration would be an
insurmountable loss to environmental science and public health.
It is profoundly disturbing to see the actions this EPA has
taken to dismantle many of its own standards and regulations
that were established primarily to protect public health. This
Administration's push to deregulate seems to be led by
political ideologues, with limited input from scientific
experts. Remarkably, sometimes this Administration's zeal to
roll back public health protections even exceeds the desires of
industry. Many members of the regulated community have come out
in opposition to EPA's recent actions to roll back regulations
on glider trucks, methane emissions from the oil and gas
industry, and EPA's unprecedented and ill advised revocation of
California's authority to set its own clean car standards.
Since the establishment of the EPA nearly 50 years ago,
this country has shown that we can protect everyone, from our
most vulnerable populations to our most healthy, without
sacrificing economic growth. But it is naive to think that
because the EPA has been so successful in accomplishing its
mission over the past decades that we can now roll back
regulations in order to benefit industry and expect no negative
impacts to public health.
Environmental protection is an ongoing process. It requires
the persistence that is exemplified by the dedicated scientists
and engineers who work at the EPA. These committed public
servants have the full support of the American people. But they
need your full support, Mr. Administrator, as well as the full
support of Congress, to help them continue to carry out the
Agency's mission.
Let me be clear, gutting the role of science in EPA's
regulatory and decision-making processes will not make our air
safer to breath, or our water safer to drink.
As the Congressional Committee with jurisdiction over
research and development activities at EPA, my colleagues and I
take our oversight role very seriously. We have attempted to
engage with you and your staff, Mr. Administrator, on a number
of issues that directly impact public health. We are still
waiting for adequate responses from the Agency on many of these
inquiries. Simply stating the total number of pages of
documents provided to the Committee does not address whether
they are responsive to our requests.
I hope this will not be the only time we see you before
this Committee, and that today marks the start of an open
dialogue between our Members and yourself. We look forward to
working together with you to ensure that the best interests of
the American public are at the heart of the EPA's actions, and
that those actions are informed by the high-caliber science
that distinguishes EPA on the world stage.
Chairwoman Johnson. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking
Member, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. And thank you,
Administrator Wheeler, for being here today to discuss the
EPA's Fiscal Year 2020 budget request.
The EPA is charged with the broad and vital mission of
protecting our Nation's air, land, and water. From hazardous
waste clean-up to protecting human health to setting clean air
and water standards, the EPA's work affects every American.
While much of the EPA's regulatory mission falls under the
jurisdiction of other congressional Committees, the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology oversees the EPA's work on
environmental research and development. This R&D is critical to
providing sound science needed for the EPA to effectively carry
out their mission to protect our environment. I'm looking
forward to a discussion about the role science and technology
play in the Agency's mission, and I'd like to encourage my
colleagues to focus on the important jurisdiction when
questioning the Administrator.
In my many years on both the Ag and Science Committees,
every discussion of the EPA included talk of overregulation. In
the past, it seemed like instead of protecting the environment,
the EPA was more focused on pursuing a political agenda that
led to an expansive, and, I might add, expensive regulatory
burdens.
Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Under the
leadership of Administrator Wheeler, the EPA has shifted from
top-down, one-size-fits-all regulations to a flexible,
technology-driven approach that works with local communities to
protect our environment and maintain economic growth. I'm
confident that under the leadership of Administrator Wheeler,
America will remain the gold standard of environmental
protection around the world. And by leveraging new
technologies, we can protect our environment without imposing
sweeping government mandates.
As the Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I may be
biased, but I believe that technology should be the cornerstone
of our efforts to reduce global emissions and address our
environmental challenges. American industry is already making
great strides by investing in technologies like carbon capture,
advanced nuclear, and energy storage. EPA should encourage the
adoption of innovative ways to monitor and reduce emissions,
while allowing us to use all of our natural resources safely
and effectively.
This is the kind of approach that has helped significantly
improve air quality in the United States. According to the
EPA's most recent air trends report, the number of unhealthy
air days, along with the emissions of key air pollutants, have
declined since 2000. Our fine particulate matter levels are 5-
times lower than the global average. And we've made progress
while growing our economy.
Under the Trump Administration, I've been pleased to see
the EPA focus on using sound, transparent science to develop
environmental solutions that will bring all the stakeholders to
the table. If we want our policies to be successful, they need
to be based on the best available science and also be
achievable without damaging our economy. I believe the
Administration is working hard on both.
I also want to take a moment and applaud Administrator
Wheeler for finalizing the first step to repeal the Obama
Administration's WOTUS (Waters of the United States) rule this
week. This rule is exactly the wrong way to protect the
environment, a Federal Government power grab that made it
harder for farmers, ranchers, and landowners to do business. By
returning to limited regulatory authority established under the
Clean Water Act, the EPA has taken a balanced approach that
both supports our environment and our economy.
But don't let anyone fool you. Rolling back this regulation
had nothing to do with ignoring the science, and it won't lead
to more pollution in our waterways. In fact, the Trump
Administration has prioritized efforts to improve water quality
by investing in water infrastructure.
Although the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act loan program and the State Revolving Funds program, the EPA
has helped local communities modernize outdated infrastructure
and improve water quality. This investment will improve the
health and safety of our Nations' waterways and create jobs.
I'm sure that we'll hear criticisms of the EPA today. I
hope that instead of falsely attacking the Agency as anti-
science, or focusing on Administrator Wheeler's predecessor, we
can make this a productive hearing where we honestly assess the
work being done to protect the environment. I believe the EPA
is on the right track and is working to find a science-based,
collaborative approach to ensure all Americans and future
generations can enjoy a cleaner, safer, healthier environment.
I want to thank Administrator Wheeler again for his hard
work, along with all of the staff at the EPA, and I look
forward to hearing his testimony this morning.
And I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and thank you Administrator
Wheeler for being here today to discuss the EPA's fiscal year
2020 budget request.
The EPA is charged with the broad and vital mission of
protecting our nation's air, land, and water. From hazardous
waste clean-up to protecting human health to setting clean air
and water standards, the EPA's work affects every American.
While much of the EPA's regulatory mission falls under the
jurisdiction of other Congressional Committees, the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology oversees the EPA's work on
environmental research and development. This R&D is critical to
providing the sound science needed for the EPA to effectively
carry out their mission to protect our environment.
I'm looking forward to a discussion about the role science
and technology play in the agency's mission, and I'd like to
encourage my colleagues to focus on this important jurisdiction
when questioning the Administrator.
In my years on both the Agriculture and Science Committees,
every discussion of the EPA included talk of overregulation. In
the past, it seemed like instead of protecting the environment,
the EPA was more focused on pursuing a political agenda that
led to expansive, and might I add expensive, regulatory
burdens.
Fortunately, that is no longer the case. Under the
leadership of Administrator Wheeler, the EPA has shifted from
top-down, one-size-fits-all regulations, to a flexible,
technology-driven approach that works with local communities to
protect our environment and maintain economic growth.
I'm confident that under the leadership of Administrator
Wheeler, America will remain the gold standard of environmental
protection around the world. And by leveraging new
technologies, we can protect our environment without imposing
sweeping government mandates.
As the Ranking Member of the Science Committee, I may be
biased - but I believe that technology should be the
cornerstone of our efforts to reduce global emissions and
address our environmental challenges. American industry is
already making great strides by investing in technologies like
carbon capture, advanced nuclear, and energy storage.
EPA should encourage the adoption of innovative ways to
monitor and reduce emissions, while allowing us to use all of
our natural resources safely and effectively.
That is the kind of approach that has helped significantly
improve air quality in the United States. According to the
EPA's most recent air trends report, the number of unhealthy
air days, along with the emissions of key air pollutants, have
declined since 2000. Our fine particulate matter levels are
five times lower than the global average. And we've made that
progress while growing our economy.
Under the Trump Administration, I've been pleased to see
the EPA focus on using sound, transparent science to develop
environmental solutions that bring all the stakeholders to the
table. If we want our policies to be successful, they need to
be based on the best available science - and also be achievable
without damaging our economy. I believe this Administration is
working hard to do both.
I also want to take a moment and applaud Administrator
Wheeler for finalizing the first step to repeal the Obama
Administration's WOTUS rule this week. This rule was exactly
the wrong way to protect the environment - a federal government
power grab that made it harder for farmers, ranchers, and
landowners to do business.
By returning to limited regulatory authority established
under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has taken a balanced
approach that supports both our environment and the economy.
But don't let anyone fool you. Rolling back this regulation
had nothing to do with ignoring the science, and it won't lead
to more pollution in our waterways. In fact, the Trump
Administration has prioritized efforts to improve water quality
by investing in water infrastructure.
Through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
loan program and State Revolving Funds program, the EPA has
helped local communities modernize outdated infrastructure and
improve water quality. This investment will improve the health
and safety of our nations' waterways and create jobs.
I'm sure that we will hear criticisms of the EPA today. I
hope that instead of falsely attacking the Agency as anti-
science, or focusing on Administrator Wheeler's predecessor, we
can make this a productive hearing where we honestly assess the
work being done to protect our environment. I believe the EPA
is on the right track, and is working to find a science-based,
collaborative approach to ensure all Americans and future
generations can enjoy a cleaner, safer, and healthier
environment.
I want to thank Administrator Wheeler again for his hard
work, along with all the staff at the EPA, and look forward to
hearing his testimony this morning.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
If there are other Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
Before we open, I want to welcome the Moms Clean Air Force
in the audience in red T-shirts--parents united against air
pollution. Thank you for coming.
At this time I'd like to introduce our witness. The
Honorable Andrew Wheeler currently serves as the 15th
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr.
Wheeler has spent his career working on environmental topics,
started his career as a Special Assistant to the EPA's
Pollution Prevention and Toxics Office under the H.W. Bush
Administration. He spent 12 years on the Senate Committee of
Environmental Public Works serving 6 of those years as Chief
Counsel and Minority and Majority Staff Director.
In 2009, Mr. Wheeler shifted to private-sector work and was
a principal and team leader of the Energy and Environment
Practice Group, as well as co-chair of the Energy and Natural
Resources Group at Faegre Baker Daniels consulting. He was
nominated to serve as the Deputy Administrator of the EPA in
October 2017 and was confirmed as Administrator in February
2019.
He earned his law degree at Washington University in St.
Louis and his MBA at George Mason University. He is also an
Eagle Scout.
Administrator Wheeler, you will have 5 minutes for your
spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in
the record for the hearing. When you have completed your spoken
testimony, we will begin a round of questions. Each Member will
have 4 minutes to question the panel. Welcome, and you may
begin your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ANDREW WHEELER,
ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Wheeler. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman
Johnson, for the introduction. And I do agree. I hope today's
hearing is the start of a good, open dialog with the Committee
between myself and the Committee and my staff. Thank you very
much. Good morning, Ranking Member Lucas and Members of the
Committee.
The Environmental Protection Agency is one of the world's
leading research organizations. Every day, our scientists and
researchers develop information and technology that are
critical to protecting human health and the environment. Since
I've taken the lead at EPA, I visited five of our research
facilities and the Lake Guardian, our largest research vessel
located on the Great Lakes.
I am regularly briefed by agency scientists, and I rely on
their work and expertise. I'm always impressed with the rigor,
integrity, and dedication of our career scientists and staff.
I'm here today to discuss the ways that we are supporting and
advancing their efforts.
We are promoting science at the Agency more than it has
been in years. And these efforts are leading to groundbreaking
advancements in environmental science. Earlier this week, for
example, we announced approximately $6 million in new funding
to eight leading research organizations to advance our
understanding of PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).
This is just one of the many ways that we are delivering on our
PFAS action plan, the most comprehensive, multimedia research
and risk communication plan to address a chemical of concern
ever issued by the EPA.
Our scientists, working in concert with the Department of
Defense, are providing the research and technology to support
the action plan. They're developing methods to detect and
quantify PFAS in the air, water, and soil. They are evaluating
methods to treat or remove PFAS from drinking water. They
developed a draft toxicity assessment for GenX and PFBS, and
they are working to understand the potential toxicity for the
many other PFAS and their potential degradation products. EPA
is one of the few places in the world where this type of
cutting-edge science is being conducted day in and day out.
We're also leading the way on research for reducing
childhood lead exposure. Our scientists are identifying high-
risk areas and providing technical assistance for reducing lead
in drinking water and at contaminated sites. Their modeling
efforts and research activities are directly impacting major
regulatory decisions such as our forthcoming proposal to update
the lead and copper rule, the first major update in over 2
decades. And the same outstanding researchers who provided
vital information to help Flint, Michigan, are now working with
State and local officials in Newark, New Jersey, on their
efforts to ensure safe drinking water for the city's residents.
To support our scientists and researchers, we are
continuing looking for ways to make the Agency more effective
and more responsive. That is why we are restructuring the
Office of Research and Development (ORD). We've briefed many of
you and your staff on this reorganization, but I'd like to
reiterate that it will help ORD better address the increasingly
complex environmental challenges of the 21st century. It will
not result in the loss of jobs. It does not change any of the
important work ORD is tasked with, only how we manage those
functions. And I'd like to remind you that this effort was led
by EPA career staff. We plan to have the reorganization in
place by October 1.
Earlier this month, we took another step in modernizing the
Agency by committing to aggressively reduce animal testing.
This issue is very important to me personally. Advances in
computer modeling and in-vitro testing are surpassing animal
testing, and we need to keep pace. I issued a memo that commits
the Agency to important goals such as reducing mammal study
requests and funding by 30 percent by 2025 and then eliminating
all requests and funding by 2035. Any request for funding after
2035 will require the Administrator's approval on a case-by-
case basis.
We also announced $4.25 million in funding to five research
universities to advance the development of alternative test
methods for evaluating the safety of chemicals that will
minimize and hopefully eliminate the need for animal testing.
Finally, we are committed to the highest-quality science.
Good science is science that can be replicated and
independently validated, science that holds up to scrutiny.
That is why we're moving forward to ensure that the science
supporting Agency decisions is transparent and available for
evaluation by the public and stakeholders. I cut my teeth as a
career employee at the Agency working on the Community Right-
to-Know Act. I fundamentally believe the more information we
provide to the public the better our regulations will be and
the more they will trust our decisions. At the same time, we
will ensure that we're not disclosing confidential or personal
information. Other agencies already do that, and we can do the
same. Our proposed rule will apply prospectively to final
significant regulatory actions, and we intend to issue a
supplemental proposed rule to our science transparency
regulation early next year.
I'm very proud of the science we do at the Agency. As you
all heard at a recent hearing, EPA has one of the strongest
scientific integrity policies in the Federal Government. The
GAO (Government Accountability Office) report recently examined
our policies and those of nine other agencies, and we are the
only agency that received no recommendations to correct
deficiencies. That is a testament to the tremendous work of the
EPA career staff. I will continue to support them in their
work, and we will ensure that the EPA of the 21st century
remains a global leader in science and research. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler.
I'd like to ask now unanimous consent that Representative
Axne be allowed to join us on the dais. And then further, I'd
like to acknowledge and recognize Mr. Tonko for the first round
of questions since he has to leave. Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
your flexibility. And welcome, Mr. Administrator.
EPA established its Scientific Integrity Policy in 2012 in
order to formalize the Agency's approach to honesty,
communication, professional development, and expert engagement
on scientific issues. As you likely know, the Government
Accountability Office's review of scientific integrity policies
at several Federal agencies highlighted the EPA's robust
scientific integrity policies. I would like to congratulate the
EPA for its impressive Scientific Integrity Policy,
particularly as I worked to pass the Scientific Integrity Act,
which would codify, standardize, and strengthen scientific
integrity policies across our Federal agencies.
I just heard your closing statement, but I want to ask
again. Until we can codify this requirement, can I expect your
continued support for your Agency's robust scientific integrity
policies?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir. And chlorpyrifos is a pesticide
that causes severe short- and long-term health impacts.
Agricultural workers have collapsed from exposure, nauseated
and convulsing. Particularly horrifying are the impacts of
chlorpyrifos on developing fetuses and young children. When EPA
proposed in 2015 to ban the chemical, it cited studies showing
that at 3 years old the likelihood of highly exposed children
developing mental delays were significantly greater than those
with lower prenatal exposure. But just this past July, EPA
announced it would allow chlorpyrifos back on the market.
I have a series of questions that I would ask you respond
to in yes or no fashion. In rolling back EPA's recommended ban
on chlorpyrifos, did the Agency consider its own findings about
the severe health and developmental consequences for children
and workers exposed to this pesticide, sir? Yes or no?
Mr. Wheeler. Our career staff looked aggressively at the
science that we had in making the decision----
Mr. Tonko. That's yes. EPA previously stated that the
Agency's assessment contained sufficient evidence to conclude
that negative neurodevelopmental effects from chlorpyrifos
occur at exposure levels below the currently permitted level.
Are you aware of the--yes or no--of the findings in this report
the EPA's revised human health risk assessment?
Mr. Wheeler. I'm aware of those, but we are currently
reviewing----
Mr. Tonko. So----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. The pesticide----
Mr. Tonko. OK.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. And we're----
Mr. Tonko. That's a yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. On track to review it by 2022.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Did EPA base its decision to allow
industrial use of chlorpyrifos on new, unrevealed scientific
evidence that contradicted or discredited the Agency's 2015
analysis? Yes or no?
Mr. Wheeler. I would have to get back to you on that
because I want to make sure I don't misstate on the science
that the career scientists used for that decision.
Mr. Tonko. Please do so in rapid fashion. Did this
specifically include the evidence of chlorpyrifos impairing the
brain development of children and fetuses? Yes or no?
Mr. Wheeler. I can't comment on the specific studies of--
the career scientists used for their determination. I wouldn't
want to--I don't want to misspeak----
Mr. Tonko. Well, these are important----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. On behalf of the scientists.
Mr. Tonko. They're important----
Mr. Wheeler. I understand that.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Questions, so----
Mr. Wheeler. I take the recommendations from my career
scientists on chlorpyrifos. They recommended that we continue
with it----
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. While they undergo the longer
review----
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir. I just want to use my time here.
In 2017, your predecessor Scott Pruitt announced that EPA would
delay the 2015 proposed ban on chlorpyrifos citing regulatory
certainty for industry as his reason. Mr. Wheeler, can you
remind me the stated mission of EPA?
Mr. Wheeler. Our mission is to protect public health and
the environment.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir. Is there anywhere the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, where
regulatory certainty for industry is named as an evaluation
criteria for EPA's decisionmaking?
Mr. Wheeler. We try to provide regulatory certainty for
everything that we do, certainty for the American public,
certainty for the community----
Mr. Tonko. So is that a yes or no?
Mr. Wheeler. Nothing specifically in that statue, but we
try to provide regulatory certainty for all of our decisions,
and we try to make all of our decisions open and transparent
for everybody to see what scientists----
Mr. Tonko. So I'm assuming----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Are basing their decisions on.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. That's a no?
Mr. Wheeler. I'd have to go back to remember what the--
your--the wording of your exact question.
Mr. Tonko. Well, is there anything within FIFRA where
regulatory certainty for industry is named as an evaluation
criteria?
Mr. Wheeler. Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mr. Tonko. So it's a no.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. I expect the theme of
this hearing to be climate change with particular criticism
aimed at the President's decision to withdraw from the Paris
climate accord. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle
seem to believe that without international agreements,
burdensome regulations, or trillions of dollars spent on the
Green New Deal it's impossible to protect the environment. But
as I said in my opening statement, data tells us another story.
The United States is a leader in reducing emissions, yet we
remain one of the largest economies in the world.
Administrator Wheeler, can you provide the Committee with
the progress the EPA has made to date in cleaning up air,
water, and land and what steps you plan to take to keep America
as the gold standard of environmental protection around the
world?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. We are the gold standard.
Everybody else in the world looks to us. We--the EPA measures
six criteria air pollutants. We've done that since 1970. Those
six criteria air pollutants have been reduced 74 percent since
1970. Our air is 74 percent cleaner. All six of the criteria
air pollutants have been reduced during the Trump
Administration. In 1970 again at that time on the water side,
40 percent of our water sources did not meet EPA's standards on
a day-to-day basis. Today, over 90 percent of our water supply
meets the EPA's standards every single day. That doesn't mean
to say that the remaining don't meet the standards, but they
occasionally may have a blip because of a contaminant. But we
work with the States and local governments to make sure that
those are very small, short-lasting, and that we get back to
having clean, safe drinking water for everyone across the
country.
Mr. Lucas. Administrator, do believe that we need a heavy-
handed, top-down approach to environmental regulation, or,
based on the EPA's analysis, can a more flexible State-led
program be just as effective in the long run?
Mr. Wheeler. It can be. And we are working more
cooperatively with the States than the previous Administration.
At the--the Obama Administration on the air side issued 10
times as many Federal implementation plans instead of State
implementation plans as the three Administrations previous
combined. We have been turning those FIPs (Federal
Implementation Plans) into SIPs (State Implementation Plans) on
the average of one per month. We also inherited 700 SIP
backlog. We've already reduced that backlog by 400. So we are
working cooperatively with the States to make sure that they
are protecting the environment of their residents.
Mr. Lucas. Administrator, what about incorporating new
technology? I've heard from my constituents that it can be
difficult to demonstrate new technologies for emissions control
or monitoring to meet regulatory standards. Have you considered
new ways to encourage the adoption of innovative technology
solutions in your regulatory approach?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, and that's part of what we base for our
decision on methane. We want to make sure that we're not
stifling technological developments in that industry. Our--on
natural gas--methane is natural gas. Natural gas has doubled in
production since 1990. At the same time, the industry has
reduced their methane emissions 15 percent. We want to make
sure that we don't go forward with a regulation that is going
to stifle innovative technologies that are capturing the
methane emissions and making sure that we don't have those
emissions.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Administrator. I yield back the
balance of my time, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Mr. Wheeler, in June you wrote to
Congress that Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) was not negotiating in good faith with the EPA to
reach a compromise on vehicle fuel emission and tailpipe
standards and that she was lying when she told Members of
Congress in the Energy and Commerce Committee that she had made
a sincere counterproposal. But it's my understanding that the
counteroffer that the CARB made is essentially the voluntary
agreement that was reached with the automakers earlier this
year announced on July 25. So it sounds to me like Ms. Nichols
was telling the truth to the Energy and Commerce Committee.
And I would like to ask unanimous consent, Madam
Chairperson, to put into the record an article from the L.A.
Times about this issue.
Chairwoman Johnson. Without objection.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Wheeler, would you be willing to share the
briefing materials prepared by EPA staff that analyzed
California's offer to EPA? Would you be willing to share that
with this Committee?
Mr. Wheeler. I'd have to--I'll certainly share what we can
with the Committee. There may be deliberative documents
involved in that. But I want to just make sure you understand
that the offer that Mary Nichols gave us last fall, she said at
the time that--although she was put it on the table, she said
that the outgoing Governor did not sign off on it, the incoming
Governor didn't sign off on it, the Attorney General who
already threatened to sue us didn't sign off on it----
Ms. Lofgren. Well, we are going to sue you.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Members of her board did not--
members of her board hadn't signed off on it. And she also said
that----
Ms. Lofgren. If I may, my time is limited because----
Mr. Wheeler. Sure.
Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. What she offered is the deal they
basically made with the auto. And the same day that they did
that, the Department of Transportation indicated that the
Administration did not prevent manufacturers from building more
efficient vehicles on a voluntary basis if they wanted to. So I
think the threats that are being made by the Administration are
really contradicted by the Department of Transportation's
comment at that time.
I'd like to also note that Senator Feinstein has sent a
letter to the Attorney General pointing out that the--I really
think it's an abuse of power on the part of the Department of
Justice to try and threaten automakers who are reaching an
agreement with the State I represent to deter other automakers
from entering the same deal, but they're not disagreeing that--
with the other deals that are being made, for example, rear
seat reminder systems that are being made. And that's not being
challenged as an antitrust violation.
So I just wanted to express my concern not only about the
decision being--that was made here. I mean, California had more
than 100 waivers in the last 50 years by both Democratic and
Republican Presidents and--to achieve a standard that has made
automobiles 99 percent cleaner than they would have been
otherwise.
The lawsuit that is going to be engaged in is going to--
you've created chaos here because the automakers are not going
to know what to do. This is going to be tied up in court for
the foreseeable future. And I would hope that you would take a
look at the chaos that has been created for clean air but also
in the auto industry by the actions that have been taken that
are really unprecedented in the history of the Clean Air Act.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Wheeler. It's important to remember that we're doing
nothing to take away California's ability to set health-based
standards for automobiles, only energy efficiency.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Wheeler, I'm extremely interested in that
last exchange regarding Mary Nichols. You were enumerating
everybody that basically hadn't signed off. Would you go back
through that list again and explain why that was?
Mr. Wheeler. Certainly. What she put on the table was
basically the Obama plan spaced out over one additional year.
And she said that--although she's put it on the table for us,
that the outgoing Governor--and this is right around the
election last year in California. The outgoing Governor had not
signed off on it, the incoming Governor hadn't signed off on
it, the Attorney General, who already said he was suing us, had
not signed off on the deal. And she is the Executive Director
of CARB. She said that the board members of CARB had not signed
off on it. So, you know, it really wasn't a deal. It really
wasn't an offer that she could stand behind or that she had any
authority apparently to make to us.
I'd also point out that the deal that the Congresswoman
mentioned with the four automakers, we haven't seen the
specifics of that deal. Nothing has been released to the
public, so I don't know if it's the same as what the CARB
executive director put on the table last fall. I don't know if
it's the same deal or not.
Mr. Weber. So you would say that's a pretty good example of
not negotiating in good faith?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I would.
Mr. Weber. I would agree with that.
I want to segue and ask Administrator Wheeler, are the
comprehensive regulatory reforms that you personally are
undertaking at the EPA, which we appreciate, including policies
such as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, Safer Affordable
Vehicles rule, and Waters of the United States, WOTUS rule, are
they driven by any change of any views on air and water
science? Or are they instead driven by an effort to restore the
statutory authority provided to the EPA via the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act, as well as other statutes?
Mr. Wheeler. Both. We certainly use science in all of our
regulatory decisions, but you're right. On the ACE (Affordable
Clan Energy) rule, it replaced the Clean Power Plan, but the
Clean Power Plan never took effect because the Supreme Court
issued a historic stay, which showed that it was outside of the
bounds of the Clean Air Act.
On WOTUS, as soon as the Obama Administration moved forward
with their WOTUS proposal, it was stayed by courts around the
country. It was only in effect in 22 States. Twenty-eight other
States were not following the Obama WOTUS proposal, which is
why we had to withdraw it so that we could have one regulation
for the entire country. We didn't think a patchwork approach
would be useful for WOTUS.
Mr. Weber. Well, we in Texas, particularly in my district,
appreciate that. We really do.
Despite the overall decline in the number of unhealthy air
days since 2000, there was an uptick in the number of bad air
days in some parts of the country last year. Is this because
the EPA is rolling back environmental protections? Or how do
natural events, dust storms, wildfires, variations in weather
affect air-quality concentrations from year to year? How does
that happen?
Mr. Wheeler. It's both. First of all, you know, since 2000,
we have strengthened the regulations so, you know, the
regulatory determinations are tighter than they were. Plus
there are a lot of naturally occurring events around the
country that contribute to bad air quality. I was in Alaska
last month and was--saw the smoke from the fires firsthand
outside of Anchorage. There--the--with the wildfires in
California, that contributes significantly to the poor air
quality days across the West. Other fires do the same thing.
This is why I really hope that the Forest Service, working with
the States, can get a handle on these out-of-control wildfires,
have more prescribed burns, try to clear out the underbrush so
that we don't have these long-lasting fires that really are
detrimental to public health.
Mr. Weber. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Administrator. And,
Madam Chair, I thank you, and I'm going to yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Let me welcome an
additional attendance of members of the Clean Air Force.
Welcome.
Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Wheeler, in 2016, researchers in EPA's Office
of Research and Development updated the Integrated Risk
Information System, or IRIS, value for ethylene oxide, which is
known as EtO. In doing so, they determined the cancer risk for
inhalation of EtO was 30 times higher than previously thought.
In August 2018, EPA's scientists released the latest
version of the National Air Toxics Assessment based on the new
IRIS value. This revealed an elevated cancer risk in the
communities around a commercial sterilization facility in
Willowbrook just outside my district, a facility owned by
Sterigenics. I not only represent families in the impacted
communities; I also live there.
Thanks to the State of Illinois, this plant is now closed,
perhaps only temporarily. I've been calling on EPA to act
quickly to protect not only the families in these communities
around Sterigenics but those around facilities that use EtO for
sterilization all around the country. We need the EPA to use
the updated IRIS value for EtO to set a strong new Federal
emissions standard that protects Americans all across our
country from this dangerous carcinogen.
I first wrote to you, then-Acting Administrator, on
September 21, 2018, almost exactly 1 year ago. When will the
EPA set a new standard for EtO to protect Americans all across
our country?
Mr. Wheeler. We are working on two different rulemakings to
address EtO, and both of those are in the works. But we have
been working hand-in-hand with both the local government, as
well as the State. It was EPA that provided the monitors, the
ambient air monitors, the modeling to determine what the impact
was from Willowbrook. We worked with the State. They used our
data to make the determinations that they did on that facility.
And we are--we worked with the facility to make sure that they
were installing better technologies to capture the emissions so
that it does not get into the neighborhood. There are a lot of
issues around EtO.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I want to make sure that--are you going
to use the updated IRIS values? IRIS, according to the EPA's
website, it says IRIS assessments are the preferred source of
toxicity information used by the EPA. And I wanted to make sure
that you're committed to using this updated IRIS value for the
cancer risks for EtO when developing this new standard. Are you
committed to that?
Mr. Wheeler. We are using the IRIS assessment for our
regulatory decisions. It's important to remember that the IRIS
program is not a regulatory program, so we also have to make
sure that we are following the regulatory requirements of the
statute such as the Clean Air Act that we are using to set the
standards for that facility for EtO.
Mr. Lipinski. I just want to make sure that you're going to
use that because there have been some arguments against it, and
it's critical that that science is not ignored.
Mr. Wheeler. We use all of our available science in making
regulatory decisions, but again, the IRIS program is not a
regulatory program.
Mr. Lipinski. I want to close by reiterating a request from
my neighbors in Illinois who would appreciate your
participation in an October 2 townhall on ethylene oxide in
Lake County. I firmly expect the EPA to do its job engaging
with the public at this event. I appreciate the air monitoring
around the facility in Willowbrook, but it is important that
EPA set a standard to protect Americans from this dangerous
cancer-causing chemical. EPA needs to--U.S. EPA needs to act
quickly and decisively on this issue. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Congressman, and I know you're
also concerned about the Great Lakes. Last month, we announced
first-ever Trash-Free Great Lakes Grant Program to help get the
Great Lakes cleaned up.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Administrative Wheeler, thank you for being here. A few
weeks ago you commented on an often-overlooked provision of the
Clean Air Act, section 115, an integral part of President
Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Paris
Climate Agreement. You said, ``Another aspect that a lot of
people gloss over is that under the Clean Air Act if we enter
into an international treaty such as the Paris climate accord,
if we fail to meet our targets, those are enforceable under our
domestic laws.'' While this issue gets very little attention,
this seems like a very big deal to me.
For example, we know that advisors to Hillary Clinton's
Presidential campaign supported invoking section 115 but
recommended against mentioning it during the campaign because,
I imagine, they thought that using an obscure provision to
regulate the entire U.S. economy would not poll very well.
I would like to enter into the record an article written by
the Center for American Progress titled, ``How the Paris
Agreement Supercharges the Clean Air Act,'' Madam Chair----
Chairwoman Johnson. Without objection.
Mr. Babin [continuing]. Which details exactly how far those
on the far left would use Paris to impose overreaching climate
regulations across the U.S. economy. Can you please elaborate
on this threat from section 115 and how it might be used to
circumvent the U.S. Congress?
Mr. Wheeler. Certainly. First, I do want to just clarify my
remarks from a few weeks ago. I didn't mean to suggest that
that was one of the primary reasons President Trump used for
withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. I actually wasn't
with the Administration at the time, so I did not brief the
President on the Paris climate accord. I know he cited trade
issues----
Mr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. As well as the fact that we were
treated differently from China and India and other countries.
But I completely agree with you that section 115 could give--
and I think that the Center for American Progress paper on this
is evidence of that, that there are certainly people that want
to use that section of the Clean Air Act to allow third parties
to sue the United States Government if they fail to meet treaty
obligations and force them to then meet the treaty obligations.
And the Paris climate accord is a treaty. It wasn't submitted
to the Senate for ratification, but it still has the same
ramifications of a treaty.
Mr. Babin. Yes. Thank you very much. Also, has the EPA
witnessed lower demand for ethanol following the granting of
small refinery waivers over the last 2 years? And do other
agencies besides EPA conclude that ethanol demand has not been
impacted as a result of these exemptions?
Mr. Wheeler. You're correct. Ethanol demand has not been
impacted by the small refinery program. In fact, we've seen an
uptick in ethanol over the last 2 years. We--so far this year
the industry has produced more ethanol than they did at this
point last year, and we do not see any demand destruction from
the small refinery program on ethanol production.
Mr. Babin. And other agencies you feel that have the same
opinion?
Mr. Wheeler. It's my understanding the Department of Energy
has that same opinion.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much, Administrator. And I'll
yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Administrator Wheeler, I join many
in the science community who are deeply concerned about the
EPA's proposed rule titled, ``Strengthening Transparency in
Regulatory Science.'' The proposed rule would impede if not
eradicate the EPA's ability to fulfill its mission of
protecting public health and the environment by limiting the
scope of research that the EPA can consider in making
decisions. As a cornerstone of its regulatory process, the EPA
relies on peer-reviewed science, and the proposed rule
perpetuates the incorrect notion that the science the EPA
relies on is somehow hidden, and it's not. The information used
by the EPA is not secret.
I appreciate that your testimony acknowledged the need to
issue a supplemental rule, but the proposed rule is an attack
on the role of science itself at the EPA. So, if finalized, it
would have chilling consequences for the EPA and for people who
benefit from clean air and clean water.
So, Administrator Wheeler, is the EPA's existing policy to
consider scientific studies in the regulatory process even if
the underlying data is not publicly available in a manner
sufficient for independent validation? That's just--please yes
or no, the existing policy.
Mr. Wheeler. That data is not available to the public. We--
I believe that the regulated public communities need to know
what the science is based behind our decisions.
Ms. Bonamici. But is the existing policy to consider
studies even if the data is not publicly available? Is that the
existing policy?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, that is the existing----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Policy.
Ms. Bonamici. And have the Federal courts upheld the EPA's
longtime policy regarding consideration of scientific data?
Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe that the courts have
specifically addressed that specific issue.
Ms. Bonamici. Well----
Mr. Wheeler. We've received over 600,000 comments on our
proposal. We've reviewed those comments over the last year, and
that's why I believe we need to go forward with a supplemental
proposal before we finalize----
Ms. Bonamici. Well, in footnote 3 of the proposed rule it
says that the courts have at times upheld EPA's use of
nonpublic data in support of its regulatory actions. So
footnote 3 also says that the proposed rule acknowledges that
the EPA has not consistently observed the policies underlying
the proposal. Isn't that correct? The EPA is not----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. In the past?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. So the proposed rule represents a
reversal of the EPA's position for decades regarding the
consideration of scientific data. If the proposed rule is
asserting that the Agency's previous position was incorrect,
what evidence do you have to justify it?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, again, I cut my teeth on the Right-to-
Know Act, and I believe that the American public has a right to
know the science behind our regulatory decisions. And I think
if we put that science out for everybody to see and understand,
then there will be more acceptance of our regulatory decisions.
Ms. Bonamici. And----
Mr. Wheeler. And that is what is driving me on this
question----
Ms. Bonamici. And----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Because I believe that we should
be transparent in everything that we do.
Ms. Bonamici. And, Mr. Administrator, the basis of the
proposed rule, I agree with the scientific community, is
flawed. So before finalizing the rule of such significance, I
urge the EPA to listen to scientific experts. So, yes or no,
will the supplemental rule mentioned in your testimony be
published prior to 2020?
Mr. Wheeler. I was hoping it would be published prior to
2020, but in my staff notes I'm told early next year. Things
seem to take----
Ms. Bonamici. And----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. A little bit longer than I like,
but we'll----
Ms. Bonamici. And will----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Certainly publish the
supplemental----
Ms. Bonamici. I want to get a couple more questions in----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. For public comment before we
finalize it.
Ms. Bonamici. Yes or no, will you commit to waiting for the
conclusion of the Science Advisory Board's comprehensive review
before you finalize the final rule?
Mr. Wheeler. We certainly hope to have that. I specifically
asked the----
Ms. Bonamici. Yes or no?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I----
Ms. Bonamici. OK.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Specifically asked the Science--
--
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Advisory Board to look at----
Ms. Bonamici. And----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. The proposal.
Ms. Bonamici. And will you commit to working with the
National Academy of Sciences on the development of the proposed
rule?
Mr. Wheeler. I don't believe we've reached out to the
National Academy of Sciences at this point.
Ms. Bonamici. I hope that you will. And the----
Mr. Wheeler. But, again, the science community is not
unanimous on this. You said the science community is opposed to
this. We had over 600,000 comments----
Ms. Bonamici. I----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. A lot of scientists----
Ms. Bonamici. I understand, and I want to get----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Support for what we're doing.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Just another quick question. The
proposed rule is inconsistent with the Agency's statutory
obligation to use the best available science, as required in
many statutes under your jurisdiction. Will the proposed rule
retroactively apply to the EPA's existing standards and
regulations?
Mr. Wheeler. Our proposal did not retroactively apply, and
there was still an exemption so that the Administrator could
allow a study that was important to move forward even if that
science wasn't available to the public if we needed to use that
study for regulatory purposes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time is----
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you----
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Expired. I will be submitting
more questions for the record.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Administrator Wheeler, for being here. As you
know, the Great Lakes are critically important for my home
district in northeast Ohio, providing fresh water, recreation,
and certainly economic growth to our region. It's hard to
overstate the importance of this critical resource to northeast
Ohio.
I've co-sponsored legislation to fund R&D to assess the
health of the Great Lakes fisheries, but I'm interested in the
work the EPA is doing to protect the environmental health of
the region. Can you provide an update on the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, particularly recent efforts to reduce
pollution from stormwater and excess nutrient runoff?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. And first, thank you, Congressman,
for asking about the Great Lakes. As you know, I'm also from
Ohio.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. I keep saying this and nobody's corrected me
so I'll keep saying it until I'm corrected. I believe I'm the
only EPA Administrator to ever go swimming in the Great Lakes.
I have an absolute love of the Great Lakes region and the Great
Lakes themselves, and this summer, I visited our Lake Guardian
research ship, which travels all five of the Great Lakes, has
been doing it for about 30 years now, taking water samples,
comparing them year over year to see the changes in the lake.
Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic.
Mr. Wheeler. We are moving forward on nutrient reduction
work. We put forward a proposal this past--not a proposal, a
new policy this past spring to work on trading mechanisms with
farmers to reduce the nutrient loading into the rivers and
streams that flow into the lakes. We announced our Trash-Free
Great Lakes Grant Program where we're trying to get the litter
cleaned up out of the lakes, and we're moving forward on a
number of fronts to get the lakes cleaned up.
Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic. And I certainly appreciate that
work. Are there any emerging technologies that could be applied
to reduce the type of pollution, and how can we support that in
this Committee? Can you talk a bit about the technology side?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, there is a lot of scientific research
going on here. We do a lot of scientific research on the HABs,
the harmful algal blooms. We have a number of different EPA
labs around the country that are looking at specific issues and
problems, including our Region 5 lab in Chicago for the Great
Lakes. So there's a lot of scientific research going on, and
our EPA researchers are at the forefront of that research
worldwide.
Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic. And then shifting a bit, so the
U.S. generates the largest amount of municipal solid waste per
person on a daily basis. Now more than ever it's important that
we rethink how we recover and repurpose the valuable materials
that used to be considered waste. EPA has an important role to
play by encouraging recycling and recovery. Can you describe
how EPA is engaged to do this, and then how does this tie into
the EPA's role in the Environmental Cooperation Agreement in
parallel with the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement)?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you. Last fall, we held the first-ever
Recycling Summit at EPA to take a look at the recycling crisis,
which we actually have a recycling crisis----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In our country today. We are also
working aggressively on food waste. Food makes up the largest
single contributor to municipal solid waste in this country,
and we have to do something to reduce the amount of food going
to our--to the waste sites.
But the USMCA--this--the USMCA is the first-ever trade
agreement from the U.S. that incorporates environmental
provisions into the trade agreement itself. In NAFTA (North
American Free Trade Agreement), the environmental provisions
were in a side agreement. There were not part of the actual
trade agreement. We also have the first-ever language in a
trade agreement dealing with ocean plastic debris, which also
helps us in the Great Lakes. So this is the first time that the
strongest environmental protections ever included in a trade
agreement are in the USMCA.
Mr. Gonzalez. Fantastic. And with that, I will yield the
balance of my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Lamb.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and welcome,
Administrator Wheeler. Over here.
Mr. Wheeler. Sorry.
Mr. Lamb. You'll understand where I'm coming from here
being from Ohio. I am from western Pennsylvania. I represent
areas right along the West Virginia and Ohio border. And our
part of the country has made incredible contributions over the
years to the Nation's economy and I think national security
from steel production to coal production, glass, all the things
that Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia have done.
And I think the production of natural gas is the most
recent example of that. And where I live it's everyone from the
scientists who figured out this miraculous technology of going
more than a mile underground and 2 miles sideways, much of
which was developed in our national lab system, by the way. It
was a public investment because of how good it is for us, to
the pipefitters who build the pipelines, the heavy equipment
operators, the truck drivers, even the--you know, you'd be
amazed the businesses people made out of just making sandwiches
for all these people in the last 15 years. It's been incredible
for our area.
But the thing is that people in western Pennsylvania know
that all of that economic growth rests on one important
contribution, which is that we have helped the United States
emit less carbon in the last 15 years than it ever did before
because of the switch from coal to natural gas. And that's a
big part of why the economy will continue demanding this fuel
going forward. And that if we do not stop leaking methane and
we lose that climate benefit, this entire industry is
threatened. It's about the environment, but it's about these
people's jobs, all of these people that I just mentioned.
People know that where I'm from, and that's why many of us
were so surprised to see your comments about the reduction and
elimination of the methane standards where you said just last
month that you believe they were unnecessary and duplicative.
So my first question for you is just a simple yes or no. Do
you still believe that the methane standards are unnecessary
and duplicative?
Mr. Wheeler. The Obama methane standards. We put forward
our own proposal last month and we're taking comment on it.
Mr. Lamb. So you believe that the Obama methane standards
were unnecessary and duplicative, is that correct?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Lamb. You're--I'm quoting you, yes.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Lamb. So, when you said that, I looked around to see
what other people said, and I just wanted to share a couple of
those things with you because the sources are kind of
surprising. So one, for example, ``To maximize the climate
benefits of gas, we need to address the Achilles' heel and
eliminate, eliminate methane emissions.'' Did you read that in
the press when it was out? Does that quote sound familiar to
you? That was Susan Dio, the President of BP. It was no
environmental activist.
Similarly, ``We will continue to urge the EPA to retain--
retain--the main features of the existing methane rule.'' That
came from a spokesman from Exxon.
Gretchen Watkins, who runs USA operations for Shell, which
is building a huge methane cracker plant in the middle of my
district, said that ``Methane is a big part of the climate
problem and frankly we can do more than we're already doing.''
She said, ``We don't usually tell governments how to do their
job, but we're ready to break with that and say actually, we
want to tell you how to do your job.''
So BP, Exxon, and Shell all believe that the EPA's action
to reduce and get rid of the existing methane rule is a bad
idea. And it sounds like someone else when they testified in
front of the U.S. Senate and said, ``Climate change is real,
I'm concerned about it on a level of 8 or 9 out of 10'' and
that ``part of the way the EPA was addressing climate change
was through their methane program.'' Do you recognize who said
that?
Mr. Wheeler. It sounds familiar.
Mr. Lamb. That was you.
Mr. Wheeler. I thought so.
Mr. Lamb. When you testified to the U.S. Senate to get this
job you said that the methane program was a crucial part of
eliminating greenhouse gases. You have changed, and it
threatens the livelihood of people in this industry that I
represent.
Mr. Wheeler. I----
Mr. Lamb. And so I will ask you--I will simply ask you--my
time is up--reconsider. These families are depending on this
industry and depending on the climate benefits that have come
from it. We have to do it the right way. You are on the wrong
side of both business and public opinion.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Mr. Wheeler. Sir, we don't do our regulations for big
business. We take a look at the--all business including small
and medium-size companies that are in this area. So we don't
write our regulations to appease the large companies.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Wheeler, thank you for coming.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Mr. Waltz. I want to talk to you today and discuss the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The Clean Water Fund provides
communities, as you know, with low-cost financing, and I think
that's an important aspect of it. It's financing for water
quality infrastructure projects. And it's a critical tool for
Florida in addressing a number of our water challenges. There's
a massive disconnect in this fund, Mr. Administrator. On the
one hand, Florida has the third most significant infrastructure
needs in the Nation according to the EPA's Clean Watershed
Needs Survey, so third-highest needs, yet Florida is receiving
the third-lowest in the country allotment, again, according to
the EPA.
It's a result of an antiquated formula, not the Agency's
fault. It's from a 1987 law that Florida receives the third-
lowest allotment. EPA has acknowledged in a 2016 report to
Congress that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund allotment
that, quote, in the EPA's report ``Most States do not currently
receive appropriated funds in proportion to their reported
needs or their population, which has demonstrated the
inadequacy of the current allotment.'' The report also states,
quote, ``that weighting and factors that were used to establish
the formula for the original allotment are not known.'' And the
Congressional Research Service says the same thing. In fact,
they said it's even difficult to guess how this formula came
about in the 1980s. That's probably not a surprise to some
people.
Obviously, Florida's population has exploded. We're gaining
1,000 people per day. This disconnect is unacceptable, given
our need. So bottom line, Mr. Administrator, and I recognize
this is a statutory issue. Do you agree that it's reasonable
for Congress to relook at this 30-year-old formula, given this
disconnect?
Mr. Wheeler. I have to be careful. I need permission from
OMB (Office of Management and Budget) before I, you know,
endorse legislation. I will say when I worked in the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee we tried to change the
formula three or four Congresses in a row, and my staff and I
worked at trying to update it. We spent a lot of time, and we
ran into a lot of roadblocks from States who would have done
worse----
Mr. Waltz. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Under the changes to the program.
Will you----
Mr. Wheeler. But----
Mr. Waltz. Will you commit to working with me on this
issue----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I'd be happy to----
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. As we look to reauthorize the
program in next year's WRDA (Water Resources Development Act)?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, be happy to work with you on that.
Mr. Waltz. All right. Great. And separately, this is
National Estuaries Week. I want to thank you for the good work
that the EPA is doing in administering the National Estuary
Program. I have the Indian River Lagoon in my district. In July
this Committee passed H.R. 335, the South Florida Clean Coastal
Waters Act of 2019. The legislation established an interagency
task force on HABs to really get some empirical data behind
that issue. Will you submit for the record what the Agency is
doing in reducing algal blooms and how you think your Agency
can contribute to this task force?
And in the interest of time, could you also submit for the
record what the Agency is doing on coastal resiliency in
helping States that have coastal resiliency problems with
rising seas?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Administrator.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Mr. Waltz. And, Madam Chair, I yield my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mrs. Fletcher.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson.
Good morning, Administrator Wheeler. Thank you for being
here this morning. I have quite a few topics to cover, so I
hope we can move through this fairly quickly with our limited
time.
In June of this year the staff of the EPA Region 6 lab in
Houston were informed that the lab would be shut down and the
scientists and engineers would be relocated to the ORD lab in
Ada, Oklahoma, to consolidate space. You touched on this issue
a little bit in your remarks, but I remain concerned and, more
important, my constituents are very concerned that this lab
consolidation will lead to significant brain drain as many of
the EPA employees may not be able to relocate, resulting in a
loss of key technical expertise. This is an issue that has come
up at my townhalls in Houston, so I think it's really
important.
I sent a letter to you with some of my colleagues in the
Houston delegation on July 12 asking you to reconsider this
closure, and I would like to know when we can expect a response
to our July 12 letter.
Mr. Wheeler. We'll try to get a response you as quickly as
possible.
Mrs. Fletcher. And, as I'm sure you know, Houston has
experienced increasingly frequent and intense storms like
Imelda that's happening right now, and all in the same space is
arguably the world's largest petrochemical complex. And so
there's a lot of risk in our region that we remain concerned
about and want EPA, the scientists, on the ground there. And in
fact, in some of these disasters the EPA scientists have really
been another kind of first responder if you will that are there
to protect the water and air quality and to inform the public.
I assume you would agree with me that the public has a
right to be informed about the dangers in the water and the
air?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely, but the scientists we would be
moving to Ada, Oklahoma, are not our first responders. Our
first responders will remain in Texas. Plus, we will have a
small lab facility left in Texas behind. But we were directed
by Congress to consolidate our space, reduce the size of our
footprint. It was a 2016 legislation I believe, told us to get
out of leased spaces and try to consolidate to GSA- (General
Services Administration) or EPA-owned space. And the lab in
Houston is--it's my understanding it is in very poor shape and
would require a lot of government investment to bring that lab
up to the quality of lab that the people----
Mrs. Fletcher. Well----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In Region 6 deserve.
Mrs. Fletcher. And I appreciate that, Administrator
Wheeler, but it is my understanding that those employees who
are staying will be relocated to another lab, so it seems that
because there will be new space that is obtained that our
request that the scientists remain in Houston on the ground to
be able to perform testing and do things immediately is
important.
And, again, there's a larger concern that this speaks to
about the overall concerns for brain drain across the country
as folks are relocated. And it's no disrespect to my colleagues
from Oklahoma. I'm just south of Oklahoma. But certainly in the
world that we live in some of these scientists may have
families who are unable to relocate either because of spouse's
professions, because of children's commitments, because of
medical commitments, whatever it is. So it is hard to relocate
so many people. And what we have seen is that there has been a
significant departure from the EPA over the last few years.
And so do you agree--I assume you agree that it's essential
that the EPA fulfill its mission to protect the environment and
public health.
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely.
Mrs. Fletcher. Yes. And do you agree with me that the loss
of scientists to levels that we haven't seen since the 1980s is
a concern?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. Forty percent of our workforce is
eligible to retire over the next 5 years. I hired a new human
resource manager the start of the spring and recruiting new
scientists is a huge concern of ours.
Mrs. Fletcher. Great.
Mr. Wheeler. I actually interviewed the human resource
manager. I'm told that EPA administrators don't typically do
that. That's three or four levels below, but I wanted to make
sure that we got the right person----
Mrs. Fletcher. Good.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. To help us guide the Agency.
Mrs. Fletcher. Administrator Wheeler, I have limited time,
so I wanted to get to one other question and then I will have
some additional questions to submit for the record. But in our
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment hearing yesterday I asked your
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water David Ross for
clarification on the EPA's justification to reverse the 2016
decision to issue new rules to safeguard against the release of
hazardous substances into local water bodies and drinking
sources. He said it was rulemaking out of the Office of Land
and Emergency Management that was not his program. Is it true
that the Water Office is not involved in decisions regarding
the release of hazardous substances into water bodies?
Mr. Wheeler. They are involved, but it--in fact that
particular regulation that you were referring to that we
decided no additional regulations were needed, we have other
regulatory programs that protect that, including under the
water program under EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act) and under CERCLA (Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980). And if you don't mind, I'd like to submit--I don't know
for the record or to you--a paper outlining what we're doing
under America's Water Infrastructure Act that was signed by
Congress last year that addresses this problem.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I'll submit my additional
questions for the record.
And, Chairwoman Johnson, may I also submit the letter that
we sent on July 12 for the record as well?
Chairwoman Johnson. No objection.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Thank you. I have exceeded my time, so I
yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. We'll receive yours for the
record as well. Thank you.
Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome, Administrator
Wheeler. This hearing is called, ``Science and Technology at
EPA.'' Every Member of this Committee, Democrat and Republican,
demands the EPA's actions are driven by science and technology
only. No politics should ever enter into your decisions. They
should be subordinate to science and technology.
I was here for all 8 years of President Obama's
Administration. Over and over and over, the Administration let
politics overtake science and technology. The best example hit
my home region of Houston, Texas hard, ozone. As you know,
Administrator, that's one of the six criteria pollutants under
NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards).
The last year of George W. Bush's Administration, science
and technology said we can go down to requirement of .75 parts
per billion for ozone. It took President Obama 8 years to put
out the rules to comply with President Bush's science-based
proposal.
And then 1 year later in 2015 President Obama lowered those
standards to .70. There was no science, no technology that
justified that no, as you said, right to know for the public
how they achieve that standard. And there's no way they can
know because we hadn't gotten down to .75 yet.
And so to your great credit the Trump Administration has
addressed the backlog of SIPs, as you mentioned, gone down from
700 to 400. Now you have looming a new ozone standard put out
by 2020. My question is are you on track to put those standards
out, and, most importantly, using science and technology? When
you look at ozone we can't control because you know and I know,
the whole world knows, over half the ozone that comes from
America comes from uncontrolled sources, sources like China,
like our neighbors south, Mexico. So how do you take those into
account with these new ozone standards?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Congressman. I
appreciate the question. Yes, we are on track. We are reviewing
both the ozone and PM (particulate matter) NAAQS at this point.
We plan to go final with both of those by the end of next year.
For ozone it will be the first time that we have completed that
within the statutory 5-year requirement. The EPA has always
taken longer to review these NAAQS, and we are committed to
getting them done in the statutory timeframe of 5 years, which
is required under the Clean Air Act.
It's important to remember, though--and we--I'm taking a
lot of criticism in the press from a lot of different people
saying that we're going too fast. Congress required us to
update it every 5 years. That's what we intend to do. When we
finish the 5-year review, the next 5-year review starts the
very next day. So this is a never-ending review of the NAAQS
standard from both ozone and PM, all six of the criteria
pollutants. So it is our intention to get it done on time and
then to start the next 5-year review the very next day.
Mr. Olson. I had a bill that gave you authority to go for
10 years if you not demanded but if you needed that time
because of all the hassles. Would that be a good bill to have?
It got through the House twice, dropped the ball in the Senate,
but how about give you the flexibility. Is that something you'd
like? I'm sure you would.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, again, I can't endorse specific
legislation. I think having more flexibility is always a good
thing in general. And again pointing out that the Agency has
never completed it in 5 years before, which is one of the
reasons why we had to disband the subcommittees and I'm taken
as--I know I've received questions from this Committee about
the subcommittees and reinstituting them. We can't reinstitute
the subcommittees and meet the 5-year requirement under the
statute.
Mr. Olson. One final accolade----
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Olson [continuing]. From back home. Hurricane Harvey
hit what's called the San Jacinto Waste Pits very hard. These
are waste pits that cover very hazardous material dioxin from
paper manufacturing right there in the area. They came loose
during Hurricane Harvey. That is the chemical that got the
superfund started, Love Canal. You guys stepped up to the plate
quickly and said we will get all that chemical, all of that
dioxin out of the water, so thank you, thank you, thank you.
You saved lives by acting so quickly. I yield back.
Mr. Wheeler. While I appreciate the thanks----
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. I do have to say that I'm recused
from that particular----
Chairwoman Johnson. Ms. Stevens.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Superfund site, so I was not
involved in any of the decisions. I don't want to leave the
impression that I was involved in something that I was recused
from.
Ms. Stevens. Mr. Administrator, the purpose of this hearing
is indeed to review the science and technology activities at
the Environmental Protection Agency. And as the Subcommittee
Chair for this Committee on Research and Technology, I take
great interest with this topic. And you might be aware that we
are facing a conundrum with our Nation's recycling. The U.S.
still only recycles 9 percent of its plastic. In 2018 China
banned the import of most U.S. plastics collected for recycling
because many were mixed with nonrecyclable waste and
contaminated. And we have heard from municipal leaders across
this country and I've heard from many in my home district in
southeastern Michigan.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 named
the EPA as the lead Agency on a national effort to recover
valuable petroleum-based resources that were filling our
landfills. So the question I have for you is, why is the EPA
not fulfilling its statutory responsibility to lead Federal
efforts on crosscutting research and development and innovation
needed to address the Nation's plastic recycling challenges and
create jobs?
Mr. Wheeler. We are. We held the first-ever Recycling
Summit last year at EPA headquarters. We brought in people
involved in the entire recycling chain from the people who
produce the raw materials to the packagers of products to the
manufacturers of the products that they package to the waste
collectors, recycling collectors, all the way to the end of
this chain, value chain of people who take those products and
turn them into useful products.
We have a recycling crisis right now, and we charged them
last year with four items to go off and work on. We've been
working with them throughout the year. We're going to have the
second Recycling Summit this fall on National Recycling Day. In
the past, EPA only put out a press release announcing Recycling
Day. We're actually bringing people in and trying to solve the
recycling crisis that we currently face.
Ms. Stevens. And so how do you see the EPA helping States
and municipalities improve recyclable materials and manage
their recyclable goods? Are they involved in these
conversations? Were they at your summit? Are you working with--
--
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, we had industry, we had local
governments, we had the waste collectors, and in fact it would
be held on National Recycling Day, which I believe is right
around November 15. If you would like to come to our summit and
address them, we'd be happy to extend an invitation to you. But
this is, I think, a very important issue.
I don't normally compliment the Atlantic Monthly, but they
did a pretty good piece back in February on the recycling
crisis that this country faces in large part because China quit
accepting recycled material. And we don't have enough products
for material to go into.
My fear is that people--average citizens think that if they
separate their recycled material from their trash in the bins
at the end of their driveway that the problem is solved, and
that is not solving the problem.
Ms. Stevens. Well, we're hoping that my appropriation to
fund a national recycling strategy through the EPA will get
passed into law and give you additional dollars and, you know,
appreciate your recognition of this challenge and certainly
what it means.
I'd also like to encourage you to look at some of the
economic data that can be collected for the recycling industry
given that that hasn't been done in 12 years.
And I will also give you credit for immediately responding
to the letter that I sent your agency about recycling and look
forward to additional dialog and potentially a summary of the
conference that you had last year. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Ms. Stevens. Madam Chair, I yield back the remainder of my
time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Chairwoman. Administrator Wheeler,
I'd like to also urge you to review your rescission of the
Obama methane and VOC (volatile organic compound) regulations.
And in light of that little colloquy there with Congressman
Lamb would suggest that you might leverage the leadership of
Exxon, BP, and Shell to establish a level playing field and
bring up the smaller competitors like companies that I'm
involved with that should comply with that stuff and can do it
if you help level the playing field.
The other thing is you were good enough to send down Mary
Walker from EPA Region 4 to participate in our Crisis of
Harmful Algal Bloom conference, and she was super helpful and
offered a lot of insight about the voluntary reporting system
and some of the septic and water nitrogen problems that we're
seeing. So I'd like to see if you have any further comment.
This is a critical issue for Ohio and Michigan, but it's also a
really critical issue for southwest Florida. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. It is, and we are working on both those areas
on the methane. It's important to remember that methane is
actually the product that they're--that the natural gas
companies are selling. They already have an incentive to not
leak it. We want to make sure that our regulatory approach does
not stifle innovation and stop companies, small, medium, and
large, from creating innovative new ways to approach the issue
to capture the methane and make sure that they're not leaking
the methane, which is why we're tying the new proposal to the
VOC emissions, so VOC emissions will go down and, as a side
benefit, methane emissions will also go down.
But the natural gas industry has doubled since 1990, and
they've reduced their methane emissions 15 percent, and we want
to make sure that our regulatory program does not get in the
way of innovation----
Mr. Rooney. I understand that. I'm involved with----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Rooney [continuing]. $2-$3 billion gas producers in the
Permian----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Rooney [continuing]. And I'm just saying they could use
your steady hand to raise the bar and create a better platform
for medium and small companies who care about this and will pay
the money to capture the methane versus the unscrupulous
companies that won't.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. And we will. Thank you.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. And on the HABs, we're definitely--and I'm
glad Mary was able to go to the--to your conference in Florida
on this. It is certainly an issue that we're looking at across
the board on several of our research labs, including our main
research lab in Research Triangle Park is intimately involved
with this issue. We're doing groundbreaking research trying to
identify where the problems are before they occur. We're trying
to identify what are the symptoms for lack of a better word of
what will cause an outbreak in a water source and to try to
make sure that we're safeguarding not just drinking water,
which is the most vital--of vital importance here but also
recreational waters.
Mr. Rooney. Yes, our HABs are so bad----
Mr. Wheeler. It's hurt a lot of areas.
Mr. Rooney [continuing]. Down there----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Rooney [continuing]. We're well beyond preserving
drinking water.
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Mr. Rooney. You can even get near that stuff without sinus
problems. And we really appreciate the research and the early
warning system that Mary talked about.
Mr. Wheeler. And our career scientists at the Agency and a
number of our labs are doing groundbreaking research in this
area that is second to none worldwide.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, sir. I yield my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I know you've been quizzed about
the website, but let me just ask you a personal question. Do
you believe that climate change is occurring and is
substantially human-caused?
Mr. Wheeler. I certainly believe it's occurring, and I
believe that man is certainly contributing to it, which is why
we are aggressively addressing it, why we moved forward with
our ACE regulation this summer, why we went forward with our
methane, and why we are finalizing our CAFE (Corporate Average
Fuel Economy) proposal. We want to make sure that we are
addressing climate change, and we are addressing it.
Mr. Sherman. OK. I want to focus on methane. I personally
live just about as close as anyone to S-25, the well that
spewed forth the largest methane leak in the history of
America, I believe in the history of the world in Porter Ranch,
California.
Now, methane has an effect on global warming, roughly 87
times as potent as carbon dioxide in warming the planet. But
that's the harm if it's pure methane. But what's being stored
in Porter Ranch and what is being piped around the country is
not always pure methane. It's methane mixed with volatile
organic compounds and the mercaptan that gives it its smell. So
8,000 families were evacuated in my area for months. The health
effects still continue.
So I was a bit concerned when your Agency proposed a rule
to eliminate Federal requirements that oil and gas companies
install technology to detect and fix methane leaks from wells,
pipelines, and storage facilities. Millions of tons of methane
and inevitably with those volatile organic compounds and with
the mercaptan are leaked, vented, and otherwise released into
the atmosphere.
I believe in your rollback your Agency acknowledged that
the rollback will degrade air quality and are likely to
adversely affect the health and welfare. Why shouldn't oil and
gas companies be required to detect and monitor natural gas
leaks?
Mr. Wheeler. They are detecting and monitoring natural gas
leaks, and we are targeting VOCs. And when you target VOCs, you
also have the side benefit that is also a target of the methane
reductions as well. The Obama Administration in their methane
proposal expanded the source category without proper Clean Air
Act procedures, so we----
Mr. Sherman. Well, I'm----
Mr. Wheeler. That was what we rolled back was the expanding
of the industry.
Mr. Sherman. Well, now, this Congress, in light of the
Porter Ranch blowout disaster, passed a law requiring that we
have national natural gas storage safety regulations by--I
believe the date was the middle of last year. PHMSA (Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration)--and I realize
this isn't under your direct Agency, but you can publish
regulations on your own in addition to what we require of
PHMSA--said that they're in compliance because they published
regulations by the deadline under the Obama Administration and
then withdrew them. So Congress wrote a law saying you've got
to have regulations, as of the middle of last year, and we have
no regulations. Do you think it's appropriate for the Executive
Branch to take a law that says you must regulate something and
say, well, we regulated it for a day and then we withdrew the
regulation so we're in compliance?
Mr. Wheeler. I do not know the history or background on
that. I don't really want to comment on another agency's
regulations. Our proposal----
Mr. Sherman. Can we count on--given the effect this has had
on children, on people, on cancer, can I count on you to use
your power to regulate natural gas storage safety?
Mr. Wheeler. And that is what I believe we are doing with
our new methane regulation that we just put out for public
comment. We're taking comments on it right now. We're targeting
VOCs, which also address methane. And I welcome comments from
the public before we go final with it--with a regulatory
decision.
Mr. Sherman. I would hope that you would at least go as far
as the American Petroleum Institute's recommended best
practices. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thanks for being here
today. I'd like to first start off by saying I've talked to
number of people in my district--we have industry, we have
agriculture--who appreciate the EPA's new tone if I can say
that, in the sense of understanding that the people working in
these industries and districts are also living in them and care
very much about our environment and then having an EPA that
works with them as a way to try to find a way to yes as opposed
to looking for a reason to say no, keeping in mind all the
necessary causes to ensure our environment is protected.
In light of that, I am encouraged by the fact that the
proposed budget was actually less than what we've spent in the
past. There's a tendency up here to define success by how much
money we're spending on something as opposed to the actual
outcomes of proposals or projects or legislation. Could you
speak to some of the decisionmaking process that went into
proposing a budget that came under cost of last year and how
you balance those priorities of making sure that the EPA is
doing its job and that we're spending our money wisely in light
of a $22 trillion debt?
Mr. Wheeler. Absolutely. For the most part, the programs
that we recommended be reduced or eliminated were voluntary
programs of the Agency and not critical to the statutory
authorities that we have. In other words, programs that had
grown over time at the Agency but were not authorized by
Congress. We still put forward some new proposals for new
funding. The new AWIA Act (America's Water Infrastructure Act
of 2018) that passed Congress last year but Congress did not
fund for 2019, we did request funding for that. We believe it's
a very important program to address some of the water quality
issues in particular for small and rural water systems and
medium-sized systems around the country. So we did ask for
additional funding for that.
We also asked for $50 million for a children's health
program for safe schools. We have a lot of different programs
at the Agency that address different aspects of environmental
issues at schools, but they're kind of disjointed. And what we
want to do is bring those all into one program. And we asked
for $50 million so that we can go out and work with the States
and local governments to do site-specific recommendations on
how schools can become healthier for the children who go to
school in those buildings. There are different issues with a
number of schools around the country, and we want to make sure
that the children have a healthy education.
Mr. Cloud. Following up on that a bit, earlier this year,
you proposed the EPA developing rules that require a cost-
benefit analysis of the new regulations again with the
understanding that we have a responsibility to manage the
resources both of creation and of the taxpayer dollar. Could
you speak to any progress being made on that rule?
Mr. Wheeler. Certainly. We put that out, I believe it was
last year, for notice and comment. We received over 3,000
comments. I was actually surprised. I thought we would get as
many for the science transparency rule, but for the science
transparency we received over 600,000 comments, for the cost-
benefit only 3,000. What we proposed, though, was one
regulation to apply to all of EPA's regulations for cost-
benefit.
What we have decided to do in reviewing the comments--and
again, both for science transparency and this--we took a hard
look at the comments that we received from the different people
commenting, and we decided instead of one regulation to try to
mandate cost-benefit analysis across all of our statutory
programs, we're going to go statute by statute instead and
issue a regulation under each of our statutes. So the first one
will be under the Clean Air Act.
We hope to have that proposal out by the end of this year,
but it will require a cost-benefit analysis for all Clean Air
Act regulations going forward. And then we will systematically
go through each of our statutes and do an individual cost-
benefit requirement for each statute tailor-made for the
statutory authorities under each of the statutes.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Mr. Wheeler, I appreciate your being here. I've been
disturbed, alarmed at several actions or inactions that have
been taken at the EPA under your leadership. I'm sorry to say
that, but it's true. I'm very concerned about how often you
have ignored apparently your own professional scientists
seemingly at the expense of people's lives in favor of profit
companies and private profits. You've sidelined your
scientists, gutted the 2015 coal ash rule, rolled back Clean
Water Act protections, weakened the mercury emissions rule,
and rescinded the Clean Power Plan. These are all disturbing.
And in my city of Memphis we have had coal ash collected at
our steam plant, and it's--possibly could end up in the waters
of our wonderful artesian water wells and threaten our drinking
water. The mission at EPA is to protect human health and the
environment, but it doesn't seem that that's been the
direction.
On asbestos, we also have a problem. And in May I sent you
a letter with 34 of my colleagues after learning that the EPA
disregarded the advice of its own scientists and lawyers by
issuing a rule that restricted but did not ban asbestos. In a
memo written by your own staff on August 2018 they stated
rather than allow for any new use of asbestos, the EPA should
seek to ban all new use of asbestos because of the extreme harm
from this chemical substantially outweighs any benefit and
because there are adequate alternatives to asbestos.
Yet on April 17, 2019, the EPA issued a new rule that did
not ban asbestos outright, as your own scientists recommended.
I find this incredibly concerning and extremely peculiar that
the EPA would cede its own experts' advice on banning asbestos,
a known human carcinogen that has killed millions of people
over the last several decades. A recent study of research has
shown that asbestos-related disease caused 39,275 deaths in the
United States annually. That's more than double the previous
estimate of 15,000 deaths per year. Additionally, at least 55
countries have banned asbestos completely.
Yet in response I received from your office, I was informed
that the EPA cannot ban asbestos until a risk evaluation is
completed and an unreasonable risk is determined. When, sir,
will this risk evaluation be undertaken and completed? And is
the death of over 39,000 people a year not considered an
unreasonable risk?
Mr. Wheeler. First of all, we have done more on asbestos
than any Administration since the George H.W. Bush
Administration. We are moving forward on asbestos under the new
TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) regulation, which is the
law that Congress gave us to ban chemicals. That is a 2- to 3-
year process that Congress set up for us.
In order to fill in the gap in the meantime, while we're
working through the asbestos under the TSCA regulation, we put
out a significant new use rule, which puts forward--which does
not allow any new uses of asbestos to go forward without having
first come to EPA. So we plugged a loophole that would have
allowed people to import asbestos products from other countries
such as Russia. So we have done more to stop asbestos and to
ban asbestos than any Administration has done since the George
H.W. Bush Administration----
Mr. Cohen. Let me interrupt you for just a second because
time is precious.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In the late 1980s.
Mr. Cohen. That just means you did more than President
Obama. And while President Obama----
Mr. Wheeler. Again----
Mr. Cohen [continuing]. Is a great guy, that's not--you
know, be stronger than one person is not a great deal.
But let me ask you the same question.
Mr. Wheeler. No, no----
Mr. Cohen. When will the risk evaluation be completed?
Mr. Wheeler. It--under the process set up by Congress under
TSCA, it's a 2- to 3-year process. We included asbestos as one
of the first 10 chemicals that we are addressing. We did more
than the George W. Bush Administration, than the Clinton
Administration, than the Obama Administration. We've done more
on asbestos than anybody else.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir, I appreciate that. I have been
affected closely by this. Warren Zevon was my best personal
friend, and he found out he had mesothelioma. He died within
about a year of finding it out. That caused his death. There
was nothing you can do with mesothelioma. You're dead. And it
was caused from probably something he experienced as a child in
an attic breathing in some air.
So I'm concerned about it. I hope you will get your study
done in the soonest time possible. Too many lives have been
taken by this harmful carcinogen, and your Agency can do
something about it. Thank you, sir----
Mr. Wheeler. And we are.
Mr. Cohen [continuing]. And I appreciate your work.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
for being here.
I wanted to applaud your Administration and your efforts
with regard to repealing the WOTUS rule, the erroneous,
burdensome WOTUS rule, and your efforts to clearly define
navigable waters in a commonsense form. I'm concerned that the
regulatory process alone may not be enough to prevent future
Administrations from attempting the same overreach as the Obama
Administration did with their rule. I've introduced legislation
that clarifies the definition of navigable waters.
But I wanted to ask you, it would be nice if it didn't take
an act of Congress, but do you think that even with the rule
that you've put in place, Congress, congressional action to
refine the definition is necessary with regard to what's
coming?
Mr. Wheeler. Again, I can't endorse specific legislation. I
will say, again, when I worked in the Senate as a staffer we
worked on trying to define Waters of the U.S. through multiple
Congresses.
You know, the original Clean Water Act definition in the
1970s said navigable waters, and it has been expanded a lot
over the years by Supreme Court decisions. So what our
regulation--our proposal does--we've not finalized our new
definition. We hope to finalize it this winter. But what our
proposal does is follow the Clean Water Act, as well as the
Supreme Court cases to provide what I hope will be a working
definition so that anybody--any property owner can stand on his
or her property and be able to tell for themselves whether or
not they need a Federal permit without having to hire an
outside lawyer or consultant to tell them whether or not they
have a Waters of the U.S. on their property.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely.
Mr. Wheeler. That's my overarching goal for the new
definition.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. And we support you in that.
Mr. Wheeler. Everybody should understand what the
definition is.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. In addition, they shouldn't have to
spend upwards of $275,000 per permit and wait up to 800 days to
get that permit per body of water.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. In addition, Washington shellfish
growers on the Pacific Coast are struggling to find a solution
for ghost shrimp. This industry produces more than a quarter of
our Nation's oysters and provides thousands of jobs in rural
areas like my district.
Now, the Washington State Department of Ecology, it's not
you all, but they do administer under the EPA. They're also the
State Administrator for the Feds. They've been very unhelpful.
They've reversed their original approval denying a permit to
spray a widely used pesticide that would've helped the growers
manage this problem.
And my question is this. Basically, I'd like to understand
what your role is with regard to the State agencies? And would
you be willing to meet with me or my office to help us find a
solution to preserve this vital industry?
Mr. Wheeler. I'd be more than happy to meet with you and
your office to try to help you with this issue, absolutely.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. OK. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair, and I thank the
Administrator for appearing this morning.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board met earlier this year to
discuss which of the Agency's actions would benefit from their
science review. Specifically, they mentioned the rulemaking to
establish light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards
and the corporate average fuel economy would, quote, ``not
warrant further review provided the EPA and the California Air
Resources Board agree on a rule harmonized across the United
States. If, however, the EPA and CARB cannot agree on a
harmonized rule, then the board is ready to review pertinent
scientific data in the different rules.'' That's a quote.
At the time, the EPA would not confirm to the SAB, the
Science Advisory Board, that talks with CARB broke down. Those
were not acknowledged. However, your Agency will be revoking
California's vehicle emissions standards waiver, a move without
precedent that prioritizes polluters over public health and the
wishes of the auto industry itself. It appears that this action
is a malicious attempt to undo a popular commonsense Obama-era
rule.
Given the nonresponse from the EPA and concerns about the
underlying science used to back deregulation of the SAB did
decide to review the rule. Please answer with a yes or no. Do
you support the role and expertise of the SAB can provide to
assess underlying science backing regulatory actions?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I do.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Yes or no, will you commit to
cooperating with the SAB's review of the proposed rule to
revoke the California's vehicle emissions standards?
Mr. Wheeler. We want to make sure that the Science Advisory
Board is reviewing scientific issues and scientific questions.
I believe they are reviewing the rule, and we certainly welcome
anyone's input, but we are in the final stages of--we just
released step 1 this morning of SAFE, and we will be releasing
step 2 in the coming weeks.
Mr. McNerney. So, in other words, you're not going to be
cooperating with the SAB's review of the proposed rule?
Mr. Wheeler. We cooperated with the----
Mr. McNerney. And I asked you again. This was asked to you
earlier. Will you commit to not finalizing the proposed rule
until the SAB has had time to complete its review?
Mr. Wheeler. No, we will----
Mr. McNerney. Will you make that commitment?
Mr. Wheeler. No, we will not wait for that. I don't believe
at this point they're looking at specific science questions
within the regulation. You know, it's interesting----
Mr. McNerney. That's an opinion that's not shared across
the board, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. I understand that. It's interesting during the
Obama Administration the Science Advisory Board wanted to
review the Clean Power Plan, and Gina McCarthy told them no,
that there were no scientific issues in the Clean Power Plan.
Mr. McNerney. So you're saying two wrongs make a right?
Mr. Wheeler. No, I'm just saying that sometimes the Science
Advisory Board wants to get outside of scientific issues. We've
asked them and we have also committed across the board----
Mr. McNerney. So why is it called a Science Advisory
Board----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. That we will be briefing them----
Mr. McNerney [continuing]. If they're getting outside of
science opinion?
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. On all of our major regulations
on a going-forward basis. The CAFE standard was proposed last
December. So as, for example, the methane, we will be briefing
the Science Advisory Board on our methane proposal and seeking
their input for it. But on a going-forward basis, we are asking
the Science Advisory Board to review our regulations as they
come out for public comment.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thanks for your opinion, Administrator.
It appears that your Agency has been dismissive of the Science
Advisory Board and timed to avoid input from the board on this
action. And nothing you've said today changes that conclusion.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Chairwoman, and good morning, Mr.
Administrator Wheeler. Thanks for coming today.
First of all, on behalf of my farmers and ranchers, thanks
for all the great work you have done and your office has done
for those farmers and ranchers. I want to applaud you for
giving us a sorghum oil pathway to diesel, for getting my
farmers and ranchers some relief on the Waters of the U.S. And
thank you on behalf of all the corn farmers in America. Thank
you for giving us E15 year-round.
I want to kind of continue down this biofuels pathway and
just get a quick thought from you on E30. From what I
understand, E30 has about 60 percent less emissions through a
tailpipe. It's usually about 20 cents less per gallon at the
pump and maybe has a little bit better gas mileage. Are you all
looking into E30 and any thoughts on the future of E30?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, we just completed E15, and right now,
we're looking at the overall RFS (Renewable Fuel Standard)
program. We look at all blends of ethanol, so we're looking
also at E85. I don't know that we're specifically looking at
E30 or not, but I can certainly get back with you to let you
know if any--if our scientists are in fact reviewing E30.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you. And thank you for looking at the
E85. I'm hearing lots of good words out there on the streets
from the people who are using it as well.
I guess one of our biggest concerns back home is the small
refinery exemptions. And the question I get from farmers is,
how do you define what a small refinery is? And I understand
Frontier Refinery and where I grew up in El Dorado, that's a
small refinery. Coffeyville, Kansas, has a small refinery. How
do you determine what's a small refinery, who really needed the
exemptions versus some of the others?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, the definition of small refinery is in
the statute itself, and it's based on barrels of oil produced
at the refinery. But it's--I do want to just--there is a
misperception in a lot of areas. It's not the size of the
corporate parent. It's the refinery itself. It's not the
refiner. So, for example, a very large company can own a small
refinery. The Department of Energy is the one that takes a look
at the small refineries. When the small refineries apply for
the small refinery exemption, they apply to EPA. We send a
request to the Department of Energy. They review the economic
data to determine whether or not there is a hardship----
Mr. Marshall. OK.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Based under the statute for each
refinery, not the parent company but the refinery itself.
Mr. Marshall. So the parent company owns five oil
refineries, do they lump together for the number or do you take
each one at each location?
Mr. Wheeler. Each one, each location. The statute defines
it as a refinery. So, for example, a large company may own a
small refinery in the middle of the Rocky Mountains. If that
refinery----
Mr. Marshall. Do you feel the number that we're using is a
good reflection, is a good number, or is that in statute?
Mr. Wheeler. It's in statute.
Mr. Marshall. OK. Let's talk about glyphosate for just a
second, OK? So biochemistry major, medical physician, certainly
I'm concerned about people's health. I'm confused myself. Which
Federal agency, is it the EPA or the ATSDR is tasked with
regulating and vetting the safety of glyphosate?
Mr. Wheeler. That would be EPA under our pesticides
program.
Mr. Marshall. Do you feel there's any infringement going on
by other folks like the ATSDR?
Mr. Wheeler. We always welcome science reviews by other
agencies and departments. We often look at the work that they
do not just within our country but also other countries. We
look at different international bodies. For glyphosate, we took
one of the most comprehensive looks at that chemical, that
pesticide ever by any regulatory body anywhere in the world.
Our conclusions are that it is not a carcinogen, and those
conclusions match regulatory bodies around the world.
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wheeler, during your confirmation hearing, Senator
Whitehouse asked you about the action plan developed by your
former lobbying client, the coal baron Robert Murray. That
plan, which is commonly known as the Murray memo, presented a
series of asks from Murray's fossil fuel company, one of Donald
Trump's largest donors, asks to the Trump Administration, asked
essentially a series of actions to gut the environmental
protections and climate action in this country.
So I offer with great dismay what we might call the Trump
Administration's report card for delivering on what your former
client Mr. Murray asked you and the EPA to do. Murray asked you
to cut the EPA workforce in half, but you only supported the
Trump budget, which only cut it by one-third, so let's call
that an incomplete. He asked you to withdraw from the Paris
climate accords. You did it right away, A-plus. He asked you to
eliminate the Clean Power Plan. You've almost finished that, so
we'll call that a B-plus. He asked you to eliminate the maximum
achievable control technology standards, which regulate toxic
pollution. He has proposed a big loophole to allow increases in
that pollution, so that's a B. He wanted you to end cross-State
air pollution rule. You didn't do that yet, but you've weakened
enforcement, so maybe just a C. And we're still unclear on his
request that you withdraw the endangerment finding for
greenhouse gases, which is a legal basis for all of our
regulations to fight climate change. You haven't done this yet,
but your former boss Senator Inhofe says he thinks you'll do
this, quote, ``eventually.''
So did you take these directives right from Mr. Murray, and
do you plan to complete the rest of Mr. Murray's tasks?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, I appreciate you keeping score. As I've
said many times, I've never read the Murray action plan. I
didn't have it, I didn't write it, and I didn't read it, so
this recitation of the items in there is the first I've heard
of many of those that were included, so no, I am not following
that plan. I don't have a copy, I never read it, I don't have
it, I didn't write it. I've said that throughout over the last
2-1/2 years since the beginning of my confirmation process for
Deputy Administrator.
Mr. Beyer. Well, I appreciate your clear statement on that,
and I am dismayed that there is such an overlap between the
leadership that you have offered and what the Murray memo says.
One of the vast numbers of ethical complaints raised
against your predecessor Scott Pruitt was that he politicized
the EPA's response to freedom of information requests in order
to hide his own wrongdoing. I raised issues about this last
year, possible violations to your ethics pledge, and I confess
you've been a significant improvement on Scott Pruitt where
ethics are concerned.
I'm baffled, though, that you have overseen changes to the
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) process, which would
essentially codify Scott Pruitt's politicization of the FOIA
process. Members of Congress don't like it, environmentalists
don't like it, journalists don't like it. Why are you making it
harder for the American people to find out how the EPA is
making decisions?
Mr. Wheeler. We did not do that; we're not doing that.
Congress--EPA last changed their FOIA regulations around 2000.
Congress amended the FOIA statute 3 times since then. In 2016,
the last time Congress amended FOIA, they required all agencies
and departments to update their FOIA regulations. EPA did not
do that under the Obama Administration. We were behind. Most
other agencies already accomplished that in 2016 or 2017. The
changes to our FOIA regulations follow the directions that
Congress gave us in the 2016 FOIA amendments. That was all that
was done. It did not change our process in fact. It was mostly
housekeeping items.
The only change we made was to centralize where the FOIA
requests come in to at the Agency, and that was a
recommendation from GAO where they took a look at our FOIA
process at EPA and said you should have a one-stop place for
all FOIA requests, so that was the only substantive change we
made to our FOIA regulations. The rest of it has been----
Mr. Beyer. Why do you think there's been so much----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Blown out of proportion----
Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Pushback from the various
communities of concern?
Mr. Wheeler. I don't know. I am at a loss. I guess there's
a lot of people, particularly journalists, that believe that
whatever we do, there must be a nefarious purpose to it. The
FOIA regulations were actually drafted by our career attorneys
in our General Counsel's office, had very little to no input
from any political people on my team. And again, it was just
following the direction that Congress gave us in the FOIA
amendments of 2016.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wheeler, thank you for your service. Let me focus on--
--
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Mr. Norman [continuing]. On obsolete committees. You're
aware in July of this year hearings were held on the Federal
Advisory Committees at the EPA, and it focused on the potential
impact of President Trump's executive order on advisory
committees. Based on the characterization made by many of my
colleagues and their friends in the media, you would think this
order was the deathblow to science at all the agencies. In
reality, this just seems like a commonsense, nonpartisan way to
eliminate wasteful committees.
When this order was executed at your Agency, do you believe
it will have any consequences, negative I guess, for the
ability of the EPA to protect the human health and environment?
Mr. Wheeler. No, I don't believe it would have any negative
impact at all.
Mr. Norman. So that was a good move?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes. You know, to quote President--to
paraphrase President Reagan--I screw up the quote a lot--the
closest thing to immortality is a government program once
created. And I think taking a look at our advisory committees,
the ones that we're not required under statute to determine
whether or not they still have a useful purpose for the Agency,
was a very important step for us to take, and I'm very pleased
that President Trump asked all Federal departments and agencies
to undertake that.
Mr. Norman. So what he did is similar to what every
business goes through, every family budget. You evaluate the
things you're doing. If it doesn't make sense, you eliminate it
or pare it down. If it does make sense, you go forward with it.
So this has no negative impact in your opinion?
Mr. Wheeler. No. And while I can't comment on what we've
recommended to the White House as far as disbanding FACA
(Federal Advisory Committee Act) committees, I do want to
clarify because there has been misreporting in the press that
we're going to do away with our children's health FACA. We just
published in the Federal Register I believe this week
reconstituting that FACA, so we are not doing away with the
children's health FACA. I can say that. I cannot say which ones
we've recommended to the White House, however.
Mr. Norman. And how any committees were affected by this?
Mr. Wheeler. I believe we had approximately 12 committees
that were created not by statute but just by administrative
creation, and we examined all 12 of those--approximately 12,
and we examined those to see whether or not they should be
eliminated, and then we made our recommendations to the White
House. And the White House has asked all agencies and
departments not to discuss our recommendations until they've
had a chance to review all of the departments' and agencies'
recommendations.
Mr. Norman. So none of the agencies that were eliminated
were statutory? It was all administratively administered----
Mr. Wheeler. That's right.
Mr. Norman [continuing]. Or started out? And what he did
was actually--I would make the argument it would be helping the
Agency, wouldn't it?
Mr. Wheeler. I--yes, just to--I think every agency should
periodically take a look at organizations like that that they
have to see whether or not they still make sense to continue. I
think it was a very useful exercise. There were a couple of
committees to be honest that we looked at that hadn't met in
several years, so you have to wonder whether or not it's a
useful purpose if they aren't even meeting.
Mr. Norman. Which everyday Americans do.
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you. Madam Chair, I'm going to yield the
balance of my time to Chairman Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. I thank my colleague.
Director, let's discuss for just a moment, there's been
some topics and discussions here. Is there anywhere in Federal
law, is there anywhere in custom, is there anywhere in
administrative policy down through the years where EPA is
charged with tailoring its decisions to match the needs of the
biggest corporations or the needs of a few particular States?
Don't you have a broader jurisdiction than that----
Mr. Wheeler. We do----
Mr. Lucas [continuing]. A responsibility?
Mr. Wheeler. We try to look holistically at the impact of
all of our regulations across everyone. The EtO, the ethylene
oxide that I was asked about earlier, one of the reasons why
we're going a little slower on that is we've been asked to do a
small business SBREFA (Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act) panel to take a look to see what the impacts
might be for small businesses. We have to take those into
account before we go forward with a regulation.
Mr. Lucas. So the whole country, the impact on the entire
Nation, every citizen, not just particular places or particular
entities?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. Fair statement? Thank you, Director. Yield back,
Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Administrator, thank you for being with us today.
This past June the EPA finalized its Affordable Clean
Energy rule known as the ACE rule as a replacement for the
Obama-era Clean Power Plan. In past hearings you've insisted
that the ACE rule will reduce emissions by 34 percent from 2005
levels by 2030. However, EPA's own analysis of ACE notes that
the rule will only decrease emissions between .7 and 1.5
percent below baseline.
Even more alarming, the analysis also notes that repealing
the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with ACE will lead to
1,400 premature deaths, 15,000 more cases of upper respiratory
problems, and 48,000 more cases of asthma. How can I go back to
my constituents in Florida and tell them that this rule is
supposed to protect their health and the environment when the
EPA itself admits that the rule will cause over 1,000 deaths
and at best marginally reduce emissions?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, first of all, Congressman, I don't
believe that's true. First of all, the Clean Power Plan never
took effect, so you can't compare a regulation that is on the
books to something that was a pie-in-the-sky dream by the Obama
Administration that was outside of the Clean Air Act. The Clean
Power Plan, it was subject to the historic stay by the Supreme
Court, and we--I--we believe--I believe that that happened
because the Clean Power Plan was outside of the Clean Air Act.
It did not have the statutory authorization that was necessary
for a regulation. So the Obama Administration put forward the
Clean Power Plan, never took effect, so you can't compare what
might have happened for a regulation that did not--that was not
grounded in the statute--in the statute itself.
I--I'm--have to admit the number you quoted for our ACE
rule, I'm not familiar with that. I'd like to get back to you
on that specifically. I don't think I've said by 2030. I think
what I say is 34 percent reduction below 2005 levels over the
course of the regulation. Now, that course may be 2030. I don't
remember the year off the top of my head. But I will get back
to you to answer this specific question that you had on the
other reduction level.
Mr. Crist. Well, thank you. I'd appreciate that,
Administrator.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. Of course. Your Agency's website clearly states
that EPA's mission is to protect human health and the
environment. Given the findings and the impact analysis that
your Agency produced, it's clear that the ACE rule doesn't come
close to meeting what anybody would look at that mission to be.
I appreciate that you're going to check, but I'm not comparing
two things. I'm only citing what your own Agency has said the
effect of the ACE rule would be.
Mr. Wheeler. That was in our proposal, not in the final
regulation of that comparison. And again, the Clean Power Plan
never took effect, so you can't really say that the Clean Power
Plan would have saved any lives since it--no--it was never
effective. Nobody was complying with the Clean Power Plan.
And, again, you know, the--when we stepped in and we saw
that the Clean Power Plan had been stayed by the Supreme Court,
you know, people turned to us. I had people from the right that
said you shouldn't do anything, you should overturn the
endangerment finding. I had people on the left that said you
need to defend the Clean Power Plan even though the stay from
the Supreme Court. But what we did is we took a look at the
Clean Air Act, we determined what the statute required us to
do, what it called for us to do. We wanted to make sure that we
were reducing CO2 emissions to the electric power
sector because we were required to do that under the
Massachusetts v. EPA decision, and we went forward with a
regulation, the ACE rule that we believe follows the Clean Air
Act and will reduce CO2 emissions from industry.
Again, you know, people didn't want us to do anything. They
thought we should overturn the endangerment finding. Other
people, of course, liked the Clean Power Plan even though it
was not--it never took effect. Well, what we did was go back to
the Clean Air Act itself, take a look at the requirements were,
the Supreme Court decision, and we put forward a regulation
that we believe will reduce CO2 emissions from the
electric power sector.
Mr. Crist. I certainly hope so.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Administrator Wheeler, for joining us here today.
We've all seen the recent headlines about office
relocations being carried out by other departments within the
Federal Government. Right now, the USDA (U.S. Department of
Agriculture) is in the process of rushing through the
relocation of two agencies from Washington, D.C. to Kansas
City, despite being unjustified and in violation of the law.
And the Interior Department has proposed to move most of the
Bureau of Land Management's D.C. staff to Colorado and has
started notifying employees this week of where their jobs will
be moved to.
It's apparent that these moves are not to save the
taxpayers money or provide better services to constituents but
instead to sideline the scientific work that's being done by
these agencies and further the agenda of this Administration to
dismantle crucial parts of the Federal Government. These
radical decisions have already created a devastating
consequence for the offices and the affected employees. Many of
these Federal employees are my constituents. They are
dedicated, hardworking people who want only to serve our
country. They don't deserve to be pawns in a political game.
So I want to give you the opportunity right now to reassure
EPA employees in the greater Washington, D.C. area and in other
hubs around the country like the North Carolina Research
Triangle and Cincinnati, Ohio, that there are no plans to
disrupt their lives as part of a political agenda against the
Federal Government and scientific evidence. So I ask you
directly, yes or no, does EPA have any plans currently under
consideration to relocate substantial numbers of EPA employees
or functions out of the D.C. area or from one region of the
country to another?
Mr. Wheeler. First part of the question is easy, no, we
don't have plans to relocate substantial numbers of people out
of the D.C. area at all. On the regional side, I--we are trying
to move some of our labs--as--I don't know if you were here
earlier when I had a question about the Region 6 lab in Texas.
We're moving that from a leased space in Houston to an EPA-
owned facility in Ada, Oklahoma, but it's still within the
region.
Ms. Wexton. In addition to----
Mr. Wheeler. We want to make sure that we have a regional
lab in all 10 of our regions, but we are moving some of our
labs to EPA- or GSA-owned space, which is what Congress
required us to do in 2016----
Ms. Wexton. And are you moving it----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. In the FASTA Act.
Ms. Wexton. And are you moving it to space within the same
general geographic region?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. OK.
Mr. Wheeler. With one exception which predates me, and that
decision, I believe, was made by the Obama Administration. We
moved a large part of the Region 9 lab in California to Oregon,
I believe.
Ms. Wexton. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. But that was a decision from several years
ago.
Ms. Wexton. I'm going to reclaim my time. I'd like to speak
for a moment about David Dunlap's role in the IRIS formaldehyde
review. The senior-most political official that oversees IRIS,
David Dunlap, recently left a long career with Koch Industries,
which owns one of the largest formaldehyde producers in the
country, you may be aware. In February 2018 Dr. Dunlap emailed
your Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson from his Koch email address.
In that message Mr. Dunlap urged Mr. Jackson to review some of
the studies and said he would, quote, ``provide inhaled
formaldehyde does not cause leukemia in humans.'' Six months
after that, Mr. Dunlap came to work for the EPA. Three months
after that, the IRIS review of formaldehyde had been
eliminated. This timeline speaks for itself.
Questions for the record were issued to the Agency
regarding Mr. Dunlap's participation in decisionmaking around
formaldehyde. The EPA finally sent responses on Friday, 5
months later, but ignored those questions.
So I'll ask you again here. Was David Dunlap involved in
decisionmaking related to formaldehyde prior to his December
2018 recusal?
Mr. Wheeler. Not to my knowledge. He hasn't briefed me on
formaldehyde, and to my knowledge he hasn't been involved in
any of the formaldehyde decisions. He recused himself from
that. The process that we used on the IRIS process actually
started before he joined the Agency, and that was--the IRIS
program itself has had problems dating back to the early 1990s
when I first started working at EPA. I wanted to make sure that
our regulatory programs are--can utilize the IRIS assessments
when they come out, so we started a new process last summer
where there had to be an agreement between the IRIS program and
the regulatory offices within EPA as to what their assessments
going forward would be and what the regulatory purpose was.
Ms. Wexton. And I apologize, but I'm out of time. And I
know that you said not to your knowledge, but would you be
willing to get confirmation of that, that he did not have any
involvement with that decisionmaking process throughout your
entire Agency and provide that confirmation to this Committee?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I'll be happy to look into that.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you,
Administrator Wheeler.
Yesterday, the President announced that this week the EPA
would be issuing a notice of violation for environmental
pollution to the city of San Francisco. Could you walk us
through the timeline for the scientific studies, legal
determinations, and technical measurements that led to that
announcement?
Mr. Wheeler. At this point we--I can't comment on a
potential EPA enforcement action. We've not taken any official
steps yet. We're still looking into the issues, and it's not
a--I can't comment on a pending or potential enforcement
action.
Mr. Foster. But when the President said it was coming this
week, is it routine for you to issue notices of violation,
whatever that means, with less than 1 week of preparatory work?
Mr. Wheeler. Again, I don't--I didn't see where he said it
was happening this week, but----
Mr. Foster. It was carried in multiple news reports from
the reporters that listen to his comment.
Mr. Wheeler. I'll----
Mr. Foster. I certainly take those at face value as well.
But, yes, so you're telling us there was no preliminary action,
there had been no finding that San Francisco--for example, how
was San Francisco chosen as opposed to Miami or Bedminster, New
Jersey, or wherever else you might think of finding
environmental violations?
Mr. Wheeler. Again, I can't comment specifically on a
pending--a potential pending enforcement action. As the Agency
head, before we take an enforcement action, it's inappropriate
for me to comment publicly on anything that we may be doing on
the enforcement side.
Mr. Foster. But you routinely, apparently without--if the
President decides something and a week later he expects the EPA
to issue a notice of violation, take some official action, is
that the way you do business, or was the President saying
something that was not true there?
Mr. Wheeler. I don't want to comment on my conversations
with the President, but again, on enforcement actions, I cannot
comment on a pending--potential pending enforcement action.
Mr. Foster. No, this is a matter of how you do business.
Can the President show up one week and say I think we should
issue a violation, that EPA will do it, and then you fast-track
all of the scientific legal findings, everything----
Mr. Wheeler. No, that is not how we do business, and that--
--
Mr. Foster. So how can it logically be true that when the
President announces that within a week we're going to have a
notice of violation if that is not the way you do business? I'm
just trying to understand the logical----
Mr. Wheeler. I will be----
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Gap.
Mr. Wheeler. If we do take an enforcement action and once a
decision is made whether or not we are going to take an
enforcement action, I would be more than happy to brief you and
your staff on the decision process that we took.
Mr. Foster. OK. Will you be able to get----
Mr. Wheeler. But I cannot at this point in time----
Mr. Foster. For the record, will you be able to get back to
us----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Comment publicly----
Mr. Foster. OK. But will you be able to get--within a week
when the President announced you would be doing it, can you get
back either with the notice of violation or an explanation for
what the President said was not correct, one or the other?
Mr. Wheeler. I'm not sure within a week, but we certainly--
before we make a--after we make a decision----
Mr. Foster. But if you never make a decision----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. For a potential enforcement----
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Because it turns out that the
statement that he was making was not supported by facts, then
we will--making no promise----
Mr. Wheeler. I will get back to you----
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Within a week you figure out
what's----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. As soon as we can.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Figure out what's going on----
Mr. Wheeler. I will get back to as soon as we can with
statements explaining our actions----
Mr. Foster. All right. Let's----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Or why we're not acting.
Mr. Foster. A quick question. You know, often when you
decide to alter or abolish a regulation, you know, it's a cost-
benefit analysis. The costs are measured in dollars, and the
benefits are measured in saved human lives. To do that balance
you need to know what's the value of a human life in dollars.
How do you think about that problem, and what is your best
number and the one you try to operate in making that balance?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, we always want to show that the benefits
of a regulatory action outweigh the costs----
Mr. Foster. But--all right. In----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. And that is why we're moving
forward----
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Dollars versus human life----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. With a statute-by-statute
approach on cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. Foster. Right. But you need to convert the benefits of
human lives and compare them with a cost in dollars. That----
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. So you need a calibration.
Mr. Wheeler. We do that----
Mr. Foster. What is your calibration?
Mr. Wheeler. We do that on a regular basis. Some of our
statutes require different balances. Some require no
consideration of cost. You know, I'm thinking of the NAAQS in
particular when you set that science-based standard for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. We're not supposed to
take costs into account, so we take a look at the science, we
take a look at the impacts on human life. So it differs from
statute by statute. But we do take that into account. And in
our regulatory analysis for all of our regulations, we explain
the balance and the cost factors and the benefit factors that
we use for each individual regulatory decision.
There's one reason why instead of having a cost-benefit
regulation that apply to all of our regulations, which is what
we proposed last year. We decided instead to do it on a
statute-by-statute basis because of the differences between the
statutes. We can't just come up with a simple formula for cost-
benefit analysis for all of our regulations. We have to look on
a statute-by-statute basis.
Mr. Foster. I guess my time is up.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Casten.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler.
First off, do you confirm that the EPA has found that
current and projected levels of greenhouse gas emissions
threaten public health and the welfare of current and future
generations, yes or no?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, I believe that was the endangerment
finding----
Mr. Casten. OK. That's----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. By the Obama Administration.
Mr. Casten. That is--the organizations we work for are
bigger than us. I'm just focusing at your organization.
Second, I want to clarify, you had said to Mr. Crist a
moment ago that essentially intimated that the estimates of ACE
versus the Clean Power Plan are an apples-to-oranges. I'm
holding in my hand the report that the EPA issued. I flipped it
random to page 325, and it says the base case is the Clean
Power Plan and then goes through and does comparisons. This
entire justification for the ACE is compared to the Clean Power
Plan. All the numbers Mr. Crist--do you confirm that this
report throughout all of these pages compares ACE to the Clean
Power Plan?
Mr. Wheeler. That was in our proposal. Our final action did
not----
Mr. Casten. The numbers that----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Compare because we decided that
the Clean Power Plan was not the rule----
Mr. Casten. The numbers that Mr. Crist cited were
consistent with that, so do you confirm then----
Mr. Wheeler. From our proposal----
Mr. Casten [continuing]. That while the----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Not from our final regulation,
sir.
Mr. Casten. Do you confirm that while the Clean Power Plan
was designed to reduce emissions, designed to reduce emissions
by 32 percent, your proposal was designed to reduce emissions
by a .7 to 1.5 percent? Again, I am quoting your own report.
Mr. Wheeler. Again, that was the proposal, not the final
action. We took comment on that, and our final numbers are in
our final regulation that we finalized in July. So you're
taking the----
Mr. Casten. The----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Numbers from our proposal, and
they changed----
Mr. Casten. So you confirm that this report is an accurate
statement from the EPA. Do you also confirm that this report
says that the ACE proposal would result in as many as 1,400
additional deaths by 2030?
Mr. Wheeler. No, that was looking at the Clean Power Plan
if the Clean Power Plan had been enacted. And again, the Clean
Power Plan was stayed by the Supreme Court, so it was never----
Mr. Casten. OK. Sir, I will submit this to the record.
Mr. Wheeler. All right.
Mr. Casten. These numbers are in here. Now, I am
concerned----
Mr. Wheeler. From the proposal, not from the final
regulation, though.
Mr. Casten. Sir, I have spent the first 7 years of my
career in the sciences, the next 16 years running a business.
You've had a distinguished career in lobbying. I do not have
the luxury in my career of selectively interpreting facts. I
want to stay on facts because I'm really concerned with the way
that you have analyzed facts.
When you considered the impacts of the ACE proposal, do you
confirm that you reduced the discount rate for future analyses
from 3 percent to 7 percent?
Mr. Wheeler. I believe so, but I'd have to get back to you
on that.
Mr. Casten. OK. I will so stipulate that that is in the
report. That has the practical effect of essentially lowering
by about a factor of 4 over a 30-year plan--for those of you
who are not fluent in compound math--to the cost of the
proposal.
That is not the only place that the ACE changed. On page
164 of the proposed rule for ACE, table 17 shows that there is
a net benefit of going from the Clean Power Plan to ACE. On the
very next page, page 165, it says that if you include the
health impacts, which I think is in your mandate, that there is
actually a net cost. Do you confirm that the justification for
ACE omitted the health impacts----
Mr. Wheeler. No, again----
Mr. Casten [continuing]. Of reducing----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. That is from our proposal, and
you're citing something that we took comment on. The final
Agency record on this regulation was our final regulation
issued in July. It was not from a----
Mr. Casten. OK. Now----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Proposal that we received
comments on and modified and changed----
Mr. Casten. With----
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. Before we went final.
Mr. Casten. Madam Chair, I'd like unanimous consent to
enter these documents into the record. I want to move on with
the moments I have left here. Will you----
Chairwoman Johnson. Without objection.
Mr. Casten. When you appeared before the Senate for your
confirmation hearing, Senator Merkley asked you about a study
from Boston University, Harvard, and Syracuse that had recently
been published. The study found that the ACE proposal would
provide no, zero meaningful reductions because it effectively
allows plans to bypass pollution controls. At the time you said
you had not had time to review the study.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter this study
into the record.
Mr. Casten. Have you had a chance to review that peer-
reviewed paper since?
Mr. Wheeler. I looked at it at the time, but again, that
was based on our proposal, not on our final regulation, which
we--and the justifications. We don't believe that that study
was accurate.
Mr. Casten. Can you explain the discrepancy between the 34
percent reduction cited in the regulatory impact analysis and
what the authors of the study found?
Mr. Wheeler. No, I cannot explain what the authors of the
study found.
Mr. Casten. Will you commit to providing your analysis of
why you think this is justified after this hearing is over?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wheeler, I skipped my questions so we would get more
Members. I'm going to submit them to you, which really has to
do with procedure and decisionmaking. I wonder if you would
maybe be able to respond in a 2-week period.
Mr. Wheeler. I will certainly strive to.
Chairwoman Johnson. OK. Thank you so very much for
testifying before the Committee.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for any additional questions
the Committee might want to ask the witness.
The witness is now excused, and we thank you for coming.
The Committee is adjourned.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]