Mckinleys turn to be recognized. I want to recognize the gentleman from West Virginia for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, administrator, for coming, participating in this. Over the years we had asked your predecessor no mike is up. Just come here. Now it is back. We had asked your predecessors to come particularly as relates to section 321a, to see the impact some of the regulations were having on in the coal fields and they declined to do that. But i am particularly appreciative of the fact that a week ago or two weeks ago the epa, you sent other folks to West Virginia to get the impact of what these regulations are having. Because it is pretty clear in the statute that we have to abide by the economic impact. We have to take that into consideration when rules and regs are promulgated. They didnt do that. I know you and i have had that conversation, that you want to follow the law very clearly, and i know a federal judge has already ruled that the epa in the past considered them discretionary and not mandatory. I think your position, i have heard from you, is you think they are mandatory and you intend to abide by them. Am i correct on that . Yes, congressman, and we did, in fact, as you indicated send representatives to West Virginia as part of the proposed withdrawal. I do think it is important that thats a rulemaking process. You know, we talked a little bit this morning about the withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan, and indicated earlier thats primarily jurisdictional as far as the basis for that withdrawal but it is a rulemaking process. That rulemaking process means we go out and solicit and receive comment from across the country. We will not just be in West Virginia. We will be in wyoming soon, we will be in san francisco, we will be in kansas city. There will be a cross point much views on the issue and it is important that we hear that and the process is ongoing. I particularly appreciate that you sent people to the coal fields to understand the impact of what the regulation was doing when 86,000 coal miners lost their job during the Obama Administration and no one paid attention, no one came to the communities to find out what would be the impact of another regulation that would put them out of business. Part of the question is have they been able to debrief you . What were some of the salient issues . What were the points that were raised at that meeting in charleston . Well, quite a few comments that were offered. It was multiple hours of information and, again, a cross current can of information that were reviewing. I think that, congressman, you hit on some very important matters with respect to the cost of the Clean Power Plan that wasnt taken into consideration before, and thats something that came out in the process in West Virginia. I know you have made a commitment, you said youre going back to blocking and tackling the fundamentals of rule making. Is there something we should be doing here in congress to make sure that we dont revert back to that old way of just following ideology rather than science . Well, i think, you know, there are some things we have done recently i think are important to the process that i talked about earlier. For many years the epa, the administrative procedures act that governs how we do real making has not been followed as closely as it should. Weve used guidance as forms of rules at time which i think subverts the voices then to be heard on substantive actions. We have engaged through litigation, we talked about a sue in the agency that impacted implementation across the country with regard to air quality. Theres much we need to do to respect the process and make sure rulemaking is adhered to as were engaged in rule making. During the time, is there something you would suggest, because thats been on the books theyre supposed to do that, but we saw eight years where they did not follow that. Is there something we should do to tighten up that . I think that any time that an agency it is not just the epa, it is any agency of the executive branch that engages in litigation to change substantive requirements in the statute, timelines that congress sets, or taking discretionary duties and making it nondiscretionary for example, should be dealt with by congress. I think speaking to that through codification i think would be very helpful. Thank you. I yield back. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair requires the gentleman from california, mr. Peters, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, mr. Administrator. I want to ask you about the methane rule. Epa has an effort to control dangerous methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. The common sense rule asks operators to put Natural Gas Resources to productive use rather than wasting them. It will reduce air pollution including smog, air toxins and Green House Gases and the benefit of capturing methane from the oil and gas industry is two billion dollars annually. Do you support this rule . If not, without it what would you do to reduce wasted natural gas . Congressman, i think historically the way the agency dealt with methane has been part of a voc approach, where volatile organic compound as we regulated it, methane has been part of that budle. What happened with that rule is epa pulled methane out of the bundle and regulated it separately. We have not taken action on that as you know as far as a substantive rule itself. There are compliance dates that are forthcoming that have been extended, and thats really been the focus up until now. I think theres a meaningful debate and discussion that should occur about whether the rule should be focused on a bundle approach, a voc approach or whether methane should be pulled out. As you know, methane is very valuable. Companies dont like to flare it because it can be captured and used in other ways and it is marketable, if you will. I think having a rule in place that incentivizes that an ensures we approach it pursuant to the statute is something we should look at. Okay. So youve said i think you and secretary perry both made appearances on cnbc, and on march 9th you said that Carbon Dioxide is not a primary driver contributing to recent Climate Change and that said differently that you said co2 is not the only contributor to Climate Change. Do you agree that methane, nitrous oxide and other Green House Gases are air pollutant . Absolutely. Absolutely. And are more potent actually than co2. Methane is more potent than co2 in that regard. So i have to say it seems to me i know you emphasized the importance of process before, but if the object is to reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other Green House Gases, what would be the strategy, whether as part of a bundle or not part of a bundle . How do you think we should go about controlling and reducing those . I think that distinction matters though, congressman. Okay. I think as we look at the statutory framework and how methane should be regulated, the question whether it should be part of the bundle is significant question. So thats what were evaluating. Again, the focus in the first ten months has been on those compliance dates, and as you know the rule is in effect presently. And weve thats been the primary focus. As we go forward, the discussion and the focus will be on whether it needs to be a part of the bundle or not. So i understand you, the procedural point you make about whether it is part of the bundle, but whichever avenue we take, whether it is part of the bundle or not, how would we go about reducing the emissions of methane gas . Well, there are you look at the well head. You speak to companies with respect to the flaring practices that have gone on historically. There are best Management Practices and best practices that can be can deployed by companies to ensure. Again, theres not an incentive for companies to waste methane. It is something that can be used and it is very valuable. We need to recognize that and encourage and incentivize that. I think one of the things we have noticed is it has many benefits, the price of natural gas has gone down. Perhaps the incentive to use the cheap gas is not as great as it might be to enforce control of it. You mentioned a couple of things like looking at the well head and so forth. Do you think what is in the methane rule is the right kind of approach to deal with that . I think, congressman, it is probably best in the rule making process, it is important that i dont prejudge outcomes. I think it will be important taking comment on those issues as we go forward. Do you intend to start from zero or do you intend to put out the methane rule for additional comment . How do you intend to land this plane . It has yet to be determined. All right. I would say i think it is we made a lot of progress on it. I think that theres a lot of understanding within the industry that natural gas can be a better burning fuel than some fuels we use but you have to control methane to get the benefit out of it from a carbon from a Climate Change standpoint and thats kind of where we should be. Thanks, congressman. Thank you. Gentleman yields back his time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Olson, for five minutes. I thank the chair. Welcome, administrator pruitt. My Congressional District, texas 22, may be the biggest one in america. Right now we have 850,000 people and growing quickly. The huge majority of these people want me to tell you thank you, thank you, thank you for making epa what it should have been, an agency in d. C. That works with local governments, local private sectors to get cleaner air. Thank you for that. Theyre frustrated by the last few years. The epa became a combatant that kept us from getting cleaner air and water. They are thrilled to have you there. The technology is not available, yet it is demanded. Theyre tired of having lawsuits to sue and settle, and thats gone. Thank you for that. There are many frustrations back home. One example, the rfs. As you know, sir, i have had long and serious concerns with the rfs. I hope this committee will act to make this matter to take care of this matter quickly, but in the meantime, until we act, guess what . Youre enpoint and you have a lot of leeway Going Forward. My question is how have the concerns about the ethanol wall or even rent prices affect your decisions about the 2018 targets . Well, a couple of things. Number one, i was very, very appreciative to the agency, the work that was done to meet the deadline. Historically, as you know, the november 30th deadline to publish the volume obligations has been missed, and it creates uncertainty. People dont know what is expected. It affects capital outlay, et cetera. So it was important to meet the november 30th deadline, and we did in fact do that. As we looked at volume obligations with respect to conventional, biobased diesel, advanced categories, we tried to focus our efforts on objective cry tea criteria, whether it is production levels and or demand. The most we ever produced is about 180 to 190 million gallons domestically, let the volume obligations historically by the agencies have been set around 300 million or so. When you set the levels artificially high it creates other problems elsewhere. So i think in the administration of that statute it is important upon our agency to be as objective as possible at setting volume obligations to reflect true production levels. The capacity of biobased diesel, we imported about 700 million gallons from argentina last year to meet the level. There are a lot of questions are the administration with rfs. Pleat no please note we are committed to doing trump tower around the statutory framework, which is a challenge because the levels have never been met. We have a lot of challenge there. As you know, sam baroso asked epa to complete a long overdue study on the Environmental Impact of rfs. That is something required by the Clean Air Act. Any update on the progress of the study . Yes, i was briefed on that in the last couple of weeks. We have begun the process to provide the study to congress. That is something thats statutory and needs to be done. Thank you. Also talk about. Im sorry. Say it again. Hurricane harvey, sir. It hit my district hard. As you know, hit us twice basically. Most expensive hurricane in american history. Talking with dr. Brian shaw who heads up our Texas Council on environmental quality, he is quite pleased with the work with epa during the storm. You guys deployed all over the gulf coast, on the coast, inland, got acting pretty quickly. One concern is having money to go forward. One solution may be what is called the staterevolving fund. Can that be used to taxpayers in texas, it is under your control, and will you do it . Srs has been used in a good way to address infrastructure challenges at the state level, and i think it is Something Congress ought to consider. Again, i want to highlight something with respect to Hurricane Harvey and hurricane irma, and then what is going on in puerto rico. We embedded officials from the epa with local towns and cities across texas, florida as the storms approached in order to have realtime decisions made on the threats it posed to Drinking Water, superfund sites, chemical facilities and the rest. It was truly an example of federalism in action between the state, local towns and cities and the u. S. Government working the address those issues. So im very, very thankful for the leadership of region six, you know, which is in dallas and obviously region four as it relates to florida. It was good work by their folks, employees, but also the folks can at the state level. And speaking for dr. Shaw, he would say great teamwork with epa. Thank you, thank you. One final thank you. The sanchez waste pits, harvey knocked them lose, all of this benzene came out. You stepped up and said you would stop it forever. I think it is important, mr. Chairman. This is an example. We talked about the superfund initiative at the agency. This is a site in houston, texas off i10 that has dioxin that has been embedded for a number of years and it is near a harbor with barge traffic going through. The agency has been working for folks it the state level and responsible parties for a number of years, and the solution has been to take a covering can and put it over the site and pile rocks on top of the site. It was that way for ten years. I was in houston in midseptember and looked at the site, and it is totally unacceptable to have that type of temporary situation because of potential hurricanes coming through and displacing those rocks. We provided a permanent solution there, about 115 million of cost that responsible parties will bear to provide a permanent and the citizens a permanent solution. I think the citizens have been pleased with the outcome. The citizgentlemans time ha expired. Let me go to mr. Green for five minutes. Thank you for being here today. I used to have the san jacinto waste pits but in texas they keep changing our line. I think it was in pete olsons for a while, so we change our lines in texas. I want to thank you for visiting after harvey and seeing what was there. I appreciate epa continuing to make sure we have a permanent fix there because that area is, like you said, barge traffic, people crab and fish in that area, and both the city, the county and the state have signs up in spanish, english, in vietnamese, that expectant mothers or small children should not eat the crabs or the fish. But i dont know if that day you were there, but every time i go there everybody is fishing. But thank you. Hopefully we can move that as quick as possible because it is it is an Industrial Area but it also is a recreational area, because i water skied in that water back when i was young. But is there a contradiction to the priorities of epa between the cleanup of the Super Fund Sites and the agencys commitment to the drastic cuts in the Super Fund Program . I know the epas budget request was 30 cut in the Superfund Program. I know that may not affect san jacinto waste pits because we have a responsible party, but there are a lot of Super Fund Sites around the country that dont have a responsible party. Well, it is a concern can, congressman. In fact, during the budgeting process, the appropriations process i necessary to address those orphan sites we have orphan sites that make up the superfund portfolio that i would come and advise congress and ask for those funds. I mean, its very important that as we go forward on superfund cleanup that money not be the problem on how we get those cleanups. We need accountability there. I will tell you that in my time evaluating the superfund portfolio, there is very few orphan sites, and most of it is just a lack of direction on how we should clean up. There are several examples, in east chicago. I think one of the members earlier today mentioned portland. San jacinto was one of those, where there simply wasnt much direct on how to get accountability and how to get cleanup with these responsible parties. So were trying to do both, but i commit to you that if there are issues, deficiencies on funding with respect to that superfund priority, we will advise you and ask for help we work through the appropriations process. Thank you, because in september, the epa Inspector General issued a report about the distribution of superfund fulltime ftes among the epa regions does not support the current regional workloads. As a result, some regions have to prioritize work and have slowed down, like you mentioned, or discontinued. Are you aware of that oigs report . Yeah, ive actually talked to the Inspector General about the superfund issues Going Forward, and weve looked at some management issues, how we bid projects. Sometimes theyre not competitively bid. We sometimes are getting bids that take, routinely i hear something will take 15 or 20 years, and ive pushed back saying that perhaps thats not how long it should take, and mayb