<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:46586.wais]
S. Hrg. 105-50, Part 2
CLEAN AIR ACT: OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 24 AND 29, AND JULY 24, 1997
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-108 cc WASHINGTON : 1997
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear
Safety
JAMES M. INHOFE, North Carolina, Chairman
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BOB GRAHAM, Florida
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 24, 1997
RISK ANALYSIS AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 6
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 7
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 11
Hutchinson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas.... 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 5
WITNESSES
Chilton, Kenneth W., director, Center for the Study of American
Business, Washington University, St. Louis, MO................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Cooper, Benjamin Y., senior vice president, Printing Industries
of America..................................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 204
Dudley, Susan E., vice president and director of environmental
analysis, Economists Incorporated.............................. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 161
Report, NAAQS for Ozone...................................... 251
Hartsock, Beverly, Deputy Director, Policy & Regulatory
Development, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.... 39
Letters, impact of proposed NAAQS on Texas................... 230
Prepared statement........................................... 225
Kerkhoven, Paul C., director, Environmental Affairs, American
Highway Users Alliance......................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 243
Krupnick, Alan, senior fellow, Resources for the Future..........18, 29
Prepared statements..........................................
177, 191...................................................
Leyden, Patricia, deputy executive officer, South Coast Air
Quality Management District.................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 208
Responses to additional questions from Senator Lieberman..... 210
Lippmann, Morton, Institute of Environmental Medicine, New York
University..................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 168
Responses to additional questions from Senator Lieberman..... 176
Nichols, Mary, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and
Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency..................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 203
Shy, Carl M., Department of Epidemiology, School of Public
Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill............ 15
Prepared statement........................................... 164
Starr, Thomas, principal, Environ Inc............................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Reports:
Associations of PM with Adverse Health Outcomes: Expert
Panel Review of Causality Issues....................... 134
Proposed NAAQS for PM: Qualitative Risk Assessment....... 58
Proposed NAAQS for PM: Issues of Causality............... 85
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
Center for Study of Public Choice, George Mason University... 247
Hopkins, Thomas D., Rochester Institute of Technology........ 343
------
APRIL 29, 1997
IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hutchinson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas.... 368
Resolutions, Arkansas legislature............................ 372
Statement, Arkansas State Representative Scott Ferguson...... 369
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 363
Charts....................................................... 365
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 381
WITNESSES
Alford, Harry C., president and CEO, National Black Chamber of
Commerce....................................................... 411
Prepared statement........................................... 606
Billings, Hon. Leon G., Delegate, Maryland General Assembly...... 382
Prepared statement........................................... 462
Responses to additional questions from Senator Baucus........ 463
Fennelly, Kevin P., staff physician, Division of Environmental
and Occupational Health Sciences, National Jewish Medical and
Research Center................................................ 398
Prepared statement........................................... 595
Grande, Christopher M., executive director, International Trauma
Anesthesia and Critical Care Society........................... 400
Prepared statement........................................... 604
Hansen, Paul, executive director, Izaak Walton League of America. 396
Prepared statement........................................... 594
Heilman, Glenn, vice president, Heilman Pavement Specialties,
Inc., for National Federation of Independent Business.......... 416
Prepared statement........................................... 610
Herhold, Frank F., executive director, Marine Industries
Association of South Florida, for National Marine Manufacturers
Association.................................................... 412
Prepared statement........................................... 608
Homrighausen, Hon. Richard P., Mayor of Dover, OH................ 377
Prepared statement........................................... 423
Hull, Hon. Emma Jean, Mayor of Benton Harbor, MI................. 374
Prepared statement........................................... 421
Junk, Robert C., president, Pennsylvania Farmers Union, for
National Farmers Union......................................... 392
Prepared statement........................................... 474
Russman, Hon. Richard L. New Hampshire State Senate.............. 379
Letters, proposed NAAQS standards, New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services.................................. 467
Prepared statement........................................... 464
Selph, Hon. John, Tulsa County Commissioner, OK.................. 383
Prepared statement........................................... 473
Smith, Jeffrey C., executive director, Institute of Clean Air
Companies...................................................... 414
Prepared statement........................................... 609
Vice, Bob, president, California Farm Bureau Federation, for
American Farm Bureau Federation................................ 394
Prepared statement........................................... 480
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
American Farm Bureau Federation.............................. 577
CASAC Advisory Committee..................................... 581
Department of Agriculture.................................... 553
Food Industry Environmental Council.......................... 640
Food processing industry representatives..................... 573
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection......... 649
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators................. 644
Natural Resource Conservation Service........................ 565
New York Department of Environmental Conservation............ 617
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.......... 646
Public Service Electric and Gas Company...................... 656
Small Business Administration................................ 568
Vermont Governor Howard Dean................................. 654
Report, Long-Range Transport of North African Dust to the Eastern
United States.................................................. 489
Statements:
Associated Builders and Contractors.......................... 611
Cahill, John, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.............................. 613
Public Service Electric and Gas Company...................... 657
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO...................... 664
Summary, Comments on Coarse Particles, Federal Register.......... 532
------
JULY 24, 1997
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
OPENING STATEMENTS
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado...... 671
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 694
Hutchinson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas.... 670
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 667
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 694
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 672
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 669
WITNESS
Nichols, Mary D., Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 673
Prepared statement........................................... 695
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 714
Senator Inhofe........................................... 703
CLEAN AIR ACT: OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private
Property and Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
RISK ANALYSIS AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:33 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Hutchinson, Allard, Sessions,
Lieberman, and Chafee (ex officio).
Also present: Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The hearing will come to order.
Today's subcommittee hearing is the third on the proposed
rule changes. It's actually the fourth hearing that we've had;
one was a full committee hearing.
The first was the science hearing, in which we heard from
members of CASAC, and there are some members from CASAC here
today as well as much of the scientific community.
At the second hearing, Administrator Browner was the
Administration's first witness. The committee then held a field
hearing in Oklahoma City. In fact, I think we set a record for
the longest and the best attended field hearing in the history
of Oklahoma. Today, we turn to risk and implementation issues.
This will be followed by a hearing this coming Tuesday, April
29, which will focus on the impacts of the proposed regulations
by EPA.
I'm troubled by the risk issues surrounding these
regulations. The risk analysis is necessarily based on the
understanding of the science issues, but we learned in our
science hearing that there is great uncertainty on the
scientific side. When we add that to the uncertainties in the
risk assessments, we end up with very dubious results.
We have learned that the EPA greatly overestimated the
impacts of both ozone and PM and they've had to publicly change
their figures. In addition, we've learned that they selectively
applied some study results, while ignoring others in their
calculations.
For example, the majority of the health benefits for ozone
are based on one study by Dr. Moolgavkar even though the Agency
ignored the results of that study because it contradicted their
position.
What I find most troubling is that first, the science is
unclear and incomplete, and then these uncertainties are added
to the uncertainties of risk calculations.
The EPA has claimed these results are concrete facts, even
though other Federal agencies and outside interest groups have
raised many questions about these proposals. Public policy
decisions must be open and aboveboard. Uncertainty in science,
plus uncertainty in risk factors does not equal certainty.
What I hope to gain from the testimony of the first panel
today is a better understanding of the risk issues. I am
pleased that we have some divergent viewpoints by members of
the panel and hope they can shed some light on the risk issue.
The second panel today will discuss the implementation
issues. This area has not received the attention it deserves in
the public debate. While implementation issues will become more
important as the EPA proceeds, they do need to be discussed
before the proposals are finalized. Because of that, we have
invited several members of the EPA's Advisory Group for
Implementation Issues to appear here today.
I'm concerned that the planned implementation for these
proposals is not reflected in the projected impacts. The EPA is
planning to change the method of defining nonattainment areas.
The proposals have created two new concepts--areas of violation
and areas of influence.
[Indicates chart.]
Senator Inhofe. If you look over here, we don't have the
entire United States; this is a chart I understand that came
from the EPA and we talk about the very small circle in the
middle as being those areas that could be out of attainment but
it's very vague on what is expected in the other areas.
This chart represents what the EPA is considering for
implementation areas. If members have not seen this, I suggest
you look closely and particularly you, Senator Sessions,
because you don't really know what additional problems are
going to be there.
Most people have been under the wrong assumption that these
proposals would only affect the nonattainment areas defined by
the EPA. As you can see on the map, from only three
nonattainment areas, the majority of five States would be
affected. While this is only a strawman map and as it says on
the top, ``conceptual only,'' the concept concerns me. The
boundaries themselves could end up being larger or smaller. The
fact that it's being considered needs to be addressed.
The people who live in these areas, as well as the mayors,
Governors, and even Senators, have had no idea that these
regulations would apply to them. The importance of this cannot
be underestimated. The people in these communities lost the
opportunity to comment during the comment period. I suspect
that if a lot of people had seen that map prior to the end of
the comment period, there would have been a lot more comments.
I hope this issue as well as other implementation issues
will come out during our second panel. We have two good panels
of witnesses today and I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State
of Oklahoma
The hearing will now come to order.
Today's hearing is the third subcommittee hearing on the proposed
new ozone and particulate matter standards and the fourth for the
Committee. The first hearing focused on the scientific issues. At the
second hearing, a full Committee hearing, we received testimony from
Administrator Browner. The third hearing was a field hearing in
Oklahoma City where we received testimony from State and local
government officials.
Today we turn to risk and implementation issues. This will be
followed by a hearing this Tuesday which will focus on the impacts of
the proposals.
I am troubled by the risk issues surrounding these regulations. The
risk analysis is necessarily based on the understanding of the science
issues. But we learned in our science hearing that there is great
uncertainty on the scientific side. When we add that to the
uncertainties in the risk assessments, we end up with very dubious
results.
Since our last hearings, we have learned that the EPA greatly
overestimated the impacts for both ozone and PM, and they have had to
publicly change their figures. In addition, we have learned that they
selectively applied some study results while ignoring others in their
calculations. For example, the majority of the health benefits for
ozone are based on one PM study by a Dr. Moogarkar, even though the
Agency ignored the PM results of that study because it contradicted
their position on PM.
What I find most troubling is that first the science is unclear and
incomplete and that these uncertainties are then added to the
uncertainties of risk calculations which must result in great
uncertainty. But the EPA has postured these results as being the
concrete facts, even though other Federal agencies have raised as many
questions about these proposals as outside interest groups. Public
policy decisions must be open and above board. Uncertainty in science
plus uncertainty in risk does not equal fact.
What I hope to accomplish in the first panel today is a better
understanding of the risk issues. I am pleased that we have some
divergent viewpoints on the panel. I hope they can shed some light on
the risk questions.
Our second panel today will discuss the implementation issues. This
is an area that we have so far ignored and is not receiving the
attention it deserves in the public debate. While implementation issues
will become more important as the EPA precedes, they do need to be
discussed before the proposals go final. Because of that, we have
invited several members of the EPA's advisory group for implementation
issues to appear here today.
I am concerned that the planned implementation for these proposals
is not reflected in the projected impacts. The EPA is planning to
change how nonattainment areas are defined. The proposals have created
two new concepts, Areas of Violation and Areas of Influence.
This chart, represents what the EPA is considering for
implementation areas. If members have not seen this, I suggest you look
closely. In addition to requiring control measures in nonattainment
areas, the EPA plans on requiring additional measures in these Areas of
Influence. Most people have been under the wrong assumption that these
proposals would only effect the nonattainment areas identified by the
EPA. But as you can see on this map, from only three nonattainment
areas, the majority of five States would be affected. While this is
only a straw man map, and as it says on the top, conceptual only; the
concept concerns me. The boundaries themselves could end up being
larger or smaller, the fact that it's being considered needs to be
addressed.
The people who live in these areas, as well as the mayors,
Governors, and even Senators have had no idea that these regulations
would apply to them. The importance of this cannot be underestimated.
These people and communities lost the opportunity to comment during the
public comment period because their counties were not identified by the
EPA as nonattainment areas. These proposals have been portrayed as only
affecting certain areas when, in fact, they will impact the entire
Nation.
I hope this issue, as well as other implementation issues will come
out during our second panel. We have two good panels of witnesses today
and I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Inhofe. I will now turn to Senator Hutchinson for
any opening comments he might want to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUTCHINSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend you for your willingness to take on this
very difficult issue. Too often, I think regulatory agencies
are able to implement new standards and new regulations without
any close scrutiny or necessarily the kind of focus that should
be placed upon them. So thank you for leading this and for
calling this issue today.
I'm very happy that we can continue our study of the EPA's
proposed clean air standards. About 2 months ago, we held the
first hearing on the proposed standards. In this hearing, I
learned very important information regarding the scientific
basis behind the EPA's proposal.
It was very clear that the CASAC scientists themselves did
not agree on the standards proposed and they certainly did not
agree that everything EPA has done is in accordance with the
recommendations of CASAC.
I must admit that in some ways I am amazed that we're still
debating some of the issues that we are today. Since the
science hearing, it has come out that several Government
agencies have opposed these standards with, to my knowledge, no
response from EPA. I've heard from hundreds of constituents,
not just industry officials but the average citizen, strongly
opposed to these new standards.
I've seen editorials and articles from papers all over the
Nation outlining weaknesses in the proposal and opposition to
it. All of this has gone on in the last 2 months, yet we've
heard very little from EPA. There's been no good faith effort,
in my opinion, on the part of EPA to address these very
legitimate concerns.
I find this situation disturbing, especially the lack of
response to the Government agencies opposing the standard.
Instead, we have heard Administrator Browner claim that they
have the scientific basis and justification for the standards.
Unfortunately, this science is considered in many cases either
valid, weak, or contradictory.
In Arkansas, the EPA has become one of the most despised
agencies. Perhaps in the month of April with IRS, it might
exceed the hostility level, but the EPA is viewed as being
heavy-handed, oftentimes arrogant and it seems this level of
disrespect I think goes beyond the average Arkansan.
Recently, I found out that some of the comments made by Dr.
Schwartz in the first hearings were misleading at best. He
testified that the United States is behind the rest of the
world in clean air standards. Now we come to find out that is
really not the case at all and yet Dr. Schwartz testified and
led us in that direction--I think misled us in that direction.
It troubles me and I think it should concern every Senator
on this committee and every Senator in the U.S. Senate. Dr.
Schwartz's studies are the primary studies the EPA has used to
set the PM standard. Yet, these studies have not yet been made
public. We are relying, in effect, on unchecked research of
someone who has not been fully forthcoming to this committee.
This concerns me greatly. I think Dr. Schwartz should provide
us an explanation or an expansion on his comments to us.
In the first hearing, I submitted a question to Mr.
McClellan regarding the possibility that under certain
circumstances, even if all manmade VOCs, volatile organic
compounds, were eliminated, would it be possible for some
regions of the country to find themselves out of attainment and
he responded that was the case.
Basically, under the current Clean Air Act, some areas
could do everything possible to eliminate manmade VOCs and
still be out of attainment. The EPA is determined that for
these areas NAAQS must be regulated.
What that would basically mean is that the Clean Air Act
would have to be reopened. I don't think we desire to do that
in order to regulate this area.
Mr. Chairman, in short, there are many unanswered questions
on these standards and I'm really surprised that there has been
no attempt on the EPA's part to really come to the table and
discuss the issues that have been raised and the concerns that
have been expressed by this committee.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to continue the
hearings and to continue to explore what I think will be a far-
reaching impact upon not only our local and State governments,
but upon each of our citizens.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Hutchinson.
I also thank you for attending the field hearing out in
Oklahoma. Out there, we saw what the people in the field
thought. I might add at this point, this is not a partisan
issue. The second panel we had in our Oklahoma field hearing,
all of them were Democrats and they had very, very strong
feelings, as you recall.
Following the ``early bird'' rule, we'll turn now to
Senator Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank you for your work on this important
issue. We're moving along very fast and I'm afraid we're
considering adopting issues that could have great impact on our
communities.
It was remarkable that I think we had the official
representative of the National League of Cities speaking
strongly in opposition to the proposed regulations.
Senator Inhofe. And the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Senator Sessions. And the State Legislatures, from
Representatives, the chairman of the environmental committees,
national presidents of those organizations, as I recall, were
absolutely and firmly in opposition to it and had some very
disturbing things to say about the possibilities that these
regulations would impact adversely their growth and economic
vitality.
Obviously, what we've learned is that nations that are
strong and healthy economically do a better job of cleaning up
their envi-
ronments. If you're doing well financially, you can afford to
make the investment easier than you can if you're not and the
poorer nations, we can see, just simply are not able to do so.
So we need not underestimate the damage that can be done if we
impose regulations that don't improve health commensurate with
the economic burden that it may place on our people and our
industries.
We should note in a very positive way how much the air has
been cleaned up in the past 25 years. Measured pollutants have
been reduced nearly one-third with sulfur dioxide, the main
precursor, to acid rain being reduced by 30 percent and
particulate matter being reduced 78 percent.
The standards we have in place now are working and many,
many communities are continuing to clean up their air. Moving
forward with these changes will affect the lives of many
people. We need to make sure that we are, in fact, receiving
health benefits.
We want to hear from these panels, but I will say this--
it's important to me that the Environmental Protection Agency,
when it states its position before this committee, that its
numbers are verifiable.
EPA is suggesting, for example, in their cost-benefit
analysis that they have done, that implementation of this
standard will cost $6 to $8 billion. I met with the
environmental person for TVA. It would cost $2 billion alone
for TVA to comply with these new standards. One of the power
companies in the southeast said it would probably cost them $4
billion. Other estimates have been $60 to $100 billion to meet
these standards.
We need to get better numbers. We need to get better
numbers about health; we need to get better numbers about
costs, and we need to make sure that the policy we're setting
today as public officials is based on science and health and
not on politics or other reasons.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for continuing to seek to get the
scientific truth on these issues as chairman of this committee.
I commend you in your efforts in that regard.
I do have a full statement for the record, and I will make
a few brief comments.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Senator Allard. We've heard from the Environmental
Protection Agency earlier, specifically from Carol Browner, and
I was one member of the committee who challenged the scientific
basis for some of the claims she was making and challenged her
to come up with some better science. Instead of coming up with
better science, she just downgraded her figures.
This is not a political give-and-take situation as much as
this committee is searching for good, scientific evidence to
help us in making the right decisions, to ensure the health of
the people of this country. I'm looking forward to being able
to review the record, and I commend you for seeking that
science.
The other comment I'd like to make is I think those
regulations being promoted by the Environmental Protection
Agency set up local governments, particularly States, to fail
because I'm not convinced they have the technical ability to
actually meet the challenge that is called for in the rules and
regulations.
Again, we're getting down to the best available technology
and the ability of the States to carry forward with that
technology and good science.
Those are just some of the brief comments I have. I'm going
to have to leave early because of this debate--I serve on the
Intelligence Committee. I apologize to the panel members for
not being here.
I do have some questions that I'll ask the committee and my
staff to submit to those who are testifying.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing is of great interest to me
because we will focus on the nuts and bolts of the proposed
regulations; first whether they will actually contribute to better
health and second whether they can be implemented effectively. Also,
this will allow me the opportunity to follow up on questions concerning
the Grand Canyon Visibility Project Commission that I had for
Administrator Browner in early February.
First, is the issue of the health benefits that have been projected
if these regulations should be implemented. I believe we have given the
EPA every opportunity to prove that the benefits they claim will
actually occur. Instead of proving their original claims they have
downgraded them and witnesses today will testify that even these
revised numbers may not hold up under scrutiny. If the EPA is
uncertain, I think Congress has the obligation to approach their
proposal with some skepticism.
Second, the implementation of these regulations could very well
place too much of a burden on States and set them up for failure. My
view is that EPA should not run out in front of the States' technical
ability to implement Federal regulations. Further, testimony that we
will hear today indicates to me that the limited technical and
financial resources of State governments was not considered before
these rules were proposed.
Finally, I am still concerned with regional haze issues. I have a
series of questions on this matter and, should I have the time, I look
forward to posing them to Ms. Nichols.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Allard. I also have a
statement from Senator Boxer that will be placed in the record.
[The statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the State
of California
Mr. Chairman, I believe that as Senators, we have no greater duty
and responsibility than to protect the health and safety of the
American people.
With this in mind, I would like to make two points today.
First, I want to say very clearly and strongly that EPA clean air
standards must continue to be based on science and health concerns.
The EPA proposal before us is based on the best available science
regarding the health effects of exposure to ozone and particulate
matter. Some argue that we should not set a new standard until we have
scientific proof of the exact relationship between exposures to ozone
and particulate matter, and health effects. If we had applied that
principle in the late 1970's, we would not be enjoying the benefit of
our current standards--which have led to, for example, air pollution
from carbon monoxide being reduced by 28 percent, from sulphur dioxide
41 percent, and from lead 98 percent.
We must continue medical research to improve our understanding. We
clearly need more monitoring data on particulate matter. But this
should not make us lose our focus on the need to continue making
progress and further protect the public health--especially our
children.
Young children constitute the largest group at high risk from
exposure to air pollutants. They breath 50 percent more air by body
weight than the average adult. In California alone there are over six
million children under the age of 14 and approximately ninety percent
of them live in areas that fail to meet State and Federal standards.
The second point I want to make, is the importance of taking costs
into account once the health-based standards are set. Costs should and
will play a key role in how the standard will be implemented and how
long States will have to comply.
In California, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is
responsible for cleaning up the L.A. basin, which has the most polluted
air in the country. The South Coast Air District faces some of the most
intractable and complex air pollution problems, in an area where nearly
every possible source is already regulated. Yet the District supports
the EPA proposal. Why? Because they believe that more stringent
standards can be met as long as technology continues to develop, and
the State is given sufficient time to develop an implementation plan
that is cost effective.
Mr. Chairman, I think we need to continue to listen to all sides in
this debate before we make a final judgment. I am confident that EPA
will seriously consider each one of the thousands of public comments it
has received before making a final proposal.
Lastly, I want to welcome Pat Leyden, the Deputy Executive Officer
of the South Coast Air Quality Management District who will testify in
the second panel. I think she makes key points in her testimony about
the effectiveness of market-based strategies to reduce emissions--in
particular the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program.
I look forward to continued work with Committee members on this
important issue.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. We will be moving this right along because
I think most people are aware that we're having an executive
session on the Chemical Weapons Convention today and we want to
get up there in time for that.
I'd ask our first panel of witnesses if you'd take your
places at the table. The way we have divided the panels today
is to start with experts in the field of risk analysis. The
second panel will consist of persons responsible for
implementation of the proposed standards should they be issued.
While you're coming forward, I'd like to give you an
overview of how we will proceed during this public hearing.
We have 12 witnesses today, so what we're going to try to
do is your entire statement, as you've been told, will be
submitted for the record, but we will be timing witnesses and
we're asking you to stay within the time limit for your opening
statement of 5 minutes. These lights will give you the
designation as to when you should stop.
Following 5 minutes of comments by each of the witnesses, I
will then ask any member of the subcommittee if they'd like to
ask questions. Then we will have a round of questions and
answers.
I think we're ready to begin, so let me introduce the
members of the first panel. We have Dr. Kenneth Chilton, Center
for the Study of American Business, Washington University. I
put two kids through that university.
Next is Dr. Alan Krupnick, Resources for the Future; Dr.
Thomas Star, principal, ENVIRON Incorporated; Ms. Susan Dudley,
Economists Incorporated; Dr. Carl Shy, Department of
Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Dr. Morton Lippmann, Institute of
Environmental Medicine, New York University.
With that, we will start with Dr. Kenneth Chilton.
STATEMENT OF DR. KENNETH W. CHILTON, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE
STUDY OF AMERICAN BUSINESS, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS,
MO
Dr. Chilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm in your debt for being able to testify today but after
hearing that you have had two daughters attend Washington
University I understand that you may well be in our debt as
well.
I'm the director at the Center for the Study of American
Business at Washington University in St. Louis. I've been
researching clean air issues for some 15-odd years. The
comments I'm making this morning, of course, are my own and not
necessarily those of the Center or of Washington University.
The scientific evidence on ozone, I believe, is extensive.
Ozone can cause coughing, wheezing, tightness in the chest,
reduced lung function, which is reduced volume of air exchanged
with each breath. These effects are related to both ozone
concentrations and exercise levels. Healthy people typically
experience less than a 5-percent loss in lung function, even
when exercising vigorously at levels that are twice the current
standard.
Doctors don't consider loss of lung function of 10 percent
or less a significant health effect. The person would not
notice a loss this small.
The primary concern, of course, is for the effects on
asthmatics and others who are especially sensitive. The EPA
staff report estimates that for each 1 million persons exposed,
we can expect just 1 to 3 more respiratory hospital admissions
a day for each 100 ppb increase in ozone levels.
This is actually a very low incidence rate and a very high
elevation in ozone levels. This effect has been translated, as
everyone here knows, to the expected numbers of added annual
asthmatic hospital admissions for the New York area. EPA
projects that attainment of the new standard would lower
admissions to 300 per year. This is just 1/10th of 1 percent of
the 28,000 yearly asthmatic admissions in New York City--a
very, very small number.
On fine particles, the science is not so well developed, as
you know. The EPA still projects, however, significant
reductions in premature mortality to result from meeting a new
fine particle standard. These projections are based not on
thousands or even hundreds of studies but, in essence, two.
These reports indicate an association between
PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels and death due to cardiovascular and
pulmonary causes together and also a link between
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and death from all causes. It's curious that
the link is not between fine particles and death due to
respiratory disease or lung cancer alone. Medical science has
not yet discovered a plausible mechanism to explain how fine
particles cause any deaths.
These studies also fail to control for other variables,
temperature, humidity, or the existence of other air
pollutants--that may cause the mortality rates to rise and fall
with, and thus appear to be caused by, fine particle
concentrations.
The lack of air quality data for PM<INF>2.5</INF> is
another serious problem. EPA Administrator Browner, when she
testified here, said that there are 51 PM<INF>2.5</INF>
monitors collecting air quality data at present. That contrasts
with 972 ozone monitors and 1,737 PM<INF>10</INF> monitors. EPA
had to project PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations for many cities
in order to derive its mortality estimates.
Let me get to the recommendations. EPA is not required to
tighten the ozone standard or to create a new PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard. For ozone there is little evidence that a tighter
standard is warranted and would be more protective.
For fine particles, the science is just not adequate to
warrant a new standard. More could be accomplished for public
health by staying the course for another 5 years than by
disrupting this process with a new set of targets.
However, the most important issue being raised by these air
quality standards reviews is, by and large, being ignored, I
believe. As you're well aware, the Clean Air Act requires the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish and enforce air
quality standards that protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety. That's the mandate.
In that process, it proscribes the consideration of
economic factors. This is a very high-minded objective. It
sounds good to say that air quality standards are to be set
only on the basis of public health, but responsible public
policy requires balancing incremental benefits and incremental
costs. Spending more on one activity than it brings about in
added benefits means that resources aren't available for other
beneficial uses.
Current ozone standards already require expenditures
between $4 and $28 to produce $1 in health benefit. The tighter
standard proposed only worsens this unfavorable tradeoff.
Moreover, the physical responses to ozone can be
demonstrated at levels produced by natural processes. As a
result, the prime directive of the Clean Air Act has become
mission impossible for ozone.
The Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee put it this
way. ``The paradigm of selecting a standard at the lowest
observable effects level and then providing an adequate margin
of safety is no longer possible.'' I suppose CASAC would call
this ``paradigm impossible'' instead of ``mission impossible.''
In my opinion, EPA should appeal to Congress to reform the
Clean Air Act. The Act's fundamental objective needs to be
changed from this wishful thinking of protecting the public
health with an adequate margin of safety to protecting the
public health against unreasonable risk of important adverse
health effects. Benefit costs analyses should be required, not
proscribed, when setting air quality standards.
The American people expect to be protected from air
pollution that might significantly impair their health. They do
not expect, however, that the cost of doing so will be all out
of proportion to the benefits.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Chilton.
We've been joined by the Chairman of the full committee,
Senator Chafee. Senator Chafee, do you have any comments to
make before we hear from our next witness?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interrupt. I
do have a statement which I will ask be put in the record.
I want to thank you for holding these hearings in your
subcommittee.
Unfortunately, I can only stay a short time, but I did want
to come by and see what's up and obviously I will have the
advantage of reading the testimony that's been submitted.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John H. Chafee, U.S. Senator from the State
of Rhode Island
Mr. Chairman, one of the most troubling aspects of this complicated
EPA proposal is the mismatch between the public health threat that is
presumably posed by fine particles and the schedule for actually
reducing emissions of this pollutant.
On the one hand, Administrator Browner has told us that 15,000
Americans are killed each year by elevated levels of particulate
pollution and tens of thousands more are hospitalized. Although many
have urged that her decision now scheduled for July be postponed so
that we could expand the scientific foundation for a new standard, EPA
speaks of the problem in terms that communicate a public health
emergency.
On the other hand, we will learn at this hearing that the first
regulations to actually reduce fine particulate pollution under the
Clean Air Act will not be in place until the year 2005 or later. Today,
we have few monitoring stations that can measure fine particulate
pollution. Once the monitors are put in place, we must collect data for
3 years to determine which areas violate the new standard. States with
nonattainment areas are then given 3 more years to write plans to
reduce emissions. And it is only after EPA has approved these plans--a
step that frequently takes a year or more--that regulations to improve
air quality are adopted by the States.
This is a very important hearing because it allows us to explore
the apparent disconnect between the rhetoric used to describe the
problem and the timeline for acting on solutions. One lesson that we
may take away from this hearing is that we do have time to improve our
understanding of the health threat posed by this type of pollution
before we commit vast sums to a new regulatory program. In my view, it
is very important that we make the best possible use of this window for
better science. Attaining this new standard for fine particulates
everywhere in the Nation would take a very substantial effort--perhaps
$20 billion per year or more. EPA will not be able to follow through on
that kind of effort without a substantial public consensus as to nature
of the health threat. That consensus does not exist today. But it can
be built with more science and public education.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Senator Chafee.
Dr. Thomas Starr.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS STARR, PRINCIPAL, ENVIRON INCORPORATED
Dr. Starr. Good morning.
The comments I offer today are drawn principally from two
recent consulting projects in which we conducted a critical
examination of the scientific evidence for potentially causal
associations between particulate matter exposure and adverse
human health effects.
In the first, undertaken on behalf of the American
Petroleum Institute, three world renowned epidemiologists--Drs.
Raymond Greenberg from the Medical University of South
Carolina; Jack Mandel from the School of Public Health at the
University of Minnesota; and Harris Pastides, School of Public
Health at the University of Massachusetts--were brought
together as an expert panel to independently and objectively
assess the quality of the epidemiological evidence for
associations between PM exposure and increased human morbidity
and mortality.
In the second project undertaken on behalf of Kennecott
Corporation, an ENVIRON colleague, Dr. Larisa Rudenko and I
also evaluated the case for such associations.
In addition, we assessed the credibility of the health
benefits that EPA has projected that would accrue from
implementation of the proposed new standards for PM. My remarks
today briefly summarize our findings. I refer you to the full
report that I submitted to the committee for additional
details.
First, let me address the issue of causality, that is,
whether the effects observed are truly caused by exposure to PM
or specifically PM<INF>2.5</INF> or some other component of air
pollution or lifestyle.
In assessing whether the results from epidemiological
studies support a causal relationship, criteria developed
initially by Sir Austin Bradford Hill are often applied. These
include the strength, consistency, coherence, specificity, and
temporality of the reported associations.
Although not explicitly stated, the presumption exists that
the validity of the association has been established prior to
consideration of these other criteria. What this means is that
estimates of the association strength have been shown to be
free of significant biases and not significantly confounded by
other variables.
Our expert panel of epidemiologists and our own independent
review both concluded that the studies of PM and human disease
do not satisfy these conditions. They have inadequately
addressed potential biases and they have failed to resolve
satisfactorily the issue of confounding.
Even if the issue of validity were to be set aside, the
health criteria would still not be met. The reported
associations are extremely weak; they vacillate between
positive and negative based on the specific regression model
that is used. As additional co-pollutants are introduced,
apparent positive associations with PM attenuate in magnitude
often to nonsignificance. Indeed, based on the criteria and
strength of association, it's difficult to imagine a weaker
case for causality than that posed by the data for particulate
matter.
Furthermore, the results of the studies are not actually as
consistent as they might at first appear. For example,
different exposure measures--mean daily level, maximum daily
level, or some lagged estimate of TSP, PM<INF>10</INF>,
PM<INF>2.5</INF>--have been linked with different end points
such as respiratory disease, cardiovascular diseases, or total
death.
Also, temporal relationships between exposure and disease
are not the same across studies, but with lag times varying
from zero to several days earlier.
In addition, a critically important component of coherence,
a dose response, is at best weakly established only in a few
studies. In virtually all of the epidemiological studies of PM,
exposure levels have not been based on personal dosimetry but
rather on stationary samples located in specific geographic
areas.
Individual subjects were thus assigned communitywide
measures of exposure rather than individual measures. The lack
of personal exposure limits the ability to conclude that any
individual death or disease is linked to air pollution per se.
In fact, there is a large body of data indicating that
community sampler measurements rarely provide good estimates of
individual exposures.
Even if a causal association were to exist, these
ecological exposure estimates that have been used would likely
misrepresent the associations of truth strength. Equally
important, the underlying dose response relationship may be
significantly distorted with sharp, thresholdlike curves being
smoothed into nearly linear shapes by exposure
misclassification.
Another major challenge to the case for causality relates
to the fact that PM exposure invariably occurs in combination
with exposure to other air pollutants such as ozone, carbon
monoxide and sulfur dioxide. Because this mixture composition
varies according to the source, the season, time of day,
weather conditions and geographic region, and because PM is,
itself, a complex and highly variable mixture, it has been
virtually impossible to disentangle the potential adverse
effects of PM or a specific fraction like PM<INF>2.5</INF> and
those attributable to other confounding copollutants.
The question of whether the course or fine particulate
fractions are causally related to human health effects is one
of great importance. If there is a causal relationship, then
identification and establishment of a safe and acceptable level
of PM will be a decision with enormous consequences.
However, the severe limitations of existing studies prevent
a conclusive judgment about causality. EPA's proposal for new
PM standards is premature.
The stated purpose for EPA's proposed standards is to
provide increased protection against a wide range of PM-related
effects. How confident can we be that the proposed new
standards will lead to increased human health protection? The
quantitative assessment conducted for EPA Abt Associates
attempted to quantify the uncertainty inherent in the estimated
health benefits from the new standards.
This assessment is very thorough in its identification of
the many weaknesses in the underlying data, remarkably frank
about its necessary reliance on unproven assumptions, and
surprisingly even-handed in its demonstration of the
sensitivity and uncertainty analyses that the projected
benefits might well be greatly exaggerated.
Significant limitations of the benefit projections include
the following. The projections have had to assume causation.
Future reductions in specific PM levels need not necessarily
result in any material health benefits.
Senator Inhofe. Dr. Starr, you have to wind up here. You're
going over your time. I think you may have an opportunity in
the question time to cover that.
Dr. Starr. Faced with such great uncertainty in the
estimated magnitude of potential health benefits, it seems far
more reasonable to me for EPA to initiate additional data
collection and analy-
sis activities on the health effects potentially associated
with PM exposure.
Implementation of the new standards could well make things
worse rather than better.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Starr.
For those of you who are standing, there are many seats
available, so feel free to sit down.
Susan Dudley.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN E. DUDLEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, ECONOMISTS INCORPORATED
Ms. Dudley. Good morning, I'm Susan Dudley.
I'm vice president and director of Environmental Analysis
at Economists Incorporated. I have 20 years experience
evaluating and developing environmental policy. In my career
I've worked at both the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB.
Today, what I'd like to do is highlight a few key points
from an analysis I conducted on EPA's ozone rule for the
Regulatory Analysis Program at the Center for Study of Public
Choice at George Mason University.
This is a research and education program dedicated to
advancing knowledge of regulations and their impact. It
produces careful and independent analyses of agency rulemaking
proposals from the perspective of the public interest. I would
like, if I could, to put a copy of our comments in the record
of these proceedings.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, without objection.
Ms. Dudley. These comments, as well as the program's
comments on the particulate matter rule, are also available on
Economists Incorporated's web site.
Today, I'd like to highlight three major points regarding
the risk assessment underlying EPA's proposed ozone standard.
First, there is little scientific basis for the selection
of the level of the standard. EPA recognizes that the selection
of .08 ppm was a policy decision rather than a scientific
decision. EPA's Science Panel did not find this level to be
significantly more protective of public health than the current
level of the standard. Moreover, most members of the panel who
expressed an opinion preferred a level less stringent than that
which EPA has proposed.
Second, EPA's risk analysis suggests that the health and
welfare benefits of this proposal will be small. The general
population would not notice the difference in air quality as a
result of the proposed standard and that's because, as Ken
Chilton has said, the effects of ozone appear to be reversible
and largely without symptoms for the majority of the
population.
Even for the population with the greatest risk, those with
preexisting respiratory conditions, EPA expects the impact of
the proposed change to be small. For example, with full
implementation of the rule, which EPA does not expect for at
least a decade, probably many, many decades, EPA predicts a .6-
percent decrease in hospital admissions for asthmatics.
Furthermore, evidence from animal studies suggests that long-
term exposure to ozone does not affect lung function.
Our third point is that the proposal may actually harm
public health and welfare. The rule is based on risks to
asthmatics, yet ozone is certainly not a determining factor in
asthma. Asthma has been increasing over the last decade,
especially among poor urban children, yet ozone has been
declining steadily over the same period.
NIH recently conducted a study that found the leading cause
of asthma by far was proteins from cockroach droppings and
carcasses, not air quality. Thus, this rule is raising false
hopes and would divert scarce resources from more effective
solutions to the very real problem of asthma.
What's more, the proposed standard would increase health
and welfare risks from ultraviolet radiation, yet this was not
considered in developing the proposal. Ground level ozone has
the same beneficial screening effects on ultraviolet radiation
as stratospheric ozone.
Based on EPA analysis used to support earlier rulemakings
on stratospheric ozone, it appears that the proposed standard
could increase the incidence of cataracts, skin cancers and
melanoma fatalities. These negative effects appear to outweigh
the positive health effects that EPA has attributed to the
rule.
Using EPA's data assumptions and model results, I
quantified and valued the health effects from the increased
penetration of ultraviolet radiation attributable to this rule.
My analysis suggests that attainment of the proposed standard
would actually increase health risks by over $280 million a
year. That is net of the benefits that EPA attributes to the
rule.
When the costs of the proposal are considered, the negative
impact on public health is even larger. A growing literature
linking income and mortality suggests that the cost of this
proposal would, by lowering incomes alone, induce more
fatalities. That's something that I think Senator Sessions
addressed in his opening remarks.
In fact, if as recent studies suggest, poverty is a more
important risk factor than air quality for asthma, the rule may
well increase the very disease it is targeted at improving.
Thank you. I'd be happy to answer questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Ms. Dudley.
Dr. Carl Shy.
STATEMENT OF DR. CARL M. SHY, DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGY,
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL
HILL
Dr. Shy. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
I was very pleased to see that I was placed on the right
side of this table from the point of view of the audience. I
think we're also on the right side of the argument as far as
public health is concerned.
I'm a physician and an epidemiologist. I've been involved
in air pollution research for 30 years. I started my career
with the Environmental Protection Agency and then moved to the
University of North Carolina some 25 years ago.
I was recently a member of the panel on Particulate Matter
of EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee and I'm here to
support the proposal to establish a new standard for fine
particulates.
I agree with EPA's proposal that the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard be established at a concentration of 15 <greek-m>g per
cubic meter annual average. I think there are three compelling
reasons for EPA to establish an air quality standard for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> as proposed.
The first reason is that I see and I think CASAC has also
seen that there's ample evidence for a causal relationship
between population exposure to fine particles and effects on
mortality and morbidity in the population. There is ample
evidence for excess mortality, for excess hospital admissions,
for excess respiratory symptoms in adults and children and for
decreases in lung function in children associated with
currently experienced levels of particulate air pollution.
The second reason is that given this causal relationship,
the health burden of exposure to particulates in the United
States today consists of thousands of excess deaths, hospital
admissions, and respiratory disease episodes.
These excesses can be addressed by a concerted program to
lower the concentration of ambient air particulates. This
program will bring a major health benefit for a majority of the
U.S. population.
The third reason I think there is compelling reasons to
support EPA's proposed standard is that the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator of EPA to establish a national
ambient air quality standard that avoids unacceptable risks and
protects public health with a margin of safety.
The risks that I've mentioned of thousands of deaths and
hospital admissions I think are unacceptable and I think
everyone would agree on that.
The proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard that EPA has really
provides only a minimal acceptable margin of safety against the
mortality and morbidity risks that we have observed. We've seen
excess mortality and morbidity when PM<INF>2.5</INF>
concentrations are no more than 10 percent above the proposed
EPA standard of 15 mg per cubic meter.
So even though the proposed standard may not actually be
adequate, I think it will at least move our country in the
right direction of greatly minimizing the currently
unacceptable health burden.
The rationale for saying that there is a causal
relationship I think was very well spelled out in the air
quality criteria document of EPA to which CASAC agreed and the
members of CASAC included epidemiologists who had a great deal
of experience in the health effects of air pollution, including
Frank Speizer, Jonathan Samet, Mort Lippmann, my colleague
here, and myself.
I think that in contrast to the other persons mentioned
earlier who did not agree with causality, the persons who have
had a great deal of experience in epidemiologic studies of air
pollution have agreed that there is a causal relationship
established between particulate exposures and excess mortality
and morbidity.
Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Shy.
We've been joined by Senator Lieberman and I'd like to ask
if he, at this time, in introducing his daughter, would like to
make any statement?
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You anticipated
my most significant announcement which is to express my pride
in having my daughter, Hanna Rachel, with me. Would you stand
briefly? Thank you.
[Applause.]
Senator Lieberman. Undoubtedly, a future Senator from the
State of Connecticut. I won't say yet which party because you
know how children are.
Senator Inhofe. I'll work on her.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. I apologize for being late. I don't want
to interrupt the flow of the hearing and when it's time for
questions, I'll be glad to join in.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
We'll now hear from Dr. Morton Lippmann who I think has
become a regular around here.
STATEMENT OF DR. MORTON LIPPMANN, INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MEDICINE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Dr. Lippmann. Not my own choice, but I am responsive to the
will of the Congress.
Dr. Shy, with whom I served with on the CASAC PM Panel, has
clearly covered the high points of the necessity for a fine
particle standard. I was asked today to talk about the ozone
issue and the risk assessment for ozone.
In the case of ozone, we understand some of the mechanisms
very well and we have a huge body of clinical data which
establishes some reversible but potentially important effects.
So the problem there is the significance of small changes in
lung function has been questioned as a basis for tighter
control.
I point out in my testimony that the field studies of ozone
responses in people engaged in natural activities outdoors that
I pioneered in my own laboratory document clearly that the
chamber responses are a minimum response, and that for whatever
reason, we can't fully explain, per unit of ozone people in
natural settings have greater functional responses and that
establishes a baseline but not the full risk associated with
the acute responses.
In our most recent paper published in February, we looked
at asthmatic children and found physician-prescribed
medication, as well as functional changes that would have to be
considered adverse for this population.
There has been a lot of attention to the hospital admission
studies and certainly ozone is not considered a causal factor
but many people have asthma and it does aggravate it. I call
your attention to page 5 of my prepared remarks which show the
pyramid of responses associated with ozone from a wealth of
environmental and epidemiologic data.
The EPA only took hospital admissions for asthma into
account. There are equal numbers of nonasthma respiratory
admissions. There is mortality and there's been a flood of new
peer review data since the document was prepared, at least
eight papers I've collected, that show greater associations
with mortality and ozone, plus the hundreds of thousands of
restricted activity days and asthma attacks which are
documented in that chart. So I think the Agency did not fully
explain the serious health effects associated with ozone.
The pyramid also shows the coherence of responses. This is
the progression of increased numbers with decreasing
seriousness that one would expect if something real is
happening.
There are some very important effects that are poorly
understood which are not covered in the document, primarily
because of the absence of data. The evidence clearly indicates
that the lungs age more rapidly, that they become stiffer. We
are probably talking about reduced longevity, although that is
speculative at this time. That's a margin of safety
consideration which the Administrator is obligated, by law, to
consider in dealing with evidence primarily only on the acute
effects.
I think it's important to reiterate that with all its
limitations, this criteria document, the staff paper for ozone,
are by far, in my opinion, the best that EPA has ever produced.
They're more interpretative, they take all the evidence into
consideration in a better way, and I can speak for experience
since I've sat on every PM and ozone panel since 1980 that EPA
has gone through.
In the end, there are uncertainties and if we're going to
be more efficient in addressing the ozone issue, we need to
engage in research based on the questions that have become
better focused and sharpened through this review cycle.
I won't reiterate my previous written testimony responses
to your earlier questions and so forth about the level of
research that's needed, but ozone and particles are strongly
interrelated and I note in my testimony this time that there
will be benefits from controlling ozone that go beyond the
effects of ozone alone.
When ozone is formed, fine particles are formed. The
presence of the oxidants in that mixture oxidizes
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>2</INF> to form more fine particles.
So by controlling ozone, we would be substantially reducing the
presence and impact of the fine particles which Dr. Shy has
been talking about. So some of those benefits EPA did not claim
I think are legitimate claims for the reduction of ozone.
I thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Lippmann.
Dr. Alan Krupnick.
STATEMENT OF ALAN KRUPNICK, SENIOR FELLOW, RESOURCES FOR THE
FUTURE
Dr. Krupnick. Thank you for inviting me to the hearing.
I wanted to mention first that I was in the first Clinton
administration on the Council of Economic Advisors and I chair
EPA's Subcommittee on Ozone, PM and Regional Haze
Implementation Programs but these comments are entirely my own.
First, I wanted to applaud the Republicans for their
openmindedness in inviting me here because I have somewhat of a
mixed message.
On PM, I favor a fine particle standard, but one less
stringent than the Administrator has proposed. On ozone, I
favor changing to an 8-hour standard but set at a level of
stringency no more stringent than the current standard.
I wanted to address my remarks to just a few points that
have been in the debate, both in the EPW and in the press.
The first is junk science as applied to PM. Of course there
are major uncertainties with respect to the epidemiology, the
toxicological mechanism and so on but nevertheless, I think the
scientific record supporting a fine particle standard is
actually more than adequate judging from the perspective of the
information underlying previous NAAQS rulemaking efforts which,
in my view, are pretty laughable compared to the amounts of
information we have here.
I think the Administrator is being prudent in issuing a
fine particle standard and as to those who would wait until
uncertainties are resolved, I say the best way to gain a better
understanding of this pollutant and its consequences is to
issue a fine particle standard now and that will get the
country's attention.
EPA needs to be mindful of the possibility of going in the
wrong direction and needs to have a process that triggers
speedy reopening of the NAAQS process and the SIPs to reverse
direction if it looks like that is the way to go.
The second issue is science versus policy judgment.
Administrator Browner came before you cloaked in science as a
justification for the standards but as the CASAC said, science
doesn't lead to a bright line for either ozone or PM. There are
no thresholds.
I feel for the Administrator that the Clean Air Act is not
really giving her criteria for making a judgment, so she has to
use her own. With respect to ozone, I think they are making the
wrong judgment, the ozone effects seem to be very small of a
tighter standard, the costs are likely to be huge, and their
risk assessment is highly flawed.
In terms of backyard barbecues, industries use this analogy
to dramatize the potential for invasive controls on everyday
living and I have to agree with the analogy. In fact, one way
or another, emissions coming from consumer sector activity will
need to be controlled. Driving is going to be more expensive,
inspection and maintenance programs are likely to have to go
into new nonattainment areas. These are the areas where there
are large emissions and they have to be addressed.
We've heard from EPA that the cost estimates for industries
are usually higher than they turn out to be, the industries'
own estimates, but using EPA's own estimates, you find the cost
of going partway to meeting the ozone standard will be $2.6
billion and partway to the fine particle standard will be $6
billion. This is only a little of the way down the path.
Chicago, EPA finds, only can get 14 percent of the
reductions it needs in trying to meet the new standard. The
Northeast, for PM, only can get 16 percent of their reductions.
There might be innovation and economic incentives that will
hold down costs, but we're looking at much larger costs than
EPA has written about.
I wanted to agree with Susan Dudley on UVB risks. EPA
refuses to look at these and they are a major issue.
On the benefits of fine particles, we've heard that these
are large dollar benefits based on valuing reduced mortality
risks.
From the work that I've done, I find this is based on a
body count approach to risk assessment. It doesn't recognize
that most of the effects are to older people with compromised
health, really affecting the life expectancy of older people
and by a very tiny amount.
Using values that older people provide for increasing their
life expectancy a tiny amount, as well as those from younger
people who provide this information from reducing their future
life expectancies, has the potential to dramatically lower
these benefits.
Finally, I've got to come back to Congress to say I think
you should really fix the outdated criteria in the Clean Air
Act for setting standards. Require that the Administrator
consider benefits and costs of her actions, but of course
consider this along with other criteria such as public health
protection and equity and ethics.
If we're going to appropriately allocate our resources, we
simply have to have the Administrator considering the social
benefits of her actions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Krupnick.
We're going to proceed now and we're going to try to adhere
to the same confinements that we've imposed upon you.
Ms. Dudley, in your testimony you raised the issue of
negative health effect and that was also referred to by Mr.
Krupnick. You based your information on EPA data. You said they
did not consider this in the proposal. Is that true?
Ms. Dudley. Yes, that's true.
Senator Inhofe. So the agency didn't factor these health
costs into their benefit calculations?
Ms. Dudley. That's right. There's a paragraph in the RIA
that says they expect the UV-B effects will be small.
Senator Inhofe. It's my understanding that the EPA was
briefed on the health costs by the Department of Energy and I
have the statement from the Department of Energy which I do
want to submit to the record at this point because this
actually makes comments on things far more serious than just UV
radiation. They talk about HIV patients, skin cancers,
cataracts and many other things there also.
While we talked about decreasing ozone and the benefits, we
didn't talk about the liabilities that go with that?
Ms. Dudley. Exactly.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Starr, I'd like to focus on one
statement you made in your testimony which I addressed in my
opening statement which leads to my main concern with the risk
analysis for PM and that's the uncertainty with the science
leading to uncertainty with the risk.
You said ``Although there is not a proven causal
relationship between the health effects and PM, the EPA had to
assume a causation in order to calculate the expected
benefits.'' How does this assumption throw off the benefits
projections?
Dr. Starr. Senator, I think the important issue there is
there is a certain probability that a causal relationship does
not exist and if it does not exist, then implementation of
standards may have, in fact, zero benefit.
Also important is to consider that those benefits were
calculated with essentially a straight line type relationship
between exposure level and response. Ironically, because most
of the days of the year are characterized by low or moderate
levels of particulate matter, the projected benefits arise
primarily from those days and not the days with high level
exposure to particulate matter.
That is the area where the relationship, if there is one,
is most uncertain. We do not know if there is an association
and particularly--specifically we do not know what the nature
of it is at these relatively low and moderate levels of PM.
Senator Inhofe. Dr. Chilton, in your testimony you stated,
``The upper bound benefit estimate of $1.5 billion in EPA's
analysis for ozone results from the assumption that the
proposed standard would save lives and that this claim is
unsubstantiated.'' I think that's very significant. I'd like to
ask you to elaborate on that.
Dr. Chilton. That's where I guess Dr. Lippmann and I would
disagree. I don't think any of the studies he's talking about
that try to show premature mortality relate to the kind of
exposure levels that we're experiencing in this country.
Nowhere else in the discussion is EPA talking about mortality
effects of ozone except in the regulatory impact analysis.
Then, to estimate the high end of the benefits, they take into
account mortality effects. It's inconsistent, if nothing else.
Senator Inhofe. Would you say that fine particles don't
cause deaths?
Dr. Chilton. This is ozone we're referring to here, I
believe. No, with fine particles, I just say the case is out on
their effects. The science isn't sufficient enough to warrant
setting a standard at this time. I don't share Dr. Krupnick's
optimism that if we launch into this brave new world that it
will all come out in the end. I'm afraid we'll do a lot and it
may not have any effect whatsoever, but it will be costly.
Senator Inhofe. Do you want to respond to that?
Dr. Krupnick. Just a little. It's not all that brave. We
already are controlling sulfur dioxide which would reduce
sulfate levels which is counted as a fine particle. As Dr.
Lippmann said, we are already reducing nitrogen dioxides which
also convert to fine particles.
One issue I'd want to take up with Dr. Lippmann and mention
to the committee is if we did not go further on ozone, we would
not have to go as hard after volatile organic compounds, VOCs,
as we would do if we tighten the ozone standard. I think that
would save the country a lot of money for very little health
risk.
Senator Inhofe. In attempting to stay within my own time
limitations, I'm going to jump to Dr. Shy. In your testimony,
you state a proposed standard of 15 <greek-m>g per cubic meter
for PM provides ``a minimal acceptable margin of safety.'' I
would ask you how many other members of CASAC shared your view
that 15 was minimally acceptable?
Dr. Shy. It's difficult to tell because quite a few of the
members of CASAC didn't express a numerical number.
Senator Inhofe. How many expressed it? It's my
understanding there were only two and those are the only two
who are here today who agreed with that figure.
Dr. Shy. Yes. One thing you have to realize is that many of
the members of CASAC were not health risk experts or
epidemiologists.
Senator Inhofe. So of the 21 scientists, just the two of
you had expertise in this area and were able to properly
analyze this and come to this conclusion?
Dr. Shy. I wouldn't say we were able to properly analyze,
I'd say we've had in-depth knowledge of the quantitative levels
of health effects and exposure that many other members of CASAC
did not.
Senator Inhofe. And the other 19 did not?
Dr. Shy. Right.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This gets to what for me is at the heart of what is
happening here. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I've generally
supported the proposed standards, although I'm still learning
and have some questions that I want to have answered on the
understanding that the basic two-tier system that was
established in the Clean Air Act is a sensible one which is
that first, we have the obligation to try to reach a judgment,
or the Administrator does, as to what the health consequences
to people are of polluted air, and then, in the implementation
phase, the system allows for the practical considerations,
including costs.
For instance, in Fairfield County, CT, the prevailing air
quality standard, the county was given 17 years to come into
compliance because of the difficulty of doing that. That, to
me, represented a combination, to the best science can provide
us, of the health standard and then allowing factors of
practicality and cost benefit to be fed into on the second
tier.
I regret that I will not be able to listen to the testimony
of most of you but I've gone over the written testimony
submitted that we had before. Although obviously it's hard for
those of us who are nonscientists to appreciate this, there are
many occasions when scientists don't quite agree on where truth
is. I don't know that I'd say there is artistry in science, but
it's not always a question of two and two equalling four.
Perhaps I should start with a broad question for any of you
who would care to answer it, particularly those who are critics
of these air quality standards as they've been proposed. Is
your criticism that the science is bad or is your criticism
that cost benefit doesn't justify the standards?
If it's the latter, then my conclusion is that in the
implementation phase, we'll take care of that, but if you
disagree with that, I'd be interested in hearing why. Dr.
Chilton.
Dr. Chilton. I would like to comment on that. I do have a
fundamental problem with the two-tiered approach. Absolutely,
we need good scientific information, but I do not understand
why we have proscribed having economic information. The
strength of the economy has something to do with public health.
It also has something to do with a lot of things that Americans
value, as well as they value being protected from air
pollutants.
I once suggested in an op-ed that we can create an
Association for Compassionate Economists. It sounds like an
oxymoron, but economists are some of the few people looking at
the issue and saying that we need to look at benefits and
costs. We need to make sure that benefits outweigh costs.
Incremental spending on one program must provide more benefits
than cost, otherwise we're wast-
ing resources. Those wasted resources even could be health-
related resources.
Senator Lieberman. But why do that at the same level? In
other words, it's hard to do it with an operation but maybe if
you went to your doctor and he gave you his best guidance about
a condition you had and let's assume for a moment it's not
life-threatening, and told you how much it would cost over your
coverage, wouldn't you first want to know what the threat to
your health is and then afterward decide whether you can afford
to fix it?
Maybe a less frightening analogy is some repair to your
house which somebody who should know is telling you what you
ought to do, but then you're going to decide as we do all the
time whether you can afford it at that given moment or not. At
least you want the first stage to be as close to the fact
regarding risk as somebody can give it to you.
Dr. Chilton. The problem is, though, that at the end of the
first stage, we've already made the decision. You're already
going to incur costs. It's just a question of whether you're
going to incur less cost because you do things a little more
intelligently. You've already made the decision.
I often use the example of buying a car. Would you want to
buy a Mercedes or a Chevrolet if all you cared about was
quality? Well, you'd decide on the Mercedes. Then you can shop
for friendly loan arrangements to try to reduce the payments
for that Mercedes. If you looked at both quality and cost, you
would have probably said, ``My budget won't afford a Mercedes,
and I'm going to go with the Chevrolet.''
Senator Lieberman. For me, that's essentially different
because there is no particular risk whether you're buying a
Chevrolet or a Mercedes, but there is the home improvement
fellow who tells you your roof is about to fall in or if the
doctor tells you that you've got a health problem and the
question is how do you begin to treat it, do you do the more
expensive or the less expensive. Ms. Dudley.
Ms. Dudley. I don't want to take up all your time but I
looked only at the ozone rule and I think the rule is actually
increasing health risks.
Senator Lieberman. Because of the connection to the
ultraviolet radiation?
Ms. Dudley. The ultraviolet radiation and also the notion
that if asthma is our concern, there are so many other ways we
can address asthma and make people with asthma have better
lives that are better than this rule.
Senator Lieberman. Without telling kids they've got to go
inside?
Ms. Dudley. Right. I think more research on what is causing
asthma is going to help a lot more children than this rule.
Senator Lieberman. I was puzzled by that business about the
ultraviolet radiation. Forgive me, I'm giving an extreme
rendering of it but it almost sounds like the more ground level
ozone we have, the better it's going to be for us because it's
going to protect us from ultraviolet radiation. That can't be
what you're asking because we know at some level people get
sick from ground level ozone.
My lay reaction to what you said is that you were mixing
apples and oranges here, that 95 percent of the atmosphere is
ozone and way up 30 miles above our heads. The ground level
ozone is only about 3 to 5 percent of the total and that's what
we're focused on here.
Ms. Dudley. That's true. It's a real tradeoff though. These
are real health risks, these cataracts, skin cancers, and
deaths.
Senator Lieberman. Sure.
Ms. Dudley. They are just as real as the health risks from
ozone. Some might even say more real. All I'm saying is that a
policymaker needs to have that information.
Senator Lieberman. This is my last question because the red
light is on but aren't we taking care. Presumably we continue
to implement the CFC prohibitions. Aren't we taking care of the
stratospheric ozone level in a way that doesn't require more
ground level ozone to protect us from UV radiation?
Ms. Dudley. I guess that's a decision that policymakers
should make, but it shouldn't be hidden. It should be
explicitly addressed because it is a very real tradeoff.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I went
over.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dudley said, I think at one point in her testimony,
that it would take at least a decade for implementation of
these. In the hearing we had with Carol Browner, I outlined a
time line which I think wasn't unreasonable in implementing the
PM standard. Recently at a meeting with EPA, it was suggested
that monitoring should begin as early as January 1998.
Since EPA clearly didn't have the money to establish the
monitoring outposts that would be necessary, the question was
asked, where will the money come from to buy the new monitors?
I think there are 51 on PM, 51 monitors nationwide, so where do
we get the money to do that?
EPA's answer was that it was expected that States have
already begun to budget money to purchase monitors in
preparation of the implementation to standard. So yesterday, we
talked with the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology to see if EPA's assertion was correct in Arkansas. Has
Arkansas begun to budget money to purchase monitors? The
response was about what I expected. They laughed.
In Arkansas, they budget every 2 years. We just finished
the budget cycle about a week ago. The next budget process will
not begin until 1998, will not be finalized until March 1999.
No new money would be available until at least July 1999.
I don't know what the other State budget processes are like
but I suspect they are similar which means the money available
to purchase these monitors for a regulation that is not even
being promulgated is a long ways from being there. So at least
in Arkansas, monitoring probably could not be possible until
sometime in the year 2000 at the earliest.
If you assume a 3-year monitoring period, a year of
technical analysis, State implementation plan proposals, et
cetera, we're looking at the actual control of particulates
sometime well into the next century, maybe even as late as
2006, 9 years away or a decade, is about what Ms. Dudley said.
Dr. Krupnick, you may be right, it may be worth going ahead
and doing this to get the country's attention, but I think
surely there is a better way.
My question is given the conflicting scientific evidence
that we have, and I think Dr. Lippmann said there are
uncertainties, at least in the ozone area, wouldn't it be just
as productive to do the research on the issue for a few years
to determine the best route to take on regulating PM and really
get an answer to that question?
Dr. Lippmann, it's my understanding at a recent House
hearing on the standards, you testified that if given a choice
between implementing the PM standards now or waiting 5 years
and getting $50 million a year for research on particulate
matter, you'd rather have the money for research and that makes
sense to me. It would seem to me that would be the best use of
very limited resources.
Dr. Lippmann. No, that is not correct. I don't think you'll
find it in the record. There was a hypothetical question by one
member that stated, couldn't some of the same objectives be
obtained by targeting, monitoring and research money as
implementing the standard.
In the particular context of the question asked, I said,
much of the objective could be achieved, but I do not endorse
delaying the standard. I think without the standard, we won't
have the monitoring data.
Monitoring data is useful for legal enforcement and in the
initial case, as you suggest, for finding out whether
enforcement will be needed, but in this field where we're
looking at population responses, and for PM, that's what is
driving it, human responses based on comparison of health
responses to ambient levels. Only the existence of the standard
will get that monitoring network in.
I think I'd like to respond to what you just said in terms
of the dollars. I participated in the CASAC Panel on the design
of the monitoring system. EPA was very concerned about the cost
of the system and I think they went a little too far in making
it inexpensive.
I think it might be better to invest a little more in
monitoring and get more frequent and better data, so the
monitoring equipment is not expensive. Arkansas or any other
State does not need a separate budget. The budget of the agency
which is now monitoring will not be greatly stretched by buying
a few of these monitors. That's a false issue.
Arkansas and the other States may have no choice, if
monitoring is required, they're going to have to do it and they
are going to have to find a few thousand dollars to buy a
monitor. That's not an issue.
We may, in fact, not enforce these rules until the next
century but if we don't start now, we'll never start.
Senator Hutchinson. Except that we may be imposing the
wrong rules and not have the research.
Dr. Lippmann. Clearly that is not the case now.
Senator Hutchinson. I know that is your opinion but we
heard lots of testimony over the preceding hearings that there
is a lot of conflicting opinion and clearly, it is a policy
decision that is being made. It may be the case that our biases
are imposing our policy view on this, but it's not just
science. There certainly is a differing opinion among the
scientists who have testified.
Mr. Starr, you said in your opinion, there would be zero
benefit with the new standards. Ms. Dudley, you said--and this
was kind of startling--your assertion that in fact the new
standards would negatively impact health risks. I guess that's
the UV. I think Mr. Krupnick said in fact he didn't think EPA
adequately addressed those concerns.
Dr. Shy, what is the answer to that? Why has that issue not
been dealt with, the possible negative health risks that could
be the result of these standards?
Dr. Shy. I think many of them are claiming that ground
level ozone is somehow going to protect us against ultraviolet
light. It is really stratospheric ozone that is important, not
ground level ozone. That point was made by Senator Lieberman.
Senator Hutchinson. Indeed, he did. Ms. Dudley, could you
respond to that?
Ms. Dudley. EPA's analysis, if you look into it, indicates
that it is total column ozone that matters, and ground level
and stratospheric ozone both have the same impact on total
column ozone.
Senator Hutchinson. I know my time is up but Mr. Krupnick
would you comment on this line?
Dr. Krupnick. I have to agree there. Although there is only
3 percent of the total ozone column which is low level, these
ozone benefits that we're talking about from tightening the
standard are so small that they can be overwhelmed or maybe
nearly overwhelmed by the small increment.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Hutchinson.
We're a little bit ahead of schedule so while we're not
going to have a second round, I want to ask if any of the
members remaining would like to ask one additional question. We
can do it and try to keep it down to about 2\1/2\ minutes.
Before you came in, Senator Lieberman, we talked about what
was going on over there and why we had to make sure to stay on
schedule, so we can get back to our meeting.
Dr. Krupnick, you support the PM proposal except you would
apply cost factors and set the standard higher at 20
micrograms, is that correct?
Dr. Krupnick. That's right.
Senator Inhofe. You agree that we don't completely
understand the mechanisms or which of the particles is the
culprit, correct?
Dr. Krupnick. Right. I say this this way just because to me
the epidemiological literature on PM does tell a compelling
story, a coherent story. There are lots of uncertainties, but
again, as I said in my testimony, if you go back to when the
ozone standard was set in 1977 or 1978, a handful of studies,
incredibly primitive techniques, very little information, total
policy call on the Administration's part.
Senator Inhofe. OK, but I guess what I'm trying to get at
also is you'd said Congress should bind the EPA in the event
the evidence came along, they could fast track some
legislation. If that should happen, would that reopen the Clean
Air Act?
Dr. Krupnick. I think there could be agreements made with
EPA to develop a fast track process. You'd have to ask your
lawyers about that, but there should be some fail safe measures
put in so that we can reopen the NAAQS process quickly.
Senator Inhofe. Last, on ozone, you mentioned the
importance of selecting the appropriate number of exceedances.
The EPA has chosen three and I recall you were here during our
first scientific meeting. I remember Dr. Schwartz was saying
the standards are much more stringent over in Europe. However,
we found out in Europe, they are not 3, but 10 and that's in a
period of 1 year instead of 3 years. Would you comment on how
this would affect the U.S. standard and how the EPA should
determine an appropriate number?
Dr. Krupnick. This sounds like it's not an important issue,
when you say three or four or five or six exceedances, but in
fact, because the distribution of daily readings of ozone is so
skewed, just increasing that number of exceedances from three
to five could result in 200 fewer counties being in violation.
So this is an extremely important decision and one the Clean
Air Act criteria doesn't give the Administrator really any
guidance on.
Senator Inhofe. That's the point I'm making on this.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to ask one more question.
This goes to the basic two-tier system and the standards
set in the first tier. Dr. Chilton, I didn't have a chance to
hear you but I gather you spoke to an issue that I read in a
Providence Journal article you'd written the lend of last year
which was to recommend ``EPA should shift from the old paradigm
of protecting the public health with an adequate margin of
safety to a new paradigm protecting the public against
unreasonable risk of important adverse health effects.''
In the context of the scientific uncertainty, it has been
my conclusion that we ought to stick with the current standard
which is protecting the public health with an adequate margin
of safety and then fit in the practicality, including cost in
the second tier.
I worry in the recommended new standard that you've
proposed that there's a lot of words there that are not
scientific, in other words, for instance, unreasonable risk
with the emphasis on unreasonable which is a tough word to
define, and not only adverse health effects which EPA has been
protecting us against with an adequate margin of safety, but
important adverse health effects again, leaving some question
about definition.
Maybe I'd first ask Dr. Lippmann and then ask you to
respond, based on your own experience on CASAC, how do you
respond to Dr. Chilton's proposed change from the adequate
margin of safety in terms of health to unreasonable risk of
important adverse health effects and then I'd ask Dr. Chilton
to respond?
Dr. Lippmann. I think Dr. Chilton's language allows anybody
to come to any conclusion they want. I think we've lived with
the Clean Air Act language for many years and it has led to
very great improvements in air quality and improvements in
public health as a result of the reduction of air pollutants.
Senator Lieberman. Am I not correct that EPA sets the
standards not to protect against all identifiable effects but
only against those that are adverse?
Dr. Lippmann. That's correct and that's where the ozone
effect on lung function comes in. It can easily measure small
changes in capacity but we have trouble interpreting it as
being adverse until it reaches a certain magnitude. So I think
judgment will always be necessary, but I think as long as we
choose to give great emphasis to the public health and look at
populations at risk, not extreme individuals at risk as the EPA
currently has been doing, I think the current rules are quite
reasonable.
In fact, in recent examinations of acceptable ozone levels,
the trend is well below those proposed by EPA. The World Health
Organization in Europe has just adopted a 60 or .06 ppm
recommendation for ozone based on 8-hour exposure, not .08.
In fact, the occupational health limit for workers who are
adults and healthy enough to work is now .08 for moderate work
and .05 for heavy work. So we're not talking about extreme
degrees of protection; we're talking about only protecting to
the level that healthy workers are being protected currently.
Senator Lieberman. Dr. Chilton.
Dr. Chilton. I'd like to respond to your question. I think
we're stuck with the problem of words being ambiguous. I don't
think we can define ``public health'' with no ambiguity. I
don't believe we can define ``adequate margin of safety'' with
no ambiguity.
In point of fact, CASAC has said in its closure letter that
the current paradigm is impossible. It will not work because we
can find effects all the way down to background levels. So
there is no adequate margin of safety possible.
I don't know how you ignore that conclusion. I agree with
that conclusion. I concluded that a long time ago and I was
really thrilled to see that in print.
The point of trying to go to an objective that prevents
important adverse health effects and unnecessary exposures is
that it gets around a problem that Milton Russell, a former EPA
official, once described. Dr. Russell said that the Clean Air
Act, the way it is currently written, protects against the
effects of a common cold and cancer as if they were both the
same and as many resources should be spent on the one as should
be spent on the other.
I think that is a fundamental flaw of the Clean Air Act.
There is no differentiation of what is a significant public
health effect. The interpretation of ``adverse'' is set at a
very low level. If some small group of sensitive individuals
are affected, that's an adverse effect. Whether it's reversible
or not doesn't matter; whether it's lethal or something that is
an acute effect is not taken into account either.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Dr. Chilton. I understand
your position but respectfully, I disagree with it because I'd
prefer it to err on the side of the adequate margin of safety
as opposed to opening up the doors of unreasonable risk of
important adverse health effects. It's been a good exchange.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
I have one more question for clarification. Senator
Hutchinson made a comment, Dr. Lippmann, and asked the question
about going forward with the agency's PM proposal or in lieu of
that, spending $50 million a year for 5 years on PM research
and was implying that your position at that time was you would
support that. You said that's not correct.
I'd asked for the transcript of the meeting and I'll just
read this for what it's worth because I think it is a little
bit confusing.
Representative Barton said, ``I think she's saying we would
do the measurements, we would appropriate the money to do the
measurements; we just wouldn't set a standard. I think that's
what she said.''
Representative Cubin, ``Exactly. That's exactly what I
said.''
Representative Barton, ``So would you oppose that?''
Dr. Lippmann. ``No. If in fact the situation were created
where we were getting this information and the pressure is
under the current Act to get the levels further down, we could
get away with that. I doubt if that's going to happen.'' Is
this an inaccurate statement?
Dr. Lippmann. I stand by my earlier statement to you. It
was a hypothetical and it wasn't inaccurate in the terms of
responding to a hypothetical, but it's not my preferred
position by any means.
Senator Inhofe. Then you can have it both ways.
Dr. Lippmann. If you interpret it that way.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
First of all, thank you very much all of you for coming. We
appreciate it.
I see there are no further questions and we'll move on now
for our second panel, the panel on implementation. Our second
panel consists of, again, Alan Krupnick--we're going to wear
him out--Resources for the Future; Mr. Paul Kerkhoven, manager
of Environmental Affairs, American Highway Users Alliance; Mr.
Ben Cooper, senior vice president, Printing Industries of
America; Ms. Beverly Hartsock, deputy executive director, Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission; Ms. Mary Nichols--we
know her very well--assistant administrator, Office of Clean
Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency; and Ms.
Patricia Leyden, deputy executive officer, Stationary Source
Compliance, South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Welcome to the panel.
Let's start off with Dr. Krupnick, again.
STATEMENT OF ALAN KRUPNICK, SENIOR FELLOW, RESOURCES FOR THE
FUTURE--CONTINUED
Dr. Krupnick. I want to doubly emphasize here that I'm
speaking from a position of experience as the co-chair of EPA's
Federal Advisory Committee for Ozone, PM and Regional Haze
Implementation Programs, but I am speaking for myself, not for
what I'll call the FACA.
My main message to you is that the proposed standards, if
they become law, are likely to be incredibly expensive to
implement and our FACA is working toward developing consensus
ideas to try to reduce those costs.
The Administrator has clearly endorsed cost effectiveness
as a major criterion for developing an implementation strategy
and I think Congress' job is to help EPA live up to this goal
and remove any impediments posed by the Clean Air Act.
For this testimony, I'm taking it as given that the
proposed standards are going to become law and now I'm asking,
how can we cost effectively get there.
Some background on FACA since I'm going first here. The EPA
established this now 82-person subcommittee to obtain advice
and recommendations from a broad group of stakeholders on
possible new cost effective approaches to attaining the NAAQS
and reducing the regional haze. We were charged with thinking
out of the box and out of the Clean Air box as well, if that
was appropriate.
The committee has reached few specific consensus
recommendations and the subcommittee and associated work groups
have been working, and also EPA staff, exceedingly hard and are
making significant progress in identifying options, discussing
the pros and cons of many critical issues, and deciding how to
decide on which options are the best.
Our subcommittee will continue through 1997 with the goal
of providing EPA with input and perhaps consensus
recommendations on issues critical to the development of their
implementation strategy.
We can't work miracles, it's a very large, diverse group.
We get into a lot of tense arguments and I think the progress
has been limited so far because the standards issue has not
been settled. Once that issue is settled, I think negotiations
are likely to become much more intense.
There are a number of measures that have come out of our
FACA that have come up, although they are not agreed upon by
any means yet, that I thought I'd bring to the attention of the
committee for reducing the costs of meeting these standards.
No. 1, that I think does not require congressional action
has to do with reasonable further progress reform. Serious
consideration is being given to one, basing measures of
progress on effective emissions which would account for the
effect of a location of a source, its stack height and other
factors rather than assuming that all tons are equal when the
States go after emissions reductions under RFP.
No. 2, giving States the flexibility to define RFP that's
appropriate for their particular conditions rather than one-
size-fits-all, and No. 3, permitting States to take credit in
the present for emissions reductions that would occur in the
future, such as through land use controls.
Congress can do several things. The first is to affirm
EPA's interpretation of the area classification section of
Title I. This interpretation is that a change in the form and/or
level of the ozone standard would invalidate this section.
That affirmation is essential, I think, if the highly
prescriptive and expensive mandates that are in the Act are to
be able to be reexamined.
The second is, I'm afraid to say, to open the Clean Air
Act. I think the Act significantly restricts EPA's ability to
implement cost effective ideas without compromising
environmental protection. Let me give you a few examples.
The first is facilitating the creation of a regional NAAQS
trading program. In the FACA, if there is one thing we've
agreed on, it's regional air management partnerships, or RAMPs,
that are regional planning institutions that could help develop
a NAAQS trading program. My fear is that we need Federal
involvement to get all the States to play by the same rules.
We need, I think, to eliminate LAER and BACT requirements,
the tight technology requirements on new sources if there is a
trading cap in place. We can't do that with the current Act.
Congress should make it clear that episodic use of controls
to reduce ozone episodes are creditable toward reasonable
further progress and for use in attainment demonstrations.
Although I'm sure Congress is reluctant, it should provide
EPA with authority to require that States adopt specific cost
effective policies and measures as part of their SIPs. This
should come with a quid pro quo that EPA's requirements pass
some sort of cost effectiveness test.
Finally, on the Clean Air Act, I think Title II and Title
IV need to be reopened as well in light of these new standards.
Both of them can inhibit the use of cost effective approaches
to meeting the standards.
For instance, on the SO<INF>2</INF> Allowance Trading
Program in Title IV, that has been pretty successful, but the
cap may need to be tightened to meet these tighter, fine
particle standards.
My last plea is one that's already come up which is for
Congress to increase a target funding for monitoring and make
it a line item in the EPA budget so it can't be raided for
other uses.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Krupnick.
Ms. Mary Nichols, it's nice to have you back.
STATEMENT OF MARY NICHOLS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Nichols. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll try to summarize my testimony as well.
I'm delighted to be invited back this time to talk about
the implementation efforts that are associated with the EPA's
proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone.
The history of the Clean Air Act over the past 26 years is
one that we can all be proud of, that of working to make
progress continually and bringing down the levels of air
pollution and to do it at a time when our country has been
growing both in population and in our level of domestic/economic
activity.
The Clinton administration views protecting health and the
environment as one of its highest priorities and we have prided
ourselves on protecting the most vulnerable among us,
especially children, from the harmful effects of pollution.
When it comes to the Clean Air Act, we take very seriously
the responsibility that Congress gave us to set air quality
standards that will protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety, recognizing the difficulties in making those
decisions based on the best science available.
As you well know, at this point, we have only proposed
revisions to the standards for these two important pollutants.
We are in the process of very seriously considering all the
public comments on these proposals before making any final
decisions. We've heard from small businesses, industry, State
and local governments, other Federal agencies, and citizens,
including individuals who have various forms of lung diseases,
doctors, and the public at large.
While we have proposed specific levels for each pollutant,
we've also asked for comment on a wide range of alternative
options. We do not intend to make a final decision until we've
carefully considered comments on all of those alternative
options.
Throughout the history of the Act, the national standards
have been established based on an assessment of the science
concerning the effects of air pollution on public health and
welfare. Costs of meeting the standards and related impacts
have never been considered in setting the national ambient air
quality standards themselves and this has been true throughout
six administrations and 14 Congresses and has been reviewed by
the courts frequently. So we have a body of common law, if you
will, on this topic.
In choosing our proposed levels for the ozone and
particulate matter standards, EPA's focus has been entirely on
health risk, exposure and damage to the environment. Sensitive
populations such as children, the elderly and those with asthma
deserve to be protected from the harmful effects of these
pollutants and, I think almost equally importantly, the
American public deserves to know whether the air in its cities
and counties is safe or not.
That question ought not to be confused with the separate
issues of how long it may take or how much it may cost to
reduce pollution to safe levels. However, if we do revise any
air quality standard, it is both appropriate and indeed
necessary to work with States, local governments, and all other
affected entities to develop the most cost effective, common
sense strategies and programs possible to meet those new
standards.
Under the Clean Air Act, States have the primary
responsibility and discretion for devising and enforcing
implementation plans to meet the national standards. We are
determined to work with States and others to ensure a smooth
transition from efforts to implement the current standards to
any efforts that may be needed to implement new standards.
We haven't waited until the final decision to begin doing
just that. By 1995, it had become apparent from the emerging
body of science that we might have to propose revisions to one
or both of these two standards, ozone and particulate, and that
in order to fulfill our obligations to develop a regional haze
program, new tools would be necessary.
At that time, we determined the best way to meet the goal
of developing common sense implementation strategies was to
bring in experts from around the Nation to provide us with
their advice and insights. As a result, we've used the Federal
Advisory Committee Act to establish a Subcommittee on Ozone,
Particulate Matter and Regional Haze.
John Seitz, director of the Office of Air Quality, Planning
and Standards in my office co-chairs that committee along with
Dr. Krupnick who is here today. The subcommittee is composed of
about 75 official representatives from State and local
government, industry, small business, environmental groups, and
other agencies. It also includes five separate working groups
with additional members composed of another 100 or so
representatives of these or similar organizations.
The subcommittee and various groups have been meeting
regularly for over 18 months to address strategies for EPA and
the States to consider in implementing any revised standards.
Indeed, much of their work will be useful to us even if EPA
were to make the decision not to implement any revised
standards because it's building on the work we're already doing
today.
The members from the various groups are putting forward
position papers with innovative ideas and it's our belief that
many important discussions are taking place. Basically, there
are five important questions this group is considering and I'll
just tick them off.
One is the issue of deadlines. What should the deadlines be
for meeting any new standards? Again, we assume there is an
opportunity to either continue or to revise the system that was
put in place in the 1990 amendments for dealing with various
classifications of areas.
What should be the size of an area that's being defined as
a nonattainment area? Again, if there are revisions to the
standards, EPA has a responsibility to determine what areas are
nonattainment and to draw the boundaries. We know how
contentious those issues can be. We also know more than we did
even at the time the 1990 amendments passed about the issue of
transport.
That leads to the next issue which is how do we actually
address, in a cost-effective manner, the problem that the
pollutants that form ozone and fine particles are transported
hundreds of miles and continue to operate in the atmosphere, to
react in the atmosphere as they move into downwind areas.
What kinds of control strategies are most appropriate for
the various nonattainment areas? Can we use the experience of
the past several years to help the States target those control
strategies that are the most effective.
Last, but obviously the most important of all, how can we
promote market-based air pollution control strategies?
All of these kinds of issues relate to the basic reality
that revision of the revised standards is going to need to
focus on the major emitters. We're talking about cars, trucks,
buses, power plants and fuels. Those are the major sources and
tools that we have to work with.
In some areas, as with the current standards, we're seeing
that reaching the standards will present substantial
challenges. All the programs we're pursuing to meet the current
standards for ozone and particulate matter will be needed to
meet any new and revised standards as well.
Everything we're doing today will be helpful in meeting any
tougher standards that may be adopted. For example, the sulfur
dioxide reductions that are achieved in the acid rain programs
will greatly reduce levels of fine particles in the eastern
United States.
Senator Inhofe. Ms. Nichols, we're going to ask you to
conclude your opening statement. You've run over the time.
Ms. Nichols. I will. Thank you, sir.
I'd just like to add that we've expanded the membership of
the committee in order to include more small businesses as well
as local governments in the interest of making sure that we
have the widest possible participation and the Administrator
has stated her intention to propose first steps in
implementation at the time we announce our final decision on
any revisions to the ozone and particulate standards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Ms. Nichols.
We have been joined by Senator Baucus. Do you have an
opening statement you'd like to make.
Senator Baucus. Not at this time.
Senator Inhofe. The next witness is Mr. Paul Kerkhoven.
STATEMENT OF PAUL C. KERKHOVEN, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS, AMERICAN HIGHWAY USERS ALLIANCE
Mr. Kerkhoven. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning.
The transportation sector has played a major role in
attaining the air quality goals realized by many areas across
the country. We expect this role to continue.
Carbon monoxide emissions from highway vehicles have been
reduced by one-third, while VOC emissions have been cut in
half. Today's cars have achieved at least a 95-percent
reduction in tailpipe emissions since 1960 and it takes 20 of
today's new cars to produce as much tailpipe pollution as only
one car did 30 years ago.
The reformulated gasoline for California is so effective,
it's like taking 3.5 million cars off the road. That's twice
the number of vehicles registered in the State of Oregon.
In spite of these accomplishments and future progress, the
EPA continues to advocate strict policies to control the growth
of vehicle miles traveled. The agency pursues this misplaced
policy by enforcing transportation control measures that
discourage automobile use and advocate higher funding for the
congestion mitigation and air quality programs to implement
these measures.
Mr. Chairman, a fundamental individual freedom, the freedom
of mobility, is at stake whenever the Government proposes to
restrict the ability of Americans to choose where, when and how
to travel. There may be times when such restrictions are
necessary but those decisions should not be made by our elected
representatives and not by the subterfuge of a bureaucratic
rulemaking procedure. Constraints on motor vehicle use and
restriction of personal mobility are a serious obstacle to
economic growth and productivity increases.
One of the Clean Air Act's largest challenges are its
conformity determination requirements. The conformity
provisions were designed to ensure that transportation
decisions made by State and local governments in areas out of
compliance with air quality standards were consistent with the
region's plan to improve the air. Failure to meet the
conformity requirements by a State can lead to withholding of
Federal highway funds.
The implementation policy for the proposal states that the
present conformity determination process will continue until
State implementation plans that address the new standard are
approved by the EPA.
We question whether the current model intensive conformity
process will still be meaningful with much larger nonattainment
areas. For example, to make a conformity determination in rural
areas will be a senseless and cumbersome exercise because in
virtually all cases, there are few, if any, transportation
alternatives.
The proposal also will likely result in tighter emission
budgets and make conformity an even more challenging process.
The proposals do not address the cost effectiveness of the
transportation control measures and these may be the most
costly elements of further emission reduction efforts.
Similarly, the highway funding sanctions could also affect
larger areas.
I question whether the EPA intends to impose highway
funding sanctions on the 8-20 residual nonattainment areas in
its partial attainment scenario. Transportation is a big part
of the economic development equation. Projects to reduce
congestion and expand capacity should be expedited, not
burdened with new regulatory hoops.
Congress established the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program, also known as CMAQ, in ISTEA
primarily to help State and local governments meet the cost of
implementing the transportation control measures. The Highway
Users oppose setting aside $1 billion of highway funds each
year exclusively to meet costs imposed on State and local
governments by the Clean Air Act. Those air quality improvement
projects may or may not be a top transportation priority in a
given area.
The Highway Users support the efforts to eliminate separate
CMAQ funding category and we question EPA's efforts to promote
it. We would make air quality and congestion mitigation
projects eligible for funding under a streamlined surface
transportation program.
As for the assertion that State transportation officials
will not implement transportation control measures in their
plans, if they do not have the specific setaside for them, we
do not believe that.
Mr. Chairman, the 1990 Clean Air Act mandates that State
transportation officials give priority consideration to and
provide for the timely implementation of transportation control
measures in their clean air plans. It is not the CMAQ Program
that drives these requirements.
If attainment goals are not reached, the State faces
highway funding sanctions. There is no greater incentive. This
is the stick that forces each State and local official to craft
transportation plans which include the right mix of projects to
reduce emissions.
The Administration's new highway bill also addresses the
CMAQ issue and there are several provisions there that we
support and do not support. We do not support the hold harmless
provision for CMAQ funding, nor do we support the proposal that
when a State submits its SIP, the CMAQ funding increase is
triggered. Both provisions expand CMAQ funding at the expense
of the more flexible STP account.
If Congress chooses to retain a separate CMAQ account, we
do support the Administration's proposal to fund two
transportation control measures that are listed in the Clean
Air Act, but were ex-
cluded from CMAQ funding eligibility in ISTEA. In addition,
congestion mitigation projects such as those that increase
capacity for single occupant vehicles in ozone and carbon
monoxide nonattainment areas should be eligible for CMAQ funds.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, our central points are as
follows. Current and emerging technologies will ensure the
continuing decline of mobile source emissions without the new
air quality standards. We should not burden vast areas of the
country with new regulatory hoops the proposed standards
changes will create.
The transportation control measures needed to meet the new
standard could cause significant economic hardship and I would
like to echo comments of the U.S. Department of Transportation
that it will require lifestyle changes by a significant part of
the U.S. population.
Finally, the Clean Air Act gives transportation officials
strong incentives to make air quality projects a top priority.
We urge Congress to give those officials a truly flexible STP
program account that will allow them to weigh all their
transportation needs, including air quality improvements, when
establishing funding priorities.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Kerkhoven.
Mr. Cooper.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN Y. COOPER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
PRINTING INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
I'd like to ask that the comments we make also be submitted in
behalf of the Small Business Legislative Council, a coalition
of almost 100 trade associations of which I serve as chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Mr. Cooper. I would like to say in the beginning that I
also serve as a member of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
and have since its beginning. I'm also a member of the
Subcommittee on the Implementation of the New Proposed
Standards. I have recently been appointed to a small industry
review team at EPA to evaluate the impact of the standards on
small business and other small entities.
I'd like to say at the outset that while EPA has come under
a lot of criticism in these standards and will probably
continue to, I think it's fair to acknowledge that EPA,
particularly recently, has done a great deal to reach out to
the small business community and to try to bring us in. While
we would like for this to have occurred earlier in the process,
a great deal is being done now to bring us in more fully.
I think it is also important to note that EPA has probably
the strongest small business ombudsman program of any Federal
agency and oversees a very strong State technical assistance
program in dealing with implementation issues in the Clean Air
Act. I think it's fair to acknowledge the positive work the
agency has done.
I'd also like to say from the outset that we wish the new
standards would not be implemented. We don't feel they are
necessary. Having said that, if the new standards are to be
implemented, there are some areas we think are fairly critical,
particularly in dealing with small business.
First of all, we don't believe the Clean Air Act has been
fully implemented and we don't think we have even begun to see
the full positive effects of the implementation of the 1990
amendments.
I know in looking at it from just the printing industry
alone, we still do not have standards for the industry that are
applied nationwide. There are many areas, technological issues,
affecting the printing industry that have not been addressed.
This is true in a number of small business sectors.
Second, we're quite concerned about EPA's data base on
which it calculates the emissions from various industries. This
is another area where I have some sympathy with EPA. Frankly,
the data base is flawed. The data base that calculates
emissions from various industries is based on permits; those
permits are those of large companies and industries such as
ours.
The permits are not based on actual emissions, but in fact,
based on potential emissions and companies are virtually forced
under their hopes for growth of buying more emissions than they
may actually have so that the data tends to skew the emissions
information a little higher than it is.
As I mentioned, one of the big problems in a lot of small
business industries is guidance isn't available to the States.
While it may be nice to say that when you get down to the city
or county level that these people are working very effectively
with small business, as a practical matter, small business is
treated as a group. It is sort of a regulatory carpet bombing.
The regulations are sort of laid out there, small business
is told to reduce by 10 percent, but without the guidance
necessary to tell them how to do it. What this amounts to, in
effect, is not so much a reduction of emissions, but a
collection of fees because each one of these permits comes with
a permit fee. So for many small businesses, they look at this
as simply an environmental tax rather than a program of
actually reducing emissions.
We think the implementation plan that's under discussion
may be superior to the current plan and we don't know, we
haven't evaluated it fully, is going to be confusing to small
business. As a native of Alabama, looking at this chart, if
you're living in Gadsden, AL, you don't know which area of
influence you're in and you don't know which area of violation
you're contributing to. In fact, you could end up with
jurisdictions giving you direction from different directions.
One of my main concerns in this program is that we have not
even addressed in the implementation strategy something Carol
Browner has put a great deal of her efforts into and that is
multimedia applications or alternative strategies for dealing
with overall pollution reduction.
We're one of the common sense initiative sectors at EPA. We
think this clean air proposal ought to be run through those
common sense sectors so that we can balance the media effects
of different pollutants, not just air pollution.
EPA has a major program underway called ECOS which is
dealing with this same type of project. We think it's a golden
oppor-
tunity for EPA to change the method of operation in dealing
with States.
Finally, from a very parochial standpoint, the small
business program of the Clean Air Act, known as the 507 Program
which we were instrumental in getting included in the
amendments to the Act, has not been fully implemented.
If we go through with the implementation of this new
standard without adequate guidance at the State level for small
business, I'm concerned there will be chaos and I think we
really need to address those very critical issues before we
move ahead.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Ms. Leyden.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA LEYDEN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTH
COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Ms. Leyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too will speak informally from my comments that you have.
I regulate all of the largest industries, many medium and
small industries in the South Coast Air Basin, and I'd like to
talk to you today about the issues of implementation with the
new standards.
I think it is especially germane for the Senate to look at
what types of sources will need to produce additional emission
reductions, what kind of time will be allowed to meet those
standards, and how can we accomplish these objectives at the
lowest possible cost.
To that end, I'd like to tell you just a little bit about
our mass emissions trading program called Reclaim and then tie
the discussion of that program to the matter before you today,
the consideration of the new standards.
Reclaim is the largest multi-industry, mass emissions
reduction program in the United States. It covers nitric oxide
and SOx emissions; it regulates over 330 of the largest
polluters in the South Coast Air Basin. It covers industries as
large and as diverse as refineries, power plants, aerospace,
hotels, cement kilns, metal melting and down to small
businesses like hotels and even amusement parks.
When our program went into effect in 1994, it replaced over
32 command and control rules. It gives businesses the
opportunity to select the lowest cost alternative to achieve
their emission reductions. We're very pleased that the program
is a success and has exceeded our expectations.
In the first 3 years of the program, the actual emissions
from the sources are a good one-third below their allocations.
The cost in reducing those emissions is almost half of what had
been anticipated under command and control regulations.
We have a vigorous trading market, a market that has
exceeded our expectations, with over $33 million in trades
already having occurred to support plant modifications and
business expansion.
Reclaim works. It works in large part because it is dealing
with fuel combustion sources. Industries under the program very
carefully report the actual emissions from the facilities. I
think this is important because careful monitoring and
reporting makes the emission reduction credits a blue chip
investment in the market.
It also is germane as the Senate considers the new
standards because as you look at what works, and you look at
how it applies to large, medium and small-sized emissions fuel
combustion sources, I think that ties directly back to the new
standards before you.
I've written a lot of very tough command and control rules
in my career. I think for the sources that I've regulated, the
trading programs really do offer a lower cost way to accomplish
the objective.
In many parts of the country, the new standards will
require companies to meet emission limits currently in place in
California. As we've looked at the new standards, we believe
the driving force for additional reductions will not come so
much from the ozone standards, but from the small particulate
standards.
We spent about 2 years and almost $1.5 million collecting
small particulate data. It drives us to the conclusion that
additional emission reductions will come primarily from fuel
burning sources. We'll be looking for additional NAAQS
reductions, probably up to about 35 percent more than what
we've seen to date.
We think our largest sources have really done their fair
share and as we look to who needs to come up with additional
emission reductions, we'll be talking in large part, first,
about fuel burning sources subject to Federal regulations--
ships, trains, planes, interstate trucks, offroad construction
and agricultural equipment.
We'll also be talking about sources that are considered
small and in many instances, have protected status currently
under the Clean Air Act. Emissions from sources like
refrigerators, stoves, small internal combustion engines sound
small but they aren't when you're talking about a huge
metropolitan area. Today, in the South Coast Basin, emissions
from small internal combustion engines, less than 50 horse
power, exceed the emissions of the largest power plant in the
basin.
A few conclusions quickly. South Coast Air District
supports the new standards. We have but one request--additional
time to accomplish the objective. Our deadline under the
current standards is 2010. We believe additional years will be
required to meet the new standards.
Second, trading programs work. Trading programs will be an
important component in achieving the new standards. For our
program to have been adopted, we needed the political
commitment to clean up dirty air, we needed a strong
partnership with business and the environmental community to
develop the regulations. For the new standards to work, the
same will be true.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Ms. Leyden.
Ms. Hartsock.
STATEMENT OF BEVERLY HARTSOCK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POLICY &
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT, TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
Ms. Hartsock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Beverly Hartsock and I'm pleased to be here
today representing the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission to address the issue of implementation of the
proposed new air quality standards.
From a State regulator standpoint, I think it's important
to recognize that just adopting a new standard does not result
in improved air quality. Programs must be developed to
implement it and that is what my agency is expected to do.
Implementation of any new air standard follows a series of
steps. Monitoring data must be gathered to determine if an area
meets the standard. For the new particulate matter standard,
this will mean installing and operating new monitors. Even
phasing these in over 3 years, as EPA has proposed, will cost
Texas from $1.3 million next year up to almost $2 million in
2000. There will also be additional monitors needed for ozone
and its precursors since we are likely to have new
nonattainment areas and there is a need to know more about
transport levels in rural areas.
Next, we must inventory the sources of emissions in each of
these areas. New nonattainment area inventories will require us
to examine industrial and business process information and
estimate all population-based activities. Analysis of emissions
and air quality data must then be performed using computer
model simulations.
This is a major undertaking as can be seen by the 2-year
effort and millions of dollars that have recently been spent in
the OTAG process, studying four high ozone episodes in the
Midwest, Northeast, and Atlanta.
The computer analysis will yield an estimate of the level
of emission reduction predicted to solve the problem. This
reduction occurs through implementation of new rules or program
requirements developed by State and local agencies based upon
available technology, cost effectiveness, and feasibility.
Traditionally, large industrial sources have been the focus
of these controls, but more and more, we're having to focus on
smaller, individual contributors such as small businesses and
cars since collectively these are significant emissions
sources.
Final decisions on new controls occur through a public
participation process of meetings and hearings. The results,
along with all the supporting analyses, are compiled as a State
implementation plan which is submitted to EPA. Reductions
actually occur as sources come into compliance with the new
requirements from one to many years later depending upon the
type of program.
States must continue to monitor air quality to measure
actual improvement compared to the modeled predicted benefits.
Additional controls must be implemented if air quality goals
aren't meant.
In my written comments, I provided a more thorough
discussion of the air quality planning process, the
difficulties we have encountered, and the problems we see with
implementing proposed new standards.
In summary, there are five points I would like to leave
with you. First, my agency and the leadership of our State are
on record as supporting the retention of both the existing
ozone and particulate matter standards until the science to
support any change is more definitive.
The recently released studies of health effects of ozone
estimate fewer benefits from the proposed standard than
previously thought. The particulate matter studies have raised
as many questions as they have provided answers.
Second, if new standards are adopted, extensive new work
will be needed to implement them and it appears likely that
there will be little additional funding from EPA. States do not
need another unfunded mandate.
Additional requirements without adequate funding will take
away from our ongoing effort to solve the more serious air
pollution problems that have already been identified.
Third, we should explore ways for air pollution planning to
be a part of a city's urban planning whether or not new
standards are adopted that cause the city to be designated
nonattainment. New approaches should build on voluntary action
programs such as flexible attainment approaches and should
provide incentives for early planning, expanded monitoring and
early reductions.
Fourth, adequate time should be provided to allow areas to
plan, implement controls and measure the results of those
controls. The 5-year timeframes of the Clean Air Act allow for
planning and implementation, but fail to allow time to monitor
results or to build adequate data bases.
Our experience shows that 10 years is a more reasonable
planning cycle and the more difficult air pollution problem
areas will take two or more planning cycles. Mid course
corrections should be included so that new information can be
used to improve imprecise predictions of growth and emissions
changes.
Finally, adequate time must be provided to allow major
emission reducing trends such as those happening in the
transportation sector to be significant contributors to
attaining national air quality goals. In order for the country
to be able to afford all that is likely to be required to meet
all of our goals, we must allow time for market forces and
technological development to minimize costs of accomplishing
the reductions and spread those costs over time.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Ms. Hartsock.
We'll start with Dr. Krupnick since he's been around the
longest.
I notice and a lot of the people have testified on the
previous panel and also on this panel, and others may have a
comment about this too, you had mentioned the implementation,
you identify areas of the Clean Air Act that need to be
invalidated and you provided a laundry list.
To do that, I think we pretty much would conclude we would
have to have a full scale rewriting of the Clean Air Act. Do
you agree or disagree with that?
Dr. Krupnick. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't make that
judgment. It just seems to me that there are certain aspects of
this new world that we're looking at that are really up to
Congress to address.
I think if Congress does not act, it's my estimation that
EPA is willing to push that Act as far as they can push it to
try to move toward cost-effective implementation policies, but
you could help that process along a lot and save the country a
lot of money by maybe some surgical strikes into the Act.
Senator Inhofe. I guess what I'm getting to is every time
this comes up, I've asked myself the question, is it all that
bad. There are some very positive things that could come out of
a rewriting such as cost-benefit analysis and some things I
feel would be a very helpful part of it.
Ms. Hartsock, I was listening to you and you covered pretty
much the cost but let's go back and kind of put this in a
timeframe. First of all, in Texas, I assume you don't have 2.5
monitors in place?
Ms. Hartsock. No. We haven't had any in place. In the month
of March, we just put the first six out.
Senator Inhofe. When could you start deploying? You've
already started deploying the monitoring network, is that
right?
Ms. Hartsock. Yes, sir, but that is only in one city,
Houston, and we have several other major metropolitan areas
where we need to get out monitoring. That's to be started over
the next year.
Senator Inhofe. Let's assume that is right, then if the EPA
is proposing the standard as a 3-year average, what year would
you have that data?
Ms. Hartsock. It would be 3 years from the time we started.
Our phase-in program is over 3 years, so the first areas, such
as Houston, we would have 3 years of data 3 years from now. The
last of the areas would be 6 years from now.
Senator Inhofe. So say by 1999, you'd have a lot of them
out. In 3 years, it would be 2002. After you get the data, what
steps are necessary to designate the nonattainment areas and
how long would that take?
Ms. Hartsock. There is a formal process, but in essence, I
believe it's within a year that we have to have the
designations in and then EPA has another year.
Senator Inhofe. Then you have 3 years after that for your
State implementation plan, so that would put us around 2006?
Ms. Hartsock. Yes, sir, from that last date that you had.
Senator Inhofe. All right. When would you have attained the
standard, would it be 5 years after the designation which would
bring us to about 2008?
Ms. Hartsock. By that time, I think we're looking at having
the initial round of controls in place, but as I indicated in
my comments, one of the things you have to do then is monitor
what the air quality looks like after those controls are in
place.
Senator Inhofe. And I understand they allow one extension
of say up to 5 years. So we're talking about then perhaps the
year 2013?
Ms. Hartsock. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Every time I look at this, it seems to me
it makes sense to just go ahead and conduct the scientific
tests first and then collect the data before we set the
standard. Someone mentioned the other day it's kind of like
instead of ready, aim, fire, it's ready, fire, aim. Do you
agree with that analogy?
Ms. Hartsock. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. You mentioned unfunded mandates and this is
something I'm very sensitive to being a former mayor of a major
city for three terms. Our major problem wasn't crime in the
street, it was unfunded mandates, but we passed a law that was
supposed to protect political subdivisions. You are a political
subdivision, you're the State of Texas. Do you consider this an
unfunded mandate?
Ms. Hartsock. Yes. We do not see that additional funding is
going to be made available by EPA to handle the new costs that
we'll be incurring.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Cooper, Senator Sessions was here
earlier for the previous panel. We're all supposed to be going
over there for an executive session, so we're going to be
hoping to get through in a timely fashion, but he was concerned
also. He looked at that map and that is something that would
concern someone who is from Alabama.
In your testimony, you state your industry disagrees with
the emissions estimates of the agency and it's miscalculated
for printers and your industry. You also mentioned how the
reductions are generally targeted across the board.
Do you have any estimates or has the EPA estimated the
burden on your industry for implementation purposes?
Mr. Cooper. There are some estimates on the emissions and I
think in fairness to EPA, I think you'd be able to agree these
estimates are the best they have to work with. We don't have
the estimates of emissions in our industry and part of the
problem is, the science of air emissions on an individual site,
an individual company, talking about monitoring data, is
basically how you calculate what goes on in a certain kind of
operation. It is not an agreed to formula. So any kind of
estimation of emissions is guess work.
Senator Inhofe. You mentioned in your testimony that you're
on the advisory board, right?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, I am.
Senator Inhofe. And you have recommended changes. Is this
one of the changes that you might be referring to?
Mr. Cooper. Yes. As Ms. Nichols mentioned, we now have a
larger group of small business folks on there. We are now
meeting as a separate group to come up with these
recommendations as a larger group of small businesses and how
EPA can make some adjustments in these calculations.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Kerkhoven, I'm also concerned about the
transportation end and we're going to be considering ISTEA, the
Intermodal Transportation reauthorization and what does this
map do to you when you look at this?
Initially, correct me if I'm wrong, you were making your
estimates on those areas that would be the smaller, dark green
dots in the middle before we produced this map that shows two
more concentric circles?
Mr. Kerkhoven. Correct. Senator, actually the NHS bill
addresses part of the conformity determinations, where
conformity determinations may be made in the nonattainment
areas and if we're going to expand conformity determinations to
areas of violation or areas of influence, it's going to make it
very, very difficult for localities.
Senator Inhofe. It is my understanding, is it your
understanding also, that these areas outside of the dark green
specified area would not qualify for CMAQ funding?
Mr. Kerkhoven. Correct.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll start with you, Ms. Nichols. What is EPA doing about
ozone transport either currently and/or under the new proposed
regulations?
Ms. Nichols. Senator Baucus, the issue of transport has
been around for many, many years and Congress actually gave EPA
some authority directly to take action to make sure that States
don't interfere with attainment or maintenance of areas
downwind. The problem historically has been to get the data and
to get action taken can be a very lengthy, time-consuming
process.
In the 1990 amendments, Congress actually created an Ozone
Transport Commission to cover the 13 New England, northeastern
States as far south as Virginia and including the District of
Columbia in recognition that we now know enough about how the
air moves around that region so that it was important that
region get together and plan and take some action as a group in
order to achieve the most cost effective reductions and to
enable some of the areas to be able to attain the standards.
As a result of the 1990 amendments and the need for
attainment plans, EPA convened a much larger group of States
beyond the ozone transport regions covering the entire area
east of the Mississippi where we had evidence there was some
degree of transport and interference. The States themselves
took on the task through the environmental commissioners of the
States to begin a planning process, to do a great deal of
modeling and analysis to try to get a better handle on this
issue.
We are expecting in June of this year that we will receive
recommendations from the Ozone Transport Assessment Group as to
which States they feel need to take action in order to solve
this transport issue for ozone. That's all under the current
ozone standard.
In looking at this map here which somewhat out of context
looks like an amoeba, it reflects the kind of conversations
that some of the experts in the Advisory Committee have been
having about how to deal with this issue, that there is
transport, that States have the primary responsibility but that
there are some kinds of cost-effective measures, as Dr.
Krupnick mentioned, particularly cap and trade programs that
can be implemented on a broader level if the States agree to do
it.
There may be, indeed, a necessity on the part of some
States to be doing some kinds of controls to help out their
downwind neighbors if they really are making a substantial
contribution. So these kinds of lines are designed to help
people think about where you would want to have regional
partnerships and the States getting together to at least try to
plan together and possibly agree on some control strategies.
There is no consensus, at this point, on any of this stuff
but there is particularly no consensus on what the area of
influence might have to do. It would be up to the States that
we're in an area of influence if one of them gets established
to decide for themselves what the measures would be.
Certainly an area of influence is not the same thing as a
nonattainment area. A nonattainment area is an area where you
actually have violations of the standard, so some of the
concerns that Mr. Kerkhoven mentions I think are frankly off
the mark.
Senator Baucus. What you're saying though is that there's
room under the proposed standards, to cap or trade or work out
various arrangements to deal with transport?
Ms. Nichols. Yes.
Senator Baucus. You still think that is possible?
Ms. Nichols. I think it's possible. It's difficult.
Senator Baucus. And probably even necessary?
Ms. Nichols. But it will be necessary if the transport
issue is going to be solved, yes, sir.
Senator Baucus. A general question I had for anybody who
has problems with these regulations or proposed regulations,
first of all, PM<INF>10</INF>, it's my understanding that
CASAC, the independent scientific peer review committee decided
overwhelmingly that a new standard should be set. It didn't say
what the standard should be, but did say a standard should be
set. I think the vote was 19-2.
I wonder if anyone has any problems with that or disagrees
with that conclusion of CASAC and why?
[No response.]
Senator Baucus. So everyone agrees a new standard should be
set?
Ms. Hartsock. I don't know that I can speak for the others.
I wouldn't indicate that I'm an expert on the standard in any
way. The primary focus of the comments we had would be if there
is going to be a new standard, what would be the steps
necessary in implementation and what do we see as the problems
there. I don't know that I'm really prepared to answer that.
Senator Baucus. CASAC did say, especially with respect to
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, that a standard should be set. I think there
are 15,000 premature deaths annually as a consequence of
occurrence of particulates and that was the reason that the
CASAC Commission decided that a new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard
should be set.
It did not address the question of what the standard should
be, but based upon that amount of premature deaths annually, it
reached that conclusion. The vote was 19-2 as I recall.
Ms. Leyden, you've heard some complaints about this and yet
you say you favor the proposed regulations.
Ms. Leyden. Yes.
Senator Baucus. What would you say in answer to some of the
other witnesses that had some problems with these proposed
regulations?
Ms. Leyden. Well, I guess from my vantage point, I've spent
almost the last decade looking at how to reduce pollution and
tailoring regulations to assess things like cost effectiveness,
looking at what new technology can do. We've made phenomenal
progress in the South Coast Air Basin and I see no reason at
all not to first protect the public health and provide adequate
time to get there.
I really believe for us, as I said in my comments, it will
be additional NAAQS reductions, that will be needed to hit the
2.5 standard. It's the right thing to do and we can get those
additional NAAQS reductions by focusing on sources that have
yet to reduce their emissions to the same level as some of our
largest industries have reduced them.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, if I might have one more
question?
Senator Inhofe. Sure.
Senator Baucus. The vast amount of research on the question
of whether the Clean Air Act benefits outweigh costs is
overwhelmingly conclusive. That is in the affirmative by a
factor of many times. All the studies on the Clean Air Act
generally have reached the conclusion by a huge factor that the
benefits of the Clean Air Act outweigh the cost of the Clean
Air Act.
Yet, we also run into the problem of the tyranny of the
majority, the tyranny of averages because some provisions of
the Act may have disproportionate effects on some people or
individuals compared to some others.
I think most of us are concerned about small business, that
the cost on a particular small business person might be
disproportionately greater than on a large enterprise.
Ms. Nichols, we heard Mr. Cooper say that perhaps the EPA
could do a better job in implementing section 507 of the Clean
Air Act, particularly with respect to small business. I think
all of us in Congress are very sensitive to the unique
characteristic of small business.
So on the aggregate, benefits vastly exceed the costs, we
don't know if that is the case with respect to the new
regulations, but we do know that is the case generally with the
Act.
What are you doing at EPA to address the concerns of the
small businessmen?
Ms. Nichols. Senator, we have a number of measures underway
to do a better job of listening to and working with small
business. I think in our programs implementing Title III of the
Clean Air Act, the Toxics Program, we've had some of our best
successes sitting down industry by industry as a group
developing the data base jointly and coming up with regulations
that can be met even when a particular sector is characterized
by a great number of small businesses.
I would have to say as a resident of the South Coast Air
Basin in my past and somebody who worked with Ms. Leyden and
others on some of these programs, we have learned from the
experience of the South Coast which has had to go further in
terms of regulating small businesses because the problems were
more severe and have found that in many situations, we were not
doing as good a job as we should have of outreach.
Particularly on the enforcement side, some of the
mechanisms that were being used to communicate and enforce
against small businesses just weren't effective, that you
needed to find ways to get the industry to help us to
communicate what requirements were going to be.
One of my favorite examples is one where we worked with a
particular industry to develop a standard and then helped them
to develop a workbook that could be distributed to all of their
individual members. It's kind of like a desk reference manual
so that the person who is actually running one of these
particular facilities can look up what the requirements are in
plain English and not have to hire an engineer or a specific
environmental person in order to help them run their business.
Those are the kind of practical realities that you have to
deal with when you're actually working with small companies and
try-
ing to get compliance and recognizing that they want to comply
but oftentimes an assistance approach is what is needed.
EPA has funded the development of a number of small
business compliance assistance centers for that reason. The
Clean Air Act really led the way in that regard because of 507.
We've worked with the State small business ombudspeople that
were required to be created to help make them be more effective
in carrying out these responsibilities.
There is no doubt we could do better at this and I think
Mr. Cooper and others have given us some ideas as we move
forward with this implementation committee as to how to bring
in the small business community and really address their
concerns earlier in the process.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, if I might
ask Mr. Cooper what more can be done to help address small
business concerns?
Mr. Cooper. I can't tell you how happy I am you asked that
question. Let me tell you the core of the problem and maybe
some in the small business community would not appreciate my
saying this but by and large, small business people are fairly
limited in their options of what they can do. The thing I hear
more than anything is just tell us what we have to do and we'll
do it.
What that cries out for is very good guidance that isn't
left subject to an engineer in Cleveland may be different
engineer in Louisville, so you have guidance that is fairly
clear-cut. Then you have to have the people available to answer
the phone because there's a lot of fear out there. That's what
the ombudsman program has provided.
The core of the problem with the ombudsman program is that
it is funded out of permit fees and when you get down to the
State level, Texas has one of the strongest ombudsman programs
in the country and I think their funding is over $1 million for
that program which is about 10 times what it is in most States.
If you're in a State and you're competing for dollars with
the enforcement people and you're in technical assistance,
you're going to lose. So what I would love to see is this
committee to go over to the Appropriations Committee and set
aside some funds to bolster the 507 Program. Without it, that
program will die. There are a number of States that have cut
back their programs already.
I am very concerned that when this new standard comes out,
if these programs aren't in place, that's when the realities
are going to hit and it is going to be a mess.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
indulgence.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
Let me clarify one thing. You weren't here during the first
panel and this whole idea on the 15,000 premature deaths is
assuming causation. It's my understanding from the testimony of
many of them that science has not been prepared to assume
causation in that case in terms of the 15,000 premature deaths.
Senator Baucus. I don't know the number but I do know the
overwhelming conclusion of CASAC is based upon the data and the
number of deaths and they reached a conclusion 19-2 that a
standard should be set.
Senator Inhofe. Then I have two more questions. I didn't
quite use all my time and this is going to be very, very
difficult for you, Ms. Nichols, because I'm going to ask you a
question and I want one word for the answer and that answer
would either be yes or no.
Senator Baucus talks about the fact that the benefits have
outweighed the costs. I believe he was referring to the
previous standards.
Under the proposed standards, I understand there is a
regulatory impact analysis that came to the conclusion that the
costs outweighed the benefits for ozone. Is that correct?
Ms. Nichols. No.
Senator Inhofe. OK. I will produce that report and we'll
take that up at our next meeting.
One last question for Ms. Leyden. In your written
testimony, although you didn't say it in your verbal testimony,
you talked about additional reductions were needed to come from
diesel sources such as planes, interstate trucks, agricultural
equipment and so forth. For the purposes of classification, do
you classify jet fuel as diesel?
Ms. Leyden. Yes, I would consider that a heavier fuel. It
would be in that same category.
Senator Inhofe. That classification has been used by the
EPA?
Ms. Leyden. My focus is on the heavier fuel type, sir.
Senator Inhofe. You had said you're getting cooperation
from some of the large contributors and I'm glad to hear that.
You said in addition, small internal combustion engines
together emit more than the largest power plant in your area.
Can you give me a couple of examples of small combustion
engines?
Ms. Leyden. Small combustion engines would be anything less
than 50 horsepower. They are protected under the Federal Clean
Air Act and have an emissions standard that represents
technology that today is 10 years old.
Senator Inhofe. Would that be either two cycle or four
cycle?
Ms. Leyden. They'd be two cycle. We estimate, based on
sales of equipment and fuel consumption, that emissions from
that source category represents about 17 tons a day of nitric
oxide emissions going into our air. That is almost four times
greater than the emissions from the largest power plant in the
basin.
Senator Inhofe. I'm going to end with a request, Ms.
Nichols. On this issue of jet fuel being considered for your
purposes the same as diesel, I spent 40 years in that field and
I think I'd like to have you at least look and reevaluate that
because I think you'll find it is a much cleaner burning fuel
and I was not aware that you threw all those in together.
Maybe you don't, but if you could let me know on that, I'd
appreciate it very much.
Ms. Nichols. I'll be happy to find out.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Baucus, do you have any last
questions?
Senator Baucus. No.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate the panel coming very much. We
had said we were going to end right at 12 o'clock. We will have
to do that because we're having an executive session over in
the Capitol.
Thank you very much for coming and for the time you've
taken to come here and testify.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth W. Chilton, Director, Center for the
Study of American Business, Washington University
I wish to thank the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Wetlands
for the opportunity to testify on the proposed national ambient air
quality standards for ozone and particulate matter.
I have researched clean air issues for over a decade and a half. I
am the director of the Center for the Study of American Business, a
501(c)(3) non-partisan, not-for-profit public policy research
organization at Washington University in St. Louis. These are my
personal comments and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Center for the Study of American Business or Washington University.
I would like to address several of the most important public health
questions in the NAAQS debate. I will also speak about some very basic
issues regarding the primary objective of the Clean Air Act.
the science on ozone
The scientific evidence on the health effects of ozone is rather
extensive. Ozone has been demonstrated to cause undesirable physical
effects in some individuals. The effects include coughing, wheezing,
tightness in the chest and reduced lung function--less volume of air
exchanged with each breath. Based on EPA's estimate of the relationship
between changes in forced expiratory volume (FEV) and various
combinations of exercise levels and ozone concentrations, typical
subjects experience less than a 5 percent loss in lung function even at
the highest ozone levels recorded in the United States in 1996 (about
twice the current standard).\1\ (See Figure 1.) Medical experts do not
consider lung function decrements of 10 percent, or less, an adverse
health effect. The primary concern, however, is for ozone's effects on
asthmatics or others especially sensitive to a combination of high
ozone levels and moderate to heavy exercise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a}\Lung function is measured as the volume of air a subject can
force from his/her lungs in 1 second.
Source: Review of the National Air Quality Standard for Ozone
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information (Washington, DC.:
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, June 1996), p.
31.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.001
No one should minimize the trauma that a severe attack of asthma
causes the asthmatic or his or her loved ones. The EPA staff report,
however, estimates that for each one million persons exposed, we can
expect just one to three more summertime respiratory hospital
admissions a day for each 100 parts per billion increase in ozone
levels.\2\ This is a very low incidence rate and a very high elevation
in ozone levels. In a city of one million people, one to three added
respiratory hospital admissions would be virtually undetectable. Such
days would also be very rare even in cities with persistent ozone air
quality problems.
EPA has recently modified its risk assessments for ozone, resulting
in less public health benefits expected from the proposed NAAQS. For
example, the new risk assessment projects that attainment of the
proposed standard would lower New York City asthmatic hospital
admissions caused by ozone to 109 per year, from 139 under the current
standard.\3\ That is a reduction of 30 hospital admissions, or one
tenth of 1 percent of the 28,000 yearly asthmatic admissions. The
previous estimate, contained in the Staff Paper, was that the standard
would reduce yearly admissions by about 90.\4\
The revised risk assessments, which were conducted for nine urban
areas, lower the expected benefit of the proposed standard in terms of
other health effects, as well, especially for children playing out of
doors. For example, EPA had previously expected 600,000 fewer
occurrences of decreased lung function (instances where the amount of
air that can be rapidly exhaled in 1 second decline by more than 15
percent) in children, but now projects just 282,000 such incidences.
Anticipated improvements in episodes of moderate to severe chest pain
in children were revised downward from 101,000 to 53,000, and the
estimate for prevented cases of moderate to severe cough in children
was lowered from 31,000 to 10,000.\5\
EPA's NAAQS proposal is based on the previous risk assessments.
Because the revisions are large (reducing the expected benefit by half
or more for several health effects), the wisdom of the proposed tighter
standard is further called into question.
It is important to point out that, thus far, ozone has not been
shown to cause premature mortality. The upper bound benefit estimate of
$1.5 billion in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis of ozone, however,
results almost entirely from the assumption that the proposed standard
would save lives. This claim is unsubstantiated.
I also would like to note that a separate secondary standard to
protect plants and buildings hardly seems justified. First, ozone
concentration data for rural areas is very limited. Second, incremental
cost and benefit estimates for meeting the proposed SUM06 secondary
standard versus meeting the current 0.12 ppm goal have not been
included in the agency's Regulatory Impact Analysis. Surely, we do not
need to focus substantial financial and human resources preparing
implementation plans to protect primarily commercial crops with no idea
whether the hypothetical benefits outweigh the costs.
the science on fine particulates
Unlike the science on ozone's health effects, the science for fine
particulates is not very developed and, thus, is plagued with
uncertainties. EPA makes the claim that full attainment of the new fine
particulate standard would result in between $69 billion and $144
billion worth of health benefits.\6\ These predictions of extraordinary
health benefits derive from estimates of reduced mortality from meeting
a new fine particle standard. Whether the expected number of lives
prolonged is 20,000, as stated by Administrator Browner when she
testified before this subcommittee in February, or 15,000 as most
recently predicted, or zero is hard to say given the paucity of
scientific data supporting these projections.
The mortality improvements expected from reduced levels of fine
particles are based not on thousands or even hundreds of studies, as
the agency casually infers, but, in essence, from just two studies.
These studies purport to show an association between PM<INF>2.5</INF>
levels and death due to cardiovascular and pulmonary causes together
and also a link between PM<INF>2.5</INF> and death.\7\ It is curious,
to say the least, that the statistical link that has been demonstrated
is between fine particles and cardiopulmonary deaths, and not deaths
due to respiratory disease or lung cancer alone.\8\
Perhaps it shouldn't be totally surprising that a fine particle-
mortality link has not been demonstrated where one might expect,
because medical science has not yet discovered a biologically plausible
mechanism to explain how fine particulates cause any deaths. Without
knowing more about the mechanism through which particulates might
affect human health, the observed association between premature
mortality and fine particles cannot be considered tantamount to a
cause-and-effect relationship.
An additional scientific uncertainty with regard to these studies
results from the problem of confounding. Confounding is a situation in
which an observed association between an exposure and a health effect
is influenced by other variables that also are associated with the
exposure and affect the onset of the health effect. A variety of
factors such as temperature, humidity, or the existence of other air
pollutants may cause mortality rates to rise and fall with, and thus
appear to be caused by, fine particulate concentrations.\9\
Also, before regulating air pollutants simply on a basis of size,
more research is needed to try to identify which components, if any, of
fine particulate matter are producing the observed association--
ultrafine particles, nitrates, sulfates, metals, volatile (or
``transient'') particles, and so forth. We know very little about
transient particles, which form and disappear quickly, and, therefore,
go undetected by filter monitors.
Lack of air quality data for PM<INF>2.5</INF> is another serious
problem. EPA Administrator Browner testified that there are 51
PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitors collecting air quality data at present.\10\
The inference was that this is a large number; it is not. For example,
in 1995 there were 972 monitors measuring ozone levels and 1,737 that
collected data on PM<INF>10</INF>.\11\ For EPA to derive mortality
estimates, PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations had to be projected for many
cities where monitoring data do not exist.
Administrator Browner says the scientific evidence establishing the
need for a fine-particle standard is ``compelling.'' I respectfully
disagree. A convincing case for a new fine-particle standard has not
been made.
Epidemiological evidence is scant and indicates an association, not
a cause-and-effect relationship. A toxicological explanation for the
observed mortality and fine particle link has not been established.
Exposure data are lacking due to the small number of monitors and this
lack of data raises questions about the epidemiological studies.
Setting a separate PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard at this time could be
another case of ``ready, fire, aim,'' as former EPA Administrator
William Reilly once described past quick responses to perceived
environmental problems.
Let me shift gears and raise a more fundamental issue that thus far
has been missing in the debate over the proposed ozone and particulate
air quality standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
hinted at this problem but perhaps its language was a bit too obtuse.
the clean air act's flawed goal
As the members of this subcommittee are well aware, the Clean Air
Act calls on the Environmental Protection Agency to establish and
enforce air quality standards that protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety. It proscribes the consideration of economic
factors in this process. Economics may come into play only at the
implementation phase.
This is a very high-minded objective. Who but a Philistine could
disagree with it?
Well, nearly any economist might. In a world of scarce resources
(the real world), people have to be concerned about balancing
incremental benefits with incremental costs. Spending more on one
activity than it brings about in added benefits means that resources
aren't available to spend on other desirable activities that could
produce more benefits than their costs.
Theoretically, it might still be possible to protect public health
with an adequate margin of safety and spend resources wisely, provided
that the health-based standard can be set at a level where added health
benefits equal or exceed added costs. Unfortunately, two factors are
conspiring against this happy state.
First of all, all health effects from air pollution can't be
eliminated, at least not for ozone. Physical responses to ozone can be
demonstrated at background levels--levels produced by natural
processes. This is what the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) was trying to get across in its closure letter to Administrator
Browner when it wrote:
The Panel felt that the weight of the health effects evidence
indicates that there is no threshold concentration for the
onset of biological responses due to exposure to ozone above
background concentrations. Based on information now available,
it appears that ozone may elicit a continuum of biological
responses down to background concentrations. This means that
the paradigm of selecting a standard at the lowest-observable-
effects-level and then providing an ``adequate margin of
safety'' is no longer possible.\12\
In plain English, the prime directive of the Clean Air Act is
``mission impossible,'' at least for ozone. Taken literally, the
standard would have to be set at a level produced by natural emissions
of ozone precursors. The cost of such an effort is incalculable and the
goal unattainable.
Second, the point where incremental costs equal benefits was
crossed with respect to ozone with the passage of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. The standard we are currently trying to meet is costing
between $4 and $28 to produce $1 worth of benefits.\13\ A more
restrictive standard, such as the one proposed, has to be an even worse
tradeoff. Cost estimates from private economists and at the Council of
Economic Advisers confirm this expectation.
The Agency has presented some very modest figures for both benefits
and costs in its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). While the ozone
standard being proposed was not specifically addressed in the RIA, its
benefits should be bounded between $0 and $1.5 billion and its costs
between $600 million and $2.5 billion, according to the impact
analysis.\14\ This figure most likely represents only a small fraction
of the real cost of full attainment, for a variety of reasons. For
example, full costs of attainment were calculated for only one to three
cities.
Other estimates of costs and benefits are quite different,
particularly on the cost side. Economist Susan Dudley predicts that
full attainment of the current ozone standard will cost between $22
billion and $53 billion a year. The proposed standard would add an
additional $54 billion to $328 billion to the price tag, according to
Dr. Dudley.\15\ Council of Economic Advisers member Alicia Munnell has
projected added costs for meeting the new ozone standard of $60 billion
a year.\16\
EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the fine particulate standard
estimates an annual cost of $6 billion for partial attainment. Like
EPA's cost estimate for the ozone standard, this figure is most likely
far too low.\17\ EPA truncates costs at $1 billion per microgram
(<greek-m>g) of fine particle reduction, although most areas would
incur costs to lower particulates that are much higher than this cutoff
figure.
A sensitivity analysis performed for two cities, Denver and
Philadelphia, demonstrates how quickly marginal cost rises above EPA's
$1 billion/<greek-m>g cutoff. In Philadelphia, the $1 billion/<greek-m>g
cutoff would result in a 20 percent reduction in
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentration from the 2007 baseline. An additional 1
percent reduction would result from a $2 billion/<greek-m>g cutoff, but
the cost would double. The RIA reports similar results for Denver.\18\
recommendations
EPA is not required to tighten the ozone standard or to create a
new PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In the case of ozone, there is little
evidence that a tighter standard will be more protective of those who
are considered the sensitive population. For particulates, the science
is not adequate to warrant a new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. Certainly,
CASAC members were of quite divergent opinions on how to set a
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. In her testimony, Administrator Browner made
much ado about the fact that there was a consensus among CASAC members
that a new PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS be established. It is also true,
however, that there was ``no consensus on the level, averaging time, or
form'' of the standard.\19\
Indeed, on February 5, the chair of CASAC shared with this
subcommittee just how tepid the support for the proposed fine particle
standard was. Only two members of the 21-member CASAC endorsed a range
for an annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard as strict as 15
<greek-m>g/m<SUP>3</SUP> to 20 <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3</SUP>, yet EPA has
proposed an annual limit of 15 <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3</SUP>. Eight of the
members did not support any annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.\20\ (See
Table 1.)
Given the rather poor state of atmospheric and medical scientific
knowledge of fine particles, it is difficult to see how setting a
standard at this time will produce meaningful health benefits. Rather
than press forward with a tighter air quality standard for ozone and a
new standard for fine particles, EPA should appeal to Congress and The
White House to revisit the Clean Air Act.
Two basic reforms are required. First the fundamental objective of
the Act needs to be changed from ``protecting the public health with an
adequate margin of safety'' to ``protecting the public against
unreasonable risk of important adverse health effects.'' Second,
benefit-cost analyses should be required, not proscribed, when setting
air quality standards.
The American people expect their elected officials to protect them
from air pollution that might significantly impair their health. They
do not expect, however, that the costs of this protection will be so
out of proportion to benefits that other desirable outcomes are forgone
because economic resources have been applied too generously to this
task.
Table 1.--Summary of CASAC Panel Members Recommendations for an Annual
PM<INF>2.5 Standard (all units <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Discipline PM<INF>2.5 Annual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayres.......................... M.D................ yes<SUP>2
Hopke.......................... Atmospheric 20-30
Scientist.
Jacobson....................... Plant Biologist.... yes<SUP>2
Koutrakis...................... Atmospheric yes<SUP>2,3,4
Scientist.
Larntz......................... Statistician....... 25-30<SUP>5
Legge.......................... Plant Biologist.... no
Lippmann....................... Health Expert...... 15-20
Mauderly....................... Toxicologist....... 20
McClellan...................... Toxicologist....... no<SUP>6
Menzel......................... Toxicologist....... no
Middleton...................... Atmostpheric yes<SUP>2,3
Scientist.
Pierson........................ Atmospheric yes<SUP>2,7
Scientist.
Price.......................... Atmospheric yes<SUP>8
Scientist/State
Official.
Shy............................ Epidemiologist..... 15-20
Samet<SUP>1......................... Epidemiologist..... no
Seigneur....................... Atmospheric no
Scientist.
Speizer<SUP>1....................... Epidemiologist..... no
Stolwijk....................... Epidemiologist..... 25-30<SUP>5
Utell.......................... M.D................ no
White.......................... Atmospheric 20
Scientist.
Wolff.......................... Atmospheric no
Scientist.
EPA Staff...................... ................... 12.5-20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
<SUP>1 Not present at meeting; recommendations based on written comments
<SUP>2 Declined to select a value or range
<SUP>3 Concerned upper range is too low based on national PM<INF>2.5/PM<INF>10 ratio
<SUP>4 Leans toward high end of staff recommended range
<SUP>5 Desires equivalent stringency as present PM<INF>10 standards
<SUP>6 If EPA decides a PM<INF>2.5 NAAQS is required, the 24-hour and annual
standards should be 75 and 25 <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3, respectively with a
robust form
<SUP>7 Yes, but decision not based on epidemiological studies
<SUP>8 Low end of EPA's proposed range is inappropriate; desires levels
selected to include areas for which there is broad public and
technical agreement that they have PM<INF>2.5 pollution problems
Source: CASAC Closure Letter on the Staff Paper for Particulate Matter,
June 13, 1996, docketed as EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-96-008, Table 1.
notes
1. Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper
(Research Triangle Park, N.C.: U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, June 1996), p. 31.
2. Ibid., p. 40.
3. R.G. Whitfield, A Probabilistic Assessment of Health Risks
Associated with Short-Term Exposure to Tropospheric Ozone: A Supplement
(Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory, contracted for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, January 1997), Table 6.
4. Ozone Staff Paper, p. 130.
5. Memorandum, ``Supplemental Ozone Exposure and Health Risk
Analyses,'' Harvey M. Richmond, EPA Risk and Exposure Assessment Group,
to Karen Martin, EPA Health Effects and Standards Group, February 11,
1997.
6. Draft Document Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard (Research
Triangle Park, N.C.: U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, December 1996), p. ES-20.
7. Douglas Dockery, C. Arden Pope III, Xiping Xu, John D. Spengler,
James H. Ware, Martha E. Fay, Benjamin G. Ferris, Jr., Frank E.
Speizer, ``An Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six
U.S. Cities,'' New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 329, no. 24,
December 9, 1993, pp. 1753-1759; C. Arden Pope III, Michael J. Thun,
Mohan M. Namboodiri, Douglas W. Dockery, John S. Evans, Frank E.
Speizer, Clark W. Heath, Jr., ``Particulate Air Pollution as a
Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults,''
American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine, vol. 151, 1995,
pp. 669-674. Technically, while both Dockery et al. and Pope et al.
show a link between increased mortality and fine particle
concentrations, Pope et al. is the basis for EPA projections of lives
prolonged by attaining the proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
8. William M. Landau, Gregory Evans, Raymond Slavin, letter to EPA
Docket A-95-54, commenting on the proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS,
March 7, 1997.
9. Suresh H. Moolgavkar and E. Georg Luebeck, ``A Critical Review
of the Evidence on Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality,''
Epidemiology, v. 7, n. 4, July 1996, pp. 420-428.
10. Testimony of EPA Administrator Carol Browner before U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 12, 1997.
11. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1995
(Research Triangle Park, N.C.: U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, October 1996), p. 163.
12. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee closure letter to EPA
Administrator Carol Browner on the primary standard portion of the
OAQPS Staff Paper for ozone (November 31, 1995), p. 2.
13. Kenneth Chilton and Stephen Huebner, Has the Battle Against
Urban Smog Become ``Mission Impossible?'' (St. Louis: Center for the
Study of American Business, Policy Study 136, November 1996), p. 14.
14. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (Research Triangle Park, N.C.: U.S. EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards Innovative Strategies and Economics
Group, December 1996), p. ES-22.
15. Susan E. Dudley, Comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone
(prepared for the Regulatory Analysis Program, Center for the Study of
Public Choice, George Mason University, March 12, 1997), p. ES-3.
16. Memorandum from Alicia Munnell, Council of Economic Advisers,
to Art Fraas, Office of Management and Budget, December 13, 1996.
17. Thomas Hopkins, Can New Air Standards for Fine Particles Live
Up to EPA Hopes? (St. Louis: Center for the Study of American Business,
Policy Brief 180, April 1997), pp. 10-17.
18. Regulatory Impact Analysis, p. 7.6.
19. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee closure letter to EPA
Administrator Carol Browner on the Staff Paper for Particulate Matter
(June 13, 1996), p. 2.
20. Ibid., Table 1.
______
Testimony of Thomas B. Starr, Ph.D. and Principal, ENVIRON
International Corporation
Good morning. I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify
before this Senate Subcommittee regarding the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed new standards for particulate
matter.
My name is Thomas B. Starr. I am a Principal with ENVIRON
International Corporation, a consulting firm headquartered in
Arlington, Virginia, that specializes in health and environmental
science issues related to chemical exposures, pharmaceuticals, medical
devices, and food products, pesticides, and contaminants. My own
consulting activities focus on the development and use of effective
methods for incorporating scientific knowledge of toxic mechanisms into
the quantitative risk assessment process. A brief biographical sketch
is attached (Appendix A).
The comments I offer today are drawn principally from two separate
consulting projects in which we have performed a critical examination
of the scientific evidence for potentially causal associations between
particulate matter (PM) exposure and adverse human health effects. In
the first project, undertaken on behalf of the American Petroleum
Institute, three world-renowned epidemiologists, Drs. Raymond
Greenberg, Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Medical
University of South Carolina, Jack Mandel, Chairman, Department of
Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health,
University of Minnesota, and Harris Pastides, Chairman, Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, from the School of Public Health at the
University of Massachusetts, were brought together as an Expert Panel
to independently and objectively assess the quality of the
epidemiologic evidence for associations between PM exposure and
increased human morbidity and mortality.
In the second project, undertaken on behalf of Kennecott
Corporation, an ENVIRON colleague, Dr. Larisa Rudenko, and I also
evaluated the case for such causal associations, and, in addition,
assessed the credibility of health benefits that EPA has projected
would accrue from implementation of the proposed new PM standards.
The final reports from these projects were submitted to EPA and are
included along with my oral testimony for your information. My remarks
today briefly summarize their findings; I refer you to the full reports
for additional details.
First, the issue of causality, or whether the effects observed are
truly caused by the exposure to PM, specifically PM<INF>2.5</INF>, or
some other component of air pollution or lifestyle. In assessing
whether the results from epidemiologic studies support the existence of
a causal relationship between exposure and disease, criteria developed
initially by Bradford Hill (1965) are often applied. These include the
strength, consistency, coherence, specificity, and temporality of the
reported association. Although not explicitly stated, a presumption
exists that the validity of the association has been established prior
to consideration of these criteria. What this means is that the
estimates of the association's strength have been shown to be free of
significant biases and not significantly confounded. The Expert Panel
of epidemiologists and our independent review both concluded that the
studies of PM and disease do not satisfy these conditions; they have
inadequately addressed potential biases and they have failed to resolve
satisfactorily the issue of confounding.
Even if the issue of validity were to be set aside, the Hill
criteria would not be met. The reported associations are extremely weak
and vacillate between positive and negative based on the specific
regression model that has been used to characterize the dose-response
relationship; as copollutants are introduced into the analyses,
apparently positive associations attenuate in strength, often to non-
significance. Indeed, based on the criterion of strength of
association, it is difficult to imagine a weaker case for causality
than that posed by the data on PM and mortality or morbidity.
Furthermore, the results of the studies are not actually as
consistent as they might at first appear. For example, different
exposure measures (e.g., mean daily level, maximum daily level, or some
lagged estimate) have been associated with different endpoints (e.g.,
respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, or total deaths). Also,
temporal relationships between exposure variables and disease
occurrence are not the same across studies, with lag times varying from
concurrent day to several days earlier.
In addition, a critically important component of coherence, namely,
dose-response, is, at best, weakly established in only a few studies.
In virtually all of the epidemiologic studies of PM, exposure levels
have not been not based on personal dosimetry, but rather on stationary
samplers located in specific geographic areas. Individual subjects were
thus assigned ``community-wide'' measures of exposure, rather than
individual measures. The lack of personal exposure measures limits the
ability to conclude that any individual death is linked to air
pollution per se. In fact, there is a large body of data indicating
that community sampler measurements rarely provide good estimates of
individual exposures.
Even if a causal association were in fact to exist between PM
exposure and disease occurrence at the individual level, such
``ecological'' exposure estimates would likely misrepresent the
association's true strength. Equally important, the shape of the
underlying dose-response relationship would also likely be
significantly distorted by ecologic analyses, with sharp threshold-like
curves being smoothed into more nearly linear curves by exposure
misclassification.
Another major challenge to the case for causality relates to the
nature of PM exposure, which invariably occurs in combination with
exposure to other air pollutants such as ozone, carbon monoxide,
SO<INF>2</INF>, H<INF>2</INF>SO<INF>4</INF>, metals, and volatile
organics. Because this mixture's composition varies according to
source, season, time of day, weather conditions, and geographic region,
and because PM is itself a complex and highly variable mixture, it has
been virtually impossible to disentangle the potential adverse health
effects of PM, or a specific PM fraction, such as PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
from those potentially attributable to other confounding copollutants.
The question of whether the coarse and/or fine particulate
components of air pollution are causally related to adverse human
health effects is one of great importance. If there is a causal
relationship, identification and establishment of a safe and acceptable
level of ambient particulate matter will be a decision with enormous
consequences. However, the severe methodological limitations of
existing studies prevent a conclusive judgment about the causality of
associations between PM exposure and adverse health effects at the
present time. EPA's proposal for new PM standards is premature.
There is an obvious need for new epidemiologic studies that collect
data at the individual subject level. Carefully designed case-control
studies can also be effective. It is especially important that future
study designs be related to clearly articulated theories about the
specific mechanistic pathways through which particulate air pollution
may affect human health. To serve as a basis for regulatory
decisionmaking, future epidemiologic studies will be most useful if
they inform us about the specific manner in which individual air
pollution constituents might affect human health. The current
epidemiologic literature falls well short of this goal.
The stated purpose for USEPA's proposed new PM standards is to:
``. . . provide increased protection against a wide range of
PM-related health effects, including premature mortality and
increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits
(primarily in the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary
disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (in
children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as
asthma); decreased lung function (particularly in children and
individuals with asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and
structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms.'' (Fed
Reg 61:65638)
How confident can we be that the proposed new PM standards will in
fact lead to increased human health protection? The quantitative risk
assessment conducted for EPA by Abt Associates, Inc. attempts to
quantify the uncertainty inherent in the estimated health benefits from
the new standards. This assessment is very thorough in its
identification of many weaknesses in the underlying PM and health
effects data, remarkably frank about its necessary reliance on numerous
unproven assumptions, and surprisingly even-handed in its
demonstrations, via multiple sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, that
the health benefits projected from the proposed standards might well be
greatly exaggerated.
Significant limitations of EPA's benefit projections either noted
in the Abt Associates, Inc. risk assessment are in our critique of it
and include the following:
Because correlation is not causation, the projections have
had to assume causation; thus, future reductions in specific PM
levels need not necessarily result in any material health
benefits. This has not been acknowledged explicitly.
EPA's failure to account for the potential health effects due
to simultaneous exposure to PM, other pollutants, and related
weather variables almost certainly leads to substantial
overstatements of both the strength and statistical
significance of the apparent associations specifically with PM
exposure. This issue of confounding has been explored only to a
very limited extent, yet EPA has concluded that its benefit
estimates are robust to the inclusion or exclusion of
individual co-pollutants. This conclusion is at variance with
the findings of several reanalyses that considered multiple
confounding variables simultaneously. The discrepancy is almost
certainly due to the fact that EPA's sensitivity analyses
considered only ``one-at-a-time'' additions of individual co-
pollutants instead of real-world multiple exposures. Thus, the
true benefits that result from compliance with the proposed new
PM standards may well be completely negligible.
The benefit projections assume log-linear relationships
between PM exposure above natural background levels and various
adverse health outcomes. Because most days of the year have low
to mid-range levels of PM, the estimated health benefit over an
entire calendar year of daily PM exposures is dominated by the
contribution from the many days with low to moderate levels of
PM. This is precisely the exposure range for which the
empirically determined log-linear dose-response relationships
are most uncertain. The assumption of a log-linear no-threshold
dose-response relationship is not presently scientifically
justified; threshold-like alternatives cannot be ruled out.
EPA's sensitivity analysis using different cut points (i.e.,
thresholds) demonstrates the enormous impact that thresholds
can have on the projected benefits from proposed new standards.
High thresholds imply negligible health benefits. Nevertheless,
health benefits estimated with threshold-like dose-response
relationships play only a secondary role in EPA's benefits
assessment. They should instead be considered at least on an
equal footing with the benefits estimated with log-linear
models.
EPA's regression models presume implicitly that the
independent variables are known without error. Yet actual PM
exposure levels are very poorly characterized and highly
uncertain. EPA has acknowledged that little regional monitoring
data, and virtually no personal exposure data, are available
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> at the present time. Furthermore, recent
studies have shown that only weak correlations exist between
individual personal exposures and PM measures recorded by
regional monitoring stations. Uncertainty about the true values
of these variables, or errors in their measurement, leads to a
serious ``errors in variables'' problem that can only be
resolved with further prospective study involving adequate
simultaneous measurements of both individual PM exposures and
region-wide measures of air quality.
Faced with such great uncertainty in the estimated magnitude of
potential health impacts of the proposed new standards, it seems far
more reasonable for EPA to initiate additional data collection and
analysis activities on the health effects poten-
tially associated with various PM fractions rather than rush to
promulgate and implement new standards that could well make things
worse rather than better.
That completes my oral testimony. Thank you for your attention. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Appendix A
Thomas B. Starr trained in theoretical physics at Hamilton College
and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, receiving his Ph.D. in 1971.
Following National Science Foundation postdoctoral and faculty
appointments in the Institute for Environmental Studies at Wisconsin,
he joined the staff of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology in
1981, first as a senior scientist in the Department of Epidemiology,
and then in 1987 as Director of CIIT's Program on Risk Assessment. In
1989, he joined ENVIRON International Corporation as a principal in the
Health Sciences Division. His research interests have focused on means
for explicitly incorporating knowledge of toxic mechanisms into the
quantitative risk assessment process, and improving epidemiologic
methods for assessing effects of chemical exposure on worker health. He
has published over 80 scientific papers and abstracts, and given
hundreds of scientific presentations.
Dr. Starr holds an adjunct faculty appointment in the Department of
Environmental Sciences and Engineering in the School of Public Health
at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He has been appointed
to numerous advisory posts, including the Halogenated Organics
Subcommittee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science
Advisory Board, the North Carolina Academy of Sciences Air Toxics
Panel, and the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission Ad
Hoc Committee for Air Toxics. Currently, he serves on the Methylene
Chloride Risk Characterization Science Committee, and the Secretary's
Scientific Advisory Board on Toxic Air Pollutants for the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources. He
has testified before OSHA, EPA, and other regulatory agencies regarding
human health risks posed by various chemical exposures, including those
to 1,3-butadiene, cadmium, dioxin-like compounds, formaldehyde, lead,
methylene chloride, and environmental tobacco smoke. He is also active
in professional societies, including the American Statistical
Association, the Society for Epidemiological Research, the Society for
Risk Analysis, and the Society of Toxicology. In 1988-89 he served as
the first President of the newly formed SOT Specialty Section on Risk
Assessment, and in 1989-90 as President of the Research Triangle
Chapter of the Society for Risk Analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.104
Prepared Statement of Susan E. Dudley, Vice President and Director of
Environmental Analysis, Economics Incorporated
Good Morning. My name is Susan E. Dudley. I am Vice President and
Director of Environmental Analysis at Economists Incorporated, a
consulting firm in Washington, DC. I am pleased and honored to be here
before you today to discuss the risk assessment underlying the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone.
My understanding of the health and welfare risks of the proposed
ozone NAAQS is based on an analysis of the proposed rule and its
accompanying regulatory impact analysis (RIA) that I conducted for the
Regulatory Analysis Program (RAP), a research and educational program
at the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University.
RAP is dedicated to advancing knowledge of regulations and their
impact. As part of its mission, the program produces careful and
independent analysis of agency rulemaking proposals from the
perspective of the public interest. I am grateful to Dr. Wendy Lee
Gramm, the director of RAP, for her intellectual and financial support
in the preparation of the comments submitted to EPA. RAP's comments on
the proposed ozone NAAQS, and its accompanying comments on the
particulate matter NAAQS \1\ are available on Economist Incorporated's
web site: http://www.ei.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas D. Hopkins, Ph.D, Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of
Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology prepared RAP's comments on
the PM NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This morning, I would like to highlight some of our most important
concerns with the risk assessment underlying EPA's ozone proposal.
1. There is little scientific basis for the selection of the standard
EPA recognizes that the selection of the standard was a policy
decision, rather than a scientific decision. EPA's science panel did
not find the proposed standard to be significantly more protective of
public health than the current standard, and most members who expressed
an opinion preferred a level less stringent than that which EPA has
proposed.
2. EPA's preamble and RIA suggest that the health and welfare benefits
expected from implementation of the proposal are small and
highly uncertain
The effects of ozone on the general population appear to be
transient, reversible, and generally asymptomatic. Even for the
population at the greatest risk, those with pre-existing respiratory
conditions, the expected impact of the proposed change in ozone levels
is small. With full implementation of the rule, EPA predicts a 0.6
percent decrease in hospital respiratory admissions for asthmatics.
Furthermore, EPA's evidence from chronic animal studies suggests that
long-term exposure to ozone does not affect lung function.
3. As a result of EPA's narrow interpretation of its mandate to protect
public health, this proposal may actually harm public health
and welfare
EPA appears to focus on the impact of ozone on at-risk populations,
particularly children with existing respiratory conditions such as
asthma. While asthma is a disturbing health problem, particularly since
(a) reported cases have been increasing in recent years (45 percent in
the last decade), (b) one-third of its victims are children, and (c) it
is most severe among the urban poor, this trend cannot be explained by
ozone levels; air quality has been improving over the last decade and
ozone levels in particular declined 6 percent between 1986 and 1995.\2\
Recently, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
funded a study that revealed that ``the leading cause of asthma by far
was . . . proteins in the droppings and carcasses of the German
cockroach.'' \3\ The American Thoracic Society concluded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USEPA, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1995.
\3\ Chemically Speaking, July 1996.
Poverty may be the No. 1 risk factor for asthma. . . . As
with many of the health problems facing society today,
education and prevention are the keys to controlling asthma in
the inner city.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Thoracic Society, 1996 Conference Articles.
Thus, even if asthma were the only public health issue of concern,
the proposal may have a perverse effect on health. The potential impact
on those afflicted with the disease is very small, and the costs of the
rule will drain society's resources from more effective remedies.
Perhaps even more disturbing is EPA's analysis (not presented as
part of this rulemaking) that suggests that the proposed standard would
increase health and welfare risks from ultra-violet radiation. Ground-
level ozone has the same beneficial screening effects on ultraviolet
radiation as stratospheric ozone. Based on EPA analysis used to support
earlier rulemakings to protect stratospheric ozone, it appears that the
proposed 10 ppb change in the ozone standard could result in 25 to 50
new melanoma-caused fatalities, 130 to 260 incidents of cutaneous
melanoma, 2,000 to 11,000 new cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer, and
13,000 to 28,000 new incidents of cataracts each year. These negative
health effects of the proposal could vastly outweigh the positive
health effects attributed to it in the RIA. By converting all health
effects into a dollar metric, we estimate that attainment of the
proposed standard could actually increase health risks by over $280
million per year.
When the costs of the proposal are considered, the negative impact
on public health is even more dramatic. If, as recent studies suggest,
poverty is a more important risk factor for asthma than air quality,
the rule may well increase the very disease it is purportedly targeted
at improving. Moreover, studies linking income and mortality suggest
that the cost of this proposal would, by lowering incomes alone, result
in an increase in 4,250 to 5,667 deaths per year.
executive summary
The Regulatory Analysis Program offers the following conclusions
and recommendations regarding EPA's proposed revision to the ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the accompanying
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
A. The proposal will not improve public health and welfare
EPA interprets the Clean Air Act to prohibit the consideration of
costs in setting NAAQS. Even if one were to accept EPA's interpretation
of its statute, EPA appears to have ignored important public health and
welfare considerations.
There is little scientific basis for the selection of the standard,
and the health and welfare benefits attributed to the proposal are
small and highly uncertain. Moreover, EPA has chosen not to consider
important risk information relevant to public health and welfare,
arguing that the statute only allows it to consider the negative
impacts of chemicals, not their positive impacts.
As a result, EPA's proposal may harm public health and welfare,
regardless of cost. For example, the potential for a change in the
ozone standard to increase people's exposure to ultraviolet radiation
raises serious questions about the net health and welfare effects of
this proposal. Taking into consideration the beneficial screening
effects of ozone on ultraviolet radiation, we estimate that the impact
of attaining the proposed standard would be to increase health risks by
over $280 million per year. This is particularly disturbing in light of
the enormous costs full attainment of this rule would impose on every
aspect of our lives.
When the costs of the proposal are considered, the negative impact
on public health is even more dramatic. If, as recent studies suggest,
poverty is a more important risk factor for asthma than air quality,
the rule may well increase the very disease it is purportedly targeted
at improving. Moreover, studies linking income and mortality suggest
that the cost of this proposal would, by lowering incomes alone, result
in an increase in 4,250 to 5,667 deaths per year.
EPA has a responsibility for setting NAAQS that protect public
health and welfare. To fulfill that responsibility it cannot ignore
important health and welfare effects which can be readily, and
reliably, quantified.
B. EPA's regulatory impact analysis does not provide an adequate basis
for making a sound policy judgment
According to EPA's own RIA, the costs of the proposal will exceed
the benefits. Furthermore, questionable assumptions and serious
omissions in the RIA lead to an understatement of costs. EPA admits
that ``aggregate total costs underestimate the true cost of each
alternative to such an extent that the metric's reliability must be
limited.'' EPA estimates the cost of only partially complying with the
current and proposed standards. EPA does not include the costs of
regional controls in its estimates of either the current or proposed
ozone NAAQS. EPA also assumes that areas that can achieve ozone
concentrations that are only 64 percent of the standard will incur no
costs. As a result of these deficiencies, our analysis suggests that
EPA's cost estimates reflect less than 5 percent of the true full costs
of attainment.
Modeling, exposure, and valuation constraints make EPA's benefit
estimates very uncertain. CASAC observed that due to the compounded
uncertainties in the approach to estimating welfare effects, ``small
differences in benefits may have no significance . . .'' EPA places its
best (i.e., most likely) estimate of the incremental health benefits of
the proposed standard is at the low end of its range, between $11
million and $108 million.
According to EPA, more than 98 percent of its total estimated
health benefits come from reduced mortality, not the other health
benefits EPA relies on to support its proposal. However, this estimate
of reduced fatalities is based on a single study that was not discussed
in the criteria document or staff paper, and thus not reviewed by EPA's
science advisory committee (CASAC).
C. The costs of the proposed standard are strikingly high
Even after imposition of all feasible control measures, EPA
anticipates a large degree of nonattainment. Without any change in the
current NAAQS, EPA estimates that between 39 million and 57 million
people will live in non-attainment areas for the foreseeable future.
EPA expects an additional 14 million to 32 million people would live in
non-attainment areas under the proposed revised standard.
EPA estimates that partial attainment of the standard will cost
billions of dollars each year and impose costs in excess of benefits on
Americans of between $1.1 billion and $6.2 billion each year. These net
costs are over and above EPA's estimates of the annual net costs of
partially complying with the existing standard, which are also
considerable--EPA estimates the costs of partially meeting the current
standard will exceed benefits by between $400 million and $2.2 billion
per year.
The full costs of meeting this standard would be orders of
magnitude higher than EPA's estimated costs of partial attainment. Our
analysis suggests that the full cost of attaining the current standard
will be between $22 billion and $53 billion per year. We estimate that
the proposed standards will impose additional costs in the range of $54
billion to $328 billion per year (1990 dollars).
D. Recommendations
Based on our review and analysis of EPA's proposal, we offer the
following recommendations.
1. EPA should not proceed with promulgation of the proposed
standard
In light of EPA's science panel's conclusion that the proposed
standard (level and number of exceedances) is not significantly more
protective of public health than the alternatives examined, and the
very real concern that implementation of this rule will actually harm
public health and welfare, EPA should not proceed with its
promulgation.
There may be adequate basis for changing the averaging time and
form of the standard. However, as EPA's own analysis suggests that the
current level of the standard already imposes social costs (both in
terms of health and welfare) that exceed its benefits, EPA should not
select a level and number of exceedances that is more stringent than
the current standard.
2. More effective alternatives are available for addressing
the potential ill effects of ozone
Non-regulatory approaches are available to achieve the public
health benefits targeted by this rule. As CASAC recommended in its
November 30, 1995 closure letter on the primary standard, public health
advisories and other targeted approaches may be an effective
alternative to standard setting.
Because there is no apparent threshold for responses and no
``bright line'' in the risk assessment, a number of panel
members recommended that an expanded air pollution warning
system be initiated so that sensitive individuals can take
appropriate ``exposure avoidance'' behavior. Since many areas
of the country already have an infrastructure in place to
designate ``ozone action days'' when voluntary emission
reduction measures are put in place, this idea may be fairly
easy to implement.
Furthermore, research and education are more likely to target what
some public health experts regard as a more important factor behind the
increasing incidence of asthma during a period in which ozone (and
other pollutants) are declining--poverty and poor living conditions.
i. introduction
Ozone is a gas that occurs naturally in the earth's troposphere and
stratosphere. It is also created when sunlight reacts with nitrogen
oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Tropospheric (ground-level) ozone is the primary constituent of urban
smog.
Ozone levels are heavily influenced from year to year by
meteorological conditions. EPA observes that the lowest national mean
level of ozone was recorded in 1992, and the highest in 1988. After
adjusting for meteorological effects, however, the year to year trend
shows a continued improvement in ozone concentrations of about 1
percent a year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. EPA National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report,
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone is associated with respiratory problems, particularly in
sensitive individuals. It is also credited with reducing the harmful
effects of ultraviolet rays. Because it ``may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health and welfare,'' ozone has been identified
under the Clean Air Act as a ``criteria pollutant'' The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must periodically review and, as
necessary, revise its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for criteria pollutants.
The CAA charges EPA with setting NAAQS that protect public health
and welfare. In these comments,\2\ we examine whether EPA's December
1996 proposed revision to the ozone NAAQS meets this mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These comments were prepared by Susan E. Dudley, Vice President
and Director of Environmental Analysis at Economists Incorporated with
support from the Regulatory Analysis Program at the Center for Study of
Public Choice at George Mason University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of our comments are organized as follows.
Section II--Review of EPA's Proposal
We review EPA's statutory obligations, its interpretation of those
obligations, and the factors EPA relied on in making its policy
judgment regarding the appropriate standard to protect public health
and welfare. This review suggests that because EPA bases its policy
judgment on a narrow set of criteria, the resulting rule is likely to
result in public health and welfare outcomes contrary to EPA's
expressed intent.
Section III--Review of EPA's Regulatory Analysis
EPA's own regulatory analysis, summarized in the first part of this
section, concludes that the costs of implementing the proposed standard
will exceed the benefits. In the second part of this section, we
identify major flaws in EPA's analysis and present revised estimates of
the benefits and costs of the proposal based on our own analysis.
Appendix A--Uncertainties in EPA's Analysis
Due to the considerable uncertainty in the science associated with
both ozone modeling and the health and welfare effects of different
ozone levels, EPA's analysis necessarily involves numerous assumptions.
This appendix reviews key uncertainties and assumptions.
Appendix B--Ozone's Impact on Ultraviolet Radiation
Ozone in the troposphere, like ozone in the stratosphere, has the
beneficial effect of screening ultraviolet radiation, which is known to
have various health and welfare effects including melanoma and non-
melanoma skin cancer, cataracts, and crop and fishery damage. This
appendix presents our analysis of the harmful public health and welfare
impact that would be caused by the reduction in tropospheric ozone if
this rule is implemented.
Appendix C--The Full Costs of Attainment
EPA's estimates reflect only the cost of partial attainment. In
this appendix, we present our analysis of the full costs based (1) on
assumptions EPA uses in its analysis, and (2) on our revisions to EPA's
estimates.
Appendix D--Control Measures to Achieve Partial Attainment
This appendix reproduces EPA's Table C-1 from Appendix C of its
Ozone NAAQS RIA. The table lists the control measures EPA expects to be
used to achieve partial compliance with the current and proposed
standards.
______
Prepared Statement of Carl M. Shy, Department of Epidemiology, School
of Public health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
subject: epa's proposed air quality standard for particulate matter
My name is Carl Shy. I was a member of the Panel on Particulate
Matter of EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC), and am
currently a professor of epidemiology in the University of North
Carolina School of Public Health. Over the past 2 years, I was an
invited participant and discussant in EPA's workshops on the health
effects of particulate matter, and, as a panel member of CASAC, a
reviewer of the various drafts of EPA's criteria document for
particulate matter and of the staff papers recommending an air quality
standard for particulates.
I make this statement to urge the members of the U.S. Senate to
support EPA's proposed revision of the air quality standard for
particulate matter, and more specifically to support the proposal to
establish a new standard for fine particulates, i.e., for particles
less than 2.5 micrometers diameter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>). I agree with
EPA's proposal that the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard be established at a
concentration of 15 micrograms per meter cubed, annual average.
I suggest that there are three compelling reasons for EPA to
establish the air quality standard for PM<INF>2.5</INF> as proposed:
(1) There is ample evidence that there is a causal relationship
between population exposure to fine particulates, at concentrations now
existing in the air environment of many cities in the U.S., and excess
mortality, hospital admissions, respiratory symptoms in adults and
children, and decreases in lung function of children. I will expand on
my reasons for stating that the evidence for a causal relationship is
compelling.
(2) Accepting the causal relationship between air particulates and
excess mortality and morbidity in the population, the health burden of
exposure to ambient air particulates at current levels in the U.S. is
unacceptable, consisting of thousands of excess deaths, hospital
admissions and respiratory disease episodes. This large health burden
can be addressed by a concerted program to lower the concentration of
ambient air particulates in those cities that exceed the proposed
annual standard for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. This is an achievable goal, one
that will have a major health benefit for a majority of the U.S.
population.
(3) The Clean Air Act of 1970, amended several times, requires the
Administrator of EPA to establish national ambient air quality
standards at a level that avoids unacceptable risks and protects public
health with a margin of safety. The PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard proposed
by EPA, of 15 micrograms per cubic meter annual average, provides a
minimally acceptable margin of safety against the mortality and
morbidity risks noted above. A number of well conducted epidemiologic
studies demonstrate an increase in mortality and morbidity when
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations begin to exceed the proposed standard
of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. In some cases, this excess mortality
and morbidity is observed even when PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations
reach 16 micrograms per cubic meter, a level that is less than 10
percent above the proposed standard. In the future, we may well find
that the 15 microgram per cubic meter standard is not adequate to
protect public health, but the proposed standard will at least move our
country in the right direction of greatly minimizing the currently
unacceptable health burden.
Since the issue of the causal relationship between air particulates
and mortality/morbidity of the population is crucial to the three
points I am presenting in this statement, I would like to expand on my
reasons for asserting that the causal relationship has been established
to a degree sufficient to require EPA to propose the new standard for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The criteria for causality I will briefly discuss are
the same at those used by the Surgeon General of the U.S. in the 1965
report on the adverse health effects of cigarette smoking. These
criteria are widely accepted in the scientific community as reasonable
guidelines for assessing causality in the matter of disease risks to
populations. These criteria are:
Consistency: Many studies, numbering more than 30, have observed a
significant and meaningful relationship between population exposure to
air particulates and excess mortality and morbidity (the latter being
increased hospital admissions, increased respiratory symptoms, and
decrease lung function in children). Many of these studies have been
carefully scrutinized for potential sources of error, for confounding
by weather factors and season of year, for limitations in statistical
methods, and for inadequacies of measurement methods. None of these
potential problems were found to diminish the consistently observed
relationships between adverse health effects and particulate exposures.
EPA's Criteria Document for Particulate Matter, which the CASAC
carefully reviewed and approved, provides extensive discussion of these
issues and reaches the conclusion that the evidence is fully compatible
with a causal interpretation. In comparison with the 1987 major
revision of the air quality standard for particulates, when a
PM<INF>10</INF> standard was established, we now have a much larger
body of evidence regarding adverse health effects of particulate air
pollution.
Coherence: Among the more than 30 studies mentioned above, the same
types of adverse health effects have been consistently observed. That
is, the primary causes of excess deaths in mortality studies are deaths
from heart and from lung diseases, and the primary causes of
hospitalizations in morbidity studies are from diseases of the heart
and lung. Other causes of death and hospital admissions do not show a
consistent association with levels of air particulates. This agreement
between the different types of studies strongly suggests a causal
relationship, since the same disease endpoints are so consistently
found when there is a common causal agent.
Exposure-Response Gradient: As levels of air particulates
increased, there was a proportional increase in mortality or in
morbidity in the above studies. The importance of finding an exposure-
response gradient is that it becomes less and less likely that risk
factors other than air pollution could explain the disease gradients.
To do so, these other risk factors would also have to increase in
nearly perfect step with changes in air quality, and there is no
evidence that such risk factors exist, in spite of considerable effort
to find them.
Cause Precedes Effect: The excess in mortality and morbidity
consistently occurs either on the day of the elevated air particulate
concentration or 1 to 2 days after the elevated concentration occurs.
There is no evidence that excess mortality and morbidity precedes days
with higher air particulates.
Strength of the Association: The relative increase in total
mortality and morbidity associated with a 50 percent increase in air
particulates is not large, being on the order of 5 to 10 percent above
the mortality or morbidity observed on days with the lowest
concentrations. From this point of view, the association between air
particulates and mortality and morbidity is not nearly as strong as it
is for tobacco smoking, excess alcohol consumption, or high fat diets.
But, because a majority of the population is exposed on many days to
air particulate concentrations above the proposed standard, the
population burden of air particulate exposures is indeed large, with
deaths and hospitalizations numbering in the several thousands during
the course of 1 year. (Estimates range from 10,000 to 60,000 excess
deaths alone, associated with days of higher air particulate levels in
the U.S.)
Biological Plausibility: This criterion is satisfied when there is
experimental evidence that air particulates can cause the type of human
health responses that would lead to excess mortality and morbidity. We
do not have firm evidence to satisfy this criterion, in part because,
when animals or humans were experimentally exposed to particulates, the
experimenters were unable to reproduce in the laboratory the complex
mixture of particulates in the ambient atmosphere. Recently, these
complex mixtures have been introduced into experimental studies, and
the researchers report that they found physiological changes in the
exposed animals that may indeed be precursors of mortality and
morbidity. Furthermore, there is ample evidence from older studies that
air pollution at considerably higher levels than now exist were
causally related to excess mortality and morbidity in humans. Thus it
is entirely reasonable that similar effects, but at lesser magnitude,
are occurring at current elevated concentrations.
Specificity: This criterion requires that there be a unique
relationship between exposure to the risk factor and the disease caused
by this exposure, e.g., the nearly unique relationship that exists
between asbestos exposure and mesothioloma of the lung. Very few causes
of human disease manifest this unique relationship. Thus cigarettes
cause lung cancer, but so do a number of chemicals that exist in the
occupational environment. A lack of specificity does not argue against
causality, nor does a lack of any one of the causal criteria negate the
argument for causality, since each of these criteria are meant to serve
as guidelines in making a judgment about a possible causal
relationship.
Confounding by Other Air Pollutants: This is not one of the
criteria addressed in the Surgeon General's report on cigarette
smoking, but it is an issue frequently discussed at scientific meetings
on the health effects of air pollution, and it was discussed in some
depth at the CASAC meetings. The concern boils down to the question:
can we conclude that fine particulates, as indexed by PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
are the causal agent responsible for the consistently observed excesses
of mortality and morbidity? In my opinion, and in the opinion of other
epidemiologists who are closely involved with research on the health
effects of air pollution, the answer is, yes, it is reasonable to
conclude that fine particulates, rather than any other regularly
measured air pollutant, is our best measure of the causal agent. No
other known air pollutant so consistently demonstrates an exposure-
response relationship with mortality and morbidity across the many
different studies reported in the literature. Although there are cities
in which gaseous air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and ozone, are
sometimes highly correlated with fine particle concentrations (and thus
prevent drawing conclusions as to the most likely causal component in
the air pollution mixture), there are enough studies in which the other
pollutants were either present in such low concentrations that adverse
health effects from these levels would be unlikely, or there were
studies in which the correlation between particles and other air
pollutants was sufficiently small to enable the investigators to
distinguish between the effects of the different pollutants. Moreover,
there is sound biological evidence that fine and ultrafine particles
penetrate deeply into the lung and produce an inflammatory response,
whereas gaseous air pollutants do not reach the lower portions of the
lung except by becoming attached to fine particles.
There are many hazardous agents, often consisting of a complex of
chemicals that cause significant human health risks, for which we do
not know the precise causal component, but which we clearly know is
part of the causal chain leading to harm. Several prominent examples of
this can be cited, such as cigarette smoke and high fat diets. There
are more than 200 chemicals in cigarette smoke, a number of which may
cause lung cancer, chronic lung disease, and heart disease, but we do
not know precisely which of these chemicals are actually the causal
agent for these consequences. The relationship between fine
particulates and excess mortality/morbidity is analogous to the
smoking-health effects association. Fine particulates are the best
single indicator of that component of the air pollution mixture
consistently associated with excess mortality and morbidity. From this
point of view, fine particulates are the causal agent, in the sense
that they are a very useful and predictable marker for the complex of
chemical and physical factors that are causing the unacceptable health
consequences, just cigarettes are the causal agent for smoking-related
deaths and disease. No other component of the air pollution mix is
compatible with the diversity of findings on excess mortality and
morbidity reported in the above studies.
For all of the above reasons, EPA has made the argument that a
causal interpretation for fine particulates is a reasonable one. If we
fail to take action on reducing population exposure to fine
particulates, as proposed by EPA, we run the significant risk of
continuing to allow thousands of excess deaths and diseases, with all
of the associated societal costs, that could otherwise be prevented. It
is not reasonable to wait until advances are made in scientific
knowledge to prove conclusively that fine particulates are or are not
the specific causal agent. We have sufficient evidence that fine
particulate are a part of the causal chain, and that reduction in fine
particulate levels is an efficient strategy to interrupt this chain.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.112
Responses by Morton Lippmann to Questions from Senator Lieberman
Question 1. Some have contended that the effects of ozone are not
that serious and that a temporary loss in lung function of 20 to 30
percent is not really a health effect. Do you think this is true? How
serious is a loss of 20 to 30 percent of lung function in asthmatics
and other sensitive populations--the groups the Clean Air Act is
intended to protect?
Response. Many of the effects of ozone are quite serious. On page 5
of my prepared remarks, I showed the pyramid of effects attributed to
ozone in New York City. These range from the most serious, i.e.,
premature mortality, and hospital admissions for asthma and for other
respiratory diseases. Somewhat less serious, but more prevalent effects
include the asthma attacks and restricted activity days. Less serious
effects include symptoms and modest changes in lung function (<20%) in
healthy individuals. The diagram of effects did not include the
respiratory function responses, which vary in seriousness between
healthy individuals and those with chronic lung disease. In an
individual with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a 20%
decline in lung function can be quite serious, and lead directly to the
need for increased medication usage, physician or clinic visits, and/or
restricted activities.
Question 2. An issue associated with the ozone standard is who
responds and how much. Dr. Chilton used a figure (from p. 31--Ozone
Staff Paper) in his testimony that shows relatively small lung function
declines for varying ozone and exercise levels. Is this the most
appropriate way to illustrate the typical distribution of lung function
declines in ozone chamber studies?
Response. The figure illustrating declines in lung function in
relation to ozone concentration and level of exercise does not
represent several important aspects of our current knowledge. First, it
is based on two-hour exposures, and therefore does not depict what
happens during the chamber exposures lasting 6.6 hours. The great
increase in average response during successive hours is illustrated on
p. 32. Second, it only shows the average response. It is well known
that some individuals have essentially no response, while a significant
portion of the population have much greater than average responses.
These people must breathe the ambient air and need to be protected.
Question 3. One of Ms. Dudley's arguments for not setting a tougher
ozone standard is that while air pollution is dropping, the incidence
of respiratory disease is increasing. If this is true, the argument
might be, then air pollution is not causing respiratory disease. What
is your response to this?
Response. The incidence of asthma has indeed been rising. There is
one recent report (Abbey, D.E. Presentation at 1997 Annual Conference
of the Health Effects Institute) that indicates asthma incidence among
Seventh Day Adventists in California was significantly associated with
ozone. However, even if ozone was not associated with asthma incidence
(new cases), it is well known that ozone is highly correlated with the
frequency of asthma exacerbations. Thus, more asthma prevalence (from
whatever causes) leads to more ozone exacerbations.
Question 4. I think you've been clear in your testimony before this
Committee that you believe the Administrator made a prudent public
health decision with respect to both the particulate matter and ozone
standards. I also think you have been clear that you do not support
substituting a research program for the proposed particulate matter
standard. Is this correct?
Response. Yes. I see no good reason to delay the promulgation of
the ozone and fine particle standards proposed by the EPA Administrator
in November 1996. It is true that currently mandated reductions in
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and hydrocarbons will bring down ozone
and fine particle concentrations in future years, but are not likely to
be optimally targeted to meet health protection goals based on 8 hr
ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> targets. It is only by having better targets
that our health protection goals can be efficiently structured. At the
same time, a minimum of $50 x 10<SUP>6</SUP> per year for targeted
NAAQS research represents a wise investment decision for the creation
of a much firmer data base for the difficult NAAQS decisions that will
be needed early in the next decade.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.138
Prepared Statement of Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to discuss the implementation efforts associated with the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed revisions to the
national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter and
ozone.
For 26 years, the Clean Air Act has promised American adults and
American children that they will be protected from the harmful effects
of dirty air--based on best available science. Thus far, when you
consider how the country has grown since the Act was first passed, it
has been a tremendous success. Since 1970, while the U.S. population is
up 28 percent, vehicle miles traveled are up 116 percent and the gross
domestic product has expanded by 99 percent, emissions of the six major
pollutants or their precursors have dropped by 29 percent.
The Clinton Administration views protecting public health and the
environment as one of its highest priorities. We have prided ourselves
on protecting the most vulnerable among us--especially our children--
from the harmful effects of pollution. When it comes to the Clean Air
Act, we take very seriously the responsibility the Congress gave us to
set air quality standards that ``protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety''--based on the best science available.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA every 5 years to review national
ambient air quality standards and, if necessary, revise them to reflect
the best available science. This standard-setting process includes
extensive scientific peer review from experts outside of EPA and the
Federal Government. After 3\1/2\ years of scientific peer review and
public involvement, based on our reading of the best available science,
the Administrator has proposed new standards for particulate matter and
ozone that we believe are required to protect the health of the
American people.
As you know, at this point we have only proposed revisions to the
standards for these two pollutants. We take very seriously our
obligation to carefully consider all public comments on these proposals
before making a final decision. We have heard from small businesses,
industry, State and local governments, Federal agencies, and other
citizens like the elderly, children, doctors and people with asthma.
While we have proposed specific levels for each pollutant, we have also
asked for comment on a wide range of alternative options. We do not
intend to make a final decision until we have carefully considered
comments on all of those alternative options.
Throughout the history of the Clean Air Act, national ambient air
quality standards have been established based on an assessment of the
science concerning the effects of air pollution on public health and
welfare. Costs of meeting the standards and related factors have never
been considered in setting the national ambient air quality standards
themselves. This has been the case through six Presidential
administrations and 14 Congresses, and has been reviewed by the courts.
We believe this approach is appropriate.
In choosing proposed levels for the ozone and particulate matter
standards, EPA's focus has been entirely on health, risk, exposure and
damage to the environment. Sensitive populations like children, the
elderly and asthmatics deserve to be protected from the harmful effects
of air pollution. And the American public deserves to know whether the
air in its cities and counties is safe or not; that question should
never be confused with the separate issues of how long it may take or
how much it may cost to reduce pollution to safe levels. Indeed, to
allow costs and related factors to influence the determination of what
levels protect public health would be to mislead the American public in
a very fundamental way.
However, once we revise any air quality standard, it is both
appropriate and, indeed, critical that we work with States, local
governments, industry, Federal agencies, and others to develop the most
cost-effective, common-sense strategies and programs possible to meet
those new health standards. Under the Clean Air Act, States have
primary responsibility for devising and enforcing implementation plans
to meet the national air quality standards. We are determined to work
with States and others to ensure a smooth transition from efforts to
implement the current standards with efforts to implement any new
standards. And we have been actively working to do just that.
By 1995 it became apparent from the emerging body of science that
we may have to propose revisions to one or both of the ozone or
particulate matter national ambient air quality standards, as well as
fulfill our obligations on developing a regional haze program. At that
time we determined that the best way to meet the goal of developing
common-sense implementation strategies was to bring in experts from
around the Nation to provide us their advice and insights. As a result,
we used the Federal Advisory Committee Act to establish a Subcommittee
for Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation
Programs. John Seitz, Director of my Of-
fice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, co-chairs that
Subcommittee, along with Alan Krupnick from Resources for the Future,
Inc. The Subcommittee is composed of about 75 representatives from
State and local government, industry, small business, environmental
groups, other Federal agencies and other groups. It also includes five
working groups comprised of another 100 or so members of these same
kinds of organizations.
The Subcommittee and the various workgroups have been meeting
regularly for over 18 months to hammer out strategies for EPA and the
States to consider in implementing any revised standards. Members from
industry, State governments and others are putting forward position
papers advocating innovative ways to meet air quality standards. It is
our belief that results from this Subcommittee process are leading to
innovative approaches for implementing any new standards. The
Subcommittee will continue to meet over the next year to help develop
cost-effective, common-sense implementation programs.
The questions being addressed by the Subcommittee include:
<bullet> What will be the new deadlines for meeting any new
standards? [If EPA tightens a standard, it has the authority to
establish deadlines of up to 10 years--with the possibility of two
additional 1-year extensions--beyond the date an area is designated
``nonattainment.'']
<bullet> What will be the size of the area considered
``nonattainment''? [If it revises an air quality standard, EPA has the
ability to establish the size of the affected nonattainment areas and
focus control efforts on those areas that are causing the pollution
problems, not just the downwind areas that are monitoring unhealthy
air.]
<bullet> How do we address the problem of the pollutants that form
ozone and/or fine particles being transported hundreds of miles and
contributing to nonattainment problems in downwind areas?
<bullet> What kinds of control strategies are appropriate for
various nonattainment areas? Can we use the experience of the past
several years to help States target those control strategies that are
the most cost-effective?
<bullet> How can we promote innovative, market-based air pollution
control strategies?
The implementation of revised standards is likely to focus on
sources like cars, trucks, buses, power plants and cleaner fuels. In
some areas, as with the current standards, our analysis shows that
reaching the standards will present substantial challenges. All of the
air pollution control programs we are pursuing to meet the current
ozone and particulate matter standards, as well as certain programs to
implement other sections of the Clean Air Act, will help meet any
revised standards. For example, the sulfur dioxide reductions achieved
by the acid rain program will greatly reduce levels of fine particles,
particularly in the eastern United States. Cleaner technology in power
plants would greatly reduce the nitrogen oxides that help form ozone
across the eastern United States.
In announcing the proposed ozone and particulate matter standards
last November, we initiated steps to obtain even broader views from
stakeholders on implementation strategies. We expanded the membership
of the Federal Advisory Subcommittee to include more representation
from small business and local governments. Also, in conjunction with
the Small Business Administration and the Office of Management and
Budget, we are holding meetings with representatives of small
businesses and local governments to obtain their input and views on how
best to implement our proposed standards.
We intend to announce our proposals on implementation of the
proposed new standards in phases that correspond to the Subcommittee's
schedule for deliberating on various aspects of the program. The
Administrator has stated her intention to propose the first phase of
the implementation program at the same time that we announce our final
decision on revisions to the ozone and particulate matter standards.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my written statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
______
Prepared Statement of Benjamin Y. Cooper, Senior Vice president,
Printing Industries of America
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Clean Air,
Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to testify on the proposed revision of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter. My name
is Benjamin Y. Cooper. I am senior vice president for the Printing
Industries of America. I appear before you today in behalf of PIA and
the Small Business Legislative Council. The Printing Industries of
America is the nation's largest graphic arts association with more than
14,000 members. The Small Business Legislative Council is a permanent
coalition of nearly 100 trade associations. This year, I have the
privilege to serve as chairman of SBLC.
The Printing Industries of America and I as the industry's
representative have extensive experience working with the Environmental
Protection Agency and State government on environmental matters. I have
served as a member of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee since it
was formed following the passage of the 1990 Amendments to the Act. I
subsequently was appointed to the subcommittee charged with advising
EPA on the implementation of the new standards. I have also been
appointed to the Small Entity Caucus and the Small Entity Review Team
at EPA to provide information on the impact of the implementation of
the standards on small business. Further, the industry is one of EPA's
Common Sense Initiative sectors and a partner in the Design for the
Environment project. Finally, we have been involved for nearly 4 years
with the Council of Great Lakes Governors and the Environmental Defense
Fund in the Great Printers Project, a major pollution prevention
project for our industry. The EPA has been a strong supporter of this
project.
In addition to these specific projects, PIA along with the National
Federation of Independent Business and the American Furniture
Manufacturers' Association lobbied successfully for the passage of the
Small Business Technical Assistance Amendment to the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments. This program known as the ``507'' program after the section
of the Act has been enormously successful despite underfunding and has
become a model for small business programs in other environmental
legislation.
My purpose in outlining these activities is to establish the fact
that we are an industry which is working to support positive
environmental actions. We are not alone. Many small business groups are
working on similar projects. As you know, small business is uniquely
tied to its community A good, sustainable environmental policy is
critical to the future of these businesses.
I want to address several issues connected to the NAAQS proposal,
but I want to say at the outset that EPA and the Administrator have
done a great deal to open communication with small business and to
explore opportunities for alternative paths to compliance. While EPA's
work with small business continues to have room for improvement, it is
our opinion that EPA does more than any Federal agency in seeking the
cooperation of small business. We meet regularly with senior officials
at EPA on a variety of topics including regular meetings with Deputy
Administrator Fred Hansen. Further, the EPA Small Business Ombudsman
continues to provide a level of service to which all agencies should
aspire. Now I wish to highlight our concerns with the proposed
standards and their implementation plans:
the standard is not necessary
We understand the Clean Air Act's requirements for a review of the
scientific and health data and the need to make changes in the NAAQS
when the data suggests a need to do so. What we do not understand is
how a change can be suggested when the air is steadily improving and
when the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act have not yet been fully
implemented. In fact, significant portions of the Act have not been
implemented. It would have been a genuine surprise if the health and
science advisors to EPA had come back with a conclusion that there is
no relationship between air pollutants and health. It is also an
obvious conclusion to suggest that the cleaner the air the less adverse
affect on health. It is quite a leap in logic to say that because of
these conclusions, the entire nation has to undergo an extremely
expensive regulatory adventure which may or may not achieve the desired
results.
There is an assumption that the Federal Government must set a
standard for the nation--including its States and localities and its
businesses or progress will stop. In fact, State, localities, small
printing company owners and other small businesses believe we have as
much as, if not a greater, stake in a clean environment than the
Administrator. Printers work with State officials on a regular basis to
develop programs to improve compliance where it is required or
voluntary reductions of emissions where compliance is not required. The
printing industry has cooperative projects in Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio and Texas. Other
States are examining similar opportunities. In virtually all of these
instances, the vast majority of the companies participating in the
programs are too small to be considered major sources under the current
Clean Air Act or under State programs. Instead, these companies are
seeking ways to reduce emissions of all types as good management
practice. These are all actions which have been generated at the State
level in full cooperation with the businesses in the States. In fact,
with the exception of very large companies in our industry, regula-
tion of printing companies is done at the State level. Our members
would argue that the States are doing their job aggressively.
epa's data base is flawed
EPA has based much of its activities to date and predicates future
activities on an assessment of the emissions from various industries.
For example, EPA estimates the volatile organic compounds released by
the printing industry is approximately 101,000 tons, making printing
the fifth largest source of VOC's among stationery sources. This data
may be correct but neither we nor they could verify it. Their
information is taken from models based on permits supplemented with
other types of industry information; however, permits are not accurate.
It is instructive to understand the real world of permits to understand
this point.
Permits are not issued based on what a company does but on what a
company is capable of doing or what it might do under certain
circumstances. Further, if the company hopes to get more business, it
has to buy a bigger permit than it may currently need to accommodate
the growth.
One of the most contentious issues emerging from the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 was that emissions are based not on actual emissions
but the potential to emit. To date, PTE as it is known has been
calculated in most parts of the country as operating 24 hours per day
throughout the year at full capacity. Clearly no one does this.
Printing company owners probably dream of being able to use their
equipment to full capacity. PTE can be modified if a company can prove
through emission monitoring that their actual emissions are lower.
Unfortunately, small business has difficulty coming up with such proof
since monitoring emissions is very costly.
The EPA is currently in the process of revising its rules on PTE
and we believe the revisions will be satisfactory. However, the current
figures issued by EPA are based on existing calculations. It is
entirely possible that if EPA had the resources to study the emissions
from the printing industry, they would find that we do not have the
amount of emissions they project. In addition, in the printing
industry, three types of sources are subject to Federal controls-
gravure, flexographic and large heatset web printing companies. The
rest of the industry has an altogether different emission profile from
these companies; therefore, conclusions drawn from one of the three
printing processes with Federal standards do not apply to the rest of
the industry. It is our understanding that other small business
industries have similar problems.
epa does not have adequate guidance for the states
One of the long-standing issues between the printing industry and
EPA has been the development and publication of control techniques
guidelines (CTG). Twice in the past 17 years, EPA has begun a CTG
project for the industry and twice has abandoned the project. In the
first case, EPA completed a significant portion of the CTG, but stopped
the project when industry objections to their conclusions reached a
critical stage. Nevertheless, the draft-with its flaws-was released to
the States.
That draft CTG in the early 1980's created significant problems for
us since States were regulating based on faulty conclusions. In the
1990 Amendments, EPA was required to complete work on 12 CTG's. We were
to have been one of these CTGs. However, despite completing most of the
work, the document was never completed. EPA made available an
Alternative Control Techniques document. Unfortunately, failure to
complete the CTG left the industry without the kind of uniform guidance
which would have resolved many difficulties at the State and local
level. Issuance of a CTG by EPA means that the guidance described is
used by the States whereas an ATC merely provides examples of
processes.
We are attempting to get this project back on track at EPA since
consistent guidance would reduce regulatory costs for us and
enforcement costs for the States and EPA. We have had recent meetings
with EPA officials and we believe this matter may be finally be
resolved.
One of the major problems faced by EPA is having to make technical
decision regarding U.S. industry. These industries are complex and must
be thoroughly understood in order to issue good regulations. This is a
time consuming and costly process but absent the process, industries
such as printing are faced with regulations that do not make sense and
do not improve air quality. EPA's problems are magnified when the
industry is predominantly small businesses such as printing. It is
clear that the agency should devote more of its resources to this level
of activity well in advance of enforcement activities.
small business will be hardest hit by the new standards
We have heard that EPA plans to target certain industrial segments
under the new NAAQS. Further, we have been lead to believe that if the
emissions can be achieved from these sources, it will not be necessary
to go after small sources. Unfortunately, life in the environmental
regulation community does not work that way.
EPA rarely regulates small business directly. Small business is
subject to regulations by States and regions under State implementation
plans or SIPS. These SIPS lay out the plan for reducing emissions
through an area. Establishment of a SIP is often a political fight.
Small business falls into the category known as area sources.
Typically, a State must reduce a target amount from such area sources.
This is often done by a percentage basis-telling all companies of a
certain size to reduce by a specific percentages on an industry basis-
lowering the level at which companies in an industry must be permitted.
At that point, the agency often issues control requirements known as
Reasonably Available Control Technology. If the technology requirement
is inappropriate, the industry in faced with a fight to change the
proposal. This is done on an area by area basis. Emission reductions on
area sources is a regulatory version of carpet bombing.
While the problems on large businesses are no less onerous, they
are generally armed with specialists to meet with the agency. Large
sources may even have an opportunity to negotiate timetables or control
strategies. Small business rarely has such help.
It is also rare that small companies have the resources to
implement the kind of controls required by the agency. Sometimes the
control are add-on devices which in our industry can cost millions of
dollars. Other times the requirements are ``process controls'' where
the printer has to change the chemistry of the printing process. Some
of these changes are practical; some are not. Government officials have
proposed total enclosure of printing presses as a control option
leaving the obvious difficulty of getting the press operator safely to
the press. We have had process controls recommended which compromise
the printing process itself. Often these controls are suggested in
advance of thorough review. Often industry protests are ignored until
substantial resources have been invested to produce counter arguments.
From a purely political standpoint, it is often easier for a State
agency to apply a general 10 percent emission reduction requirements on
a large group of area sources than to apply a costly engineering
control on one or a relative handful of very large sources. Often the
small sources do not know what has hit them until the process is over.
The development of the NAAQS standards is typical of what happens
to small business. Many in the small business segment were caught by
surprise at EPA's plans. While the printing industry has been
represented at many of the meetings, there was very little small
business representation until recently. It was only after the proposals
had been issued and a good portion of the work of the implementation
subcommittee had been finished that small business was invited to begin
meeting with EPA. Fortunately, it may not be too late for small
business to influence the process and EPA officials seem to be
genuinely interested in our views.
epa should provide a regulatory impact analysis
We have been in an ongoing discussion with EPA about whether or not
various laws apply to this proposed new standard and its
implementation. Candidly, for most of us in small business, we cannot
understand why an agency would not want to thoroughly gauge the impact
of a regulation on small business. We have never understood why any arm
of government would have to be forced by law to assess the harm that
may result from an agency action. In the case of the current proposal,
any delay or cost impact of the analysis would be more than offset by
the positive results of such analysis.
We recommend that EPA take this concept one step further by
aggressively seeking ways to limit the adverse affect of the proposals
on small business. Since the Act does not require EPA to include small
sources in the Federal program, it could use the implementation
strategy to develop clear alternative programs for small business.
the implementation proposal may be too confusing
EPA is reviewing various recommendations from the implementation
subcommittee of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee which would change
areas to which the new standards would be applied. These new areas
known as areas of influence and areas of violation would replace the
current designations for non-attainment. We would urge careful
consideration of the impact of these new areas on small busi-
ness. While the current regime may not provide the ideal framework for
dealing with every air emission problem, the business community-
including the small business community-understands attainment and non-
attainment. Whenever possible, we should avoid the implementation of
new terms of bureaucratic management such as AOV's, AOI's, RAMP'S and
RIP'S. These new terms would be in addition to SIPS.
we thought the age of command and control regulation was over
We keep hearing that the age of command and control regulation is
over and yet we keep getting new commands. As I outlined above, the
printing industry has involved itself in as many projects as EPA has
offered. We want to participate, learn and improve; however, if this
new standard goes into effect, I could not encourage our industry to
engage in similar projects in the future. What is the point of working
toward consensus on environmental issues when the final step in the
process is to raise the bar? An argument could be made that an industry
which waits for regulations rather than seek change may spend fewer
resources in the long run. It would be ironic if the proposal by
Administrator Browner had the effect of killing the projects which have
marked her service at EPA.
what do we recommend
1. We know that EPA must review the NAAQS periodically. If the
Administrator is convinced that this standard is necessary, it should
only be implemented when it is clear that the current standard is no
longer achieving the desired results. One way of approaching the new
proposal is to make it conditional subject to review after the full
implementation of the current Act.
2. At a minimum, a final decision on the proposed standard should
be delayed until a full inventory of current emissions from industry
has been developed and subjected to thorough review. Further, the
standard seems to need additional scientific and medical review.
Additional time would assure that such review can occur.
3. EPA should be specifically required to conduct a thorough
regulatory impact analysis. This standard has the potential to
permanently drive manufacturing away from significant portions of the
U.S. and make it virtually impossible for any inner city to attract
manufacturing jobs. We do not believe this should be a burden to the
agency but an opportunity.
4. EPA should be required to fully implement the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments before embarking on a new regulatory plan. An example of
this includes the 507 programs referenced above. While the full
implementation of these programs is required under the Act as a
condition of SIP approval, most States do not have adequate programs.
Many States are cutting back on such programs due to the pressure from
EPA for enforcement. Despite what we hear about the end of command and
control, it is command and control that gets the funds while help and
information get short-changed.
5. Finally, EPA has an unprecedented opportunity to practice what
it preaches. As we have said, there is nothing in the Act that requires
EPA to regulate small business. In fact, as we have stated, most of the
regulations on small business come at the State level under pressure
from EPA. EPA has the power to provide incentives to the States to deal
with small sources through technical and educational assistance. Under
such a plan, States could be given credits toward their SIPS equal to
the emissions contribution from area sources for properly implemented
technical assistance programs. The reality is that neither EPA nor the
States have the resources to follow through on command and control
activities. The agency may be amazed to find that if you provide
guidance and help, small companies may just do the right thing.
______
Prepared Statement of Pat Leyden, Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast
Air Quality Management District
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. It is a
pleasure to be here. My name is Pat Leyden and I am a Deputy Executive
Officer at the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern
California.
As the Senate considers the proposed new air pollution health
standards, a number of important implementation issues warrant
discussion. We need to understand:
<bullet> what types of sources are likely to be subject to
additional clean-up requirements:
<bullet> how much time will be allowed to achieve the standards;
and
<bullet> how can we accomplish our objectives with equity and at
the lowest possible cost.
I have had the honor of working for the District on air pollution
abatement for the last 8 years. I am responsible for rules, permits,
and enforcement for all of the stationary sources in our air basin.
Much progress has been made; but, we still have the worst air quality
in the Nation. Thus, my job involves a continuous effort to find the
least painful path to clean air.
Without apology--I can tell you that I have written and implemented
some of the toughest command-and-control air pollution regulations in
the world. But, I am also here to tell you that I think there is a
better way.
I'd like to take just a few moments and tell you about our success
with the use of market-based strategies, such as emissions trading
programs. In particular, I'll focus on our mass cap program, called
RECLAIM. Then, I'll close with a few comments on the potential use of
trading programs to achieve the proposed new health standards.
i. reclaim
RECLAIM is the nation's largest multi-industry emissions trading
program. RECLAIM stands for Regional Clean Air Incentives Market. Over
330 of our largest pollution sources have a mass emissions facility cap
that declines annually. The program covers facilities that emit four
tons or more a year of either Nitrogen Oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) or Sulfur
Oxide (SO<INF>X</INF>). The types of industries included are:
refineries, power plants, cement kilns, aerospace, food manufacturing,
textiles, metal melting, hotels, and even amusement parks. Facilities
under RECLAIM have the flexibility to choose the least expensive way to
reduce emissions. If they reduce more than required, they can sell
credits to other facilities. The program is mandatory and all
reductions will be accomplished by the year 2003. RECLAIM replaced 32
command-and-control rules. In both the NO<INF>X</INF> and
SO<INF>X</INF> markets, these facilities will cut their emissions by
almost two-thirds. (Note, the specific emissions reductions are: 73
percent for the NO<INF>X</INF> market and 63 percent for the
SO<INF>X</INF> market.)
This type of commitment to reducing pollution did not come from a
vacuum or simple good will. Dirty air, political resolve and the cost
of command-and-control rules created the momentum. For 2 years, over a
thousand individuals, companies, and organizations worked with the
District, the State, and EPA to forge the regulations. It goes without
saying that there were major battles along the way, over every detail
from starting allocations to emissions monitoring. In the end, EPA, the
Governor of California, and over 80 percent of the companies affected
urged the adoption of the regulation.
RECLAIM went into effect in January, 1994. After 3 years of
implementation, the success of the program has exceeded our initial
expectations. In brief, here is the report card.
<bullet> Actual emissions are a third lower than allocations.
(Note: Use of historic emissions allowed companies an allocation
slightly higher than actual emissions for the first 3 years. Some
groups were concerned that this would result in an increase in
pollution. This has not been the case.)
<bullet> Facility compliance is better than seen in many command
and control rules. Actual Emissions are reported daily from
computerized Continuous Emission Monitors for 85 percent of the market,
smaller sources use non-resettable fuel meters. Public knowledge of
total emissions is vastly superior to command-and-control. Compliance
at the end of the first year was 87 percent, and rose to 92 percent at
the end of the second year. Even higher compliance is anticipated at
the end of the third year.
<bullet> Trading of excess emissions to support increases in
production and plant modernization has exceeded expectations. To date,
more than $33 million have been traded. The cost per ton of each
pollutant is well below national averages for the cost of emissions
control. (Note: The price of NO<INF>X</INF>, for the year 2000 and
beyond ranges from $1,500 to $1,700/ton; for the same period the price
of SO<INF>X</INF> is $2,000/ton.)
<bullet> Job loss attributed to RECLAIM has been dramatically lower
than what was forecast for the command-and-control rules that it
replaced. (Note: The job loss for the command-and-control rules was
estimated at 2,013 jobs forgone annually. The RECLAIM job loss was less
than 4 percent of the forecast in the first year, and less than 2
percent in the second year.)
<bullet> Under RECLAIM, the cost of achieving emission reductions
has been cut almost in half. The final story on actual costs won't be
available until all emissions are reduced in the year 2003. However,
based on the first 3 years of reductions, it appears that the initial
estimate of an annual cost savings of 42 percent under-estimated
reality. (Note: the command-and-control cost was estimated at $139 m/yr,
compared to the RECLAIM estimated cost of $80 m/yr.)
RECLAIM works. It not only works for the companies now in the
program, it suggests that the power of emissions trading in the
marketplace should be used to lower the costs of compliance for other
companies as well. To this end, the District has adopted numerous rules
for voluntary excess credits to be produced from mobile and area
sources. These credits can currently be used by RECLAIM sources. The
District hopes to be able to broaden their use to other sources.
RECLAIM is a success story about reducing emissions from burning
fuel. As the Senate assesses the new air pollution health standards,
this consideration of what works is especially germane.
ii. the new standards and additional emission reductions
In many parts of the country, the new standard may require sources
to meet emission limits similar to those in place in California.
Control strategies will vary region by region, depending on the
composition of each area's emissions inventory, and the severity of the
non-attainment problem.
The District's initial analysis of the proposed new standards leads
to the conclusion that the driving force for additional emission
reductions will come from the 2.5 particulate standard. After 2 years
of inventory analysis, at a cost of $1.3 million, the South Coast Air
Basin has some of the best data in the Nation on what sources
contribute to the small particulate problem. Meeting the new standard
will require additional emission reductions from fuel combustion
sources. In our region, we estimate that an additional 35 percent
reduction may be required.
Our largest contributors are doing what is needed under RECLAIM.
Additional reductions will need to be considered from other sources.
High on the list of priorities will be diesel sources, including those
regulated at the Federal level. A few examples are: ships, trains,
planes, interstate trucks, and off-road construction and agricultural
equipment.
In addition, many small sources have protected status under the
Clean Air Act, even though their emissions can be lowered by today's
technology. Some examples include: refrigerators, stoves, and small
internal combustion engines. Although individually small, these sources
add up. It has been estimated that the emissions from small internal
combustion engines is today greater than the largest power plant in our
air basin.
Our RECLAIM experience illustrates that compliance costs can be
lowered when there are differential costs of control between sources in
a market. The classic advice of economists is true. The market does
incentivize the development and use of low-cost reductions. The
procedures to verify emissions from fuel burning are now well-
established for most types of sources. This allows emission credits to
be a blue chip investment in the marketplace.
iii. conclusions
Members of the Committee, I'll close with a few summary
observations.
First, the South Coast Air Quality Management District supports the
new standards. Our No. 1 request is for adequate time to achieve the
new target. We cannot be held to our current deadline of the year 2010.
Additional time will be needed.
Second, trading programs are important tools to be used in
implementing the proposed new standards. Trading programs are not a
magic, painless potion. There are significant costs to cleaning our
air. There will be hard tradeoffs as we push for cleaner fuels,
equipment, and products. Trading programs do not decrease government's
work in developing plans or rules, permitting sources, or assuring
compliance. But, they do give businesses much greater flexibility and
offer the promise of significantly lowering the price tag.
For RECLAIM to have been adopted, a strong political will to clean
up the air was required. For RECLAIM to be a success, a strong
partnership was needed with business and the environmental community.
The same will be true as the Senate considers the new standards.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak.
______
Responses by Pat Leyden to Questions from Senator Lieberman
Question 1. How has air quality in the SCAQMD improved since 1970?
Why do you think SCAQMD was able to make good progress in cleaning up
the air?
Response. Past air quality programs have resulted in dramatic
improvements in Basin air quality. In spite of the growth in population
and vehicle miles traveled, ozone levels have been reduced in half over
the past 30 years, sulfur dioxide and lead standards have been met, and
other pollutant concentrations have significantly declined. And, for
the first time in 1992, the Federal annual nitrogen dioxide standard
was not exceeded in the Basin. However, the Basin still experiences
exceedances of health-based standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter under ten microns (PM<INF>10</INF>).
These dramatic improvements in Basin air quality are the direct
result of a long-term comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from
stationary, mobile and area sources. This strategy included highly
innovative and often the Nation's most stringent pollution control
programs, such as conventional stationary source control programs, as
well as new market-based programs such as RECLAIM (REgional CLean Air
Incentives Market), mobile source tailpipe standards and reformulated
gasoline, and consumer product regulations.
Figures 1-1 through 1-4 demonstrate graphically the improvements in
air quality over the last two decades. Figure 1-1 demonstrates the
significant decrease in the number of days exceeding State and Federal
ozone standards, health advisory and episode levels for the years 1976-
1996, while Figure 1-2 demonstrates the significant reduction of the
maximum ozone concentrations recorded in the Basin for the years 1955-
1996. Figures 1-3 and 1-4 show the downward trend of the number of days
exceeding the Federal standards, and State standards, respectively, for
the years 1976-1996.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.140
Question 2. From your experience, has industry developed
new technologies that were not available at the time of
enactment of air quality standards? What do you think the
impact might have been if SCAQMD had waited before all
technologies were available to set the standard?
Response. This question can be answered by breaking it down
into four other easy questions. First, is today's technology
significantly cleaner than it was 27 years ago when the current
Federal air standards were first adopted? Yes. Every major
emissions category is both cleaner and more efficient. This is
true for mobile sources (cars, trucks, and buses), volatile
organic products (solvents, and coatings), and energy sources
(boilers, turbines, and engines). The attached charts show
advancements in these areas over the last 10 years or so.
Second, did the health standards create demand for cleaner
products? Yes. Over and over again the story has repeated
itself. The incentive to reduce emissions by reformulating
products and designing cleaner fuels and engines has
consistently been driven by the public demand for clean air.
Each step along this road was taken with intense debate over
cost, technology and timing.
Third, would today's clean air progress have been achieved
if the health standards had been based on current technology?
Hardly. In fact, mix 1970's technology with 1997's population,
and the South Coast Air Basin would have air pollution like
Mexico or Eastern Europe. The attached chart illustrates the
dramatic reduction in emissions seen in a number of basic
emission sources.
Fourth and final question; are significant technology
advances needed for most of the Nation to meet the proposed new
standards? No. Although there are real costs associated with
cleaner fuels and new equipment, most regions should be able to
achieve the standards with the steady step-by-step application
and advancement of known technology.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.143
Question 3. What type of integrated strategies for PM and
ozone has the AQMD developed?
Response. Historically, the AQMD has proposed a
comprehensive control plan to address all criteria pollutants.
Since the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and
throughout its successive revisions (including the recently
adopted 1997 AQMP), the AQMD has proposed an integrated
strategy to achieve the air quality standards for both
PM<INF>10</INF> and ozone (as well as the other criteria
pollutants). In designing a comprehensive plan to meet the
ozone and PM standards, all feasible and cost-effective control
measures are identified, with a focus on measures that reduce
precursors of both ozone and PM<INF>10</INF>. For example, in
determining the level of VOC vs. NO<INF>X</INF> controls for
ozone attainment demonstration, the contribution of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions to the formation of PM<INF>10</INF>
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the air basin plays a significant role
in determining the optimal level of NO<INF>X</INF> controls.
This integrated approach leads to the most cost-effective path
to clean air for all air quality standards. Control of other PM
and its precursors, such as oxides of sulfur, elemental carbon,
ammonia, and fugitive dust, are included in the overall control
strategy for all criteria pollutants in this region. Tables 7-3
and 7-6 from the 1997 AQMP (see attached) detail the integrated
control strategy by measure and targeted pollutant(s).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.149
Question 4. Does SCAQMD anticipate having to ban backyard
barbecues as part of implementing the new standards?
Response. There has never been any plan to ban backyard
barbecues. There was, however, a rule adopted 7 years ago that
required manufacturers of charcoal lighter fluid to reduce
volatile compound emissions by 70 percent. The myth about this
rule is almost humorous. All manufacturers had their products
reformulated and on the shelves for sale within just a few
months. There was never a pause in the joy of backyard
barbecuing, or any discernible difference in price or
performance. This rule was one of the easiest steps taken to
eliminate four tons of pollution from the air on a daily basis.
------
Prepared Statement of Beverly Hartsock, Deputy Director for Policy and
Regulatory Development, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Good morning, Chairman Inhofe and members of the Subcommittee on
Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety of the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. My name is Beverly Hartsock.
I serve as the head of the Office of Policy and Regulatory Development
of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). I am
pleased to be here today to address the issue of implementing the
proposed new national ambient air quality standards.
As you are probably aware, there have been a significant number of
concerns raised including some by former chairs of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) in their recent testimony before a congressional committee
questioning the scientific basis of EPA's proposed new air standards
for ozone and particulate matter. The lack of a clear scientific basis
for the levels and forms of these proposals was reflected in CASAC's
closure letters to EPA on both proposals. Based on this lack of a clear
``bright line'' for either proposal and recent risk analysis
information that indicates for some areas (Houston and Los Angeles) the
current 1-hour ozone standard is more protective than the proposed 8
hour standard, the TNRCC submitted comments supporting the retention of
both the existing ozone and particulate matter standards until the
science to support any changes is more definitive. Attached is a letter
to Ms. Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator, from Governor Bush
addressing the recent national air quality proposals. Also attached are
comments from the TNRCC to EPA on the proposed revisions to the ozone
standards and the particulate matter standards.
From a State regulator's standpoint, I think it's important to
recognize that just adopting a new standard does not result in
improving air quality. Programs must be developed to implement a new
standard, and that's what my agency is expected to do. Someone must
analyze current situations, understand as best possible what is causing
problems that are detected, and design new programs to reduce those
emissions that are significantly contributing to the problem. Those
programs must maximize cost-effectiveness and sustainable development
and must be phased in over a timeframe commensurate with minimizing
excess cost and disruption. Progress achieved toward meeting the air
quality goals established must be carefully monitored and analyzed so
that mid-course corrections can be made based on actual results.
This is not a unique set of planning activities. Many programs
incorporate similar steps. What is unique about air pollution control
is the number of emission sources, the chemistry involved in
determining cause and effect, and the meteorological variation that is
inherent in the earth's weather patterns.
Chemical compounds are emitted into the air constantly from both
man-made and natural sources. Some are harmless, some can be lethal.
Typically, air contaminants are invisible to the naked eye. They
evaporate off houses being painted, from car gas tanks being refilled,
from inks drying on paper; they come from valves and pumps along piping
in chemical plants, from stacks at power plants, from leaves of trees.
These are but a few examples of the thousands of activities going on
every day that generate air contaminants. To understand how to solve
the problem of excess contaminants measured at a monitor site, we must
understand not only what is being added to the air and where, but also
take into account naturally occurring or background levels that in many
areas are routinely 25 percent to 50 percent of the standard. Since we
can't readily see the emissions, we must estimate what's happening. We
require tests of emissions at large industrial plants, we require
production records at small businesses, and we use formulas to guess
how much is coming from cars, equipment use, consumer product use, and
natural events. As you can imagine, this is an imprecise science at
best, but we call it the development of an emissions inventory for an
area. Gathering the data and performing necessary cal-
culations are extremely time-consuming for businesses as well as State
regulatory agencies, but are necessary. The emissions inventory is the
basis for estimating how much reduction is needed to solve a problem
and which types of activities are candidates for additional controls.
But all this assumes that there is a problem that needs to be
solved. Let's take a step back and look at how that is decided. Air
contaminant monitor stations are dotted around the country. These
stations are primarily focused in urban areas so we can know the
quality of the air large concentrations of people are breathing. The
stations are equipped with several different instruments since it takes
different kinds of monitors to detect different kinds of pollutants.
Thus, an ozone monitor only monitors for ozone and can't detect fine
particulate matter or sulfur dioxide emissions. That requires
installation of two additional monitors. The measurements made at these
monitors are checked against the levels set by EPA as national
standards. If monitored levels are higher than allowed, then the area
is designated nonattainment. Nonattainment designation is a formal
legal process including State proposals and EPA approval of designated
areas. For each nonattainment area, a plan, called a State
Implementation Plan, must be developed which identifies and enforceably
commits the State to implement new controls on defined sources within
established deadlines. Such controls can include vapor recovery at
gasoline stations or marine terminals, incineration of process vent
gases, use of low solvent inks, vehicle inspection and maintenance,
etc.
EPA has only set a handful of national standards but one of them
has been particularly difficult to attain--ozone. It's a tough standard
allowing as little as 4 hours of measurements over the standard in a 3-
year period of time. Many of the country's large urban areas, including
four in Texas--Houston/Galveston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Beaumont/Port
Arthur, and El Paso--have not yet met this standard. The new standard
proposed by EPA is even more stringent. In Texas, cities like San
Antonio, Austin, Corpus Christi, Longview/Marshall/Tyler, and Victoria
would likely be declared nonattainment. Additional monitoring will be
needed to determine the size of the new nonattainment areas, the amount
of the chemical precursors in the air, and the amount of pollutant
being transported into the area from neighboring areas. Planning and
control program development for these new areas would also have to
begin intensively if we are to meet the kind of time tables and
deadlines set by the Clean Air Act and EPA. This effort will be costly
and could easily serve to distract us from solving the most serious of
our problems--the areas currently identified as nonattainment. It
should also be noted that EPA has not proposed any funding to cover the
costs.
Adoption of standards for new pollutants such as EPA has proposed
with the fine particulate matter standard brings with it even greater
challenges for State air regulators. As I previously mentioned, each
pollutant requires its own kind of monitor. We haven't had any
PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitors in the field since the mid-1980's. We're
scrambling now to buy and begin operating some monitors, but it will be
quite a while before we have the data we'll need to assess our status
relative to the proposed new standard. EPA plans to allow States 3
years to install and begin operating all the monitors. This is needed
because of the high cost of monitoring--for Texas, we estimate $1.3
million for fiscal year 1998, $1.8 million for fiscal year 1999, and
$1.9 million for fiscal year 2000--and to allow equipment manufacturers
and monitoring agencies time to prepare for this onslaught of new
monitoring. Since more than 1 year of data will be needed to understand
annual weather variability and to judge against the 3-year average
basis that is the form of the proposed EPA standard, it will be from 3
to 6 years before we have a really good feel for how many areas of the
country have air quality that doesn't meet this proposed new national
standard.
Once we know where additional air quality improvements are needed,
we have to understand the causes of the problem. Although there are
many similarities among cities, each problem is somewhat unique and
solutions will be dependent upon understanding the broad principles of
air pollution and the factors unique to that area. One of the main
reasons that solving our country's ozone problems has proven so
difficult is that ozone is created in the air by a chemical combination
of other pollutants. Trying to regulate this giant atmospheric
chemistry lab that is occurring over each of our cities is taxing the
limits of our scientific understanding. The variables are many and the
solutions are complex. We cannot change how fast the wind blows or how
much sunlight there is on a given day. Instead, we have to estimate how
much emissions can be in the air from all sources--man-made or natural,
industrial or personal activities--we have to assume the worst weather
conditions--usually for my part of the country that means a series of
hot, still days--and assess what emissions can be allowed without
triggering enough of the chemical reactions to cause ozone to form at
levels over the standard. Complex models have been designed to assist,
but it often feels more like art than science when we try to perform
these regulatory analyses. This type of analysis is very resource
intensive and often frustrating, providing less than definitive
answers. And keep in mind, the results of this work are the basis for
requiring new control programs that can cost billions of dollars.
We can look at the work that has been undertaken by the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) as an example of the complexity of
understanding ozone formation. OTAG has been studying air pollution
transport over the 37 States in the eastern half of the U.S. for the
last 2 years. The work has focused on identifying how much of the man-
made and natural emissions in one area are blown to another area and
how this impacts high ozone levels monitored in the mid-west, northeast
and Atlanta. Ozone is formed when volatile organic compounds and oxides
of nitrogen react in the presence of sunlight. There are many man-made
sources of each of these types of pollutants but naturally occurring
sources (primarily trees) are also an important source of organic
compounds and contribute significantly to the formation of ozone. The
reactions that create ozone also reverse to breakdown ozone that has
been formed, so understanding the concentrations of each type of
pollutant as it is being blown from one area to another is significant.
With the lack of rural monitors in most areas of the country, all these
analyses are computer simulated projections based primarily on
meteorological data and monitored data from urban areas. Needless to
say, the results are open to a lot of debate. Millions of dollars have
been spent in the OTAG effort, and only four high ozone episodes have
been studied. It is reasonable to estimate that similar investments
will be needed to study each of our problem areas.
The proposed new fine particle standard will also require
significant additional work. Once we know how much fine particulate
matter is measured in each of our cities, we'll know if those cities
are in attainment of the standard. But this is only the beginning of
understanding what to do if they are not in attainment. We will also
need to analyze the separate components of the particulate on the
filters to know what chemicals are causing the problem. Knowing the
chemical constituents of the fine particulate will help us to trace
those chemicals back to their sources. This analysis will be crucial to
understanding how to solve the problems, but just knowing chemical
constituents doesn't completely define the controls needed. It tells
you what types of sources are the biggest contributors to the problem.
Analysis of possible control options can be targeted to these type
sources. This additional chemical analysis of the particulate to
determine its components further adds to the costs of the monitoring
significantly. Further, these costs will continue beyond the initial
startup as long as the particulate monitoring is needed. These
monitoring and chemical analysis costs are in effect additional
unfunded mandates on the States because EPA has not proposed adequate
funding.
Analysis must not only be directed at what is likely to be causing
the problem but also to what can be changed that would help solve the
problem. For example, knowing that organic compounds are naturally
emitted by trees helps you to understand more about the atmospheric
chemical reactions, but doesn't give you any information on how to
solve the ozone problem. However, knowing that organic compounds that
evaporate from oil-based paints are a part of the ozone formation
process leads you to examine the feasibility for phasing out oil-based
paints and replacing these with latex paints. This example also
illustrates another part of the control program evaluation. Timing is a
key ingredient to establishing a good control program. The phase-out of
oil-based paints, if allowed to occur over a number of years and with a
limited number of exceptions, can be a smooth transition to a more
environmentally friendly and economically sustainable way of life. If
done overnight or without necessary flexibility it can put companies
out of business and leave citizens unable to satisfy their needs and
unhappy with the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of government
programs. Traditional controls have focused on large industry; new
controls will have to focus more and more on small businesses. We must
take all steps possible to minimize the negative effects on our small
business community.
The need to allow sufficient time to phase in controls is
especially important when we look at programs to reduce emissions from
the transportation sector--emissions that occur as we move ourselves or
our products from place to place. Recently, I had the opportunity to
listen to the EPA Office of Mobile Sources summarize their current and
planned programs. Included were new car improvements like lower tail
pipe emissions, on-board canisters to trap fueling emissions, and on-
board diagnostics to alert car owners of system failures that could
increase emissions and impair efficient vehicle operation. Also
discussed were improved diesel engines for construction and farm
equipment, lower emitting locomotive engines, improved small engines
for lawn and garden use, and cleaner burning diesel and gasoline fuels.
All of these programs, most of which are required under the current
Clean Air Act, have been set in place but will require several years
for equipment replace-
ment to realize actual benefits. In fact, EPA estimated that
significant benefits from these programs would not be seen until 2000
and the full benefits not realized until 2020. In order to maximize the
use of these programs, we must be mindful to set timeframes for
accomplishing our air quality goals that match the time needed to
realize the reductions from these long-term programs.
Timing is not just critical as it relates to the implementation of
controls but also in proper planning. As noted earlier, it will be
three to 6 years before we have good data on levels of fine particulate
matter. Even for ozone where current data is much more complete, we
will need to study rural levels of this pollutant to know what's being
transported from one area to another. Analysis of the causes of the
problems can be undertaken even as the monitoring data is being
gathered. But once control measure options are identified, there must
be a public process to decide the most appropriate controls to impose.
This type of public process includes meetings and hearings with local
planning organizations, citizens, affected businesses, and all levels
of elected officials and government. Typically, these public processes
take up to 18 months. After the best control options have been
selected, time must be allowed for companies to install equipment,
cities to make transportation system changes, and new products to be
developed. The simplest of such controls can be implemented in 1 year;
the more extensive industrial controls require up to 3 years for
installation during process turnarounds. As previously discussed,
transportation controls and new products can take up to 10 years or
more to implement completely. After controls are in place, air must be
monitored to see the results of these efforts. Depending on the
standard, up to 3 years may be needed to measure the effects of new
controls.
The planning timeframes provided by the Clean Air Act and
traditional EPA guidance documents typically allow only 5 years to
accomplish all of the above activities. Our experience shows that 10
years is a more reasonable planning cycle and that the more difficult
air pollution. problem areas will take two or more planning cycles.
Looking for new ways to do things and learning from our experiences
will be particularly important if EPA adopts new or more stringent
standards. EPA set up the Federal Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Subcommittee on Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze
Implementation. The charge to this group of almost 80 representatives
of business, government, environmental groups, and academia was to
develop recommendations to EPA on how to smoothly transition from the
current requirements to new approaches. The challenge is to not lose
the momentum that we have built as we have made substantial
improvements in air quality with existing programs. But, as so many
have stated, traditional regulatory programs are unlikely to be able to
meet the challenges of new higher standards or even to solve the
persistent problems we already have identified. New approaches must be
used to harness economic forces to work in concert with regulatory
efforts to address environmental protection. New ideas such as
identifying areas of violation and areas of influence must be explored
rather than just expecting each nonattainment area to solve its own
problems in isolation from all else going on around its geographic
boundaries. We must also explore ways to provide incentives for areas
to expand monitoring, to do early planning, and to implement controls
voluntarily before they become required. Current law has clearly
outlined negative consequences for failure to plan or implement
programs but does little to provide incentives for early or voluntary
action.
In summary, there are five points regarding implementation of
national air quality standards that I would like to leave with you.
First, we do not believe that new national standards should be set
until there is a firmer scientific basis. The recently released studies
of health effects of ozone estimate fewer benefits from the proposed
standard than previously thought. The particulate matter studies have
raised as many questions as they have provided answers. Additional
research is needed to target the cause of the particulate matter
impacts on public health.
Second, if new standards are adopted, extensive new work will be
needed to implement them and it appears likely that there will be
little additional funding from EPA. States do not need another unfunded
mandate.
Third, we should explore ways for air pollution planning to be a
part of a city's urban planning whether or not new national standards
are adopted that cause the city to be designated nonattainment. New
approaches should build on voluntary action programs such as the
Flexible Attainment Region approach being used in Tulsa,
Longview/Marshall/Tyler, and Corpus Christi. Incentives for early
planning, expanded monitoring, and voluntary or early reductions should
be provided in EPA guidance and any new statutory revisions.
Fourth, adequate time should be provided to allow areas to plan,
implement controls, and measure the results of those controls. The 5-
year timeframes of Sec. 172 allow for planning and implementation but
fail to recognize the need to monitor results and that some areas have
inadequate data bases upon which to begin their planning. Longer term
planning cycles should include mid-course corrections so that new
information is used to improve imprecise predictions of growth and
emissions changes that will theoretically occur in the future.
Finally, adequate time must be provided to allow major trends such
as those happening in the transportation sector to be a significant
contributor to attaining national air quality goals. In order for the
country to be able to afford all that is likely to be required to meet
all of our air quality goals, we must allow time. Allowing time for
market forces, technological development, and corporate economic
planning will minimize costs of accomplishing the reductions and spread
those costs as with other prudent investments in our future.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions you might have or to provide
additional information that you would like to assist you in your review
of these issues.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.162
Prepared Statement of Paul Kerkhoven, Director of Environmental
Affairs, American Highway Users Alliance
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
invitation to appear before you today to present our views on how the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed new ozone and
particulate matter standards would impact transportation and
specifically the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality program.
I am Paul C. Kerkhoven, Director of Environmental Affairs at the
American Highway Users Alliance. The Highway Users represent a broad
cross-section of businesses and individuals who depend on safe and
efficient highways to transport their families, customers, employees
and products. We support the Clean Air Act and the health based
scientifically sound standards that are its foundation as well as a
strong Federal transportation policy and the prudent investment of
scarce highway use taxes in those programs that enhance our economic
productivity, improve roadway safety, and contribute to the enviable
quality of life that Americans enjoy.
I will begin today by noting the significant clean air
accomplishments of the transportation community. I will then briefly
outline current environmental requirements applicable to transportation
programs and offer our perspective on the implementation of the
proposed new national ambient air quality standards. I shall finish
with some specific comments on the Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
(CMAQ) program.
air quality trends
The transportation sector has played a major role in attaining the
air quality goals realized by areas across the country. Since 1970,
population in the U.S. has grown by 28 percent, production of goods and
services has doubled, there are 60 percent percent more drivers driving
80 percent more vehicles 116 percent more miles. Yet, carbon monoxide
emissions from highway vehicles have been reduced by one third and
volatile organic carbon emissions have been cut in half.
Even today's cleaner reformulated gasoline for California is so
effective it's almost like taking 3.5 million cars of the road--twice
as many cars as are registered in Oregon. Today's cars have achieved a
95 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions since the 1960's. As a
result, it would take 20 of today's new cars to produce as much
tailpipe pollution as only one new car did 30 years ago. Automobile
related air pollution is well on its way to being a thing of the past.
Those reduced motor vehicle emissions have been a major
contributing factor in the air quality improvements realized
nationwide. According to EPA data, ambient concentrations of the six
major air pollutants have decreased almost 30 percent since 1970. As a
result, every major city and urban area is making significant progress
toward meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In fact, if
we look at the most recent data only 40 some areas would be in
violation of meeting the ozone standard. I expect reduced mobile source
emissions to continue contributing to improved air quality well into
the next century.
Yet, the EPA continues to downplay these results and argues that
emissions from automobiles will begin to rise again by the year 2005
because of a projected steady increase in vehicle miles of travel. It
should be noted that the agency has been projecting an increase in
vehicle emissions since the early 1980's, and notice the results. The
EPA therefore advocates strict policies to control the growth of
vehicle miles traveled. It does this by enforcing transportation
control measures (TCMs) that discourage automobile use and advocating
higher funding for the CMAQ program to implement these TCMs.
A fundamental individual freedom, the freedom of mobility, is at
stake whenever the government proposes to restrict Americans' ability
to choose where, when, and how to travel. There may be times when such
restrictions are necessary, but those decisions should be made by our
elected representatives and not by the subterfuge of a bureaucratic
rulemaking procedure. An additional 94 million people living in at
least 520 counties will be subject to programs designed to limit the
use of their motor vehicles if the proposed new air quality standards
are approved. This estimate is based on EPA figures. Estimates by
others suggest that the additional number of people affected could be
significantly higher than 94 million.
Such constraints on motor vehicle use not only restrict personal
mobility but they can be a serious obstacle to economic growth and
productivity increases. In addition, transportation control measures
have proven to be substantially less effective at reducing mobile
source emissions than have technological solutions such as cleaner
burning fuels and cleaner running cars. By every measure, these
technological improvements have also been significantly more cost
effective than programs intended to change travel behavior.
transportation and air quality
The aim of the Clean Air Act is to bring all U.S. areas into
compliance with current air quality standards. The Clean Air Act also
requires that State and local transportation improvement plans
contribute to a reduction in pollutants. ISTEA complements the Clean
Air Act by giving increased decisionmaking power to metropolitan
planning organizations (MPO's) regarding the expenditure of Federal
transportation dollars. ISTEA also gives these communities authority to
use Federal highway funds for mass transit, air quality enhancements
and other non-highway projects.
The Clean Air Act's largest challenge, however, is the requirement
that State and regional transportation improvement plans in
nonattainment and maintenance areas ``conform'' to State implementation
plans. The State implementation plan includes an estimate of emissions
from all sources including cars and trucks (mobile sources) and the
amount of reductions necessary in each category to meet the standards.
If actual vehicle emissions exceed the estimate in the State
implementation plan, the transportation plan or the State
implementation plan must be modified. If the State fails to modify its
transportation plan or State implementation plan appropriately, Federal
highway funds will be withheld. This is the ``stick'' that forces State
and local officials to craft transportation plans which include the
right mix of projects to reduce emissions.
proposed standards and transportation
The EPA proposed implementation policy which accompanies the new
air quality proposal, states that the current conformity determination
process will continue until State implementation plans that address the
new standard are approved by the EPA. Depending on the standard finally
chosen, we believe that at least 520 counties across the Nation could
be placed in nonattainment status for at least one of the requirements
proposed. We question whether the current model-intensive conformity
process will still be meaningful with much larger non-attainment areas.
For example, to make a conformity determination in rural areas will be
a senseless and cumbersome exercise because in virtually all cases
there are few, if any, transportation alternatives.
Changing direction in mid-course may significantly delay or run
counter to efforts underway to assure reasonable further progress in
attaining air quality standards. This will be extremely confusing for
State and local officials and the general public.
The substantial expansion of non-attainment areas may well require
an expansion of the transportation demand models that have experienced
budget shortfalls and are still part of the learning curve for local,
State and Federal officials involved in traffic data processing. The
proposals will likely result in tighter emission budgets and make
conformity an even more challenging process. The proposals do not
address the cost and effectiveness of the transportation control
measures and these may be the most costly elements of further emission
reduction efforts.
The impact of highway funding sanctions could also affect much
larger areas. We do not know if the inability of some areas to develop
plans showing that they can attain the standard will lead to more
frequent imposition of highway funding sanctions. Does the EPA intend
to impose highway funding sanctions on the 8-20 residual nonattainment
areas in its partial attainment scenario? Loss of highway funding,
ironically, can delay highway projects that improve traffic flow and
reduce emissions. Thus, the application of highway funding sanctions by
the EPA can exacerbate air pollution problems that the sanctions are
intended to help solve.
Transportation is a big part of the economic development equation.
Highway improvements, including projects to expand capacity and reduce
congestion, should be expedited, not burdened with new regulatory
hoops.
transportation control measures and cmaq
Congress established the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program in ISTEA primarily to help State and local
governments meet the cost of implementing the transportation control
measures required by the Clean Air Act. CMAQ funds--$1 billion per year
apportioned to the States from the Highway Trust Fund--can be used for
all but two of the TCMs listed in the Clean Air Act, plus any TCMs
included in a State implementation plan approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency and any projects approved by both the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Transit Administration in consultation
with the EPA.
First and foremost, we oppose setting aside a billion dollars of
highway funds each year exclusively to meet costs imposed on State and
local governments by the Clean Air Act. Those air quality projects may
or may not be a top transportation priority in a given area. By setting
aside highway funds exclusively for such projects, Congress places a
higher priority on them than on other transportation projects, such as
safety improvements or additional highway capacity needed for economic
development. We think those decisions should be made by State and local
officials who know best what their top local transportation priorities
are.
A quick review of individual projects funded with CMAQ dollars over
the first 4+ years of ISTEA yields some examples that would raise
questions about the wise use of highway taxes. To illustrate this
point, I picked a few projects financed with CMAQ funds in States
across the country. This is not intended to be an inclusive list. I
could have added many more.
<bullet> $933,000--Purchase 210 bus radios at a total cost of
$1,165,920. The Federal (CMAQ) share was $933,000 or $4,442 per radio
<bullet> $67,000--Develop a golf cart transportation program
<bullet> $5,890,000--Construct an esplanade and ferry pier
<bullet> $146,000--Supplement transit fare-box revenues
While I am not familiar with any of these individual projects, I
don't doubt that they have benefited, and are appreciated by, certain
local citizen groups. One wonders, however, how they compare in
priority with any of the myriad safety or highway capacity needs faced
by State and local officials. We won't ever know the answer to that
question because those officials weren't allowed to spend CMAQ dollars
on safety or capacity improvements.
Again, Mr. Chairman, many of these projects may be a high priority
and have a salutary impact on the local economy. Unfortunately, we
cannot truly gauge the priority of these or other CMAQ-funded projects
relative to traditional road improvements because State and local
officials are not allowed to weigh the CMAQ-eligible projects against
other local projects to improve mobility or safety. ISTEA doesn't give
them a choice. They must either spend or lose their CMAQ funds on the
limited array of EPA-approved projects.
Mr. Chairman, the Highway Users supports efforts to eliminate the
separate CMAQ funding category. Instead of the current CMAQ set-aside,
we would make air quality and congestion mitigation projects eligible
for funding under a streamlined Surface Transportation Program (STP).
We do not support the assertion that State transportation officials
will not consider or implement TCM's in their transportation plans if
they do not have a specific set-aside for them. It is not the CMAQ
program that drives these requirements. The Clean Air Act mandates that
State transportation officials give priority consideration to TCM's in
their clean air plans, and if attainment goals are not reached, the
State faces highway funding sanctions. What greater incentive is there?
America's motorists should be able to count on their highway taxes
being used for road improvements, and State and local transportation
officials should have greater authority to set their own transportation
priorities.
cmaq and nextea
We have several concerns with the CMAQ proposals contained in the
Administration's ``National Economic Crossroads Transportation
Efficiency Act'' (NEXTEA), recently introduced by Senators Chafee and
Moynihan. We do not support the ``Hold Harmless'' provision for CMAQ
funding, nor do we support the proposal that when a State submits its
new SIP the CMAQ funding increase is triggered. Both provisions expend
CMAQ funding at the expense of the more flexible STP account.
As an alternative to the set-aside, it seems quite logical for the
Congress to repeal CMAQ in its entirety and allow States to utilize any
and all funding from the STP program to achieve the Clean Air Act
goals. More of the areas that could be facing nonconformity
determinations would be able to tailor their transportation programs to
meet their specific circumstances.
If the Congress chooses to retain a separate CMAQ account, we do
support the Administration's proposal to make eligible for CMAQ funding
two of the TCMs that show great promise for improving air quality: the
reduction of vehicle emission during periods of cold-start conditions,
and measures that encourage the owners of pre 1980 model year high-
emitting cars and light-duty trucks to voluntarily remove them from the
road. These TCMs are listed in the Clean Air Act but were excluded from
the list of TCMs made eligible for CMAQ funding in ISTEA.
In addition, ``congestion mitigation'' projects should be eligible
for any continued CMAQ program. Most projects currently funded with
CMAQ dollars are air quality projects. Congestion mitigation projects,
such as those that increase the capacity for single occupant vehicles
in ozone and CO non attainment areas, are not currently eligible for
CMAQ funds. For example, freeway interchanges with insufficient merge
lanes or other capacity problems are frequently traffic choke points.
Yet, improve-
ments to those intersections that would ease the flow of traffic are
generally ineligible for CMAQ funding because they create additional
capacity for single occupant vehicles. Congress should correct this
problem to help alleviate congestion in any renewed CMAQ program.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, improving air quality is an important national goal
and the transportation sector of our economy certainly has a role to
play. Our central points are as follows: current and emerging
technologies will ensure the continuing decline of mobile source
emissions without the new air quality standards. We should not burden
vast areas of the country with new regulatory hoops the proposed
standard changes will create. The transportation control measures
needed to meet the new standards could cause significant economic
hardship and will--echoing comments of the U.S. Department of
Transportation--require lifestyle changes by a significant part of the
U.S. population.
Finally, the Clean Air Act gives transportation officials strong
incentives to make air quality projects a top priority. We urge
Congress to give those officials a truly flexible Surface
Transportation Program account that will allow them to weigh all their
local transportation needs, including air quality improvements, when
establishing funding priorities.
I appreciate the opportunity to have presented the Highway Users'
views on the air quality standards proposals and their impact on
transportation and the CMAQ program. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you might have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.209
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.221
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.242
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.243
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.244
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.245
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.246
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.247
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.248
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.249
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.250
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.251
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.252
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.253
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.254
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.255
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.256
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.257
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.258
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.259
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.260
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.261
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.262
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.263
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.264
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.265
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.266
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.267
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.268
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.269
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.270
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.271
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.272
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.273
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.275
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.276
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.277
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.278
CLEAN AIR ACT: OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands,
Private Property and Nuclear Safety,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 2 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe and Sessions.
Also present: Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The subcommittee will come to order.
I assure you there will be more Members coming in from time
to time and staff. There are a couple of meetings that are
still taking place and they're there.
Today's hearing will be the fifth we've had. We've had four
in this subcommittee and one in the whole committee concerning
the proposed EPA changes in the national ambient air quality
standards for ozone and particulate matter.
Throughout the entire process, we've heard allegations
through the media, other congressional hearings, and the
testimony from witnesses before this subcommittee that the
Administration has systematically misrepresented the facts
behind their proposal.
The EPA has suppressed dissenting views within the
Administration. They've placed themselves above the law in
regards to Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
and unfunded mandates.
Certainly we have here in this room on the three panels a
lot of people who are concerned about unfunded mandates. As a
former mayor, I can assure you I understand your concern.
I have conducted these hearings as a forum to discover the
truth and to bring to light all of the information behind the
proposals. I've not focused on the abuses of the Administration
because the underlying science, risk, and impacts of the
proposals are the most important issues, and I've tried to
avoid being sidetracked.
However, at last Thursday's hearing I asked Mary Nichols,
the assistant administrator for Air at the EPA, a very simple
and di-
rect question, whether the EPA's regulatory impact analysis
shows that the cost of the ozone proposal outweighs the
benefits, and she said no. This is incorrect.
We don't have large charts, but we certainly--we've passed
these out. I think most people have these. This is what they
came up with after they talked about the new standards. And the
red line, of course, is the cost line, and the green being the
benefits.
[The referenced charts follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.279
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.280
Senator Inhofe. The EPA's regulatory impact analysis for
ozone clearly shows that the costs outweigh the benefits. The
cost of local control strategies outweighs the benefits
anywhere from $1.1 billion to $6.2 billion. That's the range
that we're looking at here, depending upon the exceedances
allowed.
The cost for regional control strategies, which may not be
feasible under the current law, outweigh the benefits anywhere
from 0 to 2.4. This is the chart that shows that range.
These figures come straight from the EPA's document, and
the costs are only for partial attainment. Under their cost
estimates, the country does not even attain the proposed
standards. Elsewhere in the documents they acknowledge a number
of costs that they don't even calculate, and they make a number
of assumptions, such as, first, they assume in the baseline
full implementation of the current law, without counting these
costs but counting the benefits.
In other words, those of you who have had to work hard,
such as we have in our county of Tulsa, those costs that we
have incurred to come up to the old standards are not included
in the total cost, but the benefits are.
Second, they assume a regional NAAQS strategy for the
country which includes an emissions cap for utilities without
including those costs. I think we know, in fact, the first--
before even having the first hearing, as chairman of this
committee, when I heard about the proposed changes I went
around to 21 counties in Oklahoma, and it was then that we
found out what the costs were, increased cost of utilities.
These increase costs are not considered even in these charts
here.
Third, they assume a national low emissions vehicle without
counting the cost for such a program. I think those of you from
California know what we're talking about there because you've
already had that mandate.
And, fourth, in a number of areas they stopped calculating
the cost at 75 percent attainment. I mean, areas that are
really bad, they assume that once you get the 75 percent
there's no further cost.
Even without adding up these hidden costs, the EPA's
documents still show the costs outweigh the benefits; yet, an
assistant administrator from the EPA sat in this room last week
and told me and the witnesses the exact opposite on the record.
They are trying to mislead the committee and they are
misleading the American people.
In addition, since these figures were published, the Agency
has gone back and readjusted the benefits, decreasing all of
the end points by 25 percent. So while the original costs
outweighed the benefits, the current numbers outweigh the
benefits even more than they were before.
As a final insult to the process, the President's own
Council on Economic Advisors has estimated the cost for ozone
proposal at $60 billion, 10 times greater than the EPA's cost
estimate of $6 billion. It's time for the EPA to level with the
public.
Public policy decisions should be conducted in an open and
unbiased manner. The EPA has hidden behind the court order and
data that is not available to the public. In addition, they
have hidden the real costs and dissenting viewpoints of other
Government agencies.
Hopefully today we can turn to the important issues
regarding the impact of these proposals.
We have a very full hearing of some 14 witnesses, and that
will be on three panels, so we're going to be somewhat
restrictive in our timing.
I have a statement for the record submitted by Senator
Hutchinson.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Hutchinson, U.S. Senator from the State
of Arkansas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I am grateful that you have
seen fit to continue these hearings on the EPA's proposal to implement
more stringent clean air standards for ozone and particulates.
Since the hearings began a couple months ago, we have had the
opportunity to hear testimony where both sides of this complicated
issue have been presented. When we began, I never expected this would
be so complex and that there would be so many opinions, especially
among the members of the President's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee. While I have come to expect politicians to disagree, I did
not expect such disagreement among the scientists.
I am also somewhat surprised that there is so much opposition to
the plan from within the administration.
There is opposition from the President's Council on Economic
Advisers, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department
of Transportation, the Department of Commerce, the Small Business
Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Treasury. These comments must be seriously analyzed and addressed
before the rule is promulgated.
According to a Monday, April 21 story in the Los Angeles Times, one
of these documents even suggested that if implemented, ``the proposal
could bring California's economic recovery to a grinding halt.''
In Arkansas, we could face a similar fate. Recently, Arkansas has
begun to see strong economic growth, especially in the Northeastern and
Northwestern part of the State, yet investment may slow dramatically,
even drop off completely, if these areas of growth fall out of
attainment.
In the reauthorization of ISTEA, Arkansas may see a tremendous
increase in access to transportation, as we work on proposals for
construction on the I-69 International Trade Corridor (or interstate?).
Yet, since the implementation of these standards could threaten highway
funding, the timely completion of I-69 or other highways in Arkansas
may be in jeopardy.
This week, the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce was in town to
meet with the congressional delegation and other national leaders. The
issue that is overwhelmingly the most important to these leaders is the
completion of I-69.
Considering the scientific weaknesses surrounding these standards,
the disagreements within the Clinton Administration and the opposition
from so many of my constituents and State leaders, I am not comfortable
sacrificing any funding for one of the most important economic
facilitators in the history of Arkansas.
Mr. Chairman, today, State Representative Scott Ferguson of West
Memphis, Arkansas was supposed to testify before our committee
regarding his opposition to the proposed standards.
Unfortunately, because of family and business considerations,
Representative Ferguson could not be with us. I would like to read a
few of the excerpts from his testimony and have the entire testimony
placed in the record.
I feel it is important to note that Representative Ferguson is a
Medical Doctor and is a member of the Public Health, Welfare, and Labor
Committee in the Arkansas House of Representatives.
Dr. Ferguson cosponsored a resolution in the Arkansas House, which
was passed along with a companion resolution in the State Senate,
stating that the EPA should retain the current standard for ozone and
retain the current standard for PM<INF>10</INF>, until more research
can be done on PM<INF>2.5</INF>. I would like these two resolutions to
also be placed in the record.
Dr. Ferguson goes on to say, ``As a medical professional and an
elected official, it concerns me that policymakers want to move forward
with these standards prior to a complete analysis of these issues.''
Mr. Chairman, I know there are other doctors on the panels today
who will be testifying, but I hope Dr. Ferguson's testimony will also
be seriously considered as we proceed today and through the next few
months.
I thank the Chairman again for calling this hearing.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.281
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.282
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.283
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.284
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.285
Senator Inhofe. I would now ask for the first panel of
witnesses to be seated at the witness table. The way we've
divided up the panels today is to start with the witnesses from
State and local governments. The second panel and third panels
will consist of other interested parties.
While they're coming forward taking their chairs, I'd like
to give you an overview of how we'll proceed during this public
hearing.
We have 14 witnesses who will be testifying today. As I
also mentioned to you, some other members of the subcommittee
couldn't be here today. Some of their staff is, and some will
be coming in later on.
Each witness will be given 5 minutes to give his or her
opening statement. Your entire statement is already submitted
for the record, and I appreciate the fact that you have already
done that.
We will use these little lights up here that we normally
don't adhere to at all that closely, but since we have so many
witnesses today we will. I think we all know what red, yellow,
and green mean.
Following each of the 5-minute comments by the witnesses,
we'll ask each member of the subcommittee to ask questions and
we'll have a round of questions and answers.
The first panel will be: The Honorable Mayor Emma Hull,
mayor of Benton Harbor, Michigan; The Honorable Richard
Homrighausen, mayor of--you know, I always thought in politics
it's easier to have an easier name. It hasn't worked out too
well, of course--mayor of Dover, OH; The Honorable Leon G.
Billings, delegate, Maryland General Assembly; The Honorable
Richard L. Russman, New Hampshire State Senate; and from my
home town, The Honorable John Selph, Tulsa County Commissioner,
Tulsa, OK.
With that we'll go ahead and start with Mayor Hull.
STATEMENT OF HON. EMMA JEAN HULL, MAYOR OF BENTON HARBOR, MI
Mayor Hull. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
My name is Emma Jean Hull, mayor of Benton Harbor, MI, and
a member of the National Conference of Black Mayors' Standing
Committee on Environmental Justice.
Benton Harbor is located on the shores of Lake Michigan
just an hour east of Chicago, IL, and 45 minutes from Gary, IN.
It is a minority/majority community with a population of
12,818, 97 percent African-American, 40 percent under the age
of 18.
Benton Harbor, through a local partnership with businesses
and industries, is just beginning to address some of the
Nation's highest at-risk factors in crime, unemployment, and
school dropouts. Our success to date relies on local
initiatives to retain, attract, and grow small businesses,
address work force development, and deal with environmental
concerns--mostly related to our brownfields redevelopment
projects.
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, Benton Harbor saw the
loss of over 3,000 manufacturing jobs, with major plants
closing in the steel appliance and automotive industries. The
remaining empty, deteriorating, and in some instances
contaminated buildings formed both the core of our
environmental problems and Benton Harbor's redevelopment
potential.
With passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act and the
establishment of that year as a baseline for attainment, my
city was put at an immediate and distinct disadvantage. In the
late 1980's and early 1990's, Benton Harbor was at its lowest
point in its history for industry activity. This artificial low
standard for air quality applied nationally without regard to
local circumstances is magnified by a proximity to both Chicago
and Gary and the prevailing westerly wind--a fact that impacts
the expansion of existing businesses and inhibits the location
of new businesses in Benton Harbor, as well.
Benton Harbor was one of only 11 communities chosen by
Governor Engler for a new innovative project called
``Renaissance Zone Designation.'' At the hall mark of our
application was a program to redevelop the old brownfield sites
that used to be the home of thousands upon thousands of steel
and heavy manufacturing employment.
The loss of these jobs has crippled the economy of Benton
Harbor, and the redevelopment of these acres will not only
improve the quality of life for all of our residents, but
greatly enhance the environment through a long-term
redevelopment strategy.
The local community and the State government have agreed to
give up all taxes on any development on this property for 10
years. That's right--no property tax, no income tax, no utility
tax, no State or local taxes of any kind if these brownfield
sites are redeveloped.
Located adjacent to Lake Michigan, the redevelopment of
these sites is crucial to bring about an harmonious balance
between environmental protection, economic activity, and
improved quality of life for our citizens.
This innovative piece of legislation has been highlighted
in such publications as ``The Wall Street Journal,'' ``The New
York Times,'' and, as a result, the number of businesses
seriously considering location in our community is at its
highest level.
The proposed most stringent ozone standards and new PM
standards for particulate matter emissions, if implemented,
will directly impact on my community's effort toward
sustainable economic growth and development.
The Renaissance Zone is just one example of how the local
government has cooperated with the business leaders and State
legislators in creating a long-term visionary plan for
redeveloping our community.
The change in the air emission standards will only
undermine this bold and innovative approach to economic
development.
Furthermore, these new restrictions take away opportunities
from the people who need it most. They are not responsible for
the air emission coming from Chicago and other areas across
Lake Michigan, nor are they responsible for the time chosen to
be the baseline for the Clean Air Act when we, as a community,
have fallen on our worse times ever.
These new proposed standards would unfairly harm a special
group of individuals. The small businesses affected, many for
the first time, like printers, bakers, service station
operators, and construction firms--are the foundation of the
growing ranks of Benton Harbor's minority entrepreneurs. The
anticipated high production and operation costs required by the
proposed standards, coupled with the regulatory burdens, can
restrict these businesses' expansion, impact their capital
expenditures, and eventually affect the jobs of many of our
community residents. This problem is only magnified when
applied to the new larger businesses.
The ability to attract new, major business and industry to
brownfield sites is difficult. Benton Harbor and the Nation
does not need any additional impediments.
Mr. Chairman, many of the old industry sites of Benton
Harbor are examples of the shift which will occur as part of
our new proposed air emission standards. Businesses and heavy
manufacturing left our area to find new greenfield sites.
Undermining the efforts being made by our community to
start new businesses and attract new industry to redevelop
brownfield sites will all be undermined by the new proposed air
emissions standards.
Those new investments and job opportunities so desperately
needed in our community will not occur. Rather, they will occur
at other greenfield locations throughout the country that are
not unfairly being impacted by the air emission standards.
It is perhaps the cruelest irony of all that Benton Harbor
made a name for itself as a community of thriving manufacturing
base, only to lose the opportunity to regain its reputation
because of the air that emits from Chicago and from our having
had such low artificial standards imposed upon our community.
Partnership is a requirement of change, and that
partnership must include the Federal Government, local
community, and the business community, and policymakers at the
State level working together.
I propose to you that the initiative underway in Benton
Harbor will improve the economy, as I come to a close, but also
drastically enhance the environmental surroundings of our area.
Brownfield redevelopment is desperately needed in our area,
as it is across the country. Changing our standards will only
undermine many of those far-reaching initiatives, and you
policymakers must balance what is in the best interest of all
parties concerned.
I propose to you that an intelligent true partnership that
involves all of us in the way to protect the environment while
also changing the social fabric of the community, like Benton
Harbor--please consider the impact the proposed changes will
have on the local partnership my community so desperately
needs.
Thank you for this opportunity to address this matter
today.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mayor Hull.
Unfortunately, there is a vote taking place right now.
Mayor Homrighausen, if you would proceed, I will run and vote
and come back.
I have read your testimony very carefully. Having been a
mayor, I wanted to see what other mayors were thinking in some
of the problems.
So if you'd go ahead and give your testimony, I will be
right back and we'll have that in the record.
[The chairman vacated the chair.]
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD P. HOMRIGHAUSEN, MAYOR OF DOVER, OH
Mayor Homrighausen. Good afternoon. My name is Richard P.
Homrighausen, and I am mayor of the city of Dover, OH. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this afternoon
on EPA environmental proposed rules of increasing the
stringency of the air quality standards for ozone and
particulate matter.
In my comments I hope to convey to you the perspective of
one middle America community on the potential impact of EPA's
proposed rules.
In addition, I will represent the perspective of the city
of Dover Electric System, a small, municipally-owned utility
that will likely be seriously impacted by EPA's rules.
Finally, I am here today representing the city of Dover's
utility trade association, the Ohio Municipal Electric
Association, which represents 79 public power systems in Ohio,
all of whom are concerned about the potential impact of EPA's
rules on these small, community-owned business entities.
Cities like Dover and public power systems like the Dover
Electric System are significantly concerned about the negative
impact that EPA's proposed ozone and particulate matter rules
could have on local governments and public utilities. The EPA
has proposed air standards which it acknowledges will not be
achievable for many communities and which will have a
drastically disproportionate impact on small utility systems
and the communities which we serve.
These disproportionate costs and impacts that may be
imposed upon small entities have not been adequately addressed
by the EPA, which compounds the inadequate science and health
data on which EPA has based its drastic new standards.
So I hope that I can convey today that these
disproportionate impacts the rules may have on small
communities and business entities will be ultimately placed on
the citizens and consumers served by cities like Dover and
public power systems like those represented by OMEA.
Therefore, the city of Dover and the Ohio Municipal
Electric Association call upon Congress to ensure that, first,
the EPA performs a full assessment of the potential costs and
impacts of the proposed ozone and PM rules on small business
entities and local governments, including public power
entities, prior to the finalization of the standards and their
implementation.
Second, Congress should require that EPA devises a plan to
ensure no disproportionate impact from its ozone and PM rules
on small communities and public power entities.
Third, Congress should ensure that EPA devises an
implementation plan for any new standards that provides the
technical assistance and regulatory flexibility to small public
power plants that will be necessary for these systems to comply
with any burdensome new regulations.
And, fourth, the Congress should statutorily exempt small
utility units--that is, utility units that have 25 megawatts of
capacity or less--from additional regulatory requirements, just
as the Congress exempted small utility units from the title
four control require-
ments for the acid rain program under the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990.
I'd like to give you a brief background on Dover's Electric
System and public power in Ohio so that you can understand the
context in which EPA's rules will apply.
The city of Dover, located in Tuscarawas County in the
northeastern portion of Ohio, has a population of 13,000. Local
employment is supported by 55 diversified industries county-
wide. This includes the city of Dover Electric System, which
serves 6,185 customers and consists of a coal-and gas-fired
electric generation plant, an electric distribution system, and
electric transmission interconnections.
The Dover Electric Power Plant has instituted substantial
environmental control measures in recent years, including an
electrostatic precipitator and natural gas co-firing burners to
reduce particulate emissions.
I might add that the natural gas co-firing burners were the
first of this new technology to be installed in an electric
utility in the United States.
The city's electric system plays a vital role in the
competitive sale of power to Ohio customers, supplying
relatively low-cost energy to our customers. Public power
systems in the United States which are community owned, locally
controlled, and not-for-profit serve one in seven Americans, or
35 million people, and collectively possess $77 billion in
investment in all types of generating capacity.
Public power is inherently accountable to communities and
their citizens because they are owned and governed by these
communities. That is why public power stands for the
development of a viable competitive wholesale electric market,
improved environmental quality, and the protection of the
public interest against market power abuses.
Public power is disproportionately burdened by regulatory
requirements like EPA's proposed rules. Public power utility
generators like Dover's tend to be smaller and older than
investor-owned systems and units. These smaller public
utilities often suffer from dis-economies of scale and bear
particular burdens from technology-forced requirements which
would probably result from EPA's proposed rules.
A number of adverse impacts could result for communities
and public utilities from EPA's rules, including: communities,
including Dover, would likely be thrown into ozone and PM
nonattainment by the proposed EPA rules. As you know,
nonattainment status can lead to burdensome regulatory
requirements, as well as discourage the economic development
and revitalization of our cities, as Mayor Hull previously
mentioned.
That only pushes businesses that wish to avoid
nonattainment requirements into our Nation's green spaces.
Electric utilities like Dover's may be subject to stringent
technology forced requirements, such as selective catalytic
reduction technology. Expensive SCR technology would be a
particular hardship to small utility units like Dover's 15
megawatt unit because the costs of the requirements cannot be
spread over a large customer base, thus poten-
tially making power from small units uncompetitive on the eve
of electric industry restructuring.
In addition, the EPA's regulatory impact analysis for the
proposed ozone and PM rules acknowledge that the rules could
have a drastically disproportionate impact on small business
entities like Dover's small utility system.
As in my written comments, the EPA has estimated that the
negative economic impact on EPA's proposed ozone rule will be
three times greater on small utility units than it will be on
all utility units. Likewise, EPA has estimated that its
proposed PM rule will cause a significant economic impact on
twice as many small entities when compared to all business
entities.
So it appears that EPA's proposed rules could well lead to
substantial burdens on small public power systems that could
result in the shutdown of these plants on the eve of electric
deregulation, a resulting loss of jobs, or, at the least, a
substantial increase to the electric bills to the citizens,
businesses, and other consumers served by cities like Dover.
For these reasons, the city of Dover and the Ohio Municipal
Electric Association call upon the Congress and the EPA to
assess the potential impacts of these proposed rules on
communities and small businesses prior to their implementation
and to ensure that no disproportionate burden is placed upon
the citizens and consumers which we serve.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. RUSSMAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE
SENATE
Mr. Russman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
staff and committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Russman. I appreciate your being here.
I guess as a Republican I can start with a quote of the
day, if you will, from Senator John McCain at the fifth annual
Green Bow, which he said, ``When Republicans introduce bills to
abolish the Clean Air amendment or dismiss valid environmental
concerns as the ravings of partisan extremists, we give
credence to our critics who question whether Republicans share
the environmental values of the majority.''
I have to tell you, coming from New Hampshire, that we
think that the EPA proposals would be great.
As a beginning, I will tell you that if the proposed rule
is finalized, approximately 15,000 lives will be saved
annually. Now, if you just think about that for a moment, that
seems like an awful lot of people to me. That's a city the size
of our capital city of Concord, which is substantial.
I think, however, wherever you come from, that's an awful
lot of people.
I wonder if, on the chart that the chairman showed earlier,
that perhaps those deaths could be shown in black as opposed to
red or green, and I wonder where they would stand on that chart
that was shown.
To me it seems that the support for measures such as this
that would save so many lives should be a no-brainer.
EPA's rule should be promulgated. I think the EPA should
absolutely resist pressure to issue a weakened national ambient
air quality standard.
Many of the proposed rule detractors would delay for 5
years while we wait for more research. Can you imagine? If you
multiply that out, that's 75,000 potential deaths in the next 5
years. And even if it's only 50,000 or 25,000, think about
that.
The elderly population is a population that is particularly
stricken, and I'm sure that they would be interested to know
their quality standards and seeing that they are implemented.
We often say, when we advocate delay, that too often
justice delayed is justice denied.
As far as New Hampshire is concerned, our Department of
Environmental Services is squarely on board in support of the
standards. Our New Hampshire business community, Business and
Industry Association, is squarely supporting the standards. And
I, as chairman of the Senate Environment Committee for the
State of New Hampshire, am here to support the standards. And I
must tell you that many of the other States in the northeast
support the standards, as well.
Let's face it, the Federal Government must set standards
and the national government is in the perfect position to do
so. Uniform minimum Federal standards must remain the
cornerstone of our system of national environmental protection.
State citizens are particularly dependent upon that in
terms of protection of their health to address the interstate
migration and the effects of pollution.
Uniform minimal national standards are especially vital in
areas of air pollution. Air pollution does simply not respect
State boundaries. Federal health-based standards that provide
minimum uniform protection for all of our citizens is a perfect
State/Federal model that works and should be defended from any
change.
Now, the EPA has set health-based air standards and the
States devise approaches and strategies for obtaining those
compliances with the standards. The EPA prescribes the ends,
and we'll take the responsibility to devise the means and how
to get there.
This Federal/State partnership allows EPA to establish
safeguards that no State could accomplish alone and allows
States to tailor implementation burdens in a way that best
suits the interests of that particular State.
Air standards provide a model for environmental federalism
and must not be changed. State citizens receive uniform
national protection with locally tailored and sensitive State
solutions, and we welcome that opportunity, certainly, in the
next component.
Let's look at regional equity for a moment. In the
northeast, in particular, we will benefit immensely from these
particular standards. The ozone transport assessment group
modeling demonstrates that ground-level smog, ozone, is
transported great distances. Current science also indicates
that particulate matter 2.5 fine particles also travel long
distances because they stay airborne for so long due to their
tiny size.
Therefore, to the extent these standards will induce our
neighbors in the midwest to act responsibly and curtail their
pollution of our citizens' air, then these standards must be
applauded and should be applauded.
As we know from our experience with acid rain, our
neighboring States in the midwest and elsewhere would not do
their fair share unless mandated by the Federal Government to
do so.
I think that everybody else in this country would share the
same view that people would all want to breathe clean air, and
I doubt that there is anybody out there, when asked, that would
say that they don't care to breathe clean air, and I suspect
that if it was suggested that air be brought in here today for
us to breathe for the duration of the afternoon, we probably
wouldn't want to stick around.
The National Caucus of Environmental Legislatures--you'll
receive a copy of this, Mr. Chairman, along with other members
of the committee. It has been signed by members of that caucus
from across the country; not just the northeast, but a number
of other States, including people from the midwestern section
of this country.
In closing, I would urge this committee to help and not be
a hindrance in the EPA's attempt to avoid 15,000 unnecessary
and avoidable deaths a year. For those in Congress who advocate
a 5-year delay, remember the price is possibly 75,000
unnecessary deaths. Let us not forget that many of those
unavoidable deaths will occur among the elderly.
For those who worry about their State's ability to
implement the new standard, trust us. We have been in the
business of pollution control as long as Congress, and we have
learned a thing or two along the way, and the States, I can
assure you, can handle it.
Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe [resuming the chair]. Thank you, Senator
Russman.
Mr. Billings, you will be next. But, before you begin, we
have been joined by Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama.
Senator Sessions, this is a panel of State and local--we
have two mayors, State legislators, and, from the great city of
Tulsa, OK, our county commissioner.
Would you like to make an opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few
things.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Senator Sessions. I want to thank you for calling these
hearings. We did have an outstanding hearing in Oklahoma.
Protecting the health of our citizens and maintaining quality
air for our people to breathe is important.
The thing that's troubling to me is about whether or not
these proposed increased standards that are proposed by EPA,
whether or not they, in fact, will make the health of our
citizens better.
It's not just the big businesses and those experienced in
working with EPA regulations such as local officials who deal
with that regularly who will be forced to make changes if the
proposed standards are finalized; it's the farmer whose work
might have to stop when ozone or dust levels rise to high. It
could be a critical time in his harvest or planting.
It's the struggling worker who drives an old car that may
now not meet the standards, and even repairing it may not be
worth the cost of the automobile.
It's the small business owner who may have to purchase
costly emissions control equipment at the cost of not employing
other people or expanding his business.
There is no one in public office who can be in local and
county and city and State governments who is not committed to
improving the air quality and the health of their communities.
I know that. But it is remarkable that we have such a universal
concern by those local government officials who will be
implementing this. Their opinions, I think, are also based on
their honest view of what the science is, and they are
committed to improving the quality of the air.
So I am interested in hearing more from this panel. Senator
Inhofe, I appreciate very much your leadership in raising this
issue to the public's attention, because we do not need to make
a mistake as we go forward.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions. I also
appreciate the fact that you came out to Oklahoma for our field
hearing, which was very, very well attended. We had several
hundred people there.
Now, Mr. Billings, a delegate from the Maryland General
Assembly. Mr. Billings.
STATEMENT OF HON. LEON G. BILLINGS, DELEGATE, MARYLAND GENERAL
ASSEMBLY
Mr. Billings. Thank you, Senator.
My name is Leon Billings. I represent the Kensington-Chevy
Chase-Wheaton area of Maryland. I think I bring a unique
perspective to the hearings as a State legislator and because I
spent 12 years as staff director of this subcommittee when
Senator Muskie was its chairman.
My constituents are very strongly committed to
environmental protection. They care about the quality of the
air they breathe. They also care deeply about the Chesapeake
Bay. Both would benefit from these new standards.
Many businesses in Maryland believe that they are being
required to make extra investments to control pollution because
large industrial sources and power plants in other States are
doing too little to control their emissions. They argue against
further reductions in emissions in Maryland until something is
done about big polluters to our west and south.
Thus, for the people of Maryland, these new standards have
two important benefits: they will provide additional health
protection for our citizens and for the Bay, and they could
reduce the burden on Maryland businesses by more fairly
allocating the responsibility for cleanup to the large sources
in other States.
Mr. Chairman, in the 12 years I served this subcommittee,
virtually every single environmental proposal we recommended to
the Senate was met with the charge that it was too expensive.
The rhetoric in today's debate is much the same.
What is new is the 271 peer-reviewed air pollution health
studies EPA evaluated prior to proposing the new standards.
What is new is there is so much science to support standards.
When the first air quality information was published, there
was a crescendo of criticism regarding the adequacy of that
data. Compared to today's information base, those critics were
on sound ground.
Prior to 1970, ambient air quality standards were adopted
by localities based on citizen input, local perceptions, and
the threat of air pollution. That process proved unacceptable
to industry because the standards adopted were often more
strict than indicated by federally published data.
In 1970, the Nixon administration proposed and Congress
adopted national ambient air quality standards. The decision to
adopt national standards was widely advocated by the Nation's
major polluters. They wanted to use Government science as the
basis for air quality standards. They wanted EPA to adopt air
quality standards. They wanted to avoid proliferation of
differing air quality standards. They wanted those standards
adopted in 90 days after enactment of the 1970 Clean Air Act.
I would hope this committee would tell them, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the Citizens for a Sound Economy,
and their allies in the anticlean air band wagon to quit trying
to change the rules they helped make.
Their opportunity to affect the cost of achieving these
standards will come in the implementation phase. We are
currently in the information phase. The American people have a
right to know the levels of air pollution which affect their
health.
Congress has never compromised this right to know. Congress
on two occasions has provided more time to implement health-
based standards--in 1977 up to 10 years more, in 1990 up to 20
years more--but Congress has never bowed to pressure to
compromise science. To do so would make a process of public
health protection political rather than scientific.
The appropriate focus for this committee and the Congress
will be to assure a balanced and timely implementation of the
standards, recognizing economic needs of industry and the need
of millions of vulnerable Americans for protection from the
impact of smog. Congress has been doing that job for 30 years.
We have proved that we can have a healthy and growing
economy while moderating the health impact of pollution, and we
have done so without compromising the public's right to know
what healthy air is.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Billings.
Commissioner Selph.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SELPH, TULSA COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
OKLAHOMA
Mr. Selph. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John
Selph. I'm a member of the board of directors of the National
Association of Regional Councils, and I chair their Air Quality
Task Force. I'm also chairman-elect of the Indian Nations
Council of Governments, which is the planning organization for
the Tulsa area, and I chair their Air Quality Committee, as
well.
On behalf of NARC, I appreciate your invitation to testify
before the subcommittee regarding the proposed changes.
The National Association of Regional Councils represents
some 300-plus councils of governments, consisting of cities,
towns, and counties in metro and rural areas across the United
States. These regions run the gamut from nonattainment areas to
areas that have always been in attainment. My comments reflect
the policy positions developed by NARC. They also draw upon my
experience as a county commissioner in Tulsa, OK, and my
academic background, which includes a master's degree in public
health with an emphasis on environmental science.
Before I talk about EPA's proposed standards, let me tell
you a little bit about Tulsa and our experience with air
quality.
Tulsa County was a nonattainment area, as you know,
Senator, until 1990. We've worked very hard to achieve
attainment status, and our county did achieve attainment status
prior to the Clean Air Act signing in November 1990. It was
important for us to avoid the stigma associated with being on
the EPA's ``Dirty Air List,'' especially for economic
development purposes.
Since that time we've worked even harder to maintain our
clean air status, and while our efforts have been wide-ranging,
perhaps most notable was the creation of a nationally
recognized ozone alert program, which is really the Nation's
first voluntary episodic emissions control program.
This program reflects our philosophy of seeking voluntary,
common-sense measures that are most effective in improving air
quality, rather than the command and control approach too often
used by State and Federal regulators.
Let me say that both NARC and I, along with everyone else
on this panel, recognize the importance of improving air
quality, and we support actions to maintain and improve the
health of all citizens when such actions are based on sound
scientific principles.
In light of this we are especially concerned about the
conflicting opinions of the scientific community regarding the
scientific basis for establishing new ozone and PM standards.
There appears to be no scientific consensus that changing the
standards at this time will result in significant public health
benefits. Indeed, the recently revised EPA exposure and risk
assessment findings underscore this lack of consensus.
We believe that considerable additional research including
epidemiological studies are necessary before new ozone and PM
standards are promulgated. Specifically, future epidemiologic
studies should focus on the interaction between different
pollutants and whether these effects are additive, synergistic,
or antagonistic.
The Clean Air Act has had a positive impact on reducing
pollutants, thus improving air quality for all Americans. If
EPA imposes its proposed ozone standards, the number of
nonattainment areas in the Nation will increase dramatically,
perhaps a threefold increase, according to EPA's estimates.
Assigning these areas as nonattainment does not necessarily
equate to improving air quality within the regions. In fact,
these existing nonattainment regions are having great
difficulty in achieving the current standards, so forcing a
mid-course change at this time will only delay and disrupt both
public and private initiatives designed to achieve the
objectives of the Clean Air Act.
Furthermore, we are not convinced that the technology is in
place, or worse, even close at hand to help meet these proposed
standards.
With regard to the proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards, we
believe that EPA lacks sufficient scientific evidence to
justify revising the existing PM standard. Although the
scientific evidence does, indeed, suggest some preliminary
correlation of health effects, it seems to be inconclusive.
Adding onto this is the lack of a monitoring system for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, which further supports our concerns about
adding this standard.
Our experience in Tulsa has shown us that the goal of
improving air quality is both worthy and attainable if
approached in a common-sense manner.
In addition to our ozone alert program, by formal agreement
with the EPA and a host of local and Federal partners we have
become the Nation's first flexible attainment region. This FAR
agreement, as it is called, enables us to implement a locally
crafted strategy to reduce emissions and gives us adequate time
to evaluate the results before having to implement more
stringent measures to meet our goals. This avoids the one-size-
fits-all command and control approach.
When we are allowed to develop our own programs and local
buy-in is assured, the willingness to commit the necessary
financial and political capital to achieve results is much more
readily accepted.
In conclusion, we believe that the potential impact is
great and we must have more certainty and consensus before a
major change such as this is initiated.
Progress is being made in improving air quality, and more
will come if common sense and flexibility prevail.
I appreciate being invited to participate in the
subcommittee's hearings. On behalf of NARC, we look forward to
working with the committee in your important task.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Commissioner Selph. I
appreciate very much your being here and the work you've done
in our home town.
Mayor Hull, I appreciate very much your appearing here
today. As a former mayor, as I mentioned before, I understand
some of the problems that local officials are having to go
through to try to achieve these changes in standards.
As I understand it, you're out of attainment under the
current standards; is that right?
Mayor Hull. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. What all have--what additional things can
you do, as mayor of your city, and working as you said you have
been doing with the private sector and with the various levels
and other political subdivisions? You outlined some of the
things that you have done. You're still out of attainment. Now
we come along and lower these standards or raise the standards.
What more can you do? Have you thought about that?
Mayor Hull. As I looked at the new act, Clean Air Act, I
thought what impact it would have on our community as we are
struggling right now to redevelop our community, to
partnership, as I said in my statement, with the public sector,
with the private sector to make a difference in getting jobs in
our community.
Our county is 5 percent unemployment, and in our city we
have 30 percent unemployment. What we are doing now, we are
trying to--with the brownfield we have a lot of old service
stations and sites that cannot be developed because we have the
burden of the underground storage tanks that need to be removed
that we do not have the finances to remove, and so we are
seeking grants.
With the Renaissance Zone, where they won't have to pay
taxes, we are hoping businesses will come in and redevelop
these sites to provide job opportunities.
While, of course, I am committed to the health of our local
citizens to have it better, there has been no scientific data
to date to say that lowering the standards will make the health
of our citizens better.
Senator Inhofe. Putting it in context with other problems
that your city faces--crime and all this--would you say this is
the greatest health hazard to your city?
Mayor Hull. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. I mean, would you say that your air--the
status right now of your ambient air in your city----
Mayor Hull. No, no. It is not the greatest health hazard in
our city at this time.
Senator Inhofe. I see.
Mayor Hull. As a matter of fact, we need jobs. We have
high, high rate of black-on-black crime because of the fact
that we do not have economic development. They are not working.
We have a high school dropout rate. There are some jobs to go
to. We need skills so that we can produce jobs in our
community. We need economic development.
If this standard was passed, if these acts were passed, it
would totally wipe out our community as far as economic
development is concerned.
Senator Inhofe. All right. And would you consider--this
just needs to be a yes or no question--these changes to be an
unfunded mandate?
Mayor Hull. Yes. I was working with the Michigan Municipal
League, and I was working with the act to stop the unfunded
mandates.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Mayor Hull. Because we as a community cannot afford
unfunded mandates, and if this was implemented we would have to
fund this, and that's a mandate that we cannot fund.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Mayor Homrighausen, in your testimony you cover the
additional cost to ratepayers in your city if the proposals go
final. I noticed the percentage increase to consumers is
approximately 25 percent because the cost to small utilities
would be three times greater than large utilities.
I don't see how you can stay in business. And I'd ask the
same question. Do you consider this to be an unfunded mandate?
Mayor Homrighausen. Absolutely. Absolutely. That was the
point I was trying to make today. Small public power entities,
of which Dover is one, 25 megawatt units----
Senator Inhofe. It's about one-seventh, I think, of the
country is covered by these small----
Mayor Homrighausen. Correct. One out of seven people are
covered by public power. We're small. We can't afford the
disproportionate burden that these new requirements would
require, and we've asked--we feel that the EPA must reassess
their impacts of the rules on public power communities and
prevent any disproportionate impact.
We just don't see where the sound science has been used,
and we would just call for Congress and the EPA to reassess.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Billings, the Maryland State Legislature voted against
the mandatory treadmill emissions test, subjecting them to
possible EPA sanctions. That vote was about 2 to 1. I assume
you were not in the prevailing side on that?
Mr. Billings. I was not, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. I hope that, during the course of these
meetings that we have, that people realize that we're making an
effort to get the information from people who are acting in a
minority, which you are, of course, in your capacity.
What percentage of your legislative body would you say that
you are representing in your statement today?
Mr. Billings. On the issue of health standards, probably
about 85 percent.
Senator Inhofe. On the----
Mr. Billings. On the issue of mandatory dynamometer
testing, probably 40 percent.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. All right. What about as far as the
change in the national ambient air quality standards?
Mr. Billings. I would say, if they were better informed
than I've heard today, it would be on the order of 60 or 70
percent, but I haven't heard any information today that would
lead to making them better informed.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Russman, you talk about the fact that
you are involved with small businesses during your testimony,
and the fact that they would be adding small business
implementation work group. What you failed to mention in your
testimony is that they failed to follow the Small Business
Review Act.
I think you're very familiar with that. A lot of people
aren't. But that would require the EPA to state what the effect
would be on small business prior to--before--proposing the
rules.
What do you think the impact would be on small businesses
or small entities? It's loosely defined.
Mr. Russman. Frankly, I think that the new standards would
be a boon to small business and entrepreneurship and creativity
among the people that would be affected. I think that our
economy has blossomed and grown over the years with the
standards that were in place, despite the cry that there would
be catastrophe. I think, on the contrary, our Business and
Industry Association, which is the largest business group in
the State, has held hearings, and we've taken testimony, and
they are firmly on board with these standards.
Senator Inhofe. You were somewhat critical of the National
Conference of State Legislatures for the action that they've
taken or the position that they've taken on this. Are you
equally critical of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the League
of Cities, the National Association of Counties?
Mr. Russman. I can only speak to the National Conference of
State Legislatures. I'm the immediate past chairman of their
Committee on the Environment, and, frankly, the notion that
this is an unfunded mandate, the idea of giving out information
on the value of clean air is no more an unfunded mandate than
perhaps in New Hampshire the----
Senator Inhofe. Implementation is expensive, and you don't
consider that to be an unfunded mandate?
Mr. Russman. I think that implementation will have to be
looked at at the appropriate time, but my understanding was
that we're looking at the health-based necessity of having new
standards, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Selph, what is our current ozone? Are
we at .09 now approximately?
Mr. Selph. In Tulsa?
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Mr. Selph. Well, it depends on what area of the city you
want to monitor. Actually, some of the prevailing winds coming
into Glenpool, southern part of Tulsa, on an ozone alert day
may be pretty close to .08, .09.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. You know, we have worked with this for
a long time, and I have to admit you've done a lot more than I
have at the local level, and you're considered to be the real
authority there. Have you ever approximated the costs that have
been incurred by the taxpayers of Tulsa County in the efforts
that you have undertaken so far?
Mr. Selph. Of course, all of the efforts in Tulsa have been
voluntary. The refineries, for example, voluntarily reduced the
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of the gasoline; all the suppliers of
gasoline--Sun, Sinclair, and everyone else--reduces that Reid
vapor pressure. It's required to be 9.0 in its number, and they
reduce it to 8.2. Sun, alone, told me this week that that's
costing them between $300,000 and $400,000.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. It has been voluntary. Of course,
that's, I suppose you'd say, an unfunded mandate to the
business community, as opposed to the political subdivision.
Mr. Selph. Well, certainly they recognize the benefits of
staying in attainment, and they would like to stay in
attainment, and realize that if Tulsa slips into nonattainment
then the cost would be even greater than what it is.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. You have a master's in public health?
Mr. Selph. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. And you think this change would have a
dramatic improvement on public health?
Mr. Selph. I would like to think that it would; however,
I've read a lot of the studies and reviewed a lot of the
information that has been presented, and it's difficult for me
to come to that conclusion. It seems to be so inconclusive at
this point.
Senator Inhofe. You know, our first hearing was the
science. You remember, Senator Sessions, it was the science
hearing where we had the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee well represented, and I think even the proponents of
the rule change said that scientifically we'd be looking at
probably 5 years before we could really get in there.
Now I'm talking about in particulate matter, determining
which particulate matter and which levels would be. So I think
that's probably consistent with their answer.
Mr. Selph. Sure it is, and you asked me about particulate
matter of 2.5 in Tulsa. Frankly, I don't have a clue as to
whether or not that's going to be a problem in Tulsa because we
don't have a monitoring system. There are no monitors to tell
us whether or not that----
Senator Inhofe. Don't feel bad. No one else does, either.
Mr. Selph. I understand that. I understand that the EPA is
testing those at a cost of around $10,000 per monitor.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Selph, with regard to the CASAC scientific advisory
study, are you aware just how close the vote was on those
matters? I mean, the people who are advising EPA, who had a
moral obligation to analyze the data in every study that was in
and to make a call on it, split almost down the middle.
Mr. Selph. Split almost down the middle. That's correct.
Senator Sessions. In some arguments, you could argue that
there were more votes against the regulations than there were
in favor of it.
I think, Mr. Billings, that's what concerns me. I'm
prepared to support costly things if we can get a significant
health benefit from it, but the numbers that I'm seeing and the
reports that I read indicate some real divergence of opinion.
For example, there was a study in Birmingham on particulate
matter that showed a bad effect from it. Someone else came back
and ran the same numbers and they factored in humidity and
there was no change in health.
So there are a lot of things that may be in that air on a
bad ozone day other than just ozone and particulate matter.
Would you agree with that, Mr. Billings, that maybe we don't
know all we need to know yet?
Mr. Billings. Well, clearly we don't know all we need to
know. Thirty years ago, when we did the first standards, we
didn't know all we needed to know. Congress didn't know all it
needed to know in 1970. In 1970, 1977, 1982, and 1979 when EPA
revised the ozone standard, they revised it upwards. And now
they're saying that they went in the wrong direction.
So there's no such thing as finality in science. That's
why, when Senator Muskie and Senator Baker and this committee
unanimously adopted this policy, they made a decision to keep
science separate from cost, because they wanted to get the best
scientific judgment they could get. They assumed that they were
getting a sound scientific judgment separate from these other
issues that the chairman has raised.
Now, those issues are legitimate, but they are separate
from the scientific judgment.
Senator Sessions. Let's talk about that. Let's really talk
about that honestly on the table here.
I know that there is a belief that we need to keep science
separate from cost. I believe that's correct. I think we need
to scientifically know what kind of damage that we may get from
bad air. All right. What about the ultimate decision to
implement between multiple choices of making a community better
to live in?
The mayors have to make--she's got a lot of choices. Maybe
the sewer system is better. Maybe there are hazardous waste
dumps. I mean, don't we have to, at some point before we make a
final implementation, categorize just how much health advantage
we get compared to just how much the cost is?
Mr. Billings. You're absolutely right, and that's--in
1970----
Senator Sessions. How do you distinguish----
Mr. Billings. In 1970 what the committee did--again in a
bipartisan way--supported unanimously by the Senate, as well as
the committee--was to set a deadline of 5 or 6 years to achieve
the health standards. EPA was to promulgate the standards in 90
days.
Congress came back at the end of that 5- and 6-year period
and said, ``Lo and behold, we didn't do it. We established the
urgency of the problem, but we didn't solve the problem.''
So they said, ``Well, we can give areas with sort of bad
problems another 5 years, and those with really bad problems
another 10.''
And Congress came back in 1990 and they said, ``We haven't
gotten there yet. There are some areas where we've had enormous
economic growth and so on.''
So Congress, under the leadership of this committee, said,
``We're going to give areas that are marginal, like Tulsa,
we're going to take them out. We're going to let other areas
have another 3 to 5 years and other areas will get 17 to 20
years.''
So what Congress has done is, after it established the
science, what the health standards are, then Congress has taken
a very careful look at these cost issues and these
implementation issues and these technology issues and said,
``How long does it take, spreading our resources out so that we
carefully spend our money, while at the same time balancing how
much health we're going to protect, because every time we delay
this for a year or 2 years of 5 years we are making a health
decision, too.'' We're saying, ``Those people who are not
protected then are going to continue to be unprotected.''
Senator Sessions. I appreciate that, and it is a difficult
dilemma because we don't want to undermine health. But, as the
air gets cleaner and as it continues to get cleaner, the
burdens imposed by moving one notch lower and the health
benefits from moving one notch lower--burdens get higher and
the benefits get a little less. I think we're reaching that
area, it seems to me.
Mr. Selph, you mentioned your situation there, and you
talked about the winds blowing into Tulsa. Were you saying
there's a natural effect of ozone in your area, or is that----
Mr. Selph. We think that there are some biogenic factors at
work, whether it's from old oil fields in the southern Tulsa
County area or whatever the sources may be, but certainly they
have an impact on the levels of ozone in that area.
If I could, I'd like to go back to something that you said
earlier about the study that was done and the effect of
humidity.
Certainly there are other factors at work, and that's why I
suggested in my testimony that future epidemiological studies
should look at the interaction effect that these co-pollutants
have on each other, because sometimes they are additive--in
other words, one plus one equals two. If you mix ozone with
sulphur dioxide, for example, you may get an additive effect.
Or you may get what's called a ``synergistic effect,'' where
one plus one equals three. You have a more serious effect. Or
it could be antagonistic, where one plus one equals zero, where
they cancel each other out.
Those type of things are difficult to research, but they do
need to be researched.
Senator Sessions. I think that's right. I know in the case
of asbestos and tobacco, the combination--the cancer from
tobacco and the cancer from asbestos add up to 8 or 10. It's
the synergistic effect. So I think that's a good observation.
One of the studies that we had was from New York about
hospital admissions for asthma, and the numbers showed that
there was something like a 1 percent increase in hospital
admissions for asthma attacks on a bad ozone day.
The chairman or some member of the committee had a
scientific journal study that analyzed the problems that you
have with these kind of analyses in public health and concluded
that if the number didn't get to 2 or 3 percent you really
didn't have a very good basis to take action.
As a scientist and public health student, do you see a
danger in making major decisions on data just that small?
Mr. Selph. Well, I do, and those are certainly difficult
decisions. And certainly if your family is of that 1 percent
you might look at it from another perspective. But in terms of
having what we consider to be significant findings, you really
have to look at results that are greater than that.
Senator Sessions. I'll just point out that the odd thing on
the asthma is that ozone levels have been falling nationally
for some time and asthma attacks are going up. I don't think
there's any study now that can tell us what's causing it. It
may be something entirely different.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
Before you got here I went over the--if you'll remember,
the last time we were in this room Mary Nichols was the one who
answered my question in the negative when I was talking about
the cost and the benefit. I think it was just a mistake on her
part, but this is--I think you have one of these, and this kind
of answers some of those questions as to the cost and benefit.
I want to thank all of you for coming. It's necessary to
have a lot of meetings because we want input from everyone.
Your entire statements will be entered into the record and
we are going to be submitting questions to you in writing, and
we'd like to have you respond because we want to hear from
everyone.
I hope, Mr. Billings' and Mr. Russman's appearance here,
when really you're representing somewhat of a minority
position, although you argue that it's not as well-informed out
there as it should be, nonetheless, we are making an attempt to
get everyone in here with all views.
We appreciate very much your coming today and will
appreciate your continued cooperation in responding to our
questions so we can come up with the right conclusions.
Thank you.
And now I ask our second panel to come to the table. The
second panel consists of: Robert Junk, president of the
Pennsylvania Farmers Union on behalf of the National Farmers
Union; Mr. Bob Vice, who is the president of the California
Farm Bureau Federation for the American Farm Bureau Federation;
Mr. Paul Hansen, executive director of the Izaak Walton League
of America; Dr. Kevin Fennelly, medical doctor, staff
physician, the Division of Environmental and Occupational
Health Sciences, National Jewish Medical and Research Center;
and Dr. Christopher Grande, executive director of the
International Trauma Anesthesia and Critical Care Society.
Welcome to all of you. I would say to our two witnesses,
our two experts representing some of the agricultural concerns,
that I've spent a lot of time throughout western Oklahoma and
throughout southern Oklahoma in our ag communities to find that
there is a great deal of concern from both the Farmers Union,
the Farm Bureau, and their members.
We'll start off with Mr. Robert Junk, the president of the
Pennsylvania Farmers Union.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. JUNK, PRESIDENT, PENNSYLVANIA FARMERS
UNION, FOR NATIONAL FARMERS UNION
Mr. Junk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My
name is Robert Junk. I am the president of the Pennsylvania
Farmers Union. I'm also a member of the board of directors of
the National Farmers Union and appear here today on behalf of
the National Farmers Union.
The National Farmers Union is a general agricultural
organization representing 300,000 family farmers and ranchers.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
changes of air quality standards and emissions of particulate
matter.
The National Farmers Union has a long history of supporting
conservation programs because the family farmers, as stewards
of the land, are concerned about the environment. Significant
levels of emissions are already controlled because farmers and
ranchers are using good soil and water conservation practices
and are keeping their equipment in good operational condition.
It is simply in their best interest to do so because they seek
to preserve the land to pass on to future generations.
The National Farmers Union is concerned that the proposed
changes to the air quality standards for fine PM and ozone will
greatly increase the regulations of farm operations and
increase costs to farmers, both directly and indirectly. We are
additionally concerned that there is currently no funding in
place to offset these costs other than what farmers will be
required to pay.
At this point in time, I would like to summarize the rest
of my testimony for means of time.
I think there are three points that we have to look at when
we are addressing the proposed changes here. We need realistic
goals based on sound science. For example, Paul Johnson, head
of the NRCS, made a comment: ``We believe and will coordinate
research programs, and Federal, State, and local participation
is necessary in order to begin answering these questions.''
I think it is important that we take a look at that whole
issue because of the fact that, again, we have to establish
realistic goals. What is something that we can achieve? And
then also it has to be based on the sound science that supports
to achieve those goals.
I think the next issue we need to take a look at is a
practical model. I think we're all aware of the Clean Water
Act. The Clean Water Act has accomplished a number of different
things out there today, and one of the biggest things that the
Clean Water Act has incorporated out there in the agricultural
community is the outreach in education to farmers.
I think what we need to do is take a look at how the
conservation districts, along with the States, can partner
together to provide this adequate information to deliver to the
farmers to give them their practical practices that can be done
to achieve some of the standards that we would like to see in
clean air.
A little bit back in history of myself, currently I serve
on the Chesapeake Bay Advisory Committee in Pennsylvania, and
am the vice chairman of the Agricultural Advisory to DEP. Both
of those agencies are working on water quality.
Again, I reach out to the fact that one of the basic
problems we are having here with the air quality standards is
the fact that we are not doing the outreach and education that
we have done currently under the water quality issue. I think
it is important that we take a look at that.
I think the other area that we need to--the third point
that I would like to talk about is the Federal funds to achieve
goals, basically making it a priority, not just for one agency
but for all relative agencies. I think we need to, again, work
for partnershiping to assure that the funding is there to help
achieve our goals.
For example, one of the biggest issues I think we're facing
is retrofitting old and new equipment--the clarification
between what is new and what is old when we go looking at these
new standards coming into place. How do we associate a new
tractor that was just purchased, and now we have these
standards? Who is responsible for making that tractor comply
with the new regulations?
It's very costly. Farmers today have a difficult time being
able to pass these additional costs on out of their products.
It's important that we continue to look at that.
One other comment real quick I'd like to make is dealing
with the USDA. The Department of Agriculture questioned EPA's
proposed standards on PMs and charged that the new standards
are not based on adequate scientific evidence and would have a
large economic impact on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands of small business farms. I think that is a very
important issue.
In Pennsylvania we have a very heavy urban-based community.
Also, we have farms right outside of these urban areas. We are
suppressed by urban sprawl.
If these new standards go into place, these emission
standards may not even be coming from the actual farm
community, but the actual farm community would have to abide by
the same standards.
So, in conclusion, at this point in time the National
Farmers Union would encourage no changes within the standards
until we have some good scientific base to back up these
changes, along with being able to identify the source point.
Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Junk.
We've been joined by Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus, would you like to have an opening
statement?
Senator Baucus. No. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. All right. We've just completed our first
panel, which was mostly county, State, and city officials.
Mr. Vice.
STATEMENT OF BOB VICE, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION, FOR AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Mr. Vice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions,
Senator Baucus. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today
to testify before this committee on a very important issue--air
quality.
I am Bob Vice. I'm a farmer from southern California. I
raise avocados and citrus in Fallbrook, north San Diego County.
I'm the president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, and
today I'm representing the American Farm Bureau Federation, of
which I serve on the board of directors. It's the Nation's
largest general farm organization, with more than 4.7 million
members nationwide.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you
today the impact that the new air standards would have on the
agricultural community.
My comments focus primarily on the Environmental Protection
Agency proposal to revise the national ambient air quality
standards for particulate matter.
There has been and there continues to be a tremendous
amount of conservation activities by farmers and ranchers
across this country. These activities include such things as
conservation tillage techniques, or so-called ``no-till''
planting, planting cover crops, planting trees and vegetation
for wind breaks. All of these activities reduce wind erosion of
the soil which, in turn, provides cleaner air.
Farmers are cleaning the air and should get credit for
those activities, but make no mistake that we are all for clean
air, and this debate today really is about how to continue to
achieve those goals.
Agriculture is concerned because the EPA estimates show
that 34.3 percent of the fine particulate matter can be
attributed to agriculture and forestry. And, regarding this
questionable large estimate, I quote Dr. Calvin Parnell, a
professor of agricultural engineering at Texas A&M University,
and a member of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture's Task Force on Air Quality. He says--and
we agree--``the data used to develop this inventory was based
on erroneous emission factors published by EPA for cattle feed
yards, for feed mills, grain elevators, and dust from farmers'
field operations.''
Furthermore, I quote The Honorable Larry Combest, chairman
of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource
Conservation and Research. He says--and we also agree--``The
Science employed in developing this rule is not up to par, and
I'm concerned that farmers will bear the brunt of a bad policy
based on equally bad science. We don't have the research yet to
know whether we could actually attain these standards, how much
it will cost the agriculture industry and the consuming public,
and how much agriculture activities actually contribute to air
pollution problems.''
Today, however, I want to focus on an actual situation
those of us involved in California agriculture already face in
regard to the present PM<INF>10</INF> serious nonattainment
area for central and southern California. Agriculture in other
areas of the country may face the same situation if new PM
standards are imposed. Let me expand on one of our air
district's experiences in dealing with the present
PM<INF>10</INF> standards in regard to agriculture.
The emission inventory for agriculture that is used by EPA
has proven to have many flaws. Inaccurate estimations of the
number of times a farmer drives their tractors over a field is
just one major example. It was estimated that farmers tilled an
alfalfa field eight times a year. The actuality is that alfalfa
fields aren't tilled at all, aren't disked at all. They're cut.
There is quite a difference between disking and cutting hay.
It is estimated that rice fields were disked 13 times a
year. Rice fields are disked one time a year. Rangeland two
times a year. To my knowledge, there isn't any normal practice
where you disk rangeland.
But probably the most blatant example of inaccurate
inventory which would have cost the agricultural industry
hundreds of thousands of dollars was the initial emissions
inventory for combustion engines used on irrigation pumps in
the San Joaquin Valley. The original inventory estimated that
nitrogen oxide emissions, a precursor to PM<INF>10</INF>, was
at 626 tons per day from the irrigation pumps in San Joaquin
Valley.
This would have been the highest emission category for any
nitrogen oxide in the San Joaquin Valley, including all cars
and trucks.
Driven by agricultural inquiries as to this study, a new
study was commissioned that was based on actual interviews with
farmers about their pumps. The new study determined that
nitrous oxide emission for these pumps was actually 32 tons a
day, not 626 tons a day.
We have only begun to address agriculture's concern about
PM<INF>10</INF> estimates, many of which are unaddressed and
incorrect.
Concerning these discrepancies, it's unbelievable that we
are now facing again the same problems, only this time with
smaller particulate matter.
In attempting to resolve some of the agricultural emissions
surrounding the PM<INF>10</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF>, it became
necessary to conduct a multiyear, multifaceted air quality
study. Such a study was developed and is now underway in
California. However, it will not be completed, it is estimated,
for 5 years.
I want to emphasize that this study is the first
comprehensive study that will actually measure, not estimate,
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions. In order to avoid the mistakes that
we made with PM<INF>10</INF>, this study and others like it
must be completed before the costly implementation activities
and attainment deadlines and regulations are set in place.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that a shotgun approach
will only serve to put American agricultural out of competition
with other countries and put agricultural producers out of
work.
Because U.S. agricultural commodity prices are really tied
to global prices, a farmer cannot simply pass on the cost of
doing business to the consumer. Therefore, any increase in
operational cost of farming becomes significant and must be
based on accurate information that really justifies the
expenditures.
We want to be careful that we're not tipping the balance of
regulation in this country so far as to force the grocers and
the brokers to place their orders with food purchased from
other countries.
The agricultural community enjoys breathing clean air as
much as anyone, but we don't want to waste money on control
measures that will have little or no effect on the air in this
Nation.
The USDA must maintain a strong presence and discussion
continuing these standards, and we recommend it extend their
comments on the issue in regard to economic impacts of the
standards on farms and ranches.
USDA, the Small Business Administration, and the USDA's
Agricultural Air Quality Task Force must continue to demand
that the concerns of American farmers and ranchers are
addressed at the EPA in order to sustain a healthy abundant
food supply.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Vice.
Mr. Hansen.
STATEMENT OF PAUL HANSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON
LEAGUE OF AMERICA
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions,
Senator Baucus. I am Paul Hansen, executive director of the
Izaak Walton League of America, which is celebrating its 75th
year of working to conserve, maintain, protect, and restore the
soil, forests, water, and other natural resources of the United
States.
Protection of the Nation's air quality is part of the Izaak
Walton League's mission and is of vital importance to our
members, the majority of whom live in our Nation's agricultural
communities.
We've worked on clean air issues since the first Federal
Air Pollution Act, which you may remember was passed during the
Eisenhower Administration. You've already heard testimony on a
few of the benefits this new standard would realize for the
health of our people and our natural environment. I want to
implore you today to consider the findings of the Department of
Agricultural's national crop loss assessment network data which
was released during the Reagan Administration.
We were involved in this NCLAN study and cosponsored a
symposium in 1982 with the Boyce Thompson Institute at Cornell
University, at which many of the findings were released and
discussed.
In 1990 I personally followed up on that information and
conducted a literature review of the effects of air pollution
on crops, a summary of which is available for you here today.
I'm here today to tell you that there is a great deal of
science that shows unequivocally that the benefits of this
standard would by far exceed the costs to the American farmer.
The new ozone standard would provide millions of dollars in
agricultural benefits each year.
At air pollution levels today, well below those that are
commonplace, ozone can reduce the yield of commodity crops like
corn and soybeans by 10 percent or more, depending on the
particular cultivator. Dirty air costs our country
approximately one billion bushels of corn and two million
bushels of soybeans each year. Based on the 1992 agricultural
consensus figures, that cost is approximately $3 billion in
lost revenue.
This figure is consistent with the figure found in 1982 by
NCLAN, where researchers calculated the air pollution losses
alone to only four major crops--corn, wheat, soybeans, and
peanuts--amounted to between $1.9 and $4.5 billion annually.
Because these figures did not include other potentially
sensitive crops or other pollutants or some of the potentially
synergistic effects we heard about earlier, or environmental
stresses such as disease and drought, these figures are likely
to be much higher than the ones that NCLAN found.
It's very well established in the literature the effects of
ozone on crops is very insidious and, in most cases, invisible
even to experts such as those we have here today. A 10-percent
reduction, which can be common at ozone levels found throughout
much of the soybean growing region, while highly significant in
terms of yield, would be effectively invisible, even to the
trained eye. Can you imagine holding in your hand soybeans, and
then another handful of soybeans that would weigh 10 percent
less? It would be very hard to see.
In the last 2 years, much more recently, three groups of
experts on ozone's vegetative impacts have reconfirmed the
seriousness of ozone's impacts on commodity crops, forests, and
other vegetation, which were first measured by NCLAN in 1982.
These groups include the agricultural forest and ecological
scientists convened at the Southern Occident Study Workshop in
1995, the Department of Interior, and the independent Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee. All three have recommended a
secondary standard for ozone to help protect our Nation's crops
and vegetation from the effects of ozone. All have emphasized
that crops and vegetation are much more sensitive to ozone
impacts than even humans are.
I know that concern has been expressed regarding the cost
of implementing a new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, particularly
in agricultural areas. I'd like to close by addressing this
issue.
First, it's essential that standards be set at levels that
are protective of human health, not levels regulated industries
consider cost-effective.
More importantly, the new particular matter standard
applies to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, not PM<INF>10</INF>. EPA has not
recommended any tightening levels of PM<INF>10</INF>. The
distinction is important because all PM<INF>2.5</INF> is the
product of combustion, and almost all PM<INF>10</INF> is
created by earth-moving activities such as construction,
mining, or agricultural practices like tilling.
Third, on most farms the primary source of combustion is
diesel-fueled farm equipment. This equipment is responsible for
a very tiny amount of the primary pollutants that create
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The amount of these pollutants created by
farm equipment is so small that they're insignificant when
compared to emissions from other PM<INF>2.5</INF> sources. It
is highly unlikely that they would be regulated under any
compliance plan.
Farm equipment also creates only about 1 percent of the
national nitrogen oxide emissions and almost no sulphur dioxide
emissions.
Finally, the history of pollution control suggests strongly
that, even if control on diesel fuel does become necessary,
these controls will cost a lot less than predicted.
One industry lobbyist has suggested that our children can
stay home on bad air days. Well, farmers don't have that
option.
On balance, if you take a good look at the science, I think
that you will see that the new standard has a net benefit to
the Nation's farmers.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for the
opportunity to address this new standard's agricultural impacts
and to try to shed light on one of the hidden victims of the
Nation's polluted air, the American farmer.
I would greatly encourage you to add to the list of people
who testify at your hearings some of the Nation's experts, such
as Dr. Howard Hack or Dr. Alice Cowling, who have been parts of
these committees and were part of the NCLAN study back in 1982.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.
We had made an attempt to involve as many people as
possible, and apparently there is an infinite number of experts
out there.
Dr. Fennelly.
STATEMENT OF DR. KEVIN P. FENNELLY, M.D., STAFF PHYSICIAN,
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCES,
NATIONAL JEWISH MEDICAL AND RESEARCH CENTER
Dr. Fennelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Kevin Fennelly. I'm an academic
physician at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in
Denver, Colorado. I'm board certified in pulmonary medicine and
in occupational environmental medicine, and my time is evenly
divided between patient care and clinical and epidemiologic
research.
My research interests include the epidemiology of the
health effects of particulate air pollution, so I am familiar
with the scientific literature in this area.
I'm testifying today as a concerned physician, scientist,
and citizen in support of the EPA proposal for a new
particulate matter standard.
I wish to emphasize three points: No. 1, particulate air
pollution causes human suffering, not just statistics; No. 2,
there is biological plausibility to support the epidemiologic
findings of adverse health effects associated with particulate
air pollution; and No. 3, the risks of adverse health effects
due to particulate air pollution are comparable to other risks
which our society has not found acceptable.
I have personally seen patients who report worsening of
their asthma symptoms associated with air pollution in Denver,
Phoenix, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay area, and
colleagues have reported similar encounters to me.
I am disturbed by recent comments which have trivialized
the respiratory symptoms associated with air pollution. Allow
me to suggest a simple exercise for those of you who may not
have experience with respiratory diseases.
Simply take a drinking straw and breathe through it for
several minutes. Or, better yet, try to walk about and climb
some stairs. Then imagine feeling that way for hours or days.
It is not a trivial discomfort.
Another disturbing suggestion I have heard is that patients
with lung diseases should simply medicate themselves more to
cope with air pollution. This is irrational and violates basic
medical principles.
A common criticism of the EPA proposal is that the
epidemiologic studies are not supported by biological
plausibility. Although we still have much to learn, this is not
true. In the killer fog of London in 1952, 60 percent of over
500 autopsies demonstrated both heart and lung disease.
Godleski and colleagues recently presented preliminary
findings of an inhalation toxicology study coherent with these
pathologic findings. Animals with chronic bronchitis who were
exposed to urban air particulates had a much higher death rate
than did the unexposed animals.
Other animal studies have demonstrated lung inflammation
and injury, especially with exposures to the very small or
ultrafine particles.
In my written testimony I have cited several recent papers
on the basic biological mechanisms underlying these
inflammatory responses.
The critical question is how much risk we, as a society,
are willing to accept. In our history, cancer hazards have
often been regulated if the risk were greater than 1 per
100,000. In fact, the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 mandated
that the EPA regulate air pollutant emissions to reduce the
lifetime cancer risk to less than 1 in 1,000,000.
I suggest that an increased risk of death from heart or
lung disease should be assigned equal value to the increased
risk of death from cancer.
In my written testimony, I calculated incidence rates for
deaths attributable to short-term exposures to particulate air
pollution in Denver, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. For Los
Angeles, this risk is 250 per 100,000 persons over 10 years;
thus, the risk of acute cardiopulmonary death associated with
particulate air pollution over only one decade is greater than
a lifetime risk of cancer previously deemed unacceptable by
Congress and the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, acute mortality is only the tip of the
iceberg. These estimates do not include the many chronic and
nonfatal health effects of particulate air pollution.
These issues are extremely complex, and in our struggles to
be objective by analyzing quantitative data it is easy to
become known by the numbers. Behind those statistics are real
people suffering with real symptoms. There are adequate data to
support more stringent regulation of particulate air pollution,
and the lack of absolutely certainty cannot be an excuse for
inaction.
We could improve the public health by implementing even
more protective standards, such as those proposed by the
American Lung Association. At minimum, I urge you to support
the proposed changes in the particulate air pollution standard
as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, but with
retention of the existing PM<INF>10</INF> standard.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my concerns.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Fennelly.
Dr. Christopher Grande.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHRISTOPHER M. GRANDE, M.D., EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL TRAUMA ANESTHESIA AND CRITICAL CARE
SOCIETY
Dr. Grande. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Christopher
Grande, and I'm a practicing physician from Baltimore, MD. I'm
a board-certified anesthesiologist and intensive care
specialist in trauma injury. I have authored and edited
numerous medical books and have had about 30 articles published
in professional journals.
I'm also executive director of the International Trauma
Anesthesia and Critical Care Society, or ITACCS for short.
ITACCS is a 10-year-old professional association of more than
1,000 trauma specialists and emergency room physicians, nurses,
and related professionals.
I also hold a master's degree in public health from Johns
Hopkins University School of Public Health.
I would like to thank the committee and Chairman Inhofe for
inviting me to provide ITACCS' views on the proposed ozone and
particulate matter standards.
Before I specifically address the standards, though, I
would like to first give the committee some important
background information.
As Dr. Fennelly pointed out, every day I'm in the hospital
emergency room I see patients and problems vying for critical
resources, from acute asthma patients to traumatic injuries.
These are all competing public health priorities--all competing
for limited available public health resources.
The focus of ITACCS is traumatic injury, often accidental
in nature, such as that caused by motor vehicle, on-the-job, or
household accidents. Injury is the leading cause of death for
those under the age of 45, and it is the fourth-leading cause
of death overall in the United States--about 150,000 deaths per
year.
Trauma cuts across all of society. The injured person is
not someone else. The injured patient is you, your child, your
spouse, your parent.
The average age of injury victims is 20. Death from injury
is the leading cause of years per life lost in the United
States--more than twice the number of years per life lost as
the next-leading cause, cancer, and three times that of heart
disease.
According to 1990 statistics from the Centers of Disease
Control and Prevention, traumatic injury was responsible for
approximately 3.7 million years of potential life lost. In
contrast, cancer was responsible for 1.8 million years of
potential life lost, and heart disease was responsible for 1.3
million years of life lost.
What does this tell us? The National Academy of Sciences
concluded in 1985 that trauma was the No. 1 public health
problem in the United States. This situation remains unchanged
today.
How is this relevant to the debate over ozone and
particulate matter standards? It can be simply put in three
words: public health priorities. The fact is that society has
limited resources that it can spend on public health. As such,
responsible public policy dictates that such resources be spent
so as to achieve the biggest bang for the buck.
ITACCS is not convinced, neither should the public be, that
the proposed ozone and particulate matter standards are a smart
way for us to spend our limited resources. But I want to make
it clear that we are not singling out only proposed ozone and
particulate matter air quality standards. The proposed
standards are merely the latest example in what we see as a
disturbing trend over the last two decades where scarce public
health resources are diverted from more clearly demonstrated
beneficial uses.
The unintended consequence of this diversion might be a
decrease in the overall effectiveness and efficiency of public
health care delivery.
As the makers of our laws and the ultimate allocators of
our public health resources, Congress should take the lead in
rationally allocating our limited resources. But how would
Congress know what is a priority and what is not? The process
behind the proposed ozone and particulate matter air quality
standards has not been helpful.
First, the proposed rules do not provide a ranking or
comparison between the estimated health effects attributed to
ozone and PM and those of other public health needs.
One of the health end points associated with the proposed
rules is asthma. No doubt, asthma is a serious issue and our
public health resources should be directed at asthma. But a
recent study published in the February 1997, issue of
``American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine,''
a journal of the American Lung Association, helps place air-
pollution-induced asthma in perspective.
In this study, which includes a study design that has been
characterized as the most reliable on potential health effects
of ambient ozone--that is, the study model of children
attending asthma camp--air pollution was associated with a 40
percent increase in asthma exacerbation in children. It sounds
bad, but what does this really mean?
Assuming, for sake of argument, that the author's
conclusion is reasonable, this increase in asthma exacerbation
equates to one extra use of an inhaler amongst one in seven
severe asthmatics on the worst pollution day.
However, close scrutiny of this study reveals that many
confounding risk factors for asthma exacerbation were not
considered by the study authors. These risk factors include:
changes in temperature, atmospheric pressure, anxiety, physical
exertion, dust, and fumes, and many more--all recognized to be
active factors.
Moreover, the study is inconsistent with the general
observation that, while asthma has increased over the last 15
or so years, air pollution has decreased.
As stated earlier by the chairman, there appears to be no
generally accepted explanation for this phenomenon; therefore,
the study does not satisfactorily link ambient ozone with
asthma exacerbation.
Before we commit our scarce resources, wouldn't it be
useful to know exactly where this very uncertain health effect
ranks amongst other real public health priorities?
If asthma qualifies as a public health concern, appropriate
levels of funding should be targeted at programs that have been
proven to be effective but not fully implemented.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Grande, we're running out of time.
Could you conclude quickly?
Dr. Grande. Certainly.
The long and the short of it, Mr. Chairman, to cut to the
end of this, is that asthma, as Dr. Fennelly so astutely
pointed out, is an important health problem. It needs to be
examined within the context of other important health problems.
I'm not here to talk about my disease, trauma, today, but if I
were, I have the hard statistics to back up any statement that
I would want to make that would allow trauma to compete for
allocation of other scarce health resources.
Any disease should be qualified as a public health crisis
and then appropriate levels of funding should be decided
through a competitive analysis based upon sound data.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Grande.
Let me start off with the two gentlemen representing the
Farmers Union and the Farm Bureau. We passed a law, the Small
Business Regulatory Standards Act, that requires that, prior to
putting out a rule, that we deliberate the effects that it
would have on what they call ``small entities.'' It's somewhat
vague in its interpretation, but generally they're talking
about people with less than 10 employees or individuals. I
think they're really talking about the farmers of America here.
Apparently, we've heard from these hearings here that this
wasn't going to have any noticeable impact. Would you agree
with this, that we are--that it's not going to have the impact
on what is defined as small entities or firms?
Mr. Vice. I certainly wouldn't agree with that at all. I
think it would have a large impact.
Senator Inhofe. There are two areas, two laws that we've
talked about several times. That's one of them. The other is
the unfunded mandates. We've heard from the last panel that
they expressed themselves pretty clearly on that.
Mr. Vice, you heard testimony from Mr. Hansen. They claim
that farms would benefit more from these standards and that the
only real cost would be controls on diesel-fueled farm
equipment, which he doesn't seem to think will be necessary.
Last week we had a witness from the Southwest Coastal
Management District in California--which you probably know that
individual. They said that the diesel vehicles would need to be
controlled, along with small, two-stroke engines.
How would these controls, in your determination, affect
farmers?
Mr. Vice. Well, I think it will affect it greatly. In fact,
the latest information I have is that the emissions, alone, is
estimated to be--the total emissions, according to a chart that
was put out by the Air Resources Board, indicates that almost
over a third of all the emissions are from agriculture.
If we start trying to mitigate that, it is going to be a
tremendous cost to agriculture. I agree with Mr. Hansen that
there would be crop loss. I think there have been studies that
would indicate that.
What we do disagree on is how much. In fact, I have a
report by EPA's own Scientific Committee reporting on crop loss
that says that two of the experts--it said the open-end
chambers experiments, by their very design and execution,
produces results that over-estimate the effects of ozone on
plant yield.
I think that we have a lot of work to be done in this area,
and I don't disagree with anyone about the fact that this is a
health problem that needs to be addressed.
My testimony and my concern is that we have bad science
dictating how much of this is coming from the agricultural
community.
When you have a study that says farmers disk a hay field
eight times, we know that that's not right.
Senator Inhofe. You're from California, and you, Mr. Junk,
are from Pennsylvania, so we're kind of in the middle there out
in Oklahoma. I probably speak for Senator Baucus, too.
We have a different type of a problem--that is, a normal
wind velocity that is there on a daily basis.
I was in western Oklahoma all day yesterday, all the way
from Altus up to Woodward. They are very much concerned about
this because on a normal day--in fact, you can't find a day
that doesn't have what we feel would put them into the
position, as far as the new standards on particulate matter, of
being out of compliance.
Would you tell me again--you talked about the faulty
information or assumptions that we had on disking of rice
fields. I found that to be kind of interesting, although I
don't really think about disking of rice fields, but I don't
know that you don't disk the rangeland, because we have a lot
of that out there. Where did that come from?
Mr. Vice. That was figures that were used in the study on
PM<INF>10</INF> particulate matter, 10 microns, and how much
was coming from the agricultural community.
It was estimated that the dust contributed this vast
amount, and when they extrapolated back of how the dust ended
up in the air it was because of these number of trips through
fields that tractors made, and that's where the estimation of 8
times disking a hay field came up, 13 times on rice, and 2 on
rangeland. That was part of the study that was put together on
ambient dust.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. And who did this study?
Mr. Vice. It was done, as far as I know, by EPA.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Mr. Hansen, you mentioned that--and
I've heard in the last five hearings all kinds of estimates on
premature deaths. I think the figure you used was 15,000. The
figure that the EPA used at one time--they've used several
figures--at one time was 20,000, and then we had a group coming
in here that said it was 60,000.
I guess I'd ask you and the two doctors to get a--how do
you arrive? You know, obviously someone is wrong, but if you're
trying to promote a program that might be a flawed program or a
premature program not based on science, the first thing you
want to do is get the public thinking that there are thousands
and thousands of premature deaths out there.
Give us your estimate as to how they can determine, Dr.
Fennelly and Dr. Grande, premature deaths, and why there is
such a divergence in these estimates?
Dr. Fennelly. I'll go ahead.
I believe most of that, or at least the early work, was
done by Dr. Joel Schwartz, and it does involve a lot of
computations that I think results in some of the disparity in
results, because essentially you have to try to get estimates
of how much particulate matter pollution there are in various
cities across the country, and then for each day try to
estimate how much over baseline, if you will, the pollution is,
and then what fraction of deaths would be attributable to that.
But, as you said, what I've heard is consistent with your
comments, and that is more in the 40,000 to 60,000 per year
range.
Senator Inhofe. That's not really what I said. I said that
there is a disparity that I don't understand because I don't
have that kind of a background.
My beloved mother-in-law died on New Year's Day. She was 94
years old. I've often wondered if she showed up in the
statistics.
Dr. Fennelly. Well, she may if she was in a city where
there was high air pollution on that particular day.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Dr. Fennelly. But because of the epidemiologic nature you
can't isolate any one person.
Senator Inhofe. Dr. Grande, any thoughts on that?
Dr. Grande. I agree with a lot of the way that Dr. Fennelly
has explained the process of collecting the data. On a specific
point, the number that you brought up, I heard the 15,000 to
20,000. Let me point out that I am not an expert on ozone or
air quality standards, but I do have training and background in
public health and biostatistics, and, as far as that 15,000 or
20,000 deaths per year disparity, it was my understanding, as
acknowledged recently by the EPA and then reported in major
newspapers such as The Washington Post, the simple error of
using an arithmetic mean instead of using an arithmetic median
reduced this estimate mortality from fine particulate matters
down from 20,000 to 15,000.
Now, having reviewed, as I have, a fair amount of the data
and literature, both from the physical sciences side of this as
well as the clinical science side of it, and as an educated
observer, it seems to me that the right hand is not talking to
the left hand about this data, and that's one of the problems.
A lot of this clinical studies which really would represent, if
you will, where the rubber meets the road have yet to be done.
But, in general, reviewing the collection of data that I've
seen on this--and I've heard people much more educated and
astute about this comment the same, which is that it's an
extremely poor collection of data. It's based on a number of
assumptions which, if--it's almost like a house of cards. If
you pull out one card, everything through that entire
assumption could fall apart.
Senator Inhofe. I understand.
Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, obviously the goal here, as in most hearings, is
to find the truth. Usually there is a grain of truth in what
everybody says, and it's usually true that people kind of take
their own positions in representing their own organizations,
which tend to be a little more extreme than the middle. That's
not always the case, but I think it's a fair assumption.
So I'm going to take that assumption and assume that each
of you is taking a position which is tilted a little bit more
toward your organization's usual point of view rather than
where the real truth actually lies here--that is, somewhere in
between--and attempt to try to find that.
Now, there are some who say that even though
PM<INF>10</INF> is an issue with respect to wind and dust and
so forth, that what we're really getting at here is not
PM<INF>10</INF> at all but PM<INF>2.5</INF>. And those people
say--and this is EPA's data. Right away that's going to raise a
red flag. Some people are going to say, ``It's EPA, therefore
it's wrong,'' but I'm going to assume that it's accurate until
it's proven wrong.
According to EPA, wind-blown dust is really only a small
part of PM<INF>2.5</INF>--in fact, it's about 10 percent of
PM<INF>2.5</INF>--and that farm activities are responsible for
about one-third of wind-blown dust, and therefore a calculation
is that farm activities are responsible for only about 2 to 3
percent of the total PM<INF>2.5</INF> problem, and that's
somewhere along the lines of what you were saying, Mr. Hansen,
if I heard your testimony correctly.
And the rest of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, comes from combustion,
and farm activities obviously through diesel combustion are
part of that.
But its this analysis that I am referring to--again this is
off of the EPA web page--that essentially, with respect to
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, farm activities are about 2 to 3 percent of
the problem, and with respect to that part--and if we're to
even look at diesel fuel and combustion, which would be diesel
combustion, that when a State implements a plan, a State has
all kinds of options on how to implement a plan.
Perhaps a State might want to say, with respect to diesel
combustion on farms, that that's not going to be touched; that,
rather, they might look at diesel fuel off coast with ships or
highways, or trucks--diesel combustion from trucks, for
example.
I know that farmers have a pretty good lobby, and my sense
is that farmers will do a pretty good job in not being part of
the problem.
So what I'm really trying to get at here is first you, Mr.
Hansen, and I'll ask you, Mr. Vice, to comment just on that
general proposition that if you really look at the actual data
that farm activities are really a very small part of 2.5, and
then the next point is with respect to what we do about that if
this proposed regulation were to go into effect, that it is
true that there are lots of ways to deal with that, and one is
through the State implementation plan, and when the States do
devise their implementation plans there are a myriad number of
ways that they can deal with the combustion part of it.
So, Mr. Hansen, your observations? You know, we're all
Americans. We're here together. We're just trying to find a
common solution here.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, I
think you're absolutely correct that State implementation plans
are very unlikely to include farm equipment and that
PM<INF>2.5</INF> is really not going to be affected by
agricultural activity to any great extent.
Diesel engines are already regulated by EPA and will
continue to be. And we should point out that EPA has expressed
their willingness to collect PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring data
for 3 years before PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation, so we
should know a great deal more about this very question before
anything before the States would be asked.
Senator Baucus. So what you're saying is if this were to go
into effect it would be about 10 years before it's felt?
Mr. Hansen. Very likely.
Senator Baucus. And lots of different options and
alternatives during that 10 years to try to figure out an
answer to this.
Mr. Vice.
Mr. Vice. Thank you, Senator Baucus. I couldn't agree more
with you that we--this is an issue that, as we like to say, the
science is in the following mode as to some of the regulations
that are being proposed.
For example, we started 2 years ago with the reformulated
diesel in California during the winter months. We today do not
know how much good effect or bad effect that's having. We think
it's good, but, quite frankly, we don't have the figures in
from that yet.
There is a study that's being implemented right now, a
good, hard study that measures what is the emissions out of
farm equipment diesel and trucks hauling on the highway
products with the reformulated diesel in the winter months. We
don't have those figures yet.
What we're saying is, ``Let's don't rush to implement
standards where we don't have the hard evidence.'' We have
estimates on what the emissions really are. Give us a chance to
find out what those hard numbers are so we can make intelligent
decisions rather than just rush into something.
Senator Baucus. Yes.
Mr. Vice. And I appreciate your estimate of the farm lobby,
but I would maintain that anybody that sees over one-third of
the emissions coming from agriculture isn't going to want to
leave agriculture out of the formula to try to fix it.
Senator Baucus. But we've determined it's not one-third;
it's about 2 to 3 percent.
Mr. Vice. Well, according to EPA's figure it's 34.5 percent
is agriculture and forestry.
Senator Baucus. Not with respect to PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
Mr. Vice. This is the PM<INF>2.5</INF> pie chart.
Senator Baucus. Well, I have different EPA data. What I
have is, once you calculate it out, it's about 2.5 from
PM<INF>10</INF>--from PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
Mr. Vice, I'm just curious--Mr. Chairman, one more
question?
Senator Inhofe. Sure.
Senator Baucus. I was just struck with Mr. Hansen's point
that the ozone standards will actually increase crop yields. Do
you agree with that or not? As I understand, it's USDA data. I
don't know where you got that information.
Mr. Vice. I think there's crop damage. I don't agree that
it's anywhere to the extent that Mr. Hansen has indicated. We
think there are some--we know that there are some decrease.
I was pointing to the EPA's Scientific Committee on that
subject, where they admit in their own information that the
figures that fall in their report are highly over-estimated.
That's their Scientific Committee's report.
Senator Baucus. Have you seen that, Mr. Hansen, that
document that Mr. Vice is referring to, where apparently there
is some acknowledgement that the data is over-stated?
Mr. Hansen. I've not seen this. I do have data from USDA,
1984, which has a list of the reductions for various cultivars.
I'd be glad to submit this for your consideration.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, if we could just have both
documents submitted for the record, we could go through it and
try to determine what's going on here.
Mr. Hansen. The numbers are very high for some cultivators.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think we do have a serious public policy decision to
make.
Dr. Grande, I want to express my appreciation to you for
your remarks. As somebody who just joined this committee, just
joined this body, I came in here and would ask certain
questions like, ``If we're going to deal with asthma and the
ozone levels cost $6 billion to implement, could we save more
asthmatics by spending $6 billion more on treatment and care of
asthmatics?'' And I'm told, ``Oh, no, you can't ask that
question. That deals with cost, and we're not here to talk
about cost.'' But obviously we're here to talk about cost.
You had the courage to come in and say some things I
thought were very, very worthwhile.
Let me ask you this: is it your understanding on the 15,000
premature deaths that many of those would represent terminally
ill patients that are in very weakened positions? Would that be
factored into the numbers?
Dr. Grande. I think my understanding of the terminology or
the phrase used is premature deaths in the context of this
discussion on ozone and air quality and PM. There are a lot of
what we would call ``confounding factors,'' and particularly if
you look at the mean age of these so-called ``premature
deaths.'' They tend to be skewed toward the older age groups,
and they seem to show that there is an association with some
other underlying cardiopulmonary diseases. And whether Mr. X
was going to die on Tuesday from whatever it was that killed
him versus on Wednesday, and whether air quality had anything
to do with that or not I think is a very difficult issue to
prove.
It would be nice if we could prove it, but I don't think
there have really been any legitimate efforts to try to prove
that.
As far as the comment that you made in terms of whether we
can more intelligently or effectively or efficiently spend the
money that we are going to spend for asthma, which is a public
health problem, I think Dr. Fennelly, as a pulmonologist, sees
far more patients with chronic asthma than I do. I see patients
with acute asthma that come into the emergency department or
the ICU.
Yes, it's true that it's a very dramatic presentation of
somebody gasping for their next breath, but I have to also tell
you that, as somebody working in those environments, the
medications that I have available to me now allow me to rapidly
and effectively reverse that ``death's door'' situation,
whereas the same patient, same age, comes through the door
after having been in a car accident with a head injury and I
can't do anything about that.
So if you wanted to ask me if that next patient coming
through the door was a relative of mine and where am I going to
spend my next dollar, I would have to say on something else.
Or, if you wanted me to spend it on that, you've got a much
larger job to prove it to me that that's an effective
allocation.
Senator Sessions. Well, it is a very troubling moral
dilemma for us to wrestle with, and I think, with regard to
trauma deaths, as you point out, many of those are otherwise
healthy with long life expectancies.
I think that's something that, as we consider--and I think
it's important to understand, and I think most of us do that
are thoughtful, that any burden that we place on local
government, farmers, industry, or individuals that's a cost is
the equivalent of the Federal Government taxing them and doing
that for them.
In other words, it is a drain on their resources, and
before we do that we ought to ask, if we're going to drain that
resource, where would we spend it to get the most benefit for
the most people.
One of the things that's troubling me has been the numbers.
I do find that strange. Mr. Chairman, you pointed out the cost/benefit
study error that is very significant, I think, very
troubling that EPA would miss that, and then we have them
cultivating hay fields 8 times or 13 times a year. Anybody that
knows anything about--I mean, that's out of the range. That's
not an error. I mean, that's just dreamland numbers. If you
know about farming, you know that's not true.
So I don't know where we are on all those things, but they
are matters that concern me.
Dr. Fennelly, do you know how the premature death numbers
are calculated? Do you know? Can you tell us, in your best
judgment, because it still concerns me that 15,000 may be
prematurely dying. I think that's a very significant figure. I
don't mean to minimize it, but how is that calculated?
Dr. Fennelly. Well, these are difficult epidemiologic
methods. They generally are based on time series studies where
you add in all the variables that you know about that
contribute to a health outcome--in this case mortality--and,
for example, we know that season, temperature, humidity, day of
the week, a number of factors are involved, and so you create a
base model and say that this is the variability that we would
see.
Senator Sessions. Day of the week?
Dr. Fennelly. Day of the week. Monday mornings are a very
bad time, just so you know.
Senator Sessions. Police say the full moon is a bad time.
Dr. Fennelly. Not that we know of. And then on top of that
you add the air pollution variable, or whatever exposure you're
interested in, to see if there's an excess in that amount.
Part of the problem now is that--and the reason the science
has come to the forefront is because of the great computing
power that we have now and the improvement in statistical
methods. In a way, this is--I sort of feel like people are
shooting the messengers when they get mad at the epidemiologist
for coming up with these studies, because these are very
sensitive tools.
It's the same as going into your doctor feeling fine and
then having your doctor say your blood pressure is elevated and
you need to take this, and you say, ``I didn't perceive a
problem. What's the deal?'' In a sense, on a population basis,
I guess that's the best type of corollary I can offer.
The problem is these are very small effects, I'll grant you
that, but they're distributed through a large number of people
across the country.
You'll probably remember in 1984 the Bhopal disaster. More
than 2,000 people were killed in that disaster due to an acute
release of methyl isocyanate. But in a way we have become numb
by the numbers because we're talking about, ``Well, is it
40,000 or 60,000?'' Just as an aside, I think the 15,000 we're
talking about are the amount of lives saved. The 40,000 to
60,000 are the total mortality attributed to particulate air
pollution. Either way, it's a lot more than 2,000.
And so in a sense we have to deal with our improved
technology, our improved ability to detect these very subtle
effects.
I'll grant you, these are very difficult decisions to make
based on public health priorities and all the priorities that
you face.
Senator Sessions. Not only that, but the question is, If
somebody had severe emphysema and would be adjudged to be
terminally ill, if they died when there was a bad ozone or
particulate day, that would be part of the statistics number;
is that right? And so it is fair to say if more died on a bad
air, during bad pollution, that is an adverse health effect.
Dr. Fennelly. Yes.
Senator Sessions. But we're talking about that kind of
effect, aren't we?
Dr. Fennelly. Yes.
Senator Sessions. Premature death? Is that the right
phrase?
Dr. Fennelly. We're looking at the excess of total deaths
on those particular days.
Senator Sessions. Excess of total deaths on the days in
which the pollution is bad?
Dr. Fennelly. Right, compared with lesser pollution.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
I want to thank the panel very much. You will be receiving
some questions in writing.
Yes, Mr. Junk?
Mr. Junk. I apologize. I'd like to make a comment to your
first question that you asked earlier about the small business
impact.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Mr. Junk. I think it's important that we take a look at
that issue because of the fact that I don't believe that it has
been recognized within the agricultural community of what
impact this will have on the small family farm operations.
USDA has stated concerns held by farm groups that the new
standards may impose significant cost on farmers, particularly
the 71 percent of U.S. farms with annual sales of less than
$40,000. That's a large segment of agriculture that's going to
be impacted dramatically by these standards, especially when we
look at not just the tractor that is driven on that farm, but
the inputs that they have to purchase off the farm such as
fertilizer, such as pesticides, such as other associated
products used to produce that crop, along with the livestock
operations as far as the emissions from the livestock
operations, also.
How does that affect the poultry farm, the dairy farm, the
beef farmer? Those are critical issues that need to be
addressed and need to be addressed on economic impact to the
whole industry.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that, Mr. Junk, and I think
also the fact that if you're talking about small entities
you're talking about, whatever definition you use, the impact
on utility rates is going to be about an increase of 8 percent,
as we have determined that it's in that range, anyway. That
affects everybody.
Our time has expired for this panel. I appreciate very much
your being here. I know your time is very valuable. You will be
receiving some questions in writing.
Mr. Vice. Mr. Chairman, could I leave two documents for the
record?
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Mr. Vice. The letter that was in question, the amount of
crop loss. That's EPA's own scientific panel. Plus the pie
chart on 2.5 that Senator Baucus was concerned about that shows
that they believe it's 29. I'd like to submit both of those for
the record.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Without objection that will be made a
part of the record.
I'd invite our third and final panel to come forward to the
witness table. I'd like to welcome Mr. Harry Alford, who is the
president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Frank
Herhold, executive director of the Marine Industries
Association of South Florida; Mr. Jeffrey Smith, executive
director of the Institute of Clean Air Companies; and Mr. Glenn
Heilman, vice president, Heilman Pavement Specialties,
Incorporated, for the National Federation of Independent
Business.
We will start with Mr. Alford.
STATEMENT OF HARRY C. ALFORD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL BLACK
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Alford. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, my name is Harry Alford, president and CEO of
the National Black Chamber of Commerce. The NBCC is made up of
155 affiliated chapters located in 43 States. We have three
divisions, nine regions, 43 district offices. We have them in
Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Lawton, for your information, Mr.
Chairman.
Through direct membership and by our affiliated chapters,
the NBCC directly speaks on behalf of 60,000 black-owned
businesses and represents a total populous of black-owned firms
which, according to U.S. Census, is over 620,000.
The NBCC is opposed to the two proposals presented by the
EPA that would set a more stringent ozone standard and
establish a new standard for emissions at or below
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 has made much progress in
improving our environment. We sincerely feel that the
continuance of this process will further improve the
environment. To put more stringent demands on our businesses
will have extreme adverse impact on business, in general, with
even higher stakes for small businesses, per se. If big
business gets a cold, small business gets the flu, and black-
owned businesses suffer pneumonia.
An example of the above can be found in our campaign to
develop business partnerships with the automobile industry. We
have approached and are working with principals within the
management of Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors. One success
story is at the time of preliminary discussions with Chrysler
we had no black-owned architect, civil engineer, or
construction company performing work of over $1 million. Today,
after just 1 year of interaction, we have businesses in such
disciplines actively working on or negotiating over $100
million worth of Chrysler expansion.
This is just one example. These three auto makers have
expansion plans in cities located in the midwest, southwest,
southeast, and northeast. This is an expansion investment of
$37.9 billion, which is the equivalent of the total annual
sales for all black-owned businesses combined.
Just competing for this business and winning 10 percent
would increase the total output of America's black-owned
businesses by over 10 percent. It's a goal worth going after;
however, it may not exist for the black segment of this economy
if the new standards go into effect. This is just the auto
industry. We're busy creating alliances with the oil industry,
electrical utilities, telecommunication companies, etc.
The potential for economic parity and true capitalism in
black communities, the missing link is before us. Viable
employment through economic infrastructure in currently
distressed neighborhoods is going to be the answer to improved
health care, education, family values, and the decrease in
hopelessness, crime, welfare, and violence. There is just no
other way to do it.
We've heard coming out of EPA terms such as ``environmental
justice'' and ``environmental racism.'' Such terms are not
accurate in their description. They imply that the evils of big
business conspire in back rooms to wreak havoc on minority
communities by dumping toxic and hazardous materials, etc. The
coincidence of en-
vironmental hazards in minority communities is a matter of
economics. Property values and shifts in desirable business
properties are the main reasons. Minority populations just
happen to live there after a cycled geographical shift in these
communities.
However, if there was ever a policy or proposed regulation
that could be considered directly adversarial to a particular
segment of our population, we may now have it. The proposed
standards are going to hit urban communities the hardest. Of
the 620,000 black-owned businesses, at least 98 percent of them
are located in urban areas. Hispanic and Asian businesses
probably can claim the same.
As mentioned above, black-owned businesses are presently at
the end of the business food chain. If business suffers, black
businesses will suffer the most. The main vehicle for black
community development is business startup and growth. The
proposed standards will become predatory to black-owned
businesses in all black communities, and we must vehemently
protest them.
The NBCC has been quite successful since its inception in
1993. We have black church organizations, educators, political
leaders, and traditional civil rights organizations talking
about economics, the lack thereof, like never before. Corporate
America has been waiting on black communities to focus on the
principles of capitalism, which is the blood line for our
future security.
The time is before us, and I foresee a rapid change to
economic empowerment for communities that have suffered for too
long. The EPA's attitude and proposals are counter to this
trend and thus pose the biggest threat.
The increased cost that will pain the Fortune 500 and maim
small businesses will obliterate minority businesses,
especially black-owned businesses. The end result is lost jobs
and the lack of capital infusion.
I personally lived in Detroit and Chicago during economic
downturns. What was experienced by dwellers of these urban
communities and others was not a pretty sight at all. Shame on
us if we allow this to happen once again because we quickly
moved to make the earth pristine in a fashion that will surely
hurt our economic infrastructure.
Let us work in harmony toward making the environment as
safe as possible without making those who have the least
resources pay the most.
The National Black Chamber of Commerce pleads with Congress
to strongly consider the ills of the proposed standards and
encourage EPA to be more thoughtful and universal in its
approach.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Alford.
Mr. Herhold.
STATEMENT OF FRANK F. HERHOLD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARINE
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, FOR NATIONAL MARINE
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Herhold. Chairman Inhofe and subcommittee staff, good
afternoon. My name is Frank Herhold. I'm the executive director
for the Marine Industries Association of South Florida, which
represents over 700 marine businesses. I'm also here on behalf
of the National Marine Manufacturers Association, which is the
national trade association representing over 1,500 boat
builders, marine engine, and marine accessory manufacturers.
I'm here today to explain why the EPA's proposed revisions
to the national ambient air quality standards will be bad for
recreational boating. What is bad for recreational boating is
bad for the State of Florida and the Nation.
There are currently 750,000 registered boats in the State
of Florida, and the latest annual marine retail sales figures
topped $11 billion in Florida.
To put this into perspective, my home county, Broward
County, alone, the marine industry represents a total economic
output of $4.3 billion, employs almost 90,000 people, and has
an average growth rate of 6.5 percent. Boating brings dollars
and jobs to the State of Florida.
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 have placed a
significant technical and economic challenge on the
recreational boating industry. The new marine engine
regulation, marine engine emission regulation, which was
finalized in July 1996, will require that all new marine
engines reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 75 percent. Economic
impact estimates have this regulation costing the industry over
$350 million, increasing the cost per boat engine by as much as
15 percent. Regardless, we have made the commitment to bring
forth a new generation of marine engines featuring cleaner
technology.
Additionally, the Clean Air Act will also regulate air
emissions from boat manufacturing plants, with a maximum
achievable controlled technology standard scheduled to be
promulgated in the year 2000. This regulation will also be very
costly, raising the cost of boats, thus directly reducing the
number of people who can afford to enjoy boating.
Needless to say, the proposed revised national ambient air
quality standards will have a devastating effect on the
recreational marine industry. Without drastically re-
engineering American society, States will be forced to press
emission sources for further reductions, many of which, like
the recreational boating industry, have reached the point of
diminishing returns.
A couple of years ago, when the national ambient air
quality standard for ozone was initially set at .12 parts per
million, some State regulators in nonattainment areas
considered bans on recreational boating as a method to meet the
requirements of their State implementation plans.
The Washington, DC, Council of Governments, COG, actually
proposed a ban on recreational boating right here in Washington
in 1993. This proposal raised immediate opposition from
boaters, marinas, marine retailers, waterfront restaurants, and
other affected groups.
COG eventually reversed its decision after the affected
parties spent considerable resources to educate COG as to the
proposal's adverse effects.
This EPA proposed revised standard will again force States
to reconsider such episodic bans, and this time States may be
pushed to implement episodic restrictions on recreational
boating throughout the Nation.
I'm appealing to you to stop EPA's attempts to revise the
standards at this time. It is my understanding that the
scientific studies the EPA is using to defend this proposal do
not take into account either the specific constraints in air
pollution or the mitigating factors that affect human health.
I feel that EPA would be premature to impose such a
burdensome standard without first identifying the specific
benefit and real cost of the proposal. We've been hearing this
element throughout the discussions this afternoon.
Even if we fail to convince EPA that it is making a
horrible mistake, at a minimum let us somehow prevent States
from using episodic bans as a means to obtain compliance.
Episodic bans will negatively affect a person's decision to
first of all purchase a boat, knowing that on the hottest days
of the summer our government can take away his or her freedom
to operate it. Not since Congress passed the luxury tax have
boaters faced, in our opinion, a more serious threat.
If this standard is finalized in its current proposed form,
consider the burden it will place on States, our marine
industry and its workers, and the millions of people who just
simply want to spend a summer afternoon on the water with their
family.
In south Florida we have a saying, ``Boating is the
lifestyle of south Florida.'' In fact, it was on the cover of
the Southern Bell phone book 2 years ago. It really is a
lifestyle.
In conclusion, everybody needs to realize that America's
air is cleaner and will continue to improve as the benefits
from recently and soon-to-be-initiated Clean Air Act
regulations are realized.
What we do not need now is more regulation. What we do need
now is the time and resources to implement those regulations
that are already on the books.
Boaters want clean air and clean water, and the
recreational marine industry is ready to assist both Congress
and EPA in this rulemaking process.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Herhold.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY C. SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF
CLEAN AIR COMPANIES
Mr. Smith. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I am Jeff Smith of the Institute of Clean Air Companies,
which is a national association of companies that supply air
pollution control technology for stationary sources that emit
all of the pollutants that contribute to PM and ozone.
This afternoon I will briefly note the impact of the
proposed standards on our industry and offer a few thoughts, as
well, on the overall cost of the proposal.
Suppliers of control technology for the pollutants that
would be affected by the EPA proposal are, themselves, mostly
small businesses. We employ tens of thousands of people, and
these firms, in general, have suffered disappointing earnings
recently, which have necessitated severe downsizing and, in
many cases, job losses.
The EPA proposal would benefit these businesses at an
important time; thus, resolving the admittedly tough clean air
issues we face in a way that protects public health and the
environment has an important side benefit: it would also
promote the air pollution control industry, which creates jobs
as compliance dollars are recycled in the economy.
This industry is currently generating a modest trade
surplus, which does its part to help offset the billions of
dollars this Nation is currently hemorrhaging each month on
international trade, and is providing technological leadership
that can continue to be deployed in the fast-growing overseas
markets for U.S. air pollution control technology.
Now, no one, of course, knows what the overall cost of the
proposal would be, but I do think that it's well to remember
several of the lessons that we've learned in the last 27 years
in implementing the Clean Air Act, and one of these is
illustrated, oddly enough, by my experience nearly a decade ago
when I sat before various House and Senate committees and
presented detailed implementation cost estimates for the acid
rain provisions of what later became the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990.
At that time, regulated industry claimed the removal cost
of SO<INF>2</INF>, which is the leading precursor to acid rain,
as well as the leading precursor to fine PM, would reach
thousands of dollars a ton, while EPA claimed a more modest sum
of $1,500 to $2,000 a ton was about what we could expect.
I disagreed at the time, arguing that market and technical
data supported a dollar-per-ton remove cost of about $500, but
I was wrong, too. We overestimated the cost, as well, because
today, in 1997's inflated dollars, a ton of SO<INF>2</INF> can
be removed for about $110 a ton.
The preeminent lesson, we feel, in our Nation's 27-year
history under the Clean Air Act is that actual compliance costs
turn out to be much lower than the costs predicted at the
outset of a regulatory action. Why? I believe the answer is
because regulated industry, markets, even the technology
suppliers turned out to be a lot smarter than forecasters like
myself could give them credit for being at the outset of a
regulatory action.
I think this is going to be even more true in light of
today's emphasis on flexibility, market-based compliance, and
pollution prevention.
Those who would predict gargantuan cost impacts for EPA's
proposal I think ignore this important lesson and also under-
estimate the wisdom of State and local officials who, after
all, will be on the front lines implementing these standards.
Everyone has an interest in rational, prudent, cost-
effective clean air policy, and the cost-effectiveness of
various compliance options will be considered during
implementation, and there is no reason not to believe that, as
has always been the case, all of us--regulated industry,
government officials, technology suppliers--will discover ever-
more cost-effective compliance solutions, especially since
nearly a decade exists between now and when the impact of the
standards would be felt.
For our part, members of the Institute, the air pollution
control technology industry, continue to invest in our research
and development to improve removal efficiencies while lowering
costs and simplifying operation. We have to. The air pollution
control tech-
nology is innovative and highly competitive, and improvements
in cost-effectiveness are what give business or technology a
competitive edge over another. In this respect it's a little
bit like the personal computer industry.
In closing, the Institute expresses its appreciation to
you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee for providing a forum
for dialog on this important issue and for letting this
industry participate in this hearing.
If EPA's proposal to revise the PM and ozone health-based
standards goes forward, the U.S. air pollution control industry
is ready to do its part to help our Nation achieve its goals
cost-effectively.
Based on historical precedent, the current pace of control
technology innovation, the use of market-based incentives, the
years between now and the compliance deadlines, and competition
within the air pollution control technology industry and among
technologies, we are confident that the actual cost of
compliance will be less than most of us today imagine.
Again, thank you very much, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Heilman.
STATEMENT OF GLENN HEILMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, HEILMAN PAVEMENT
SPECIALTIES, INC., FOR NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS
Mr. Heilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
My name is Glenn Heilman, and I'm a vice president of
Heilman Pavement Specialties, Incorporated, which is a small,
family-owned business that has been in operation for 41 years.
We are located in Freeport, PA, which is just above Pittsburgh.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business
regarding the recently proposed national air quality standards
for ozone and particulate matter.
In addition to being a small business owner, I also
volunteer and serve as chairman of Pennsylvania's Small
Business Compliance Advisory Panel. This panel is mandated by
section 507 of the Clean Air Act amendments to help small
businesses as part of the Small Business Stationary Technical
and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program.
This program has been enormously successful, despite under-
funding, and has become a model for small business programs and
other environmental legislation.
Our small business program conducts seminars, offers a
toll-free confidential hotline, low interest loans, and many
other outreach efforts for small businesses. Every State has
such a program in varying degrees of effectiveness. These
programs are valuable tools to improve our air quality and are
overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency.
In my position as chairman, I am keenly aware of the
progress we're making in cleaning our air. What appears to be
ignored is that our air quality has improved significantly
since the passage of the Clean Air Act, and the 1990 amendments
have not even been fully implemented.
It is, therefore, imperative that only requirements that
are essential be mandated. What I suggest is that we move
toward more complete compliance with existing standards before
revising them.
As a small business owner, the economic impact and
burdensome regulations of the proposed standards would
significantly affect and threaten the livelihood of my
business. As a manufacturer of road pavement, my business
operates asphalt plants and hauls stone as raw material. The
moving of equipment and material creates minor particulate
matter.
I also have air emissions from my heavy truck and off-
highway equipment. Some of this equipment is old but works
well, and I simply could not afford to buy new equipment to
comply with the proposed regulations.
As a small business owner, I'm active and involved because
I have to be. Careless regulations will put me out of business.
Not only will small business owners lose life savings and
investment, but our employees lose their jobs and our
communities suffer economically. For that reason, I am shocked
and I'm disappointed that the EPA has declined to consider the
effect of this proposed rule on small business.
Last year Congress passed and the President signed a law
that requires the EPA to assess the impact of regulations on
small business. To date, the EPA has refused to do this on the
ozone and particulate matter study. Because this regulation is
likely to have a great impact on a variety of small businesses,
I hope that the EPA will carefully consider the consequences
before they impose this new standard.
Rather than implementing new regulations for clean air, I
recommend utilizing and encouraging the use of present means to
achieve air quality improvements. There are technologies
presently available to help clean our air. In our company, we
voluntarily look for ways to improve the environment.
In 1980, my father developed a new ozone-friendly
technology for asphalt roads. This technology is exemplified in
a material called ``HEI-way General Purpose Material'' or HGP.
A 2-year university study documents that HGP emits seven times
less VOC--Volatile Organic Compounds--in the form of low
molecular weight normal and branched alkane hydrocarbons than
the present technology used to pave roads.
Additionally, this technology also eliminates a significant
water pollution threat to rural streams and wetlands.
Under standard technology, present road paving materials
allow more than 1,000 gallons, or three tons of gasoline-type
VOC to evaporate into our troposphere for every mile paved. HGP
reduces this VOC air pollution by 85 percent.
On a nationwide basis, of the nearly four million miles of
roads in the country, this technology is applicable to over 60
percent of them. In Pennsylvania, alone, if just 1 percent of
the roads were paved each year with HGP instead of the standard
technology, over 3,000 tons of VOC air pollution would be
eliminated.
The HGP technology could be more widely used to lower VOC
air emissions as soon as EPA allows for discreet emission
reduction credits under the new source review.
In closing, it is important to keep in mind the unique
nature of a small business owner when examining our reaction to
environmental legislation and regulation. Small business owners
wear many hats. Two of the most important are being both a
business owner and a citizen of the community. We drink the
water, we breathe the air, we fish the lakes. We want to help
the environment for ourselves and our children; however, we
also expect the Government to be fair and responsible.
The new regulations as proposed by EPA for ozone and
particulate matter are unnecessary and they will result in an
enormous regulatory burden and threaten a business that my
family has spent 41 years to build.
A viable framework is in place. It consists of new,
environmentally friendly technologies such as HGP, and couples
these initiatives with existing programs. The system is
working. Let's use what we have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Mr. Heilman, let me kind of start with you here. Your
comments are both as a small businessman and representative of
the position of the NFIB; is that correct?
Mr. Heilman. Yes, it is, sir.
Senator Inhofe. And the NFIB I know is--I had an occasion
to talk to some of their staff here in Washington. They're very
much concerned about it.
I'd just like for the record, since I'm very much concerned
about the Small Business Review Act--I was involved in that
when we passed it, and the whole idea was to be able to
quantify the effect on small businesses before we promulgate or
propose rule changes. I would assume, from your statement, that
you don't believe that they complied with that act?
Mr. Heilman. No, I don't believe that they have done any of
the regulatory flexibility act analysis. Furthermore, no small
business review panels, as I understand, are to be conducted.
They have not been done.
In doing so they, in my opinion, dropped the ball. Let me
tell you that in my business, as far as looking at the cost in
retrofitting our diesel trucks and putting in some dust control
at $15,000 a truck for our small business at seven trucks,
that's over $100,000, and our dust control would be over
$20,000. That would be very prohibitive for us to go out and
hire new people at those costs.
Senator Inhofe. I think you've also taken the position that
if we continue just under the standards there today and the
efforts that people are making on both a voluntary and a
mandatory basis, that the air is getting cleaner.
Mr. Heilman. No question. We have a long way to go with
these compliance advisory panels that each State has.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Alford, I heard you say that 98 percent
of the businesses, but I didn't get the number of businesses
you were talking about.
Mr. Alford. It's 620,000 black-owned businesses per the
U.S. Bureau of Census for 1992, and of that, if we look at the
industry, 98 percent of that 620,000 are in urban areas.
Senator Inhofe. Did it also say about how many people that
affects? I mean, did it have an average size of those 620,000
businesses?
Mr. Alford. Yes. The mean, sir, would be 32.5 billion
divided by that 620,000.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Mr. Alford. I've got my calculator.
Senator Inhofe. That's a job for the staff. I'm sure
they've already got that done.
You also mentioned the environmental justice program. This
does bother me a little bit. Do you know whether Agency has
actually looked at the impacts in regard to the environmental
justice, that term we used?
Mr. Alford. We had a meeting. The Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce had representatives, the National Indian Business
Association, and the National Black Chamber met with
Administrator Browner. And when I brought up the term
``environmental justice,'' truthfully she just became very
condescending, almost indignant, I guess, to where black
businesses fit in this picture and started talking about jobs
that had been created through her efforts of brownfields.
I asked for that documentation, and that was about 2 months
ago, and I still haven't received it.
Senator Inhofe. You said there were two other groups?
Mr. Alford. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which
represents the Hispanic business community----
Senator Inhofe. And the other one?
Mr. Alford [continuing]. And the National Indian Business
Association.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Do they share your sentiments, and
would they endorse your testimony today?
Mr. Alford. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Mr. Alford. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. I know you don't have information there,
but for the record I would like to know what the statistics
show that membership--the number of companies that would be
involved there, too.
Mr. Alford. Sure. Hispanic businesses--I'd better look it
up and provide it to you.
Senator Inhofe. You can get that for the record at a later
time.
Let me just ask you this. What do you think would have the
greatest impact on health--economic development and jobs or
these standards?
Mr. Alford. If you've got money you can provide insurance
and good health care for your families. You can also send your
kids to school.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I appreciate it very much. You've
brought a different perspective that I was not aware of.
Mr. Herhold, you talk about your position is that the
national ambient air quality standards should not be revised.
Is the basis of your argument that the regulation is going to
cost too much? If so, how do you place a price tag on it?
Mr. Herhold. First of all, let me just say, as a citizen, I
strongly support clean air and don't think we can or should put
a price tag on it. But, as a businessman, I understand that for
anything to work you need to have a return on your investment.
Sometimes you can spend a lot of time and money on something
and accomplish nothing.
Finally, as a boater, I can tell you that boaters demand no
less than clean air and clean water, and anyone who works on
the water or recreates on the water is a very environmentally
sensitive, very environmentally tuned individual. In short,
boaters will always vote for the environment.
In answer to your question, no, I don't think we can put a
price tag on clean air.
Senator Inhofe. Are all boaters fat cats?
Mr. Herhold. No.
Senator Inhofe. I spent 40 years in aviation, and there
always is this myth that floats around out there that all
people in aviation--it's really a cross-section of America, and
I would assume that boaters fall in that same category.
Mr. Herhold. You know, family recreational boating is as
affordable as a second car. The real problem is a boat is
purchased with discretionary income. People don't need boats
like they need that first car, that second car, and they won't
purchase a boat until they have the financial security, peace
of mind that comes from, ``Hey, I need some relaxation. I've
got some money in my jeans. Let's go out and purchase a boat.''
Senator Inhofe. Yes. There was a study done that was really
revealing, I thought, back during 1993 when the Administration
was proposing a very large luxury tax on both airplanes and
boats, and it shocked a lot of people to see that they're not
just talking about fat cats, as the Administration was
implying.
Mr. Herhold. The lesson of the luxury tax was that the
boaters voted with their pocketbook. They just simply didn't
buy boats. I mean, that wasn't the way it was supposed to work,
from the Government's point of view. But they either bought
boats offshore from other countries and kept them offshore,
which was damaging, or they just simply didn't buy them, or
they kept the old boats. Normally you upgrade every 3 years or
so.
Senator Inhofe. It's a jobs issue?
Mr. Herhold. Yes. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Smith, I couldn't help but think--and I
appreciate your very straightforward testimony and honesty that
perhaps you could be a beneficiary of this if it came through.
It's a little bit like H&R Block testifying to the Ways and
Means Committee to complicate the tax forms.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Smith. I think probably, quite apart from any parochial
benefit to our industry, though, is the essential point in
looking at cost, as you said in your opening remarks, that I
think we are benefited by looking at the history of
implementation of the Clean Air Act and the way those costs
have gone.
Actually, I think that the control technologies that will
be used--it's almost impossible to speculate what they'll be.
They'll be site-specific. The city of Benton Harbor and the
State of Michigan and others will come up with control
technologies that would suit the circumstances.
But I do think that probably the predominant way of
compliance will be through pollution prevention approaches,
eliminating the pollution in the first place, perhaps through
devices and technology such as Mr. Heilman just mentioned. This
is the first time I heard that.
I think, with regard to technology, in a lot of cases, Mr.
Chairman, it's just going to be upgrading of existing
technology rather than installation of new technology.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Which is not good news for our industry. But I
do appreciate that.
Senator Inhofe. I was saying that in jest, and I think you
know that.
But I also wonder, because at previous hearings we've
talked about this getting to PM<INF>2.5</INF>, that the
technology and the monitoring device and all that isn't there.
You're in the business of getting people to comply and to clean
up the air, which is good. I'm glad you're doing that. But if
the technology is not there and the capability is not there to
monitor for 2.5, how would you go about cleaning it up?
Mr. Smith. My understanding from the technical experts in
the industry is that this would not be a technology-forcing
proposal. If you look at the fine PM, for example, in the
eastern part of the United States, according to the EPA data, a
lot of it is formed through emissions of sulphur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide, which we have a very long record in controlling
cost-effectively.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. All right. Well, I appreciate very
much the time that you have given. You've certainly given a
very broad perspective.
I have to say, back when I was mayor of Tulsa, Mr. Alford,
Coleman Young and I became pretty close friends, and he
familiarized me with some of the problems of which I was not
familiar at that time with some of the large metropolitan
areas, and the statistics that you have given us would be very,
very helpful.
I think also the previous panel, in hearing testimony from
the unfunded mandates, all too often, even though the law
should have covered the private sector as well as political
subdivisions, that was something we were able to get through,
but we do intend to do it because I know it is significant.
Unfunded mandates are just as damaging to the private sector as
they are the public sector.
We thank you very much for coming. There will be more
questions that will be forwarded to you to be answered for the
record.
We appreciate your being here very, very much. Thank you.
We are now in recess. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Emma Jean Hull, Mayor, Benton Harbor, MI
Good Day Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Emma Jean Hull, Mayor of
Benton Harbor, Michigan, and Treasurer of the National Conference of
Black Mayors, Inc. and a member of its standing committee on
Environmental Justice. Benton Harbor is located on the shores of Lake
Michigan just an hour east of Chicago, Illinois and 45 minutes from
Gary, Indiana. It is a minority/majority community with a population of
12,818, 97 percent African American, 40 percent under the age of 18.
Benton Harbor through local partnerships with business and industry is
just beginning to address some of the nation's highest at-risk factors
in crime, unemployment and school-drop outs. Our success to date relies
on local initiatives to retain, attract and grow small businesses,
address workforce development and deal with environmental concerns--
mostly related to our brownfield redevelopment projects.
some examples of benton harbor's local partnership efforts
The city works in partnership with:
<bullet> Northside Business Association (27 minority businesses
working with the chamber to promote minority leadership)
<bullet> SBA Technical Assistance Project (Lake Michigan College,
Cornerstone Alliance, a local non-profit economic development
corporation and city working to make individuals and small businesses
bankable)
<bullet> Community Renewal through the Arts (28 area arts groups
using the creative arts industry for economic development)
<bullet> Micro Loan Program (4 local lenders provide startup moneys
for self sufficiency through self employment)
<bullet> Benton Harbor Skills Center (Benton Harbor Area Schools
and Cornerstone to provide basic job and life skills training)
<bullet> Community Partnership for Life Long Learning (all area
school systems working toward school to work and career based
curriculum)
<bullet> Site Reclamation Grant to Redevelop Harbor (the State of
Michigan and Alliance for multi-modal transportation center)
<bullet> Site Reclamation Grant for Buried Tank Removal (the State
of Michigan)
<bullet> Purchase and Demolition of Deteriorated
Industrial/Commercial Buildings (the State of Michigan and Cornerstone
Alliance)
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, Benton Harbor saw the loss of
over 3,000 manufacturing jobs with major plant closings in the steel,
appliance and automotive industries. The remaining empty, deteriorating
and in some instances contaminated buildings form both the core of our
environmental problem and Benton Harbor's redevelopment potential. With
passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act and the establishment of that year as
the base line for attainment, my city was put at an immediate and
distinct disadvantage. In 1990, Benton Harbor was at its lowest point
for industrial activity. This artificially low standard for air
quality, applied nationally without regard to local circumstances, is
magnified by our proximity to both Chicago and Gary and the prevailing
westerly winds. A fact that impacts the expansion of existing business
and inhibits the location of new business in Benton Harbor as well.
The proposed and more stringent ozone standard and new PM standard
for particulate matter emissions if implemented will directly impact on
my community's efforts toward sustainable economic growth and
development. The small businesses affected, many for the first time,
like printers, bakers, service station operators and construction firms
are the foundation of growing ranks of Benton Harbor's minority
entrepreneurs. The anticipated higher production and operations costs
required by the proposed standards coupled with regulatory burdens can
restrict these businesses' expansion, impact their capital expenditures
and eventually affect the jobs of many of our community's residents.
This problem is only magnified when applied to new larger businesses.
The ability to attract major new business and industry to brownfield
sites is difficult. Benton Harbor and the Nation does not need any
additional impediments.
Legislation is meaningless, unless implementation at the local
level is assured. I support clean air and the intent of the Clean Air
Act of 1990. I only ask that its implementation and any proposed change
be fair, balanced and sensitive to the relationship between local
government, industry and business--especially, as in Benton Harbor's
case, small business. Partnership is a requirement of change. Please
consider the impact the proposed changes will have on the local
partnerships my community so desperately needs. Thank you for this
opportunity to address this matter today.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.286
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.287
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.288
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.289
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.290
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.291
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.292
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.293
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.294
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.295
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.296
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.297
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.298
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.299
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.300
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.301
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.302
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.303
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.304
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.305
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.306
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.307
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.308
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.309
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.310
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.311
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.312
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.313
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.314
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.315
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.316
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.317
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.318
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.319
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.320
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.321
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.322
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.323
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.324
Prepared Statement of Leon G. Billings, Delegate, Maryland General
Assembly
Mr. Chairman, I am a State legislator with a unique perspective.
Not only do I live in the suburbs of the nation's capital, but I spent
15 years on the staff of the U.S. Senate, 12 of which were as staff
director of this Subcommittee when it was chaired by Senator Edmund S.
Muskie of Maine.
I represent the legislative district which reaches from the
District line several miles into Maryland on both sides of Connecticut
Avenue. While it is considered a wealthy district, it is quite
economically and ethnically diverse. It has some of the highest incomes
in Montgomery County and some of the lowest.
My constituents are very strongly committed to environmental
protection. I would hazard a guess that my constituents care at least
as much about the Chesapeake Bay as people who depend on a healthy Bay
environment for their livelihood. My constituents also care very deeply
about the quality of the air we breathe.
As a measure of concern, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that
during the entire controversy surrounding Maryland's newly required
enhanced motor vehicle inspection program, I did not receive a single
communication from any constituent protesting the new dynamometer test.
In fact, nearly 50 percent of Montgomery County motorists voluntarily
take the dynamometer test. So, perhaps it will not surprise you that I
support these new, more strict ambient air quality standards--as a good
representative of my district. I say this because air pollution's
victims often are those least able to defend themselves--the very
young, the chronically ill, the elderly. I also support them as a
grandfather of four and, because I am now classified as an ``older
American,'' I support them for personal reasons.
The State of Maryland has done a great deal to clean up its air
pollution. We've had centralized auto emission testing for 17 years and
voluntary dynamometer testing for more than 2. Our power plants and
factories have made great strides toward reducing emissions as their
part of complex plans to achieve current ambient air quality standards.
Many businesses and industries in Maryland believe that they are
being required to make extra investments to control pollution because
large industrial sources and power plants in Virginia, West Virginia,
Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania are doing too little to control their
emissions. These Maryland businesses have argued against further
reductions in emissions from Maryland sources until something is done
about these big polluters to our west and south.
Thus, for the people of Maryland, these new standards have two
important benefits:
1. They will provide additional health protection for our citizens,
especially our children and our elders; and
2. They could reduce the burden on Maryland businesses by more
fairly allocating the responsibility for cleanup to the large sources--
sources that today are uncontrolled or poorly controlled--sources whose
emissions are transported to us from other States to us.
It is interesting to note that the people who challenge these new
standards generally are not scientists but representatives of
institutions that pollute. American business and industrial interests
simply don't want to pay more money to achieve a greater level of
pollution control. But that is nothing new. I began my service to this
committee in 1966. Every single environmental proposal this Committee
recommended to the Senate, usually unanimously, was met with the charge
that it was too expensive.
In 1970, then-Ford executive Lee Iacocca called the Clean Air Act
``a threat to the entire American economy and to every person in
America.'' He was wrong, of course. Today's cars are marvels of
engineering. And the Big Three automakers recently announced first
quarter profits totaling more than $4.5 billion.
The rhetoric in today's debate is much the same. What is new is the
271 peer reviewed air pollution health studies EPA evaluated prior to
proposing the new standards. What is new is there is so much science to
support standards. When the first Federal air quality information was
published in 1966-67, there was a crescendo of criticism regarding the
adequacy of data. Compared to today's information base, those critics
were on sound ground.
Mr. Chairman, in this context I would like to make an historical
point. I find it ironic that the National Association of Manufacturers
and its allies are protesting these new national ambient air quality
standards. Prior to 1970, ambient air quality standards were adopted by
localities in their air quality control regions based on citizen input
and local perceptions of the threat of air pollution. That process
proved unacceptable to industry because the standards proposed were
often more strict than might be indicated by the federally published
air quality criteria documents.
In 1970, the Nixon Administration proposed and Congress adopted
national ambient air quality standards. The decision to adopt national
ambient air quality standards was widely advocated and supported by the
nation's major polluting industries. They were the ones who wanted to
use government science as the basis for air quality standards. They
were the ones that wanted EPA to adopt the air quality standards. They
were the ones who wanted to avoid the proliferation of and often
differing air quality standards around the country.
Now EPA is doing the job that business wanted and Congress adopted
in 1970. And now NAM and its allies don't like the result so they want
to change the rules of the game.
EPA has nearly 30 years of experience and, as many lawsuits have
affirmed, it is good at its job.
I would encourage this Committee to tell the NAM and the Citizens
for a Sound Economy and the various other groups who have lined up on
the anti-clean air bandwagon to quit trying to change the rules that
they helped make.
Their opportunity to affect the cost of achieving these standards
will come in the implementation phase. We are currently in the
information stage. And the American people have a right to know the
levels of air pollution which affect their health.
Congress has never compromised this right to know. Congress has on
two occasions, 1977 and 1990, provided more time to implement health
based standards--in 1977, up to 10 years more; and in 1990, up to 20
years.
But Congress has never bowed to pressure to compromise science. To
do so would make a process of public health protection political rather
than scientific.
EPA has evaluated the science and proposed its judgment. The
appropriate focus for this Committee and the Congress will be to assure
a balanced and timely implementation of the standards that recognizes
the economic needs and interests of industry and the need that millions
of vulnerable Americans have for protection from the impact of smog on
their lives.
Congress has been doing that job for 30 years. We have proved that
we can have a healthy and growing economy while moderating the health
impact of pollution. And we have done so without compromising the
public's right to know what healthy air ought to be.
Thank you.
______
House of Delegates,
Annapolis, MD, May 16, 1997.
Hon. James M. Inhofe, Chair,
Subcommittee on Air, Wetlands, Private Property
and Nuclear Safety,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: Thank you again for the opportunity to
participate in your recent hearings on the newly proposed national
ambient air quality standards. I particularly appreciate the
opportunity to respond to the questions Senator Baucus submitted in
writing.
Answer to Question 1. Prior to 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act
provided for the consideration of economic and technological
feasibility with respect to a number of the regulatory requirements
authorized. The 1970 Act eliminated considerations of economic and
technical feasibility with respect to most regulatory authority which
impacted on health standards. But in the history of Federal clean air
law there has never been any economic feasibility analysis required of
the health-related ambient air standards, though from time to time that
has been proposed unsuccessfully by polluting industries.
The most significant debate over including a cost factor with
respect to ambient standards occurred during the debate over the Public
Health Service's publication of an Air Quality Criteria document for
sulfur dioxide. Coal and related industries argued that publication of
data on the effects of sulfur dioxide on health should be accompanied
by an analysis of the cost of achieving levels of air quality which
would reflect those criteria. To the best of my recollection, this
proposal never advanced to the stage of a legislative amendment because
it was absurd on its face, as has been the discussion of cost in
association with the current ambient air quality standards.
While the terminology has changed over thirty years, the facts
remain the same: air quality standards are nothing more or less than
the best professional judgment of the Environmental Protection Agency
and its scientific advisors on the levels of air pollution at which
health effects occur. Senator Muskie and his colleagues on the
committee on which you now serve unanimously agreed time and again that
the public had a right to know the level of air pollution at which
their health may be put at risk. They also unanimously agreed that when
regulators and the Congress decided how and when those standards would
be achieved, that would be the appropriate time for consideration of
economic and technical feasibility.
As Senator Howard H. Baker stated at a hearing on air quality
standards on July 29, 1968:
``Air Quality criteria are intended to delineate, on the
basis of the best available scientific and medical evidence,
the effects of individual contaminants, combinations of
contaminants, or categories of contaminants or the constantly
changing, somewhat indeterminate environment of man. Thus,
economic and technological considerations are not relevant with
regard to the establishment of ambient air quality criteria;
they will be given full attention in the standard-setting
procedures.''
Answer to Question 2. As I indicated in my testimony, prior to 1970
the Federal air quality criteria information (the data which indicated
what scientists said were the levels of air pollution at which health
effects occurred) were made available to State and local air pollution
control agencies for the purpose of determining air quality standards
and establishing implementation plans. A review of the hearings held in
the late 1960's and early 1970's by the subcommittee which you now
chair would reveal that not only did community-based air quality
standards decisions result in very rigorous demands for protection from
air pollution, but they triggered a significant level of citizen
activism. ``Citizens for Clean Air'' groups sprang up across the
country. In the eyes of many, air quality standards became a political
decision, not a health-based scientific judgment.
The Nixon Administration, responding to the business community,
decided that a Federal Government scientific judgment was preferable to
the politically powerful clean air demands of citizen activists. The
result was the 1970 Act provision for national ambient air quality
standards. Thus, because the national ambient air quality standards are
a product of a Republican President responding to demands of the
business community, you can appreciate why I find today's opposition to
national standards by the business community and many Republican
leaders to be so ironic.
I hope these answers are responsive to your needs. If I can be of
further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Leon G. Billings.
______
Prepared Statement Hon. Richard L. Russman, State Senator from New
Hampshire
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Richard
Russman, and I am a State senator from New Hampshire. I want to thank
you for this opportunity to testify about the clean air standards for
ozone and particulate matter that have been proposed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
As you know, New Hampshire is one of the northeastern States that
is affected by ozone transport, so we have a very strong interest in
seeing action taken to address the emission of precursors that lead to
ozone formation. The respiratory problems caused by excessive ozone
exposure will continue to plague the citizens of my State, not to
mention the health of natural resources, if action is not taken. In
addition, I believe the people of New Hampshire agree that the threat
of fine particulate matter must be addressed, as called for by the
American Lung Association and our Governor, the Honorable Jeanne
Shaheen.
I understand that this subcommittee is concerned about the process
undertaken by the EPA in promulgating rules to address ozone and
particulate matter problems. Let me say at the outset, I am a proponent
of the proposed rules and believe the EPA is going about the process of
issuing final rules in a responsible manner. These standards must be
established by relying on health based criteria only; that is very
specific in the Clean Air Act.
Recently, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) sent
a letter to Ms. Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation at EPA, citing numerous problems with the issuance of the
proposed rule and compliance with Federal statutes and executive
orders. I disagree with the premise and findings of that letter and, as
the core of my testimony, I will explain my reasoning to the members of
the subcommittee today.
First let us remember that this is a proposed rule--not final. Many
of the arguments raised against the rule are based on the requirements
necessary when an agency promulgates a final rule. For that reason
alone, many of the arguments raised by the NCSL have no validity.
Second, many opponents criticize EPA for not seeking outside
opinions or consultation with the States. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Since February, 1994, EPA Administrator Browner has been
seeking the advice of affected parties on the issuance of these rules.
Under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), EPA
established working groups to address ozone, particulate matter and
regional haze problems. These working groups depend upon the opinions
of State and local governments, industry, small businesses and other
interested parties to formulate strategies for attainment.
These strategies are designed to help States with implementation
programs, which are solely a State and local government responsibility.
I do not believe the EPA simply is passing the buck when they claim
they are not demanding specific regulatory activities. As you know, the
EPA grants authority to the States to implement the rules as they see
fit through a State implementation plan. The NCSL recognizes this in
its letter to the EPA, stating that implementation of the Clean Air Act
is being carried out by State and local governments.''
I don't believe it would be a stretch to say that the Congress and
much of the country would be up in arms if the EPA directed the
specific actions that States and localities must take. States have
asked for and been given authority to implement many Federal
regulations. This is one of those cases where granting primacy
(regulatory authority) has and should continue to work.
In addition to bringing in the views of affected parties through
the FACA process, EPA extended the comment period on the rule for 21
days. That extension has allowed more than 40,000 comments to be
received via the mail and nearly 18,000 phone and electronic comments
to be delivered.
The date for issuing the final rule also was extended after a
request by the Administrator. It is important to note that the
opponents of the rule were the primary constituency asking for that
extension. In response to this, Ms. Browner returned to the judge who
issued the initial ruling on particulate matter and petitioned for the
delay.
Finally, since issuing the proposed rules, EPA has expanded the
representation on the PACA working groups to include more
representatives from local governments and small businesses. These
actions were not required, but were carried out by the EPA to ensure
adequate input from those expressing most concern. Not once in their
letter does the NCSL recognize these ongoing efforts.
With the chairman's approval, I would like to submit for the record
the membership of those working groups so that members of the committee
will have an idea of the access that various interests have had to the
rulemaking process.
One concern raised by the NCSL letter that I would like to
reinforce to you is the issue of funding. We all agree there will be
some costs in implementing these rules, although those costs are
several years away. With this in mind, the concern about section 105
funding, which provides technical and financial assistance to States,
is one that is universal among States. Realizing the role that States
and localities play in implementing the nation's environmental laws, I
hope the Congress will see the wisdom in providing adequate funding to
the EPA to assist in this implementation.
While I am not a member of President Clinton's party, I would like
to state that I commend him for the efforts he has made to reform the
regulatory process. Since 1993, with the issuance of Executive Order
12866, this administration has made a concerted effort to streamline
regulations and to provide justifications for rulemaking. While cost
benefit analyses are not a criteria of the Clean Air Act, the EPA
complied with the Executive Order and provided the necessary
justifications, including analyses of costs and benefits, to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (IRA) at the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). Your committee and the entire Congress has access to
these documents, which I suspect are more thorough than documentation
for any other rule the EPA has ever promulgated
In addition to administrative efforts to improve regulatory
efficiency, the Congress passed and the President signed numerous
pieces of legislation, specifically the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA), that create obligations for the
agencies in establishing rulemaking and give the Congress on oversight
role before major rules can go into effect
I believe this is an appropriate role for the Congress to play, and
I think that is one reason that we are having this debate today.
However, I do not believe the Congress should try to inject false
arguments into the debate when the Clean Air Act is very specific--
rules are to be promulgated following health based standards, which are
to be reviewed at least every 5 years. In this case, the statute has
been backed up by the courts regarding standards for particulate
matter.
The regulatory impact analysis prepared by the EPA attempts to
quantify benefits that sometime cannot be quantified, yet the estimated
benefits far outweigh the overall costs. The Federal Register notice on
the proposed rule states clearly that the regulatory impact analysis
for the rules ``will be available at the time the implementation
strategy is proposed.'' I fully expect the analysis to be available and
comprehensive when the final rule is issued.
The EPA has focused on health and the primary standard. I have come
to the realization that the secondary standard, welfare, might provide
significant additional benefits if those were quantified. Regardless,
efforts to meet the primary standard also will benefit the welfare of
Americans.
As you know, vegetation is harmed by ozone exposure. Unlike most
susceptible human populations, it has few means of staying indoors.
Agriculture and tourism continue to be the major economic indicators
for many districts in this country represented by members of this
committee. I am disappointed to see the agricultural community oppose
the rule because increased incidences of high ozone exposure have
reduced some crop outputs by more than 10 percent. Indeed, CASAC
unanimously recommended that EPA adopt a secondary standard for ozone
more stringent than the primary standard.
In addition, forest ecosystems from the southern Appalachians to
the northern Adirondacks are threatened by high levels of ozone. Many
States promote their natural areas for tourism, yet these beautiful
mountains so far removed from urban settings are threatened by the
precursors of ozone and the resulting ``burn'' that occurs at higher
elevations.
The benefits of protecting agricultural production (including
timber) and tourism economies will be well worth modifying emissions
standards for all the communities that depend upon these natural
resources to support their economies. These impacts and benefits must
be considered in any discussion of costs.
I also would like to submit for the record, with the chairman's
approval, the recent findings of the Northeast States for Coordinated
Air Use Management. These findings back up the need for more stringent
ozone standards.
In the case of standards for particulate matter, I believe the
benefits will be substantial. I find it distasteful to try to quantify
the value of a life, let alone trying to do it for 15,000 individuals.
The premature death caused by particulate matter and the debate
surrounding the impacts reminds me of the debate about cigarette smoke.
Scientist after scientist testified that smoking did not cause lung
cancer and that epidemiological tests could not show causality. Just as
we reached a clear indication with cigarette smoke, the data now
supports the link between particulate matter and respiratory illness.
Since the 1970's industry has tried to analyze the costs of
complying with environmental regulations. I don't believe it has ever
made accurate estimates.
Will there be some costs in implementing these regulations? Yes,
and the EPA has made the best estimates available given the
uncertainties of how the rules will be implemented at the local level.
In establishing the health based standards, EPA should not consider
costs. In considering implementation strategies, EPA should and has
consulted affected parties to consider costs, even before they have
issued a final rule.
I will remind you of the excessive costs estimated by the utility
and industrial sector during the 1990 Clean Air Act debates. We all
know that those horrific scenarios did not and will not play out. Nor
has the American economy gone down the tubes, if you will excuse the
expression. On the contrary, technology has expanded to meet industrial
demand, and States have found innovative and cooperative ways to meet
attainment standards.
We may not be able to reach 100 percent attainment compliance in
the next 10 years, but the effort to achieve those standards will be of
value to every man, woman, and child in this country. That is a
significant benefit.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we have in place a regulatory system
that is more scrutinized today than at any time in recent history. I
believe that is a good thing. But I also believe that when agencies are
following their mandates, they should be given the necessary support to
implement the laws the Congress has passed.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to
participate, and I will be happy to answer any questions from members
of the committee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.325
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.326
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.327
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.328
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.329
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.330
Prepared Statement of John Selph, Tulsa County Commissioner, Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is John Selph. I
am a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of
Regional Councils (NARC) and I chair NARC's Air Quality Task Force. I
am chairman-elect of the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG),
the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Tulsa area, and I chair
INCOG's Air Quality Committee.
On behalf of NARC, I appreciate your invitation to testify before
the Subcommittee regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) proposed changes to the Clean Air Standards. The National
Association of Regional Councils represents some 300+ councils of
government consisting of cities, towns and counties in metropolitan and
rural areas from throughout the United States. These regions run the
gamut from areas in severe non-attainment to regions that have always
been in attainment. My comments reflect the policy positions developed
by NARC. My comments also draw from my experience as a County
Commissioner in Tulsa, Oklahoma and my academic background, which
includes a Masters Degree in Public Health with an emphasis in
Environmental Sciences.
Before I discuss EPA's proposed standards, let me tell you a little
about Tulsa and our experience with air quality. Tulsa County was a
non-attainment area until 1990. We worked very hard locally to achieve
attainment status, and our county achieved attainment status prior to
the signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments in November, 1990.
It was very important for us to avoid the stigma associated with
being on the EPA non-attainment list, especially for economic
development purposes. Since that time, we have worked even harder to
maintain our clean air status. While our efforts have been wide-
ranging, perhaps most notable was the creation of the nationally
recognized Ozone Alert! Program, the nation's first voluntary episodic
emissions control program. This program reflects our philosophy of
seeking voluntary, common sense measures that are most effective in
improving air quality, rather than the command and control approach too
often used by the State and Federal regulators.
Let me also say that both NARC and I recognize the importance of
improving air quality, and we support actions to maintain and improve
the health of all citizens when such actions are based on sound
scientific and economic principles. In light of this, we are especially
concerned about the conflicting opinions of the scientific community
regarding the scientific basis for establishing new Ozone and
Particulate Matter standards. There appears to be no scientific
consensus that changing the standards at this time will result in
significant public health benefits. Indeed, the scientific testimony
presented previously to this committee, and the recently revised EPA
exposure and risk assessment fundings, underscore this lack of
consensus.
EPA has stated that the proposed changes are policy-based rather
than science-based. EPA also has stated that it believes existing clean
air law requires that its analysis of the impact of the changes be
based solely on the health aspects, and that adverse economic
consequences that may result from the changes may not be considered in
setting the standard. In light of these concerns, we feel that
considerable additional research, including additional epidemiological
studies, are necessary before new ozone and particulate matter
standards are promulgated. Specifically, future epidemiological studies
should focus on the interaction between different pollutants and
whether these effects are additive, synergistic or antagonistic.
The Clean Air Act has clearly had a demonstrable impact on reducing
pollutants, thus improving air quality for all Americans. If EPA
imposes its proposed ozone standards, the number of non-attainment
regions nationally will increase, by EPA's own estimates, from 68 areas
currently to 185 areas--nearly a threefold increase. EPA's action of
designating additional areas as non-attainment will do nothing to
improve air quality in our most polluted regions. In fact, these
existing non-attainment regions are having great difficulty in
achieving the current standards, so forcing a mid-course change at this
time will only delay and disrupt both public and private initiatives
designed to achieve the objectives of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore,
we are not convinced that the technology is in place, or even close at
hand, to help us meet these proposed standards.
With regard to the Proposed PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards, we believe
that EPA lacks sufficient scientific evidence to justify revising the
existing Particulate Matter standard. Although the scientific evidence
does suggest some preliminary correlation of health effects, it is as
of yet inconclusive. The current studies have not clearly defined
public health effects from fine particles well below the existing
standard. Additionally, the significant uncertainty and limited
research regarding ambient concentrations of PM<INF>2.5</INF> due to
the limited number of ambient air monitors in place support our
concerns about the addition of this standard. We feel that in light of
these concerns, which were substantiated at previous subcommittee
hearings, considerable further study is necessary before an additional
particulate matter standard is promulgated. To this end, we are pleased
to note that EPA has requested $28.4 million for particulate matter
research.
Our experience in Tulsa has shown us that the goal of improving air
quality is both worthy and attainable if approached in a common sense
manner. In addition to our Ozone Alert! Program, Tulsa, by formal
agreement with EPA and a host of other Federal, State and local
partners, has become the nation's first Flexible Attainment Region
(FAR). The FAR agreement enables us to implement a locally crafted
strategy to reduce emissions, and gives us adequate time to evaluate
results before having to implement more stringent measures to meet our
goals. This avoids the ``one size fits all'' command and control
approach which historically has been imposed by EPA. The FAR agreement
came about because our local governments and private industry are
committed to working together to improve air quality. The necessary
ingredients to make this initiative work are flexibility and common
sense. When we are allowed to develop our own program and local ``buy-
in'' is assured, the willingness to commit the necessary financial and
political capital to achieve results is more readily accepted.
Recently, one of our refineries in Tulsa was the subject of an EPA
enforcement action. The refinery, as part of its penalty, proposed to
reduce the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of its gasoline to 8.0 psi and pay
a significant financial payment to EPA. Refineries and pipeline
companies in the Tulsa area voluntarily reduce the RVP of their
gasoline to 8.2 psi during the ozone season. The Federal mandated level
is 9.0 psi. We are told that the initial reaction of EPA was to reject
the proposal and to require the refinery to identify another project to
undertake as a Supplemental Environmental Project. The net effect on
the Tulsa area would have been a net reduction measured in pounds of
emissions rather than the tons needed to maintain our attainment
status. We expressed our concern to EPA and, thankfully, common sense
prevailed. We understand that the agency has reversed its position, has
accepted the 8.0 psi RVP, and has also directed that part of the fine
go to the Tulsa area to finance free bus rides during the upcoming
ozone season. We think this action by EPA will give us a significant
boost in meeting our air quality goals. The action makes sense--a
violation is enforced, and citizens--rather than just the U.S. Treasury
will directly benefit.
In essence, improving air quality can be achieved without severely
disrupting the economy, and without increasing unfunded mandates. The
imposition of standards, which even EPA states may be unachievable,
will severely dampen the enthusiasm needed to maintain the momentum for
improvement. Moreover, in the current ISTEA reauthorization debate
there is discussion about eliminating the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Program. Without the CMAQ program, we would end up losing an
important tool necessary to meet the long range goals of improved air
quality. I would like to point out, however, that the current ISTEA
legislation does not provide for areas that are in attainment, like
Tulsa, to receive CMAQ funds to undertake air quality improvement
programs. We would recommend that consideration be given to expanding
the eligibility for receiving CMAQ funds to those areas that are in
attainment that have a formal program in place designed to reduce
emissions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that more thought and study
must be accomplished before the standards are changed. The potential
impact is great, and we must have more certainty and consensus before a
major change, such as this, is initiated. Progress is being made in
improving air quality and more will come if common sense and
flexibility prevail.
I appreciate being invited to participate in the Subcommittee's
hearings. On behalf of NARC, we look forward to working with the
committee in your important task.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I respectfully
request that my full statement be made a part of the official hearing
record; and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Robert C. Junk, Jr., President, Pennsylvania
Farmers Union
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is
Robert Junk. I am president of the Pennsylvania Farmers Union. I am
also a member of the board of directors of the National Farmers Union
and appear here today on behalf of NFU.
The National Farmers Union, a general agricultural organization
representing 300,000 family farmers and ranchers, takes this
opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to air-quality standards
for ozone and particulate matter (PM).
The National Farmers Union has a long history of supporting
conservation programs, because the family farmers, as stewards of the
land, are concerned about the environment. Significant levels of
emissions are already controlled because farmers and ranchers are using
good soil and water conservation practices and are keeping their
equipment in good operating condition. It is simply in their best
interest to do so because they seek to preserve the land to pass on to
future generations.
National Farmers Union is concerned that the proposed changes to
the air-quality standards for fine PM and ozone will greatly increase
the regulation of farm operations and increase costs to farmers both
directly and indirectly. We are additionally concerned that there is
currently no funding in place to offset these costs other than what the
farmer will be required to pay.
The costs of the proposed standards for ozone and fine particulate
matter will fall heavily on individuals and State and local
governments. Farmers, along with other other U.S. taxpayers, will pay
for the new rules in many ways--through higher local and State taxes or
through cuts in important State and local programs and services,
including police and fire protection, education, help for the poor and
homeless and other public programs. In a joint letter to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner, the
National League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors, the National
Governors' Association, the National League of Counties, the National
Conference of State Legislators, and other State and local
organizations said the ``proposed new standards would have an enormous
impact . . . on the ability of State and local officials to meet other
urgent priorities.''
The new rules will change the way people live. The changes will
range from the serious and expensive (higher State and local taxes and
cuts in programs and services) to the moderately expensive (higher
costs for things like electricity, cars and gasoline) to the
aggravating and inconvenient (driving restrictions, increased
automobile inspection and maintenance programs and mandatory car
pooling).
State and local official are not the only ones criticizing EPA's
proposals. Criticism of the proposals are widespread within the Clinton
Administration--a fact which EPA did not disclose to the public. A
number of Federal agencies, including the Treasury Department, the
Office of Science and Technology, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Transportation, and the Small Business Administration,
all said in documents just made public that the new standards are not
justified. Another agency, the President's Council of Economic
Advisors, said the EPA's estimates of the cost of the new rules--a
combined $8.5 billion, according to the EPA--is considerably off the
mark. According the council's estimates, the cost of the ozone
standards alone will be $60 billion a year.
How can we justify increased standards for air-quality in rural
America when the Conservation Reserve Program is now facing significant
funding reductions? To improve the quality of our air, we should
increase funding for these conservation programs rather than impose
more regulations on farmers. In order to meet new standards, according
to a report of the State and Territory Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Offices (STAPPA/ALAPCO), the agricultural sector may face tighter
operational and processing controls to reduce particulate matter
emission. STAPPA/ALAPCO's proposed particulate emission control options
for agriculture include:
<bullet> Wind breaks--and other residue management systems to
reduce wind erosion.
<bullet> Conservation tillage--use of special equipment to avoid
mixing in residues.
<bullet> Crop management--planting of legumes of grasses to build
soils, grassed
waterways.
<bullet> Cover crops--planting alfalfa and winter wheat to protect
vegetation.
<bullet> Dust controls for storage areas--tarps, covers.
<bullet> Grain elevators--cyclones, fabric filters, vents
application of oils to grain to control dust.
<bullet> Grain Transportation--covers on conveyer belts, bucket
elevators, etc.
<bullet> Feed mills--moisture control measures and cleaning
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Small Business
Administration questioned the EPA's proposed standards on PM and
charged that the new standards ``are not based on adequate scientific
evidence'' and would have a ``large economic impact'' on ``tens of
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of small businesses'' and
farms. USDA further claimed that ``it is premature for the EPA to
change the existing standard until scientific evidence is correctly
obtained and interpreted.'' USDA also noted the concerns held by farm
groups that the new standards ``may impose significant costs'' on
farmers, particularly the 71 percent of U.S. farms with annual sales of
less than $40,000. The documents also suggest that the proposed
regulations may drive up farming costs such as fuel, fertilizers,
pesticides, and necessary chemicals.
When farmland regulations of this kind are determined, EPA and
other government agencies should take into account the contribution of
agricultural lands to improved air quality. Despite the fact that
agriculture is not a major emitter of PM, the standards proposed by EPA
would lead local and State governments to tighten regulation on farm
operations. Because it is difficult to measure accurately the amount of
fine particulate matter in the air, it is likely that under the new
rules, arbitrary limits on what a farmer can till soil, harvest crops,
or apply fertilizer could become an unfortunate reality. Although rural
areas generally record low levels of pollution, these same areas could
soon be in violation of the stricter standards if these proposed rules
become law.
Because the proposed standards would stiffen the regulations of
particulate matter, the impact of the new regulations would be
significant to farmers. Fuel and energy costs are the third largest
non-agricultural input supply expense for American farmers, and under
the proposed rules farmers will be required to pay even more for
transportation costs. Furthermore, Federal, State or local regulators
could decide that rural roads, including those on private lands, would
need to be improved to meet the EPA's proposed standards, which could
be very costly to farmers.
Agricultural operations have been interpreted as being a
``significant source'' of emission for particulate matter. Various
agricultural facilities are presently being regulated in non-attainment
zones primarily in the Southwest and Far West. Under the proposed
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards, new non-attainment zones may be proposed
across the United States, potentially affecting all agricultural
operations and family farms.
We urge EPA to work closely with USDA and others to ensure the
availability of the best data pertaining to emissions from agricultural
activities and the effects of control programs on agriculture and rural
communities. National Farmers Union is concerned about the potential
effects that implementing control programs, designed to help areas
attain the new standard, could have on small farms. EPA defines small
entities in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) as establishments with
less than 100 employees. In many areas of the country, agriculture is
characterized by owner-operator firms that typically employ few, if
any, hired workers.
USDA's most recent data show that 71 percent of U.S. farms have
annual sales of less than $40,000, while fewer than 6 percent have
annual sales greater than $250,000. In 1994 and 1995, farmers spent
about $170 billion on farm inputs and services. Both direct and
indirect energy inputs account for about 22 percent of the total
expenditures for agricultural production, according to USDA. However,
direct and indirect energy account for a considerable higher percentage
of farmers and variable expenses. With energy constituting a high
percentage of variable expenses for many major crops and for livestock,
farmers are sensitive to changes in variable expenses because
production decisions are based on the prices of variable inputs.
Production and/or use of many of these inputs could be affected by
emission control programs, including fuel that powers farm equipment,
electricity, fertilizers, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals.
Because a large proportion of farms are small entities, increased costs
for farm inputs would surely have a negative impact on their financial
performance.
We are also concerned that existing equipment on farms will be
required to be altered to adhere to the new standard, resulting in
significant expense to farmers during EPA review; we consider it to be
an important time to define what equipment is considered ``old'' or
``new''. Until now, we have been unable to determine a clear definition
of these terms for farm machinery. Examples of PM emissions from
agriculture include dust from cultivation and harvesting, wind-blown
dust from feedlots, grain elevators and grain mills, and diesel soot.
Emission of PM also include PM precursors such as ammonia, which rises
from feedlots and dairies, diesel emissions, nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxides from industrial boilers, soot from fires and spray drift from
crop protection products.
National Farmers Union is concerned about the characterization of
pollution in particular air sheds. Where does the pollution come from,
and what activity caused it? What percentage of the total pollution
inventory results from an activity? Are there cost-effective control
strategies that reduce pollution while maintaining productivity? We
believe a well coordinated research program with Federal, State and
local participation is necessary in order to begin answering these
questions. Without answers, controls could be costly and ineffective.
In the spirit of cooperation, we believe it is imperative that USDA
develop a specific Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA to
transfer technical expertise and support for those air-quality issues
derived by the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee which
significantly involve or affect the agricultural industry. Agricultural
scientists possess the knowledge to provide this expertise which will
maintain USDA confidence and integrity among the agricultural industry
producers. This must be a serious and outgoing commitment by USDA to
provide this avenue of knowledge, research, development, and technology
transfer.
We found that many current, agricultural air-quality issues require
additional understanding and knowledge well beyond that which exists
today. Examples are the unknowns about particulars emitted by wind-
blown dust, field operations and nonroad-engine emissions. We would
recommend you consider a departmental air-quality research initiative
to provide the level of understanding of the environmental impacts this
issue demands, in the same way in which we addressed water quality
issues in recent years that is cooperatively handled by several
agencies.
We believe agricultural producers will continue to implement many
of the air-control measures to benefit our environment. It is
imperative that farmers be provided the knowledge and flexibility to
design and voluntarily apply air-quality controls locally. Each area of
the country faces different air-quality challenges. We urge you to
encourage increased cooperation with EPA scientists, USDA officials,
agricultural producers and others to arrive at control strategies that
work. For example, some EPA regulations require a reduction in
agricultural burning. However, the conservation practice ``Prescribed
Burning'' which has proven to be an effective tool for some selected
production systems to control pest and diseases. This method does not
applicable in every case; therefore it is critical to have locally led
efforts to achieve conservation goals.
In conclusion, before more research can be completed to determine
exactly how much PM <INF>2.5</INF> is emitted on farm operations, we
strongly urge that no changes are made to current standards. As the
control measures required under the Clean Air Act continue to be met,
further reductions in particulate and ozone emissions will continue to
decrease, and air-quality will continue to improve. We support the
conservation practices and other measures taken as part of the Clean
Air Act, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on this
important matter.
excerpts from article v of national farmers union 1997 policy manual
section
O. Conservation
We support the development of a one-stop conservation planning
system for agriculture through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). A single conservation plan jointly developed by the
farm operator and the NRCS should be established to fulfill the
requirements for the current maze of land and water regulations of
various governmental agencies.
Conservation programs should be good for the environment, reward
stewardship of land and water resources, discourage speculative
development of fragile land resources, strengthen family farming and
enhance rural communities.
The objective of the conservation plan must be to reduce and
control wind and water erosion, prevent non-point pollution, and
enhance the soil and water capacities of the land.
The plan should designate which highly erodible soils should not be
tilled and which may be tilled with approved conservation practices. It
should clearly map and document both existing and drained wetlands, as
well as any drains and channels. The plan should outline the
conservation of wetlands, as well as the maintenance of drains and
channels. It should also provide for meeting soil erosion goals and
controlling non-point pollution.
Such a conservation planning system should replace the existing
sodbuster, swampbuster, Corps of Engineers flood-plain and other
regulations which impact agricultural lands. The plan should be
supervised and approved by the USDA committee process, with the
technical assistance of the NRCS.
Once the plan is filed with NRCS and implemented, a producer should
be deemed to be in compliance with all Federal agencies. Producers
should be allowed to remedy inadvertent or unavoidable failures to
carry out conservation plan practices, and penalties should be based on
the degree of the violation. Loss of full Federal farm program benefits
should be imposed only in cases of purposeful destruction of
conservation practices. Current conservation compliance requirements
allow too few options to account for local involvement, climatic
conditions, and geography, which are beyond producer control.
1. Government Programs
Government conservation programs should be funded at levels that
will ensure the continued protection of our nation's soil and water
resources. Such financing should be on a long-term basis, providing
Federal commitments for at least 5 years ahead and providing
conservation assistance on a level designed to meet the needs as shown
in the Federal land conservation inventory and the appraisals under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and other Federal
studies.
The needs are so widespread and urgent that any ``targeted
conservation'' program would, if it were motivated by something more
than budget savings, have to call for a vast expansion of Federal
conservation investment. We request that Federal financing to meet
clean water and air standards of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) be available to farmers from funds appropriated by Congress for
this purpose, and that such funds be administered through the farmer-
elected committees.
We urge continued improvement and acceleration of the small
watershed programs.
We support the continuation and expansion of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program which includes, the Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP), Water Quality Incentives Program, Great
Plains Conservation Program, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program, and other soil and water programs, and we urge full
appropriation of funding directed to family farmers and ranchers.
We urge that ACP be funded at not less than the $500-million level
as originally authorized by the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act of 1937, and we strongly urge that the conservation cost-
sharing delivery system for all rural Federal conservation cost-sharing
funds be through the farmer-elected committee system.
Farmers should be able to put strips into grass for soil
conservation purposes and use these strips year after year for
diverting and conserving without losing base.
2. Agricultural Resources Conservation Program
We support the Environmental Conservation Acreage Reduction Program
(ECARP). We urge full funding of the three branches of ECARP--the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands Reserve Program, and
the Water Quality Incentives Program--to ensure proper implementation.
We also support greater emphasis on improved farm management
techniques. Teaching farmers to be the best possible stewards of their
resources is a better long-term approach to sustainability than simple
land retirement.
We recommend that the payments due to cooperating farmers in ECARP
be in cash, rather than in certificates or CCC commodities.
We support the 25-percent-per-county acreage limit for ECARP.
The CRP program needs to be closely monitored by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA)
with enough funding to enforce contract requirements for adequate weed,
insect, and fire control. Enrollees should be allowed to manage
permanent vegetative cover to enhance wildlife habitat and ecosystem
health.
In extending the Conservation Reserve Program and CRP contracts, we
recommend that the program be better focused to serve the needs of
family farmers and ranchers and to protect highly erodible land (HEL)
and other environmentally sensitive lands.
CRP lands which can qualify for the Wetlands Reserve or Water
Quality Incentive programs should be extended and transferred to those
programs through voluntary participation.
All CRP lands currently enrolled in the program should be re-
evaluated for contract. The most environmentally sensitive land should
be given first opportunity for contract.
CRP lands diverted into long-term timber and forestry conservation
projects should be given a high priority for contract re-enrollment. We
recommend that planting property to shelterbelts or other conservation
measures be encouraged through reduced property taxes on those acres.
We recommend that producers who destroy shelterbelts or wooded areas
establish the same number of acres of new trees for a minimum of 10
years.
We favor CRP contracts and contract extensions for periods of not
less than 10 years. We favor programs which maintain CRP lands in
private ownership in the hands of resident family farm and ranch
operators.
Incentives to aid beginning farm and ranch families should be
offered on land that was previously enrolled in CRP, but is not
environmentally sensitive under the new rules and will not be re-
enrolled.
We urge that financial and technical assistance be provided to
producers in preparing CRP acreages for sustainable agricultural
systems that will meet established conservation standards. In addition,
land managed with appropriate organic standards while enrolled in CRP
should be eligible for organic certification upon leaving the program.
In times of extended drought conditions or other weather disasters,
haying or grazing on CRP acres should be allocated to all livestock
producers based on need. The FSA farmer-elected county committees
should be given authority to set the date of harvest, based on the
nutritional value of hay. These regulations should be in place so the
procedures are known in advance. The maximum landowner income from the
haying and grazing should not exceed the annual CRP contract amount
from that farm.
3. Sodbuster and Swampbuster Provisions
We support provisions which give the secretary greater authority in
handling sodbuster and swampbuster violations.
The goal of soil conservation practices should be to reduce soil
losses to tolerable levels, or ``T-levels.'' We recommend that
alternative conservation systems be used only in cases of financial
hardship, after recommendation of local conservation officials.
We call upon Congress to designate the FSA as the single agency to
regulate swampbuster provisions.
4. Wetlands
Wetlands deserve protection in order to preserve harmony with the
nation's land and its resources and natural systems on which all life
depend.
Requiring re-certification of wetlands at 5-year intervals creates
a moving target for producers in their compliance efforts. While we
support a single, coordinated approach to wetlands protection, we
believe that producers must be provided full opportunity to participate
in the development and review of such joint regulation. We reaffirm our
support for making the NRCS and FSA the lead agencies in wetlands
delineations on agricultural land.
We support the joint efforts of these agencies to propose a single
set of definitions and rules in the proposed revisions to the 1989
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands,
which are pending release. However, the proposed manual's exemption of
the prairie pothole region of the United States from its coverage
leaves many farmers with no chance for an improvement in wetlands
procedures. This critical error must be corrected in the final manual,
since commodity production and farm survival are at stake.
In addition, we recommend:
(1) that any and all wetlands determinations throughout the United
States rely on the presence of all three of the following mandatory
wetland criteria simultaneously appearing on the same site year-round:
(a) hydrology; (b) a predominance of hydric soil; and (c) a prevalence
of hydrophilic vegetation;
(2) that all existing wetland determinations be reevaluated under
the proposed manual's uniform definitions and procedures with the
elimination of buffer zones;
(3) that the Federal Government consult with State and local
governments to develop a unified, mutually agreeable management program
to protect our nation's wetlands;
(4) that a wetlands management program balance wetland values and
the needs of the various States and their political subdivisions and
individual property rights;
(5) that any leaseholder, renter, or owner be compensated equitably
for the taking of any lands through the classification of wetlands;
(6) that for the protection and preservation of our natural
resources as well as our human resources and our free-enterprise system
and democratic way of life, the final interagency manual be revised
with greater consideration for the food and fiber producers of the
United States;
(7) that regulations ought to be amended to allow farmers to
mitigate wetlands in a given acreage, provided that there is no net
loss of wetlands in that acreage; and
(8) that Congress study the impact of current and any new wetlands
proposals on agricultural producers, family timber operations, and
rural communities and give careful consideration in identifying and
separately regulating any artificially created wetlands. Induced
wetlands should be exempt from wetland restrictions.
5. Predator and Rodent Control
Since the 1931 Animal Damage Control Act (ADC) mandates that the
Federal Government protect the livestock industry from predatory loss,
we recommend that the original intent of the law be enforced.
Judicious use of control practices must be continued on Federal,
State, and private lands to control coyotes and other predators.
To the extent that an adequate ADC program is not available to
farmers, we recommend that a federally financed indemnity program be
instituted to pay for livestock losses.
______
Prepared Statement of Bob Vice, President, California Farm Bureau
Federation, on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide testimony
for this important hearing on air quality. I am Bob Vice. I own and
operate a wholesale citrus and avocado nursery and farm avocados near
Fallbrook, California. I am President of the California Farm Bureau
Federation and today I am representing the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the nation's largest general farm organization with more
than 4.7 million member families. Our members grow every type of farm
commodity found in America. I am pleased to have the opportunity to
discuss with you today the impacts of new air standards on the
agricultural community. My comments focus primarily on the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to revise the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter.
As a preface to my comments, I think that it would be appropriate
to share with you a portion of Farm Bureau's policy on air quality that
was adopted by delegates to our annual meeting. It clearly outlines the
position of America's farmers and ranchers regarding the importance of
clean air. It reads, in part:
We support a healthy environment. We support government
policies that: Are based on sound scientific evidence; provide
incentives to industries seeking to become more energy
efficient or to reduce emissions of identifiable atmospheric
pollutants; seek cooperation of organizations and governments,
foreign and domestic, to develop better understanding and
research on the implications of atmospheric pollution and the
means of preventing it.
The evidence is quite strong that conservation has been a priority
for farmers and ranchers for many years. There has been, and continues
to be, a tremendous amount of conservation activity by farmers and
ranchers across the country. These activities include such things as
protecting wildlife habitat, creating wetlands, grassed waterways and
field buffer strips. We also use conservation tillage techniques and
cover crops, and plant trees and vegetation for windbreaks.
All these activities reduce wind erosion of the soil, which in
turn, provides cleaner air. The Conservation Reserve Program alone will
idle up to 36.4 million acres across the country that provides
vegetation that stabilizes soil and prevents windblown dust. Wind
erosion on 84 percent of the nation's rangeland, 86 percent of the
cropland, and virtually all of the pasture land is now less than the
tolerable soil loss rate--meaning, the rate at which soil erosion can
occur without surpassing the natural rate of soil regeneration (which
is 2-12 tons per acre per year). And soil lost to wind erosion
continues to decrease as farmers expand these extremely environmentally
beneficial practices (Attachment I). Farmers are cleaning the air and
should get credit for those activities.
Make no mistake: we are all for clean air, and this debate today is
about how to continue to achieve those goals.
Agriculture is concerned because EPA estimates that 34.3 percent of
fine particulate matter can be attributed to agriculture and forestry.
Regarding this questionably large estimate, I quote Dr. Calvin Parnell,
a professor of Agricultural Engineering at Texas A&M University and a
member of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Task Force on Air
Quality. He says, and we agree, that:
The data used to develop this inventory was based on
erroneous emission factors published by EPA for cattle feed
yards, feed mills, grain elevators and dust from farmers' field
operations.
Those comments were made last week in a hearing held by a
subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee. Furthermore, I quote
the Honorable Larry Combest, Chairman of the House Agriculture
Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research from that
same hearing. He says, and we agree, that:
The science employed in developing this rule is not up to
par, and I'm concerned that farmers could bear the brunt of a
bad policy based on equally bad science. We don't have the
research yet to know whether we can actually attain these
standards, how much it will cost the agriculture industry and
the consuming public, and how much agriculture activity
actually contributes to air pollution problems. (Attachment
II).
We share these same concerns. We also commend and extend the
comments raised by the USDA, the USDA Task Force on Air Quality and the
Small Business Administration in regards to economic impacts of this
standard on farms and ranches (Attachment III).
california situation
Today, however, I want to focus on actual situations those of us
involved in California agriculture already face in regard to the
present PM<INF>10</INF> Non-Attainment Area for central and southern
California, as determined by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Under this status, a major portion of California's agriculture has been
faced with a number of challenges which, in many cases, are yet to be
resolved. Agriculture in other areas of the country may face the same
situation if a new PM standard is imposed.
The money, time and resources we have spent attempting to meet the
PM<INF>10</INF> ambient air quality standard have given us plenty of
reasons to know that we cannot jump immediately into a new air quality
standard of which we know so little about. It is an absolute necessity
to allow science surrounding PM<INF>2.5</INF> to develop, so that
intelligent, reasonable and justifiable decisions can be made.
Let me expand on one of our air district's experiences in dealing
with the present PM<INF>10</INF> standard. These are examples of
situations agriculture has faced in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District.
Example 1
The emission inventory for agricultural tillage operations was the
focus of the initial discussions with the air district. There are two
major problems identified in this inventory. First, the actual number
of passes the equipment makes per acre, and second, the PM<INF>10</INF>
emission produced from each type of operation such as disking, ripping
or furrowing. This problem was due to the fact that information,
published by the EPA, indicated that alfalfa was disked eight times per
year, rice 13 times per year and rangeland twice per year. This greatly
overestimated the emissions and made agriculture the prime target.
First, farmers disc and seed alfalfa maybe only once every three or
more years, not eight per year, and farmers don't even disc rice or
rangeland at all, much less 13 and two times per year, respectively.
Some of the control measures suggested for agriculture operations
included: sprinkler irrigation on fields prior to planting; water tanks
mounted on tractors and water sprays on the back of disking equipment
(without taking into account that water is of a premium in California);
and the use of shaking equipment to shake trucks and farm implements
prior to exiting a field or unpaved road onto a paved road (this would
supposedly eliminate the carry-out of mud or dirt, which would later be
entrained into the atmosphere by cars or trucks on paved roads). These
irrational and impractical controls would have done little if nothing
to clean the air and would have been extremely costly for California
agriculture, had they not been corrected.
Just by updating the inventory with current acreage information for
each crop and correcting the number of passes per acre for tillage
equipment, the agricultural PM<INF>10</INF> emission inventory for
tillage operations was reduced 30 percent.
Example 2
At one point it was discussed that farms should be permitted by
their local air districts. In the San Joaquin Valley alone, it was
speculated that over 31,000 permits would need to be written for farms.
Each silage pile, unpaved road and equipment storage yard, to name a
few, would have been permitted. The District estimated that it would
need 70 additional permitting engineers to process air quality permits
just for farms.
Example 3
As I indicated, information used by the air districts identifies
agriculture as a primary source of PM<INF>10</INF> emissions. For the
past 5 years, California's agriculture community has fought to address
the deficiencies in those inventories. One example is windblown dust
emissions from agricultural lands. In the original inventory, it was
assumed that all farming in California was ``dryland'' farmed. It
assumed that the land was not irrigated, and that there was no
vegetation cover, or cover canopy, from the crops. Once irrigation and
vegetation cover was put into the wind erosion equations, the wind
erosion PM<INF>10</INF> emission inventory was reduced an incredible 80
percent from 410 tons per day of PM<INF>10</INF>, to 58 tons per day of
PM<INF>10</INF>.
Example 4
Probably the most blatant example of an inaccurate inventory,which
would have cost the agricultural industry thousands of dollars, was the
initial emission inventory for combustion engines used to drive
irrigation pumps. The original inventory estimated nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions (a precursor of PM) at 626 tons per day from all the pumps in
the San Joaquin Valley. This would be the highest emissions category
for NOX emissions in the San Joaquin Valley exceeding all the mobile
sources including all cars and trucks, which together only emit 353
tons per day. Driven by agricultural inquiries, a new study was
commissioned that was based on actual interviews with 360 farmers. The
new study determined that the NOX emission for these pumps is only 32
tons per day.
We have only begun to address agriculture's concerns with
PM<INF>10</INF> estimates, many of which are still unaddressed and
uncorrected. Furthermore, other PM<INF>10</INF> issues are still
arising. For example, EPA is also looking at NOX and ammonia (NH3) from
soils as contributors to ambient levels of PM<INF>10</INF>. This could
mean farmers will also have to address the application of fertilizers
and pesticides as an air quality concern, not to mention livestock.
Yet, recent studies performed in the Valley indicate that there are
very little NOX or NH3 emissions from the soil. Questions about how
much particulate matter is released into the air through natural
occurrences, such as high wind or volcanoes, also remain to be
addressed (Attachment Ill).
Considering all these discrepancies, it is unbelievable that we are
now again faced with the same problems, only this time with smaller
particulate matter. Based on the 1994 Emissions Inventory for the
National Particulate Matter Study, fugitive dust emissions from
agriculture have been listed as the third largest source of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nationwide, falling behind paved and unpaved roads.
This is hard to believe, since there has never been any actual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emission data taken on agricultural tillage equipment
using EPA approved PM<INF>2.5</INF> samplers. All of these examples
only emphasize the necessity to fully study PM<INF>2.5</INF> before
deadlines are set and rules are developed.
california study
In attempting to resolve some of the previously mentioned issues,
it became necessary to conduct a multi-year, multi-faceted air quality
study. Such a study was developed and is now underway in California.
This study, known as the California Regional Particulate Matter Air
Quality Study (CRPMAQS), will address all areas of PM<INF>10</INF> and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> issues. This includes emissions determinations and
quantifications, data analyses, demonstration studies, ambient air
quality measurements and model development. USDA is playing a major
role in this study by helping to fund emissions studies for
agricultural activities and operations. Once completed, it will be the
source by which decisions on particulate matter will be made in
California, and will serve to aid other areas in the Nation and the
world in their particulate matter decisionmaking process.
This comprehensive study, however, will not be completed for
roughly 5 years. I want to emphasize that this study is the first
comprehensive study that actually measures, instead of estimating,
agriculture's PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions. In order to avoid the
mistakes made for PM<INF>10</INF>, this study and others like it must
be completed before costly implementation activities, attainment
deadlines and regulations are set in place for yet a new PM standard.
conclusion
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that much work is yet to be done
in the agriculture industry before a new standard is set for
particulate matter. We must develop an accurate measurement method for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in order to determine and quantify the significant
sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and we must complete the necessary research
to understand the true nature and formation of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, so as
not to make the same mistakes that we are making with agricultural
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions.
A shotgun approach will only serve to put American agriculture out
of competition with other countries and put agricultural producers out
of work. Because U.S. agricultural commodity prices are tied to world
prices, a farmer cannot simply ``pass on'' the cost of doing business
to the consumer. In other words, ``we are ``price takers'' and not
price makers.'' Therefore, any increase in operational costs of farming
becomes significant and must be based on accurate information that
justifies the expenditures.
We also want to be careful in not tipping the balance of regulation
in this country to far as to force our grocers to fill market orders
with food purchased from other countries that do not always meet the
same safeguards and health standards as U.S.-produced commodities.
The agriculture community enjoys breathing clean air as much as
anybody, but it doesn't want to waste money on control measures that
have little or no effect on cleaning up the air of this Nation.
Finally, the USDA must maintain a strong presence as discussions
continue on these new standards. The USDA, the Small Business
Administration and the USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force must
continue to demand that the concerns of America's farmers and ranchers
are addressed by the EPA in order to ensure a continued safe, abundant,
healthy and affordable U.S. food supply.
I end on a note of caution as expressed by Paul Johnson, Chief of
the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, as he remarked in
last week's hearing that:
When local air quality administrators make decisions about
which pollution control programs to implement, they will
consider factors such as the percentage of total pollution in
the airshed that is caused by a specific activity or source,
and costs and benefits of implementing a set of controls on
these activities. Agriculture is practiced throughout the
country using many different technologies on a variety of soils
and in a variety of climates. Conditions, technology and
practices, along with a number of other factors determine
emissions. Agricultural emissions are highly variable within
and across airsheds and must be evaluated carefully.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.331
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.332
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.333
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.334
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.335
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.336
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.337
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.338
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.339
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.340
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.341
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.342
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.343
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.344
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.345
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.346
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.347
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.348
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.349
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.350
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.351
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.352
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.353
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.354
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.355
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.356
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.357
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.358
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.359
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.360
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.361
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.362
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.363
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.364
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.365
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.366
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.367
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.368
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.369
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.370
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.371
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.372
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.373
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.374
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.375
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.376
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.377
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.378
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.379
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.380
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.381
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.382
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.383
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.384
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.385
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.386
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.387
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.388
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.389
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.390
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.391
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.392
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.393
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.394
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.395
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.396
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.397
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.398
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.399
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.400
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.401
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.402
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.403
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.404
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.405
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.406
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.407
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.408
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.409
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.410
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.411
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.412
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.413
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.414
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.415
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.416
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.417
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.418
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.419
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.420
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.421
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.422
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.423
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.424
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.425
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.426
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.427
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.428
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.429
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.430
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.431
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.432
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.433
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.434
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.435
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.436
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.437
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.438
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.439
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.440
Prepared Statement of Paul Hansen, Executive Director, Izaak Walton
League of America
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Paul Hansen,
Executive Director of the Izaak Walton League of America, which is
celebrating its 75th year of working to conserve, maintain, protect and
restore the soil, forest, water and other natural resources of the
United States. I appreciate having the opportunity to talk with you
today about the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal for new
national air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter,
commonly referred to as PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
Protection of our nation's air quality is a part of the Izaak
Walton League's mission and an issue of vital importance to League
members, many of whom live in the nation's agricultural communities. We
have worked on clean air issues since the first Federal Air Pollution
Act, which was passed during the Eisenhower Administration. With the
adoption of new air quality standards just months away, the League is
concerned that the health, environmental and economic benefits that new
standards would provide be understood, recognized and considered as you
review this critical decision.
Today, I want to touch on a few of the benefits this new standard
would realize for the health of our people and our natural environment,
but I especially want to implore you to consider the findings of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Crop Loss Assessment Network,
which was released during the Reagan Administration. We were involved
in the NCLAN study, and cosponsored a symposium in 1982, with the Boyce
Thompson Institute at Cornell University, at which many of the findings
were released and discussed. I personally conducted a literature review
of the effects of air pollution on crops in 1990, a summary of which is
available here today for your consideration.
You know that the new air quality standards would protect public
health by preventing approximately 15,000 premature deaths and 250,000
to 400,000 illnesses each year. The proposed ozone standard of .08 ppm
would provide much needed health protection to anyone who spends time
outdoors working, exercising or relaxing. This includes, of course,
farm owners, operators and employees. The particulate matter standard
for PM<INF>2.5</INF> would protect, among others, anyone with heart or
lung disease. Most importantly, both standards would improve
protections for our children's health.
You also know that new limits on ozone and fine particulate matter
pollution would further reduce emissions of air pollutants that deposit
on our rivers, lakes and streams and degrade water quality necessary
for wildlife, fisheries, and water-based recreation. As you know, ozone
and particulate matter pollution are secondary, not primary pollutants.
This means that they are not emitted directly but instead are created
from a mixture of primary pollutants including nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxides. By reducing emissions of these primary pollutants, the
new standards would help to prevent the acidification of our rivers,
lakes, streams, and other special aquatic ecosystems such as the
Chesapeake Bay.
Most critical to the responsibilities of this Committee, the new
ozone standard would provide millions of dollars in agricultural
benefits each year. At air pollution levels well below those that exist
in our air today, ozone can reduce the productivity of commodity crops
such as corn and soybeans by 10 percent. This means that dirty air
costs our country approximately one billion bushels of corn and more
than two hundred million bushels of soybeans each year--at today's
prices almost three billion dollars in revenues.
It is well-established in the literature that the effects of ozone
on crops is very insidious, and, in most cases, invisible. With
soybeans, for example, there are no fewer beans, but lighter beans. A
10-percent reduction, which can be common at ozone levels found
throughout much of the soybean growing region, while highly significant
in terms of yield, would be effectively invisible--even to the trained
eye.
In the last 2 years, three groups of experts on ozone's vegetative
impacts have reconfirmed the seriousness of ozone's impacts on
commodity crops, forests, and other vegetation, which were first
measured by the National Crop Loss Assessment Network in 1982. A
workshop sponsored by the Southern Oxidants Study in 1995 convened
agricultural, forest, and ecological scientists with extensive
experience studying the effects of ozone on ecosystems to discuss the
need for a new ozone standard. The Workshop recommended that EPA adopt
a seasonal secondary standard that would provide vegetation with
additional protection during the growing season.
More recently, the Department of the Interior recommended that EPA
adopt a more protective secondary standard because the proposed primary
standard of .08 ppm was not adequate to protect natural and cultural
resources.
Finally, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) that
reviewed the research behind the proposed standards advised EPA that a
secondary standard, more stringent than the primary, was needed to
protect vegetation from ozone.
I know that concern has been expressed regarding the cost of
implementing a new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, particularly in
agricultural areas, and 1 would like to close by addressing that issue.
First, it is essential that our air quality standards be set at
levels that are protective of human health, not at levels that
regulated industries and others consider cost-effective.
Second, the new particulate matter standard applies to
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, not PM<INF>10</INF>. EPA has not recommended any
tightening of levels of PM<INF>10</INF> pollution. The distinction is
important because almost all PM<INF>2.5</INF> is a product of
combustion and almost all PM<INF>10</INF> is created by earth moving
activities such as construction, mining, and agricultural practices
like tilling.
Third, on most farms, the primary source of combustion is diesel
fueled farm equipment. This equipment is responsible for a very small
amount of the primary pollutants that create PM<INF>2.5</INF>. The
amounts of these primary pollutants created by farm equipment are so
small they are insignificant when compared to emissions from other
PM<INF>2.5</INF> sources. Farm equipment creates about 1 percent of
national nitrogen oxide emissions and almost no sulfur dioxide
emissions.
Finally, the history of pollution controls strongly suggests that
even if controls on diesel fueled vehicles become necessary, these
controls will cost far less than predicted. Reductions in sulfur
dioxide emissions, for example, which cost less than $100 per ton today
were predicted to cost as much as $1,500 per ton. Reduced crop yields
are much more likely than tighter pollution controls to negatively
impact a farmer's bottom line.
In closing I would like to again thank you for the opportunity to
address the proposed new standards' agricultural impacts and to shed
light on one of the hidden victims of our nation's polluted air, the
American farmer.
new standards will impose few burdens on the farmer
The Izaak Walton League believes the impact that these standards
will have on our nation's agriculture industry have been mis-
characterized by some. Industry opponents to the new PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard, for example, claim the new standard will create a horrible
regulatory burden for farmers. These opponents are assuming that EPA
will target the same farming activities for PM<INF>2.5</INF> as it did
in developing strategies for controlling PM<INF>10</INF>. However, this
assumption is mistaken.
EPA's principle interest in implementing the new air quality
standards is to bring areas of non-attainment into attainment. Most
projected non-attainment areas are urban areas where fine particulate
matter pollution is a product of combustion. Therefore, the major
targets of regulatory focus are very likely to be sources of combustion
in urban areas: electric utilities, buses, and large commercial
boilers, for example.
The changes EPA is proposing to the PM<INF>10</INF> program--which
do not include a tightening of PM<INF>10</INF> pollution limits--
actually result in fewer regulatory burdens on agricultural activities.
For example, by proposing a switch to a ``98th percentile'' form for
measuring compliance with the PM<INF>10</INF> standard, EPA is
proposing to allow more than six exceedances every year to be
``excused'' instead of just one. In comments critical of this element
of EPA's proposal, the California Air Resources Board calculated that
in the Great Basin Valley peak PM<INF>10</INF> levels 68 percent above
the standard would be legal under the new proposal.
Finally, there has been testimony in the U.S. House of
Representatives that the new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard will also affect
farmers who use nitrogen-based fertilizers and, because of the
volatilizations of ammonia, dairies with manure lagoons. In reality,
combustion sources such as factory boilers and electric utilities emit
many times the level of PM<INF>2.5</INF> particles than do manure
lagoons. They are not likely to be regulated under the State
Implementation Plans developed to implement these standards.
______
Prepared Statement of Kevin Fennelly, MD, Staff Physician, Division of
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, National Jewish Medical
and Research Center
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today regarding the particulate matter
standard proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). My name
is Kevin Fennelly; I am an academic physician at the National Jewish
Medical and Research Center in Denver, Colorado. I am board-certified
in pulmonary medicine and in occupational-environ-
mental medicine, and my time is evenly divided between patient care and
clinical-epidemiological research. Most of the patients I see have
asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although I care
for patients with a wide spectrum of more unusual respiratory diseases.
My research interests include the epidemiology of the health effects of
particulate air pollution, so I am familiar with the scientific
literature in this area.
I am testifying today as a concerned physician, scientist, and
citizen. I support the EPA proposal, although a more stringent standard
would provide additional public health benefits. I wish to emphasize
three points. (I) Particulate air pollution causes human suffering, not
just statistics. (II) There is biological plausibility to support the
epidemiological findings of adverse health effects associated with
particulate air pollution. (III) The risk of adverse health effects due
to particulate air pollution is comparable to other risks which our
society has not found acceptable.
i. particulate air pollution causes human suffering, not just
statistics
In discussing these issues with our local and State leaders, I
realized that we physicians and scientists have not done an ideal job
of communicating the meaning of recent scientific studies on
particulate air pollution. The data have often been expressed in very
abstract terms which are difficult to understand. My primary goal today
is to try to bridge the gap between the scientific data and the
clinical effects. I hope to prevent you from being numbed by all the
numbers which you have undoubtedly seen, and to recall that behind all
those statistics are people suffering from very real diseases.
As a physician specializing in lung diseases, I have seen patients
who report worsening of their asthma symptoms on days of visible air
pollution in Denver, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay
Area. These patients have told me of this association after a
nonspecific inquiry about the triggers of their asthma symptoms, and
they have not been aware of my research interest in air pollution.
Colleagues have reported similar encounters. In Denver, our air
pollution is predominated by particulate matter, so at least for our
local patients, particulate air pollution is likely to contain the
offending agent(s). Asthma is a common disease characterized by
symptoms to multiple triggers, including respiratory infections, cold
air, exercise, and other factors, including air pollution. Because of
this, it is impossible in any one patient to quantify how much air
pollution contributes to the disease. This speaks to the need for
epidemiological studies of groups of individuals to assess the relative
contribution of factors such as air pollution.
Aside from asthmatics, another group susceptible to the effects of
particulate air pollution are the elderly with heart or lung disease.
Again, since these diseases are so common, it is impossible for any one
physician on any 1 day to notice changes in the pattern of illness or
death which might be attributable to particulate air pollution. Even
with the hundreds of deaths which occurred during the air pollution
disaster in London in 1952, doctors did not appreciate the full
magnitude of that public health disaster until the epidemiologic data
were available.
I have been disturbed by comments in the lay literature which have
trivialized the occurrence of respiratory symptoms associated with air
pollution. Breathing is our most basic notion Without breath there is
no life, and it should be understandable that shortness of breath can
be a distressing symptom. Allow me to suggest a simple exercise for
those of you who may be fortunate enough to have escaped experiencing
shortness of breath yourself or to have observed it in a family member.
Simply take a drinking straw and breathe through it for several
minutes, or better yet, try to walk about and climb some stairs. Then
imagine feeling that way for hours or days. It is not a trivial
discomfort.
The other disturbing suggestion I have heard is that patients with
lung diseases should simply medicate themselves more to cope with air
pollution. This is illogical and violates good medical practice. As an
occupational pulmonologist, I engage considerable resources removing
patients from exposures which may be causing or aggravating their
asthma. In the case of urban air pollution, it is obviously impossible
for patients to avoid breathing the air in their community. Although
inhaled bronchodilator medicines may be able to relieve symptoms
temporarily, ongoing inhalation exposure will continue to aggravate the
inflammation in the bronchial tubes which characterizes asthma and
COPD. With more severe exacerbations, patients may have to use
corticosteroid tablets or injections, which can have serious adverse
effects if used repeatedly.
ii. there is biological plausibility to support the epidemiological
findings of adverse health effects associated with particulate air
pollution
I will defer to Dr. Carl Shy's expertise in epidemiology to review
the large numbers of studies which have found adverse health effects
associated with particulate air pollution, but I wish to offer a few
observations. Critics of these studies have suggested that they are
inconclusive or that they have been done by a small group of biased
researchers from Harvard. In fact, there are now a large number of
studies of various designs which have been done in various cities,
countries, and climates, and by various investigators studying multiple
outcomes: death rates, hospitalizations, emergency department visits,
pulmonary function changes, asthma medication use, and symptoms. There
has been a striking consistency in the findings of these studies. There
have been a few studies which have not found similar results, but these
have typically suffered from designs and methods which resulted in a
lack of statistical power or the lack of a biologically plausible
hypothesis.
Some critics of the EPA proposal have suggested that
epidemiological studies are not valid science or use some sort of
statistical sleight-of-hand. Advances in computing power and in
statistical methods have improved the science of modern epidemiology
considerably, which is similar to the advances due to improved
technology in other fields. It is true that there have been
epidemiologic studies of various suspected hazards which have resulted
in associations which were later found to be spurious. In those cases
the cause and effect relationship was readily dismissed after
additional epidemiological and toxicological studies did not support
the findings. However, this surely cannot be an indictment against the
field of epidemiology; similar processes occur in every scientific
field. In summary, it is highly unlikely that the epidemiological
findings are due to chance or some other aberrations.
A common criticism expressed in the lay press has been the small
magnitude of the effects of the epidemiological studies. There have
been references to the opinions of some scientists who only ``accept''
relative risks over 2 or 3 (or some other arbitrary number) in order to
consider an association ``significant''. In fact, there is no consensus
or ``gold standard'' in the scientific community for any criteria in
this regard. Such criteria might be useful as a screen in assessing the
value of one or even a few studies on a given subject. However, when
there is a large body of literature which has demonstrated consistent
results, as is the case regarding the health effects of particulate air
pollution, we must accept the data as they are. The magnitude of the
effects are indeed small at current levels of particulate air
pollution, but they are consistent with the effects which occurred
during severe air pollution episodes, such as in London, 1952. Indeed,
this point satisfies another criteria for establishing a cause-and-
effect relationship: a reasonable exposure-response relationship.
The impact on the public health is determined not only by the
magnitude of the effect, but also by how many people are exposed and
how frequently they are exposed. Highly toxic environmental hazards
easily gain the attention of the media and the public. Conversely,
exposure to urban air pollution is such a common experience that most
people perceive very little risk. However, it can be as serious a
public health risk, albeit much more insidious, since there are large
numbers of susceptible people frequently exposed to low concentrations
of pollutants. Most of us were shocked at the accidental release of
methyl isocyanate in Bhopal, India in 1984. There were at least 2000
deaths from that disaster [1], but the number of individuals dying from
particulate air pollution each year clearly exceeds that number.
A common criticism of the EPA proposal for the particulate matter
standard is that the epidemiological studies are not supported by
biological plausibility. Although we still have much to learn, this is
not true. In the air pollution disaster in Donora, PA of 1948, there
were symptoms in 88 percent of those with asthma, 77 percent of those
with heart disease, and 79 percent of those with chronic bronchitis[2].
There were 12 deaths in the Donora Borough during that week, which was
six times the expected rate. Autopsies were performed on three of these
patients. All three had evidence of capillary dilatation, edema, and
hemorrhage in the lung with purulent bronchitis and bronchiolitis,
which are inflammatory changes in the medium-to-large and small
airways, respectively. All three of these patients had evidence of
chronic cardiovascular disease. Similarly, in the killer fog of London
in 1952, approximately 300 (60 percent) of over 500 autopsies
demonstrated both heart and lung disease[3]. Thus, the pathological
data were consistent with the concurrent and more recent
epidemiological findings of increased deaths due to heart and lung
diseases.
Godleski and colleagues[4] recently presented preliminary findings
of an inhalation toxicology study which was coherent with these
pathological findings. They exposed rats with experimentally induced
chronic bronchitis to concentrated urban air particulates. Those
animals had a higher death rate (37 percent) than the controls (0
percent) as well as airway inflammation and marked constriction of the
bronchial tubes.
Other animal studies have demonstrated lung inflammation and injury
due to particulate matter, especially with very small particles
described as ``ultrafine''[5]. There are a growing number of reports of
investigations of the basic biological mechanisms responsible for this
inflammatory response, including free radical activity[6],
prostaglandins[7], and endotoxin-induced activation of genes for
cytokines, or chemical messengers[8]. Another recent study[9] found
that there is a marked increase in particle deposition in subjects with
chronic obstructive lung disease, which may help explain the increased
susceptibility of these individuals to the effects of particulate air
pollution.
Although much more research is needed to elucidate the biological
mechanisms causing the effects of particulate air pollutants, these
early studies are already producing exciting results supporting the
biological plausibility of the epidemiological findings. Some critics
of the EPA proposal have called for more scientific certainty before
taking action. As a pulmonologist, these arguments seem to echo the
history of the science and public policy regarding cigarette smoking.
Early epidemiological studies identified cigarette smoking as a risk
factor for lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, but the strategy of
the tobacco industry for years has been to repeatedly demand that more
research is needed to confirm the hazards of cigarette smoking.
Although we have learned a tremendous amount about the adverse health
effects of cigarette smoking, we still do not know with absolute
certainty exactly how smoking induces cancer and cardiovascular
disease. However, few reasonable people now question the deleterious
effects of cigarette smoking. Absolute certainty can be achieved only
with complete convergence and consistency of all studies in all
disciplines, including epidemiology, inhalation toxicology, dosimetry,
and others. This has never happened, and it is highly unlikely that it
will ever happen due to the nature of science as a human endeavor.
iii. the risk of adverse health effects due to particulate air
pollution is comparable to other risks which our society has not found
acceptable
Just as ``absolute certainty'' is impossible, there is no such
thing as ``zero risk.'' From a regulatory perspective, I can appreciate
that this scientific literature is disturbing since there is no
suggestion of a threshold concentration associated with these health
effects. Therefore, the critical question becomes one of ``acceptable
risk'' and of our societal values. Just as there is no gold standard
for what constitutes a ``significant'' relative risk, there is no
consensus as to what is an ``acceptable risk'' in our society. However,
there are precedents suggesting at least a reasonable range. In the
history of regulatory action in the U.S., the EPA and other agencies
have often regulated hazards if the cancer risk were greater than 1 per
100,000[10]. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 mandated that the EPA
regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions to reduce the lifetime
cancer risk if it finds such risk to be higher than one in one million
(See Sec. 112(f)(2)). In 1978, the Supreme Court suggested that an
occupational risk of cancer due to benzene exposure of 100 per 100,000
warranted regulatory consideration[11]. Thus, there is a range of
lifetime risks for cancer from 100 per 100,000 to 1 per 1,000,000 which
history suggests is not ``acceptable'' to our society. These data refer
to risks for cancer, but it seems that an increased risk of death from
heart or lung disease should be considered the same as an increased
risk of death from cancer. I would like to suggest an approach to help
understand and communicate this issue: the use of incidence rates. EPA
has typically performed risk assessments of carcinogenic hazards and
expressed the risk in terms of deaths per 100,000 population. A similar
metric is used frequently in describing infectious disease risks, but I
have not seen it used to describe risks from exposures to air
pollution.
For example, to estimate the number of deaths attributable to
PM<INF>10</INF> in Denver, I assumed (1) a threshold effect of 30 mcg/m3
and (2) a 3.4 percent increase in respiratory deaths and a 1.4
percent increase in cardiac deaths for each 10 mcg/m3 increase in
PM<INF>10</INF> (average estimates suggested by Dockery and Pope[12]).
Using the daily count of deaths and the daily PM<INF>10</INF>
concentrations for the city of Denver from 1990-92, I thus calculated
57 deaths, or an average of 19 cardiopulmonary deaths per year
attributable to particulate air pollution. Since the population of the
city of Denver in 1990 was 467,652, the annual crude cardiopulmonary
mortality rate attributable to PM<INF>10</INF> is 19/467,652, or 4 per
100,000. Since there were 1,745 cardiopulmonary deaths from 1990-92,
3.3 percent (57/1745) were attributable to PM<INF>10</INF>. This
conservative estimate is consistent with Lipfert's recent estimate that
air pollution may account for 3-5 percent of deaths in affected urban
areas; his esti-
mate included lung cancer deaths as well.[13] If the annual risk of
death due to particulate air pollution is thus conservatively estimated
at 4 per 100,000, then the cumulative risk over only 10 years of
residence in this mildly polluted urban area would be 40 per 100,000. I
also calculated similar risks for Philadelphia or Los Angeles using
data provided in the EPA Staff Paper.[14] (See tables 1 and 2.) These
estimates are substantantially larger, at 23 and 25 per 100,000
population per year respectively, or 230 to 250 per 100,000 population
over 10 years. Thus, the risk of acute cardiopulmonary death associated
with particulate air pollution over a decade is greater than the
``unacceptable'' lifetime risk of cancer discussed above.
These risk estimates obviously do not include the many other
nonfatal health effects of particulate air pollution, some of which are
listed in tables 1 and 2. Although much emphasis has been placed on the
studies of increased deaths associated with particulate air pollution,
we know that mortality is only the ``tip of the iceberg'', i.e., that
there are probably many more less serious adverse health effects if an
exposure is able to produce death[15]. (See figure 1.) Unfortunately,
there is not one composite measure which sums the many fatal and
nonfatal health effects of an exposure such as particulate air
pollution.
Such a discussion of quantitative risk estimates also does not
include the qualitative aspects of risks associated with air pollution
which the public has not found acceptable, such as these exposures
being involuntary, uncontrollable, and affecting children[16].
iv. summary
These issues are extremely complex, and in our struggles to be
objective by providing quantitative data, it is easy to become numbed
by the numbers. When I see patients who have increased respiratory
symptoms on days of high air pollution, they sometimes ask me why
nobody is doing anything to improve Denver's ``Brown Cloud''. I try to
reassure them that great improvements in air quality have been achieved
over the last two decades. However, I think that we need to heed the
medical maxim: ``Listen to the patient.'' Behind the statistics are
real people suffering with real symptoms. I congratulate the EPA in its
review of the recent scientific literature and in recognizing the
importance of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. There are adequate data to support more
stringent regulation of particulate air pollution, and the lack of
``certainty'' should not be an excuse for inaction. We could improve
the public health by implementing even more protective standards, such
as those proposed by the American Lung Association. At minimum, I urge
you to support the proposed changes in the particulate air pollution
standard as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my concerns.
references
1. Melius J.M. The Bhopal Disaster. In: Rom W., ed. Environmental
and Occupational Medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company,
1992:921-926
2. Shrenk H.H. Public Health Service. Bulletin Number 36. 1949
3. Ministry of Health. Mortality and morbidity during the London
fog of December 1952. Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects,
Number 95. 1954
4. Godleski J., Sioutas C., Katler M., Koutrakis P. Death from
inhalation of concentrated ambient air particles in animal models of
pulmonary disease (Abstract). In: Second Colloquium on Particulate Air
Pollution and Health. Park City, UT, 1996
5. Oberdorster G., Gelein R.M., Ferin J., Weiss B. Association of
particulate air pollution and acute mortality: involvement of ultrafine
particles? Inhalation Toxicology 1995;7:111-124
6. Li X.Y., Gilmour P.S., Donaldson K., MacNee W. Free radical
activity and pro-inflammatory effects of particulate air pollution
(PM<INF>10</INF>) in vivo and in vitro. Thorax 1996;51:1216-1222
7. Samet J.M., Reed W., Ghio A.J., Devlin R.B., Carter J.D., Dailey
L.A., Bromberg P.A., Madden M.C. Induction of prostaglandin H synthase
2 in human airway epithelial cells exposed to residual oil fly ash.
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1996; 141:159-168
8. Dong W., Lewtas J., Luster M.I. Role of endotoxin in tumor
necrosis factor alpha expression from alveolar macrophages treated with
urban air particles. Experimental Lung Research 1996;22:577-592
9. Kim C.S., Kang T.C. Comparative measurement of lung deposition
of inhaled fine particles in normal subjects and patients with
obstructive lung disease. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care
Medicine, 1997;155:899.-905
10. Nicholson W.J. Quantitative risk assessment for carcinogens.
In: Rom W., ed. Environmental and Occupational Medicine. Second ed.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1992:1386
11. Karstadt M. Quantitative risk assessment: qualms and questions.
Teratogen Carcinogen Mutagen 1988;8:137-152
12. Dockery D.W., Pope C.Ad. Acute respiratory effects of
particulate air pollution. Annual Review of Public Health 1994;15:107-
132
13. Lipfert F.W., Wyzga R.E. Air pollution and mortality: issues
and uncertainties. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association
1995;45:949-966
14. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Staff Paper.
Research Triangle Park, NC: United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 1996
15. American Thoracic Society, Guidelines as to what constitutes an
adverse respiratory health effect, with special reference to
epidemiologic studies of air pollution. American Review of Respiratory
Diseases 1985;13 1:666-668
16. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987;236:280-285
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.441
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.442
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.443
Prepared Statement of Dr. Christopher Grande, Executive Director,
International Trauma Anesthesiology and Critical Care Society
Good morning. My name is Dr. Christopher Grande. I am a practicing
physician from Baltimore, Maryland. I am a board-certified
anesthesiologist and intensive care specialist in trauma injury. I have
authored and edited numerous medical books and have had about 30
articles published in professional journals.
I am also Executive Director of the International Trauma
Anesthesiology and Critical Care Society or ``ITACCS'' for short.
ITACCS is a 10-year old professional association of more than 1,000
trauma specialists and emergency room physicians, nurses, and related
professionals.
I also hold a masters degree in public health from the Johns
Hopkins University School of Public Health.
I'd like to thank the committee and Chairman Inhofe for inviting me
to provide ITACCS' views on the proposed ozone and particulate matter
standards.
Before I specifically address the standards, though, I'd first like
to give the committee some important background information.
Everyday I'm in the hospital emergency room , I see patients and
problems vying for critical resources. From acute asthma patients to
traumatic injuries. These are all competing public health priorities.
All competing for limited available public health resources.
The focus of ITACCS is traumatic injury, often accidental in nature
such as that caused by motor vehicle, on-the-job, or household
accidents.
Injury is the leading caused of death for those under the age of
45.\1\ And it is the fourth leading cause of death overall in the
United States. About 150,000 deaths every year.\2\
Trauma cuts across all of society. The injured person is not
someone else. The injured patient is you, your child, your spouse, your
parent.
The average age of injury victims is 20. Death from injury is the
leading cause of years-of-life-lost in the U.S.--more than twice the
number of years of life lost as the next leading cause, cancer, and
three times that of heart disease.
According to 1990 statistics from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, traumatic injury was responsible for approximately 3.7
million years of potential life lost.\3\ In contrast, cancer was
responsible for 1.8 million years of potential life lost. Heart disease
was responsible for 1.3 million years of potential life lost.
What does this tell us? The National Academy of Sciences concluded
in 1985 that trauma was the ``No. 1'' public health problem in the
U.S.\4\ This situation remains unchanged today. How is this relevant to
the debate over the ozone and particulate matter standards?
It can be simply put in three words, ``public health priorities.''
The fact is that society has limited resources that it can spend on
public health. As such, responsible public policy dictates that such
resources be spent so as to achieve the ``biggest bang for the buck.''
ITACCS is not convinced, and neither should the public be, that the
proposed ozone and particulate matter standards are a smart way to
spend our limited resources.
But I want to make it clear that we are not singling out only the
proposed ozone and particulate matter air quality standards. The
proposed standards are merely the latest example in what we see as a
disturbing trend of the last two decades where scarce public health
resources are diverted from more clearly demonstrated beneficial uses.
The unintended consequence of this diversion might be a decrease in
the overall effectiveness and efficiency of public health care
delivery.
As the makers of our laws and the ultimate allocators of our public
health resources, Congress should take the lead in rationally
allocating our limited resources.
But how would Congress know what is a priority and what is not?
The process behind the proposed ozone and particulate matter air
quality standards has not been helpful.
First, the proposed rules do not provide a ranking or comparison
between the estimated health effects attributed to ozone and PM and
those of other public health needs.
One of the health endpoints associated with the proposed rules is
asthma. No doubt asthma is a serious issue and public health resources
should be directed at asthma. But a recent study \5\ published in the
February 1997 American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
Medicine a journal of the American Lung Association helps place air
pollution-induced asthma in perspective.
In this study, which employs a study design that has been
characterized \6\ as the most reliable on the potential health effects
of ambient ozone--i.e., the study model of children attending asthma
camp--air pollution was associated with a 40 percent increase in asthma
exacerbation in children. It sounds bad, but what does this really
mean?
Assuming for sake of argument that the authors' conclusion is
reasonable, this increase in asthma exacerbation equates to one extra
use of an inhaler among one in seven severe asthmatics on the worst
pollution day. However, close scrutiny of this study reveals that many
confounding risk factors for asthma exacerbation were not considered by
the study authors. These risk factors include changes in temperature,
atmospheric pressure, anxiety, physical exertion, allergens, dust, and
fumes.
Moreover, this study is inconsistent with the general observation
that while asthma has increased over the last 15 or so years, air
pollution has decreased. There appears to be no generally accepted
explanation for this phenomenon.
Therefore, this study does not satisfactorily link ambient ozone
with asthma exacerbation.
Before we commit our scarce resources wouldn't it be useful to know
exactly where this very uncertain health effect ranks among other real
public health priorities?
If asthma qualifies as a public health concern, appropriate levels
of funding should be targeted at programs that have been proven to be
effective, but not fully implemented. Such programs include appropriate
research, public and patient education, increased compliance with
asthma medication schedules, intelligent avoidance of triggering
factors, etc.
Just last week, President Clinton issued an Executive order
requiring Federal agencies to pay more attention to environmental
health and safety risks that disproportionately affect children. While
it is easy to agree with the intent of the Executive order, it is not
clear that air pollution disproportionately affects children. What is
clear is that traumatic injury disproportionately affects children, and
it has been clearly identified as the leading cause of death in
children.\7\
Second, the proposed rules do not provide an accurate estimate of
what their associated opportunity costs are.
For example, if a community is forced to spend its resources
implementing the ozone and particulate matter air quality standards,
what other public health needs will the community sacrifice? A new
trauma center? Training for its paramedics? A new ambulance?
Filling these other public health needs can produce results that
cut across many public health problems. For example, ambulances and
trauma centers benefit everyone from asthmatics to heart attack and
trauma victims.
It would seem to be good public policy to develop and rely on an
analysis of opportunity costs.
Third, the true uncertainties associated with the proposed ozone
and particulate matter air quality standards have not been fully
presented.
For example, it has been estimated and widely reported that chronic
exposure to fine particulate matter causes 20,000 deaths per year. In
fact this estimate appears to be based on very uncertain epidemiology.
It was acknowledged recently by EPA \8\ and reported in major
newspapers such as The Washington Post \9\ that the simple error of
using an arithmetic ``mean'' instead of an arithmetic ``median''
reduced the estimated mortality from fine particulate matter by 5,000
deaths.
It could very well be that chronic exposure to fine particulate
matter, in fact, causes no deaths. On this point, it is greatly
troubling that the data underlying this estimate has yet to be made
publicly available.\10\ Given that major confounding factors for
mortality appear to be omitted from the analyses--factors like lack of
exercise, poor diet, and prior health history--weak epidemiologic
associations could easily vanish with more thorough analysis.\11\
In stark contrast to what has been hypothesized about particulate
matter and mortality, we know that about 150,000 people die every year
from injury. These are real deaths, not those calculated through
debatable assumptions and statistics.
One year ago the television show Dateline NBC featured the story of
Robert Meier.\12\ In April 1995, Mr. Meier was driving through rural
Oklahoma heading home for Easter. Just before 4 o'clock that Saturday
afternoon, Meier's van careened off the highway, slamming through a
guardrail. His van rolled over five times before plummeting into a
ravine. Within a few minutes rescue personnel were at the scene.
The ambulance took Mr. Meier to Shawnee Regional Hospital. But the
doctor on duty determined that Mr. Meier had serious internal injuries
and needed to be transferred to another hospital better equipped to
treat them. But as Mr. Meier bled profusely from a ruptured aorta, no
hospital in the area would accept him because critical resources were
not available.
It was not until half past midnight, 8 hours after his accident,
that a surgeon was found to operate on Mr. Meier. This delay cost Mr.
Meier his life.
Mr. Meier was fully covered by health insurance. He had done his
part. But because of a lack of crucial resources, the system failed.
Stories like this one are common. But they should not be, nor do
they have to be. Proven solutions are possible now, but must compete
for attention and funding.
More than 25 studies indicate that between 20,000 and 25,000
Americans who die each year from injury could be saved if regional
trauma systems were in place across the Nation ensuring prompt access
to a qualified trauma center.
In 1973, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Services System Act
to help States improve their trauma systems. But lack of Federal
support made this an unfunded mandate that States could not afford to
implement on their own. And as a result, significant deficiencies exist
in trauma systems across the country like the one that resulted in Mr.
Meier's death.
But how would Congress know this when currently there is no
mechanism to identify, compare, and prioritize public health needs. The
ozone and particulate matter proposals in their present formats are
prime examples of this defect in how we do public health in America.
I understand that a bill was introduced in the last Congress which
would have required the comparative ranking of health risks. This would
be helpful for prioritizing our public health needs. I urge that
Congress continue along this track.
Stimulated by this latest raid on our scarce public health
resources, ITACCS is establishing a new forum to facilitate public
debate on the allocation of public health resources. The mission of the
National Forum for Public Health Priorities will be to provide
policymakers with information necessary to prioritize public health
needs.
Those who wish to commit the public's limited resources should be
required to justify such proposed commitments against all other
competing needs. And, as a major allocator of public health resources,
Congress must ensure that the public health is not short-changed by
unproductive expenditures.
Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
notes
1. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;27:495.
2. National Safety Council. 1993. Accident Facts.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Years of potential
life lost before ages 65 and 85--United States, 1989-1990. MMWR 41:313,
1992.
4. National Research Council. 1985. Injury in America: A Continuing
Public Health Problem.
5. Am J Crit Care Med 1997;155:654-660.
6. See EPA Criteria Document for Ozone.
7. National Safety Council, Accident Facts (1996 ed.).
8. EPA Press Release, April 2, 1997.
9. The Washington Post (April 3, 1997).
10. The Wall Street Journal (April 7, 1997).
11. See, e.g., American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
1995; 151:669-674 (the ``Pope'' study).
12. Dateline NBC (March 17, 1996).
______
Prepared Statement of Harry C. Alford, President and CEO, National
Black Chamber of Commerce
My name is Harry C. Alford, President and CEO, National Black
Chamber of Commerce. The NBCC is made up of 155 affiliated chapters
located in 43 States. We have three (3) divisions--Eastern, Central,
Western; nine (9) regions and 43 district offices. Through direct
membership and via our affiliated chapters, the NBCC directly speaks on
behalf of 60,000 Black-owned businesses and represents the total
populace of Black-owned firms which, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau of Statistics, is over 620,000.
The NBCC is opposed to the two proposals presented by the EPA that
would set a more stringent ozone standard and establish a new PM
(particulate matter) standard for emissions at or below 2.5. The Clean
Air Act of 1990 has made much progress in improving our environment. We
sincerely feel that the continuance of this process will further
improve the environment. To put more stringent demands on our
businesses will have an extreme adverse impact on business in general
with even higher stakes to lose for small businesses per se. If big
business gets a ``cold'', small business gets the ``flu'' and Black-
owned business suffers ``pneumonia''.
An example of the above can be found in our campaign to develop
business partnerships with the automobile industry. We have approached
and are working with principals within the management of Ford, Chrysler
and General Motors. One success story is that at the time of
preliminary discussions with Chrysler, we had no Black-owned architect,
civil engineer or construction company performing work of over $1
million. Today, after just 1 year of interaction we have businesses in
such disciplines actively working on or negotiating over $100 million
worth of Chrysler expansion.
That is just one example, these three auto makers have expansion
plans set for the cities of Arlington, TX, Oklahoma City, Kansas City,
Fairfax, MO, Shreveport, LA, Janesville and Kenosha, WI, Belvedere and
Chicago, IL, St. Louis, Ft. Wayne, Kokomo and Indianapolis, IN, Flint,
Lansing and Detroit, MI, Toledo, Twinsburg, Lima, Dayton, Cincinnati,
Cleveland and Warren, OH, Louisville and Bowling Green, KY, Springhill,
TN, Athens, MS, Atlanta, Eastern, NY, Linden and Edison, NJ, Wilmington
and Newark, DE, Baltimore, and Norfolk, VA. This is an expansion
investment of $37.9 billion which is the equivalent of total sales for
all Black-owned businesses combined! Just competing for this business
and winning 10 percent would increase the total national output of
America's Black-owned businesses by over 10 percent.
It's a goal worth going after. However, it may not exist for the
Black segment of this economy if the new standards go into effect. This
is just the auto industry. We are busy creating alliances with the oil
industry, electrical utilities, telecommunication companies, etc. The
potential for economic parity and true capitalism in Black
communities--THE MISSING LINK--is before us! Viable employment through
an economic infrastructure in currently distressed neighborhoods is
going to be the answer to improved health care, education, family
values and the decrease in hopelessness, crime, welfare and violence.
There just is no other way to do it.
We have heard coming out of EPA terms such as Environmental Justice
and Environmental Racism. Such terms are not accurate in their
description. They imply that the ``evils of big business'' conspire in
back rooms to wreak havoc on minority communities via dumping of
toxic/hazardous materials, etc. The coincidence of environmental hazards
in minority communities is a matter of economics. Property values and
shifts in desirable business properties are the main reasons. Minority
populations just happen to live (after a cycle of geographical shifts)
in these communities.
However, if there was ever a policy or a proposed regulation that
could be considered directly adversarial to a particular segment of our
population we may now have it. The proposed standards are going to hit
urban communities the hardest. Of the 620,000 Black-owned businesses at
least 98 percent of them are located in urban areas (U.S. Census).
Hispanic and Asian businesses probably can claim the same. As mentioned
above, Black-owned businesses are presently at the end of the business
``food chain''. If business suffers, Black businesses will suffer the
most. The main vehicle for Black community development is business
startup and growth. The proposed standards will become predatory to
Black-owned businesses and all Black communities and we must vehemently
protest them.
The NBCC has been quite successful since its conception in 1993. We
have Black church organizations, educators, political leaders and
traditional civil rights organizations talking about economics--the
lack thereof--like never before. Corporate America has been waiting on
Black communities to focus on the principles of capitalism which is the
bloodline for our future and security. The time is before us and I
foresee a rapid change in economic empowerment for communities that
have suffered for too long. The EPA's attitude and it's proposals are
counter to this trend and, thus, pose the biggest threat. The increased
costs that will pain the Fortune 500 and maim small businesses will
obliterate minority businesses, especially Black owned businesses. The
end result is lost jobs and lack of capital infusion.
I personally lived in Detroit and Chicago during economic
downturns. What was experienced by dwellers of these urban communities
and others was not a pretty sight at all. Shame on us if we allow this
to happen once again because we quickly move to make the Earth
``pristine'' in a fashion that will surely hurt our economic
infrastructure.
Let us work in harmony toward making the environment as safe as
possible without making those who have the least resources pay the
most. The National Black Chamber of Commerce pleads with Congress to
strongly consider the ills of the proposed standards and encourage EPA
to be more thoughtful and universal in its approach.
______
Prepared Statement of Frank Herhold, Executive Director, Marine
Industries Association of South Florida
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, good afternoon my name is
Frank Herhold. I am the Executive Director for the Marine Industries
Association of South Florida, which represents over 640 marine
businesses. I am also here today on behalf of the National Marine
Manufacturers Association (NMMA), which is the national trade
association representing over 1500 boat builders, marine engine and
marine accessory manufacturers.
I am here today to explain why the EPA's proposed revision to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will be bad for
recreational boating. What is bad for recreational boating is bad for
the State of Florida and the Nation. There are currently 750,000
registered boats in the State of Florida and the latest annual marine
retail sales figures topped $11 billion in Florida. To put this into
perspective, in Broward County alone, the marine industry represents a
total economic output of $4.3 billion employing 88,390 people, with an
average growth rate of 6.5 percent. Boating brings dollars and jobs to
the State of Florida.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 have placed a significant
technical and economic challenge on the recreational boating industry.
The new marine engine emission regulation which was finalized in July
1996 will require that all new marine engines reduce hydrocarbon
emissions by 75 percent. Economic impact estimates have this regulation
costing the industry over $350 million, increasing the cost per boat
engine by as much as 15 percent. The Clean Air Act will also regulate
air emissions from boat manufacturing plants with a MACT (Maximum
Achievable Control Technology) standard scheduled to be promulgated in
the year 2000. This regulation will also be costly raising the price of
boats, thus directly reducing the number of people who can afford to
enjoy boating.
Needless to say, the proposed revised NAAQS will have a devastating
effect on the recreational marine industry. Without drastically
reengineering American society, States will be forced to press emission
sources for further reductions, many of which like the recreational
boating industry, have reached the point of diminishing returns.
Several years ago, when the NAAQS for ozone was initially set at
.12 ppm, some State regulators in non-attainment areas considered bans
on recreational boating as a method to meet the requirements of their
State Implementation Plans. The Washington DC Council of Governments
(COG) actually proposed a ban on recreational boating in 1993. This
proposal raised immediate opposition from boaters, marinas, waterfront
restaurants, and other effected groups. COG eventually reversed its
decision after the affected parties spent considerable resources to
educate COG as to the proposal's adverse effects. This EPA proposed
revised standard will again force States to reconsider episodic bans
and this time States may be pushed to implement episodic restrictions
on recreational boating throughout the Nation.
I am appealing to you to stop EPA's attempts to revise the
standards at this time. It is my understanding that the scientific
studies that EPA is using to defend this proposal do not take into
account either the specific constituents in air pollution or other
mitigating factors that effect human health. I feel that EPA would be
premature to impose such a burdensome standard without first
identifying the specific benefit and real cost of the proposal. Even if
we fail to convince EPA that it is making a terrible mistake, at a
minimum, let's somehow prevent States from using episodic bans as a
means to attain compliance. Episodic bans will negatively effect a
person's decision to purchase a boat, knowing that on the hottest days
of the summer the government can take away his or her freedom to
operate it. Not since Congress passed the luxury tax have boaters faced
a more serious threat. If this standard is finalized in its current
proposed form, consider the burden it will place on States, industry
and its workers, and the million of people who just want to spend a
summer afternoon on the water with their family.
In conclusion, everyone needs to realize that America's air is
cleaner and will continue to improve, as the benefits from recently and
soon to be initiated Clean Air Act regulations are realized. What we do
not need now is more regulation. What we need now is the time and
resources to implement those regulations that are already on the books.
Boaters want clean air and clean water and the recreational marine
industry is ready to assist both Congress and the EPA in this
rulemaking process. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director, Institute of
Clean Air Companies, Inc.
Good afternoon. My name is Jeffrey C. Smith and I am the Executive
Director of the Institute of Clean Air Companies, Inc. (``the
Institute'' or ``ICAC''). The Institute is pleased to participate in
today's hearing, and applauds the Subcommittee for providing this
opportunity to share different ideas and views on the important matter
of EPA's proposed revisions to the particulate matter and ozone ambient
standards (NAAQS).
By way of introduction, ICAC is the national association of
companies that supply air pollution control and monitoring technology
for emissions of air pollutants, including emissions of sulfur oxides
(SO<INF>x</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>x</INF>), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter (PM), which contribute either
directly or as precursors to fine particulate matter and ozone in the
atmosphere. ICAC businesses compete with each other, offer the full
spectrum of technologies available, and serve all stationary source
emitters that would be affected by the revised standards.
This afternoon I will briefly address, qualitatively, the impact of
the proposed standards on the U.S. air pollution control technology
industry and the overall cost of the proposal.
The U.S. air pollution control industry supports EPA' proposal to
revise the ozone and particulate matter ambient standards. Suppliers of
control technology for the pollutants that would be affected by the EPA
proposal employ tens of thousands of people, and these firms in general
have suffered disappointing earnings which have necessitated severe
downsizing in many cases. The EPA proposal would benefit these
businesses at an important time.
I should note also that nearly all suppliers of technology to
control the emissions that are precursors of ozone and fine particulate
matter are small businesses. Indeed, for the control of volatile
organic compounds, a leading precursor of ozone, I estimate that over
95 percent of the 100+ control suppliers are ``small businesses'',
i.e., have fewer than 500 employees. In the great majority of cases,
these companies have far fewer than 500 employees.
Thus, resolving the admittedly tough clean air issues we face in a
way that protects public health and the environment has an important
side-benefit: it would also promote the air pollution control industry,
which creates jobs as compliance dollars are recycled in the economy.
This industry is currently generating a modest trade surplus to help
offset the billions this Nation hemorrhages each month on international
trade, and is providing technological leadership that can continue to
be deployed in the fast-growing overseas markets for U.S. air pollution
control technology.
With regard to the overall cost of the EPA proposal, I note first
the Institute's support for the two-step process of setting ambient air
quality standards, and then addressing implementation and cost issues.
This process has received bipartisan support and worked well for over
two decades. By clearly separating health science and cost/implementation
issues, the process actually allows the public, as well as Federal and
State government authorities to rationally parse out an then balance all
policy issues. In short, no emitting source will have to comply with the
new standards before costs are thoroughly examined.
No one of course knows what the exact cost of the proposal will be.
To be sure, there will be an implementation cost, but it is well to
remember several important lessons of the past 27 years in implementing
the Clean Air Act.
One of these is illustrated by my experience nearly a decade ago
when I sat before various House and Senate Committees and presented
detailed implementation cost estimates for the acid rain provisions of
what became the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Regulated industry
claimed the removal costs of SO<INF>2</INF>, the leading precursor to
acid rain as well as a precursor to fine particulate matter, would
reach thousands of dollars a ton, while EPA claimed a more modest sum
of $1,500 to $2,000 a ton was about what we could expect. I disagreed,
arguing that market and technical data supported a dollar-per-ton-
removed cost of about $500. But I overestimated the cost, too, since
today, in 1997's inflated dollars, a ton of SO<INF>2</INF> is removed
for only $110 a ton.
The preeminent lesson of our Nation's 27-year history under the
Clean Air Act is that actual compliance costs turn out to be much lower
than the costs predicted at the outset of a regulatory action because
the regulated community, markets, and control technology suppliers are
smarter and more efficient at reducing costs than forecasters predict.
This is even more true in light of today's emphasis on flexibility in
compliance and authorized use of and credit for market-based approaches
and pollution prevention.
Those who predict gargantuan cost impacts ignore this important
lesson, and also underestimate the wisdom of State and local officials
who will be implementing these standards. Everyone has an interest in
rational and prudent clean air policy, and the cost effectiveness of
various compliance options will be considered during implementation.
And there is no reason not to believe that, as has always been the
case, all of us--regulated industry, government officials, and
technology suppliers--will discover ever more cost-effective compliance
solutions, especially since nearly a decade exists between now and when
the impact of new standards would be felt.
For our part, members of the Institute continue to invest in
research and development to improve removal efficiencies while lowering
costs and simplifying operation. We have to. The air pollution control
technology industry is innovative and highly competitive. And
improvements in cost-effectiveness are what give one business or
technology a competitive advantage over another.
It is no exaggeration to say that the clean air policy choices we
make in 1997 will determine the amount of air pollution that affects
the health and environment of ourselves and our children over the next
decade and beyond. Ten years is a long time, nearly a life-time for
childhood. We must, therefore, choose correctly, informed both by
lessons learned from our nearly three decades of Clean Air Act
experience, and by a vision for the future which reflects, as does
every opinion poll, the American public's demand for a clean and
healthy environment.
In closing, the Institute again expresses its appreciation to the
Subcommittee for providing a forum for dialog on this important issue.
In our view, EPA has taken the proper course by its efforts to
establish ozone and particulate matter standards that protect public
health. If those health-based standards are revised, the U.S. air
pollution control industry is ready to do its part to help our Nation
achieve its clean air goals cost-effectively. Based on historical
precedent, the current pace of control technology innovation, the use
of market-based incentives, the years between now and compliance
deadlines, and competition within the air pollution control technology
industry and among technologies, we are confident that the actual cost
of compliance will be less than most of us today imagine.
______
Prepared Statement of Glenn Heilman, Vice President, Heilman Pavement
Specialties, Inc.
Good Morning. My name is Glenn Heilman. I am the Vice President of
Heilman Pavement Specialties, Inc., a small family owned business that
has been in operation for 41 years. We are located in Freeport,
Pennsylvania which is just above Pittsburgh. Thank you for giving me
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Federation of
Independent Business regarding the recently proposed national air
quality standards for ozone and particulate matter.
NFIB is the nation's largest small business advocacy group
representing 600,000 small businesses in all fifty States. NFIB's
membership reflects the general business profile by having the same
representation of retail, service, manufacturing and construction
businesses that make up the nation's business community.
In addition to being a small business owner, I also volunteer and
serve as Chairman of Pennsylvania's Small Business Compliance Advisory
Panel. This panel is mandated by Section 507 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments to help small business as part of the Small Business
Stationary Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program.
This program has been enormously successful despite underfunding and
has become a model for small business programs in other environmental
legislation.
Our small business program conducts seminars, offers a toll-free
confidential hotline, low interest loans and many other outreach
efforts for small businesses. Every State has such a program in varying
degrees of effectiveness. These programs are valuable tools to improve
our air quality and are overseen by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
In my position as Chairman, I am keenly aware of the progress we
are making in cleaning our air. What appears to be ignored is that air
quality has improved significantly since passage of the Clean Air Act,
and the 1990 amendments have not even been fully implemented. It is
therefore imperative that only requirements that are essential be
mandated. What I suggest is that we move toward more complete
compliance with existing standards before revising them.
As a small business owner, the economic impact and burdensome
regulations of the proposed standards would significantly affect and
threaten the livelihood of my business. As a manufacturer of road
pavement, my business operates asphalt plants and hauls stone as a raw
material. The moving of equipment and materials creates minor
particulate matter. I also have air emissions from my heavy truck and
off-
road equipment. Some of this equipment is old, but works well. I simply
cannot afford to buy new equipment to comply with the proposed
regulations.
As a small business owner, I am active and involved because I have
to be. Careless regulations will put me out of business. Not only will
small business owners lose life savings and investment, but our
employees lose their jobs and our communities will suffer economically.
For that reason, I am shocked and disappointed that the EPA has
declined to consider the effects of this proposed rule on small
business.
Last year, Congress passed and the President signed a law that
requires the EPA to assess the impact of regulations on small business.
To date, the EPA has refused to do this on the ozone and particulate
matter standard. Because this regulation is likely to have a great
impact on a variety of small businesses, I hope that the EPA will
carefully consider the consequences before they impose this new
standard.
Rather than implementing new regulations for clean air, I recommend
utilizing and encouraging the use of present means to achieve air
quality improvements. There are technologies presently available to
help clean our air. In our company we voluntarily look for ways to
improve the environment. In 1980 my father developed a new, ozone-
friendly technology for asphalt roads. This technology is exemplified
in a material called HEI-WAY General Purpose Material or HGP. A 2-year
university study documents that HGP emits seven times less Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC)--in the form of low molecular weight normal and
branched alkane hydrocarbons--than the present technology used to pave
roads. Additionally, this technology also eliminates a significant
water pollution threat to rural streams and wetlands.
Under standard technology, present road paving methods allow more
than 1000 gallons (or three tons) of gasoline-type VOC to evaporate
into our troposphere for every mile paved. HGP reduces this VOC air
pollution by 85 percent. On a nationwide basis, of the nearly 4 million
miles of roads in the country, this technology is applicable to over 60
percent of them. In Pennsylvania alone, if just 1 percent of the roads
were paved each year with HGP instead of the standard technology, over
3000 tons of VOC air pollution would be eliminated. The HGP technology
could be more widely used to lower VOC air emissions as soon as EPA
allows for Discrete Emissions Reduction Credits (DER) under the New
Source Review.
In closing, it is important to keep in mind the unique nature of a
small business owner when examining our reaction to environmental
legislation and regulations. Small business owners wear many hats. Two
of the most important are being both a business owner and a citizen of
a community. We drink the water, breathe the air, and fish in the
lakes. We want a healthy environment for ourselves and our children.
However, we also expect the government to be fair and responsible.
New regulations as proposed by EPA for ozone and particulate matter
are unnecessary, will result in an enormous regulatory burden and
threaten a business that my family has spent 41 years to build. A
viable framework is in place. It consists of new, environmentally
friendly technologies, such as HGP, and couples these initiatives with
existing programs. The system is working. Let's use what we have.
______
Statement of Associated Builders and Contractors
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) thanks the Senate Clean
Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit a statement on the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) proposed rules on ozone and particulate matter in the
atmosphere. ABC believes that the EPA is proposing new Federal air
quality regulations for ozone smog and fine particles that could have
crippling effects on hundreds of thousands of American construction
workers and cost consumers and businesses billions of dollars, with
little or no health benefit.
ABC is a national trade association representing over 19,000
contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, and related firms from
across the country and from all specialties in the construction
industry. ABC's diverse membership is bound by a shared commitment to
the merit shop philosophy of awarding construction contracts to the
lowest responsible bidder through open and competitive bidding. This
practice assures taxpayers and consumers the most value for their
construction dollar. With 80 percent of the construction performed
today by open shop contractors, ABC is proud to be their voice.
After careful review of the technical and health information and
analyses in the Criteria Document and the Staff Paper prepared by EPA
for this rulemaking, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC), the agency's expert review panel established by the Clean Air
Act and appointed by the Administrator, concluded there were
significant uncertainties and unanswered questions that had to be ad-
dressed before EPA proceeds with the Particulate Matter (PM)
rulemaking. Additionally, the same panel concluded there was no health
basis to establish new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for ozone. ABC concurs with CASAC's opinion and strongly advises EPA to
reaffirm the current standards for PM and ozone while initiating a
targeted research program to resolve the questions and uncertainties
identified during the just-completed review process.
The proposed tightening of the ozone and PM NAAQS, in conjunction
with the highway funding sanction authorities and Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) approval requirements of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) and 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA), pose enormous restrictions to the transportation
construction industry throughout the United States. The combination of
these new regulatory requirements endanger tens of thousands of jobs
and create major new constraints to mobility.
Additionally, ABC is concerned that the EPA has not adequately
taken into account the affect these costly new requirements will
undoubtedly have on the American worker and average motorists. If the
EPA succeeds in changing the standard such limitations as mandatory
employee carpooling, centralized state-run emissions inspections, and
the use of more expensive reformulated gasoline are only a few of the
policies that will adversely affect small business. Other transit
initiatives could be higher vehicle taxes and higher tolls in peak
driving times.
Non-vehicle remedies could place restrictions on the use of power
tools, lawn mowers, and snow blowers as well as other equipment. ABC
shares with all Americans an interest in efforts to preserve, protect
and enhance the natural environment. Pollution prevention is in our
nation's interest; however, efforts to reduce emissions must be
balanced with considerations for the safety of those operating the
equipment, as well as the cost and technological feasibility of
achieving any prescribed reductions. Many construction industry workers
rely upon non-road engines in their daily efforts to safely build
construction projects on time and on budget. The performance and
reliability of these engines directly impact a contractor's ability to
successfully execute their contracted responsibilities on the
construction job site.
The EPA initially claimed the new PM/ozone standard will extend the
lives of as many as 20,000 people a year (recently revised down to
15,000 people). Clearly, the extent of this health risk is of concern.
However, exactly which components in urban air are causing the health
problems is not yet well understood. The EPA's preference for
regulating every fine particle in the air before understanding the real
causes and quantifiable health benefits is not a prudent strategy. ABC
is concerned that:
(1) The EPA has failed to properly characterize PM concentrations
across the United States. Key technical analyses have not been
completed. For example, the EPA has not determined the chemical
composition or size of the particulate matter that is linked to the
supposed increases in mortality and morbidity. The EPA has also failed
to identify the biological mechanism that would explain the link
between PM<INF>2.5</INF> and increases in mortality. The use of a
nationwide PM<INF>2.5</INF>/PM<INF>10</INF> ratio to estimate
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations is insupportable from the limited
PM<INF>2.5</INF> data available.
(2) The EPA has failed to accurately analyze the impact of the new
standard. The EPA has stated its refusal to conduct a small business
analysis for these rules. The Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) are
incomplete; no analysis was conducted on the proposed secondary ozone
standard, no analysis was conducted on impacts to small businesses, the
unfunded mandates act was not addressed, and the analyses do not
estimate the full cost of attaining the proposed standards throughout
the country (there are ``residual nonattainment areas''). The RIA for
ozone rulemaking does not use the proposed standards in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking as the basis for its costs and benefits
projections.
(3) The EPA has used questionable health impact studies to justify
their actions. There is virtually no PM<INF>2.5</INF> exposure data on
either the general population or on susceptible populations. The use of
community-based epidemiological studies are not appropriate because
individual personal exposures do not correspond to these community-
based studies.
Due to the predominance of small businesses within the construction
industry. ABC remains concerned that compliance with the Clean Air Act
Amendments could have significant adverse effects. We continue to
encourage the Congress to give serious consideration to the impact
these new requirements would have on small businesses.
Associated Builders and Contractors strongly urges that there be no
change in the ozone or particulate matter standards at this time until
more comprehensive scientific studies can be performed. Again, ABC
appreciates this opportunity to submit a statement for the record.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.444
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.445
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.446
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.447
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.448
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.449
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.450
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.451
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.452
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.453
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.454
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.455
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.456
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.457
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.458
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.459
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.460
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.461
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.462
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.463
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.464
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.465
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.466
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.467
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.468
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.469
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.470
Food Industry Environmental Council,
McLean, VA, May 27, 1997.
Hon. John Chafee, Chairman,
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Chafee: The Food Industry Environmental Council
(FIEC) is pleased to submit these comments for the record for the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's recent hearing
addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed
revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ozone and particulate matter.
As you may know, FIEC is a coalition of food processors and food
trade associations representing over 15,000 facilities employing
approximately 1.5 million people in the United States. FIEC members
operate facilities and distribute finished food products worldwide. If
EPA were to revise the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter as
proposed, the processing and distribution of food in the United States
would be impacted significantly.
The proposed revisions to the ozone standard would replace the
current primary NAAQS with a standard using an 8-hour averaging
interval and would replace the current secondary NAAQS with a standard
based on a SUM06 formulation. The proposal for fine particulate would
expand the current PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS with two standards using
PM<INF>2.5</INF> as the pollutant indicator. One of the new standards
would be based on a 24-hour averaging interval; the second new standard
would be based on an annual averaging interval.
Under the proposed more stringent NAAQS, it would appear that State
governments would have no option but to seek to achieve emissions
reductions from many small sources which have not been subject to
regulation in the past, which could have a particularly broad impact on
the agriculture and food processing sector. This revised regulatory
approach would multiply significantly the range of potential control
options, creating a pyramiding impact on each segment of the food
supply chain.
These impacts, without question, would create particularly
significant regulatory burdens for large and small food processors,
including many facilities and growers that rely on part-time and
seasonal labor. Indeed, FIEC questions whether EPA has evaluated
appropriately and thoroughly the potential impact of its proposals.
While FIEC members fully support the goals of the Clean Air Act, the
coalition questions the scientific basis that has been cited by the
agency for proposing more stringent NAAQS for ozone and PM at a time
when current regulatory programs are resulting in documented air
quality improvements.
Because the proposed new NAAQS would impact each segment of the
food production supply chain without any reliable indication of benefit
to the public health, FIEC urges EPA to reaffirm the current PM
standards and initiate a targeted research program to resolve the
serious and pertinent questions raised in the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee's (CASAC) review of the scientific basis relied on
by the agency to support the proposed rule. FIEC urges the agency to
withdraw the proposed rule for ozone and to continue instead to build
on the documented progress that has been gained through reliance on the
current NAAQS.
air quality is improving under current standards
The National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1995 issued
recently by EPA shows that over the past 25 years, emissions and
ambient concentrations of the six major air pollutants have decreased
nationally by almost 30 percent. Furthermore, the significant reduction
in the number of nationwide ``non-attainment'' areas for ozone from 98
areas in 1990 to 66 areas at the present time, abatement from existing
State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and EPA's own forecast of continuing
reductions in ozone precursor emissions under current and prospective
Clean Air Act programs (such as the Title IV, acid rain program, and
the Title III, hazardous air pollutants program) provide clear
indications that the current standards are promoting improved air
quality.
impact on ``farm to table'' food production and delivery
The United States boasts the finest ``farm to table'' food
distribution system in the world. Unlike other countries, in which up
to 50 percent of foodstuffs may be lost between the farm and the table,
the United States loses less than 10 percent of foodstuffs through
production and distribution channels. Likewise, U.S. consumers spend
far less of their gross disposable income on food than consumers in any
other industrialized nation. In large part, efficiencies in growing,
processing and distributing food keeps costs to American consumers
down.
There is broad consensus that the proposed new NAAQS would create
new ``non-attainment'' areas for ozone and particulate matter. More
specifically, it has been estimated that the proposed new standards
would swell to roughly 335 the number of counties and areas that would
qualify for ``non-attainment'' status for ozone, and 167 counties that
would be considered ``non attainment'' for particulate matter. FIEC is
concerned that ``non-attainment'' may spill over to rural areas which
currently do not monitor ozone levels.
Significantly, these largely rural areas are the core of production
agriculture and food processing. Farm mechanization, farming practices,
distribution to and from processing facilities, process details and
post processing distribution are likely to be affected by the proposal,
thereby compromising the ability of the agriculture and food processing
sectors to continue to provide an abundant, economical food supply to
consumers.
At the start of the food production chain, the new standards
implicate tighter emission and use controls for farm equipment, and
restrictions on fertilization and crop protection application, among
other potential control options, which could have a broad impact on
crop yield and quality. New mobile source controls, including tighter
emission controls for vehicles used to transport commodities to
processing plants, would impact directly the quality and timely
delivery of raw ingredients used in post harvest production.
State governments, which already have placed controls on numerous
areas, likely would be pressed to target food processing plants, which
are negligible sources of emissions, as new control sources in order to
comply with the proposed more stringent NAAQS. Finally, the expedient
and economical distribution of finished foods, a critical link in
assuring foods from the farm reach consumers' tables, would be impacted
by control strategies such as reformulated fuel requirements, engine
emission standards, alternative fuel programs, inspection requirements,
retrofitting and rebuilding of existing engines, and operational
restrictions. These control options would jeopardize the efficient
system which keeps an abundant and economical supply of fresh and
wholesome foods on American consumers' tables.
impact on small businesses
Many growers and food processing facilities rely on part-time and
seasonal labor and therefore fall under the Small Business
Administration's (SBA's) definition of ``small business.'' FIEC is
concerned EPA has failed to consider the national impact of the
proposed standards on small businesses, which have made such a vital
contribution to the recent strength of the U.S. economy.
Importantly, FIEC questions whether EPA's proposal is in direct
violation of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 601 et. seq.) better known as ``SBREFA,''
which was passed last year by Congress with overwhelming bipartisan
support. Under SBREFA, EPA is required before publishing a proposed
rulemaking to issue an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and to
convene an advocacy review panel to collect small business input and
make findings on the determinations reached in EPA's initial
``regulatory flexibility'' submission. Rather than taking these steps,
the agency issued a certification that the proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This certification was clearly
inappropriate in this instance, given the significance of the likely
impact of the proposal on small businesses.
limitations and shortcomings with the health data relied upon by epa
CASAC, the agency's expert review panel established by the Clean
Air Act, reviewed the technical and health information and analyses in
the Criteria Document (CD) and the Staff Paper (SP) prepared by EPA for
this rulemaking and concluded there were significant uncertainties and
unanswered questions that had to be addressed. FIEC is concerned the
proposed decision to set a PM<INF>2.5</INF> (fine particle) and a more
stringent NAAQS for ozone does not reflect adequately the considerable
uncertainty reflected in CASAC's analysis, and recommends EPA reaffirm
the current standards and initiate a targeted research program to
resolve the questions raised during the recently completed review
process.
Particulate Matter
Court ordered deadlines have hindered the standards development
process, as evidenced by the fact that the effect of exposure to
ambient fine particle concentrations was not analyzed adequately by
EPA. CASAC stated in its June 13, 1996, letter that the court
``deadlines did not allow adequate time to analyze, integrate,
interpret, and debate the available data on this very complex issue.''
Importantly, a number of comments provided to the agency identify many
areas in which there is a critical need for additional analytical work
or data collection. CASAC stated that, ``The agency must immediately
implement a targeted research program to address these unanswered
questions and uncertainties.'' FIEC agrees with CASAC and others that
data and analytical shortcomings and research gaps are serious problems
which should be addressed before a revised standard is adopted.
EPA's proposed decision to establish a fine particle standard is
flawed because it fails to address numerous sources of uncertainty. In
its June 13, 1996, closure letter CASAC stated that there are ``many
unanswered questions and uncertainties associated with establishing
causality of the association between PM<INF>2.5</INF> and mortality.''
EPA's decision to regulate PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the face of these
uncertainties, cannot be justified.
The agency has ignored a number of pertinent scientific issues in
its overall approach to the review and risk assessment process. These
include:
<bullet> contradictory results of other investigators (such as Drs.
Moolgavkar, Roth, Stryer and Davis) as compared with those of the
researchers emphasized in the SP;
<bullet> the paucity of PM<INF>2.5</INF> data and EPA's reliance on
a single nationwide PM<INF>2.5</INF>/PM<INF>10</INF> ratio;
<bullet> no access to PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring data for outside
review and analysis;
<bullet> a lack of supporting toxicological and human clinical
data;
<bullet> little correlation between central monitors and personal
exposure;
<bullet> substantial measurement error associated with monitoring
of ambient particulate matter;
<bullet> insufficient link between the epidemiological results and
a specific component of air pollution (size or chemical composition);
<bullet> the confounding influence of meteorological conditions
such as temperature and humidity, and other environmental irritants,
allergens and agents; and
<bullet> no identified biological mechanism--that is, the lack of
an identified physical cause for the alleged adverse health effects.
EPA has greatly oversimplified its approach to assessing the risk
associated with exposure to fine particles. EPA's approach:
<bullet> generates misleadingly precise estimates of risk;
<bullet> greatly understates the degree of uncertainty associated
with those risk estimates by not considering uncertainty about PM-
health endpoint causation, nor does it consider, if PM is causal,
uncertainty about the identity of the causative agent(s); and
<bullet> produces inflated risk estimates by ignoring the
confounding effects of copollutants and meteorological variables, as
well as background levels of particulate matter.
The most fundamental concern about the PM risk assessment and EPA's
reliance on it for its proposed decision is the agency's failure to
consider, or even to acknowledge sufficiently, the important
uncertainties noted above. Instead, the risk assessment simply assumes
that PM causes excess mortality and morbidity and that all PM species
within a particular size range contribute equally to that risk, solely
in proportion to their mass. Such assumptions substantially
underestimate health risk uncertainty, implying a greater degree of
certainty than actually exists.
EPA's proposed decision also does not account adequately for
confounding bias in the epidemiological studies. The influence of
confounders, such as stressful meteorological conditions and
copollutants, has not been considered adequately by the agency. Much of
the quantitative analysis in the SP which EPA relies on in its proposed
rule is based inappropriately on studies which do not consider
adequately these confounders. The final CD (page 13-92, 93) states, ``.
. . confident assignment of specific fractions of variation in health
endpoints to specific air pollutants may still require additional
study.'' Similarly, the SP states ``. . . a more comprehensive
synthesis of the available evidence is needed to evaluate fully the
likelihood of PM causing effects at levels below the current NAAQS,''
and ``[a]s noted above, it is too difficult to resolve the question of
confounding using these results from any single city because of the
correlations among all pollutants'' (page V-54).
EPA dismisses the recent reanalyses of PM<INF>10</INF> and total
suspended particulate (TSP) epidemiological studies presented by the
Health Effects Institute (HEI) and others which conclude a single
causative agent cannot be identified among components of air pollution.
EPA also ignores inconsistent and contradictory findings which resulted
when different investigators analyzed data from the same location,
e.g., Philadelphia, Steubenville, Utah, Birmingham and London.
Another major problem with the agency's proposal is that almost all
the epidemiological studies upon which it relies uses PM<INF>10</INF>
or even TSP as the metric. EPA's Federal Register notice notes that of
38 daily mortality analyses listed in Table 12-2 of the Criteria
Document ``most found statistically significant associations'' between
PM and mortality. EPA fails to note that only two of those studies used
PM<INF>2.5</INF> as the metric. Moreover, the two studies that used
PM<INF>2.5</INF> do not support EPA's proposed decision to establish
fine particle standards. Importantly, neither study analyzed
copollutants, and the results do not indicate that fine particles are
the causative agent.
The agency proposal relies on studies that were conducted with data
sets that have not been included in the docket for analysis by other
investigators, as required by law. One key data set which falls into
this category is the Harvard School of Public Health data consisting of
particulate matter data for the ``Six Cities'' study. As noted by EPA
in the SP and at other forums, the results of this study played a
leading role in the development of the proposed rulemaking. FIEC urges
EPA to comply with the Clean air Act and make these data sets available
in the rulemaking docket for assessment by other investigators.
Further, FIEC recommends EPA reaffirm existing PM standards at least
until such time as these assessments are complete, and conflicting
conclusions are resolved.
It should be noted that as early as May, 1994, in a letter to EPA
Administrator Browner from CASAC, the agency was asked to ``take steps
to assure that crucial steps linking exposure to particulate matter and
health responses are available for analysis by multiple analytical
teams. . .'' The CASAC letter also requested that ``the EPA should take
the lead in requesting that investigators make available the primary
data sets being analyzed so that others can validate the analyses.''
The agency has noted that a biological mechanism by which
PM<INF>2.5</INF> could cause health effects has not been identified.
Existing animal and chamber studies do not support a causal link
between PM<INF>2.5</INF> and mortality or morbidity. FIEC agrees with
the conclusion reached in a January 5, 1996, letter by many members of
CASAC that ``the case for a PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard is not
compelling.'' This was reiterated numerous times at the May 16-17,
1996, CASAC meeting. The revised CD itself concludes, ``A number of
studies using multiple air pollutants as predictors of health effects
have not completely resolved the role of PM as an independent causal
factor'' (page 13-92).
Since EPA has not established that fine particles are causing
health effects, the proposed decision to establish new fine particle
standards is not justified, and control programs designed to attain
them would waste billions of dollars in unnecessary emission control
costs. If, on the other hand, PM-health endpoint associations later
prove to be causative and the causative agent(s) have not been
controlled sufficiently (or at all), billions of dollars spent on the
wrong emission control measures will have been wasted, with no public
health improvement.
Ozone
According to CASAC, EPA's own analysis shows that none of the ozone
standards under consideration by the agency--including one about as
stringent as the current standard--is ``significantly more protective
of the public health.'' The significant uncertainties surrounding the
agency's scientific basis for the new standard, considered together
with the agency's acknowledgement that the costs of implementing the
proposed new NAAQS for ozone could far exceed any benefit to be gained
from the new standard, undermine any public policy justification for
moving forward with the proposal. The agency simply has not made the
case that the new standard is a necessary or appropriate regulatory
response to a significant public health risk.
Chamber Studies
The chamber studies, on which EPA relies to support its proposal,
are not representative of actual ozone exposure patterns recorded at
monitoring stations or experienced by individuals. The activity
patterns under which these lab studies were performed clearly do not
represent daily patterns of sensitive populations targeted by the
standards, and the concentration and exposure patterns do not represent
actual patterns recorded at monitoring stations or experienced by
individuals. Serious artifacts were introduced through experimental
methods used in these studies, including the methods by which the ozone
was produced and the composition of the air that was breathed by
participating individuals. These studies clearly do not provide
consistent, unambiguous results on which to base the proposed new
standards.
Camp Studies
EPA also relies on a series of camp studies to support the proposed
standards. The principal limitation of these studies is the inability
to separate the influence of a single constituent, in this case ozone,
from other potential environmental irritants. These irritants could
include weather factors such as high temperatures, and naturally-
occurring irritants such as pollen and organic compounds. None of the
camp studies is capable of identifying the contributing influence of a
single constituent within the air mixture.
Risk Assessments for Outdoor Children and New York City
Hospital Admissions
These data do not support the need for more stringent standards.
After carefully reviewing the EPA Staff Paper, CASAC in its November
30, 1995, closure letter stated:
[B]ased on the results [of the two risk assessments], the
Panel concluded that there is no 'bright line' which
distinguishes any of the proposed standards (either the level
or the number of allowable exceedances) as being significantly
more protective of public health. For example, the differences
in the [estimated] percent of outdoor children responding
between the present standard and the most stringent proposal
(8-hour, one exceedance, 0.07 ppm) are small and their ranges
overlap for all health endpoints. [The initial results
presented in the Staff Paper for risk assessment for hospital
admissions, suggest considerable differences between the
several options. However, when ozone-aggravated asthma
admissions are compared to total asthma admissions, the
differences between the various options are small].
A closer examination of the hospital admissions risk assessment
shows that greater improvements in public health would be realized
through attainment of the existing ozone NAAQS (from the ``As Is'' case
to the ``Existing Standard'' option) than reliance on any of the
alternative standards under consideration by EPA. CASAC could not link
any improvement in public health to the adoption of any of the
alternative options considered by EPA and ultimately concluded that
``the selection of a specific level and number of allowable exceedances
is a policy judgment.''
conclusion
Because the proposed new NAAQS for fine particulate mater and ozone
would impact each segment of the food production supply chain without
any reliable indication of benefit to public health, FIEC urges EPA to
reaffirm the current standards and initiate a targeted research program
to resolve the serious and pertinent questions raised in CASAC's review
of the scientific basis relied on by the agency to support the proposed
rule.
FIEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking.
Sincerely,
American Bakers Association,
American Frozen Food Institute,
American Meat Institute,
Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturers Association,
Chocolate Manufacturers Association,
Grocery Manufacturers of America,
Independent Bakers Association,
Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils,
International Dairy Foods Association,
Midwest Food Processors Association,
National Agricultural Aviation Association,
National Cattleman's Beef Association,
National Confectioners Association,
National Food Processors Association,
National Oilseed Processors Association,
National Pasta Association,
Northwest Food Processors Association,
Snack Food Association,
Tortilla Industry Association.
______
National Caucus of Environmental Legislators,
Washington, DC, April 28, 1997.
President William J. Clinton,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear President Clinton: This month the Nation celebrates the 27th
anniversary of Earth Day. At the time of this observance, one of our
most important public health issues and environmental concerns, is the
Clean Air health standards proposed by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to update the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter.
The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL) was
established by like-minded State legislators who share the bipartisan
goal of States' involvement in protecting the environment. For these
reasons, and to counter the campaign of misinformation of those opposed
to strengthening public health standards, we urge your Administration
to adopt air quality standards which protect the health of all our
citizens.
State governments, acting in partnership with the Federal
Government, play an indispensable role in the effort to protect natural
resources and combat environmental degradation and pollution. State
implementation of Federal law is the cornerstone of our current system
of environmental protection. States are particularly dependent upon the
State-Federal partnership and Federal pollution control laws when
dealing with the interstate migration and affects of pollutants.
Federal, uniform standards of air pollution are essential; State
lawmakers universally recognize that air pollution does not respect
State boundaries. For this reason, we applaud EPA's efforts to address
ozone and particulate matter ambient air pollution at the Federal
level.
We support the concept that health standards for air pollutants
should be based on peer reviewed science and designed to better protect
human health. According to that scientific data, the current standards
for ozone and particulate matter, in place since 1979 and 1987,
respectively, are inadequate to protect our children, the elderly and
the one-third of the American population who suffer from some form of
respiratory ailment.
As State legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that all
of our constituents are able to breathe clean air, giving special
attention to sensitive populations such as children, the elderly and
individuals with pre-existing respiratory diseases. We expect EPA to
set clean air standards which will achieve this objective. To implement
these standards we expect EPA to provide sufficient funding to monitor
and to characterize these pollutants so that States have the resources
necessary to determine when, where and how often the new standards are
exceeded.
According to EPA's estimates, the new particulate matter standards
would save at least 15,000 lives each year, and the new ozone standard
would result in up to 400,000 fewer incidents of aggravated coughing or
painful breathing and 1.5 to 2 million fewer incidents of decreased
lung functions. Furthermore, the updated standards would benefit
millions of Americans by decreasing incidences of breathing problems,
asthma attacks, bronchitis, and heart and lung disease. These new
standards are supported by 19 of 21 members of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee. In addition, a recent EPA study of the costs and
benefits of the Clean Air Act from 1970 through 1990 found that every
dollar spent on clean air regulation compliance resulted in $45 in
benefits to public health and the environment.
With respect to the air quality standard for ozone, EPA determined
that the current standard is inadequate to protect human health, and
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee unanimously recommended
that the standard should be based on an 8-hour exposure to ozone. Over
180 scientific studies on the effects of ozone found that serious
health problems occur at exposure levels lower than the current
standards, and that longer exposures may have more significant
consequences.
We understand that these new standards will challenge State and
local government to develop better air pollution control programs. The
costs these standards impose are appropriately considered in the
implementation process; the standards themselves should reflect solely
the best scientific information on the effects of air pollutants on
public health.
In conclusion, based on the near unanimous findings of the EPA's
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, we support efforts to assure
Federal clean air standards for ozone and particulate matter protect
the health of all Americans, especially our children.
Respectfully,
Senator Richard L. Russman,
New Hampshire.
Delegate Leon G. Billings,
Maryland.
Senator Byron Sher,
California.
Senator Rebecca I. White,
West Virginia.
Representative Andy Nichols,
Arizona.
Representative Deborah F. Merritt,
New Hampshire.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky,
New York.
Delegate James Hubbard,
Maryland.
Representative Jay Kaufman,
Massachusetts.
Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg,
New Jersey.
Representative David Levdansky,
Pennsylvania.
Representative Ralph Ayres,
Indiana.
Representative Mary M. Sullivan,
Vermont.
Representative John R. Bender, Ph.D,
Ohio.
Representative Brian Frosh,
Maryland.
Senator Pat Pascoe,
Colorado.
Representative Joe Hackney,
North Carolina.
Representative Mary Ellen Martin,
New Hampshire.
______
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management,
March 24, 1997,
Senator James Inhofe,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), a regional association of the
eight States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont, I appreciate this
opportunity to express our support for the Environmental Protection
Agency's recently proposed revisions to the ozone and particulate
matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Since 1967,
NESCAUM has provided a forum for its member States to exchange
information on air quality issues including those related to public
health and welfare, and promote regional cooperation on pollution
control strategies. Over the past several months, technical and policy
staff from the environmental agencies in the eight northeast States
have carefully examined EPA's proposed revisions to the NAAQS. Attached
are detailed comments that we have submitted collectively, as well as
comments supporting the proposed standards submitted independently by
Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont.
The NESCAUM States support EPA's proposals to revise the ambient
air standards for ozone and particulate matter and support the process
by which EPA has developed the proposed revisions. By relying on input
received from independent national experts from academia, industry, and
other organizations, EPA has rightly concluded that the primary ozone
and particulate standards must be tightened in order to protect public
health. We commend EPA on effectively utilizing the Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee peer review process.
The primary mission of the environmental agencies in the Northeast
is to protect public health and welfare. We firmly believe that the
standards for ozone and particulate matter must be based solely on the
best scientific assessment of the need to protect the public health and
welfare. Some have commented that EPA should apply cost-benefit
analysis in setting the standards. To put it simply, setting public
health standards based on cost is bad science, bad policy, and just
plain wrong. The public has a right to know when its health is at risk,
particularly when individuals can take cautionary actions to diminish
their exposure to harmful air pollutants.
Cost considerations are now and shall remain paramount as we move
to adopt and implement pollution control strategies necessary to
achieve health-based standards. As any environmental regulator can
attest, it is virtually impossible to impose an air quality control
requirement that cannot be justified on economic grounds. The question
is not whether we factor cost into our analysis, but when. The
appropriate answer is in implementing programs, not when determining
the levels of pollutant concentrations that are needed to protect
public health.
ozone standard
The NESCAUM States support the level and form of the primary ozone
standard proposed by EPA (8-hour, 80 parts per billion). Although there
is no exposure threshold that guarantees absolute protection for the
entire population, we believe that the level of the 8-hour standard as
proposed (80 parts per billion) is clearly more effective at protecting
public health than the current standard. The 8-hour averaging time more
realistically reflects the true regional nature of the ozone problem
and will encourage more rational control strategies. Moreover, the form
of the proposed ozone standard correctly targets areas with chronically
elevated pollution levels. Under the proposed regime, States will be
far less vulnerable to bouncing between attainment and nonattainment
status on the basis of changes in summertime weather.
Having standards that reflect current scientific understanding of
ozone formation will lead to more effective control programs. The
existing standards reflect the outdated belief that ozone is a local,
urban problem. In 1991, a National Research Council committee,
synthesizing the best available information on ozone formation and
transport in the eastern United States, observed that:
High ozone episodes last from 3-4 days on average, occur as
many as 7-10 times a year, and are of large spatial scale:
>600,000 km\2\. Maximum values of non-urban ozone commonly
exceed 90 ppb during these episodes, compared with average
daily maximum values of 60 ppb in summer. An urban area need
contribute an increment of only 30 ppb over the regional
background during a high ozone episode to cause a violation of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) [120 ppb] in
a downwind area. . . . Given the regional nature of the ozone
problem in the eastern United States, a regional model is
needed to develop control strategies for individual urban
areas. (National Research Council. 1991. Rethinking the ozone
problem in urban and regional air pollution. National Academy
Press. Washington, DC. pp. 105-106).
In recognition of the need for regional controls, the NESCAUM
States have urged EPA to develop and implement national control
programs such as those currently proposed to address ozone precursor
emissions from heavy duty diesel engines, consumer and commercial
products (e.g., Architectural and Industrial Manufacturing Rules),
standards on locomotive engines, rules affecting heavy duty highway and
off-road vehicles, and controls including utility controls which may
arise out of conclusions from the work of the Ozone Transport
Assessment Group (OTAG). Our efforts to adopt effective reduction
strategies will be greatly enhanced by having a standards regime that
correctly reflects the physical reality of ozone formation. For a
fuller discussion of the regional nature of our ozone problem see the
attached report entitled ``The Long-Range Transport of Ozone and Its
Precursors in the Eastern United States.''
particulate matter standard
The NESCAUM States also believe that the regional nature of fine
particulate matter will be effectively addressed by the proposed annual
fine particulate matter standard. Based on our review of the available
science, the levels proposed by EPA should motivate substantial
reductions in regional levels of PM<INF>2.5</INF> and provide
protection against high pollution concentrations that may occur on a
day to day basis. The epidemiological evidence is extremely compelling
and indicates that the existing particulate matter standard
(PM<INF>10</INF>) is not sufficient to protect people from a range of
serious health effects associated with fine particulate matter.
Cumulative long-term exposures to high pollution concentrations are of
great concern, and the proposed annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard will
provide protection against these high levels. This annual standard is
likely to be especially important in the NESCAUM region since there
appears to be a significant regional problem in which long-range
pollution transport, particularly of sulfates, nitrates, and organic
aerosols, and soot plays a major role. It should be noted that the
Northeast States recommended a tighter daily standard in previous
testimony (in Philadelphia, PA, July 25, 1996), and we have asked EPA
to closely examine the daily standard to ensure that it adequately
protects against exposure to local ``hotspots''.
conclusion
We believe that implementation of revised standards can result in
more rational, equitable, and effective emission reduction strategies.
Moreover, by integrating the implementation of the ozone and
particulate matter standards, we believe that EPA and the States will
achieve important public health improvements using the most cost-
effective and flexible means available.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity to present the Northeast
States' support of EPA's proposed ozone and PM standards.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.471
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.472
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.473
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.474
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.475
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.476
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.477
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.478
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.479
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.480
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.481
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.482
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.483
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.484
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.485
Statement of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO.CLC
The United Steelworkers of America represents 540,000 workers in
the United States. Our ranks also include 281,000 retired American
members. Most of our members work in the steel, rubber, chemical,
mining, nonferrous metals, and general manufacturing industries which
are major contributors to particulate and ozone pollution. They live in
the urban and industrial areas most affected by particulates and ozone.
Their families have much to gain from properly considered regulations
which reduce the risk of dirty air--and much to lose should poorly
crafted ones cause serious economic dislocation in our major extractive
and manufacturing industries. We take a keen interest in this
rulemaking.
1. the proposed standards
The USWA supports EPA's proposals for PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone.
Under the Clean Air Act, the primary air quality standards must be
based on health considerations alone. The evidence currently in the
record is more than sufficient to establish the need for strengthening
the NAAQS for ozone, for adding a new standard for fine particulates,
and for modifying the averaging methods for determining compliance.
In developing the proposals, the EPA staff considered more than
5,000 scientific studies and medical reports. This review was the most
extensive EPA has ever conducted for public health standards. The two
largest studies--the Harvard six-city study and the American Cancer
Society study--found increased mortality at particulate levels well
below the current standards. Other, smaller studies were consistent
with these findings. EPA estimates that the particulate standard alone
will prevent 20,000 premature deaths per year; the Natural Resources
Defense Council estimates 64,000 deaths per year from fine particulate
pollution. The evidence suggests that the excess mortality primarily is
due to fine particulates, less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. The
studies also show a strong link between ground-level ozone and
decreased lung function, increased asthma, and more severe respiratory
infections. Fine particulates and ozone disproportionately affect
children and the elderly.
Taken as a whole, the studies are compelling. We believe that EPA
has clearly demonstrated that the new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard and the
revised ozone standard are necessary to protect public health.
EPA has also proposed a change in the averaging method for the
current PM<INF>10</INF> standard, to one based on the 98th percentile
of the distribution of monitored concentrations at the highest monitor.
It has been charged that this method is less stringent than the current
method based on one allowed exceedance per year. However, the proposed
statistical method gives a much fuller picture of the actual situation,
and will result in a more realistic determination of the need for
additional controls. We support the change.
2. additional research
EPA's proposals are well supported by the current evidence.
However, additional research is essential. We do not yet know the
ambient levels of PM<INF>2.5</INF> in most parts of the country. We do
not have a clear picture of how the sources and the components of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> vary by region. We do not have a sufficient
understanding of how existing programs aimed at PM<INF>10</INF> affect
ambient concentrations of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. These issues are critical
to the intelligent design of control strategies. Direct, government-
funded research into process-specific control technology would also
help industry meet the new standards.
Further research might also help us refine the standards
themselves. It is possible that PM<INF>2.5</INF> is not the best
particulate fraction on which to concentrate. It has also been
suggested that most of the health risk is caused by particular species
within PM<INF>2.5</INF>, such as acid aerosols or reactive metals.
For these reasons, EPA, in cooperation with the National Institute
for Environmental Health Sciences, should commit to an aggressive
program of research. The program should not be used to delay
implementation of the revised standards; however EPA should be willing
to modify those standards should the research so indicate.
3. implementation
The USWA is grateful for EPA's willingness to add us to the
Subcommittee for the Development of Ozone, Particulate Matter and
Regional Haze Implementation Programs. Although the Subcommittee is
already very large, we hope it will be open to other labor
organizations who may wish to join. Plant workers, acting through their
unions, have much to contribute to a discussion of effective controls.
National ambient air quality standards are based on health
considerations alone. This puts a special burden on those who must
devise strategies for meeting the standards. Public health will not be
protected by implementation strategies which clean the air only at the
cost of massive economic dislocation.
Economics becomes important in the next phase of this effort, as we
explore different control options. Unfortunately, EPA's economic
analysis usually focuses on the overall cost of a regulation to the
affected industries or to the economy as a whole. We believe that
employment is a much more important consideration. Employment and
income are strongly correlated to health. Other economic variables are
not. EPA should work toward compliance methods which protect, and if
possible increase, the level and quality of employment.
While the current phase of rulemaking is concerned only with health
risks, much of the public debate has centered around a supposed
conflict between jobs and environment. Our experience teaches a
different lesson. Improving the environment usually creates jobs. Some
of our members make pollution control equipment. Others make the steel,
aluminum, rubber, plastic and glass that goes into it. Others design,
install, operate and maintain the equipment. An increasing number of
jobs in our union, and in the workforce generally, depend on
environmental protection. Of course, it is possible to devise control
strategies that really do destroy jobs, but that need not happen.
Protecting the environment while protecting jobs will take careful
planning, and the cooperative efforts of industry, labor, government at
all levels, and the environmental community--but it is possible, and it
is essential. EPA should do all it can to facilitate the process.
CLEAN AIR ACT: OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands,
Private Property, and Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:56 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Inhofe
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Thomas, Hutchinson, Graham,
Allard, and Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The subcommittee will come to order.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the EPA's
implementation plan for the new ambient air quality standards
for ozone and particulate matter, and I want to emphasize the
word ``plan'' because what the EPA is planning today is not
necessarily what will happen tomorrow. I don't think their plan
is based on reality and, therefore, will not happen.
First, from what I read the EPA is rewriting the Clean Air
Act and their plan is outside of congressional authority.
Congress has not given authority to the EPA to do the
following: a cap and trade program for utility emissions. I
understand that, of course, we do have the cap and trade
program in other areas, such as acid rain. But it is my
position that we do not have it in this case.
Second, to maintain two different ozone standards at the
same time. This is somewhat controversial. But it's my
understanding that they will be attempting to maintain the
ozone standards at .12 in some areas, and at the same time .08
in other areas.
Third, a transitional reclassification system.
It's my feeling and my interpretation that the authority is
only there for attainment or nonattainment. These are just some
examples of areas where I believe the EPA is trying to exceed
their legal and congressional authority. Because they lack
authority, they open themselves up to numerous possible
lawsuits by States and regulated community and private
citizens' suits. They have already been sued under SBREFA, the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act. The result of these
suits will be a court implementation plan which ignores the
flexibility in safeguards the EPA is promising, and which makes
those flexibility promises meaningless.
To understand this one only has to look at the past history
of the Agency. As Senator Santorum said in Tuesday's Ag
hearing, the EPA talks about flexibility, but never delivers.
You only have to look at recent EPA threats in Pennsylvania and
Virginia to see that ``flexibility'' to their mind means ``EPA
mandates.'' Furthermore, whenever EPA talks about flexibility
implementation, or stretching out requirements, they are
quickly sued by radical environmental groups, and then the
Agency is quick to roll over and enter into binding consent
agreements.
It is important to note that this frustration is felt not
only in Congress, but more so in the States and communities. I
received a letter this week from the heads of 13 State
environmental agencies calling for congressional intervention
to stop these standards because of scientific uncertainties,
lack of clear benefits, and questions surrounding the
implementation. I would like to enter this letter into the
record, and point out to my colleagues on this subcommittee
that the States which signed these letters include Oklahoma,
Idaho, Alabama, Virginia, and Montana, with all of these States
being represented on this committee.
The only witness at today's hearing is Mary Nichols, the
Assistant Administrator for Clean Air at the EPA. I understand
that Ms. Nichols will be leaving the EPA in Washington, DC
shortly to return to California. Because of this I thought it
would be important to hear how Ms. Nichols believes this will
be implemented since all of the planning has occurred under her
watch. If and when this is ever fully implemented it is
important that a record be built which codifies the EPA's
promises.
Ms. Nichols, I will say to you that while we have had
differences in the past, and we continue to have differences, I
think when you get out to California you will have some
different views on some of these things, and we'd be more in
agreement, and I've always enjoyed working with you.
I'll look forward to hearing now from Ms. Nichols.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
The hearing will now come to order. The purpose of today's hearing
is to examine the EPA's implementation plan for the new National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter. I want
to emphasize the word plan, because what the EPA is planning today is
not necessarily what will happen tomorrow. I do not think their plan is
based on reality and therefore will not happen.
First, from what I read, the EPA is rewriting the Clean Air Act and
their plan is outside of Congressional authority. Congress has not
given authority to the EPA for the following:
<bullet> A Cap and Trade program for utility emissions.
<bullet> To maintain two different ozone standards at the same
time.
<bullet> A transitional classification system.
These are just a few examples of areas where I believe EPA is
trying to exceed their legal and Congressional authority.
Because they lack authority, they open themselves up to numerous
possible lawsuits by States, the regulated community, and private
citizen suits. They have already been sued under SBREFA. The result of
these suits will be a court directed implementation plan which ignores
the ``flexibility'' and safeguards the EPA is promising and which makes
those flexibility promises meaningless. To understand this one only has
to look at the past history of the Agency. As Senator Santorum pointed
out in Tuesday's Agriculture hearing, the EPA talks about flexibility
but never delivers. You only have to look at recent EPA threats in
Pennsylvania and Virginia to see that flexibility to their mind means
EPA mandates. Furthermore, whenever EPA talks about flexible
implementation or stretching out requirements they are quickly sued by
radical environmental groups and the Agency is quick to roll over and
enter into binding consent agreements.
It is important to note that this frustration is felt not only in
Congress, but more so in the States and communities. I received a
letter this week from the heads of thirteen State environmental
agencies calling for Congressional intervention to stop these standards
because of the scientific uncertainties, lack of clear benefits, and
questions surrounding the implementation. I would like to enter this
letter into the record and point out to my colleagues on the Committee
that the States which signed included Oklahoma, Idaho, Alabama,
Virginia, and Montana, with all of these States being represented on
this Committee.
The only witness at today's hearing is Mary Nichols, the Assistant
Administrator for Air at the EPA. I understand that Ms. Nichols will be
leaving the EPA and Washington, DC. shortly to return to California.
Because of this I thought it was important to hear how Ms. Nichols
believes this will be implemented since all of the planning has
occurred under her watch. If and when this is ever fully implemented it
is important that a record be built which codifies the EPA's promises.
I look forward to hearing how Ms. Nichols believes this will be
implemented and I wish her luck in her future endeavors.
Senator Inhofe. I see that the ranking minority is here,
Senator Graham. First of all, I think you want to get on record
voting on the nomination, the Clark nomination.
Senator Graham. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I have
done so with our committee staff. I might have an opening
statement to file. I thank you for convening this hearing and
look forward to receiving the testimony of the witnesses.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Graham.
I've been informed by the staff that you probably should be
on record with your vote on S. 399, the McCain bill, and then
S. 1000 and S. 1043. These are naming bills you are familiar
with.
Senator Graham. I would like to be recorded aye on all
those.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, sir.
Senator Thomas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing, to discuss ozone and particulate matters,
standards promulgated by EPA.
Since EPA released the proposed regulations in November,
this committee has held numerous hearings regarding this
matter, and heard concerns of many of the Nation's Governors,
State, county and local officials and the business community.
Furthermore, we've heard from the scientists on EPA's own Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee, heard them testify there's
no bright line, and that they need more time to conduct
additional research into PM and ozone. Unfortunately EPA and
the Administration have refused to listen.
President Clinton endorsed EPA's standards in spite of
public opposition from more than 250 Members of Congress, 27
Governors, labor unions and many small businesses throughout
the country. These standards could end up being the most
expensive in history, and severely limiting economic growth.
With so many areas of the country having problems meeting
current environmental standards, these regulations could throw
new counties into nonattainment. Additionally, these counties
currently in nonattainment will probably never reach
compliance.
It's my understanding that Administrator Browner has been
meeting with Members of Congress and various industries,
telling them not to worry about the new rules because they
won't affect their interests. Most recently she informed the
agricultural community of that when she testified before the Ag
Committee earlier this week, Mr. Chairman. It seems that EPA's
really doing some soft-pedaling on the impacts of the new air
quality rules and, in fact, perhaps distorting the facts. I'm
interested in Ms. Nichols telling us how EPA can guarantee
these promises when they don't even know what the 50 States
will end up regulating.
I've always had strong reservations about EPA's regulations
and do not believe that Congress will back them. The chairman
of this subcommittee has done an outstanding job on this issue,
and I intend to help him in any way I can. I do support
additional research and was pleased the Senate passed the EPA-
HUD and the Independent Agencies appropriation, which included
funding for PM<INF>2.5</INF> research. It's my intention to
work with the Appropriations Committee in guiding that on
through.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'm anxious also to hear what Ms. Nichols
has to say about the real implementation strategy. It may
change tomorrow, but it is our duty to exercise oversight and
determine if the EPA has legal authority to do the things it
claims it will do, and I appreciate your having the hearing.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Thomas.
Senator Hutchinson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUTCHINSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Nichols, I also want to join in the chorus wishing you
the best in California, and your new endeavors out there. Thank
you for coming today, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking
such an active role on these proposed air standards, and the
hearings that we've now had. As I've said repeatedly, it seems
out of those hearings that one thing was clear--there's an
awful lot that is unclear; there's a lot of difference among
scientists. That is why I have the position that it is far
better for us to seek more data, have more time before we
implement standards that are going to have such a dramatic
impact.
Arkansas is a rural, primarily agricultural State. It is
growing, but it currently has a relatively small amount of
heavy industry and a relatively small population, two and a
half million. Now, that is exactly the type of State that one
would think was going to be minimally impacted by EPA standards
on ozone and particulates. Unfortunately, that's just not the
case. It is already anticipated that several counties in
eastern Arkansas are going to be out of attainment under these
new standards. One county, Crittenden County, is already out of
attainment for ozone and, as the Mayor of west Memphis, AR
said, would be out of attainment even if the entire city was
plowed up and used for farmland. With Memphis so close, right
across the river, there's just very little that west Memphis
can do to achieve air quality under the guidelines of the EPA.
Other counties, such as Arkansas County and Ashley County, are
almost exclusively agricultural in nature.
Ms. Browner testified before the Agriculture Committee on
Tuesday, and has repeatedly asserted, that agriculture would
not be affected by these new standards. And she would assure
through Secretary Glickman that that would not be the case. The
reductions could be achieved and attainment realized by going
after big power plants. Well, that's fine, except that in
Arkansas and Ashley Counties they don't have any power plants.
It's all agricultural. One county that does have a power plant
is Jefferson County, where Pine Bluff is, just to the west of
Arkansas County, but according to EPA's own documents they will
``not'' be out of attainment. But to me that creates an
interesting paradox, how you get two counties that are
agricultural that are out of attainment with no power plant.
You have Jefferson County, with a power plant, that's going to
be in attainment. If you go after the power plant you are not
going to solve the problem of the two agricultural counties.
So I think agriculture is going to take a beating in the
United States over the next few years between what the EPA
wants to do with ozone and particulates, and what the
Administration is saying they want to do in relation to global
climate and the effects on an agricultural State like Arkansas.
Those effects will be overwhelming. But really what we are
seeing with PM and ozone is really step one, with the
conference in December possibly leading us to step two, which
will be equally devastating.
So I appreciate the hearing today. I look forward to the
testimony.
Mr. Chairman, there's been much said about children, and I
think about the tremendous costs of these new standards, and if
we would take just some of those resources and put that into
children's health care, put that into asthma research. The
evidence seems clear to me that changing the ozone standards is
not going to--the big question is, how many lives does that
save? How much impact does that have on asthma? If we really
care about children, the enormous costs associated with these
new standards, we could take that, put that in children's
health care, and do far more to benefit the children of this
country.
But I look forward to the testimony and I thank you for
calling the hearing.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Hutchinson.
We have plenty of time for the remainder of the opening
statements.
Senator Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I'd like to
thank you. I think you are doing a great job of pursuing this
particular issue. We do need to have a number of hearings in
order to get a thorough understanding of what these regulations
do and don't do, and understand the science that's behind them.
I come from a State that's rather unique. It's one of the
fastest growing areas in the whole country. Because of our high
altitude we have some particular problems related to the high
altitude is-
sues, and I think that's an issue that we have to deal with in
our States that other States probably don't have to deal with,
and obviously what science we do in relation to that, I'd be
very interested in. I have a newspaper clipping here in front
of me that talks about how these rules and regulations in
effect are going to increase the particulate matter in Denver,
and it's an article in the--and if you have time to address
that, I may not be here to ask that question because I do have
a bill up in another committee. If I get back I'll probably
bring that question back for you to answer. But even if you
don't get a chance to answer it here in the committee, I'll try
and submit a question to you. You can come back to us in
writing.
Also, Carol Browner had made a number of comments in front
of the Ag Committee here on the Senate side, and I have some
questions in regard to that.
I'm not sure the rules and regulations allow, on the Clean
Air provision, any agency to set out a certain group to be
treated differently from anybody else, and when you keep that
in mind, she says it's not going to have any impact on
agriculture. I have a hard time understanding how it's not
going to have an impact without a provision in there that would
allow her to set out a certain group as exempt from provisions.
I just don't think those are there, but maybe I need some
education in that regard.
So I think the bottom line is that these new rules and
regulations that are being proposed are going to affect
everybody in this country. I think people have to understand
fully how it's going to affect them, how much it's going to
cost, and best we can to educate the science behind it, and for
that reason I commend the Chairman and commend those that are
going to testify today for your input on this most important
issue.
Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Allard. Senator Allard--I
would also observe agriculture isn't the only area that she
said would be exempt. The Conference of Mayors is going to be
exempt and small business and others, so we'll need to find out
how they are going to do that.
Senator Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do
believe this is an important subject for our Nation to deal
with, and it must be confronted honestly and directly. The air
does appear to be getting cleaner in America, because we took
some tough stands and we've made progress and we're continuing
to make progress. But as we accelerate the demands to reach an
even more naturally pure level of air, it adds costs to our
Nation. It seems to me that costs can get so high that it does,
in fact, make us noncompetitive in the world marketplace. There
is a limit to which we can burden ourselves. It seems to me,
Mr. Chairman, there's no difference between a tax and a
regulation. There's no difference in telling the Tennessee
Valley Authority that they've got to spend $2 billion, and
that's what the Director testified here, that he thought these
regulations would cost them on their clean air requirements, to
spend $2 billion on improving the air, which they are passing
on to the ratepayers in that regard or imposing a tax of $2
billion, and so there the power industry serves America. It
serves people. To burden them extraordinarily is a burden on
the average rate payer. It's a tax on the rate payer, and we
ought to ask ourselves if we're going to have the TVA rate
payers pay $2 billion in extra regulative fees, or tax fees?
Would it be better, as Senator Hutchinson says, to spend that
money on asthma research, or emphysema research, or heart
research, or AIDS research? This is an appropriation of the
resources of our Nation. It just cannot be done without being
oblivious to the impact it has on the Nation's wealth, and how
it ought to be allocated for the overall good of America, and
since we do have the reports of the CASAC committee, EPA's own
committee, questioning the benefits from it, I just think that
I don't want to be involved. I don't want to have to question
these issues. I know you don't, Mr. Chairman. We do not want to
be here. But we've got to be here because we're charged with
setting public policy for America, and I hope that we can ask
the questions honestly, and not be intimidated by political
maneuverings, and try to do what's right for the country.
That's what I want to do, and I am interested in proceeding,
and thank you for your leadership.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
If it's all right Ms. Nichols, we'll recess for just a few
minutes, go vote twice, and be right back.
[Recess.]
Senator Inhofe. We'll reconvene our meeting, and I would
acknowledge that Mr. Jonathan Cannon, General Counsel for the
EPA, has joined Ms. Nichols at the table, and we welcome you
also, and while we normally have opening statements confined to
5 minutes, we won't confine you to 5 minutes, Ms. Nichols,
because you are the only witness today. So we recognize you now
for opening statements. I would observe that several others are
up behind me and will be here shortly.
STATEMENT OF MARY D. NICHOLS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR
AND RADIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY
JON CANNON, GENERAL COUNSEL
Ms. Nichols. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have a rather lengthy written statement which I know
has been submitted for the record. I will try to keep my
opening brief because you raised a number of important
questions and I believe other members have questions as well.
I do appreciate your interest and your continuing oversight
of our----
Senator Inhofe. You might move the microphone closer, if
you would please.
Ms. Nichols. Yes.
The ozone and particulate matter standards, which were
announced by the President last month and published last week,
are the most significant step we've taken in a generation to
protect the American people, and especially our children, from
the hazards of air pollution. Together they will protect 125
million Americans, including 35 million children, from the
adverse health effects of breathing polluted air. They will
prevent approximately 15,000 pre-
mature deaths, about 350,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and
nearly a million cases of significantly decreased lung
functions in children.
Clearly the best available science shows that the previous
standards were not adequately protecting Americans from the
hazards of breathing polluted air. Revising these standards
will bring enormous health benefits to the Nation. That is why
we took action on clean air.
Mr. Chairman, you asked me to come before the committee
today to discuss how EPA intends to implement these new air
quality standards. In brief, we intend to work closely with the
States to take advantage of the recent progress we've made in
understanding the regional nature of air pollution, and the
most cost-effective ways to reduce it, using the power of the
marketplace. We also intend to assure that States making good
progress toward attaining the current, or the old standards,
will continue that progress, uninterrupted, with a minimum of
additional burden.
Perhaps the most innovative aspect of this implementation
strategy is that it allows the States to use a market trading
system to address pollution on a regional scale. The heart of
this system is a voluntary trading plan for emissions from
utilities, one designed collectively by the 37 States that
participated in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, which we
call OTAG, that will address violations far downwind and will
provide the most cost-effective pollution reductions by
achieving the bulk of reductions from major sources rather than
small businesses or farmers.
Based on OTAG's recommendations, in September 1997, EPA
will propose a rule requiring States in the OTAG region that
are significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance of attainment in downwind States to submit
State implementation plans to reduce their interstate pollution
and describing the trading plan which the States can adopt if
they so choose. Based on EPA's review of the latest modeling, a
regional approach, coupled with the implementation of other
already existing State and Federal Clean Air Act requirements,
will allow the vast majority of areas which currently meet the
1-hour ozone standard to meet the 8-hour standard without
additional local controls.
In addition to this regional approach, EPA will also
encourage the States to design strategies for attaining the
particulate and ozone standards that focus on getting low-cost
reductions first. Such strategies will include the use of
concepts such as a Clean Air Investment Fund, which would allow
sources facing control costs higher than $10,000 per ton for
any of these pollutants, some of which they may exceed by about
a factor of four under any controls which are currently
required. Anybody who had a cost of over $10,000 per ton would
be allowed to pay a set annual amount/ton to fund cost-
effective emissions reductions from nontraditional or smaller
sources.
Compliance strategies like this will likely lower the cost
of attaining the standards through more efficient allocation,
minimizing the regulatory burden for small and large pollution
sources, and serving to stimulate technology innovation as
well.
To insure that the final details of the implementation
strategy are practical, incorporate common sense, and provide
for appro-
priate steps toward cleaning the air, input is needed from many
stakeholders, including representatives of State and local
governments, industry, environmental organizations, and Federal
agencies. EPA will continue seeking advice from a range of
stakeholders, and, after evaluating their input, will propose
the necessary guidance to make these approaches work.
In particular, EPA plans to continue working with the
Subcommittee on Implementation of Ozone, Particulate Matter,
and Regional Haze Rules, which EPA established, to develop
innovative, flexible, and cost-effective implementation
strategies. EPA plans to issue all guidance and rules necessary
for this implementation strategy by the end of 1998.
EPA will continue to work with the Small Business
Administration because small businesses are particularly
concerned about the potential impact resulting from future
control measures to meet the revised PM and ozone standards. In
partnership with the SBA, EPA will work with States to include
in their SIPs flexible regulatory alternatives, which minimize
the economic impact and paperwork burden on small businesses to
the greatest degree possible, consistent with public health
protection.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, EPA believes that the new ozone
and particulate matter standards will provide important new
health protection and will improve the lives of Americans in
coming years. Our implementation strategy will insure that
these new standards are implemented in a cost-effective and
flexible manner. We hope to work closely with State and local
governments, other Federal agencies, and other interested
parties in order to accomplish this goal.
Mr. Chairman, that includes my prepared statement, and I
look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you, Ms. Nichols.
This is a very obvious question that I've wondered about,
Ms. Nichols. Given the EPA implementation schedule of at least
6 years for ozone and, I think, 9 years for PM, and taking into
account the new standards issued on--were issued on July 16,
and ignoring existing programs, how many lives would be saved
in the next 5 years?
Ms. Nichols. Mr. Chairman, you're asking about the impact
of the new standards on top of the old standards?
Senator Inhofe. I'm talking about with those things that
were not in the--not going to go on in the absence of the
adoption of these standards. Just these standards, which we all
agree are not going to go into effect for 6 or 9 years. How
many lives in the next 5 years would be saved?
Ms. Nichols. I understand the question. Let me answer it
this way, if I may. We have not estimated lives saved prior to
the time when the standards are expected to be, at least,
partially implemented in 2010. What we have said is that we
want to layer the new standards on top of the existing
standards because we recognize, based on the history of the
Clean Air Act in the past, that from the time a standard is set
until the time that the actual pollution reductions are being
achieved, until you know, when industry has had time to design
the technologies, when the regulations have come into effect,
does take a period of years, in some cases a decade or more,
and so setting the standard just begins that process, and we
acknowledge that the setting of the standard, in and of itself,
does not cause the health benefits to be achieved.
Senator Inhofe. So it's safe to say that zero lives will be
saved in the next 5 years?
Ms. Nichols. It would be safe to say that the lives that
will be saved in the next 5 years are attributable primarily to
today's standards, however it would be important, I think, to
note that----
Senator Inhofe. The change in standards that would not be
in effect for the period of time that we're talking about, 6
years or 9 years, they won't be in effect?
Ms. Nichols. Mr. Chairman, this is, I think, where we are
having a semantic difference. The standards will be in effect,
assuming that Congress doesn't overturn them, the issue is what
will people be doing during that period of time, and what we
believe people will be doing during that period of time is
continuing work on the current, or the old standards, and also
beginning the planning for that work that they will be doing on
the new standards. So it's correct to say that there will not
be new regulations in place, implementing those new standards,
but there will be a lot of planning work, and in some cases, I
think there will be industries that will choose when they're
making decisions about which technologies to purchase or what
investments to make, that will be looking toward the new
standards. So we will see some actual impact of the standards
in terms of----
Senator Inhofe. Will there be one life saved in the next 5
years?
Ms. Nichols. The lives that will be saved in the next 5
years, and I don't have a number for those although we could
get that for you, will be lives that are attributable to
today's standards, I believe, primarily. Although again----
Senator Inhofe. That's today's standards. I'm talking about
with the new standards will there be a life saved in the next 5
years?
Ms. Nichols. I think it's difficult to quantify whether
there would be, based on the choices that people will make in
looking toward the new standards, but I think there is a down
payment on those new standards that will have an impact, and
we'll just have to try to get back to you to see if we can add
some additional quantification to that.
Senator Inhofe. Well, let's assume then that there won't be
any new--any lives saved in the next 5 years. I mean, I still--
I haven't heard anything that you've said that would imply to
me or that would persuade me to the notion that any lives are
going to be saved in the next 5 years.
Ms. Nichols. Let me say it this way, and I----
Senator Inhofe. And then I would have to say, what will we
do about what CASAC, and the scientific community would suggest
postponing these until such time as science determines whether
or not they're--since we're not going to be changing--making
the changes anyway?
Ms. Nichols. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that CASAC told
us to defer making a decision on the standards. I believe CASAC
asked us, by a vote of 19-2, to set a standard for fine
particles. There was some dispute, which you have gone into in
previous hearings, as to whether the 24-hour or the annual
standard should be controlling, what the precise level should
be, but there was not a question about whether to set a
standard, and the reason for that is that CASAC recognized that
the planning work that needs to be done by States and by
industries in order to achieve a standard, takes many years to
accomplish, and so the setting of the standard only begins that
process.
You are correct to point out that it won't all be completed
within that 5-year period.
Senator Inhofe. You can set, but not implement, and you are
saying by setting and not implementing there are--there are
going to be--there could be some lives saved because this
somehow changes behavioral patterns?
Ms. Nichols. No, Mr. Chairman. What I am saying is that
implementation includes a great deal of planning work, and in
the course of doing that planning there will be actual
decisions made, actions taken, that will have an effect, but we
haven't tried to quantify that.
Senator Inhofe. Were you at the Ag hearing on Tuesday?
Ms. Nichols. Yes, I was.
Senator Inhofe. Carol Browner said, and this is a quote,
``We will have the next 5-year review before anyone reduces
pollution.'' Now what parts of this would you implement that
would save lives now? I guess that's what I am asking.
Ms. Nichols. Mr. Chairman, as the Administrator said, and I
agree with this, there are not regulations that will be in
effect requiring people to reduce more pollution than is
required to be reduced for the old standards prior to the next
5-year review. But because the standards are in effect, there
will be people taking actions, and I do believe that some of
those actions will, in fact, be beneficial toward attainment of
the new, as well as the old, standards.
Senator Inhofe. But that Ag hearing on Tuesday,
Administrator Browner cited the OTAG program as a way for
Eastern States to meet the new ozone standards painlessly. In
response to Senator Landrieu's question she identified
Louisiana as an example, saying they currently have four
parishes in nonattainment and three more new parishes expected.
She said that OTAG would provide cleaner air in all seven
parishes without requiring new controls in these seven
parishes. Does that accurately--do you recall her making that
statement?
Ms. Nichols. In general that's consistent with what I
heard, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Well, how will these parishes get cleaner
air if they don't have--without any new controls?
Ms. Nichols. Ah, the----
Senator Inhofe. Where would the controls be placed to
result in cleaner air in Louisiana?
Ms. Nichols. The key here is the controls on large
generators of electric power and other very large generators
who----
Senator Inhofe. Where?
Ms. Nichols [continuing]. Who will be located throughout
the OTAG region. I'm not aware, sir, of whether there are any
power plants located in the parishes that you identified. So I
can't respond to that particular part of your question. In
general, the power plants are located around the country. In
many States they are frequently located in areas or counties
that are actually designated as attainment areas today, because
the immediate area around that facility may be meeting the
standards, but that plant is contributing, because of the
problem of long-range transport of pollution, that plant is
causing or contributing to a problem----
Senator Inhofe. Where is that plant located that you are
referring to?
Ms. Nichols. There are many of them. I was saying a plant--
--
Senator Inhofe. Would you say to the west of Louisiana?
Ms. Nichols. There are plants probably within Louisiana
that are subject to this type of a control program.
Senator Inhofe. I was quoting the Administrator when she
said that OTAG would provide cleaner air in all seven parishes
without requiring any new controls in those seven parishes.
Would you conclude that there are no--none of these plants as
you'd describe them in those seven parishes?
Ms. Nichols. I would have to go back and consult a map of
the OTAG region and where the power plants are. What the
Administrator was referring to in her testimony is the modeling
work that was done by OTAG, in which the States that
participated in OTAG did various modeling runs looking at
control strategies, and the conclusion was that with a cap on
the utility emissions of nitrogen oxides in that region, that
includes Louisiana, that every county or parish which would not
meet, based on today's data, the new ozone standard would come
into attainment. So its based on that modeling work.
Senator Inhofe. But she said no new controls would take
place in any of the seven parishes.
Ms. Nichols. As I said, sir----
Senator Inhofe. There has to be--if this is somehow going
to end up in favorably affecting our environment, somewhere
there have to be controls, and I think in the opening
statements that were heard on this side of the aisle--one of
the things that is a little frustrating is that each group that
appears--they say, ``Oh, no, don't worry about it. You're not
going to be affected. This is just going to be the other
people,'' or whatever is stated is, ``Well, you're not going to
be affected. It's someone to the west of you.'' But sooner or
later someone is going to have to be affected, and new controls
are going to have to go in, and my question to you is you know
you can't build support for a program that has no basis in
science by continuing to say that no one's going to be
affected. It's going to be the guy--somebody else.
Somewhere in this case, somewhere there's going to have to
be controls to bring the results that it--were described in the
seven parishes in Louisiana.
Ms. Nichols. Yes, Mr. Chairman, what we are referring to by
the OTAG strategy is a system of controls on power plants
around the 37 State region, which was modeled as part of the
OTAG work. I can't at this moment tell you precisely which
power plants in Louisiana, whether they are in those seven
parishes or not, are the ones that would need to be
participating in a control program. Clearly someone----
Senator Inhofe. But, wait a minute, wait a minute. None of
them are in there. None of them would be there in the seven
parishes, because that's what the Administrator said.
Ms. Nichols. As I said, I would have to check the location
of where the power plants are. I think what the Administrator
was referring to was the issue of whether there would be a need
for additional controls on local businesses above and beyond
the OTAG control program. We've assumed the OTAG control
program going into effect. We're not denying, in fact we're
encouraging people to understand what the implications----
Senator Inhofe. But that's not what she said. She said that
the--she said the OTAG would provide cleaner air in all seven
parishes without requiring new controls in these seven
parishes. That doesn't mean new controls on some businesses or
some industries or some farms or----
Ms. Nichols. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. So you're saying there would be no controls
in these--you're going to have cleaner air without any new
controls in the seven parishes. You agree with the
Administrator?
Ms. Nichols. I agree that beyond OTAG there would not be a
need for further, any further, local controls in those seven
parishes for the new ozone standard. We're just talking ozone.
Senator Inhofe. So OTAG then, that's regional so somebody
else is going to have to have new standards so that they'll be
able to clean up their air in Louisiana, but it won't be in
Louisiana. So where's it going to be?
Ms. Nichols. It may be elsewhere in Louisiana. That's why I
mentioned the fact that I'm not certain where the power plants
that were modeled are located, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
certainly--I agree with your comments that it seems to be that
EPA is giving assurances to all these various sectors that,
``Don't worry. It's not going to be that bad, and that you're
not going to be negatively impacted,'' and--would you just kind
of reiterate for me, as a Senator from an agricultural State,
what those reassurances are? I mean, what do I tell the farmers
in the delta?
Ms. Nichols. Well, Senator Hutchinson, if I could just step
back a second. I think the point we're trying to get across
with this implementation strategy is that we want these new
health standards to come into effect in a way that's orderly,
that doesn't disrupt the work that many communities are already
doing, that many industries are already doing, and that
provides an ample amount of time, in the case of the fine
particles standard, to develop the most cost-effective possible
control strategies.
With respect to the particulate standard, we are taking
advantage of the provisions of the Clean Air Act that allow for
a period of time during which areas are designated as
unclassifiable, and in which further monitoring can be done, as
well as an additional review of the research in order to
develop the most cost-effective possible control strategies.
With respect to the conversations with agriculture, during
the inter-agency review process that we engaged in within the
Administration, as well as in response to the public process,
the public comments and so forth, we heard a lot about the
concerns of agriculture. I, myself, serve as a member of an Air
Quality Advisory Committee that the Department of Agriculture
has set up under the Farm bill that was passed in the last
Congress, and we worked with the Department of Agriculture on a
memorandum of agreement--the memorandum itself is in process,
but it's reflected in a letter that Carol Browner sent to
Secretary Glickman on a couple of specific issues.
Because we wanted to make sure that States were focusing on
the most cost-effective methods first in order to start
thinking about the new fine particle standard. We believe,
based on the work that's been done to date, that agricultural
practices in general shouldn't be the focus of people's
activities when they are thinking about how to meet a new fine
particle standard, and that's not based on just a policy choice
that we've made. It's based on our science review on the
information that we have available about where the particles
are coming from, and so we have sought to have conversations
both with the department and with groups that represent the
agricultural interest in order to explain to them why this is
so and why we would like to work with them and others to make
sure they are not the focus of attention when it comes to
planning for attainment.
Senator Hutchinson. OK, that was a lengthy answer. If I
could distill that. What I got was that you're having
conversations with the Department of Agriculture, that you're
working on a memorandum, and that you don't want agriculture to
be the focus.
Ms. Nichols. It's not just that we don't want them to be
the focus, it's that based on the information that we know
about fine particles today, we don't believe that they will be
the focus because their particular particles are not what we're
worried about.
Senator Hutchinson. So you don't believe it's going to be
the focus. Now what if a State, when they come up with their
implementation plan to cite, they're going to make it the
focus, and they're going to--really going to come in with some
very strong regulations regarding all the things, all the
concerns that have been expressed by the farming community.
Is there any--when you talk about your conversations with
the Department of Agriculture, is there any assurances that the
States won't do that?
Ms. Nichols. I think there are several kinds of assurances.
First of all, there's the time period. No State is going to be
submitting a plan for attainment of the new fine particles
standard until 2005-2008. During that period of time we will be
working with the States in developing both guidance and
regulations for the States, to tell the States what they should
put into their State implementation plans. One----
Senator Hutchinson. Will you tell them what to put in?
Ms. Nichols. We tell the States a number of specific things
about what needs to be in an implementation plan. One of the
things that we do tell States is what types of monitoring
information we're going to require, what types of assurances
they need to submit to show that the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard
is going to be achieved. The reason why we don't think that
States would be pursuing PM<INF>2.5</INF> strategies, such as
the kinds of things you may be alluding to that farmers would
fear, is that those practices are not going to be able to--they
won't show that those things are actually going to achieve the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard because they are not aimed at
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
Senator Hutchinson. Well, first of all let me just say that
I think farmers--that the impact upon agriculture goes far
beyond whether or not they're going to be able to go out a plow
up their fields, and whether that's going to--that increase--if
you go after power plants, you increase energy costs, that
dramatically impacts the farming community.
But, it was interesting to me, she talked about these
implementation plans that you actually dictate to the States,
at least some of what they have to put in based upon your own
decision as to whether or not it will put them in attainment.
And it--my understanding of what the EPA's argument is on why
they are not subject to, and required to abide by, the Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Act, it is because you're not
actually implementing the standards, the States are, and yet
you have just told me that when the State plans, you're going
to come in and specifically, in some areas, dictate. So that
seemed to me that that undercuts your entire legal argument
that you're not subject to the Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Act.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Hutchinson, I might observe that
even though he was not on the schedule to be here, we do have
Jonathan Cannon, who is the General Counsel. We're glad he is
here, and he might want to respond to that.
Ms. Nichols. Well, could I just--before I turn to Mr.
Cannon for legal advice--just respond to the point that Senator
Hutchinson was making about how we work with the States on
developing implementation plans, because that is a matter of
practice, and if I may say, having run a State environmental
agency before I came to this job, it is a dynamic process. But
the way it works is EPA sets an air quality standard. That's
the goal. The State has to come up with a program to achieve
it. EPA has to approve those plans. Our basis for approving or
disapproving those plans is whether they demonstrate that a
State is able to attain the standard. That's our only role. The
State has a choice about which measures it puts into the plan,
but we would look at those measures to see whether the measures
were going to be getting PM<INF>2.5</INF>----
Senator Hutchinson. Well, Ms. Nichols, I was only taking
what you said in your original answer, and that was that you
tell the States in certain areas what they've got to put in the
plan and that, to me, seems to totally undermine your argument
that this is a State decision, and therefore, you are not
subject to the Small Business Regulatory----
Ms. Nichols. If I may just finish. There are some elements
of what goes into a plan that are mandatory, for example air
quality data. We mandate to the State they have to give us the
air quality data. If they don't give us the air quality data,
their SIP isn't approved. That is a mandatory element of a SIP.
However, the choice of the control strategies, if they add up
to the amount of reductions that are needed to meet the
standards, is the State's. That's all I was trying to----
Senator Hutchinson. What I'm trying to say is that I don't
think you can have it both ways, and I guess the courts will
ultimately decide that, and I know Mr. Cannon will respond to
that, but I think what you have just told me in your answer
really undercuts your argument, and the assurances you are
giving the agricultural sector flies in the face of your legal
arguments that you're not subject to the Small Business----
Ms. Nichols. Mr. Hutchinson, the controls that we're
talking about, the reason why I'm focusing on agriculture here,
I'll just try put it in a different way. The emissions that
agriculture, itself, is causing whether it's their tilling
practices, or dust blowing from fields, applications of
fertilizers, etc. As we have looked at those emissions, in most
instances it's not PM<INF>2.5</INF> that they are emitting.
Addressing those practices is not going to be approvable
because it isn't going to be solving the problem. That's the
only reason I'm suggesting that we have some degree of
assurance that those measures won't be in the plan. It's not
because we're going to be dictating to the States that they
shouldn't use them.
Senator Hutchinson. But you did say that there are areas
that you do dictate. That there are mandates on the States on
what they have to have in the implementation plans, and that if
they don't have them you come in and tell them you must have
that by law.
Ms. Nichols. But those are the procedural, or basic
framework, elements of the plan. They are not the choices of
the control measures, except to the extent that the Clean Air
Act may specifically dictate some measures be included.
Mr. Cannon. I'd like----
Senator Inhofe. Would you pull the microphone a little
closer so that we could hear you, Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. I think Ms. Nichols has summarized the law
accurately. There are within the requirements of the statute
applicable to State implementation plans, specific requirements
as to the form of those plans and some of the particular
requirements. But generally the States have at their discretion
to determine the means and measures by which they are to
achieve attainment of the standard, and EPA is required to
approve the plan once submitted. If the State's plan
demonstrates it's going to----
Senator Hutchinson. I wonder if you----
Mr. Cannon. I think Ms. Nichols' point is for agricultural
enterprises, to the extent that they are not the source of the
problem----
Senator Hutchinson. But what if a State decided they were
to write a plan and they came in with some very stringent
requirements and regulations on agricultural sector tilling and
whatever else, but they had enough other measures that would
bring the State into attainment? They weren't solely dependent
upon the agricultural changes? In that case they would be in
compliance with your requirements, correct? I mean you couldn't
say, ``Take that out because it's unnecessary, because that's a
focus that's not really essential''?
Ms. Nichols. Actually, Senator, in my past experience, this
isn't an issue that we faced in the particular way you're
describing. But there are many States that have measures on the
books which are over and above what's called for by the Clean
Air Act, over and above what's mandatory, and EPA does not make
those measures federally enforceable. So, in other words, there
may be on the books some State regulations that are part of the
State program that they choose to do for whatever reasons, but
we do not include those----
Senator Hutchinson. So the reassurances to the farming
sector are really dependent upon the goodwill and good faith of
the States, and the implementation plans that they might
design.
Ms. Nichols. I think that the reassurance to the States are
that EPA is not No. 1 either advising or encouraging States to
do things that would not be effective with respect to looking
at agriculture and second, that we will give guidance to the
States as to what they should be looking at based on our
technical knowledge in this area, and that, again, that's not
agriculture.
Senator Hutchinson. So you--I take it you do that now, that
you give guidance to the States and yet we find many States
that have standards that exceed the standards of EPA. Some----
Ms. Nichols. Under the framework of the act, any State is
always free to set more stringent air standards, and there are
a number of States in this country that have air quality
standards that are stricter than EPA's standards. What we do
try to do is set a floor, the basic level that we believe is
what the act told us to do for a national air quality standard.
Senator Hutchinson. Well, I know I have taken a long time.
It seems to me though, that it's a very tenuous legal position
to say we're not subject to SBREA, but--because we're leaving
that to the States, and then to say we give them guidance. We
tell them the data they've got to have. We give the floor.
That's, I think, a very tenuous position.
Administrator Browner in her comments last Thursday to the
Center for National Policy stated that reducing utility
emissions was, in her words, the first small step in addressing
the Nation's air quality problems. What percentage of the
emissions are you attempting to regulate with these new
standards, or what percentage of the emissions will come from
power plants, and what other steps does your agency intend to
take after reducing utility emissions if those reductions do
not achieve the first--the desired results? If she's saying
this is the first step, what do you see is going to come from
that first step and after the first step, what else has to be
done?
Ms. Nichols. The reductions in utility emissions of
Nitrogen Oxides that we refer to as the OTAG program, or the
Cap and Trade program, will reduce the percentage of emissions
by different amounts in different States. But overall, it will
reduce the contributions that any States are making to the
interference with attaining or maintaining the standards in
their downwind States. To a sufficient degree that the new
areas that won't achieve the ozone standard will be brought
into attainment, old areas that have not yet achieved the
standard we believe are capable of reaching attainment with
what they're already doing to achieve the 1-hour standard
that's on the books, plus what they'll get from OTAG, from the
utilities strategies, except for a couple of major urban areas
which will continue to have serious attainment problems.
Based on the modeling that we've done to date, New York,
Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, and Los Angeles are the areas that
don't come into attainment just as a result of the controls
that are already on the books or in the process of being
implemented, including all of the national measures that EPA is
responsible for, such as cleaner engines for trucks,
locomotives, buses, etc.
Senator Hutchinson. So what do they do?
Ms. Nichols. Those areas will need additional local
controls, and at this point the kinds of controls that they
would be looking at would be controls on emissions of volatile
organic compounds and some additional reductions on Nitrogen
Oxides emissions. There are a number of technologies----
Senator Hutchinson. Can you put that in practical terms as
to what they might have to do?
Ms. Nichols. Sure. We have listed a number of technologies
that are coming into play over the next few years. We have not
specifically put out emissions estimates for these technologies
because we are talking about a period after the year, 2010, and
frankly, at this point, we have technologies which have been
invented, which have been demonstrated, but which have not been
put into production at a level where we can quantify the exact
reductions.
Senator Hutchinson. The year, 2010, sounds very reassuring,
but my understanding is that the modeling that was conducted
during the OTAG process showed that even with 85 percent
reductions in utility emissions in the Eastern United States
there would be numerous areas still that could not achieve
attainment under the old ozone standards. So it seems that the
2010 date is not very reassuring when they can't even comply
with the existing--with the ozone standards--the old ozone
standards.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Sessions, let me just bring you up to date with a
couple of things that we've been covering. I--I was trying to
establish from Ms. Nichols, yet admittedly they're not going to
be implemented until, in the case of ozone, 6 years; in the
case of particulate matter, 9 years; how she can say that it
will save lives by doing it today, even though it won't be
implemented--and I--she has answered me, but I didn't
understand her answer.
The other area that we pursued was a statement that was
made to Senator Landrieu in the Ag Committee meeting, I think
that's where it was, where they said there are seven parishes
that would be out of attainment, but that they would be able to
come back into attainment without any--requiring new controls,
and this gets into the OTAG thing where you can always plainly
say well, we are going to control someone to the west of you or
something like this.
Then, of course, Senator Hutchinson pursued the issue,
since he is from an ag State as you and I are, how ag can be
for all practical purposes exempt, and so that's where we are
right now.
Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Sessions. Sessions.
Senator Inhofe. Sessions, yes.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, it is a--and I am very
sorry I was not promptly able to return.
It does appear, would you not agree, Ms. Nichols, that
there is a focus on the electric power generating industry.
They are going to take some additional pressures in this
regard?
Ms. Nichols. Yes, Senator. We've identified this particular
sector as the result of the work we did with the States on OTAG
as the one which has the most available reductions in the sense
that, in may instances, they have done less to control their
emissions than many other sectors, and where there are cost-
effective reductions that could be put in place that would make
a big difference in achieving the--both the old standards and
the new standards.
Senator Sessions. But I think there's some concern that
they're targeting that industry. It has the ability to pass on
its increased costs directly almost to its customers. They're
for the most part, until we achieve deregulation, they are
State controlled monopolies. As Attorney General, we had a
minor role to play with the Public Service Commission in
reviewing the rate proposals of the power companies. I've just
received word, I think the last week that, or earlier this
week, that TVA plans to increase its rates 5 percent, the first
increase in 10 years. According to numbers we have from them,
they spent, let's see, they'll be spending now $4 billion on,
really I guess the acid rain controls and other previous
controls, and they're estimating, contrary to what I said
earlier, $2 billion or another $3 billion to meet these
standards if they go into effect. Have you--and of course those
will be paid by rural utilities--Tennessee Valley Authority
members in Tennessee and Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia,
wherever. Are you sure you're not asking too much of the
utility industry, because it will be passed straight to the
customers?
Ms. Nichols. Senator, you've raised a very good issue about
what's going on with the utility industry, and, of course, it
does differ State by State. Many States are proceeding with
restructuring of their utilities even before there's a Federal
mandate to do so. But, in any event, as the industry does
restructure and as competition becomes more prevalent in the
industry, there's a great opportunity to both reduce the cost
of electricity to the consumers and also to deal with the
pollution problems that this industry does create at the same
time. Clearly there is a cost, as I indicated earlier. The
reason why we are in favor of a cap and trade system, which
would be implemented across State lines and throughout the
region, is that we believe that you can achieve the greatest
possible reductions at the lowest cost if you follow the model
that was used in the acid rain program, because while any
individual utility may face higher costs if they have to
install equipment, such as a scrubber, when the entire group of
companies in a region is participating in a cap and trade
system, then it's possible for the higher cost utility to
purchase excess emissions allowances from another utility and,
in effect, reap the savings for their customers, and when you
are dealing with a regional pollutant, such as nitrogen oxides,
we believe that this is a very appropriate way to go about
reducing the pollution rather than making any one source
responsible for just what's in their area.
Senator Sessions. Well, I've got to say that I really can't
agree with that in the sense that competition may drive down
costs, which we would hope it would, and that would benefit
everybody, but if we're going to not benefit from that because
of pollution controls that are more severe than necessary, then
we have taken money and allocated resources of this Nation in
areas that are not a benefit. According to TVA, the proposed
standards could lead to increased energy costs in the TVA
region of 11 percent, resulting in 40-50,000 fewer jobs, is
what I have in a report from them. Have you--does that cause
you any concern?
Ms. Nichols. I'm always concerned about cost numbers and
job figures of that sort, Senator. TVA did actively
participate, along with many other utilities, in the OTAG
process, and, as you know, the Department of Energy, which has
some authority over the TVA, also was very active in the inter-
Agency review process on the standards and on the
implementation strategy. They have endorsed this cap and trade
program while recognizing that there's a need to fine tune both
the allotments and the methodology as we move forward with the
program. So, it may be that there may be some differences in
terms of the amounts that different States would have to
contribute based on their location and their impact on other
States. But in terms of the general principle that there is a
need to cap and to allow for cross-border trading, I believe
that there is general support of that as a method.
The issue that you raise, of course, is, it needed to clear
up the air, and I think that on that front we have pretty good
evidence, based on a ranking of other types of control
measures, that the utility NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are at this
point the single largest factor in terms of creating the cross-
border ozone transport problems.
Senator Sessions. Well, the concern is that to me--I'll
just tell you what my concern is. I think that's a way that
hides the cost. If you said that people had to change their
automobiles directly, and they're no longer going to have
diesel engines, they're no longer--this innate--they feel that.
But if you take--whack the utilities and they pass it along in
increased rates, nobody really knows what's happened, and I
know I may be talking about a subject people don't want to talk
about anymore, but there are two nuclear reactors in the TVA
system sitting idle today, one of them 80 percent complete,
that would have polluted--provided no air pollution, and EPA
regulations or the international energy--nuclear energy
regulations have really stopped that, and that's been a real
burden on the whole power industry in the Tennessee valley. So,
I wanted to raise that point.
Did you discuss the fact that in the implementation
standards that you've issued, or made public, are the vast
majority of areas that do not currently meet the new ozone
standards will be able to do so without any addition new
pollution controls and measures? Is that the position--that's
your position on that?
Ms. Nichols. Yes, Senator Inhofe, I think----
Senator Sessions. You discussed that, you think,
thoroughly?
Ms. Nichols. Well, I'll be happy to go further if you----
Senator Sessions. I don't want to----
Senator Inhofe. Further, maybe he'll----
Senator Sessions. I'd just like to know how you can reduce
them without any burden on anyone.
Ms. Nichols. Well, Senator, I think maybe there is a
missing word of ``local'' in that sentence, and, if so, we
should clarify the point. I think the point there is that with
the OTAG controls, with the utility cap and trade system in
place, we believe there is not a reason or a necessity for
additional local control measure in the areas that meet today's
ozone standard, but will not meet the 8-hour new standard. In
other words, those areas which today are essentially marginal,
they are close to the old standards, they don't quite make the
new standards. Because of the regional benefits of the capping
of the utility emissions, those areas will be able to come into
attainment with that plus the additional cleaner cars, cleaner
fuels, and other measures that are already being provided by
the Federal Government, in effect, that are already part of
today's Clean Air Act. So the point is that there would not be
a need for local controls on businesses in those areas.
Senator Sessions. So then you are going to take it out of
the utility industry?
Ms. Nichols. Sir, I hate to sound like a defender of the
auto industry, and they probably wouldn't want me to do it. But
I would say that if you look at the amount that they have
controlled and the amount that has been already passed on to
consumers, in order to clean up those tailpipe emissions, we
are talking, in the case of cars, about reductions of 90
percent twice over, and at cost levels that well exceed the
$1500 per ton that we believe is what it's going to cost for
these NO<INF>X</INF> controls. Admittedly, the consumer is the
one who ultimately sees these costs. There's no question about
that. But we believe that those costs are quite modest in
comparison with the costs that have already been borne by other
industries.
Senator Sessions. What about the particulate matter, the PM
count, how much are you expecting out of utilities on that, and
can--will they be able to meet the burden in utilities alone?
Ms. Nichols. Clearly at this point, Senator, we are not in
a position to spell out the entire control program for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. We do know that the acid rain program that is
in effect today for controlling sulfur emissions from utilities
will achieve about 40 percent of the reductions that we think
are needed for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. So, in other words, this
industry has already made, or is in the process of making a
very significant down payment on controls of PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
The NO<INF>X</INF> reductions that we are hoping to get from
the OTAG program will also help with PM<INF>2.5</INF>. One of
the benefits of doing both the ozone and the PM standards at
the same time is that we can, in effect, take credit for
measures that really will work for both, because the Nitrogen
Oxide emissions, in addition to forming ozone, also are causing
formation of nitrates which are one of the large ingredients of
the fine particle problem. So, I think at this point it is fair
to say that these controls we are looking at under OTAG will
get us to where we need to go, at least for the next decade or
so. After that I can't say.
Senator Sessions. You are not prepared to say what other
industries that you'd be--that would be expected to bear
burdens to get the PM standards in attainment?
Ms. Nichols. Well, sir, I think in general what we know
about PM<INF>2.5</INF> today is that it's primarily a product
of combustion of fuels. So it's undoubtedly looking at all
sorts of combustion sources and looking at the quality of the
fuels. But we really do want to do further research before we
pinpoint which specific types of control measures would be the
most beneficial.
Senator Sessions. Let me ask you this, Ms. Nichols, let's
say that we're not supposed to worry about this because it's
going to be 6 years before it takes effect. Why don't we wait
about 3 years, and do a lot of research in the interim, and
maybe we could identify particular types of emissions that are
more particularly health adverse, and utilize those resources.
Again we are spending American citizens resources in the most
effective way. Would you respond to that thought?
Ms. Nichols. Senator, I think, maybe I would just go back
to the structure of the Clean Air Act, which is unique among
Federal environmental statues, at least to my knowledge, in
that it sets ambitious goals, clearly says set the goal without
regard to the cost, just based upon your public health
information, the best science that you have, and then take your
time and work out the attainment strategies. Over time, we
think this approach has worked in the sense that we've seen
time and time again that when you set a goal, even if it's an
ambitious goal and at the time industry didn't know how they
would attain, if you give them the time and the flexibility to
get there, that they will come up with innovative controls. We
think the market-based approach that Congress wrote into the
1990 amendments and urged us to use is a further way to make it
clear that we shouldn't just be using prescriptive regulations
to get there.
But ultimately, without a goal, people don't know where
they are trying to head, and they don't make the kind of
investments in research that are really necessary. I'm not just
talking about health research or monitoring research. I'm
really talking about the kinds of things that can only be done
by the private sector when they look at what kinds of
technologies and processes they can come up with. So having the
standard out there, as we have done, gives them that target. We
hear from industry frequently if we give them the time to do
it, that they can meet standards. What they don't want is to be
told precisely how to do it.
Senator Sessions. Well, I agree that the American and much
of the world's business community is incredibly efficient and
if they have to do something, they will. But we need to be sure
as public policy that what we ask them to do is the best thing
for them to do. If it's going to cost $30 billion to meet an
ozone standard that maybe is not necessary to meet, we could--
if TVA had $3 billion, goodness knows what we could do for the
Tennessee River. We could buy huge tracts of land, preserve it
for species and environmental concerns that could be there for
the rest of our lives.
So I think we've got to think in terms of that. I just
don't believe that the science is so clear that you can reach
that level that the act triggers in that you've got to act
today. I don't believe that you have to act today under the
act. One more question and I'll finish. What is the EPA's
latest evaluation of the cost of meeting both the PM and ozone
standards?
Ms. Nichols. I just want to turn to the summary of the RIA
here. For the particulate matter and ozone standards combined--
--
Senator Sessions. If you could break them up that would be
helpful?
Ms. Nichols. I'll do both for you. For the combined
standards, the partial attainment costs are $9.7 billion, and
of that the particulate matter cost is $8.6 billion and the
ozone cost is $1.1 billion.
Senator Sessions. Is that annually?
Ms. Nichols. These are--yes, these are annual numbers.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think there'll be much
disagreement about that. Are you aware of the Scientific
American article of January or December, earlier this year in
which it discussed the fact that decline in particulate matter
contributes to acid rain?
Ms. Nichols. No, sir, I'm not.
Senator Sessions. A lot of the particulate matter are base
that neutralize acid, and really it was a very interesting
article. So I just point that out to say that if we knew more
about what type of items were causing the environmental damage,
the--we could expend our resources better.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on the work that you've
done. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has
testified at your hearing in Oklahoma that our State would go
from two counties, I think, out of attainment to at least 20,
and perhaps 67. This would be a major detriment to the economic
growth of Alabama. There've been a lot of studies done that
state that poverty is an adverse health factor--perhaps one of
the clearest--poorer people are less healthy. If increased
attainment targets keep us from being competitive in the world
market, a plant may not be built in Alabama. It may be built in
Mexico or Brazil.
The County Commissioners in Jefferson and Shelby Counties
are working to improve the air and they're making progress.
They're going to be awfully depressed if they are faced with
new standards that they cannot possibly meet. They are making
progress at great effort, and they expressed their concerns to
me. There's a county just outside of Birmingham--a rural county
that oddly has one of the testing machines--it appears it will
be out of attainment if you increase the standard, and it has
almost no industry. So we don't want to hurt the working
Alabamians and the working Americans.
I think we've don't want to have a fuss over this issue. I
certainly don't. But I think we're going to have one because
I'm not going to participate in a procedure that has marginal,
if any, health benefits, but significantly adverse economic
benefits the people of my State.
Ms. Nichols. Mr. Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Yes.
Ms. Nichols. If I could just comment on one point that you
made. First of all, I agree with you. You think you need to be
satisfied that we've carried out our responsibilities properly
and we do welcome your oversight.
I did want to say something about the counties that you
mentioned though, because I think that there's quite a bit of
misapprehension or misinformation. Perhaps it was based on some
of the ranges that were in the proposal which came out last
November. We do have data and we have to be cautionary because
it is current data. It doesn't reflect new monitoring that will
be done. But the information that I have indicates that there
are four counties in Alabama that don't meet today's .08 8-hour
standard with the fourth maximum concentration. That would be
Clay, Jefferson, Madison, and Shelby counties based on what we
know today. That there are two, and this is only based on,
again, current data, not with all the new monitoring in place,
that would be Etowa and Mobile, that wouldn't meet the
PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Now obviously we have more work to do, and we
realize that we've got to come up with measures that people
will feel can be met. But we do want to assure you of our
desire to work with you on that and to work with your State to
come up with a program that will succeed.
Senator Sessions. Well, the problem is that we don't have
the monitors. There is a monitor, I think, in Clay County,
which is a rural county, and it's put it out of attainment. The
other counties don't have monitors, and we upped the standards
and put out more monitors. Someone has been there for 30 years,
a champion of clean air for the State and Nation, and he says
this is going to be impossible to meet. He predicts that over
20 counties will be out of attainment. So I don't know where it
would actually come out.
Ms. Nichols. Well, we need to put the monitors out there.
Our plan for the monitoring is that we will be putting out
about 1500 across the entire country for the basic Federal
monitoring network. We've sought the funding for the Federal
Government to pay so we don't put that burden on the States,
and our belief is that with 1500 monitors we'll be
concentrating on the major populations centers. From the point
of view of cost-effectiveness, of controls, and of actually
meeting the health goals, it doesn't make sense to be sticking
the monitors in the middle of rural areas, at least to begin
with. We need to be trying to measure what the impacts are on
the population centers first.
Senator Sessions. Well, that's an odd approach, I mean, it
seems the rules should be kept even wider. So those are my
concerns, Mr. Chairman. I do recall in this room some weeks ago
we had the physician from Pennsylvania, emergency room
physician, and he was most articulate, and he documented how a
few million dollars, this kind of money that we are expending
on this, how many lives it would actually save in the emergency
rooms, such as proposals to get people there quicker and better
equipment all over American rural and small towns. He said you
could actually save tremendous numbers of lives. He was very
passionate about that, and he thought that it was unwise for us
to deal with a situation that was very ephemeral and uncertain,
and ignore an area that was certain. So I think that's where we
are coming from.
Ms. Nichols. No, I hear you. I mean, I think it's a very
valid point. I guess the only thing that I would say in
response, and I realize this is sort of back to the Clean Air
Act again, but I think the concept behind the law is that this
is something, that is the air, that every single American
experiences. The costs may be more focused, but the effects are
felt by everybody to some degree or another. So, perhaps, in a
way you could say that it's, you know, the lungs of the people
that are the one's that are really paying the cost of the
existing levels of pollution, and we need to do a better job of
measuring it. There's no question about that. To quantify it,
to try to put a monetary value on things that can be monetized.
But when you get down to it, it is to some degree an issue
about values, about, you know, what the public wants.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think we want improved health for
America, and I have no doubt that the people expect us to spend
their resources in the most efficient way to improve their
health. That's what we're struggling with.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Ms. Nichols, I want to be sure that we
don't leave that figure of $9.7 billion unchallenged in this
meeting, because I have not seen anyone who has done an
analysis of what they would anticipate the cost to the American
people that's anywhere near that low of a figure. The Reasoner
Foundation out in California came out with a range from $90
billion to $150 billion a year. Now that--this is big. It means
an average family in Alabama of four would have to pay about
$1,600 a year. I mean, this is big.
I also have to observe that, it kind of reminds me of
something I heard a long time ago when I first got into
politics. When you talk about tax increases they say, ``Don't
tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax that guy behind the tree.'' That's
exactly what you guys are doing. You're saying well, this isn't
going to affect the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the cities
and communities. This isn't going to affect the farm, the ag
community. This isn't going to affect small business, just
those big, tall smokestacks out there. It just isn't true. You
have to know it isn't true.
Now let me ask you as far as the statement that was made
during the meeting out in California, to the U.S. Conference of
Mayors--``don't worry, you're not going to be affected by
this.'' Do you agree with that?
Ms. Nichols. I'm not sure what statement----
Senator Inhofe. Well, let me ask you the question. Do you
think that these communities are going to be adversely affected
in terms of us saying what they have to do, or telling the
States to tell them what they have do to, and that is an
unfunded mandate? Do you feel it's not an unfunded mandate?
Ms. Nichols. I am convinced that setting air quality
standards is not an unfunded mandate. If the question is, is
there a validity to the statement that controls on power plants
are the strategy we will be pursuing, it seems to me that you
have the best assurance that you can get in the form of the
directive that the President sent to the Administrator, the
implementation strategy that was published in the Federal
Register, and the reality that from a cost-effectiveness
standpoint it is the place that we should go. I think you would
want us to turn to the most cost-effective strategies first, in
order to attain----
Senator Inhofe. Well, politically speaking, it's more
convenient to go after the big, bad guys, and that's what they
always do. We're experiencing that over there with a lot of
issues. But, you know, I'm trying not to use disrespectful
language, but I think the most moderate I can be to
characterize what you guys have been doing to the American
people, I think you have been blatantly dishonest with the
American people. To try to make people believe that they don't
have to have any new inconveniences out there in terms of when
they harvest their crop, when they run their diesel engines,
and all these things and say it's just going to be found in a
few smokestacks. It's just not honest.
Ms. Nichols. Well, Senator. You alluded earlier to the fact
that I was planning to return to California and back to the
private sector again, and so perhaps I could be indulged just
for a moment in reminding people that being from the place in
the country that has the worst air pollution in the Nation, and
that has done the most and achieved the most to achieve those
standards, perhaps I have a certain amount of confidence that
it is possible to make huge progress and at the same time have
a very successful economy as well.
I just have to say to you that I don't know how we could be
more forthright in terms of our commitment to pursuing the most
cost-effective strategies first when it comes to these new
standards. We realize that we are setting an ambitious target.
That's why we have tried to provide the time, and the road map,
if you will, as to how we would hope to get there. We realize
there is time involved and we want to work with you to make
sure----
Senator Inhofe. Ms. Nichols, we are rapidly running out of
time. We only have 7 more minutes, and I--there were some
things I wanted to get to and briefly I'm just going to touch
on this. An Oklahoma company, it was Citgo out there, are you
familiar with the work that they have done in placing the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitors in different locations in Texas,
Oklahoma, and Louisiana in order to see what the results would
be, and they found the following areas in violation of the new
standards: a parking garage, a festival grounds, a tall grass
prairie, outside a house, a beach, and the highest level was
inside a building in the Tulsa Zoo. Does this surprise you?
Ms. Nichols. Yes it does, especially considering that the
standard is an annual average standard, I'd find that somewhat
surprising. I'd be happy to take a look at the report and----
Senator Inhofe. Well, I think it would probably be a good
idea because you know it's not always government that is out
there trying to analyze the effects.
Senator Inhofe. When you're looking at something as huge as
this, it's important that we rely on, not our absence of
knowledge, but knowledge that might be there. It might be
produced by someone besides government. I have such a hard time
accepting the fact that we are giving serious consideration to
setting standards, not implementing them, telling the American
people that this is going to save lives. I've kind of tracked
the early deaths, the premature deaths that this Administration
and that the EPA have cited, starting out with some 40,000 and
edging down. The same as I have watched the costs that you have
said and anticipated would be out there, and yet in the private
sector we find the cost would be so much greater.
I'm disturbed because--yes, I'm from an agricultural State,
we have other industries, too, but I don't have any doubt in my
mind after looking at this that this is going to be a huge
thing. I mean, how can you say that it's not going to affect
small business if their electric rates go up somewhere between
8 and 11 percent? It does have an effect. I was going to pursue
a couple of things that came out in the Agriculture Committee,
but it doesn't look like we're going to have time to do that.
Let me just mention this one thing, though. I have a copy
of a letter that was sent to Congressman Kucinich. I don't know
Congressman Kucinich. I may not be pronouncing his name right.
It was dated May 16, 1997, explaining to him that two
facilities in his district would not be impacted by these
standards. In that letter, and was this from the Administrator
Browner? It's from Ms. Nichols. It's from you. ``These counties
likely would not have met the proposed new ozone or PM
standards had these standards been in place during 1993-95. The
most recent 3-year period for which we have complete data.
However, based on current data, it is likely that nothing other
than continued implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act, plus
the application of a regional control strategy''--I guess you
are talking about OTAG there--``in the Eastern United States
which will focus on power plants, large industry sources, and
new autos will be necessary in order to meet the new ozone
standards.'' And you end by saying, ``It is not likely that
either county''--two counties, this is in Ohio, I believe; is
it Ohio?--``would require additional local controls in order to
meet the new ozone standards.'' So here we are in Ohio, and
they are pointed at as the one who is creating the problem for
other States, and you're saying in these two areas that these
two industries are not going to have to make any changes. They
are not going to be involved in this.
Ms. Nichols. Again, Senator Inhofe, the letter refers to
the OTAG modeling work as the basis for that assessment about
what those counties would be doing, or what would be expected
about their air, and the reason for that is that what the
modeling shows is that the benefit of the NO<INF>X</INF>
controls are greater, the closer to the source that you are.
So, since Ohio does have a number of the large, NO<INF>X</INF>
generating utilities that we're referring to, they will
actually be getting the greatest benefit in terms of being able
to reach the ozone standard in the counties in Ohio, and that
was the point of the letter.
Senator Inhofe. So here's two counties in Ohio that have
both an automobile manufacturing plant and an auto casting
plant, and you say that they're not going to have any
additional controls in those areas?
Ms. Nichols. These are counties, I believe, I am not
certain I am reflecting this, but my recollection is that they
are counties that have been in nonattainment in the past and
have already implemented a number of new source review and
other kinds of requirements that are in place. We're not saying
those controls would go away. What we are saying is that the
benefits of the control strategy for the utilities are such
that we believe that that would alone bring them into
attainment under the new standard as well.
I think the chemistry of this pollutant is perhaps a little
counter-intuitive and one of the things that we've learned over
the many years that we've been controlling ozone is that this
issue about how NO<INF>X</INF> affects air quality over long
distances is one that has become clearer over a period of time.
But it does appear to be quite well agreed to now by all the
scientists----
Senator Inhofe. Ms. Nichols, we're out of time here. I
would only observe that I believe the American people are
smarter, and are not going to buy into the idea that each
individual is going to be exempt. It's just going to be that
guy behind the tree, and I haven't heard anything else that has
come from this meeting that has convinced me otherwise.
We are out of time. I appreciate very much your being here
and I wish you the best of luck in your career as it goes west.
Ms. Nichols. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing on
implementation issues. This is a critical area and requires careful
attention from Congress.
I have been very supportive of setting standards on a health-basis
using the most recent scientific evidence. EPA has weighed a large
amount of data and developed the revised standards to protect public
health.
I have continued to express concern about ensuring that the
standards are implemented in a sensible, equitable and cost-effective
manner, with full consideration of costs, and adequate time for
attaining the standards. The President has committed that these
standards will be implemented in a way that does not cause economic
dislocations, and it is critical that regulatory agencies pay close
attention to the process. The burden must be equitable. Downwind states
must not bear unfair costs because pollution sources in upwind states
have not been controlled adequately.
First, and most importantly, it is critical that EPA implement on
an expedited basis the strategy for controlling emissions of pollutants
from areas upwind of the Northeast. Downwind states are in a grossly
inequitable position. Without prompt and strong followup on this
commitment, EPA's promise of cleaner air in a cost-effective, equitable
and effective manner will not be fulfilled. EPA's attention to the
transport problem must not stop there. Its policies under both the old
and new standard must recognize the transport phenomenon and ensure
that areas are not unfairly penalized for being downwind of communities
with massive air quality problems.
Second, I'm concerned that EPA's plan raises some equity issues
between current and new nonattainment areas. These need to be addressed
promptly. We also need to ensure that EPA has not unduly loosened
requirements in areas that contribute to downwind pollution.
Third, we need to pay close attention to ensure that the timeframe
for implementation is adequate.
Fourth, we need to examine how EPA has applied some of the
requirements of the old standard in the context of the new standard and
whether that approach makes sense.
These are just some of the issues that need to be addressed during
the implementation process. There is considerable dispute about costs
of implementation which ultimately will be determined during the
implementation process. Concern about costs underscores the need for
paying close attention to implementation.
______
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Senator Inhofe, I'd like to start by thanking you for convening
this hearing. And I'd also like to thank Assistant Administrator Mary
Nichols for her testimony today.
Since EPA released its proposal for new ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standards, we have heard from just about everyone interested in this
issue. Scientists, industry, farmers and ranchers, environmentalists,
health professionals and State and local governments. And EPA has also
received over 50,000 comments both pro and con.
Those comments have shown that while clean air is neither easy nor
inexpensive, the importance of protecting public health cannot be shown
on a balance sheet. The fact remains that air pollution has costly
impacts on our workforce, health care system, environment, and our
quality of life.
Exposure to ozone makes breathing difficult for the young and the
old. Furthermore, particulate emissions are causing people to die
prematurely. And, although we don't have all the answers, we need to
take action now to improve the quality of our nation's air.
But despite the great importance of this issue or maybe because of
it we have had difficulty talking calmly and thoughtfully about how to
get the clean air our citizens want in a way that makes sense for our
local economies. For instance, this Spring there was great hysteria
among folks who were told that the EPA was preparing to snuff out their
barbecues. This summer farmers in my State of Montana were told that
the EPA was going to force them to change the way they do their jobs.
But Administrator Browner has assured us on the record that neither of
these things are true.
In addition, the Administrator responded to our concerns about
implementing these new standards. EPA's strategy will give areas more
time to meet the new standards. It creates a program to deal with the
ozone transport problem helping many downwind areas meet the new
standard without having to adopt any new controls. And it sets up a
monitoring system that will help scientists answer some of the
questions about fine particles that have generated so much debate.
EPA predicts that by achieving the new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard,
premature deaths will be reduced by 38 percent each year. That is an
impressive statistic. But no lives will be saved if states can't meet
the new standards. It's time to put the last several months behind us
and get on with the job at hand. Namely, helping EPA and the states
identify the most sensible, cost-effective ways to implement these new
standards.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to Ms. Nichols' testimony and
today's discussion about how we will proceed in implementing these new
standards. I believe that EPA is headed in the right direction. It is
this Committee's responsibility to ensure that happens, and I look
forward to working with the Administration to be sure it does. We must
implement these standards in a way that makes sense for our economy and
provides cleaner air for all Americans.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to discuss implementation plans for the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) revisions to the national ambient air quality
standards for ground-level ozone and particulate matter.
As you know, the Clean Air Act directs EPA to set national
standards for certain air pollutants to protect public health and the
environment. For each of these pollutants, Congress directed EPA to set
what are known as ``primary'' standards to protect public health
without consideration of cost and ``secondary'' standards to protect
public welfare, including the environment, crops, vegetation, and so
forth for which costs may be considered. Under the Act, Congress
directs EPA to review these standards every 5 years to determine
whether the latest scientific research indicates a need to revise them.
Last week, EPA set new standards for ozone and particulate matter
that will be a major step forward in public health and welfare
protection. Each year, these updated standards have the potential to
prevent as many as 15,000 premature deaths; as many as 350,000 cases of
aggravated asthma; and as many as one million cases of significantly
decreased lung function in children.
Numerous other public health and welfare benefits will result from
implementation of the new standards. Additional public health benefits
would include: reduced respiratory illnesses, reduced acute health
effects, reduced cancer from air toxics reductions, and the avoidance
of various other air pollution-related illnesses and health effects.
Public welfare benefits will include: reduced adverse effects on
vegetation, forests, and natural ecosystems, improved visibility, and
protection of sensitive waterways and estuaries from deposition of
airborne nitrogen that can cause algal blooms, fish kills, and loss of
aquatic vegetation. Estimated total monetized health and public welfare
benefits associated with the new standards are enormous, ranging in the
tens of billions of dollars annually. Many additional potentially large
benefit categories, such as reduced chronic respiratory damage, infant
mortality, and other health and welfare benefit categories, cannot be
monetized.
The new ozone and particulate matter standards are based on an
extensive scientific and public review process. Congress directs EPA to
consult with an independent scientific advisory board, the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). In conducting these reviews, EPA
analyzed thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies that had been
published in well-respected scientific journals. These studies were
then synthesized, along with a recommendation on whether the existing
standards were adequately protective, and presented to CASAC. After
3\1/2\ years of work, 11 CASAC meetings totaling more than 125 hours of
public discussion, and based on 250 of the most relevant studies, the
CASAC panel concluded that EPA's air quality standards for ozone and
particulate matter should be revised. CASAC sup-
ported changing the ozone standards from a 1-hour averaging period to
an 8-hour average to reflect increasing concern over prolonged exposure
to ozone, particularly in children. CASAC also supported adding a fine
particle standard. Fine particles are inhaled more deeply into the
lungs.
EPA then proposed updated standards and conducted an extensive
public comment process, receiving approximately 57,000 comments at
public hearings across the country and through written, telephone and
E-mail message communications.
As a result of this extensive process, the final standard for ozone
will be updated from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) of ozone measured
over 1 hour to a standard of 0.08 ppm measured over 8 hours, with the
3-year average of the annual fourth highest concentrations determining
whether an area is out of compliance. The new standard also reduces
``flip-flopping'' in and out of attainment by changing it from an
``expected exceedance'' to a ``concentration-based'' form. For
particulate matter, EPA is adding new standards for particles smaller
than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (known as PM<INF>2.5</INF> or fine
particles). The fine particle standard will have two components: an
annual standard, set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter and a 24-hour
standard, set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter. EPA has also changed
the form of the current 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> standard; this will
provide some additional stability and flexibility to states in meeting
that standard.
We believe it is critical to move forward with these standards now.
The American public deserves to know whether its air is healthy or not.
The standards we have set serve as an essential benchmark for people to
use in understanding whether the air they are breathing is safe. In
addition, the standards will encourage early action to help reduce
adverse health effects as soon as possible. By setting the standards
now, states will be able to proceed with the monitoring and planning
requirements needed for implementing them over the next several years.
For PM<INF>2.5</INF>, areas can begin to develop inventories and
characterize the nature of their PM<INF>2.5</INF> problem. As I will
now discuss, we have developed an implementation strategy through an
extensive interagency consultative process to assure that concerns of
State and local governments and affected industries, such as
transportation and agriculture, are addressed. This strategy will allow
states and local areas the time they need to implement these standards
in a cost-effective and reasonable way.
implementation of the revised air standards
In the interagency process leading up to the issuance of these
standards, EPA worked with other Federal agencies to develop an
implementation strategy for implementing the standards. In a memorandum
signed July 16, 1997, President Clinton set forth several general
principles for implementing the standards, and directed EPA to follow
the interagency implementation strategy. I would like to summarize the
principal features of that strategy for you today.
Achieving the air quality benefits of the updated standards
requires a flexible, common sense, cost-effective means for communities
and businesses to meet the standards. The President's implementation
package has four basic features, all of which can be carried out under
existing legal authority:
1. Implementation of the air quality standards is to be carried out
to maximize common sense, flexibility, and cost effectiveness;
2. Implementation shall ensure that the Nation continues its
progress toward cleaner air by respecting the agreements already made
by States, communities, and businesses to clean up the air, and by
avoiding additional burdens with respect to the beneficial measures
already underway in many areas. Implementation also shall be structured
to reward State and local governments that take early action to provide
clean air to their residents; and to respond to the fact that pollution
travels hundreds of miles and crosses many State lines;
3. Implementation shall ensure that the Environmental Protection
Agency (`Agency') completes its next periodic review of particulate
matter, including review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, within 5 years of issuance of the new standards, as
contemplated by the Clean Air Act. Thus, by July 2002, the Agency will
have determined, based on data available from its review, whether to
revise or maintain the standards. This determination will have been
made before any areas have been designated as `nonattainment' under the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards and before imposition of any new controls
related to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards; and
4. Implementation is to be accomplished with the minimum amount of
paperwork and shall seek to reduce current paperwork requirements
wherever possible.''
strategy for meeting the revised ozone standard
Ozone is a pollutant that travels great distances and it is
increasingly important to address it as a regional problem. For the
past 2 years, EPA has been working with the 37 most eastern states
through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) in the belief that
reducing interstate pollution will help all areas in the OTAG region
attain the NAAQS. A regional approach can reduce compliance costs and
allow areas to avoid most traditional nonattainment planning
requirements. The OTAG was an effort sponsored by the Environmental
Council of States, with the objective of assessing ozone transport and
recommending strategies for mitigating interstate pollution.
The OTAG completed its work in June 1997 and forwarded
recommendations to EPA. Based on these recommendations, in September
1997, EPA will propose a rule requiring states in the OTAG region that
are significantly contributing to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance of attainment, in downwind states to submit State
implementation plans (SIPs) to reduce their interstate pollution. EPA
will issue the final rule by September 1998.
If the states choose to establish a voluntary regional emission cap
and trade system, similar to the current acid rain program, reductions
can be at a lower cost. EPA will encourage and assist the states to
develop and implement a NO<INF>X</INF> cap and trade program. Most
important, based on EPA's review of the latest modeling, a regional
approach, coupled with the implementation of other already existing
State and Federal Clean Air Act requirements, will allow the vast
majority of areas that currently meet the 1-hour standard but would not
otherwise meet the new 8-hour standard to achieve healthful air quality
without additional local controls.
Areas in the OTAG region that would still exceed the new standard
after the regional strategy, including areas that do not meet the
current 1-hour standard, will benefit as well, because the regional
NO<INF>X</INF> program will reduce the extent of additional local
measures needed to achieve the 8-hour standard. In many cases these
regional reductions may be adequate to meet CAA progress requirements
for a number of years, allowing areas to defer additional local
controls.
phase-out of 1-hour ozone standards
EPA's revised ozone standard will replace the current 1-hour
standard with an 8-hour standard. However, the 1-hour standard will
continue to apply to areas not attaining it for an interim period to
ensure an effective transition to the new 8-hour standard.
As you know, the Clean Air Act includes provisions (Subpart 2 of
part D of Title I) that address requirements for different
nonattainment areas that do not meet the 1-hour standard (i.e., those
classified as marginal, moderate, serious, severe and extreme). These
requirements include such items as mandatory control measures, annual
rate of progress requirements for emission reductions and emission
offset requirements. All of these requirements have contributed
significantly to the improvements in air quality since 1990. Although
EPA initially proposed an interpretation of the Clean Air Act that
would have been more flexible in how these provisions applied to
existing ozone nonattainment areas after promulgation of a new ozone
standard, based on comments received, EPA has reconsidered its
interpretation and EPA has concluded that these provisions should
continue to apply as a matter of law for the purpose of achieving
attainment of the 1-hour standard. Once an area attains the 1-hour
standard, those provisions and the 1-hour standard will no longer apply
to that area. An area's implementation of the new 8-hour standard would
then be governed only by the provisions of Subpart 1 of Part D of Title
I.
The purpose of retaining the current standard is to ensure a smooth
legal and practical transition to the new standard. It is important not
to disrupt the controls that are currently in place as well as those
that are underway to meet the current ozone standard. These controls
will continue to be important to reach the new 8-hour standard.
general time line for meeting the ozone standard
Following promulgation of a revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act
provides up to 3 years for State Governors to recommend and EPA to
designate areas according to their most recent air quality. In
addition, states will have up to 3 years from designation to develop
and submit SIPs to provide for attainment of the new standard. Under
this approach, areas would be designated as nonattainment for the 8-
hour standard by 2000 and would submit their nonattainment SIP by 2003.
The Act allows up to 10 years plus two 1-year extensions from the date
of designation for areas to attain the revised NAAQS.
transitional classification
For areas that attain the 1-hour standard but not the new 8-hour
standard, EPA will follow a flexible implementation approach that
encourages cleaner air sooner, responds to the fact that ozone is a
regional as well as local problem, and eliminates unnecessary planning
and regulatory burdens for State and local governments. A primary
element of the plan will be the establishment under Section 172(a)(1)
of the CAA of a special ``transitional'' classification for areas that
participate in a regional strategy and/or that opt to submit early
plans addressing the new 8-hour standard. Because many areas will need
little or no additional new local emission reductions to reach
attainment, beyond those reductions that will be achieved through the
regional control strategy, and will come into attainment earlier than
otherwise required, EPA will exercise its discretion under the law to
eliminate unnecessary local planning requirements for such areas. EPA
will revise its rules for new source review (NSR) and conformity so
that states will be able to comply with only minor revisions to their
existing programs in areas classified as transitional. During this
rulemaking, EPA will also reexamine the NSR requirements applicable to
existing nonattainment areas, in order to deal with issues of fairness
among existing and new nonattainment areas. The transitional
classification would be available for any area attaining the 1-hour
standard but not attaining the 8-hour standard as of the time EPA
promulgates designations for the 8-hour standard. In terms of process,
areas would follow the approaches described below based on their
status.
(1) Areas attaining the 1-hour standard, but not attaining the 8-
hour standard, that would attain the 8-hour standard through the
implementation of the regional NO<INF>X</INF> transport strategy for
the East.
Based on the OTAG analyses, areas in the OTAG region that would
reach attainment through implementation of the regional transport
strategy would not be required to adopt and implement additional local
measures. When EPA designates these areas under section 107(d), it will
place them in the new transitional classification if they would attain
the standard through implementation of the regional transport strategy
and are in a State that by 2000 submits an implementation plan that
includes control measures to achieve the emission reductions required
by EPA's rule for states in the OTAG region. This is 3 years earlier
than an attainment SIP would otherwise be required. We anticipate that
we will be able to determine whether such areas will attain the revised
ozone standard based on the OTAG and other regional modeling and that
no additional local modeling would be required.
(2) Areas attaining the 1-hour standard but not attaining the 8-
hour standard for which a regional transport strategy is not sufficient
for attainment of the 8-hour standard.
To encourage early planning and attainment for the 8-hour standard,
EPA will make the transitional classification available to areas not
attaining the 8-hour standard that will need additional local measures
beyond the regional transport strategy, as well as to areas that are
not affected by the regional transport strategy, provided they meet
certain criteria. To receive the transitional classification, these
areas must submit an attainment SIP prior to the designation and
classification process in 2000. The SIP must demonstrate attainment of
the 8-hour standard and provide for the implementation of the necessary
emissions reductions on the same time schedule as the regional
transport reductions.
(3) Areas not attaining the 1-hour standard and not attaining the
8-hour standard.
The majority of areas not attaining the 1-hour standard have made
substantial progress in evaluating their air quality problems and
developing plans to reduce emissions of ozone-causing pollutants. These
areas would be eligible for the transitional classification provided
that they attain the 1-hour standard by the year 2000 and comply with
EPA's regional transport rule, as applicable.
areas not eligible for the transitional classification
Existing nonattainment areas which cannot attain the 1-hour
standards by 2000 will not be eligible for the transitional
classification. However, their work on planning and control programs to
meet the 1-hour standard by their current attainment date will take
them a long way toward meeting the 8-hour standard. While areas will
need to submit an implementation plan for achieving the 8-hour standard
within 3 years of designation as nonattainment for the new standard,
such a plan can rely in large part on measures needed to attain the 1-
hour standard. For virtually all of these areas, no additional local
control measures beyond those needed to meet the requirements of
Subpart 2 and needed in response to the regional transport strategy
would be required to be implemented prior to their applicable
attainment date for the 1-hour standard. This approach allows them to
make continued progress toward attaining the 8-hour standard throughout
the entire period without requiring new additional local controls for
attaining the 8-hour standard until the 1-hour standard is attained.
implementing the new particulate matter standards
Implementing the new particulate matter standards will require a
different path from the one I just discussed for ozone. As required
under the Act, within the next 5 years EPA will complete the next
periodic review of the particulate matter criteria and standards,
including review by the CASAC. As with all NAAQS reviews, the purpose
is to update the pertinent scientific and technical information and to
determine whether it is appropriate to revise the standards in order to
protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety or to
protect the public welfare. EPA has concluded that the current
scientific knowledge provides a strong basis for the revised
PM<INF>10</INF> and new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards. We, along with the
Departments of Transportation, Health and Human Services, Labor, and
others, will continue to sponsor research to better understand the
causes and mechanisms, as well as the effects of fine particles on
human health, and the species and sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF>. EPA will
also promptly initiate a new review of the scientific criteria on the
effects of airborne particles on human health and the environment. By
July 2002, we will have determined, based on data available from its
review, whether to revise or maintain the standards. This determination
will have been made before any areas have been designated nonattainment
under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards and before imposition of any new
controls related to the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards.
implementation of new pm<INF>2.5</INF> naaqs
The first priority for implementing the new PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard is establishing a comprehensive monitoring network to
determine ambient fine particle concentrations across the country. The
monitoring network will help EPA and the states determine which areas
do not meet the new air quality standards, what the major sources of
PM<INF>2.5</INF> in various regions are, and what action is needed to
clean up the air. EPA and the states will consult with affected
stakeholders on the design of the network and will then establish the
network, which will consist of approximately 1,500 monitors. All
monitors will provide for limited ``speciation,'' or analysis of the
chemical composition, of the particles measured. At least 50 of the
monitors will provide for a more comprehensive speciation of the
particles. EPA will work with states to deploy the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
monitoring network. Based on the ambient monitoring data we have seen
to date, these would generally not include agricultural areas. The EPA
will fund the cost of purchasing the monitors, as well as the cost of
analyzing particles collected at the monitors to determine their
chemical composition.
Because we are establishing standards for a new indicator for
particulate matter (i.e., PM<INF>2.5</INF>), it is critical to develop
the best information possible before attainment and nonattainment
designation decisions are made. Three calendar years of monitoring data
that complies with EPA's monitoring requirements will be used to
determine whether areas meet or do not meet the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standards. Three years of data will be available from the earliest
monitors in the spring of 2001, and 3 years of data will be available
from all monitors in 2004. Following this monitoring schedule and
allowing time for data analysis, Governors and EPA will not be able to
make the first determinations as to which areas should be designated
nonattainment until at least 2002, 5 years from now. The Clean Air Act,
however, requires that EPA make designation determinations (i.e.,
attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable) within 2 to 3 years of
revising a NAAQS. To fulfill this requirement, in 1999 EPA will issue
``unclassifiable'' designations for PM<INF>2.5</INF>. These
designations will not trigger the nonattainment planning or control
requirements of Title I of the Act.
When EPA designates nonattainment areas for PM<INF>2.5</INF>
pursuant to the Governors' recommendations beginning in 2002, areas
will be allowed 3 years to develop and submit to EPA pollution control
plans showing how they will meet the new standards. As for ozone, areas
will have up to 10 years from the date of being redesignated as
nonattainment until they will have to attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standards. In addition, two 1-year extensions are possible.
In developing strategies for attaining the PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standards, it will be important to focus on measures that decrease
emissions that contribute to regional pollution. Available information
indicates that nearly one-third of the areas projected to not meet the
new PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards, primarily in the Eastern United States,
could come into compliance as a result of the regional SO<INF>2</INF>
emission reductions already mandated under the Clean Air Act's acid
rain program, which will be fully implemented between 2000 and 2010.
Similarly, the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, consisting
of western states and tribes, committed to reductions in regional
emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors (sulfates, nitrates, and
organics) to improve visibility across the Colorado Plateau.
As detailed PM<INF>2.5</INF> air quality data and data on the
chemical composition of PM<INF>2.5</INF> in different areas become
available, EPA will work with the states to analyze regional strategies
that could reduce PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels. If further cost-effective
regional reductions help areas meet the new standard, EPA will
encourage states to work together to use a cap and trade approach
similar to that used to curb acid rain. The acid rain program delivered
environmental benefits at a greatly reduced cost.
Given the regional dimensions of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> problem,
local governments and local businesses should not be required to
undertake unnecessary planning and local regulatory measures when the
problem requires action on a regional basis. Therefore, as long as the
states are doing their part to carry out regional reduction programs,
the areas that would attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards based on
full implementation of the acid rain program will not face new local
requirements. Early identification of other regional strategies could
also assist local areas in completing their programs to attain the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards after those areas have been designated
nonattainment.
The EPA will also encourage states to coordinate their
PM<INF>2.5</INF> control strategy development and efforts to protect
regional visibility. Visibility monitoring and data analysis will
support both PM<INF>2.5</INF> implementation and the visibility
program.
implementation of revised pm<INF>10</INF> naaqs
In its rule, EPA is revising the current set of PM<INF>10</INF>
standards. Given that health effects from coarse particles are still of
concern, the overall goal during this transition period is to ensure
that PM<INF>10</INF> control measures remain in place to maintain the
progress that has been achieved toward attainment of the current
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS (and which provides benefits for
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) and protection of public health. To ensure that this
goal is met, the existing PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS will continue to apply
until actions by EPA, and by states and local agencies, are taken to
sustain the progress already made.
cost-effective implementation strategies
Consistent with states' ultimate responsibility to attain the
standards, EPA will encourage the states to design strategies for
attaining the particulate matter and ozone standards that focus on
getting low cost reductions and limiting the cost of control to under
$10,000 per ton for all sources. Market-based strategies can be used to
reduce compliance costs. EPA will encourage the use of concepts such as
a Clean Air Investment Fund, which would allow sources facing control
costs higher than $10,000 a ton for any of these pollutants to pay a
set annual amount per ton to fund cost-effective emissions reductions
from non-traditional and small sources. Compliance strategies like this
will likely lower the costs of attaining the standards through more
efficient allocation, minimize the regulatory burden for small and
large pollution sources, and serve to stimulate technology innovation
as well.
future activities
In accordance with the President's July 16 directive, to ensure
that the final details of the implementation strategy are practical,
incorporate common sense, and provide for appropriate steps toward
cleaning the air, input is needed from many stakeholders including
representatives of State and local governments, industry, environmental
groups, and Federal agencies. EPA will continue seeking advice from a
range of stakeholders and, after evaluating their input, propose the
necessary guidance to make these approaches work. In particular, EPA
will continue working with the Subcommittee on Implementation of Ozone,
Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Rules which EPA established to
help develop innovative, flexible and cost-effective implementation
strategies. Moreover, EPA will continue to work with a number of
Federal agencies to ensure that those agencies comply with these new
standards in cost-effective, common sense ways. EPA plans to issue all
guidance and rules necessary for this implementation strategy by the
end of 1998.
EPA will continue to work with the Small Business Administration
(SBA) because small businesses are particularly concerned about the
potential impact resulting from future control measures to meet the
revised PM and ozone standards. EPA, in partnership with SBA, will work
with the states to include in their SIPs flexible regulatory
alternatives which minimize the economic impact and paperwork burden on
small businesses to the greatest possible degree consistent with public
health protection.
conclusions
In summary, EPA believes that the new ozone and particulate matter
standards will provide important new health protection and will improve
the lives of Ameri-
cans in coming years. Our implementation strategy will ensure that
these new standards are implemented in a common sense, cost-effective
and flexible manner. We intend to work closely with State and local
governments, other Federal agencies and all other interested parties to
accomplish this goal.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my written statement. I will be happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.486
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.487
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.488
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.489
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.490
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.491
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.492
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.493
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.494
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.495
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.496
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.497
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.498
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.499
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.500
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.501
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.502
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.503
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.504
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.505
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.506
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.507
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.508
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.509
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.510
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.511
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.512
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.513
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6586.514
<all>