[Senate Hearing 109-1049]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1049
EPA'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PARTICULATE MATTER AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 13, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 13, 2006
OPENING STATEMENTS
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 10
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 7
DeMint, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina.. 14
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 5
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 15
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 13
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut, prepared statement................................ 53
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 1
WITNESSES
Alford, Harry C., president and CEO, National Black Chamber of
Commerce....................................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Response to an additional question from Senator Voinovich.... 70
Christopher, William F., executive vice president and group
president, Aerospace, Automotive and Commercial Transportation,
Aloca.......................................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Response to an additional question from Senator Voinovich.... 74
Gould, Larry J., chair, Lenawee County Board of Commissioners,
Lenawee County, MI............................................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 63
Heiskell, BeBe, commissioner, Walker County, GA.................. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 66
Paul, John A., supervisor, Regional Air Pollution Control Agency,
Dayton, OH..................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Schneider, Conrad, advocacy director, Clean Air Task Force....... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 119
Wehrum, William, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air
and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency............ 17
Prepared statement........................................... 54
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Article, To the Point, Talking Points for Manufacturers, July
2006........................................................... 130
Chart, Stronger Standards Mean Fewer Deaths in 9 Cities Studied.. 129
Letters from concerned public and business officials;
associations from both sides of the aisle including Governors,
State representatives, county commissioners, mayors; and many
others that are concerned about the proposed new rule.........146-243
Memorandum, Congressional Research Service, December 30, 2005...131-145
Report, Clean Air Task Force, December 13, 2004.................125-128
EPA'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PARTICULATE MATTER AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change,
and Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in
room 628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George Voinovich
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Inhofe, Bond, DeMint, Isakson,
Carper, and Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. The committee will come to order. Good
morning, and thank all of you for coming.
Today's hearing is the first in Congress on the
Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Revisions to the
Particulate Matter Air Quality Standards. We are focusing on
what EPA proposed, what it means for the Nation. Next
Wednesday, I have asked Chairman Inhofe to hold a second
hearing at the full committee level instead of this
subcommittee on the science and risk assessment behind the
Agency's proposed revisions.
This is a very important issue with broad ranging impacts.
It is at the core of what I focused in this committee, the
Senate and throughout my career. It gets back to harmonizing
our energy, environment and economic needs. I think that our
refusal to look at cost benefit analysis, peer review,
alternative ways of getting things done, has cost this country
dearly. We just can't keep going the way we are. It is not
sustainable.
Before discussing EPA's proposal, it is very important that
we put this hearing into context. First, our air is getting
significantly cleaner. This chart is there, it is very clear.
That is that in spite of the fact that we have had a 187
percent increase in gross domestic product, 171 percent
increase in the miles traveled, energy consumption has been up
47 percent, population up 47 percent, we have had a 54 percent
reduction in emissions from the six principal pollutants. Many
Americans are not aware of that.
Second, our Nation's high energy prices are having a
devastating impact across the United States. We have the
highest natural gas prices in the world, impacting families who
depend on it to heat their homes and businesses, and use it to
make their products. I have to tell everybody and this room and
this committee, every time I go home, people are screaming
about their gas costs. They know they are down now, but this
winter--we were lucky, we had a light winter. These are a lot
of poor people who can't afford it. Even the local restaurants
are complaining, people aren't coming in. Between the high
natural gas costs and gasoline prices, it is having a
devastating impact on just the ordinary citizen in this
country.
We have lost more than 3.1 million jobs. In my State, we
have lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs, partially due to high
natural gas costs. Third, EPA has designated 495 counties
across the Nation, 38 of them in my State, as in nonattainment
of the existing particulate matter and ozone air quality
standards. States are working now to develop implementation
plans to comply with these standards. As a former Governor who
brought Ohio's counties into attainment, I know firsthand that
this is an extremely complicated and resource-intensive task.
This subcommittee has examined the great challenge associated
with implementing these standards with hearings that I held in
April 2004 and November 2005.
But here we go again. EPA has proposed to move the
goalposts on State and local communities in the middle of this
process by changing the particulate matter standards. I am
going to focus not on coarse, but fine particulate matter,
where EPA proposed to reduce the daily standard from 65
micrograms per cubic meter to 35 and retain the annual
standards at 15.
Under EPA's current standards, there are 208 nonattainment
counties. There they are right there. If EPA lowers their
annual standard to 14, let's show chart 3, it shows 631
counties that could be in nonattainment under such revision. I
would like to admit that the information we got from that was
prepared by the American Petroleum Institute. So I want
everybody to understand that. But Mr. Wehrum, I would love to
see your chart. Your chart differs from this. But I can
guarantee you that there are a whole lot more counties with 14
than there are currently today in nonattainment.
EPA claims the Federal clean air rules, such as the Clean
Air Interstate Rule and the new diesel fuel engine regulations
will bring most of the counties into attainment without local
effort. This is exactly what EPA told us with the current
standards. But we have seen that it ignores reality. I was
told, even by the guy that runs CEQ, Jim Connaughton, don't
worry.
Now, my EPA director, Joe Koncelik, says we have to worry.
By 2010, we are in deep trouble in our State, because we are
not going to be able to meet even the current standards that
have been set. Additionally, nonattainment designation
threatens highway funding and it is going to push us into more
use of natural gas and increase our electric rates.
Further, the Federal clean air rules will play only a small
role in the designation of nonattainment areas and in helping
communities meet the standards. Again, I have been told that
these new regulations, the CAIR rules and everything else are
going to help out. But the attainment is going to come out
before those rules even really take effect. Then when you
determine the attainment deadline at the end of 2015, that is
when the other set of these are supposed to take effect. In
effect, what EPA is saying about all these things are going to
mitigate the problem, don't worry, I don't agree with it. It
doesn't make sense.
This is frustrating, but the truth is that we do not know
what impact revising the standards is going to have on this
country. Neither does the EPA. The Agency has released a draft
regulatory impact that only looks at five cities. I will insert
into the record comments from several industries that because
of the uncertainty project the cost of EPA's proposal to be as
low as $20 billion and as much as $60 billion, $20 billion and
as much as $60 billion. It would be the most expensive Federal
regulation in the history of the Office of Management and
Budget.
EPA says that we should ignore this analysis, because they
will release a completely different one when the final decision
is made. I am astounded that EPA is working on this major rule
behind closed doors and we will not know what impact it will
have until the final decision is released.
I will conclude with three points. I understand the law
requires EPA to review the air quality standards every 5 years,
and that a court settlement requires a final decision by
September of this year. However, the law and the consent decree
do not require EPA to change the standard. In fact, I would
like to insert into the record a report from the Congressional
Research Service on several questions that Chairman Inhofe and
I have asked. According to CRS, EPA has conducted multiple
reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards since
their establishment in 1971. The primary health-based standards
have been strengthened twice, retained six times and relaxed or
revoked on three occasions.
[The referenced document referred to may be found on page
131.]
Next I want people to understand that the Clean Air Act
gives the EPA Administrator the discretion to set the standard.
Let me quote from the CRS report again: ``The Administrator is
given clear discretion: the requirements are conditioned by the
phrase in the judgment of the Administrator.'' Last, this rule
will have a major impact on this Nation and the people that are
concerned.
After all the members give their opening statements, I am
going to insert letters and statements from Governors, mayors
and other elected officials and various groups expressing
concern about revising the particulate matter standards at this
time. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
The hearing will come to order. Good morning and thank you for
coming.
Today's hearing is the first in Congress on the Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed revisions to the particulate matter air
quality standards. We are focusing on what EPA proposed and what it
means for the Nation. Next Wednesday, I have asked Chairman Inhofe to
hold a second hearing at the full committee level instead of in this
subcommittee on the science and risk assessment behind the Agency's
proposed revisions.
This is a very important issue with broad ranging impacts. It is at
the core of what I have focused on in this committee, the Senate, and
throughout my career we must harmonize our energy, environment, and
economic needs.
Before discussing EPA's proposal, it is very important that we put
this hearing into context. First, our air is getting significantly
cleaner. [CHART 1] Since 1970 while our Gross Domestic Product, vehicle
miles traveled, energy consumption, and population have increased
substantially emissions of the main pollutants of concern have been
reduced by 54 percent.
Second, our Nation's high energy prices are having a devastating
impact across the United States. We have the highest natural gas prices
in the world impacting families who depend on it to heat their homes
and businesses that use it to make their products. The United States
has lost more than 3.1 million and my State of Ohio has lost nearly
200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, due in large part to high
natural gas prices.
Third, EPA has designated 495 counties across the Nation 38 in Ohio
as in nonattainment for the existing particulate matter and ozone air
quality standards. States are working now to develop implementation
plans to comply with these standards. As a former Governor who brought
Ohio's counties into attainment, I know firsthand that this is an
extremely complicated and resource intensive task. This subcommittee
has examined the great challenge associated with implementing these
standards with hearings that I held in April 2004 and November 2005.
But, here we go again! EPA has proposed to move the goalposts on
State and local communities in the middle of this process by changing
the particulate matter standards. I am going to focus not on coarse,
but fine particulate matter where EPA proposed to reduce the daily
standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 and to retain the
annual standard at 15.
[CHART 2] Under EPA's current standard, there are a total of 208
nonattainment counties. EPA's proposed revision could increase the
number of nonattainment counties to 530. Some groups are advocating for
a more stringent standard, and EPA is considering lowering the annual
standard to 14. [CHART 3] This map shows the 631 counties that could be
in nonattainment under such a revision.
EPA claims that Federal clean air rules such as the Clean Air
Interstate Rule and new diesel fuel and engine regulations will bring
most of the counties into attainment without local effort. This is
exactly what EPA told us with the current standards, but we have seen
that this simply ignores reality.
While Federal rules will help areas, I am concerned that EPA is
trivializing the impact of being designated nonattainment in the first
place. Let me quote from Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce President
Michael Fisher at our 2004 hearing: ``Simply stated, conducting
business in an area designated as nonattainment is more complicated,
more time-consuming, and more costly.''
Additionally, a nonattainment designation threatens highway funding
and jobs because businesses will not expand or locate in such an area.
It can also lead to higher energy costs because coal fired powerplants
are a source of particulate matter. These emissions can be reduced by
installing control equipment or switching to natural gas ultimately
leading to higher electricity and natural gas prices.
Furthermore, Federal clean air rules will play only a small role in
the designation of nonattainment areas and in helping communities meet
the standards. [CHART 4] As you can see, EPA is planning on designating
areas before 2010 when the first phase of reductions will be achieved
under these rules. The Agency has also announced that the attainment
deadlines will be before 2015 when the second phase of reductions will
take place.
This is very frustrating, but the truth is that we do not know what
impact revising the standards will have on the country and neither does
EPA. The Agency has released a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
that only looks at five cities. I will insert into the record comments
from several industries that because of the uncertainty project the
cost of EPA's proposal to be as low as $20 billion and as much as $60
billion per year incremental cost which would be the most expensive
Federal regulation in the history of the Office of Management and
Budget.
EPA says that we should ignore this analysis because they will
release a completely different one with the final decision. I am
astounded that EPA is working on this major rule behind closed doors,
and we will not know what the impact will be until the final decision
is released.
I will conclude with three points. I understand that the law
requires EPA to review the air quality standards every 5 years and that
a court settlement requires a final decision by September of this year.
However, the law and this court do not require EPA to change the
standard.
In fact, I would like to insert into the record a report from the
Congressional Research Service on several questions that Chairman
Inhofe and I asked. According to CRS: ``EPA has conducted multiple
reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards since their
establishment in 1971. The primary (health-based) standards have been
strengthened twice, retained 6 times, and relaxed or revoked on 3
occasions.''
Next, I want people to understand that the Clean Air Act gives the
EPA Administrator the discretion to set the standard. Let me quote from
the CRS report again: ``the Administrator is given clear discretion:
the requirements are conditioned by the phrase in the judgment of the
Administrator.''
Lastly, this rule will have a major impact on this Nation and
people are concerned. After all of the members give their opening
statements, I am going to insert letters and statements from Governors,
mayors, other elected officials, and various groups expressing concern
about revising the particulate matter standards at this time.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this important
issue that truly impacts our energy, environment, and economic needs.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I think Senator Inhofe had asked to go
ahead, out of order, and that is fine with me.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Senator Carper, I do appreciate that very
much. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of this
committee, that this is very, very significant, what we are
doing here today. Unfortunately, because of the Hamdan
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on detainees and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, I have to attend that
hearing. However, we will have a chance to get into more
detail, as you pointed out, on Wednesday.
Let me also say that I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the
passion that you have on these issues. I know it goes without
saying that you are probably one of the most qualified people
on air issues that we have had. Even when you were Governor of
Ohio, you came, when I held the Chair of the subcommittee that
you chair now, and testified. So I know we are leaving this in
good hands.
Mr. Wehrum, I would make the point that I do not believe
the science justifies ratcheting down the regulations, as I
have told you in my office, given the estimated risk today is
less than what was estimated in 1997 under Carol Browner when
the current standard was set. I am also troubled that EPA has
been selective in what studies it has chosen to give weight to
this review, thus skewing the results by downplaying studies
which show the current standards are sufficiently strict. I
think you are selectively going after studies that give you the
conclusion that you want.
We are going to examine the science issues at the hearing
this coming Wednesday. Today we are focused on better
understanding the process by which the EPA makes these
determinations. The history of the past decisions and the
impacts caused by possible tightening standards, I believe the
economic impacts will be very severe as the Chairman pointed
out in his State of Ohio.
I am troubled that EPA has not provided to the public or
this oversight committee a comprehensive regulatory impact
analysis. While a NAAQS review is based on health
considerations by statute, Congress wrote the law and is
responsible not only for overseeing its execution, but for
evaluating whether the way it is crafted is appropriate in
light of its unintended consequences.
Moreover, any assessments of health benefits can only be
made with an understanding of the economic consequences because
there is a clear link between economic vitality and human
health. In short, wealth is health. Poorer communities often
suffer from inadequate infrastructure and that in turn will be
exacerbated if these areas are designated nonattainment
unnecessarily.
As we have heard in the past, when electricity prices rise,
the poor and the elderly in the inner cities, such as Chicago,
turn off their air conditioning and scores die each summer
because they can't afford their air conditioning. As local
officials know all too well, the additional burdens placed on
new manufacturing facilities discourage them from locating in
these regions.
As a former mayor, I know that air regulations and the
increased control burdens that accompany them for many areas
can be an important factor in the decisions by companies as to
where they will be locating their facilities. In fact, we were
both mayors at the same time, and I can assure you that we
actually lost industries at this time. So this goes far beyond
just the considerations that we seem to be talking about today.
Many counties, due to the implementation of current regulations
such as Diesel Rule, Clean Air, Interstate Rule and others will
come into compliance with current health standards.
Yet these areas will be designated nonattainment with the
new standards and thus forced to impose additional controls and
to remain unattractive for new business investments. By moving
the goalposts, we upset the ability of these communities to
pursue their compliance strategies and keep them in an endless
loop that depresses their economies.
I know some of my colleagues don't think we should be
holding this hearing today. But it would be irresponsible for
this committee if we did not conduct thoughtful oversight of
not only the science and health issues, as we will less than a
week from today, but also the potential economic impacts from
these regulations. We have to look at both sides, and I applaud
Chairman Voinovich for holding the hearings today.
I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can look at some
things, I find it disturbing the EPA would assume that certain
States will violate the law. If California were to comply, what
would they have to do? In California, many of their counties
have been out of compliance with the current standards, and
many more with the new standards if they are tightened. But
nothing seems to happen. It does in Oklahoma, and it does in
Ohio, but not in California. I think we are not getting equal
application of these rules.
So I have a lot of questions that I will be submitting for
the record. Unfortunately, I do have to attend that Armed
Services hearing. So I applaud the fact that you are holding
this hearing, and Senator Carper, I thank you for yielding to
me so that I can get over to another hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont
Mr. Wehrum, thank you for coming to testify to the committee to
provide us with your views on the current national ambient air quality
standards review of particulate matter and your proposal to tighten the
current daily standard. I would make the point that I do not believe
the science justifies ratcheting down the regulations at this time,
given that the estimated risk today is less than what was estimated in
1997 under Carol Browner when the current standard was set.
I am also troubled that EPA has been selective in what studies it
has chosen to give weight to in this review, thus skewing the results
by downplaying studies which show the current standard is sufficiently
strict to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety.
But we will examine the science issues in detail during the hearing
next Wednesday. Today, we are focused on better understanding the
process by which EPA makes these determinations, the history of past
decisions, and impacts caused by possible tightened standards. I
believe the economic impacts will be severe.
I am troubled that EPA has not provided to the public or this
oversight committee a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis. While a
NAAQS [pronounced naax] review is based on health considerations by
statute, Congress wrote the law and is responsible not only for
overseeing its execution, but for evaluating whether the way it is
crafted is appropriate in light of its unintended consequences.
Moreover, any assessments of health benefits can only be made with
an understanding of the economic consequences because there is a clear
link between economic vitality and human health. In short, wealth is
health. Poorer communities often suffer from inadequate infrastructure
and that in turn will be exacerbated if these areas are designated
nonattainment unnecessarily. As we have heard in the past, when
electricity prices rise, the poor and elderly in inner cities such as
Chicago, turn off their air condition and scores die each summer
because they can't afford their A/C. As local officials know all too
well, additional burdens placed on new manufacturing facilities
discourage them from locating in these regions.
It is my belief that we should be judicious in selecting what
standards we impose on our cities and States, taking into account what
would be required to fully attain these standards by the deadline set
by the Clean Air Act, and then enforce these standards to ensure public
health. It makes no sense to set unnecessarily and unrealistically
stringent requirements, but then to excuse areas which will not comply
because it is expensive while others that take their commitment
seriously suffer job losses and slower growth. I am thinking in
particular of California, which has consistently failed to meet
previous standards and has continued to receive exemptions.
As a former mayor, I know that air regulations and the increased
control burdens that accompany them for many areas can be an important
factor in decisions by companies as to where to locate their
facilities.
Many counties, through the implementation of current regulations
such as the diesel rule, clean air interstate rule, and others, will
come into compliance with current health standards. Yet these areas
will be designated nonattainment with the new standards, and thus
forced to impose additional controls and to remain unattractive for new
business investments. By moving the goalposts, we upset the ability of
these communities to pursue their compliance strategies and keep them
in an endless loop that depresses their economies.
I know some of my colleagues don't think we should be holding
today's hearing, but it would be irresponsible if this committee did
not conduct thoughtful oversight of not only the science-health issues,
as we will less than a week from today, but also the potential economic
impacts from these regulations. We have to look at both sides and I
applaud Chairman Voinovich for holding today's hearing.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Wehrum. It is good to see you. Thanks for
coming back to join us, and to you and the other witnesses that
are here today to testify, thank you for your time and for your
testimony.
No one disputes that we have made significant environmental
progress since the Clean Air Act was first passed into law. But
I would submit that our work is not over. Despite this
progress, many areas of our country, including Delaware, have
significant air quality problems. In Delaware, the entire State
exceeds EPA's health standards for ozone. Northern Newcastle
County, which is where I live, doesn't meet EPA standards for
fine particulate matter.
I know a lot of people want to discuss the cost associated
with attaining these standards, and we should. We want to
discuss whether or not meeting them would negatively impact our
economy. I would suggest that we stop and think about another
notion, and that is that the cost of protecting the public
health is far less than the cost of breathing dirty air. When I
was privileged to be Governor, and serve with this guy right
here, we wrestled in my little State with what we could do in
our State to try to reach attainment. We looked at the costs
and how it would impact our industries in my State.
What I discovered and what has become even more painfully
obvious today is that the costs of breathing dirty air are a
far heavier burden on our economy than the cost of air
pollution controls. According to a recent survey, during each
of the summer months, when air pollution is at its worst,
almost one in every five adult Delawareans are unable to work
or carry out certain daily activities for one or more days.
There are 46,000 in Delaware who suffer from asthma. Roughly
half of them are children. They have difficulty breathing when
they go outside to play because of their asthma. Three thousand
children in my State under the age of four are hospitalized in
Delaware each year.
That is just one small State on the east coast. The dirty
air that millions of Americans are being forced to breathe is
costing us dearly. It impacts our health, it impacts our
productivity, it impacts our quality of life.
The National Association of Manufacturers released a
publication this month entitled, ``Health Care Cost Crisis.''
The publication states, ``The rising cost of health coverage is
one of the biggest challenges manufacturers face today.'' I am
going to leave here for a few minutes and slip out and walk
into our Aging Committee. The CEO of General Motors, Rick
Wagner, who tells me that the cost of health care for their
company, for their employees, their pensioners, the families of
their employees and their pensioners, actually costs more than
not just the cost of the steel that goes into their cars, it
costs more than all the capital investments they make around
the world.
But in terms of solutions, the first quick fix that the
National Association of Manufacturers offers is the following.
Again I am going to quote. ``Intensively managing chronic
health care conditions, for example, diabetes, hypertension and
asthma, can generate substantial cost savings and increase
productivity.'' That is their quote. Let me say that again.
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, one of
the best ways for companies to save money, including General
Motors, and increase productivity, is to address conditions
like asthma.
What causes conditions such as asthma? According to the
latest science, particulate matter is associated with premature
death, aggravation of heart and respiratory disease, asthma
attacks, lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. If we want to help
manufacturers, and we do, we need to address these chronic
health care problems. We need to do it now.
Unfortunately, once EPA finally decides on a new standard,
areas will not need to comply with them for at least another
decade. Some will be unable to get extensions until 2020. We
need to begin addressing our air pollution problems today.
This is why I recently introduced, with a number of our
colleagues, including Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator
Chafee, our proposal that we call the Clean Air Planning Act.
Our proposal will cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 82 percent by
2015. Sulfur dioxide, as we know, is one of the major forms of
particulate matter that causes all of these chronic health
problems.
Our legislation will reduce this pollution from 11 million
tons emitted today from utilities to 4.5 million tons in 2010.
In 2015, the powerplants will have to reduce emissions to just
2 million tons. According to an EPA presentation last fall, our
proposal would cut the number of areas currently in
nonattainment for particulate matter by over 70 percent by
2010.
Our bill will also greatly reduce ozone pollution. It will
cut nitrogen oxide from 5 million tons today to 1.7 million
tons in 2015. Today there are 126 areas in our Nation that
exceed EPA's health standards for ozone. With these reductions,
10 years from now, that number will be 11.
Unfortunately, we are not here to talk about what we can
and should do today. Instead, we are talking about whether or
not we should be doing something 10 years from now. I want to
commend EPA for realizing that more needs to be done to
adequately protect public health. I would implore you to
carefully consider whether the changes you have proposed
achieve that goal in a timely manner.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper, U.S. Senator from the
State of Delaware
No one disputes that we've made significant environmental progress
since the Clean Air Act was first passed into law. But our work isn't
over.
Despite this progress, many areas of the country including
Delaware--have significant air quality problems. In Delaware, the
entire State exceeds EPA's health standards for ozone, and New Castle
County doesn't meet EPA's standard for fine particulate matter.
I know a lot of people want to discuss the costs associated with
attaining these standards, and that meeting them would negatively
impact our economy. But the cost of protecting the public health is
far, far less than the costs of breathing dirty air.
While I was Governor, we wrestled with what we could do in our
State to try to reach attainment. We looked at the costs and how it
would impact our industries in the State. What I discovered, and what
has become even more painfully obvious today, is that the costs of
breathing dirty air are a far heavier burden on our economy than the
costs of air pollution controls.
According to a recent survey, during each of the summer months when
air pollution is at its worst, about 23 percent of adult Delawareans
are unable to work or carry out daily activities for one or more days.
46,000 adults in Delaware suffer from asthma. 23,400 of our
children have difficulty breathing when they go outside to play because
of asthma, and 3,000 children under the age of 4 are hospitalized by
asthma each year.
That's just in my small, home State. The dirty air millions of
Americans are being forced to breathe is costing us dearly. It impacts
our health, our productivity and our quality of life.
The National Association of Manufacturers released a publication
this month entitled, Health Care Costs Crisis. The publication states
``the rising cost of health coverage is one of the biggest challenges
manufacturers face today.''
In terms of solutions, the first ``quick fix'' the NAM offers is
the following: ``Intensively managing chronic health care conditions
(e.g. diabetes, hypertension, asthma) can generate substantial cost
savings and increase productivity.''
Let me say that again, according to the National Association of
Manufacturers one of the best ways to save companies money and increase
productivity is to address conditions like asthma.
And what causes conditions such as asthma? According to the latest
science particulate matter is associated with premature death,
aggravation of heart and respiratory disease, asthma attacks, lung
cancer, and chronic bronchitis.
If we want to help manufacturers we need to address these chronic
health care problems, and we need to do it now.
Unfortunately, once EPA finally decides on a new standard, areas
will not need to comply with them for at least another decade and some
will be able to get extensions until 2020.
We need to begin addressing our air pollution problems today. That
is why I recently reintroduced the Clean Air Planning Act. My proposal
will cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 82 percent by 2015. Sulfur dioxide
is one of the major forms of particulate matter which causes all of
these chronic health problems.
It will reduce this pollution from 11 million tons emitted today to
4.5 million tons in 2010. In 2015, powerplants will have to reduce
their emissions to 2 million tons.
According to EPA, my proposal would cut the number of areas
currently in nonattainment for particulate matter by over 70 percent by
2010.
My bill will also greatly reduce ozone pollution. It will cut
nitrogen oxide from 5 million tons today to 1.7 million tons in 2015.
Today there are 126 areas in the Nation that exceed EPA's health
standards for ozone. With these reductions 10 years from now that
number will be 11.
Unfortunately, we are not here to talk about what we can and should
do today. Instead we are talking about whether or not we should be
doing something 10 years from now.
I commend EPA for realizing that more needs to be done to
adequately protect public health. I would implore you to carefully
consider whether the changes you have proposed achieves that goal.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your holding this hearing today on the proposed
revisions to the particulate matter air quality standards. As
the Chairman has pointed out, our air is dramatically cleaner
than it was 35 years ago. There is 50 percent less air
pollution of the six major air pollutants together, including
smog, soot and acid rain.
These pollution reductions come over the same time as the
Chairman has pointed out that population increased by 42
percent, energy consumption by 48 percent, vehicle miles
traveled by 178 percent and the economy grew by almost 200
percent. The President's legislation to cut smog, soot and
mercury pollution from powerplants by a further 70 percent was
blocked by this committee. If we are serious about it, we ought
to be adopting the Clear Skies proposal.
But EPA is moving forward with regulations to cut
powerplant air pollution by those amounts in the eastern part
of the country. EPA has also implemented massive new pollution
reductions requiring cleaner motor fuels and engines. Even now,
States and regions are busy putting together plans to meet
EPA's last round of pollution reduction requirements, which
makes you wonder why EPA is back again with proposals for
further reductions, when the current ones haven't even had a
chance to be implemented. We have already been taking stringent
measures to clean the air up even more.
As one who suffers from asthma, I can tell you that it is
not the air that is the problem that I had, it is the food.
There are food-borne allergies that are my problem. It is not
the air. So when you blame all of asthma on air, I don't think
that you are covering the universe.
But for me, the important problem is that States are in a
terrible crack. They strongly support, as I do, efforts to
improve air quality and protect public health. My home State of
Missouri and several other States, as you noted, Mr. Chairman,
are terribly afraid of the pain that additional tightening of
the standards will cause.
You will be introducing, I gather, a letter from Governors
from my State and your State of Ohio in which they say that
nonattainment designation will carry serious consequences that
impact economic growth, jobs, mobility, energy prices, consumer
choices and quality of life. They say, with this in mind, we
urge you to proceed with extreme caution, extreme caution, as
you consider whether to change the particulate matter standard.
The final decision should be based on sound science and should
appropriately balance scientific uncertainty with the joint
benefit of people's health and livelihood.
These Governors are responsible for the environmental
health and the economic health and well-being of their people.
They say don't go so fast. We are making the environmental
changes, but we need to take a look at the economic burdens
that these are putting on these counties and the people who
live in them and depend upon good jobs to get the healthy diets
they need to deal with the many health problems that come from
inadequate economic opportunities for them.
The proposals and suggestions to go farther than we are
right now will carry serious negative consequences for families
and workers, harming jobs, mobility, energy prices, consumer
choices and the quality of life. If these new standards are
more strict, they will be asked to write new plans to impose
this pain before they are even finished with implementation of
their latest plans. They also won't have a chance for their
plans to account for the benefits coming from EPA's recent
pollution reduction requirements. Doesn't it make sense to find
out how far these new changes go, how much better the air gets?
The Governors recognize the serious disconnect between
Washington and the real world. Shortly, we will get to see the
head of the EPA's air program throw up his hands and say, it is
not his fault, statute is making you do it. I understand that.
Supporters of EPA's proposal correctly point out that a statute
written 35 years ago and last amended 15 years ago requires
this calamity. They point out and the Supreme Court agrees that
the precise words of the statute require a review of the
current standards, and that the pain and harm focused upon
families and workers may not be considered.
The number of breadwinners losing their jobs may not be
tallied. The number of struggling folks without transportation
solutions to good paying jobs may not be tabulated. It is
ironic to hear these arguments. They are happy to find a friend
in Justice Scalia and his plain meaning of the statute
approach. But how quickly they forget when nowhere in the Clean
Air Act can they find the words ``carbon dioxide.'' Or how
quickly they walk away from the plain meaning of statutes when
we consider, say, navigable waters of the United States, to
limit wetlands jurisdiction. Oh, no. Those words don't mean
what they say, we will hear in a few weeks.
No complaints, either, when the Superfund law, intended to
regulate and clean up industrial waste, is newly applied to
farmers and livestock operations, a use never intended by
Congress. Luckily, as we will see next week, there is plenty of
health analysis to conclude, as EPA did, that the current
annual soot standards of 15 micrograms per cubic meter is more
than enough, more than enough to provide an adequate margin of
safety requisite to protect human health.
I would urge EPA to heed the advice of the States and
proceed with extreme caution as you consider whether to change
the particulate matter standard. In the interim, I am glad, Mr.
Chairman, we are exercising our appropriate oversight function.
We have a duty to inform ourselves of what is at stake, who
will bear the burden, how heavy that burden will be, who will
be harmed and who will lose. As we will see from the witnesses
today, many will be unfairly captured and many will be
unnecessarily harmed by this proposal, or suggestions to go
even further.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:]
Statement of Hon. Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senator from the
State of Missouri
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today on EPA's
proposed revisions to the particulate matter air quality standards.
The air is dramatically cleaner than it was 35 years ago. There is
50 percent less air pollution of the six major air pollutants together
including smog, soot and acid rain.
These pollution reductions come over the same time the population
increased by 42 percent, energy consumption rose by 48 percent, vehicle
miles traveled rose by 178 percent and the economy grew by almost 200
percent.
While the President's legislation to cut smog, soot and mercury
pollution from powerplants by a further 70 percent was blocked by this
committee, EPA is moving forward with regulations to cut powerplant air
pollution by those amounts in the eastern part of the country.
EPA has also implemented massive new pollution reductions requiring
cleaner motor vehicle fuels and engines.
Even now States and regions are busy putting together plans to meet
EPA's last round of pollution reduction requirements.
Which makes you wonder why EPA is back again with proposals for
further reductions when the current ones haven't even had a chance to
be implemented.
States are certainly scratching their head. They strongly support,
as do I, efforts to improve air quality and protect public health. But
my home State of Missouri, and several other States as you noted Mr.
Chairman, are terribly afraid of the pain this will inflict on them.
This proposal and suggestions to go further will carry serious
negative consequences for their families and workers harming jobs,
mobility, energy prices, consumer choices and the quality of life.
States will be asked to write new plans to impose this pain before
they are even finished with their latest new plans. They also won't
have a chance for their plans to account for the benefits coming from
EPA's recent pollution reduction requirements.
So they recognize the serious disconnect between Washington and the
real world.
Shortly, we will get to see the head of EPA's Air program throw up
his arms and say it isn't his fault. The statute is making him do it.
Supporters of EPA's proposal correctly point out that a statute
written 35 years ago and last amended 15 years ago requires this
calamity.
They point out, and the Supreme Court agrees, that the precise
words of the statute require a review of the current standards and that
the pain and harm forced upon families and workers may not be
considered. The number of breadwinners losing their jobs may not be
tallied. The number of struggling folks without transportation
solutions to good paying jobs may not be tabulated.
It is ironic to hear their arguments. They are happy to find a
friend in Justice Scalia and his plain meaning of the statute approach,
but how quickly they forget when nowhere in the Clean Air Act can they
find the words ``carbon dioxide.''
Or how quickly they walk away from the plain meaning of statutes
when we consider say ``navigable waters of the United States'' to limit
wetlands jurisdiction. ``Oh no, those words don't mean what they say''
we will hear in a few weeks.
No complaints either when the Superfund law, intended to regulate
and clean up industrial toxic waste, is newly applied to farms and
livestock operations--a use never intended by Congress.
Luckily, as we will see next week, there is plenty of health
analysis to conclude, as EPA did, that the current annual soot standard
of 15 micrograms per cubic meter is more than enough to provide an
adequate margin of safety requisite to protect the public health.
I urge EPA to head the advice of the States and ``proceed with
extreme caution as you consider whether to change the particulate
matter standard.''
In the interim, I am glad we are exercising our appropriate
oversight function. We have a duty to inform ourselves of what's at
stake, who will bear the burden, who will be harmed and who will lose.
As we will see from the witnesses today, many will be unfairly captured
and many will unnecessarily be harmed by this proposal or suggestions
to go even further.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Bond.
Senator Lautenberg, thank you for being here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am kind of pleased to be here and see us considering this
subject. Because we have contrasting views, obviously, here.
Members of the committee know that I feel rather strongly about
protecting air quality. I hear the appropriate concern of my
colleagues, for whom I have respect, even though I have
differences, about the loss of jobs and the burden placed on
industry to meet lower standards for, drop the bar for
particulate standards.
Before I came to the Senate, my career included founding a
business that now employees 44,000 employees in 26 countries,
still headquartered in New Jersey. The company is called ADP,
it is considered as one of the best companies in the country,
with its financial condition. I say that not to brag, though I
am happy about it. The fact is that I have some significant
experience in job creation and understanding business. I don't
concede anything when it comes to understanding the business
side of the equation.
One of my children has asthma, and he is one of 6 million
kids who are living with this disease. It is painful to see him
stricken with an attack, reaching for the next breath. I
consider it my responsibility to help him, to help Alexander
and other children across this country to breathe easier. I
think that is part of my responsibility here. The quality of
our air affects the lives of those 6 million children every
single day.
We heard confirmation of this from Senator Bond, about what
the limitations that asthma brings, though he ascribes a
different source than particulates as the responsibility for
his asthma. But during the summer time, when most children are
enjoying their vacation, playing outside, children with asthma
often have to stay indoors. The reason that they have to stay
indoors is that the air is just too dangerous for them to
breathe. As a matter of fact, when I listen to the debate, I
come up with that maybe we ought to send out a slogan that
says, ``Look, kids, you have to understand this, here is what
you should do. Breathe harder, cough more, die younger but stay
indoors.''
I don't think that is a good message. Ask the families who
are related to those children who are stricken with asthma. Ask
them what is the cost worth to keep their child alive or
functioning as other children do. I am not suggesting there are
hard hearts on the other side. I am saying that in the
evaluation that we are making here that we have to decide
whether or not the costs that will be increased perhaps by
trying to conform to lower standards for particulates will be
more than offset by the savings that we have in the future
because of their reduced cost of health care.
According to a study from the Harvard School of Public
Health, as many as 4 percent of premature deaths in the United
States can be attributed to air pollution, the number that we
get is over 40,000. That is an EPA number. Particulate matter
is the deadliest kind of air pollution. The American Lung
Association says that even low levels of particulate matter can
lead to premature death.
Some of the deadliest particulate matter is also the
smallest, almost invisible, as tiny as a 30th in width of a
human hair. The study cited by the Lung Association revealed
that the risk of mortality increases by 17 percent in areas
with high concentration of these small particles, places like
Los Angeles, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and my home State of New
Jersey. High levels of particulate matter cannot only kill,
they can cause all the discomfort that asthma and respiratory
disease inflicts.
There are more than 2,000 peer reviewed studies linking
particulate particle pollution to illness, hospitalization and
premature death. So if anybody doubts the need to protect our
families from particulate matter in the air, they simply aren't
paying attention. Now, I am concerned that EPA's proposed
revised standards for particulates may simply not be sufficient
to protect the public. The Clean Air Act is one of our most
important and successful environment and public health needs. I
strongly oppose any effort to weaken or undermine the Act and
the health protection that it provides for hundreds of millions
of Americans.
When we banned smoking in airplanes, that created a public
revolution against tobacco. I was assailed by people in the
restaurant business and other business where people gathered in
groups and saying, well, you know what is going to happen to
our business, what is going to happen? There is no shortage of
restaurants, there is no shortage of public gathering places.
Life is better without the smoke that was created that we all
ingest.
So it can be here also. I hope that we will adhere to the
response from the Court as diligently as we can and reduce this
cancer that pervades our society. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator DeMint.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Wehrum, for being here.
I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I really want to relate to
our comments, particularly. South Carolina is another State
like Ohio that has had a difficult economic transition. We are
trying to replace the textile industry, rebuild our economy. We
have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs as well.
I would like to remind you, all of us, that quality of life
is certainly related to people having jobs. When breadwinners
lose their jobs, as my colleague has reminded me today, the
ability to sustain your health and a good diet, a lot of things
affect health, in addition to the air quality. We need to make
sure that what we do here promotes a good quality of life. All
of us support cleaner and cleaner air, everything we can do.
But if I can share what is happening in South Carolina, I
think as you know, sir, that part of our State is designated
unclassifiable because the data is not yet there to say one way
or another. We are working very hard as a State and as a number
of communities to do everything we can to clean up our air. We
know some of it is coming from outside the area that we can't
control. Some of it is naturally occurring. Some of it comes
from Federal highways that come through our area, which we have
little control of.
But we are trying to do those things we can control. We
would ask that the EPA focus its resources on helping us clean
up our air, helping us find those sources of pollution and
helping us organize to do everything we can to provide cleaner
air. The mere act of continuing to create stricter and stricter
standards does not necessarily improve our air quality. What it
does is reduce our quality of life. It has already diminished
our job building capability because this unclassifiable
standard has run off new business prospects.
So I appeal to you before you look at reducing or
continuing to make the standards stricter, moving the goalpost,
create a culture in your Agency to do what all of us want to
do, and that is have cleaner air and a healthier environment
for people to live in. But lowering the standards again is not
going to do that if we have not taken the basic steps of
finding out where the pollution is, what we can do to clean it
up, and to put together those plans to make that happen.
We all want the same thing. But I don't think you are
serving the public interest or the public health by just
creating a standard that is going to be harder to attain when
we haven't figured out how to do everything we can to attain
the one we already have.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Isakson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Chairman Voinovich, I appreciate very much
your leadership in calling this hearing and Assistant
Administrator Wehrum, thank you for being here today and thank
you for the times you have come to my office.
I want to thank Senator Lautenberg for his analogy, because
it enables me to make a point that I was struggling with a good
example to make. I commend him and I share with him the pride
that I have on the restrictions on smoking that we have done
that have improved the health of millions and millions of
Americans. We need to understand, those restrictions attack the
generator of the smoke, the person that smokes the cigarette.
We didn't punish the victim of second-hand smoke.
We have a county commissioner from Georgia that is here
today, Bebe Heiskell, of Walker County, GA. Walker County is in
nonattainment in principal because of particulate matter and
ozone that flows to her county from other points of origin. So
we are punishing the victim of second-hand pollution, not the
originator of that pollution, which is why when we measure
these standards, we need to be careful about the impact and how
they may arbitrarily actually punish people who have no control
over the circumstances that they are in.
EPA has chosen to move the goalposts on States and
communities that are diligently working toward implementation
plans for current clean air standards. EPA has clear discretion
not to change the standard and can set it at any level. EPA has
instead chosen, in the face of evidence that shows the risk
with particulate matter has decreased since 1997, to propose a
24-hour fine particulate standard that would add 530 counties,
67 of which are in my State of Georgia, to the nonattainment
list.
A nonattainment designation puts a stigma on the
communities that is almost impossible to come out from under.
The designation has resulted in current businesses closing up
shop, new businesses avoiding the area, and the impact on the
tax base has negative repercussions on the schools, the
emergency services and the community.
I look forward to your being here today and to your
testimony. I appreciate, as I said in my earlier remarks, your
attention to Walker County and the attempts we have tried to
make to bring about some reason in that judgment. I am
particularly glad that Commissioner Heiskell is here today.
This is an example of a county who, proactively under her
leadership, entered into an early action compact to do
everything they could do to remediate the circumstances they
are the victim of, yet still were put in the nonattainment
category, even though they voluntarily were making efforts to
control something, some of which was not within their control.
Mr. Chairman, I again commend you on calling this hearing
today and I look forward to hearing from the Assistant
Administrator and from all those who have come from around the
country to testify.
[The prepared statement of Senator Isakson follows:]
Statement of Hon. Johnny Isakson, U.S. Senator from the State of
Georgia
Thank you Chairman Voinovich. I want to commend you and your staff
for calling this oversight hearing, and for your leadership this issue.
I am pleased that we are having this hearing today to provide
Congressional oversight of the EPA as they work towards a proposal that
will cause significant economic damage to my State.
EPA has unilaterally chosen to ``move the goalposts'' on States and
communities that are diligently working towards implementation plans
for current clean air standards. EPA has clear discretion to not change
the standard and can set it at any level. EPA has instead chosen, in
the face of evidence that shows the risk with particulate matter has
decreased since 1997, to propose a 24-hour fine particle standard that
would add 530 counties nationwide, and 67 counties in my State, to the
nonattainment list. A nonattainment designation puts a stigma on these
counties and communities that is almost impossible to come out from
under. This designation has resulted in current businesses closing up
shop and new businesses avoiding the area. The impact on the tax base
has negative repercussions on the schools, emergency services, and
community.
I look forward to hearing from Administrator Wehrum as to whether
he and his Agency, when making these decisions that effect so many
peoples lives, consider the ``hidden costs'' that I have mentioned
above. I also look forward to his explanation of EPA's decision making
on this process, and how they arrived at this decision.
I would also like to welcome Chairwoman Bebe Heiskell before the
committee. Bebe is testifying on our second panel, and is the Sole
Commissioner of Walker County, GA. Walker is one of only a handful of
remaining counties in America that have only one Commissioner. Bebe has
set precedence by being elected the first female Sole Commissioner in
the State of Georgia and the first Republican County Commissioner of
Walker County. She will give us first-hand evidence of the negative
effects a nonattainment designation has on a rural county.
I have stated this in previous hearings but it bears repeating
again: 60 percent of my State of Georgia's population lives in a
nonattainment area. That is over 5 million people. Twenty-eight of one
hundred fifty-nine of our counties, including Walker and Catoosa
Counties in the mountains, through Metro Atlanta, and down to Muscogee
County and the Metro Columbus area, are in nonattainment for
particulate matter. Twenty-two of one hundred fifty-nine counties over
the same geographic area are in nonattainment for ozone. This hearing
is very timely, as air quality is an issue that Georgians in my State
deal with every day.
And while it is not the topic of the hearing today, in my view a
fix for these problems would have been passage of the Clear Skies bill.
I am hopeful that we, as a committee, can come together and bring to
the floor that legislation which in my opinion is better than current
law.
In the meantime, I will stop here so that we can get to our
witnesses. I look forward to hearing from the panels, thank Chairman
Voinovich for his leadership to date, and yield back the balance of my
time.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Wehrum, we are very happy to have you here today. I
would like to for the record mention that I think it is very
unacceptable that there is a hold on your nomination and that
you haven't been confirmed yet. Because I think you are highly
qualified and we may have differences of opinion, but I think
you are a very qualified individual who really cares about the
job that he is doing. I apologize for the fact that you haven't
been confirmed yet. Hopefully those holds will be taken off and
you can be confirmed.
Before you testify, I am going to introduce into the record
letters of testimony from 100 concerned public and business
officials and associations from both sides of the aisle,
including the Governors of Indiana, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia,
Wyoming, Mississippi, Ohio and South Carolina; State
representatives; county commissioners and mayors from Ohio and
across the United States; Ohio Manufacturers Association;
American Road and Transportation Builders Association; and many
others that are very concerned about the proposed new rule.
[The referenced information follows on page 146-243.]
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Wehrum, you are familiar with this
committee. If you would limit your testimony to 5 minutes, and
of course, your entire testimony is part of the record.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WEHRUM, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Wehrum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. Thank you, members of the committee.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the proposed
revision to EPA's National Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter. The President has challenged our
Administrator to accelerate the pace of environmental
protection while maintaining our Nation's economic
competitiveness. This proposed rule is a key part of our
efforts to satisfy this mandate.
EPA sets national standards, which we call NAAQS, for
particles and five other pollutants commonly found across the
country. Together, the NAAQS serve as the foundation for the
majority of our air quality programs, programs that have helped
make America's air cleaner over the past 35 years, even as our
population and economy have grown.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review the standards
every 5 years and revise them as necessary. We are nearing the
end of our latest review of the NAAQS for particulate matter.
Under a consent decree, we must issue a final decision on the
PM standards by September 27 of this year. EPA has proposed
standards for two categories of particles. The first, what we
call fine particles, or PM2.5, includes particles
that are 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller. As Senator
Lautenberg pointed out, these are particles so small you
typically can't even see them in visible air. Scientific
studies have linked exposure to fine particles to a wide array
of significant health effects, ranging from asthma attacks to
premature death.
The second category, called inhalable coarse particles,
includes particles larger than 2.5 microns and up to 10 microns
in size. These particles have been associated with increased
hospital admissions for respiratory symptoms and heart disease,
among other effects.
Our proposal would revise the 24-hour standard for fine
particles to 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air, a
significant strengthening over the current level of 65. EPA
Administrator Johnson based this proposal on the large amount
of research since our last review that linked short-term fine
particle exposure to significant health effects.
As proposed, the annual standard would remain at its
current level of 15 micrograms. New studies increase our
confidence in the link between long-term exposure to fine
particles and health effects. While we believe these studies do
not support a standard higher than 15, we provisionally
concluded that these same studies do not provide a clear basis
for making the standard tighter.
The proposal for addressing inhalable coarse particles is
more complex, in order to best reflect the available science on
coarse particles and health. For these particles, we have
proposed a 24-hour standard which would be set at 70
micrograms. This standard would apply where the coarse particle
mix is dominated by particles from high density traffic on
paved roads, industry and construction.
The proposed PM standards represent the Administrator's
best judgment at the time of proposal of the standards
requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety, which is his obligation and our obligation under the
law. The Administrator based that judgment on careful
consideration of available science, key studies and
recommendations of scientific advisors and staff. However, he
recognizes that opinions differ on the appropriate levels, so
our proposal requested comment on a range of alternatives.
Issuing a standard is just the first step toward improving
air quality across our Nation. The second step, meeting the
standards, is primarily the responsibility of States and local
governments with assistance and guidance from EPA. We
understand that a number of States are concerned about facing a
new round of nonattainment designations, and Senator Isakson
and Senator DeMint, you emphasized those concerns in your
testimony. We are already working to ensure a smooth transition
to any revised standards, so State pollution control efforts
remain as effective and cost effective as possible.
Shortly after we proposed the revised standards last
December, EPA began making plans for implementing potential
revisions. As a first step, we issued a notice that sought
comment on a number of issues related to transition. The notice
also alerted States of the probable planning and compliance
time line. Meeting the revised PM standards will require a
combination of national, regional and local emissions controls.
EPA already has issued a number of regulations that will help
reduce fine particle pollution, including national rules
reducing emissions from gasoline and diesel engines and a
regional rule controlling emissions from electricity
generation.
The President's Clear Skies proposal would make these
regional reductions apply nationwide. These existing rules will
help States make significant progress toward meeting the
current PM standards. Those States needing additional
reductions are assessing the nature of the nonattainment
problems and are evaluating a range of local emission reduction
strategies.
The steps States take now to meet the standards now in
place also would help to meet any revised standards we issue in
September. EPA is committed to working closely with the States
as they work to meet current standards and any future
standards, so we can continue America's progress toward clean,
healthy air.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Wehrum.
Mr. Wehrum, in my request, and I appreciate you have been
working with the State of Ohio and others to see what can be
done to bring Cleveland, OH, into attainment with ozone
standards by the required date of 2010, I understand this is a
very complicated and resource-intensive process. What then
would be the impact on States and localities if you moved the
goalpost on them in the middle of the process? In other words,
people are right now putting their State implementation plans
and trying to figure out, how do we get this done. You come out
with a new rule. How are they going to handle that?
Mr. Wehrum. Mr. Chairman, that is a very important
question, one that we are focused closely on, and I know one
that you and folks in your State and other States are focused
on. As you know, when we proposed the revision to the PM
standards, at the same time we issued what we call an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking to talk about implementation
issues. Our goal, if we choose to change the standards, is to
do it in the most thoughtful way we possibly can. We realize
there is an enormous challenge in place right now for many
areas to meet the standards that we have in place. If we make
the standards more stringent, it makes the challenge that much
harder.
We are well aware of that, and we are going to work very
hard to adopt the smartest, cleanest, most thoughtful
implementation approach we can that dovetails the work that
people are doing now to meet the current standards with what
may additionally be needed to meet new standards if we choose
to set them.
Senator Voinovich. We have discussed at length, EPA
carefully established the Clean Air Interstate Rule to reduce
powerplant emissions without causing undue economic and energy
costs. We worked very, very hard with that rule, and of course,
basically it captures, for the most part, what we were going to
do with Clear Skies.
If you designate more numerous areas in nonattainment under
this new standard, is your intention to amend CAIR or create
some kind of a new regime?
Mr. Wehrum. Mr. Chairman, if the Administrator chooses to
revise the standards and make them more stringent, that will
create an obligation on the States and ultimately EPA, if the
States don't step up, to do an analysis of whether upwind
sources, well, first of all, whether sources within their
jurisdiction are significantly contributing to nonattainment in
downwind States. Downwind States have an opportunity to do the
same assessment and seek relief from EPA.
So the short answer is, the law requires the question to be
asked, and ultimately, whether any change to the regional
control strategies we have in place right now would be
warranted or appropriate will depend on the facts and
circumstances that are available at the time.
Senator Voinovich. Am I correct in assuming that you cannot
consider cost benefit?
Mr. Wehrum. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. We are going to be having another
hearing and I will be submitting a question to you. I am really
interested to know, following up on Senator Lautenberg's
statement, No. 1, with the new particulate matter that we
already have set, what impact is that having in terms of public
health; and No. 2, if a new rule came into effect, what would
be the incremental benefit of that rule in terms of public
health, in terms of some of the things that we have all talked
about. I think it is something that we should know, and
certainly we should be concerned about.
The other issue that we might as well get into, if we are
going to talk about asthma, I would really like to have some
authoritative statement about the issue of asthma. Because we
have seen an increase in asthma, and I would like to know what
it is that you folks think has caused the increase in asthma. I
remember testifying way back when I was Governor about the
whole issue of asthma and what caused it. There were some real
differences of opinion about whether it was the ambient air or
whether it was the physical condition that existed in homes.
There were some that argued that mites and other things
within the premises where people live had a lot more impact on
their asthma situation than the air situation. There were
others that argued that it would be cheaper to buy everyone an
air conditioner than it would be to put in new things that
would clean up the air in terms of really making an impact. I
think Senator Isakson made a real good point when he talked
about the cigarettes, you dealt with the person that was
causing it, you didn't penalize the rest of the folks.
So these considerations are really important to us. I
wouldn't want anyone to think that I am not sensitive to the
health care needs and to the costs that are involved. But I do
believe that we have to use common sense, and we also have to
understand that some of these folks aren't going to be able to
even reach the current standard.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start again by thanking you for your testimony and
for your staying with us to respond to some questions. I just
want to confirm with you if I could that it is the conclusion
of the Environmental Protection Agency that the fine
particulate matter standards need to be strengthened to better
protect public health. Is that correct?
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, as you know, we have proposed changes
to the current suite of particulate matter standards. We have
not yet gotten to the point where final decisions have been
made and the final action has been signed and published. So we
are in the deliberating process still. Our proposal reflected a
tentative assessment based on a review of the science and other
relevant factors that were available to us at the time of
proposal.
We of course have had a lengthy public comment period and
opportunity for public hearings, and right now we are in the
process of reviewing the information that we received in the
public comments.
Senator Carper. OK, that is fine. Thanks very much.
Mr. Wehrum. Sure.
Senator Carper. I want to better understand this Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, who they are. Talk to us for a
very short while, tell us about this committee. Who are these
folks? What have they done in terms of their deliberations to
allow them to make their recommendations?
Mr. Wehrum. Sure, Senator. The Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee, what we call CASAC, is a scientific advisory group
that is required to be created under the Clean Air Act. Its
specific purpose is to advise the Administrator on the science
associated with the criteria pollutants and to make
recommendations with regard to the science and on the policy
associated with applying that science.
Senator Carper. Is it a big group? Is it a little group?
Are they scientists? Who are these folks?
Mr. Wehrum. The law requires, it actually specifies the
number of folks that have to be on CASAC, and it specifies the
type of folks that have to be on CASAC.
Senator Carper. Share with us just a little bit of that,
real quickly.
Mr. Wehrum. There has to be someone representing States,
there has to be someone with toxicological experience and
epidemiological experience, and a medical doctor. So the idea
behind the statute and the way in which we use CASAC is to
convene a body of experts with diverse experience in air
quality issues, a group of experts who can look at the science
and understand the science and the policy implications and give
us advice.
Senator Carper. The recommendations that they have made for
revising the standards, the 24-hour standard and the annual
standard, give us some idea, is this something that they
decided to do quickly? Did they do a fair amount of
deliberation?
Mr. Wehrum. CASAC is involved through many aspects of our
rule development process. When we set standards, when we think
about changing standards, it is a much more involved process
than the typical rulemaking we might do for other reasons under
the Clean Air Act, like setting emissions standards. It starts
with a detailed assessment of the science and development of
what is called a criteria document that is intended to be a
summation of all the relevant science. That work is actually
done by our Office of Research and Development, not my own.
CASAC is involved in the reviewing of the draft criteria
document, provides comments and their own assessment of whether
the right science has been identified and whether the science
is being interpreted in an appropriate way. Once the criteria
document has been developed, then that is translated into a set
of policy recommendations, typically through what is called a
staff paper, which is prepared by folks in my office. CASAC is
involved in reviewing drafts of the staff paper and giving
their recommendations as to whether the science and other
related information is being applied properly.
Senator Carper. Thanks. Again briefly, who appoints the
folks to CASAC?
Mr. Wehrum. I am sorry, Senator?
Senator Carper. Who appoints the members to CASAC?
Mr. Wehrum. The Administrator.
Senator Carper. OK. Now, I understand according to the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommendations
concerning the proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for particulate matter, it was again recommended that EPA
revise the annual particulate matter standard from, I think it
is 15 micrograms per cubic meter down to a range of anywhere
from 13 to 14. However, EPA chose not to take the advice of the
committee that you have just graciously described for us.
Can you explain the rationale behind ignoring the
committee's advice on this point? I know you have made some
changes with respect to the 24-hour standard. But can you just
explain the rationale behind ignoring the advice of the
commission, those charged with making these recommendations,
based on what appears to be their extensive knowledge of the
science?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Senator. It is important to point out that
the law does not require the Administrator to take the advice
of CASAC. In fact, the law anticipates the Administrator may
choose to do something different than what CASAC recommends,
and puts an obligation on the Administrator to explain if he
takes final action that is different than what CASAC
recommends, to provide an explanation as to why that is the
case.
The body of science available on particulate matter is
enormous. That is a great virtue at this point in time. When
the standards were set back in 1997, there was a relative
dearth of information, and that made it particularly
challenging to decide whether to set a standard and where to
set the standards. A tremendous amount of research has been
done from 1997 to the current day, which is a great benefit to
us. But it in and of itself presents a challenge, because it
requires very knowledgeable people to look at the science and
think about it in a very complex way and draw conclusions as to
what they think that science suggests in terms of keeping the
standard or changing the standard.
We highly appreciate the input of CASAC. They are a very
important part of our process. We have great respect for the
people in CASAC and the advice that they give us.
But in this case, we disagreed with their recommendation as
it relates to the annual fine particle standard, and that is
for the reason simply that I stated in my testimony, which is
we believe that the science does not suggest that a loosening
of the standard is appropriate, but we also believe that the
science does not provide a clear indication that the current
annual standard for fine particles needs to be adjusted
downwards.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks. If I could, Mr.
Chairman, just a quick concluding statement. Mr. Wehrum, in
your testimony, you assert that somehow the passage of Clear
Skies would improve upon current Clean Air rules. However,
according to the analysis the EPA conducted last year that you
were good enough to present to us, that doesn't necessarily
seem to be the case. The analysis that you showed us shows that
current law will reduce the number of areas in nonattainment
for particulate matter from I think 39 to 21 by 2010.
Clear Skies' proposal, on the other hand, would reduce the
number of areas in 2010 from 39 to 20. While I agree we need to
pass legislation and establish a national program, we also need
to pass legislation to actually address the Nation's clean air
problems. According to what I believe to be your Agency's own
analysis, I would just respectively observe that Clear Skies
just doesn't get that job done.
But again, thank you for being here this morning. Thank you
for letting me run a minute or two long.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator DeMint.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Wehrum,
thank you again for being here and your testimony.
Just a couple of questions. Is it true that the air in this
country is cleaner now than it was a decade or two ago?
Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Senator, that is true.
Senator DeMint. But it is also true the incidence of asthma
has increased as the air has gotten cleaner.
Mr. Wehrum. That is my understanding, Senator.
Senator DeMint. So it is very difficult, I guess, then
statistically to suggest that the air quality is the cause of
asthma.
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, you as well as Chairman Voinovich have
raised a very complex question. Asthma is obviously a very
important issue. According to the information available to me,
the incidence of asthma appears to be increasing while air
quality undoubtedly has been increasing over the same period of
time.
What we do know is that there are a variety of triggers
that at least cause people to have asthma episodes and not all
of them are related to air quality. They can be related to
other factors, as Chairman Voinovich pointed out.
Senator DeMint. Clearly, it would be difficult to make the
case for tighter, stricter standards because of the rise in the
incidence of asthma, I would say.
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, the science of particulate matter does
show that there is an association between exposure to
particulate matter and an increase in a variety of respiratory
ailments, including asthma episodes. So my point is, asthma is
a very complex issue. I would be more than happy to provide a
detailed response on the record. But at the end of the day,
there is an association, Senator.
Senator DeMint. Let me ask another question related to
science. I think you have indicated in your testimony that
there is no scientific data that EPA has that would suggest you
raise or lower the standards?
Mr. Wehrum. It was the Administrator's judgment at the time
of proposal that at least for the annual fine particle standard
that the available science did not create a clear rationale for
adjusting the standard, or making the standard more stringent
than the current level of 15 micrograms.
Senator DeMint. What could be the rationale to create a
stricter standard at this time?
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, as I explained a second ago,
reasonable minds can and do differ when they look at the
science that we have available and what that science would
suggest as to where the standard should be set. So we got any
number of public comments, including from public health groups,
environmental groups and the others who assessed the science
and suggested to the Administrator that it would be more
appropriate to conclude that the science would support and in
their view mandate an adjustment to a lower level than we
currently have.
So the sum of my answer is, there are people who are aware
of the science and are fairly knowledgeable in the field, and
they have made the recommendation to us through public comments
that the standard should be adjusted downward.
Senator DeMint. Adjusted downward. Just quickly, if you
could speak on, what is the role of the EPA, the strategy of
the EPA to actually identify those companies that are
generating pollution and what is the role of the EPA to
actually help the communities clean up? I know you can set a
standard. But is it the mission of the EPA to actually help
clean the air?
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I think we help in a couple of ways,
probably more than a couple. On the one hand, there are certain
areas where we regulate that State and local jurisdictions
don't. We set vehicle standards for cars and trucks and other
types of mobile sources. They are nationally applicable and
result in substantial reductions in the emissions, the kind of
pollution we are talking about right now, and help areas to
attain the standards, if they are not currently attaining.
The regional powerplant control strategy we have been
talking about, CAIR, is another good example of that, where we
adopted a regulation in a circumstance where it wasn't within
the authority of State and local jurisdictions to do that. So
the standards we set help, and they help a lot in some areas.
But almost inevitably, when an area has bad air quality, it is
a combination of stuff outside the control, sometimes stuff
blowing into the area from upwind, and maybe cars and trucks
which local jurisdictions tend not to regulate, a combination
of those sorts of things, which we try to deal with.
Then there are local sources, local industry and other
types of emitters. In that case, the law puts primary
responsibility on the State and local jurisdiction to identify
those sources and devise the control strategies that are
necessary to get the reductions that are needed. Even in that
circumstance, though, we try very hard to provide assistance.
We know a lot about emissions, we know a lot about where they
come from, how they can reasonably be controlled, and we try to
make that information readily available and provide assistance
to State and local jurisdictions.
Senator DeMint. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator DeMint.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for giving
us a chance to air this problem.
Mr. Wehrum, did EPA consider costs when it selected the
health standards for particulates that it proposed?
Mr. Wehrum. No, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. You said different people disagree with
whether or not it is essential that the standard for
particulate matter be reduced. How do you feel about it? What
is your view?
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, my honest answer is, we are in a
deliberative part of our process right now. What we have said
from the start is we felt like we owed the public and other
interested folks an answer as to what our tentative view was at
the time of the proposal.
Senator Lautenberg. So you are saying there isn't enough
evidence to this point that you see that says, hey, we ought to
get on with reducing this, we could do some good for the health
of the people who live in our country? You are not satisfied
that we are at that point now?
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I guess what I am trying to say is, at
the time of the proposal, we provided the clearest indication
we could as to what our tentative judgment would be, given the
information we had available at the time of the proposal. But
we asked for comment on several alternative outcomes, more
stringent levels.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Wehrum.
In January of this year, the Federal Register, there is an
EPA report and it says, taking the above consideration into
account, the Administrator proposed to set the level of primary
24-hour PM2.5 standard at 35 micrograms per cubic
meter. In the Administrator's judgment, based on the current
available evidence, a standard set at this level would protect
public health with an adequate margin of safety from serious
health defects, including premature mortality and hospital
admissions for cardiorespiratory causes that are causally
associated with short-term exposure to PM2.5. This
is a judgment by the Administrator.
EPA issues a report that says, stronger standards mean
fewer deaths in nine cities studied. Source, U.S. EPA
particulate matter health risks, assessment for selected urban
areas, Appendix A. PM data, this is June 2005. They say that,
with the current standards, the number of deaths from
PM2.5 in nine U.S. cities, 4,700. I am rounding the
number.
But CASAC, the committee of concerned scientists, most
protective recommendation would reduce that 4,729 down to
2,476. This is an EPA report. EPA's most protective option and
American Lung Association recommendations go further, that
could mean 86 percent fewer deaths. Down to 644 from 4,729.
This EPA, I guess they are a little funny over there.
Is that a conclusion that you support? The Agency supports
it?
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I believe you are quoting information
from a risk assessment that was prepared by the Agency as part
of the full suite of information that was developed to support
the proposal that was made at the end of last year. The purpose
of the risk assessment is to attempt to identify what sort of
public health benefit could be achieved by adjusting the
standard to various levels.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, they said it could be
substantially reduced. Do you agree that these numbers are what
they are? I mean, it is printed here.
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, the risk assessment has to be viewed
in conjunction with the other available information. Most
importantly, the evidence of health effect at various levels,
which is primarily provided by epidemiological studies and
supported----
Senator Lautenberg. The Agency may be satisfied or may
conclude that this information is reliable, but you, I
understand you are not certain of it. I appreciate your view.
To my colleagues, I don't understand one thing. When it was
said that the victim is being punished, the victim being a
particular county in the State of Georgia, as I understood it,
and why are they being punished if those who emit those
particulate matters, whether it comes from trucks or
powerplants or otherwise, those are the ones that we are asking
to reduce the amount of material that is sent out there. Why
does that punish--you don't have to answer this, Senator, it is
just an observation of mine--but why does that punish the
victim?
Finally, I think that there are times in life, in the life
of a country like ours when conditions change and we become
more aware of the things that we are doing, smoking, for
instance. Smoking kills over 400,000 people a year prematurely.
When people realized the danger, it took to people hiding in
corners because they were ashamed of their smoking habits. It
took that kind of exposure to bring about change.
I wrote that law in 1986. It still has not, until now,
reduced the number of smokers, young people that startup. So it
takes a while.
But even as we expand our economy, expand the numbers in
our society, expand the number of miles driven, I say that we
have to do it in a better way. When we talk about job loss, I
would like to see what the job loss to India has done to reduce
jobs in America or other cheap places for labor, and the kinds
of environmental standards they impose on those people who work
in those shops throughout the world.
That is to my very good friend, and one I have great
respect for, the Chairman of this subcommittee, he is a fellow
who knows a lot of information, studies his subjects very
carefully. But those situations help reduce the number of jobs
in America, certainly reduce the wages. So we have all kinds of
things that we are working on. But the one that we control the
most is what we can do with EPA. I think we ought to get on
with it, conscious of the cost, conscious of the job loss that
might be there, and try to help replace those jobs and replace
those facilities in some way.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator.
Do you want to take the stand?
Senator Isakson. When great leaders like Senator Lautenberg
initiated smoking reduction laws, they reduced the places where
smokers could smoke, and they created better environments for
those who didn't smoke by restricting it. They didn't penalize
the people who were the victim of second-hand smoke.
Now, in specific answer to your question, and I just used
your analogy because I thought it was a good one, Commissioner
Heiskell here in Walker County, GA, is south of Chattanooga, a
city in another State, is near an interstate highway and is in
a part of the south that is under the Bermuda High that in the
summer causes the Smoky Mountains to be the Smoky Mountains,
because it traps particulate matter and other pollutants that
end up being generated lots of other places.
So my example was this. Commissioner Heiskell, under her
leadership, she is the sole county commissioner, voluntarily
went into an early action compact with the EPA and has
generated studies which we have submitted showing points of
origin of pollution that have nothing to do with Walker County,
GA, and in some cases nothing to do with the State of Georgia.
So my question was, and the Administrator here has just
said, I believe, that in the end, this is in the judgment of
the Administrator, CRS has said that is in the judgment of the
Administrator, they have taken all of this data to determine
this is the standard they are going to recommend. It is an
inflexibly rigid process that in the case of the real example I
just stated, penalizes the victim of second-hand pollution,
maybe not second-hand smoke. So that was the reason for the
analogy.
Reclaiming the rest of my time, I will use that as a
preface to a question. I guess I will go back to something you
just said about cost. Again, Senator Lautenberg set me up for
this, so I will do it the best I can. He asked you if you
considered cost in making the determination and you said no. I
would like to ask your opinion. In your opinion, since cost
wasn't considered, but in your opinion, if these standards go
into effect, will the cost of energy in the United States of
America increase?
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, if we have done that analysis, I am
not aware of that analysis.
Senator Isakson. I know you haven't, because you said you
haven't. But I was just wondering about your opinion.
Mr. Wehrum. Senator, that is a difficult question to answer
without doing the analysis. I would be more than happy to
answer on the record.
Senator Isakson. Well, the reason I ask the question is
this. No one in this room is for asthma or for a less than
healthy environment. No one in here is shilling for one side or
another in the economics of the matter. But I think it is
important to understand that economics didn't go into the
consideration and that there are economic impacts. I would
suggest, and I think you will hear when these people testify
later, there are significant economic impacts. Nobody wants the
air to be dirtier. Everybody is proud that we are cleaner than
we were 10 years ago, and hope 10 years from now we will be
cleaner than we are today, which we will if we continue.
But if we stop considering all the contributing aspects of
a decision, and only focus it on a narrow part of the
environment or a narrow part of the question without all
considerations, we create the unintended consequences of having
some awfully detrimental things happen to people who have
basically little if any control over what they are doing. In
this case, again, Walker County.
I am not shilling for the commissioner. She can do a fine
job on her own. It just happens to be a circumstance that I
think Senator Voinovich mentioned in one of his examples. There
are areas of the country where there are communities in that
trap. If it is in the judgment of the Administrator, hopefully
flexibility, given the broad census of information, can be used
to help communities be able to try and come out from under
nonattainment, especially when they are making every effort to
do everything they can within their control.
So I ended up not asking a question and making a speech,
and I apologize for that. But since I was asked, I thought I
would try and put it in perspective. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
Mr. Wehrum, thank you very much for being here. I have some
other questions that I am going to be submitting to you in
writing.
Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman, I need to correct the record
if I can. I ask unanimous consent that in one of my references,
I named Walker County as Murray County. Can I correct the
record and make it be Walker County in all circumstances?
Senator Voinovich. The record is corrected. Also, Senator
Carper asked me to insert for him some information here from
the National Association of Manufacturers. Without objection,
that will be done.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I ask also that this
chart that was put out referencing.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows on page 130.]
Senator Voinovich. Unfortunately, we have a vote. So I am
going to have to recess the hearing and scoot back here and we
will have our next group of witnesses. So I am going to recess
the hearing for the time being.
Thank you again, Bill.
Mr. Wehrum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Recess.]
Senator Voinovich. First of all, I want to thank you all
very much for being here. I have been in your position when I
was a Mayor and Governor, and it just seems like you wait
around and wait around and wait around, and then you have 5
minutes to get your story out. Ms. Heiskell, I am going to ask
you to come on third, because I ran into Senator Isakson, and I
think he would want to hear your testimony. I hope he is back
by then, he said he is coming back.
We will start out with Mr. Paul, and we welcome you. Mr.
Paul is from Dayton, OH. It is very interesting that we have
two witnesses from the great State of Ohio today. I have
enjoyed working with Mr. Paul on our DERA legislation.
Hopefully we are going to get a little bit more money for that,
Mr. Paul, so that we can do something about really making a
difference in terms of particulate matter, and that is dealing
with these on and off road trucks, so we can get them to put on
some controls. So we are glad to have you here today.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. PAUL, SUPERVISOR, REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL AGENCY, DAYTON, OH
Mr. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly pledge to
continue to work with you on those efforts.
My name is John Paul and I am the supervisor of the
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, RAPCA, representing the
health departments of six counties centered in Dayton, OH. I
also serve as the president of ALAPCO, the Association of Local
Air Pollution Control Officials. Whereas I am appearing here
today on behalf of RAPCA, I will mention that my testimony is
endorsed by ALAPCO and our sister organization, STAPPA.
Particulate matter is not only one of the most serious air
pollution problems facing our Nation, but it is also one of our
Nation's most serious environmental problems. Since the
standard was last revised in 1997, there have been over 2,000
peer reviewed scientific studies identifying significant health
effects of particulate matter.
In December 2005, over 100 scientists and public health
professionals wrote to EPA citing the serious health effects of
fine particulate matter at levels well below the current
standards. These include, among other things, respiratory
problems, strokes, lung cancer and thousands of premature
deaths. EPA estimates that more than 4,700 people die
prematurely each year in just 9 cities at the current PM
levels.
With these health effects in mind, it is essential that
Congress and EPA retain the current process for setting
national ambient air quality standards and resist attempts to
inject costs into the establishment of these health based
standards. The public deserves to know whether the air they
breathe is safe. RAPCA's staff reviewed EPA's proposal to
revise the PM NAAQS and were deeply troubled by several major
aspects, including the level of the PM2.5 standard
and the exemptions that EPA has proposed.
First, we are very concerned that EPA is ignoring the
recommendations of CASAC, to tighten the PM standard to below
15 micrograms per cubic meter. Second, we strongly oppose EPA's
proposed exemptions for major source categories, such as
agriculture and mining, from the coarse PM standard.
Consideration of exemptions should be done during the
implementation process when costs are factored, not during the
process of setting a national health base standard.
Third, we are very troubled that EPA is proposing to exempt
major portions of the country, those with fewer than 100,000
people, from monitoring for coarse particles. This action
dismisses the health and welfare of millions of people
throughout the country, in some cases nearly an entire State.
Once EPA sets new standards, areas will have until 2015 to
attain the new fine particle standards, and until 2018 to
attain the coarse standard, with the possibility of extensions
for 5 or more years to 2020 and beyond. In the meantime, States
and localities are now in the process of developing SIPs to
meet the existing PM standard, established in 1997.
We believe there are several actions Congress and/or EPA
can take now to help us in this effort and also make progress
toward meeting the new standards. First and most importantly,
we urge the EPA to require further cost-effective reductions
from the electric utility sector, as well as from other
promising sectors for national regulations, starting with
industrial boilers and cement kilns. While EPA took a good
first step in publishing its Clean Air Interstate Rule, CAIR,
it is deficient in several aspects: the compliance deadlines
are too long, the emission caps are not sufficiently stringent,
and it covers only utilities in the east and ignores other
large sources.
To the extent that a Federal rule like CAIR falls short of
what can be achieved in a cost-effective and timely manner,
those lost emissions reduction opportunities will have to be
made up by some other sector of the economy, generally a small
business, for which the costs are much higher.
Second, we need EPA to finalize its PM2.5
implementation rule. EPA has been working on this for several
years.
Finally, Congress and EPA must ensure that State and local
Agencies have adequate funding to do their jobs. This is
particularly important at a time when agencies are
significantly expanding their responsibilities, including
developing PM2.5 SIPs. Unfortunately, the
Administration's fiscal year 2007 calls for cuts in State and
local Agency grants of $35 million below last year's level. We
urge the Senate to fully restore these cuts, and we appreciate
your efforts, Chairman Voinovich, in this regard.
Furthermore, we applaud you and your colleagues on the
Environment and Public Works Committee for your work on the
Diesel Emission Reduction Program. I thank you for this
opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Paul.
Mr. Gould is the chairman of the Lenawee County Board of
Commissioners. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF LARRY J. GOULD, CHAIR, LENAWEE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, LENAWEE COUNTY, MI
Mr. Gould. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is
Larry Gould. I am chairperson of the Lenawee County Board of
Commissioners, and thank you for this opportunity to testify
today.
Lenawee County is largely a rural county located near a
major metropolitan industrial area. As a consequence, Lenawee
County has been designated by EPA as a marginal nonattainment
county for EPA's 8-hour-ozone standard. Fortunately, Lenawee is
not designated as a nonattainment, at least not yet.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Gould, would you do me a favor? I am
having a hard time hearing you. Could you pull your microphone
up a little closer to your mouth?
Mr. Gould. I am very concerned that a revision of the
PM2.5 standard by EPA would result in Lenawee County
being designated a nonattainment for PM2.5 for the
same reason the county is designated as a nonattainment for
ozone. That is, Lenawee would be included in a multi-county
nonattainment area, whose air quality is dominated largely by
emissions from more healthy, populated counties with more
industry.
Even though it is not our fault, Lenawee will be forced to
comply with restrictions that are likely to impede our attempt
to attract new industry and expand our economic base. According
to the Michigan DEQ, three counties with particulate matter
materials currently show violations of the 24-hour standard
proposed by EPA. I am aware of estimates suggesting that even a
modest revision of both the 24-hour and the annual
PM2.5 standards could more than double the current
number of nonattainment counties in Michigan from 7 counties to
16 counties. Lenawee would be one of those nonattainment
counties.
As a consequence, Lenawee, a rural county with a small
population, would be in nonattainment for both ozone and
revised PM2.5 standards. This is not a prospect I
look forward to as the chairperson of the Board of
Commissioners. Costs of implementing and complying with air
quality standards are borne to some extent by State and local
government. Those costs are unfunded Federal mandates. For
example, the Lenawee Board of Road Commission informed me that
highway funds made available to Lenawee County through the
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funding to improve air
quality appeared to be a drop in the bucket compared to the
funding that will be needed if EPA makes the 1997 standards
more stringent.
In addition, the Michigan Association of Counties informs
me that any revised particle matter standards which would
impose additional costs on counties would be impossible for
them to support unless Federal funding is increased. I believe
that imposition of a new nonattainment requirement would have a
negative impact on economic growth and development in Lenawee
County. Like most counties in Michigan, Lenawee continues to
struggle with the high unemployment and uncertain economy. The
Lenawee Chamber for Economic Development has written me
recently to express their concern about the negative impact to
our local economy if EPA revisits the PM2.5
standard.
The Chamber points out the continual loss of manufacturing
plants in Lenawee. Most of those plants were old and relatively
old technology. If Lenawee is classified as a nonattainment
county, the Chamber feels that we will continue to lose jobs
and find it difficult to attract facilities with newer and
better environmental controls. In fact, the Chamber estimates
that a nonattainment designation could result in a potential
loss of over 1,000 current jobs.
A $60 million ethanol plant is currently under construction
in the southeast part of our county. A biodiesel blending
facility is planned for construction in Adrian, our county
seat. We plan to double the capacity of the ethanol plant some
time in the future. But I am very concerned that expansion may
face serious implications if Lenawee County is designated in
nonattainment for PM2.5. Because if it becomes a
blending only, I am not hopeful but not confident that the
biodiesel facility will not encounter any problems.
In closing, I would urge Congress and the EPA to give State
and local government all the administrative and financial
support they need to implement the existing standards rather
than change the standards now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I am
available for questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for being here
today.
Senator Isakson, I delayed hearing the testimony from Ms.
Heiskell, because I figured you would want to hear her. So Ms.
Heiskell, you are on.
STATEMENT OF BEBE HEISKELL, COMMISSIONER, WALKER COUNTY, GA
Ms. Heiskell. Good morning, Chairman Voinovich, members of
the committee. My name is Bebe Heiskell. I am the sole
commissioner of Walker County, GA.
We are located in the northwest corner of the State, just
south of Chattanooga. I am in my sixth year of elected office,
with a background of 27 years in public administration. Thank
you for allowing me to describe the impact that nonattainment
designations have on communities like mine.
Walker County is a vibrant community of 63,000 people. A
variety of national and international manufacturers have
operations there, and our corner of the State produces a vast
majority of the world's carpet. Forty-six percent of Walker
County's work force is employed in manufacturing.
The hardest part of my job is funding the delivery of
services, such as road maintenance and meeting payrolls. I am
where the rubber meets the road, face-to-face every day with
the taxpayers that support our governments. They recognize the
property tax relief that a strong local economy provides.
Quality growth is vital to Walker County, and other
communities all over this country. From an economic development
standpoint, being in nonattainment PM2.5 has serious
consequences right now. Many industries begin a site location
search using EPA's Internet list of counties in nonattainment.
Those counties never make the list of prospect sites.
Walker County's nonattainment status is almost exclusively
due to outside forces on our air quality, including up to 60
percent natural particulate matter, completely out of our
control, that comes from other continents. We are positioned
between Chattanooga and Atlanta, two major interstate highways
and several large manufacturing facilities and powerplants in
the region.
During its foundry era, Chattanooga was one of the dirtiest
cities in the United States, with all the associated health
issues. Now it is one of the 10 best places to live in the
entire country. The businesses in my community have invested
millions to reduce their emissions. Cars are significantly
cleaner than they were even 10 years ago. Powerplants have
spent billions on controls, and the two large metropolitan
areas surrounding us have come into compliance with the 1-hour-
ozone standard.
As a community leader and an asthmatic, I appreciate all
the EPA has done to see that we have cleaner air. Their own
status report, September 2004, boasts that the U.S. air is the
cleanest ever since 1970, even while the economy has expanded
150 percent in that time period. American businesses should
also be commended for their accomplishments. Though our air
quality is improving, I see job losses that stem from perpetual
nonattainment. This adds to the complexity of local governance,
while we struggle with public opposition to these nonattainment
designations, and many of our jobs go overseas.
Walker County has more than 4 million square feet of vacant
manufacturing space in large measure because of uncertainty our
nonattainment designation creates for business prospects. Those
are jobs we cannot recover. The ultimate cost of EPA's efforts,
though, will be borne by American workers in local communities
who will shoulder the burden of increased unemployment and
significant increases in the basic cost of living.
Georgia's late Senator Paul Coverdale said, ``Investment
does not flow toward uncertainty.'' A never-ending
nonattainment designation creates uncertainty for communities
and businesses.
I urge the Senate Committee to put EPA's standards in
perspective with the loss of jobs and decisions of
manufacturers to go abroad where there are no standards. The
doubling of the global workforce has created greater
competition for each available job. Retraining displaced
workers that have lost their lifelong manufacturing jobs is
difficult. These people, the ones we represent, are then
concerned only about how they can take care of their families.
Does EPA make decisions based upon the demands of outside
environmental groups, or is there a practical reason to
continue to lower this designation?
I ran for office on quality growth, and I am a long-time
supporter of the environment. However, there must be a balance
in all things. Please consider the significant air quality
improvements already in place against the impacts of unending
nonattainment designations before allowing EPA to stack another
set of regulations on businesses and communities like mine.
I must add candidly that 50 percent of our economy in
Walker County is from agribusiness. A beekeeper told me last
week that for every three bites you put in your mouth, pollen
is responsible for two. A high level of pollen in our monitors
indicates we are doing well.
Thank you for hearing my remarks.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Gould, I noticed you have, it looks like yellow corn
there in that bottle.
Mr. Gould. Yes, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. I understand from your written testimony
that if the county is designated as nonattainment for revised
particulate matter, you think that may have an impact on your
ethanol project?
Mr. Gould. Yes, sir. I want you to know I had to take off
my shoes yesterday morning to get here when I entered two
commercial flights. This did not have any problems going
through the two commercial flights. I have not had any
problems. Let me tell you, this is how safe this product is.
This is what is going to clean up our environment.
Yes, Great Lakes Ethanol, in choosing to set a site for an
ethanol plant in Lenawee County, visited a number of sites.
Many of the sites would have never, ever complied under the
current funding of the 8-hour ozone. We knew that. We did have
to search out and get a more modern company, I mentioned it in
my testimony, about the technology of the older plants. In
today's society, they can't make it, we are losing jobs.
We feel that we are ready to expand. We don't need $3 a
gallon of gas to produce this. This is much less than $3. We
will have a problem if we have to have PM2.5. That
will create a little bit of a problem for us, probably, in the
repermitting to double the expansion. We are currently at 57
million. We expect to go to 100 million within another time.
You have to understand that when you passed the Energy
bill, you allowed us the ability to get the bankers to come
forward. Without the bankers, we couldn't produce this. It was
the Energy bill that made it possible for us to be able to get
to this. There is 2.5 billion gallons of infrastructure under
construction currently. We are just about 57 million of that.
We want to double that. We see the need to do that. We
cannot go for offsite to get the pollutants. That is going to
be a problem. I believe you have the power here, you sit in the
most powerful seat in the legislation of the United States, and
I believe you have the power to see to it that this clean fuel
is more of a proper answer to our clean air. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you for that. I was going to say
it would be interesting, I know there are about 38 or 40 of
these plants that are being contemplated, and I don't know how
many are in construction right now, but it would be interesting
to see, based on our new maps, how many of them would be
impacted.
Mr. Paul, you are the head of the Dayton Regional Air
Pollution, you have six counties?
Mr. Paul. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. You come from an area right now, and I
get the clips out of the Dayton Daily News, that has really
been clobbered in terms of jobs. Your area of all the areas in
the State with Adelphi and everything else has been just really
hit.
Have you ever, are you allowed, in doing your job, to look
at what impact some of these regulations are having on the six
counties that are under your jurisdiction in terms of their
being in nonattainment? As you know, when I first became
Governor, we were nonattainment all over the State. I worked
really hard on it, not only because I was interested in the
environment, but I knew, in fact, I was told when I was
campaigning, that unless something is done about this, we won't
get businesses to expand and certainly they will just fly right
over us.
So I would be interested in knowing, how do you reconcile
some of this in terms of the local economy? You are certainly
familiar with the urban poor and what they are up against today
in terms of high natural gas costs. I would be interested in
what you have to say.
Mr. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am concerned. I
have worked in the Dayton Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
for 33 years. So I have been there when you were mayor of
Cleveland, when you were Governor, and we have worked on these
issues. We believe that, and obviously as a local agency we are
strong in this, we believe that being a responsible agency and
providing good permits is one of the solutions.
We are working right now on a permit for a 122 million
gallon per year ethanol plant. We received the application last
week. We have three people working on it. We will process that
permit.
I will note that that is a permit that because of good
technology is under 100 tons per year. So it could go into a
nonattainment area or an attainment area and it would
essentially be a minor new source permit.
So this is something that we can do. Technology is the key.
If you have good technology, you can put a source in anywhere.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Heiskell, well, my time is up.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all our
panelists for coming.
Commissioner Heiskell, I have a question for you. Can you
give me a specific example or examples of industries or
business that have chosen not to come to Walker County because
of nonattainment?
Ms. Heiskell. We did have an auto manufacturing plant that
was looking strongly at Chattanooga, who has taken the old
Volunteer Army ammunition plant, 1,200 acres, and turned it
into a very fine industrial park that has an exit off the
interstate. They decided not to come to Chattanooga after a
long process and went to another area outside our region that
was not in nonattainment. That cost a lot of jobs from my
community, as well as Chattanooga.
Senator Isakson. Is it not true that the EPA, on their Web
site, lists all the counties in the country that are in
nonattainment, and that most site location companies that
assist major American industries in locating sites go first to
that site, rule out communities without ever coming to take a
look at them?
Ms. Heiskell. I am not sure they go first, but I do know
that they do that, and it is there. It does certainly limit
those people who are in nonattainment, their counties.
Senator Isakson. Isn't it true that your community obtained
at your own initiative and expense scientific studies and
documentation that up to 60 percent of the particulate matter
in Walker County was contributed by Alaska, Canada and Africa?
Ms. Heiskell. That is true.
Senator Isakson. Isn't it true that you are under the
Bermuda High that traps, in the summer months, May to
September, whatever is flowing over kind of gets trapped and
stays there for 5 months?
Ms. Heiskell. That is also true.
Senator Isakson. You are not in charge of the weather, are
you?
Ms. Heiskell. No.
Senator Isakson. Isn't it also true that in your written
testimony you state you suffer from asthma?
Ms. Heiskell. Yes, it is. I know a lot about asthma. I
could answer a lot of questions on that.
Senator Isakson. I commend you, I hope everybody will read
the Commissioner's testimony. Because it is a testimony to the
Clean Air Act. It is also a testimony to how reason and
judgment has to be applied in the considerations for the
effects of these regulations and how carefully EPA needs to
look at the unintended consequences of establishing these new
standards, which are solely within their judgment to establish.
Last, I want to ask the Commissioner one other question.
Can you think of anything that you as the Commissioner could do
or initiate to reduce particulate matter that you have not
already done in Walker County?
Ms. Heiskell. No, I can't. But our problem is compliance
and enforcement and fines that are placed upon communities that
have no control. So we just continue to have to pay more and
more as we stay out of compliance.
Senator Isakson. So you are trapped, you don't have a way
out, and you have done everything you can do within your
control and your responsibility to meet the standards?
Ms. Heiskell. We think that we have, except for old men
that want to keep burning their yards.
Senator Isakson. Well, we old men are a problem everywhere.
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you for
being here today.
Ms. Heiskell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Paul, I am going to try and make
this really brief. Dayton is in nonattainment now, is that
right, the Dayton area?
Mr. Paul. That is correct, yes.
Senator Voinovich. All the counties or just Dayton,
Montgomery County?
Mr. Paul. Four of our six counties.
Senator Voinovich. OK. Are you familiar at all with any
information from the economic development departments of the
city of Dayton or from the counties of situations where they
are trying to get businesses to expand or attract businesses
where this nonattainment has been a problem?
Mr. Paul. I am aware that it is a problem. I meet pretty
regularly with the chamber of commerce and we discuss that.
Primarily we discuss the advantage of coming into attainment.
So we talk about the different strategies that are going to
help us to come into attainment, and then how to maintain that
attainment once we reach it.
Senator Voinovich. If the decision of the Environmental
Protection Agency is to lower the standard, and by the way, the
current standard that we have for particulate matter was
reviewed by the OMB, and John Graham was over there in OIRA,
who I have a great deal of respect for, and they concluded that
based on the cost benefit and health benefits and so forth that
this was sensible.
If we get a new standard, isn't that going to make it even
more difficult for your region to get businesses to expand or
be attracted to the area?
Mr. Paul. Yes, it could. We agree, your concerns are
legitimate, and we agree that they need to be addressed. Where
we think they should be addressed, though, is in the
implementation. It is not the standard that forces the
different requirements, but it is the implementation.
Senator Voinovich. The problem is, it is the designation.
That is the deal. They are designated, and I think that Senator
Isakson made the point, when you have folks that do site
selections, they get the information and they are advising
people and they say, no, you don't want to go there, because
your costs are going to probably be more there than if they
would be somewhere else, because they are in a nonattainment
area.
Mr. Paul. That is correct.
Senator Voinovich. How do you answer that?
Mr. Paul. Well, I answer that by saying that we can't tell
people that the air is healthy if it is not, and that the
setting of the standards, if it is done with science, is to
inform the public as to whether or not the air they breathe is
healthy or not. What we do based on that is something that is
another process.
If I could, Senator, I would suggest that that is where
your efforts are better aimed, is at the process, once a
standard is set. But we owe it to the public to be honest with
them as to whether or not the air they are breathing is healthy
or not.
Senator Voinovich. That trumps the fact that some
businesses might not expand and might not be attracted to the
area?
Mr. Paul. No, what that does is that it says that if the
standard should be set at 14, and that means we have a lot of
nonattainment areas, and that means that there are going to be
economic problems, then that is another topic that needs to be
addressed and should be addressed and can be addressed by your
committee.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I wish I could assure you that
would be the case.
Mr. Paul. If you do, I would pledge to help you with that.
Senator Voinovich. I know this, that one of the things that
we are going to have to look at, and one of the things that we
did have in Clear Skies, was a provision that said that if a
community was in substantial compliance and moving forward with
making the goal, that for example, in 2010, that the sword of
Damocles would not come down on their head.
But that is not the law today. So we have a lot of
communities out there that know right now, Joe Koncelik, our
EPA, he is fit to be tied. I am sure you are probably trying to
help them on the SIP.
Mr. Paul. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich. But he said, we can't do it. That is it.
I have to be honest with the businesses, I have to be honest
with the chamber of commerce people, we can't get it done. So
again, this is going to be, it is hurting right now. I
understand your position. But there has to be some balance
here.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Just a comment, Mr. Chairman, on what you
said about Clear Skies. Clear Skies established aggressive
goals for 70 percent reduction, SOx, NOx, mercury, but it had
positive carrot rewards for people that were doing the right
things and making progress. That is one of the points that I
have been trying to make and probably haven't made well enough.
When you have a community like Ms. Heiskell's that is doing
everything they can do, everything within their control, and
they are doing it for the right reasons, then to hit them over
the head with a stick when instead you ought to get some
carrots to reward the ones that are doing right just doesn't
seem to be the right approach. I think that Clear Skies was a
great step forward in accomplishing even greater reductions of
particulate matter and other contributors to pollution while
still encouraging people positively to get to those attainment
levels. That is all I will say.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Any other questions?
Well, I would like to thank the panel for being here today.
We will do the best we can. I would like to talk to you, Mr.
Paul, about your ideas on how we can deal with this.
Mr. Paul. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to that.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Our next group of panelists, we have Mr. Harry Alford, who
is president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce;
Mr. Conrad Schneider, who is the advocacy director for the
Clean Air Task Force, and Mr. Schneider, we are glad to see you
back again.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you very much.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Bill Christopher, who is the
executive vice president of Alcoa. Mr. Christopher, I want to
thank you very much for your willingness to sit through all of
this, to get an idea of what we go through here, what we do.
Mr. Christopher. My pleasure.
Senator Voinovich. And the fact that we have such a
distinguished corporate citizen from the greater Cleveland area
here to testify on this is very much appreciated. Thank you.
Mr. Alford, we will start with your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF HARRY C. ALFORD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL BLACK
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Alford. Mr. Chairman, I am president and CEO of the
National Black Chamber of Commerce. The NBCC appreciates the
opportunity to offer its views on the Environmental Protection
Agency's proposed rule to establish a more stringent National
Ambient Air Quality Standard, NAAQS, for particulate matter.
I will summarize the NBCC's formal statement provided for
the record and attempt to respond to any questions you or other
members of the subcommittee may have. Mr. Chairman, the NBCC
has 190 affiliated chapters in the United States, as well as
international affiliate chapters and businesses, as well as
individuals who may choose to be direct members with the
national office.
The 1.4 million African American businesses in the United
States represent sales of more than $180 billion annually and
maintain an annual spending base of over $800 billion. The NBCC
represents 100,000 Black-owned businesses and provides
education and advocacy that reaches all 1.4 million Black-owned
businesses across the Nation.
The NBCC has historically supported the efforts of the EPA
to protect the public health of all Americans. The Clean Air
Act and its regulatory structure, while controversial over the
years, has been the principal driving force behind the
improvements in our Nation's air quality and the reduction of
harmful air pollutants. The NBCC also understands that despite
this progress, much work remains to be done to achieve our
Nation's air quality goals.
In that spirit, the NBCC continues to support EPA's effort
to control sources of pollution and the promulgation of
regulations that are both cost-effective and based on sound
science. As a regulated community, we cannot tolerate
regulation for the sake of regulation and the attendant
economic costs of such policies. The regulate and punish
mentality must be abandoned, so that we may address our
environmental challenges while sustaining a strong economy.
In that regard, the NBCC is concerned that the current EPA
proposed rule to further establish new NAAQS for urban
particulate matter and to establish a more stringent
PM2.5 standard is not supported by current science,
and if adopted, could have an adverse impact on NBCC members
and affiliates.
Mr. Chairman, small and medium businesses alike are today
facing a number of challenges, not the least of which are
higher interest rates and higher energy and related operating
costs that are eroding margins and placing pressure on
maintaining current employment levels. The imposition of new
regulations on industry, manufacturing and other sectors, in
the absence of scientific evidence of a demonstrable health
benefit, is simply not justified. The NBCC is concerned that
these new standards would likely result in further increased
energy prices, especially that of natural gas, a key energy
input in urban areas.
Beyond this, given the lack of scientific justification,
the NBCC is concerned about the impact of the proposed rule as
a result of the expanded number of nonattainment designations
under the Clean Air Act. These stricter permitting requirements
for companies that add new units or make major modifications to
their facility make them competitively disadvantaged, as such
requirements do not apply to similar facilities operating in
attainment areas. Again, these restrictions would significantly
impact urban areas.
Also, nonattainment areas face the risk of losing Federal
highway funding that is vitally important to urban
redevelopment. In addition, companies that build a new facility
or that perform a major modification to certain existing
facilities in or near a nonattainment area would be required to
install the most effective emission reduction technology
without consideration of cost.
Moreover, new emissions in the area must be offset. Thus,
if there is no party willing to revise the offset, then the
project resulting in increased emissions of a given pollutant
cannot go forward. Take the Mercedes plant in Alabama, for
instance. Our Birmingham chapter was excited that the original
plan was to put the plant inside Birmingham city limits. Gas
stations, restaurants, hotels, et cetera, would have benefited
significantly. Due to attainment levels, the plant was moved 90
miles to the south, in rural Alabama. It devastated the
expectations and growth opportunities of the largest city in
Alabama.
The same scenario happened in Indiana with the Isuzu plant
that was destined for Indianapolis, but ended up 70 miles north
in Lafayette. We have about 250 members in the Indianapolis
chapter and 2 in Lafayette. The impact was obvious. Those are
but two examples.
Sir, we try to educate our elected officials on why there
is unemployment. It is amazing in urban areas unemployment is
so high. We try to explain the reasons for that. One of the
reasons is bad and ill-thought regulation.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Schneider.
STATEMENT OF CONRAD SCHNEIDER, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR
TASK FORCE
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
My name is Conrad Schneider. I am the advocacy director of
the Clean Air Task Force. We are a non-profit organization
dedicated to restoring clean air and healthy environments
through scientific research, public education and legal
advocacy. I would like to introduce Blake Early, who is going
to help me by flipping the charts up here, from the American
Lung Association. I would like the record to reflect that Mr.
Early has been a champion of clean air for many, many years.
Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by wishing you a happy
birthday, which if I am not mistaken is coming up this weekend.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Mr. Schneider. Some of my colleagues in the environmental
movement were a little sorry that this hearing was scheduled. I
take a slightly different view. I think we need more attention
to the issue of particulate matter, so I welcome this
opportunity.
Further reductions in fine particles are a matter of life
and death for tens of thousands of Americans. From the
perspective of human health, particulate matter is the most
important pollutant that is regulated by EPA, period. EPA's
leading air benefits consulting firm estimates that fine
particles from powerplants and from diesel engines together
lead to the premature deaths of nearly 45,000 Americans each
year.
In Ohio alone, diesel and powerplant pollution is
responsible for the premature deaths of approximately 2,500
people each year. In polluted cities, such as the cities that
are in residual nonattainment, the mortality risk of breathing
the air is comparable to the risk of living with a smoker.
The proposed revisions, while an improvement over the
current standards, do not go far enough in protecting human
health. EPA should tighten the proposed standards to protect
public health with an adequate margin of safety by tightening
both the annual and the daily standard and setting a coarse
particle standard. As a conservative estimate, tightening these
standards could save as many as 10,000 additional lives each
year. Certainly, EPA cannot justify adopting standards any less
than those recommended by its own Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee.
Now, while issues of cost and implementation are and should
be outside the scope of EPA's review, this subcommittee should
note that the current and proposed standards are achievable,
cost-benefit justified and can be met with affordable,
available technology that will not damage America's economic
vitality or the economic health of the sectors that will be
called upon to shoulder the load.
Although the Task Force believes it would be inappropriate
to use cost benefit tests to determine the NAAQS standard, it
should give the subcommittee some confidence to know that steep
reductions in fine particles are overwhelmingly cost-benefit
justified. The Regulatory Impact Analysis of the CAIR rule, of
the new diesel rules and of EPA's analysis of Senator Carper's
bill, the Clean Air Planning Act, found that the benefits in
every case outweighed cost by 10 to 1. That is $10 of benefit
for every $1 of cost spent.
Now, for these new standards, the proposed standards, for
better or for worse, the regulatory impact of these standards
will be far in the future. The way the system works, we are
talking about a standard that won't be achieved until 2020 or
later. It is certainly premature today to conclude that the
proposed new standards will be impossible to achieve. However,
EPA and the States do need a renewed focus on making that
happen. This is happening in Cleveland, as you know, in
Columbus, through the MORPC process there, and in Dayton, as we
heard.
We do know enough today to know that a cost-effective
program for attaining these standards would include (a) setting
a tighter national or regional cap on powerplant sulfur dioxide
emissions; (b) States requiring sulfur dioxide emissions on
powerplants that have a significant impact on nearby
nonattainment areas; (c) EPA completing the process of
tightening standards for new locomotive and diesel engines and
marine vessels; and also requiring on-road diesel engines to
meet tighter emission standards when they are rebuilt; (d)
States and local governments requiring additional
PM2.5 reductions from private and public diesel
fleets.
You and Senator Carper, in your actions on the Diesel
Emission Reduction Act and the Clean Air Planning Act are
taking exactly the right approach, focused on the power
industry and America's diesel fleets as the largest
contributors to the problem, and potentially the largest
contributors to the solution. EPA, though its CAIR rule, took
an important step, but as you noted, it will be too little too
late for some of these areas that are trying to meet their
attainment obligations on time.
If we could see the next three slides, the first one shows
the current nonattainment designations for under the current
standard. The next one shows how that map would change and the
improvement under the CAIR rule in 2010, we lose much of the
red. By 2015, the CAIR rule helps even more. The areas start to
diminish.
But let me go to the next slide, the very next slide, which
is a 2 million ton sulfur dioxide cap, such as has been
proposed by Senator Carper in the Clean Air Planning Act. This
is the tightest standard that has been proposed, much tighter
than the CAIR rule and tighter than ``Clear Skies''. You can
see, we have almost got the red out.
Unfortunately, EPA in its CAIR rule has tied the hands of
the States in making additional powerplant reductions beyond
CAIR more difficult than is necessary. This special treatment
afforded the power sector is forcing States to turn to more
expensive sources such as small business for reductions.
EPA is working on its RIA for the new standards right now,
and look at what it says for Ohio. If you look at the bars on
the far left, and there is a handout at each of your places at
the dais there that shows this, if you can't see the poster. On
the far left of each of these things, it is for Cuyahoga County
and Summit County, OH, the light blue bar shows what the
benefits would be from additional reductions beyond CAIR. The
light blue bar in each case says that powerplants should be the
target of the next set of reductions beyond CAIR, because they
are the most effective.
Do you know what the other bars are? Diesels. Powerplants
and diesels are the critical path steps that we need to take to
achieve the standards. The same is true with respect to two
other counties in Ohio, like Butler and Hamilton. Same story.
Powerplant sulfur dioxide is the next lowest hanging fruit. We
need to take the second bite at that apple to make achieving
the standards a reality.
Let me go to the last slide very quickly. These slides show
that diesels in Atlanta, Chicago and New York are the biggest
local contributors, and therefore the biggest part of the
solution that we could have in those areas that have a sort of
residual or persistent nonattainment.
Then the last slide here shows that what happens in Ohio
stays in Ohio. Although much has been made about interstate
transport of pollution from Ohio powerplants to the northeast,
the biggest adverse impact from Ohio plants is felt right in
Ohio. That is where the biggest part of the solution will come,
too. Ohio will experience the greatest benefits from additional
reductions in Ohio powerplants.
In closing, let me just say that Congress should leave
alone the existing statutory and regulatory process for setting
these standards. The current standard setting process provides
an excellent example of what we all should want: namely,
science-driven policy. Instead of unnecessarily complicating
this process, for example, by introducing the false objectivity
of a cost-benefit analysis, EPA should be urged to respect the
deadlines in the Clean Air Act. If it takes any action at all,
Congress should fully fund and restore the States' air grant
program, because the people on the front lines of making these
standards a reality will be the State air officials whose
budget is proposed to be cut by $35 million.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Isakson [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Christopher, you are recognized. Mr. Schneider took a
little bit of extra time, so you need to take a little bit of
extra time to get your worth, that is fine.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. CHRISTOPHER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
AND GROUP PRESIDENT, AEROSPACE, AUTOMOTIVE AND COMMERCIAL
TRANSPORTATION, ALCOA
Mr. Christopher. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to be before you today.
My name is Bill Christopher. I am the group president for
Aerospace, Automotive and Commercial Transportation for Alcoa.
I also serve as an executive vice president for the company.
We have over 131,000 employees in 43 countries. We are the
world's leading supplier of alumina, aluminum and a lot of
transportation and industrial products around the world. We at
Alcoa hold sustainability as a core value in our business and
in everything we do. We have hard goals and metrics for
sustainability as key elements of our 2020 vision for the
company. In 2005, we were honored to be named as one of the
world's three most sustainable corporations by the World
Economic Forum.
I also serve on the board of directors for the Greater
Cleveland Partnership, or GCP, and I appear before you today on
their behalf. GCP is one of the largest metropolitan chambers
of commerce in the country, representing more than 16,000
small-, mid-size and large companies in the region. Because of
our commitment to the environment and concern for the region's
economy, GCP has asked me to provide leadership in the efforts
to shape the business community's involvement in clean air
compliance discussions.
My message today will focus on the economic impact of
imposing standards that are difficult if not impossible to
attain in the short term. I would like to make four key points.
First and foremost, I am not here to debate the value of
vigorous efforts to achieve cleaner air. There is absolutely no
doubt that cleaner air is central to the future health of our
residents and overall quality of life. Both my company and the
Cleveland business community have demonstrated their commitment
to continuous improvement in the region's air quality.
We are currently working with the Northeast Ohio Areawide
Coordinating Agency, or NOACA, in the development of the Ohio
State implementation plan for ozone compliance. We will also be
actively engaged in the fine particulate process. We are
reaching out to more than 60 local manufacturing companies to
educate them about the situation and ask for their assistance
in developing innovative and progressive solutions to the
problems.
However, since an estimated 60 percent of Northeast Ohio's
pollutants come from outside the region, neither our sincere or
aggressive efforts or regulatory action imposed on the region
will bring us into compliance by 2010.
Second, and equally important, our efforts to achieve
cleaner air must be a delicate balance. They must take into
account the potentially significant economic costs of places
like Cleveland that are in the midst of a very painful economic
transition. Third, achieving the balance is complicated,
because the time lines for meeting the Clean Air Act standards
are mis-aligned with the time lines for several Federal
standards established to regulate specific industries. The gaps
created by these misalignments add economic costs to compliance
that could be devastating in places like Cleveland that rely on
manufacturing today as a key element of their economy.
We are currently reviewing studies that indicate the cost
of compliance in the Cleveland region could be as much as $919
million a year in order to meet the requirements by 2010. In
contrast, the estimate is $12 million a year if we allow the
benefits of industry regulations to take effect by 2015.
This misalignment could cost Northeast Ohio 12,000 jobs,
could result in a $1.1 billion reduction in disposable personal
income and a $1.4 billion reduction in gross regional product,
a prospect the region can ill afford. The decline in related
tax revenues would hamper the ability of the region's public
sector to support initiatives that help with the transition of
the economy from one based on heavy manufacturing to a
knowledge and service based economy.
The stigma of a sustained designation as a noncompliance
region will have impact on future residential and economic
growth in spite of our significant improvements in the air
quality in the region. This chronic condition will create an
environment of uncertainty, significant costs that will
accelerate the flight of private capital from the region and
more than likely outside the country. Companies looking to
locate facilities or expand capacity will not even consider
communities in nonattainment, we have heard that from others.
Finally, before any new regulations are adopted, regions
like Cleveland should be given adequate time to understand the
costs of proposed standards and develop strategies that reflect
the needed economic balance. New modeling capabilities perhaps
developed and tested in Northeast Ohio with the assistance of
the Federal Government can help in this critical task.
Compliance with a more stringent fine particulate standard
in the face of standards misalignment and indeterminate
science, before we have even had the opportunity to adequately
address the challenges of the current SIP process, may be
physically impossible, if not economically devastating to the
Cleveland region. I again want to close and finally emphasize,
achieving cleaner air is a goal we all actively support and we
must achieve.
However, we would like to urge the Federal Government to
move forward with caution. We ask that you provide regions like
Cleveland with adequate time and resources to find a balanced
approach that allows us to address these increasingly complex
air quality challenges in a way that minimizes the impact to
our economy. Incremental responses to air quality compliance
with time lines that are not in synch with national time lines
on other industry regulations are likely to create huge costs
in the short term and leave our region in a state of
noncompliance for years to come.
We respectfully ask your EPA Administrator to defer action
on the 24-hour fine particulate matter standard at this time,
and to assist Northeast Ohio with evaluating the impact of
meeting current standards. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Christopher. Chairman
Voinovich will return in a minute. I will take the first round
of questions then go to Senator Lautenberg.
If the gentleman from the Lung Association would put back
up that chart that had the purple bars that showed Ohio and the
contributing States, I wanted to ask a question. I believe it
was the last one.
Mr. Schneider, I appreciate your testimony and I want to
make sure I heard right what you said on this chart. You said
that this demonstrated that Ohio was the major contributor to
its own problems.
Mr. Schneider. That is right.
Senator Isakson. Isn't it true, though, and this is not
adversarial, sometimes people preface something with that, so
everybody says, here it comes, isn't it true though, if you
took all the other States that do contribute to Ohio, which are
Minnesota, Indiana, Pennsylvania, even the great State of
Georgia, where I am from, and put them in one bar, they would
exceed the contribution of Ohio?
Mr. Schneider. I don't know that for sure. That certainly
could be the case. There is a problem with interstate
transport, there is no question about that, Senator.
Senator Isakson. Well, wait a minute. You don't know what
the question is yet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. I have added it up, and that statement was
correct. Outside States contribute more than the State that is
affected.
Now, here is the hypothetical question. I go back to my
county commissioner from Georgia, from Walker County, Ms.
Heiskell. Assuming that Ohio had done everything within its
capacity to reduce its contribution as a State.
Mr. Schneider. I am looking forward to that day, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. Well I said if. I didn't say that it had.
If it had and yet it still was in nonattainment because of the
contributions from States who had not done everything they
could, or industries that hadn't, is it still fair for them to
be punished because of that fact?
Mr. Schneider. That is not such a hypothetical question for
me, Senator, because I live in the State of Maine. Maine is at
the end of the tail pipe for everybody, the Midwest and
Northeast combined.
Senator Isakson. Would it be fair to Maine?
Mr. Schneider. This is what I am getting to. The Clean Air
Act has provisions that allow some recognition of what you are
talking about. Rarely do we see a situation, when you really
drill down and look at it, that a State has done everything
that is reasonable to do.
Senator Isakson. I said it was hypothetical.
Mr. Schneider. I understand. But I am quarreling a bit with
your premise, because it hasn't been my experience that States
that tend to point their fingers to other States rarely have
clean hands to do so.
Senator Isakson. Well, this is not hypothetical. If Walker
County, GA and Commissioner Heiskell had done everything they
could do within their control, everything they could do within
their control including in zoning and land use and everything
else, and yet because of contributions of pollution from other
areas and other States and other continents, in their case,
they are still in nonattainment, should they be denied highway
funds to improve their roads?
Mr. Schneider. Well, what the State of Maine did----
Senator Isakson. I asked about mine.
Mr. Schneider. It is the same answer. Because I think it
provides a good model for what may be an appropriate type of
relief for what you are talking about.
What our State did was they filed a petition under section
126 of the Clean Air Act, saying that their problem was being
caused by interstate pollution, and they called on the U.S. EPA
to reduce that pollution to such an extent that they would no
longer be there. They were saying, in effect, you upwind State
are causing my problem, I am calling on the EPA to solve that
problem. They don't sit back and just say, I am sorry, our
hands are tied, we can't do anything about it.
Senator Isakson. Who doesn't say that?
Mr. Schneider. That is what I am saying the State of Maine
did not do, and complain about it. They did something about it.
They used the provision of the Clean Air Act to put the ball
back in EPA's court and required that they----
Senator Isakson. So now you would agree that if they
weren't the main contributor and other people were, that they
shouldn't automatically suffer from reduction of access to
highway funds? That was the question.
Mr. Schneider. That was the major reason that Governor King
in Maine filed a 126 petition, was because he was demonstrating
that----
Senator Isakson. What was the result of the 126 petition?
Mr. Schneider. It was granted. It resulted in the NOx SIP
Call which cut pollution from powerplants in the East. Maine is
now in the process of being designated in attainment.
Senator Isakson. OK, I am using all of my time. Wait 1
minute. So the answer is yes, and you do think that if a
community is doing everything it can do to meet standards and
still is punished or in nonattainment, there should be a method
for them to come out from under the punishment?
Mr. Schneider. In the wisdom of the legislation, the Clean
Air Act, there is a mechanism, and it has worked before.
Senator Isakson. In fairness to Commissioner Heiskell,
because your assumption is that we are complaining and hadn't
done everything we could do to appeal to EPA, that is in fact
not the case, they have gone to immeasurable lengths and cost
to get the scientific data to demonstrate exactly that case,
and the EPA has been rigid. We might ought to hire you to go
make the argument and that is another question.
Senator Lautenberg, I am going to take one additional
second, if you don't mind because I wanted to commend Mr.
Alford.
Senator Lautenberg. I don't mind at all.
Senator Isakson. Everybody's testimony was great, but that
is about as succinct a statement as I have heard on this entire
issue. In fact, I saw this morning on television former Vice
President Gore in an excerpt from a speech he made, I believe
to Wal-Mart in Bentonville, AR yesterday, where he was
applauded for the statement that you, Mr. Christopher, actually
made in your testimony, which was that there is a delicate
balance between business and the environment, and collectively
working together, we can solve our problems.
Mr. Alford in his testimony and you in yours took that
approach, not that it is us versus them. But in fact together,
in a cooperative spirit, can move the country forward. This
again is a statement and not a question. I hope everybody will
read the statements of everyone, but I commend the statement of
Mr. Alford to you, because it succinctly said that we don't
need to avoid doing anything to improve our environment, but we
must avoid destroying what allows us to do that, which is the
vitality of our country, our business and our economy, all for
the sake of the symbolism of having done that.
That is the reason I asked you the question that I asked
you, Mr. Schneider. But I commend you on your comment and I
appreciate your quantifying the cost under the potential
standard that is being proposed now, Mr. Christopher.
Mr. Christopher. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Isakson. With that, I apologize for going over. But
Mr. Schneider's answer was long.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Not at all, I thought the questions
were long.
Senator Isakson. OK, fair enough.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. In any event, we are not pressed with
the smallest minute here. Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Voinovich,
are you pressed for time? Because if you are, I will be happy
to defer.
Senator Voinovich [presiding]. No, go ahead.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Frankly, Mr. Alford, I am
interested in what you say, but surprised. Because when I see
what happens in the minority community in so many cases, and
environment is a favorite subject of mine, even though my
background had little to do with environment, except wishing
for good things. I was a fairly successful leader of
establishing a business, businesses in Cleveland, ADP, I think
must be a member of the chamber there. I know it is a
significant factor.
Because too often, the areas, I grew up in the city of
Patterson, NJ, it was largely a minority city.
Mr. Alford. I am familiar with it, yes, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. I lived there as a child. Typically,
what happens is those areas are the ones, the urban areas, the
minority areas are the ones where they put the incinerator
plants and the Superfund sites.
As a consequence, I think it does have some health
significance to the individuals who live in those areas. While
I respect the fact that minority businesses are often
disadvantaged by all kinds of things, but I would have thought
that you might be aware of a report by the CASAC. It is a group
of scientists that go without challenge, created by the Clean
Air Act. They are supposed to be scientists and not
politicians. They see all kinds of problems as a result from
the particulate material matter standard. They say that the
Agency, EPA, has chosen to propose going outside the range of
the CASAC. This science group, recommended levels, to retain
the annual standard level at its current level.
They say the Agency's risk assessment indicating reduced
health risks at annual PM2.5 levels below the
current standard was a key component in their recommendations.
They talk about the dangers to health and so forth, and are
fairly harsh, have come back a second time to reaffirm that. So
the scientific authentication here I think is fairly well
established. One can agree with it and say, look, the devil
with the science. We don't care what they say. We have business
and we have jobs and that is all.
But I think ultimately, if the average citizen was given a
choice between some job change and saving lives, especially in
my family, in your family, all of you, I think that they would
say, hey, listen, let's get on with this job. Mr. Christopher,
I am interested, your company is quite a company and I marvel
at the ability they have had to stay in business with all kinds
of competition in the field. But the fact of the matter is, it
doesn't seem to me like there is a rush. I might quarrel a
little bit with your recitation of the time table. However, the
timing of these regulations, such that major impacts will occur
in years 2010 to 2015 timeframe, as a result complies with
current Clean Air standards by 2010, and will require
incremental actions.
But if we look, the effective date of designation, there is
no action except to do some planning, that is April 2010, the
reports are due 2013. The attainment date is 2015, and the
attainment date with an extension which can be received is
2020. Doesn't that look like there is enough time to make
adjustments? We make adjustments to all kinds of things. There
are products that are no longer manufactured, asbestos, for
instance, and tobacco, as we have discussed, is considerably
diminished, because we see that there is a harm associated with
those products.
Well, there is a harm associated with these emissions. I am
sorry the Chairman wasn't here, because he would have seen Ohio
in prominent position there as being the largest contributor to
particulate matter among a whole bunch of States. It was
defended by the fact that there are States west of you who
throw their particulate matter at Ohio.
But if we have a national standard, and I will get back to
you, Mr. Christopher, if we have a national standard, isn't it
going to reduce the assault on the air of Maine and New Jersey
and other places, because everybody will start contributing? I
think there could be some exception made, Mr. Schneider pointed
that out, on appeal. Because even if you did not operate any of
your businesses, you would still be in nonattainment in Maine.
Mr. Christopher, is there not any reasonableness to this
time table to make the shifts? I mean, you agree in your early
comments that this is something that you would like, that you
are concerned about, the company, public health.
Mr. Christopher. Senator, no, actually, we do agree. We
don't debate what needs to be done or whether it needs to be
done. It gets to be a debate of pace. The numbers I referenced
talk about the current misalignment between industry
regulations and meeting the 2010 standards. So if we extend
that to 2015, the point that we are making is, we have to look
at this in aggregate, that diesel emission regulations, which
in fact will be fully implemented on diesels in 2010, will take
5 to 7 years before the fleet is replaced and full benefit is
there.
When we get down to trying to deal with the gap between
when these regulations will have a significant impact on
especially NOx emissions and when we have to hit Clean Air
standards that are required by the EPA, the cost of
implementing in that transition is very, very high. Our point
is, moving forward, unless these get aligned, so that yes, in
fact, regulating emissions on coal-fired powerplants has been
done in part of the country, it hasn't been done in the rest,
in the absence of doing that, we won't be able in the regions
to attack locally generated sources to the point where we will
be able to close these gaps. We will be in nonattainment.
To be realistic, $900 million won't be spent, because
businesses and industry will look at that and go, this is not a
viable economic solution. You will be more than likely to see
the jobs flight. That is the point we are making. It is not a
debate of whether it needs to be done. It is aligning the
Federal regulations with the Clean Air Act and the pace at
which we can do this.
Senator Lautenberg. Has Alcoa moved jobs from the United
States to other places?
Mr. Christopher. For environmental reasons, no.
Senator Lautenberg. For business reasons?
Mr. Christopher. For business reasons, we have, yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I think there are options
available in the event of----
Senator Voinovich. The Senator is at 9 minutes.
Senator Lautenberg. OK, I just wanted to show you this if
you hadn't seen it.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. By the way, not pointing an accusatory
finger, I promise you.
Senator Voinovich. I understand. I have more powerplants
than probably any State in the Nation. That is one of the
reasons why we wanted to get Clear Skies passed.
Mr. Schneider. Senator, and the point of that graph that
you were just shown, which is my graph, was only to say that
for many years, Ohio has been blamed by the Northeast for all
of its problems. You are more than well aware of that.
My point was to say that what happens in Ohio stays in
Ohio, that the biggest contributor to Ohio's own problem is
Ohio powerplants. That is the point. Cleaning them up, and I
was suggesting in my testimony that we need to go further than
CAIR to do that, because going further to CAIR is still cost-
effective reductions, rather than shifting the burden on to
small businesses and industries. If you do that in Ohio, you
will see the biggest benefits both in health but also for your
nonattainment problem.
Senator Voinovich. I am familiar with that. Just for the
record, Senator Lautenberg, when I was Governor we were in
compliance. But we sure got shot a lot.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. Your solution to the problem, the 126
petitions, we have an environmental policy by lawsuit. We need
some certainty. It is a big, big problem.
Mr. Alford, I agree with Senator Isakson. Your testimony
was right on.
Mr. Alford. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. I can't help but think back when I was
mayor, where we were working very, very hard to do economic
development in the city of Cleveland, to provide jobs for those
people who are unemployed and having all kinds of problems with
the Environmental Protection Agency. I suggested one day, why
don't the two of you get together and talk. On one hand, we are
trying to create jobs, on the other, we are trying to make it
more difficult to create jobs.
I also just thought about the Brownfields legislation that
we are all excited about. It would be interesting to see, I see
Mr. Paul nodding your head, we are trying to do something in
Dayton right now. But if you are not in attainment, new rules
come in, the fact that somebody is going to develop a
Brownfield site may be less likely than it would ordinarily. So
it is just somehow bringing some sense to all of this.
Mr. Christopher, you compete internationally. Has your
company ever looked at your costs versus, and you said in your
testimony, no, we haven't moved because of the environment, but
have you, in your consideration about where you are going and
what you are going to do, for example, in the Cleveland area,
what impact will this have on your decisionmaking about your
future expansions or perhaps locations?
Today, China has no environmental regulations. They are
talking about it. But they lose, 450,000 people a year die from
pollution. Their pollution now is, 20 percent of the mercury in
the Great Lakes, according to our best information, is from
China. Their pollution is starting to reach the West Coast of
the United States. This calls for a global discussion on this,
and I am glad the President has now instigated this in that
area of the world, I think five or six countries.
Comment on that in terms of your competitive position in
the global marketplace and what impact this has. I know for
sure in the chemical industry that we have lost jobs,
absolutely, because of the high cost of natural gas. One of the
reasons why we have high cost of natural gas is that we
encouraged people to use natural gas to generate electricity
because it is cleaner. At the same time, and I know I could
probably debate Mr. Schneider about this, at the same time we
were shutting down the supply of natural gas. So obviously the
price is going to go up.
Mr. Christopher. For us, when we make considerations, for
example, in Cleveland. We have a facility that has been there
now for 75 years. It still is one of the finest wheel
facilities in the world. It is incredibly competitive.
Senator Voinovich. I have been there, it is terrific.
Mr. Christopher. We have aggressively reduced not only our
emissions, but what we even operate against our permits. It has
allowed us to expand, we have done the offsets.
The problem we faced moving forward in a nonattainment area
is that we are getting to a point where being able to get
offsets to continue to expand and modernize the facility will
start to impact its competitiveness. Those are the concerns
that we have. When we look at relocating in a region, and we do
a lot of defense business that will stay inside the United
States, we won't look at a nonattainment region, because we
can't predict our ability to expand the operations if it is
successful. Those are the kinds of things that start to
influence us.
I think on the one hand, our Cleveland plant is absolutely
evidence of being able to be an environmentally very
responsible citizen, set a leading standard and be very, very
good for business. We have shared those experiences with other
people in Northeast Ohio. On the other hand, we are starting to
get to the point where our options are becoming limited.
Senator Voinovich. Part of your problem, as you mentioned,
is the uncertainty of the situation.
Mr. Christopher. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich. Would you like to comment on New Source
Review?
Mr. Christopher. I would prefer not to.
[Laughter.]
Senator Voinovich. That is still up in the air, in more
ways than one.
So the bottom line is, all of this, because of the way it
is going, you are going to take that into consideration in
terms of decisionmaking.
Mr. Christopher. Well, it has an impact on how you think
about investing in the facility that you have, and maintaining
the jobs that we have there. It does.
Senator Voinovich. Right.
Mr. Alford, would you like to make any further comment? One
I thought of is that we never get into, we talk about the
asthma and the particulate matter and the impact on health, and
I am going to be doing a lot more work in that area, just to
satisfy my curiosity, but we don't talk about the fact that if
I don't have a job, and I can't afford health care----
Mr. Alford. Yes, I would like to put in the record, I
wanted to respond to Senator Lautenberg, the biggest health
risk to African Americans anywhere, including New Jersey, is
poverty. That is the biggest risk. The lack of funds for
adequate health care, and a good paycheck overrides that.
I had a very textbook example in Camden, NJ, when many
people came and wanted to stop a cement plant from going in to
Camden, NJ, LeFarge. I went to the black church, the NAACPs and
showed them how many jobs the cement plant was going to impact
Camden, and the quality of life, health care, education,
safety, all that would be positively affected. And 85 percent
of that community overwhelmingly received that cement plant. I
am glad to say it is doing well.
Senator Voinovich. I know when we built the Chrysler plant
in Toledo, we did it in the city. A lot wanted to go to the
Greenfields, and the environmental concerns were one of the
concerns that were folded in.
But one of the things was, you move jobs out into the
Greenfields, as noted in some other testimony, it is very, very
difficult for people to take advantage of that.
Mr. Alford. Members of our Toledo Black Chamber of
Commerce, Northwest Ohio Black Chamber of Commerce, did about
30 percent of the construction of that plant, sir. It was very
positive.
Senator Voinovich. Do any of you have any other comments
you would like to make?
Mr. Schneider. Two, briefly, Senator. One is just a note
with respect to Senator DeMint's comment about, how can it be
that air pollution is getting better and asthma is getting
worse and therefore there is no causation. That kind of
misconceives the issue, a lot of people talk about that.
The issue is, if you have an explosion in asthma, which we
have, and we know that air pollution is a trigger for that, it
is creating more people who are susceptible. So it is not that
the air pollution is causing the asthma explosion, it is that
when you have all those people that have asthma for a variety
of different reasons, because it is a multi-factorial disease,
a complicated disease, we have more people who could be
negatively impacted by the air pollution that exists, even as
it is getting better.
Senator Voinovich. How do you answer the question about the
job loss and people who can't afford health care? I know for
example one chemical company came to me and said, 3 years ago,
you have to do something about natural gas costs or we are
going to be moving jobs out of the United States, and they went
from, I think 22,000 jobs, they are now at 14,000. They said,
if you keep going, we will be down to 10,000, 6,000, 0.
Mr. Schneider. Senator, I am puzzled by your comment on
that, because I know that you had a hearing on the impact of
the Clean Air Act on natural gas prices. My recollection from
that hearing was that every single witness, whether it was a
majority witness, minority witness, EPA, DOE, private
companies, all came in and said that there is not a
relationship between the restrictions or the requirements of
the Clean Air Act and gas prices going up. That just is a false
linkage.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the fact of the matter is----
Mr. Schneider. That is not what they said.
Senator Voinovich. Regulations shoved them into generating
electricity through natural gas, because it was the easiest to
get a permit, and it was the easiest for them to comply with
the environmental regulations. At the same time that happened,
environmental policies made it more difficult for us to get
natural gas. We are in that boat right now.
I will tell you something, just as a final comment. I think
that this country is in real trouble today. We have never had
more competition than we have today, worldwide. Unless we
develop the infrastructure of competitiveness and start looking
at things differently, and that gets into health care, that
gets into energy, it gets into dealing with the budget
situation that we have, there is a lot of things out there, the
infrastructure needs that we have in the country.
But one of them has to do with the environmental area.
Unless we can get together, and I talk about the second
declaration of independence, that is moving away from foreign
sources of energy, for our national security and for our
competitiveness. But it is not going to happen unless we get
more things like we are doing with the DERA legislation. But
there has to be some coming together and putting each other's
shoes on and figuring this thing out. Not only looking at it
from the point of view of just our country, but to look at it
in point of view of where does this all fit globally.
I will tell you, we cannot keep going the way we are. I
know you don't agree with me, Mr. Schneider, but my problem is
that I don't think, in so many of the decisions that we have
made over the years, that we have taken into consideration the
issue of the impact of environmental on our energy and our
economy. It is something that unless we work it out, I think we
are going to continue to see maybe a better environmental
situation, but I think underneath, in terms of jobs and some of
the other things that are so important to Americans.
So there has to be some compromise here. We really haven't
been able to do that. This is my eighth year on this committee.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.]
Statement of Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the
State of Connecticut
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Each and every year, 45,000 Americans die
on average 14 years earlier than we'd normally expect because they are
forced to inhale harmful amounts of particulate matter, or PM--a lethal
combination of extremely small particles and liquid droplets made up of
acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles--emitted
by powerplants, diesel engines, and other sources.
In Connecticut, PM causes more than 400 premature deaths, nearly
800 non-fatal heart attacks, and more than 9,000 asthma attacks each
year. There are three things I believe Americans rightly expect the
Federal Government to do to combat this threat to public health.
Unfortunately, we are failing at every step. First, the Federal
Government's most fundamental responsibility is to tell Americans
truthfully whether the concentrations of PM in the air they breathe are
at levels that endanger their health. Unfortunately, the Environmental
Protection Agency has proposed instead to hide the truth.
EPA has proposed to set national ambient air quality standards for
particulate matter above the limits that the scientists, doctors, and
public servants on the Congressionally-chartered Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee have identified as necessary to protect public
health. Not surprisingly, the political officials are unable to
identify any scientific basis whatsoever for disregarding the results
of the expert panel's exhaustive work.
On top of that, in determining whether the concentration of
particulate matter in an area exceeds national standards, EPA has
proposed ignoring dust from mining operations and farm fields. It is,
however, the size of a particle, not its origin, that determines the
harmful effect on lungs. Particles from mines and farms are the same
deadly size as ones emitted by powerplants and diesel engines.
And, bizarrely, EPA has proposed exempting areas containing fewer
than 100,000 people from the requirement to monitor concentrations of
coarse particulate matter. Apparently, EPA's top officials do not
believe that rural Americans have the same right as urban ones to know
whether the air they breathe contains harmful levels of pollution.
My first request, then, is for EPA to abandon its plans to conceal
from Americans the true extent of their current exposure to harmful
levels of particulate matter. Specifically, I ask that EPA's final
particulate standards adopt the limits that the Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee recommended, omit the exemptions for mining and
agricultural dust, and not exempt smaller communities from monitoring.
The second action that I believe the Federal Government should take
to help free Americans from the menace of air-borne particulates is to
implement and enforce the existing Clean Air Act provisions that can
directly bring about the most dramatic and cost-effective emission
reductions. Unfortunately, EPA has chosen instead to half-implement,
and even to undermine, the statutory provisions. For instance, in the
rule that EPA promulgated recently under the Clean Air Act section that
mandates cuts in the interstate transport of air pollution, the Agency
avoided requiring steep, prompt, and highly cost-effective reductions
in particulate-forming emissions from fossil fuel-fired powerplants.
Because EPA has chosen to let off the hook the wealthy, heavy, upwind
polluters that could have achieved the most dramatic reductions at the
lowest cost, State and local officials such as those testifying before
this subcommittee today are left to piece together, from a large number
of expensive and politically difficult measures, the remaining cuts
that are needed to protect public health.
Dealing another blow to State and local governments, EPA has in
recent years taken pains to undermine the Clean Air Act provisions that
require coal-fired powerplants to accompany otherwise pollution-
increasing renovations with environmental upgrades that slash a plant's
pollution by ninety percent or more. According to the Agency's own
inspector general, EPA's polluter-friendly rule changes stand to
prevent Federal, State, and local enforcers from securing millions of
tons-per-year of highly cost-effective reductions in particulate-
forming emissions. Again, the consequence will be that State and local
governments must squeeze the needed reductions from myriad smaller
businesses that cannot deliver them as easily.
My second request, then, is for EPA to return to a policy of
implementing, as opposed to undermining, the Clean Air Act provisions
that can directly achieve the largest and most cost-effective cuts in
particulate-forming emissions. Specifically, I ask that EPA undo the
provisions in its pollution transport rule that make it difficult for
States to obtain power-plant pollution cuts beyond the insufficient
ones required by EPA's rule. Further, I ask that EPA abandon its
regulatory effort to undermine the Clean Air Act's New Source Review
provisions and resume enforcing those provisions against coal-fired
powerplants that flout them.
Finally, I believe the public is justified in expecting the Federal
Government to appropriate reasonable amounts of money to help State and
local governments bring the areas under their care into line with the
national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter.
Unfortunately, under the Bush administration's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2007, the Federal Government would devote $35 million less
than it has in fiscal year 2006 to helping State and local governments
install air pollution monitors and develop and implement plans to
reduce particulate concentrations. While the House of Representatives
recently voted to restore all the money that the Administration had
cut, the bill approved by the Senate Appropriations committee would
restore less than half the amount.
My final request, then, is that we members of the Senate spend less
time entertaining calls to put off the essential work of cleaning up
harmful air pollution, and that we exert more of an effort to
appropriate the funds necessary to allow that life-saving work to
proceed now.
We owe that to Americans. A breath of fresh air should be a right
not a danger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of William Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to discuss our
current review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for particulate matter (PM). As you know, the NAAQS for PM and other
criteria pollutants are central to the Clean Air Act's regime for
protecting public health and the environment from air pollution. The
Clean Air Act requires that every 5 years EPA review the NAAQS and
revise them as may be appropriate. We are now engaged in this review of
the PM NAAQS, and I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about
the review, the resulting proposal to revise aspects of the PM
standards, and the process for aiding State, local and tribal
jurisdictions in meeting any revised standards.
As context for the current PM NAAQS review, I will begin by noting
the impressive progress this Nation has made in combating air pollution
and the critical role the NAAQS process has played in achieving that
success. Since enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1963, Congress has
committed the Federal Government to work with State and local
jurisdictions to ensure that the American people have clean air to
breathe. And we have made great progress in cleaning up air pollution
even as our economy has grown. Between 1970 and 2005, gross domestic
product increased 195 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 178
percent, energy consumption increased 48 percent, and U.S. population
grew by 42 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the
six principal air pollutants dropped by 53 percent. From 1990 to 2002,
air toxic emissions declined by 42 percent.
The NAAQS process has been the linchpin of our success in reducing
concentrations of criteria air pollutants. The Clean Air Act
establishes a two-step process for addressing such pollutants. First,
it requires that we set and periodically review and revise as
appropriate NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. ``Primary''
NAAQS must be set at a level requisite to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety, and ``secondary'' NAAQS must be set at a
level requisite to protect public welfare from adverse effects
(including effects relating to visibility, soils, vegetation, water,
crops, climate, and man-made materials.) Both types of NAAQS are to be
based on the latest available scientific information. Compliance costs
may not be considered in setting the standards. In the second step of
the NAAQS process, the statute calls on the States, with EPA
assistance, to develop and implement plans for attaining and
maintaining the primary and secondary standards. At this second step,
cost and other factors may be considered in designing implementation
plans that make good environmental and economic sense.
Of the many air pollutants regulated by EPA, fine particles likely
pose the greatest threat to public health due to the number of people
exposed. Studies in the peer-reviewed literature have found that these
microscopic particles, which can reach the deepest regions of the
lungs, are associated with premature death, aggravation of heart and
respiratory disease, asthma attacks, lung cancer, and chronic
bronchitis. Estimates based on the literature indicate the possibility
that thousands of premature deaths occur each year at current PM levels
in some of the country's largest urban areas. PM's impacts also lead to
increased hospitalizations, emergency room and doctor visits, lost work
days, lost school days, and increased use of medication, among other
adverse effects.
Many of EPA's recent regulations to reduce air pollution are
designed in large part to reduce fine particles. In particular, EPA's
2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule and 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule
will significantly reduce levels of fine particles in many communities.
The Bush administration is committed to using the best science
available in reviewing the PM NAAQS and deciding whether the standards
should be revised. Since the last review of the PM NAAQS, a large
number of peer-reviewed studies relevant to assessing the health and
welfare effects of PM have become available. For this review, EPA
evaluated studies that addressed a wide range of issues including PM
toxicology, epidemiology, physics, chemistry, and measurement; sources
and emissions; environmental effects and exposure. Approximately 2000
studies were referenced in EPA's assessment of the potential health and
environmental impacts of particles. EPA's assessment encompassed a
review of the strengths and limitations of an extensive body of
toxicological and epidemiological evidence evaluating potential
morbidity and/or mortality effects. They also included a critical
review of potential welfare effects related to PM, including effects on
visibility, vegetation and ecosystems, and man-made materials.
Considered together, the studies significantly advanced our
understanding of PM's effects on public health and welfare and reduced
the scientific uncertainty associated with some important aspects of
the science.
In assessing potential human health effects, EPA considered a wide
range of epidemiologic studies evaluating short-and long-term exposures
to particles in single and multiple cities. These studies addressed a
variety of health endpoints including respiratory and cardiovascular
effects, which in some cases lead to premature mortality. As part of
our assessment, we also considered impacts on potentially susceptible
or vulnerable subpopulations. A number of such population subgroups
have been identified, including individuals with preexisting heart or
lung disease, children, and the elderly.
EPA's assessment of the relevant studies was set forth in a
``criteria document,'' which was completed in October 2004. Drawing on
what EPA considers to be the most reliable, relevant studies, EPA also
performed a risk assessment to estimate the degree to which various
approaches to revising the standards would affect the public health
risks posed by PM. In addition, EPA's technical staff prepared a
``staff paper'' to bridge the gap between this science assessment and
the policy judgments required in making decisions on the NAAQS. It
provided an integration of the most policy-relevant scientific
information (namely, the information relating to possible indicator,
averaging time, form, and level of potential standards), presented and
interpreted the major findings of the risk assessment, and included
staff-identified ranges of policy options and alternative standards for
the Administrator to consider.
In keeping with their importance to the review and revision
process, the criteria document, staff paper and risk assessment were
developed with extensive involvement of representatives of the
scientific community, industry, public interest groups and the general
public. We held many public meetings with the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC)--a statutorily-mandated group of independent
scientific and technical experts appointed by the Administrator to
review criteria documents and existing NAAQS and make recommendations
as appropriate--to receive their comments on successive drafts of the
criteria document, staff paper and risk assessment.
Based on the results of this extensive scientific review and
assessment process and considering the policy implications of that
assessment, EPA Administrator Steven Johnson signed a proposal on
December 20, 2005 to revise the PM NAAQS to better protect public
health and welfare from the harmful effects of PM. The proposed suite
of standards reflected the Administrator's best provisional judgment
regarding the application of the scientific information about how
ambient levels of PM impacts public health and environment. In our
proposal, we also sought public comment on alternative standards in
recognition of the range of standards that the scientific record could
support.
Since issuing the proposal, the Agency has made additional efforts
to involve the public in this important rulemaking. On March 8, 2006,
we held all-day public hearings in Chicago, Philadelphia and San
Francisco. In addition, there was a 90-day period from January 17,
2006-April 17, 2006 during which the public could submit written
comments to the Agency. Before coming to a final decision on the PM
NAAQS, EPA will review and analyze the issues, evidence, and arguments
raised in oral and written comments. We are now in the midst of this
process.
We recognize that additional scientific studies on the health
effects of PM have been published since the PM criteria document was
completed. As a continuation of the scientific review process, EPA has
been conducting a survey of the scientific evidence reported in the
recent literature with emphasis placed on specific studies that are
most relevant to the proposed PM NAAQS decision. The survey will ensure
that before making a final decision, the Administrator is fully aware
of the new science that has developed. We intend to provide the public
with an opportunity to review the results of the survey prior to making
a final decision on revising the PM NAAQS. After our review is
complete, the Administrator will make final decisions regarding
revisions to the PM NAAQS. We are scheduled to issue a final rule
reflecting those decisions by September 27, 2006.
While EPA may not consider compliance costs in setting NAAQS, the
Agency typically prepares a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for NAAQS
rules to provide information to States and the public on the controls,
disbenefits and costs that meeting the NAAQS would likely entail. In
the case of the current PM NAAQS review, EPA will provide a national-
scale assessment of costs and benefits in the RIA for any revised
PM2.5 standards. We will share the results of our national-
scale assessment with you as soon as they are available. In the RIA,
EPA will ensure that all information presented clearly distinguishes
between the costs and benefits of those efforts necessary to meet
current standards and additional--i.e. incremental--costs and benefits
that will be incurred as a result of efforts to reach attainment with
any revised standards. The RIA will also examine the extent to which
controls applied to attain the current standards by 2015 would also be
effective to help attain alternative, more stringent standards by 2020.
proposed revisions of the pm naaqs
The proposed revisions of the PM NAAQS address two categories of
particles: fine particles, or PM2.5, which are 2.5
micrometers in diameter or smaller and inhalable coarse particles, or
PM10-2.5, which are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter
but larger than PM2.5. We have had specific NAAQS for
PM2.5 since 1997 and for particles 10 micrometers and
smaller, or PM10, since 1987. (We also have had NAAQS for
various types of particles, of which both fine and coarse PM are
subsets, since the inception of the NAAQS in 1971.) Based on the latest
scientific information, we proposed specific revisions to the current
PM standards and requested comments on a range of alternative standards
for both fine and inhalable coarse particles. The proposed revisions
address changes to both the primary standards to protect public health
and the secondary standards to protect public welfare including
visibility impairment.
With respect to primary standards to protect public health, EPA
proposed :
1. Lowering the level of the 24-hour fine particle standard from
the current level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)
to 35 mg/m3. We requested comment on retaining the current
level of the standard (65 mg/m3); on levels between 25 and
65 mg/m3; and on alternative approaches for selecting the
level of the standard.
2. Retaining the level of the annual fine particle standard at 15
mg/m3. We requested public comment on a range of levels from
l5 mg/m3 down to 12 mg/m3.
3. Establishing a new indicator for inhalable coarse particles --
PM10-2.5. Reflecting the available science on PM health
effects, the proposed new PM10-2.5 standard would include
any ambient mix of PM10-2.5 which is dominated by
resuspended dust from high-density traffic on paved roads and PM
generated by industrial sources and construction sources, and excludes
any ambient mix of PM10-2.5 which is dominated by rural
windblown dust and soils and PM generated by agricultural and mining
sources. We proposed setting a 24-hour standard for inhalable coarse
particles at 70 mg/m3 (98th percentile). Under the proposed
regulations, agricultural sources, mining sources, and other similar
sources of crustal materials would not be subject to control in meeting
the standard. We further proposed monitoring siting criteria which
would determine which monitoring results could be used for comparison
with the proposed PM10-2.5 NAAQS. We requested comment on
selecting a level down to 50 mg/m3 (98th percentile) or
below and/or selecting an unqualified PM10-2.5 indicator. We
also asked for comment on whether we should retain the current 24-hour
PM10 standard in place of the proposed PM10-2.5
standard or whether we should not establish a coarse PM standard at
this time pending the development of a coarse fraction monitoring
network and further research on the health effects of coarse particles.
We also proposed that the secondary standards for both fine and
coarse particles be identical to the primary, health-based standards.
We requested comment on setting a sub-daily (4-8 hour averaging time)
PM2.5 standard to address visibility impairment, within the
range of 20-30 mg/m3 (with a form within the 95th
percentile).
Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10-2.5, is a subset of
the type of PM controlled by existing standards for PM10.
Issuance of a standard for PM10-2.5 would thus raise the
issue of what should happen to the current PM10 standards.
We proposed that the current annual PM10 standards should be
revoked in all areas based on our view that the current scientific
evidence does not support setting a standard for long-term exposure of
inhalable coarse particles. In light of our proposal to adopt a 24-hour
primary standard for PM10-2.5, which would address short-
term exposure, we proposed to revoke the current 24-hour
PM10 standard, except in areas that have at least one
monitor that is located in an urbanized area with a minimum population
of 100,000 people and that has measured a violation of the 24-hour
PM10 standard based on the most recent 3 years of data. In
essence, we proposed to retain the current 24-hour PM10
standard only in areas which could be in violation of the proposed
PM10-2.5 standard, in light of the proposed monitoring
siting criteria.
In a separate rule that is partially tied to the proposal to revise
the PM NAAQS, we proposed revisions to the ambient air monitoring
requirements for PM and other criteria pollutants. The proposed changes
support the proposed revisions to the PM NAAQS, including new minimum
monitoring network requirements for inhalable coarse particles
(PM10-2.5) and criteria for approval of applicable sampling
methods. These proposed changes would also establish a new nationwide
network of monitoring stations that take an integrated, multi-pollutant
approach to ambient air monitoring in support of multiple objectives.
The proposed amendments would modify the current requirements for
ambient air monitors by focusing requirements on populated areas with
air quality problems. The purpose of these proposed changes is to
enhance ambient air quality monitoring to better serve current and
future air quality management and research needs.
implementation of the pm naaqs
The Clean Air Act gives States the lead in implementing NAAQS
standards. In the case of any revised PM NAAQS, implementation would be
governed by subpart 1 of part D of title I, which provides States with
the most flexibility in determining when and how to achieve attainment
of the standards.
If the PM NAAQS are revised, EPA will work with States to ensure a
smooth transition between current standards and any revised standards
so that their control efforts are as cost-effective as possible. As a
first step, in conjunction with our December 2005 proposal to revise
the NAAQS, EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)
in January 2006 identifying and seeking comment on a number issues
related to the transition between current PM standards and the proposed
revisions to fine particle standards and proposed new coarse particle
standards. In the ANPR, EPA laid out for both proposed fine and coarse
PM standards possible timelines for designations of areas as in
attainment or nonattainment of the standards, submittal of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), and attainment dates. As EPA explained in
the ANPR, we would likely designate areas as in attainment or
nonattainment of any revised fine particle standard no later than
December 2009, and designations would become effective in April 2010.
Assuming designations took effect then, States and other implementing
agencies would likely have until April 2013 to submit their attainment
demonstrations and SIP revisions. For any areas designated as
nonattainment for a revised fine PM standard, the initial attainment
date would be ``as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5
years from the date of designation,'' or April 2015. Some areas might
also qualify for an extension of the attainment deadline by up to 5
years, or April 2020. Assuming the ANPR timeline were followed, any
additional controls needed for attainment would likely phase in between
2013 and 2015 or up to 2020 for areas that qualify for an extension.
As for any transition from a PM10 to a
PM10-2.5 standard, since the deployment of the necessary
monitoring network would take several years, it is likely that
nonattainment designations for any new PM10-2.5 standard
would not occur until 2013 at the earliest. Submittal of nonattainment
area SIPs would follow in 2016, and attainment dates would be no later
than 2018, or 2023 in the case of areas that qualified for the maximum
5-year extension. In the ANPR, EPA also shared its preliminary thinking
about how to address some of the key New Source Review issues related
to the proposed coarse PM standard.
We issued the ANPR as a companion piece to the PM NAAQS proposal so
that we could give our State, local and tribal partners insight into,
and an opportunity to help shape, any transition to revised standards.
We believe any actions a State or other jurisdiction takes to meet the
1997 PM NAAQS would be helpful in meeting any revised PM NAAQS. We
understand that many States and local governments are concerned about
facing another round of designations for a NAAQS. I assure you that we
are committed to working through this process with them.
Attaining both the current fine particle standards and any possible
revised fine particle standards will involve a combination of national,
regional, and local emissions control measures. EPA has already
established several national regulations to reduce emissions
contributing to fine particle pollution from gasoline and diesel
engines. In addition, in May 2005, EPA finalized the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, with emissions caps requiring significant reductions
in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions
from electric generating units in the eastern United States in 2010 and
2015. Both SO2 and NOx can contribute to particle formation.
States are now evaluating a range of local emission reduction
strategies to address emissions from additional stationary, mobile, and
area sources.
The Administration is committed to working with Congress to pass
Clear Skies legislation to improve upon our CAIR and CAMR rulemakings.
The President's Clear Skies Act would require a 70 percent annual cut
in powerplant pollution (NOx, SOx and mercury) nationwide when fully
implemented. The legislation would expand the successful ``cap and
trade'' approach used in the Title IV Acid Rain Program, which has
obtained significant pollution reductions sooner than expected,
achieved nearly full compliance, and did not significantly impact the
price of electricity for American consumers and businesses. In similar
fashion, Clear Skies would significantly improve air quality, maintain
energy diversity, keep electricity prices affordable for Americans, and
encourage more reinvestment and new jobs in urban communities.
Legislation is preferred over administrative rulemaking because it
fends off litigation and delay, and it would allow creation of a
nationwide program rather than just a regional one.
conclusion
In conclusion, the latest science tells us that current levels of
particle pollution in some of the country's largest urban areas
continue to threaten public health. The Clean Air Act tells us how to
proceed in setting the standards and offers flexibility in how to
implement those standards. We are sensitive to the concerns that
members of this Committee and others have raised about the challenges
in meeting any revised PM NAAQS. We are committed to setting the
standards based on science and implementing them based on common sense.
__________
Statement of John Paul, Supervisor, Regional Air Pollution
Control Agency
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am
John Paul, supervisor of the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
(RAPCA) in Dayton, OH and president of ALAPCO, the Association of Local
Air Pollution Control Officials. While I appear here today on behalf of
RAPCA, my testimony is endorsed by ALAPCO and its sister organization,
STAPPA--the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators.
These two national associations of clean air agencies in 54 States and
territories and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United
States have primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act for
implementing our Nation's air pollution control laws and regulations
and, even more importantly, for achieving and sustaining clean,
healthful air throughout the country.
I commend you for convening this hearing on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter, or PM. The PM
NAAQS are critically important to State and local clean air agencies,
which have an extensive record of comments to EPA on this issue. I,
along with colleagues of mine from across the nation, provided
testimony at all three of EPA's public hearings; we also offered
comprehensive written comments.
Particulate matter is not only one of the most serious air
pollution problems facing our nation, it is one of our country's most
significant environmental problems. And the science bears this out.
In December 2005, over 100 doctors, scientists and public health
professionals wrote to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson citing the
serious health effects of fine particulate matter, concluding:
The major health effects of fine particulate matter include
reduced lung function, cough, wheeze. missed school days due to
respiratory symptoms, increased use of asthma medications,
cardiac arrhythmias, strokes, emergency room visits, hospital
admissions, lung cancer, and premature death--at levels well
below the current national air quality standards.
Since the PM standard was last revised in 1997, there have been
over 2,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies analyzing the health and
welfare effects associated with this pollutant. The body of evidence,
according to the scientists and health professionals, ``validate[s]
earlier epidemiological studies linking both acute and chronic fine
particle pollution with serious morbidity and mortality . . . and
identify[ies] health effects at lower exposure levels than previously
reported'' (December 2005 letter). In fact, EPA's own risk assessment
estimates that more than 4,700 people die prematurely each year in just
nine U.S. cities at the current PM2.5 levels.
The Clean Air Act defines the process EPA must follow in setting,
or revising, the NAAQS. In sections 108 and 109, the Administrator is
required to set, and revise at 5-year intervals, standards ``the
attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the
Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin
of safety, are requisite to protect the public health.'' The
Administrator is also required to appoint an ``independent scientific
review committee''--the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC)--that ``shall recommend to the Administrator any new [NAAQS]
and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be
appropriate.''
There are existing NAAQS for two kinds of particulate matter: one
for particles 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10). set in
1987, and one for fine particles 2.5 micrometers and smaller
(PM2.5), established in 1997. In December 2005, EPA proposed
revisions to the PM standards, including changing the fine particle
standard and creating a new standard for inhalable coarse particles
(PM10-2.5), which are smaller than 10 micrometers in
diameter, but larger than PM2.5.
In its proposal, EPA recommends, among other things, (1) lowering
the 24-hour fine particle standard from the current level of 65
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3,
(2) retaining the level of the annual fine standard at 15 mg/
m3 and (3) replacing the current PM10 standard
with a new 24-hour PM10-2.5 standard at 70 mg/m3.
In addition, EPA proposes exempting from the coarse particle standard
``any ambient mix of PM10-2.5 where the majority of coarse
particles are rural windblown dust and soils and PM generated by
agricultural and mining sources.''
We have carefully reviewed EPA's proposal to revise the PM NAAQS
and are deeply troubled with several major aspects, including the
levels of the PM2.5 standard and the exemptions EPA
proposes.
First, we are very concerned that EPA did not follow the
recommendations of CASAC in setting the PM2.5 annual
standard. Rather than relying upon the consensus recommendation CASAC
had proposed, EPA instead chose to retain the current annual standard.
Perhaps not surprisingly, this prompted a significant reaction by
CASAC, which sent EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson a letter (March 21,
2006) requesting that EPA reconsider its proposal and set the annual
standard ``within the range previously recommended'' (13-14 mg/
m3) and clarifying why it was important to select a tighter
level. CASAC stated:
In summary, the epidemiological evidence, supported by
emerging mechanistic understanding, indicates adverse effects
of PM2.5 at current average annual levels below 15
mg/m3. The [CASAC] PM Panel realized the
uncertainties involved in setting an appropriate health-
protective level for the annual standard, but noted that the
uncertainties would increase rapidly below the level of 13 mg/
m3. That is the basis for the PM Panel
recommendation of a level at 13-14 mg/m3. Therefore
the CASAC requests reconsideration of the proposed ruling for
the level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS so that the
standard is set within the range previously recommended by the
PM Panel, i.e., 13 to 14 mg/m3.
Accordingly, we strongly urge that EPA follow CASAC's advice to
tighten the annual PM2.5 standard by selecting a level
within the recommended range.
We are also disappointed with the level EPA set for the daily
PM2.5 standard. While we appreciate that EPA selected a
level of the standard within the range recommended by CASAC, we note
that the level--35 mg/m3--was not only at the high end of
the range, but was inconsistent with the EPA Staff Paper recommendation
(June 2005) that conditioned adoption of 35 mg/m3 on
tightening the annual standard.
With respect to the PM10-2.5 standard, we strongly
oppose EPA's exemptions for major sources contributing significantly to
coarse PM emissions, especially agriculture, mining and other sources
of crustal material. This appears to be an unprecedented action: to our
knowledge EPA has never before set a NAAQS that allows major source
categories to be altogether excluded from control requirements. CASAC
is also concerned, commenting that its members ``neither foresaw nor
endorsed a standard that specifically exempts all agricultural and
mining sources. . . .''
We are very concerned that excluding these sources implies their
emissions are not harmful, yet EPA does not provide any such evidence.
It appears likely that pesticide-, herbicide- and toxic-laden coarse
particles from agriculture, and metals-coated coarse particles from
mining, respectively, pose risks similar to urban coarse PM that is
dominated by resuspended dust from high density traffic and industrial
sources. In addition, rural windblown dust (i.e., crustal material) may
contain toxic elements. If any exemptions are warranted, they should be
considered during the implementation phase--when costs and
practicability issues are allowed to be considered--but not during the
process of setting a health-based standard.
We are also very troubled that EPA is proposing to exempt major
portions of the country--those with less than 100,000 people--from
monitoring for coarse particles. This action has the practical effect
of ignoring the health and welfare of millions of people throughout the
Nation. We believe this is not only an unprecedented action, it totally
ignores the recommendations of CASAC, which concluded ``it is essential
to have data collected on the wide range of both urban and rural areas
in order to determine whether or not the proposed . . . standard should
be modified at the time of future reviews'' (March 21, 2006).
Finally, we believe, as CASAC suggests, that EPA should set a sub-
daily standard for PM2.5 to protect against visibility
impairment. In its proposal, EPA relies on the primary daily standard
for visibility protection, but this is not sufficient to help States
and localities make reasonable progress toward their regional haze
goals, as mandated under the Clean Air Act.
Once EPA sets the new PM standards, States and localities will
begin their process of taking steps toward meeting the standards. This
will involve, among other things, monitoring air quality, designating
new ``nonattainment'' areas and developing State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) that include all of the enforceable measures--Federal, State and
local--necessary to bring areas into attainment by the required
deadlines. Areas will not be required to reach attainment of the new PM
standards until 2015 for PM2.5 and 2018 for
PM10-2.5, with the possibility of additional extensions for
5 or more years.
In the meantime, States and localities are now in the process of
developing SIPs to meet the existing PM2.5 standard,
established in 1997. There are several actions Congress and EPA could
take now, not only to assist State and local agencies in implementing
the existing PM standard, but to also help make progress on our glide
path toward achieving the new PM standards.
First, most areas of the country will need to rely heavily upon
national or regional strategies to meet the existing PM2.5
standard. These include strategies to regulate electric generating
units, industrial boilers, cement kilns and the like. These industrial
sectors offer the most significant and cost-effective opportunities for
reducing PM2.5 and its precursors. A national rule not only
provides consistency and certainty for industry, but offers the added
advantage of administrative expediency for State and local agencies,
obviating the need for each State and/or locality to examine each
sector and develop separate rules.
EPA took a good first step in publishing its Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), designed as an interstate air pollution control strategy
to regulate electric utilities in the eastern United States. But, as we
commented when that rule was proposed, the compliance deadlines are too
long, the emissions caps are not sufficiently stringent and the rule
only covers electric utilities, when other sources--such as industrial
boilers and cement kilns--also warrant a national approach.
It is important to recognize that the development of SIPs requires
a ``zero sum'' calculation. To the extent that a Federal rule falls far
short of what an industrial sector can achieve in a cost-effective and/
or timely manner, those lost opportunities will have to be made up by
some other sector of the economy, generally a small business or other
regulated entity for which the costs are higher and regulation is less
cost effective.
Perhaps it is best to illustrate this with an example. EPA
estimated that the benefits of CAIR are between 30 and 35 times as
great as the costs. For every dollar spent under CAIR to control
emissions of PM2.5 precursors, society gets between $30 and
$35 in benefits. And these EPA benefit estimates do not include
important non-monetary benefits, such as reducing acid deposition and
improving visibility in many national parks.
We believe that EPA not only missed a huge opportunity with respect
to regulating electric utilities, but it also ignored Executive Order
12291, which states, among other things, that when publishing
regulations, ``agencies should set regulatory priorities with the aim
of maximizing the aggregate net benefits to society. . . .'' Given
these huge benefit-to-cost ratios in favor of reducing PM2.5
precursor emissions, we urge that EPA require further reductions from
the electric utility sector, as well as from other promising sectors
for national regulation, starting with industrial boilers and cement
kilns.
Second, EPA must issue its PM2.5 implementation rule,
which identifies the general measures and other important provisions
that will be required for SIPs. EPA has promised this rule for at least
3 years and there is simply no excuse for further delay. Most States
need a year or more to fulfill their own administrative requirements
for adopting rules and regulations and have already begun preparing
their SIPs. But this effort is hampered by the lack of guidance from
EPA on what these SIPs must contain. Not only is this rule crucial for
States in preparing their SIPs, it is also vitally important for
explaining to those living in nonattainment areas what requirements
will apply to their areas.
Third, Congress and EPA can help States and localities meet their
federally mandated responsibilities under the Clean Air Act by ensuring
that State and local agencies have adequate funding and other important
regulatory tools. This is essential at a time when agencies are
significantly expanding their responsibilities, including the
development of PM2.5 SIPs. Unfortunately, the
Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget calls for cuts in grants to
State and local air agencies of $35.1 million, including reductions for
State and local agency staff under section 105 of the Clean Air Act and
for monitors--including PM--under section 103. Additionally, the
President's budget calls for a different mechanism for PM monitoring
grants, requiring State and local agencies to match those grant funds,
which could be a burden for many agencies. While the House of
Representatives voted recently to restore the full $35.1 million cut,
the Senate Appropriations Committee has restored just $15 million. We
strongly urge the full Senate to restore the remainder of the cuts.
We also believe that Congress and EPA should increase Federal
funding for training programs that will provide Federal, State and
local governmental officials with the skills they need to successfully
fulfill their Clean Air Act implementation and enforcement
responsibilities. Doing so will not only ensure the greatest return on
our clean air investments, it is also required by section 103 of the
Clean Air Act. However, because EPA has continued to reduce its
financial support for training in recent years, State and local air
agencies are now bearing a disproportionate share of the cost,
contributing $2.0 million per year versus less than $500,000 annually
from EPA.
Finally, we applaud you, Chairman Voinovich, and your colleagues on
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, for your leadership
in seeking to clean up emissions from diesel engines, which contribute
significantly to PM levels. We not only support the Diesel Emission
Reduction program included in the Energy Policy Act passed by Congress
last year, we also endorse the President's request for $50 million for
this program in FY 2007.
In conclusion, we urge that EPA make significant changes to the PM
National Ambient Air Quality Standards by tightening the annual
PM2.5 standard, eliminating exemptions in the
PM2.5 standard, requiring monitoring in both urban and rural
areas, and taking important steps--regulatory and funding--to help
States and localities comply with the existing and new PM standards.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to
answer any of your questions.
__________
Statement of Larry J. Gould, Chair, Lenawee County
Board of Commissioners
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name
is Larry Gould. I am chairperson of the Lenawee County Board of
Commissioners, a position I have held since 2001. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding EPA's proposed revision of the
PM2.5 standard.
By way of background, I have served as a County Commissioner for
Lenawee County, Michigan, for the past 32 years. Lenawee County is
located in southeast Michigan on the State line across from Ohio. The
county seat, Adrian, is approximately 35 miles from Toledo, Ohio, 40
miles from Ann Arbor, Michigan, and 70 miles from Detroit. I have
served as chairperson of the County's Personnel/Ways and Means
Committee for many years during my service on the County Commission. My
family has been engaged in farming since the area was settled in 1835.
Lenawee County has a population of slightly over 100,000 and is
largely rural. Being located near major metropolitan and industrial
areas--in particular, Detroit--has affected Lenawee County's air
quality. As a consequence, Lenawee County has been designated by EPA as
a ``marginal'' nonattainment county for EPA's 8-hour-ozone standard,
despite the fact that the single monitor located in Lenawee has shown
compliance with the ozone standard for the past six (6) years. Lenawee
is designated nonattainment because all nine (9) ozone monitors
throughout the Detroit area must show compliance with the standard.
Seven other counties in southeast Michigan are also designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour-ozone standard.
Fortunately, Lenawee is not designated as nonattainment--at least
not yet--for any other National Ambient Air Quality Standard, including
PM2.5. However, there are seven (7) Michigan counties that
are designated nonattainment for the existing PM2.5
standard.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SMCOG) submitted an ozone
attainment strategy to EPA in June 2005. This strategy is comprised of
three categories of control measures: selected controls, contingency
measures, and voluntary measures. Selected controls include a lower
vapor pressure fuel. MDEQ and SMCOG are in the process of obtaining
legal authority to implement these measures. However, without concerted
efforts by our more populated neighbors to control their air emissions,
any efforts by Lenawee County to regulate its own air emissions will
almost certainly prove to be futile. This is the case with either ozone
or a revised PM2.5 standard.
In January, EPA proposed to revise the 24-hour National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for PM2.5. EPA also asked for comment on
whether to revise the annual PM2.5 standard. I am very
concerned that a revision of the PM2.5 standard would result
in Lenawee County being designated nonattainment for PM2.5
for the same reason the county is designated as nonattainment for
ozone. That is, Lenawee would be included in a multi-county
nonattainment area whose air quality is dominated largely by emissions
from more heavily populated counties. Even though it is not our fault,
Lenawee will be forced to comply with restrictions that are likely to
impede our attempts to attract new industry and expand our economic
base.
According to MDEQ, three counties with particulate matter monitors
(Wayne, Monroe and Oakland) currently show a violation of the revised
24-hour standard proposed by EPA. I am aware of estimates that suggest
a significant increase in the number of nonattainment counties in
Michigan if the PM2.5 standard is revised. These estimates
indicate that the 24-hour standard proposed by EPA combined with a
modest revision of the annual standard could more than double the
current number of nonattainment counties in Michigan from seven (7)
counties to 16 counties. According to these estimates, Lenawee would be
one of those 16 PM2.5 nonattainment counties. As a
consequence, Lenawee, a rural county with a small population and good
air quality, would be nonattainment for both ozone and a revised
PM2.5 standard. This is not a prospect I look forward to as
the chairperson of the Board of Commissioners.
Lenawee's citizens and businesses will bear the costs of
controlling emissions to reach attainment with the 8-hour-ozone
standard. We will almost certainly bear additional costs if EPA revises
the PM2.5 standard and Lenawee is designated as
nonattainment. It is difficult to predict what specific control
measures Lenawee County would have to adopt in order to comply with a
revised PM2.5 standard. As you know, State and local
governments are still in the process of deciding how they will come
into compliance with the current PM2.5 standard. In fact,
this is one of my concerns. EPA might change the 1997 PM2.5
standard before States have come into compliance with it.
As you know, National Ambient Air Quality Standards are developed
by EPA without regard to how much it would cost to comply with them.
Costs for implementing and complying with air quality standards are
borne to some extent by State and local governments. As a county
commissioner, it is very clear to me that the costs of implementing
clean air standards are significant unfunded Federal mandates. The cost
of these unfunded mandates can be substantial, with minimal air quality
benefits for counties like Lenawee. For example, the Lenawee Board of
County Road Commissioners informs me that highway funds have been made
available to Lenawee County through Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(CMAQ) funding to improve air quality in the county. However, they
point out that the current level of CMAQ funding ``appears to be a drop
in the bucket'' compared to the funding that will be needed if EPA
makes the 1997 standards more stringent. In addition, the Michigan
Association of Counties informs me that ``any new particulate matter
standards which push costs to the counties would be impossible for us
to support, unless the commensurate amount of Federal funding were
appropriated for us to implement these standards.'' The Association's
concern is based on its estimate that one third of Michigan's counties
are required to pay over $1.1 billion annually for Federal and State
mandates, but the counties are reimbursed for only half that amount.
There is little doubt in my mind that imposition of new mandates
would have a negative impact on economic growth and development in
Lenawee County. Like most counties in Michigan, Lenawee continues to
struggle with high unemployment and an uncertain economy. I am
concerned that nonattainment requirements are likely to impede ongoing
efforts to expand economically and create jobs.
The Lenawee Chamber for Economic Development has written me
recently to express their concern about the serious negative impacts to
our local economy if EPA revises the PM2.5 standard. The
Chamber points out the closure of plants and the continuing loss of
manufacturing plants in Lenawee. Most of these plants were older and
relied on out of date technologies. If Lenawee if classified as a
PM2.5 nonattainment county, the Chamber believes that we
will continue to lose jobs and have difficulty attracting facilities
with newer and better environmental controls. In fact, the Chamber
estimates that a nonattainment designation could result in the
potential loss of over 1000 current jobs, three fourths of which would
be in the chemical industry.
Over the past several years, Lenawee County has assumed a
leadership role in developing facilities to produce cleaner burning
fuels. A $60 million ethanol plant is currently under construction in
the southeast part of our county, and a biodiesel blending facility is
planned for construction in Adrian. The ethanol plant will produce 57
million gallons of ethanol annually and is expected to begin production
early next year. We are proud of the jobs these facilities will bring
to the county and the fact that cleaner burning fuels will help reduce
harmful air emissions. Our plan is to almost double the capacity of the
ethanol plant sometime in the future. However, I am very concerned that
the expansion might face serious impediments and delays in obtaining
the necessary air permits if Lenawee County is designated nonattainment
for PM2.5. Because the biodiesel facility will blend rather
than produce fuel, I hope that we will not encounter any significant
problems if Lenawee is designated nonattainment.
Right now, I believe it makes more sense to focus our efforts at
the State and local level on reaching attainment with the 1997
standards for ozone and PM2.5. I would urge EPA and Congress
to provide State and local governments with all the administrative and
financial support they need to implement the current standards, rather
than change the standards now, which would increase the number of
nonattainment counties, impose significant unfunded mandates on State
and local government, and require other measures that are almost
certain to adversely affect economic growth in areas like Lenawee
County.
______
Responses by Larry J. Gould to Additional Questions from
Senator Voinovich
Question 1. I know that you care about public health, and everyone
wants to see our communities meet Federal clean air standards--but a
community's total well-being also is impacted by having well-paying,
stable jobs, and a robust local tax base. How would a nonattainment
designation impact this aspect of community health?
Response. Nonattainment would mean the continued loss of older
manufacturing facilities in the county that cannot afford to meet the
higher, more restrictive air quality standards. This would further
erode manufacturing jobs as these industries either shut down or
relocate to areas (i.e., off-shore) that have less stringent standards.
Designating Lenawee County as a ``nonattainment'' area would almost
certainly have a negative effect on industry decisions to invest in our
economy thereby reducing overall job opportunities.
The Lenawee Chamber for Economic Development estimates that if
Lenawee County is designated as a ``nonattainment'' area, the potential
exists for the loss of over 1,000 current manufacturing jobs, 75
percent of which are in the chemical industry. These chemical plants
are, ironically, currently recognized by the EPA for their
environmental leadership. This loss of jobs in Lenawee County would
equate to approximately 10 percent of our total manufacturing jobs. A
loss of this magnitude would have a tremendous impact on our tax base
and would almost guarantee a reduction in needed public services.
We recently received information from our electric utility,
Consumers Energy, that if a new generating facility is not in operation
in Michigan by 2010, severe shortages and restrictions are projected
which will curtail job growth and development potentially affecting
public safety. A forerunner of this has been seen this summer with
electric utilities struggling to meet service demands during intense
heat waves. This has resulted in deaths in major cities and disruptions
to businesses and residents.
I believe that my community's well-being will be better served by
focusing our efforts on implementing the existing air quality standards
rather than moving the goalposts, resulting in job losses, economic
stagnation and power shortages.
Question 2. I am concerned that EPA has proposed to ``move the
goalposts'' by establishing new standards even before States send in
their compliance programs to meet the existing standards. What will the
impact be on States and localities and their planning resources?
Response. As a county commissioner, I am also concerned that EPA
might move the goalposts, which would stretch planning resources,
impose unfunded mandates, and make it difficult for Lenawee County to
attract new industry, expand the county's economic base and create
jobs. Job creation is an especially critical issue in Michigan because
it has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United States--7
percent for July and a loss of 29,000 payroll jobs during the month.
Lenawee's unemployment rate for the first five months of 2006 was even
worse, averaging 7.3 percent per month and exceeding 8 percent for two
of those months.
By way of background, Lenawee is designated as ``marginal''
nonattainment for the 8-hour-ozone standard even though the single
monitor located in the county has shown no violation of the ozone
standard for the past 6 years. The county is designated nonattainment
because every monitor throughout the Detroit area must show compliance
with the ozone standard.
Fortunately, Lenawee is designated attainment for the existing
PM2.5 standard. However, I am concerned that a revision of
the PM2.5 standard could result in Lenawee County being
designated nonattainment for PM2.5 According to the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), three counties with
particulate matter monitors currently show a violation of the revised
24-hour PM2.5 standard proposed by EPA. There are estimates
that suggest a revised standard could more than double the current
number of nonattainment counties in Michigan from seven counties to 16
counties. If these estimates turn out to be correct, Lenawee would be
one of those 16 PM2.5 nonattainment counties.
MDEQ is developing strategies to comply with the 8-hour-ozone
standard. Lenawee's citizens and businesses will bear the costs of
controlling emissions to reach attainment with the 8-hour-ozone
standard. I believe that State and local planning resources would be
stretched thin in order to comply with a revised PM2.5
standard at the same time they have just begun to implement measures to
meet both the existing ozone and PM2.5 standards.
State and local governments bear significant costs for implementing
and complying with air quality standards. Therefore, to State and local
officials, the costs of implementing clean air standards are unfunded
Federal mandates. The cost of these unfunded mandates is substantial.
According to the Lenawee Board of County Road Commissioners, highway
funds that have been made available to Lenawee County through
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) to improve air quality in the
county would have to be increased substantially if EPA makes the 1997
standard more stringent. However, we do not know how much additional
CMAQ funds would be available. In addition, the Michigan Association of
Counties indicates that they cannot support a revised standard without
a commensurate increase in Federal funding. The Association estimates
that one-third of Lenawee will almost certainly bear additional costs
and negative employment consequences if the county is designated
nonattainment for PM2.5. However, it is difficult to predict
right now what specific measures Lenawee County would have to adopt (or
their precise consequences) in order to comply with a revised
PM2.5 standard because State and local governments are still
in the process of determining how they will come into compliance with
the existing PM2.5 standard.
Statement of BeBe Heiskell, Commissioner, Walker County, GA
introduction
Good morning, Chairman Voinovich, Ranking Member Carper, and
Members of the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear
Safety.
My name is Bebe Heiskell. I am the sole commissioner of Walker
County, Georgia. We are located in the northwest corner of the State
just south of Chattanooga. I am in the sixth year of elected office,
with a background of 27 years in public administration. Thank you for
allowing me to describe the impact that nonattainment designations have
on communities like mine.
The hardest part of my job is funding the delivery of services,
such as road maintenance and meeting payrolls. I am where the rubber
meets the road, face to face every day with the taxpayers that support
our governments. Our residents recognize the property tax relief that a
strong local economy provides.
background on walker county
Walker County is a vibrant community of 63,000 people located in
the northwest corner of Georgia. While the northernmost tip of the
county borders the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, the vast majority of
Walker County is rural. A variety of national and international
manufacturers have operations in Walker County and our corner of the
State produces the vast majority of the world's carpet. Forty-six
percent of Walker County's work force is employed in manufacturing
while large numbers of our residents also leave the county each day to
commute into Chattanooga for employment. They recognize the property
tax relief provided by our industry.
environmental quality
Walker County, and indeed the entire region surrounding
Chattanooga, Tennessee, is blessed with healthy air and a clean
environment. It was not so long ago, during its foundry era, that
Chattanooga was named the dirtiest city in America with all the related
health issues associated. Indeed, Chattanooga served as a poster child
for Congressional efforts to pass the Clean Air Act. Since that time,
however, thanks to the Clean Air Act our region has experienced a
rebirth as we have cleaned up our environment and improved our air
quality while at the same time managing to grow our economy. The
businesses in my community have invested millions to reduce their
emissions, cars are significantly cleaner than they were just 10 years
ago, powerplants have spent billions on controls, and the two large
metropolitan areas surrounding us have come into compliance with the 1-
hour-ozone standard. Now, I have the pleasure to represent part of what
Outside Magazine called one of the ten best places to live in America.
As a community leader and an asthmatic, I appreciate all that EPA
has done to see that we have cleaner air. In September 2004 EPA's own
status report boasted ``U.S. Air Cleanest Ever Since 1970'', even while
the economy has expanded 150 percent in that time period. American
businesses should also be commended for their accomplishments.
attainment status
Today the citizens of both Chattanooga and Walker County enjoy
clean air and clear skies. Yet, we remain in nonattainment for
particulate matter largely through no fault of our own. Walker County's
nonattainment status is almost exclusively due to outside influences on
our air quality including up to 60 percent natural particulate matter,
transported from Alaska, Canada, and amazingly Africa, which is
completely out of our control. In addition, we are positioned between
Chattanooga and Atlanta; two major interstate highways; and several
large manufacturing facilities and powerplants in the region.
Walker County is struggling to attain EPA's air quality standards
and have implemented all practicable local control measures. While in
nonattainment, we are hopeful that the Agency will eventually place us
back into attainment. However, if EPA goes forth with its efforts to
further revise the fine particulate matter standards, I simply don't
know what we in Walker County will do. To be forced into perpetual
nonattainment will have a devastating impact on not only our economy,
but on the lives of our citizens.
impacts of nonattainment
Quality growth is vital to Walker County and other communities all
over this country. Though our air is improving, I see the job losses
that stem from perpetual nonattainment. This adds to the complexity of
local governance while we struggle with public opposition to these
nonattainment designations and many of our jobs go overseas.
From an economic development standpoint, being in nonattainment of
EPA's fine particulate matter standards has serious consequences right
now. Many industries begin a site location search using EPA's Internet
list of counties in nonattainment. Those counties never make the list
of prospective sites.
Walker County has more than 4 million square feet of vacant
manufacturing space, in large measure because of the uncertainty our
nonattainment designation creates for business prospects. We have had
some of our largest employers express frustration at incurring
additional costs in order to comply with more stringent air quality
standards even as foreign competition continues to squeeze their profit
margins. Others have been reluctant to expand, and one business, a
major automotive manufacturer facility decided not to locate a plant in
the Chattanooga area, in part because of concerns over our attainment
status. That plant was eventually located elsewhere, in an attainment
area.
Needless to say, our nonattainment designation has caused a real
fear of layoffs amongst many of my constituents who have seen jobs
elsewhere outsourced to China, Mexico and other foreign nations with
little environmental protections. As an elected official, I fear the
lost tax revenues and increased stresses on local health services that
lay offs associated with our nonattainment status bring.
conclusion
Georgia's late Senator Paul Coverdell said, ``Investment does not
flow toward uncertainty.'' A never-ending nonattainment designation
creates uncertainty for communities and businesses.
I urge the Senate Committee to put EPA's standards in perspective
of the loss of jobs and decisions of manufacturers to go abroad where
there are no standards. The doubling of the global workforce has
created greater competition for each available job. Retraining
displaced workers that have lost their lifelong manufacturing jobs is
difficult. They, the people we represent, are then concerned only about
how they can take care of their families.
Does EPA make decisions based upon the demands of outside
environmental groups, or is there a practical reason to continue to
lower this designation?
I ran for office on quality growth and I am a long-time supporter
of the environment. However, there must be a balance in all things.
Please consider the significant air quality improvements already in
place against the impacts of unending nonattainment designations before
allowing EPA to stack another set of regulations on businesses and
communities like mine.
Thank you for hearing my remarks.
______
Responses by Bebe Heiskell to Additional Questions from
Senator Voinovich
Question 1. I understand that companies seeking to build new
facilities will stay away from nonattainment areas and instead go to
attainment areas. Has that been your experience and can you provide
specific examples?
Response. It has been the experience of Walker County that
companies seeking to build new facilities stay away from nonattainment
areas and instead go to attainment areas.
A startup company looked at Walker County's industrial park to
relocate there from an Atlanta area that is in nonattainment. They
manufacture foil-covered packaging for beer and soft drinks. Our
location and transportation corridors were suitable. The price was
right for the property. They thought our park was a good fit. They had
a contractor available to construct their building. One of their first
questions was, ``Is Walker County in nonattainment?'' Their concern was
if we were in nonattainment, it would cost them extra money to meet
compliance, and take more time to complete the process. They decided
not to locate in Walker County.
At present, an Italian tile company is looking at Walker County.
nonattainment will, in all probability, eliminate us because of the
additional expense of compliance on Kaolinite. The time line for
permitting is also much longer, if they can be permitted.
Crystal Springs Print Works in Walker County prints a camouflage
pattern for the U.S. Military on cotton cloth from Mt. Vernon Mills in
Chattooga County. I talked to Steve Tarvin, owner of Crystal Springs
Print Works. He told me he already pays annual environmental fees of
$25,000 and a more stringent air quality standard will increase that
cost an additional $30,000. He has a financially marginal company and
is the major manufacturer in the City of Chickamauga. More regulations,
additional fees, and timelines could also require more staff to
maintain compliance.
He stated nonattainment issues could definitely put him out of
business and that would also increase cost to Mt. Vernon Mills as well.
Mt. Vernon Mills is located in adjoining Chattooga County. Chattooga
County is in attainment.
Many times companies do not give us the reason they decide against
moving to Walker County, but we market our county and are contacted
every day by some industry. nonattainment increases cost because of
higher power costs, additional licensing fees, and associated expenses
that take Walker County out of the competition. We have a superior
marketing specialist that works very hard to get the attention of those
industries wanting to relocate. She knows every incentive that is
possible to use, and has great contacts with support industries to help
prospects partner with local business to reduce their cost. We hear
every day she is one of the very best in all of Georgia. Still, we
cannot offer attainment status, and that makes the difference in
success and failure.
There is a nonattainment question on most Requests for Information
with TVA-Industrial sites. We must assume it makes a difference in
cost, time, and transferring credits, or it would not appear on most
things associated with prospective industry.
Walker County is a prime location for support industry for
automotive manufacturers that Chattanooga is working diligently to
bring to their new 1,200-acre industrial park. We have already lost a
small Tier 2 supplier with powder coating paint business (eco-painter)
because nonattainment has priced Walker County out of that market.
Question 2. Revising the particulate matter air quality standards
will increase energy prices. How would higher energy prices impact
businesses and families, especially the poor and those on fixed income,
such as the elderly?
Response. Higher energy prices will adversely affect our entire
economy, much more so than the higher cost of gasoline. Hospitals will
experience more indigent patients as people with marginal incomes find
themselves needing hospitalization, increasing government's cost. Power
in our area has already increased twice recently because of additional
costs to TVA and Georgia Power from nonattainment issues.
The higher cost of doing business has sent textiles out of our
country. Ronile, National Spinning, Apollo Knitwear, Sunrise Hosiery
Mills, Coats American (cotton mill), Barwick Mills, Barwick Archer
Plant, and Rossville Mills are all textile mills that have closed in
Walker County. Those industries that have downsized are: United
Synthetics and Cardinal Equipment.
The increased cost of power impacted the county's budget and the
ability of the citizens to pay their taxes. They don't have the money
to buy groceries or pay for healthcare. It often places senior citizens
in a position of not being able to pay for their essentials and their
medication, too. It has also cost industry to spend more money on
scrubbers and monitors. To raise their prices will put them out of
business.
The increased cost of energy burdens the schools' ability to pay
their debts. Since the schools collect the lion's share of property
taxes, it raises everyone's property taxes because of the need to
assess the whole tax base.
nonattainment impacts our county because we must get permission
from the Metropolitan Planning Organization to pave a Walker County
road. The cost of asphalt has gone from $22.00 a ton in the year 2000
to $90.00 a ton in 2006. That cost plus the requirement of permission
from the region to pave the county's roads surely curtails a county's
ability to make visible progress in communities.
Air quality standards have increased the cost of doing business for
everyone, and it has also cost people their jobs. That increases the
need for family and children's welfare services and they have doubled
their caseload.
Question 3. I know you care about public health, and everyone wants
to see our communities meet Federal clean air standards--but a
community's total well-being also is impacted by having well-paying,
stable jobs, and a robust tax base. How would a nonattainment
designation impact this aspect of community health?
Response. I care about public health and about the well being of my
community. Employment and the availability of good jobs are key to good
public health. I know the impact of having well-paying, stable jobs
also indicates those working families will tend to have adequate health
insurance coverage, so that if a member of their family gets sick or
hurt, they can be confident that family member will receive proper
treatment in a timely manner.
Of course, dirty air can affect the health of that community, but
Walker County has not experienced any health issues related to air
quality and we have never had complaints from any citizen with regard
to the quality of the air affecting their health. I personally have
asthma, but my flare-ups are caused from pollen, mold, and animal
dander allergies. I breathe easier in Walker County than in Washington,
DC.
Hospitals operate on the financial edge now, and with a
disproportionate number of indigent patients, they will again find it
necessary to increase their charges for services, which in turn
increases insurance premiums.
I am, at present, trying to establish a community health facility
in an abandoned health department in Rossville to accommodate the poor,
indigent, and uninsured that need medical and dental care they cannot
afford elsewhere. To do this, we need equipment, supplies, and
materials to complete the extensive work that must be done to prepare
this building for treating patients. This is a desperately needed
facility, but if nonattainment in the north end of the county prevents
Walker County from getting this facility completed through additional
cost and the inability to get the parking lot paved, it will be
counterproductive to all concerned.
If the jobs go elsewhere because our county cannot offer a cost-
effective environment, unemployment will prevail and the county's tax
base will suffer. Taxes pay for services that are essential to the
quality of life as we know it.
Question 4. I am concerned that EPA has proposed to ``move the
goalposts'' by establishing new standards even before States send in
their compliance programs to meet the existing standards. What will the
impact be on States and localities and their planning resources?
Response. Counties in Region I Georgia and the metropolitan area of
Chattanooga are just now moving forward with compliance for
PM2.5. To raise the bar when the current requirements are
already out of our reach sets us up for failure. Air quality standards
decidedly increase the cost of doing business and may even take them
out of the competitive process. The power companies, having to spend
billions on processes to clean the air raises the rates for all--
counties, communities and individuals. For counties, it causes the
dreaded tax increases.
We have complied with all the requirements for nonattainment, and
yet we have fine particulate matter coming from wildfires in Canada and
Alaska, agricultural burns in Kansas, and dust from Africa, to name
just a few of the many pollution sources over which we have no control.
We have met all the requirements of EPD with regard to the vapor
recovery and burn ban that was expected of us. I don't know how we can
meet a more stringent standard than the one we are now struggling to
meet. We are an emerging community with a lot of promise. nonattainment
can take that promise down the drain by pricing existing industries out
of business, and limiting new business while we watch the existing
industry relocate to a more sustainable environmental standard.
If this new standard does, in fact, become the new requirement, all
across this Nation we may see manufacturing leave this country and go
where there are no controls. This new standard will ultimately increase
cost to every single American. The governing authorities will find they
have less and less with which to plan and deliver services. Ultimately,
while our air might be cleaner if it is in our control to make it so,
our quality of life will still become less desirable because cost will
put many things we now enjoy out of our reach.
Without the ability to comply with the new standards, State and
Federal funding will be withheld from local governments causing them to
sink into counter-productive development instead of the bright,
promising future we have planned.
Thank you for your consideration of the problems, and your
willingness to find solutions to help the communities of this Nation
with the economic constraints of nonattainment.
__________
Statement of Harry C. Alford, President and CEO, National Black Chamber
of Commerce
The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) with offices located
at 1350 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 405, Washington, DC. is a non-
profit, non-sectarian organization dedicated to economically empowering
and sustaining African American communities through entrepreneurship
and capitalistic activity within the United States and via interaction
with the Black Diaspora.
The NBCC has one hundred and ninety (190) affiliated chapters
locally based throughout the Nation as well as international affiliate
chapters based in the Bahamas, Brazil, Colombia, Ghana and Jamaica and
businesses as well as individuals who may have chose to be direct
members with the national office.
The 1 million African American businesses in the United States
represent sales of more than $100 billion annually and maintain an
annual spending base of over $800 billion. The NBCC has harnessed much
of the power of these dollars and provides unique opportunities for
corporations and African American businesses to partner in creating
greater opportunity for all people.
The NBCC represents 95,000 Black-owned businesses and provides
education/advocacy that reaches all 1 million Black-owned businesses
across the Nation. Moreover, the NBCC is on the leading edge of
educating and training Black communities on the need to participate
vigorously in this great capitalistic society known as America.
The NBCC appreciates the opportunity to offer its views on the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule to establish a
more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
particulate matter (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017).
The National Black Chamber of Commerce has historically supported
the efforts of the EPA to protect the public health of all Americans.
The Clean Air Act and its regulatory structure, while controversial
over the years, has been the principal driving force behind the
improvements in our Nation's air quality and the reduction of harmful
air pollutants. The NBCC also understands that despite this progress
much work remains to be done to achieve our Nation's air quality goals.
In that spirit, the NBCC continues to support EPA's efforts to
control sources of pollution and the promulgation of regulations that
are both cost-effective and based on sound science. As a regulated
community, we can not tolerate regulation for the sake of regulation
and the attendant economic costs of such policies. The regulate and
punish mentality must be abandoned so that we may address our
environmental challenges while sustaining a strong economy.
In that regard, the NBCC is concerned that the current EPA proposed
rule to further establish a new NAAQS for urban particulate matter and
to establish a more stringent PM2.5 standard is not
supported by current science and if adopted, could have an enormous
adverse impact on small businesses and in particular, Black-owned
businesses represented by the NBCC that are engaged in a broad cross
section of economic activity in the manufacturing, industrial and
service sectors of the economy.
Small and medium business alike are today facing a number of
challenges not the least of which are higher interest rates that are
putting pressure on inventory financing and higher energy and related
operating costs that are eroding margins and placing pressure on
maintaining current employment levels. The imposition of new
regulations on industry, manufacturing and other sectors, in the
absence of scientific evidence of a demonstrable health benefit is
simply not justified. These new standards would likely result in
further increased energy prices, especially that of natural gas, a key
energy input in urban areas.
Beyond this, given the lack of scientific justification, the NBCC
is concerned about the impact of the proposed rule as a result of the
expanded number of nonattainment designations under the Clean Air Act.
It is well documented that a ``nonattainment'' designation under
the Clean Air Act can carry with it serious economic and social
repercussions for the geographic area so designated which produce
immediate and direct impacts on major sources in and near the
nonattainment areas with attendant indirect impacts on small and medium
businesses and consumers as well, especially those on low and fixed
incomes in terms of jobs and energy costs.
Restrictive permitting requirements for companies that add new
units or make major modifications to their facility are competitively
disadvantage as such requirements would not apply to similar facilities
operating in attainment areas. Again, these restrictions would
significantly impact urban areas. Also, nonattainment areas face the
risk losing Federal highway funding that is vitally important to urban
redevelopment.
In addition, companies that build a new facility or that perform a
major modification to certain existing facilities in or near a
nonattainment area would be required to install the most effective
emission reduction technology without consideration of cost.
Moreover, new emissions in the area must be offset. Thus, if there
is no party willing to provide the offset, then the project resulting
in increased emissions of the given pollutant cannot go forward.
Take the Mercedes plant in Alabama, for instance. Our Birmingham
chapter was so excited that the original plan was to put the plant
inside the Birmingham city limits. Gas stations, restaurants, hotels,
etc., would have benefited significantly. Due to attainment levels, the
plant was moved 90 miles to the south in rural Alabama. It devastated
the expectations and growth opportunities for the largest city in
Alabama.
The same scenario happened in Indiana with the Isuzu plant that was
destined for Indianapolis, but ended up 70 miles north in Lafayette. We
have about 250 members in the Indianapolis chapter and 2 in Lafayette.
The impact was obvious.
As illustrated by these examples, the loss of industry and economic
development in and around an area could be significant because a
company interested in building a facility that emits the given
pollutant will probably not build that facility in a nonattainment area
due to the increased costs associated with restrictive and expensive
permit requirements.
This again would result in jobs moving away from urban areas--with
existing infrastructure and excellent redevelopment opportunities--into
rural ``Greenfield'' sites that require new infrastructure be built
from the ground up. This harms Brownfields and other urban
redevelopment programs.
In conclusion, the NBCC is concerned that the increased costs of
goods and services such as energy, and the potential for decreasing
disposable incomes and loss of jobs and economic activity as a result
of this proposed regulation will adversely impact Black-owned and other
small and medium businesses and inadvertently harm the socio-economic
status of individuals and, thereby, is not in the public interest in
the absence of sound scientific justification and demonstrable health
benefits.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the National Black
Chamber of Commerce believes the EPA should decline to promulgate its
proposed ``Urban Only'' standard for coarse particulate matter, and
should retain the current standards for fine particulate matter.
______
Response by Harry C. Alford to an Additional Question from
Senator Voinovich
Question. I understand that many companies seeking to build new
facilities will stay away from nonattainment areas and instead go to
attainment areas. Please explain the impact this has on sending
development away from existing infrastructure in nonattainment areas
and out to ``Greenfields'' where infrastructure must be built.
Response. The easiest examples are the major auto plants that are
being built in ``Greenfield's'' in the South. A major auto facility is
placed outside Anniston, Alabama versus the metropolitan areas of
Birmingham or Atlanta. That plant brought thousands of jobs to the
Anniston area by itself. Suppliers and distributors subsequently placed
operations close to that plant which created more jobs and economic
vitality. Demands on housing, schools, retail, hotel, travel, etc.
created an economic boom to the Anniston area. Many of those workers
left or moved away from Birmingham and Atlanta. They shifted their tax
base, consumable dollars and all other capitalistic activity from two
nonattainment areas to one ``Greenfield''. This has a serious impact on
the NBCC constituency. It drives down the quality of life and strips
the economic vitality of most urban areas within the United States.
__________
Statement of William F. Christopher, Executive Vice President and Group
President, Aerospace, Automotive and Commercial Transportation, Alcoa
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our concerns in
response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Proposed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter
(PM).
My name is Bill Christopher. I am the Group President of Aerospace,
Automotive and Commercial Transportation for Alcoa and also hold the
position of Executive Vice President. With over 131,000 employees in 43
countries, Alcoa is the world's leading producer of primary aluminum,
fabricated aluminum and alumina and is a large manufacturer of
packaging, transportation and other industrial products. Alcoa holds
sustainability as a core value in our business practices. We include
goals and metrics for sustainability as key elements of our 2020 Vision
for the company. Consequently in 2005, Alcoa was named one the world's
three most sustainable corporations by the World Economic Forum.
Our core values related to sustainability have been clearly
demonstrated at our Cleveland Works where we have taken significant
steps to promote cleaner air, cleaner water, and better use of land in
our production processes. We are a major employer in the Cleveland
area, with 1,400 employees working at our three facilities in Northeast
Ohio producing goods valued at nearly $1 billion for domestic and
international markets.
I also serve on the Board of Directors of the Greater Cleveland
Partnership (GCP) and appear before you today on their behalf. The GCP
is one of the Nation's largest metropolitan chambers of commerce,
representing more than 16,000 small-, mid-sized and large companies.
Because of concern for the region's economy, the GCP has asked me to
provide leadership in efforts to shape business community involvement
in clean air compliance discussions.
I understand that you will hear from witnesses in other hearings
about the need to base air quality base standards on current and sound
science. We agree with this assessment, particularly in the case of
fine particulate emissions where the science appears to be somewhat
limited in terms of understanding sources and dispersion patterns, and
there is only a very recent history of monitoring. However, my message
today will focus on the economic impact of imposing standards that are
difficult, if not impossible to attain in the short-term. Here are the
key points I would like to share with you today:
First, I am not here to debate the value of vigorous efforts to
achieve cleaner air. There is absolutely no doubt that cleaner air is
central to the future health of our residents and overall quality of
life. Both my company and the Cleveland business community have
demonstrated their commitment to continuous improvement of the region's
air quality. As is the case elsewhere, these efforts are working--our
air quality is improving, and will continue to do so as a result of
good faith efforts to meet current regulations.
Second, and equally important, our efforts to achieve cleaner air
must achieve a delicate balance. They must take into account the
potentially significant economic costs to places like Cleveland that
are in the midst of painful economic transitions.
Third, achieving this balance is complicated because the timelines
for meeting the Clean Air Act standards are misaligned with the
timelines for several federal standards established to regulate
emissions in particular industries. The gaps created by these
misalignments add economic costs of compliance that could be
devastating in places that rely on manufacturing as a key element of
their economies.
Fourth, before any new regulations are adopted, regions like
Cleveland should be given adequate time to understand the costs of
proposed standards and develop strategies that reflect the needed
balance. New modeling capabilities, perhaps developed and tested in
Northeast Ohio with the assistance of the Federal Government, can help
in this critical task.
I will briefly amplify each of these four points and I will be glad
to discuss them further during the questioning.
1. Current Situation: Air Quality is Improving
Air quality continues to improve under existing regulations, a
clear demonstration of the Nation's efforts to make important changes
to respond to the environmental realities we face. According to the
EPA, total emissions of the six principal pollutants decreased by 51
percent between 1970 and 2003 while the gross domestic product
increased by 176 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent,
energy consumption increased 45 percent, and U.S. population grew by 39
percent. Through this growth, however, ozone pollution has decreased 22
percent since the early 1980s and PM levels have fallen 17 percent
since 1993. My point is this: progress is being made in every part of
our Nation.
Northeast Ohio has shared in this progress. Since 1995 VOC
emissions have been reduced 48 percent, NOx emissions are down an
estimated 30 percent resulting in a 50 percent reduction in ozone
exceedence days. However, challenges remain. In 2005, Northeast Ohio
was designated as a nonattainment area for the current annual fine
particulate matter--following the finding of nonattainment for ozone
standards in 2004. We have been advised that our region will have
serious difficulty reaching compliance for the annual fine particulate
standard established in 2004 and later upheld in court. Consequently,
substantial work is underway by the Ohio EPA, regional agencies, local
business and industry, and others to identify both the options to
attain these standards and the potential economic impact. All these
efforts are focused on the aggressive steps required to be in
compliance and quantifying the impact secondly. We are working with the
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) in the development
of Ohio's State Implementation Plan for ozone compliance and will also
participate in the fine particulate process, We are reaching out to
more than 60 local manufacturing companies to educate them about this
situation and ask for their assistance in developing innovative and
progressive solutions. However, since an estimated 60 percent of
Northeast Ohio's pollutants come from outside our region, neither our
sincere voluntary efforts nor regulatory action imposed on our region
alone will bring us into compliance.
2. Balanced Approach is Required
While your job is to find a balanced solution for the Nation,
permit me to paint a picture of one city and the impact of addressing
nonattainment. Receiving another nonattainment designation and the
associated restrictions, could be devastating to slow growth areas like
Cleveland that are struggling to shift from a heavy manufacturing
economy to a more diversified one based on financial services, health
care, new technology ventures and advanced manufacturing. Economic
growth in the region has been about half that of the Nation for the
past three decades.
A recent study completed by NERA Economic Consulting estimates a
loss of more than 12,000 jobs in the Cleveland area, a $1.4 billion
loss in Gross Regional Product (GRP), the loss of $1.1 billion dollars
of disposable personal income, and a population loss of 16,000--if the
Cleveland region is forced to comply with the 8-hour-ozone regulation
by 2010 as presently required.\1\ This study assumes the current gaps
identified beyond recommended implementation plans can be physically
closed with current available technologies--a major assumption yet to
be validated. The loss of related tax revenues would, in turn, lead to
fewer resources available to the public sector to support our much
needed economic transition. Although we can not know the precise
economic impacts, we are working to validate the basis of this study's
assumptions. However, we know that a more stringent particulate matter
standard will directly increase the cost of energy and transportation
and would restrict any industry or business growth. The cost of
manufacturing in the region will increase and be non-competitive,
causing limited investment to sustain current operations. Finally, much
of the increased costs will move directly to consumers in the form of
higher energy for both transportation and home use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NERA Economic Consulting, ``Economic Impact of Attaining the 8-
Hour Ozone Standard: Cleveland Case Study'', Prepared for American
Petroleum Institute, Oct. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new fine particulate standard could lead to another regional
emissions strategy, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This
costly measure will result in increased electricity rates and could
result in fuel switching away from coal to natural gas to generate
electricity, further driving up the cost of natural gas.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Analysis by National Association of Manufacturers indicates
that since 2000, the State of Ohio has lost nearly 200,000
manufacturing jobs, a decline from 1,021,000 to 823,400, due in large
part to regulatory compliance and increased energy costs. Nationwide,
the United States has lost more than 3.1 million manufacturing jobs,
because of the same reasons cited above. These job losses,
incidentally, coincide with the steep climb in natural gas costs, which
have resulted in increased demand due in large part to compliance with
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the measures to achieve compliance to current standards by
2010 will have significant economic impact on the region. They also
have the potential for unintended consequences such as higher energy
costs, unemployment caused by the cost of regulatory burden shifted to
businesses, as well as a direct impact on those individuals who are
already having difficulty making ends meet, the poor and elderly.
3. Misalignments Must Be Addressed
The principal driver of the economic impact is the steps required
to bridge the difference between the clean air standards and federally
mandated industry specific regulations. Eighty percent of ozone
emissions in the region are from motor vehicles and power generating
plants. Sixty percent of these emissions come from outside the
northeast Ohio. Federal regulations on diesel engine standards, coal
fired powerplants, and other industries will have a significant long-
term impact on ozone and fine particulate emissions. These will result
in long-term solutions that enable the northeast Ohio region to meet
the new clean air standards on a sustainable and economically efficient
basis. [Reference Graphic Below]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.018
However, the timing of these regulations is such that the major
impacts will occur in the 2010 to 2015 timeframe. As a result,
compliance with current clean air standards by 2010 will require costly
incremental actions. These actions must be especially aggressive as
only the 40 percent of the locally generated emissions will be
available to achieve compliance.
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, pollution
abatement costs in the United States are equivalent to 1.6 percent of
the GDP in the United States. The cost of abating manufacturing
pollution as a percentage of manufacturing output is 7.6 percent in the
United States. To put this figure in perspective, the cost in Japan is
3.1 percent, in Germany 5.2 percent, in Great Britain 4.7 percent, in
Mexico 3.1 percent, and in China 1.6 percent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ December 2003 study by the National Association of
Manufacturers, based on data collected by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stigma of sustained designation as a non-compliance region will
have impact on residential and economic growth, in spite of significant
improvements in air quality. This chronic condition will create an
environment of uncertainty and significant cost that will accelerate
the flight of private capital from the region--and most likely entirely
out of the country. Companies looking to locate facilities or expand
capacity will not even consider communities in nonattainment. We will
lose jobs. We will lose entire companies--probably to other countries.
4. Addressing Complexity Requires More Time and Better Modeling
The NERA study I mentioned earlier estimated that deferring the
compliance date for ozone from the presently required 2010 to 2015 to
allow realization of emission reductions from national regulations
already in place, would reduce the cost of controls from $919 million
for 2010 to $12 million for 2015. They also estimate reductions in the
projected loss of Cleveland's GRP from $1.4 billion to $20 million and
in the job loss from 12,000 to 100. If these numbers are even 50
percent accurate, then great care must be taken not to create similar
implementation gaps by adopting any new fine particulate standards.
Compliance with a more stringent fine particulate standard--in the
face of standards misalignment and indeterminate science--before we
have even had the opportunity to adequately address the challenges of
the current SIP processes --may be physically impossible, if not
economically devastating.
I again must emphasize that achieving cleaner air is a goal we all
actively support. However, we urge the Federal Government to move
forward with great caution. We ask that you provide regions like
Cleveland with adequate time and resources to find a balanced approach
that enables us to address these increasingly complex air quality
challenges in ways that minimize damage to our economy. Incremental
responses with compliance timelines that are not in synch with national
industry regulations, such as those aimed at achieving compliance on
ozone and fine particulate matter standards, are likely to create huge
costs in the short-term and leave our region in a state of non-
compliance for decades to come. We respectfully ask that you urge the
EPA Administrator to defer action to change the 24-hour fine
particulate matter standard at this time and assist Northeast Ohio with
evaluating the impact of meeting the current standards.
______
Response by William Christopher to an Additional Question from
Senator Voinovich
Question. Energy prices are impacting businesses' ability to
compete in the global marketplace, and revising the particulate matter
standards will increase energy costs. How would higher energy prices
and higher natural gas prices impact your business and the local
economies that you operate in? Also, since Alcoa is a global entity,
what kind of disadvantage does this give to companies trying to operate
in the United States and compete?
Response. Competitive energy prices are critical to Alcoa's ability
to succeed in both U.S. and global markets. In particular, electricity
prices for our primary aluminum smelters are a major factor in the
business because that component represents 25 percent of the cost to
make one pound of metal. We continue to seek competitive electricity
sources around the world and for our existing smelters in the United
States. Primary aluminum production is a global business and energy
prices will continue to be a major factor in determining where new as
well as sustaining investments will be made. Over time, countries with
uncompetitive energy prices will tend to see a decline in investments,
particularly in primary production facilities.
Likewise, high natural gas prices are a concern, particularly for
our fabricating facilities where it is used in heat treatment
processes, for example. Increased gas prices have a significant effect
on our profitability which, in turn, will help to determine our ability
to make future investments in those plants.
In summary, energy prices in the United States that are not
competitive with prices in other countries will have a negative impact
on our domestic locations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.062
Responses by Conrad Schneider to Additional Questions from
Senator Inhofe
Question 1. You testified that at our February (sic) 9, 2006
hearing, there was agreement that there was no relationship between
natural gas prices and clean air regulations. Are you aware that when
asked that specific question, Mr. Jack Gerard, President of the
American Chemical Association testified, ``Well, like you, Mr.
Chairman, having lost 100,000 jobs in our industry directly related to
that increased natural gas price, we believe there is a direct
correlation. Like you, we think that is a no-brainer. It is clearly
happening.'' Would you like to modify your testimony on this matter?
Response. No. A review of the unofficial transcript from that
hearing reveals that in the course of over two hours of testimony in a
hearing solely devoted to the hypothesis that clean air regulations
have been largely responsible for driving up natural gas prices, not
one witness agreed with that proposition. In fact, Messrs. Wehrum of
EPA and Gruenspecht of EIA explicitly declined several invitations by
interrogating senators to lead them to that conclusion. Mr. Bluestein
directly contradicted the proposition. Mr. Gerard, while undoubtedly an
expert on the topic of the economics of the chemical industry, would
seem unlikely to possess the particular analytic expertise regarding
the relationship between specific clean air regulations not pertaining
to his industry and natural gas prices. In any event, Mr. Gerard's
statement is actually ambiguous on the point of whether increased
natural gas prices have been due to clean air regulations. Indeed, Mr.
Gerard's statement could fairly be read mean that he finds a
relationship between increased natural gas prices and lost jobs--a
proposition not under dispute. The question at issue is whether
regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act have had a significant
impact on natural gas prices. The record will clearly show that none of
the witnesses at the hearing testified that Clean Air Act regulations
were a significant cause of recent high natural gas prices. I would be
glad to amend my answer to include specific quotations demonstrating
this fact at such time as the official transcript becomes available.
Question 2a. Mr. Schneider, in your testimony you stated regarding
Butler County, Ohio that in order to achieve the standards ``powerplant
sulfur dioxide is the next lowest hanging fruit. We need to take the
second bite at that apple to make achieving the standards a reality''
Mr. Schneider, historically Butler County has been a manufacturing
based county relying on steel and paper manufacturing as well as the
automotive industry. They have been particularly hard hit over the last
few decades with the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs and
manufacturing employers. At present, of the top 10 employers in the
county, 4 are governmental units, 3 are hospitals, and only 1 is a
manufacturing facility AK Steel in Middletown. AK Steel operates at the
former Armco facility and employs thousands fewer workers today then
during their heyday. Facilities such as the International Paper Plant
(former Champion Paper) in Hamilton employs (sic) far fewer people than
before and other facilities such as the GM Fisher Body plant in
Fairfield have completely closed. At this point, the county is starting
to recapture some of their (sic) lost manufacturing jobs. What has been
a benefit to Butler County has been somewhat stable utility prices
since 1994, until January 2006, when the county saw an increase of 30
percent in their (sic) utility rates.
Please provide the Committee a detailed analysis to substantiate
your claim that utility emissions in Butler County are the next lowest
hanging fruit.
Response. The issue of identifying the most cost-effective emission
control measures to bring the county into attainment with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) should be of great interest to the industries in
Butler County that you identify. In writing a State Implementation
Plan, a State or metropolitan area must reduce emissions sufficiently
to achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). If those reductions do not come from one sector or group of
pollution sources, they must come from another. If they do not come
from the most cost-effective source, they will come from other less
cost-effective sources. First, I will discuss the general cost-
effectiveness of powerplant sulfur dioxide controls for particulate
matter reduction. Second, I will address the specific cost-
effectiveness for Butler County, Ohio of incremental additional sulfur
dioxide controls on powerplants beyond those required by the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR).
It is well-established that for fine particulate reduction, there
is no more cost-effective source than cuts in powerplant sulfur
dioxide. In fact, this is a large part of the policy justification for
the Administration's ``Clear Skies'' proposal--i.e., that controls on
powerplant sulfur dioxide could obviate the need for States to adopt
additional local emission control measures. See e.g., Testimony of
Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Before the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee
Energy and Commerce Committee United States House of Representatives
May 26, 2005 at p. 8. This is true simply because on a dollars-per-ton
basis, nothing rivals powerplant sulfur dioxide reductions for
PM2.5 reduction. The reason is simple: sulfur dioxide can be
reduced through a combination of using coals with lower fuel-bound
sulfur content, coal washing, and installing post-combustion sulfur
removal devices such as flue gas desulfurization. In addition, under
the Acid Rain program and the CAIR rule, these emission control
strategies are combined with broad regional emission credit trading
programs that can lower overall and firm-specific costs relative to
plant-by-plant controls. Significant sulfur dioxide reductions can be
achieved for less than $2000 per ton removed. Compared to powerplant
controls, fine particulate precursor emission control measures on
industrial and other sources are relatively less cost-effective i.e.,
have higher dollars per ton of removal costs.
Specifically, U.S. EPA in its Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) has
analyzed the relative cost-effectiveness of various control measures on
a variety of pollution source categories. See the CAIR Preamble 70 Fed.
Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2004) and the original Interstate Air Quality Rule
(IAQR) proposal 69 Fed. Reg. 4566 (January 30, 2004). For the final
CAIR rule (see 70 Fed. Reg. at 25201-05), EPA's comparisons (and their
SO2 removal average costs in $/ton) were: (1) for Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations for coal-fired
electric utility boilers ($400-2100/ton); (2) Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) for electric utility boilers as proposed in 2005
($2600/ton in 2015, $3400/ton in 2020); (3) Non-road diesel engines and
fuel (2004 Nonroad Diesel Heavy Engine Rule ($800/ton). By way of
comparison, recent SO2 allowance price as reported by the
trade publication Air Daily on August 28, 2006 was less than $700/ton.
The marginal costs of several State sulfur dioxide programs (and the
Western Regional Air Partnership or WRAP) were reported by EPA
(Wisconsin $1400/ton; North Carolina $800/ton; WRAP $1100-2200/ton) and
New Hampshire at $600/ton. See 70 Fed Reg. at 25202 and 69 Fed. Reg. at
4613. EPA also estimated that the average costs of sulfur dioxide
controls for CAIR was between $500-700/ton, with marginal costs between
$700-1000/ton. See 70 Fed. Reg. at 25602-03). EPA dubbed CAIR's
approach to sulfur dioxide reduction to be ``highly cost-effective''
since it ``has a cost-effectiveness that is at the lower end of the
updated reference tables i.e., the SO2 cost comparisons set
forth above.'' Id.
The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) has also analyzed the relative
cost-effectiveness of competing control strategies for sulfur dioxide
(as a particulate matter precursor) relative to other strategies to
reduce directly-emitted and secondarily-formed particulate matter. The
table below illustrates that there are no control strategies that are
consistently more cost-effective than the $700-1000/ton range of
incremental sulfur dioxide controls achievable on powerplants.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.063
In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has analyzed
the relative cost-effectiveness of sulfur dioxide controls in the
context of promulgating a rule governing emissions from marine harbor
craft. CARB estimated the cost-effectiveness of the sulfur dioxide
reductions of this rule at between $5800-6600/ton. The particulate
matter cost-effectiveness figure is about $53,000/ton. See ``Initial
Statement of Reasons, Proposed Regulation for Auxiliary Diesel Engines
and Diesel-Electric Engines Operated on Ocean-going Vessels within
California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Coastline,''
California Air Resources Board (October 2005) at p. 159. Clearly, the
sulfur dioxide number for harbor craft emission reductions (a measure
California is in the midst of finalizing) is far higher than current
powerplant sulfur dioxide reduction costs as reflected by the sulfur
dioxide allowance price, and by the CAIR ``highly cost-effective'' cost
metric.
For States projected to remain in nonattainment notwithstanding the
CAIR rule reductions, EPA is in the process of analyzing the most
effective additional measures (beyond CAIR) that States can employ. EPA
is also undertaking this analysis as part of finalizing its Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) of the proposed tighter particulate matter
standards. The following bar chart, which I submitted as part of my
written hearing testimony, is EPA's best current analysis of the
relative effectiveness of various attainment strategies for Butler
County, Ohio. EPA in this analysis conducted a ``thought experiment''
assuming an across-the-board 30 percent cut over and above the
requirements of the CAIR rule by each economic sector (e.g.,
powerplants, mobile sources, industrial sources, area sources, etc.),
by geographic region (e.g., regional vs. local controls), and by
pollutant (e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds, and ammonia). The bars show the potential reduction in mg/
m3. The taller the bar on the chart, the more effective the
strategy. The results of EPA's analysis as displayed on the bar chart
reveal that the most effective strategy is further control of
``Regional EGU SO2'' which translates as regional sulfur
dioxide control on powerplants.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.064
I would note that the second most effective strategy--``Regional
Mobile POC and PEC'' (which translates as regional diesel organic
carbon and elemental carbon)--is actually not the next highest bar on
the chart. That is because EPA now recognizes that its emissions
inventory for mobile diesel sources is understated by a factor of at
least two but did not take that into account in creating this chart.
So, that bar (in bright yellow) should be at least twice as high as it
appears on the chart. Together these strategies (a 30 percent
additional cut in powerplant sulfur dioxide beyond CAIR and a 30
percent cut in diesel organic and elemental carbon) would produce
approximately 1.4 mg/m3 in PM2.5 reduction for
Butler County. The PM2.5 design value for Butler County is
16.10 mg/m3. The PM2.5 NAAQS is 15.0. So, a 1.4
mg/m3 reduction would bring Butler County's design value
down to 14.7 mg/m3 and into attainment with the standard.
Note that following these two strategies, the next most effective
strategies EPA identified are ``Regional Point Source POC and PEC'' and
``Regional Area Source POC and PEC''. These translate into carbon
reductions from regional industrial and area (i.e., small business)
sources, some of which may be located in Ohio and some in upwind
States. By contrast, ``local'' sources of all kinds i.e., sources
located in Butler County (see the right-hand set of bars on the chart)
were not found to be effective in reducing Butler County's
PM2.5 design value. Thus, if regional powerplant emissions
are not reduced beyond CAIR and diesel emissions reduction measures are
not also part of the strategy, Butler County will be forced to adopt
relatively less-effective measures for example on pollution sources
such as AK Steel or International Paper's Hamilton plant. While a
possible increase in utility electric rates could impact these firms,
they would feel the cost of emission controls on their own facilities
directly and probably more significantly. Each of the industries
mentioned in the question emit fine particulate matter and each could
be subject to emissions controls if limits on powerplant emissions
beyond those required by the CAIR rule are not adopted.
Question 2b. Please explain whether further utility reductions in
Butler County would cause any further increases in utility rates and
what that impact would be on jobs in the County, particularly
manufacturing jobs.
Response. EPA uses the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), an economic
and electricity power dispatch computer model, to predict the electric
price impacts of its air regulatory policies. EPA employed ICF
Consulting to run the IPM model to evaluate the electricity price
impacts of its CAIR rule. CATF also retained ICF to run the IPM model
to evaluate a suite of tighter-than-CAIR powerplant sulfur dioxide caps
to evaluate their environmental and economic performance. We filed the
results of those runs in the CAIR rulemaking docket. The results as
presented to then-EPA Administrator Leavitt in a December 2004 meeting
are attached to this document. In short, CATF found that a
significantly tighter interstate sulfur cap (a CAIR region cap of 1.84
million tons in 2015 vs. the CAIR cap of 2.7 million tons in 2015)
would add less than a nickel per million British Thermal Units to the
price of natural gas in 2020 and less than 50 cents per month to the
average residential electric bill.
In addition, EPA has analyzed other proposals that include tighter
sulfur dioxide emission limits than the CAIR rule. For example, in
October 2005, EPA released full cost-benefit analyses of the CAIR rule
and the Clean Air Planning Act (S.843). See: http://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/mp/cair--camr--cavr.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
mp/carper.pdf. The Clean Air Planning Act contains not only a sulfur
dioxide cap that is much tighter and which must be achieved much more
quickly than that in CAIR. EPA also modeled the cost of CAPA's
aggressive mercury provision as part of this analysis as well. For
CAIR, EPA found that the projected retail electric price would be 6.1
cents per kilowatt hour in 2010, 6.5 in 2015 and 2020. Notwithstanding
the additional mercury requirement, EPA's analysis of the Clean Air
Planning Act estimated that the projected retail electric price under
CAPA would be 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour in 2010, 2015, and 2020--
virtually identical to that projected for CAIR.
Therefore, economic analysis demonstrates that further utility
sulfur dioxide reductions should cause no further increase in electric
or natural gas utility rates in Butler County and no related impact on
jobs.
Question 2c. In your testimony you stated ``the current proposed
standards are achievable, cost benefit justified and can be met with
affordable, available technology that will not damage America's
economic vitality or the economic health of the sectors that will be
called upon to shoulder the load.'' What exactly can Butler County do
to obtain the proposed standards without affecting their economic
vitality or economic health?
Response. Please refer to my answer to question 2(a) above. In
short, based on U.S. EPA's latest analysis, the combination of a
regional 30 percent additional reduction in powerplant sulfur dioxide
and a 30 percent reduction in diesel organic and elemental carbon is
projected to bring Butler County in to attainment. My answer
immediately above (for question 2(b)) demonstrates that the powerplant
portion of the equation can be achieved economically. If the diesel
portion of the strategy can be achieved through funding and strategic
deployment of money for retrofitting existing diesel engines e.g.,
under the Diesel Emission Reduction Act of 2005, then impacts on Butler
County's economy can be further minimized.
Question 2d. Before making your claims about Butler County in your
testimony, did you examine the impacts on the January 2006 utility rate
increases on jobs in the County, economic outlook, or the impact on
proposed new facilities or expansions? Did you look at these factors in
relation to your claims regarding the next wave of reductions?
Response. Not specifically. I accept notion that a substantial
increase in electric rates could cause these economic impacts. The
assertion in my testimony rests on the premise that additional
powerplant sulfur dioxide controls will not in fact lead to an increase
in utility natural gas or electric rates. This premise is supported by
the EPA IPM modeling cited in my previous answers.
Question 2e. At an environmental conference in Columbus, Ohio on
July 27, 2006, Ohio EPA Director and Air Chief both reported that they
don't know how they will get the current PM2.5 nonattainment
areas into compliance. Given their expertise and understanding of Ohio,
how do you respond to their statements?
Response. I would not interpret these statements as claiming that
achieving attainment is physically impossible. If emissions upwind and
in the Ohio PM2.5 nonattainment areas are reduced
sufficiently, then these areas will attain. These statements seem to
reflect instead the political challenge of obtaining the needed
reductions--how to mandate reductions on upwind and in-state sources in
a way that will be effective but also politically acceptable in Ohio
and the Midwest? These statements also likely betray a certain amount
of frustration with U.S. EPA. Indeed, EPA has failed to formulate
sufficient national control programs to help States achieve timely
attainment. Only when this Committee focused attention on the
seriousness of the challenge, for example in Cleveland, Ohio, did EPA
respond with a deliberative process to evaluate the available options.
In this way, the Committee's process served to spur the needed
attention. Frankly, this level of effort (i.e., a partnership between
Federal, regional, State, and local air officials, as well as a host of
private sector firms and nongovernmental organizations to identify,
evaluate, propose, and win support for emission reductions) must be
replicated in each of the post-CAIR residual nonattainment areas if
they are to attain in a timely fashion. Each area poses its own unique
set of challenges. Nonattainment with the PM2.5 standard
presents a serious problem that deserves concerted attention of these
authorities. PM2.5 nonattainment implicates public health--
by shortening the lives and hurting the health of area residents--and
stresses local economies. Given the stakes, EPA, the regional, State
and local air agencies must redouble their efforts and focus on the
necessary measures to achieve timely attainment. The Clean Air Task
Force and our State environmental group partners are ready to assist in
any way that we can.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 47634.166