[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EPA'S 2015 OZONE STANDARD:
CONCERNS OVER SCIENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
October 22, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-763PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
_________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
October 22, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Witnesses:
The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Mr. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director and Air Pollution Control
Officer, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Health Scientist, Environmental Defense
Fund
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 58
Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Toxicology Division
Oral Statement............................................... 71
Written Statement............................................ 74
Discussion....................................................... 82
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani
LLP............................................................ 108
Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Health Scientist, Environmental Defense
Fund........................................................... 111
Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Toxicology Division..................... 120
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 204
Report submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 231
Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 256
Document submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 260
Documents submitted by Representative Bill Johnson, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 262
Documents submitted by Representative Katherine Clark, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 265
Documents submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 273
Documents submitted by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 281
Documents submitted by Representative Ed Perlmutter, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 284
Documents submitted by Representative Darin LaHood, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 322
Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 328
Statement submitted by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 347
EPA'S 2015 OZONE STANDARD:.
CONCERNS OVER SCIENCE AND IMPLEMENTATION
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``EPA's 2015 Ozone
Standard: Concerns Over Science and Implementation.''
I'll recognize myself for an opening statement and then the
Ranking Member.
Today's hearing is on the Environmental Protection Agency's
2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.
The EPA is required to review the ozone standard every five
years, but the agency is not required to set new standards. The
2008 standard of 75 parts per billion is just now being
implemented, and many states have not had the opportunity to
meet the 2008 standard since guidance from the EPA for this
standard was not made public until February. However, earlier
this month, the EPA further reduced the standard to 70 parts
per billion.
At our previous Committee hearings on the EPA's ozone rule,
witnesses testified that further reduction of the standard is
premature and unnecessary due to the lack of any sound science,
and the negative impact it will have on our economy.
Unfortunately, the EPA did not address the serious concerns
raised by these witnesses. Our hearing today will review the
impact of this final rule.
According to EPA's own website--and I think we have a chart
to show.
[Slide.]
Chairman Smith. There it is. Since 1980, ozone levels have
decreased by 33 percent. The air we breathe is significantly
cleaner and will continue to improve thanks to new
technologies. However, many of the technologies that the EPA
forces states to use either do not currently exist or will be
overly expensive.
At the reduced ozone standard, over 60 percent of the costs
of the program are based on technology that does not currently
exist. The EPA assumes this technology will somehow be
developed to implement their stringent regulations. And these
proposed standards are impossible to meet in some places where
the ozone level that occurs naturally would be above the
standard set by the EPA. Many of these communities would be
responsible for ozone that they do not have the ability to
control. Wind-blown ozone from countries like China and Mexico
further complicate the ability of the U.S. to meet the existing
ozone standards.
Ozone scientists Dr. Allen Lefohn and Dr. Owen Cooper
raised concerns that ``the air transport of urban pollution to
rural areas is important for nonattainment considerations.''
The EPA has failed to adequately consider these issues.
This new ozone rule could cause many areas throughout the
United States to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act
through no fault of their own.
A nonattainment designation under the Clean Air Act has
serious consequences. It could cause new employers to not move
into the state. Businesses would be forced to deal with
additional burdensome permitting and compliance obligations,
which slow expansion and economic development. Ultimately, good
jobs will be lost in these areas.
I am also concerned that the EPA's justification for this
rule is not based on good science. In August, I sent both the
EPA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) letters in
which I raised concerns about the proposed rule's overreliance
on one study, parts of which contradict previous peer-reviewed
studies. My letter also questioned if EPA and OMB properly
addressed the issue of background ozone that witnesses raised
in previous Science Committee testimony when EPA determined the
final standard. I am concerned that neither agency adequately
considered background ozone or the overreliance on one study.
Unfortunately, neither agency has provided the information
I requested. While EPA claims to base its regulations on the
best available science, unless the EPA can prove otherwise, it
appears that their claims are nothing more than political
rhetoric.
Good science should dictate policy. However, it appears
that the EPA conveniently cherry-picks the science that
supports its extreme agenda. This is not sound science; it is
science fiction. Furthermore, the EPA has regularly chosen to
disregard inconvenient scientific conclusions and muzzle
dissenting voices.
Today's witnesses will testify on how this proposed rule
will impact American small businesses and job creation.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Today's hearing is on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.
The EPA is required to review the ozone standard every five years,
but the agency is not required to set new standards.
The 2008 standard of 75 parts per billion is just now being
implemented. And many states have not had the opportunity to meet the
2008 standard since guidance from the EPA for this standard was not
made public until February. However, earlier this month, the EPA
further reduced the standard to70 parts per billion.
At our previous Committee hearings on the EPA's ozone rule,
witnesses testified that further reduction of the standard is premature
and unnecessary due to the lack of any sound science and the negative
impact it will have on our economy. Unfortunately, the EPA did not
address the serious concerns raised by these witnesses.
Our hearing today will review the impact of this final rule.
According to EPA's own website, since 1980 ozone levels have decreased
by 33 percent. The air we breathe is significantly cleaner and will
continue to improve thanks to new technologies. However, many of the
technologies that the EPA forces states to use either do not currently
exist or will be overly expensive.
At the reduced ozone standard, over 60 percent of the costs of the
program are based on technology that does not currently exist. The EPA
assumes this technology will somehow be developed to implement their
stringent regulations.
And these proposed standards are impossible to meet in some places
where the ozone level that occurs naturally would be above the standard
set by the EPA. Many of these communities would be responsible for
ozone that they do not have the ability to control.
Wind-blown ozone from countries like China and Mexico further
complicate the ability of the U.S. to meet the existing ozone
standards.
Ozone Scientists Dr. Allen Lefohn and Dr. Owen Cooper raised
concerns that, ``[T]he [air] transport of urban pollution to rural
areas is important for nonattainment considerations.''
The EPA has failed to adequately consider these issues. This new
ozone rule could cause many areas throughout the United States to be
out of compliance with the Clean Air Act through no fault of their own.
A non-attainment designation under the Clean Air Act has serious
consequences. It could cause new employers to not move into the state.
Businesses would be forced to deal with additional burdensome
permitting and compliance obligations, which slow expansion and
economic development. Ultimately, good jobs will be lost in these
areas. I am also concerned that the EPA's justification for this rule
is not based on good science.
In August, I sent both the EPA and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) letters in which I raised concerns about the proposed
rule's over-reliance on one study, parts of which contradict previous
peer-reviewed studies.
My letter also questioned if EPA and OMB properly addressed the
issue of background ozone that witnesses raised in previous Science
Committee testimony when EPA determined the final standard. I am
concerned that neither agency adequately considered background ozone or
the over-reliance on one study. Unfortunately, neither agency has
provided the information I requested.
While EPA claims to base its regulations on the best available
science, unless the EPA can prove otherwise it appears that their
claims are nothing more than political rhetoric.
Good science should dictate policy. However, it appears that the
EPA conveniently cherry-picks the science that supports its extreme
agenda. This is not sound science; it is science fiction. Furthermore,
the EPA has regularly chosen to disregard inconvenient scientific
conclusions and muzzle dissenting voices.
Today's witnesses will testify on how this proposed rule will
impact American small businesses and job creation.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, is
recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I must say that at the end of my statement, I have to
depart to go to another committee where we are marking up for
the first time in some years a Transportation Committee bill--a
transportation bill.
But I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and say
good morning and welcome to all of our witnesses. I know that
the Chairman was very cooperative in postponing this hearing to
try to accommodate our witness, who suffered a medical
emergency. And while he's still recovering and unable to
travel, I'm very pleased to welcome Dr. Elena Craft, who will
be providing testimony this morning.
There really is no question that reducing ozone levels from
75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion will have positive
human health and economic benefits throughout the country.
While the new rule is not as ambiguous as health professionals
had hoped for, it will still have--ambitious, I mean, as the
health professionals hoped, it will still have real and
meaningful positive impact on the health of all Americans.
Some will likely argue that implementing a lower ozone
standard would kill jobs and the economy. We hear it all the
time. Some of my colleagues may also suggest that we wait and
not, as they say, shift the goalposts with new rules because
ozone levels have dropped by 33 percent--you just saw that
chart--since 1980. In short, they will use our current success
as an excuse to stop trying to do better. They will also
attempt to raise doubts about the scientific evidence
justifying the new standard and will exaggerate the costs of
its implementation.
These kinds of tactics have been used before. Back in the
1960s, the tobacco industry devised a strategy to counter a
growing body of scientific and medical evidence that tobacco
products unquestionably caused harm. Publicly available tobacco
industry documents lay out a detailed strategy that reads in
part ``doubt is our product since it is the best means of
competing with the body of fact that exist in the minds of the
general public. It is also the means of establishing a
controversy.''
Thus, in any form they could, tobacco industry scientists
attempted to raise doubts about the science, doubts about the
scientific models used by government scientists that
highlighted the negative health effects of tobacco and
secondhand smoke. Tobacco executives also emphasized concerns
about the economic impact of proposed regulations on the
industry and the economy at large.
This strategy served the tobacco industry well, postponing
effective action for years, but the American public paid the
price in a lower quality of life, increased medical costs, and
lost earnings and shortened lives. This same strategy has been
mimicked by the oil and gas industry and its attempt to
question the scientific evidence pointing to the climate
change.
Unfortunately, the Committee has become a favorite forum
for rolling out these tactics. We will hear today for the
fourth time in five years from you Dr. Michael Honeycutt from
my home State about--from the office of environmental
regulations, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) which appears to be employing tactics that I've just
described.
Instead of following the science supporting a reduction in
the levels of ozone pollution, TCEQ, along with the industry,
has waged a public media campaign that is not fooling Dallas, a
conservative city--but people in Dallas don't believe you--
geared toward raising doubts about the science and alleging
dire economic consequences of implementing these new health-
based standards.
Recent news stories have questioned why the agency spent $2
million hiring a scientific organization that previously did
substantive work for the tobacco industry to help TCEQ raise
doubts about the EPA's ozone rule. Americans are not fooled by
these tactics anymore.
Time and time again, the evidence shows that, on balance,
jobs are created and the economy expands following the passage
of major environmental reforms. Stricter pollution limits force
us to innovate and create new technologies. With a fair
national regulatory system that protects the public, companies
do well by doing good.
As it relates to this new ozone rule, EPA estimates the
benefits to be more than double the cost, that is, benefits of
2.9 to $5.9 billion annually compared to the cost of 1.4
billion. Such a return on investment should prove the obvious:
that when the environment is healthy, the economy is healthy,
too.
For millions of Americans who are suffering from
respiratory illnesses such as asthma, ozone pollution has a
real and destructive effect on them and their families.
Hospital records show it and prove it.
As someone who worked in the public health field before I
entered politics, I'm very sensitive to the impacts poor air
quality can have on the health of individuals, especially the
young, the infirm, and the poor. Unfortunately, those of us
from the Dallas-Fort Worth region are very familiar with the
negative effects of ozone causing smog and are accustomed to
seeing health alerts warning us that the air outside is too
polluted for us to breathe safely.
I am attaching to my statement a report compiled by the
minority staff that includes excerpts from some 430,000 written
comments on the ozone rule by health professionals and others
supportive of EPA's actions to reduce ozone pollution.
Mr. Chairman, a strong economy and a healthy environment
are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and we should
strive to continue to improve the environment and the air we
breathe. I believe EPA's new ozone regulations will help take
us to the right direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and welcome to our witnesses.
First, I'd like to thank the Chairman for agreeing to postpone this
hearing to try and accommodate our witness who suffered a medical
emergency. Unfortunately, Dr. Mark Mitchell is still not well enough to
travel, but I appreciate the consideration showed by the Chairman.
Now, as someone who worked in the public health field before I
entered politics, I am very sensitive to the impact poor air quality
can have on the health of individuals, especially the young, the
infirm, and the poor. Unfortunately, those of us from the Dallas-Fort
Worth region are very familiar with the negative effects of smog and
are accustomed to seeing health alerts warning us that the air outside
is too polluted for us to breathe safely. This year, Dallas has already
experienced 32 days where ozone levels exceeded 75 parts-per-billion
for more than 8 hours.
For the millions suffering from respiratory diseases, including the
26 million Americans with asthma, which impacts 10-percent of all
children, ozone pollution has a real and destructive effect on them and
their families. It also negatively impacts the entire economy,
resulting in both high healthcare costs and significant lost economic
productivity. Reducing ozone levels from 75 parts per billion to 70
parts per billion will have positive human health and economic impacts
throughout the country.
And while those of my colleagues and the industries who are opposed
to virtually all environmental regulations often forget this point, the
Clean Air Act requires that the ozone standard be based on science
alone. It explicitly prohibits the EPA from considering economic costs
when setting the standard, and rightfully puts the health and well-
being of Americans first. The new rule is not as ambitious as health
professionals had hoped for, but it will still have a real and
meaningful positive impact on the health of all Americans. The
scientific evidence supporting the benefits of reduced levels of ozone
is clear, consistent, and growing.
Some will likely argue that implementing a lower ozone standard
will kill jobs and the economy. Some of my colleagues may also suggest
that we wait, and not, as they say, ``shift the goal posts'' with this
new rule because ozone levels have dropped by 33 percent since 1980. In
short, they will use our current success as an excuse to stop trying to
do better. They will also attempt to raise doubts about the scientific
evidence justifying the new standard and will exaggerate the costs of
its implementation.
These kinds of tactics have been used before. Back in the 1960's,
the tobacco industry devised a strategy to counter a growing body of
scientific and medical evidence that tobacco products unquestionably
caused harm. Publically available tobacco industry documents lay out a
detailed strategy that reads in part:
``Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing
with the ``body of fact'' that exists in the mind of the general
public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.''
Thus, in any forum they could, tobacco industry scientists
attempted to raise doubts about the science, doubts about the medical
harm from cigarettes, and doubts about the scientific models used by
government scientists that highlighted the negative health effects of
tobacco and second-hand smoke. In addition, tobacco industry executives
emphasized concerns about the economic impact of proposed tobacco
regulations on their industry and the economy at large.
This strategy served the tobacco industry well, postponing
effective action for years. The profits enabled by these public
relations-based attacks on science went to the companies, but the
American public paid the price in a lower quality of life, increased
medical costs, lost earnings, and shortened lives. This same strategy
has been mimicked by the oil and gas industry in its attempt to
question the scientific evidence pointing to climate change.
Unfortunately, this Committee has become a favorite forum for rolling
out these tactics during consideration of federal regulation of harmful
chemicals that harm the environment and endanger the public's health.
We will hear today, for the fourth time in five years, from Dr.
Michael Honeycutt, from my home state's office of environmental
regulation, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or T-C-E-Q;
which appears to be employing the tactics that I've just described.
Instead of following the science supporting a reduction in the levels
of ozone pollution, TCEQ along with industry has waged a public media
campaign geared to raising doubts about the science and alleging dire
economic consequences of implementing these new health based standards.
Recent news stories have questioned why the agency spent nearly $2
million hiring a scientific organization that previously did
substantive work for the tobacco industry to help TCEQ raise doubts
about the EPA's ozone rule. As a Texas resident, I have questions about
why my tax dollars would be used that way too. I hope that in her
testimony Dr. Elena Craft from the Austin office of the Environmental
Defense Fund can help describe the body of scientific data on which the
new ozone rule is based and also explain the criticisms of both TCEQ
and the tactics used by industry to oppose the new ozone rule.
Americans are not fooled by these tactics any more. Time and again,
the evidence shows that on balance, jobs are created and the economy
expands following the passage of major environmental reforms. Stricter
pollutions limits force innovation and create new technologies. With a
fair national regulatory system that protects the public, companies can
do well by doing good. As it relates to this new ozone rule, EPA
estimates its benefits to be more than double the costs--that is,
benefits of $2.9 to $5.9 billion annually compared to costs of $1.4
billion. Such a return on investment should prove the obvious: that
when the environment is healthy, the economy is healthy too.
The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American
Medical Association, and many other public health organizations have
all supported lowering the ozone standard to 60 parts-per-billion,
which they argue would prevent up to 7,900 premature deaths annually,
1.8 million asthma attacks in children and 1.9 million missed school
days nationwide. But they believe any lowering of the ozone standard is
a good first step. The community of medical and public health
professionals does not believe there is any doubt that reducing ozone
levels is a necessary step to help better protect the public's health
from the real effects of ozone pollution.
I am attaching to my statement a short compilation that includes a
small segment of the 430,000 written comments on the ozone rule by
health professionals and others supportive of the EPA's efforts to do
their job and protect the environment and the public's health.
Mr. Chairman, a strong economy and a healthy environment are not
mutually exclusive. We can have both, and we should strive to continue
to improve the environment and the air we breathe. I believe EPA's new
ozone regulations will help take us in the right direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, the
Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for an
opening statement.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
To remind folks, today's hearing focuses on the EPA's final
rule announced earlier this month to lower the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for ozone to 70 parts per billion down
from the current standard of 75 parts per billion. Nothing in
today's hearing is regarding tobacco necessarily, as far as I
know.
This hearing comes at a critical time as we must carefully
review the science, impact, and achievability of this final
regulation, a regulation with heavy compliance costs but
questionable environmental benefits.
Across the country, ozone levels and emissions for volatile
organic compounds have been reduced significantly over the past
few decades. My home State of Oklahoma is among those
constantly working to improve air quality. Despite this, it is
concerning that the EPA is proposing to tighten the standard,
and I will remind my colleagues that the existing standard set
in 2008 has yet to be fully implemented, and the guidance for
State Implementation Plans was only released this past February
by the EPA. States must be given a chance to comply with the
existing standard before being imposed another onerous set of
standards that are not achievable.
This year, this committee has had several hearings to
examine this complicated and massive regulation. Here are some
of the important facts that we have learned from these
hearings: Number one, just one study consisting of 31
participants is being used as the main scientific justification
of the costliest regulation in the history of the country
according to Dr. Allen Lefohn, a leader in ozone research.
Number two, witnesses testified that natural background
ozone contributes a significant amount to the observed total
ozone concentrations, and with this proposed standard,
background or natural ozone may become the main reason areas
across the United States exceed the standard. Further, there
are even many national parks in the West which regularly will
exceed the new standard based on natural ozone.
Contributions from wildfires to the ozone level are
considered a part of background. Tightening the existing ozone
standards may cause even more unintentional fires of greater
intensity as the use of prescribed controlled fires may be
limited. This has serious implications, especially to rural and
remote areas.
While EPA claims that there are mechanisms to deal with
background ozone, EPA has yet to provide details. This is
especially true regarding implementation of its Exceptional
Event Rule demonstrations. According to testimony of Ms. Cara
Keslar from Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality,
``Wyoming has submitted five stratospheric intrusion
demonstrations.'' They submitted five. ``One demonstration has
been concurred with, and four have yet to be even acted on by
the EPA.'' This is an unacceptable track record, and it is
imposing costs on people that can't do anything about the
background ozone level.
Number five, rural areas will be hit especially hard by the
Clean Air Act's transportation conformity requirements, which
could mean withholding of federal highway funds if an area is
in nonattainment. Again, this is bureaucratic bullying by the
federal government against the states, and it needs to stop.
According to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation,
``rural areas do not have the resources to achieve sufficient
reductions of pollutants. The proposed action would be
detrimental to social and economic development for rural areas
across the State of Oklahoma.''
Beyond these concerns, it remains troubling to me that
those who will bear this regulation's compliance costs may also
suffer a decline in their health status. Not surprisingly, the
EPA did not include the premature deaths caused by the loss of
disposable income when considering the true impact of this
standard.
Furthermore, millions of senior citizens living on fixed
incomes and low-income Americans may be forced to choose
between medications, paying for heat, or paying for their food.
Moreover, other existing and proposed EPA regulations such as
the proposed Clean Power Plan will further exacerbate the
negative economic impact.
This hearing is critical because Congress has the
obligation to ensure the EPA adheres to the intent of the Clean
Air Act, that the science behind any rule is sound, and that
the totality of the impact of any rule is taken into account.
We need to understand the totality of the impact.
Before I yield back, I would like to submit a few documents
for the record. The first is a group of letters from state and
local officials opposing the rule.
The next is a map showing that nearly the entire State of
Oklahoma, even some of the more rural areas, will be in
nonattainment.
This would be devastating to my state, which is already
working very hard on its own, and has been successful, as a
matter of fact, to reduce ozone.
I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this
morning, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bridenstine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Environment Subcommittee Chairman Jim Bridenstine
Today's hearing focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency's
final rule, announced earlier this month, to lower National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone to 70 parts per billion, down from the
current standard of 75 ppb.
This hearing comes at a critical time as we must carefully review
the science, impact and achievability of this final regulation, a
regulation with heavy compliance costs but questionable environmental
benefits.
Across the country, ozone levels and emissions for volatile organic
compounds have been reduced significantly over the past few decades. My
home state of Oklahoma is among those constantly working to improve air
quality.
Despite this, it is concerning that the EPA is proposing to tighten
the standard, especially since the existing standard, set in 2008, has
yet to be fully implemented--and I will remind my colleagues that this
is due to the fact that the guidance for state implementation plans was
only released this past February by the EPA. States must be given a
chance to comply with the existing standard before being imposed
another onerous set of standards that are not achievable.
This year, this Committee has held several hearings to examine this
complicated and massive regulation. Here are some important facts that
we have learned from these hearings:
1. Just one study consisting of 31 participants is being used as
the scientific justification of the costliest regulation in the history
of this country, according to Dr. Allen Lefohn, a leader in
environmental research.
2. Witnesses testified that background ozone contributes a
significant amount to the observed total ozone concentrations, and with
this proposed standard, background or natural ozone may become the main
reason certain areas across the U.S. exceed the standard. Further,
there are many national parks in the west which regularly exceed the
new standard.
3. Contributions from wildfires to the ozone level are considered
a part of background. Tightening the existing ozone standards may cause
more unintentional fires of greater intensity as the use of prescribed,
controlled fires may be limited. This has serious implications,
especially to rural and remote areas.
4. While EPA claims that there are mechanisms to deal with
background ozone, EPA has yet to provide details. This is especially
true regarding implementation of its Exceptional Event Rule
Demonstrations. According to the testimony of Ms. Kara Keslar from
Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality:
``Wyoming has submitted five stratospheric intrusion
demonstrations. One demonstration has been concurred with and four have
not yet been acted on by EPA.'' This is an unacceptable track record.
5. Rural areas will be hit especially hard by the Clean Air Act's
transportation conformity requirements, which could mean the
withholding of federal highway funds if an area is in non-attainment.
According to the Oklahoma's Department of Transportation, ``Rural areas
do not have the resources to achieve sufficient reductions of
pollutants. The proposed action would be detrimental to social and
economic development for rural areas across the state of Oklahoma.''
Beyond these concerns, it remains troubling to me that those who
will bear this regulation's compliance costs may also suffer a decline
in their health status. Not surprisingly, the EPA did not include the
premature deaths caused by the loss of disposable income when
considering the true impact of this standard.
Furthermore, millions of senior citizens living on fixed incomes
and low-income Americans may be forced to choose between medications,
paying for heat, or for their food. Moreover, other existing and
proposed EPA regulations such as the proposed Clean Power Plan will
further exacerbate the negative economic impact.
This hearing is critical because Congress has the obligation to
ensure the EPA adheres to the intent of the Clean Air Act, that the
science behind any rule is sound, and that the totality of the impact
of any rule is taken into account.
I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming this afternoon and
I look forward to hearing their testimony. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, the Ranking
Member of the Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for an
opening statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
Environmental Protection Agency's final National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone.
Last week, the EPA took a step in the right direction to
maintain clean air and healthy environment for our country. The
new standard of 70 parts per billion is not as ambitious as
some might have hoped for, but it will have a real and
meaningful effect on the health of all Americans.
At a hearing earlier this year on the topic of ozone, one
of the witnesses before the Committee, Dr. Mary Rice, stated
that there is clear, consistent, and conclusive scientific
evidence in support of a standard lower than the current level
of 75 parts per billion. She also indicated that the scientific
evidence available seven years ago has been supplemented by an
even greater understanding of the health effects of ozone
exposure.
We must not overlook this point. The Clean Air Act, as
passed by Congress, requires that the ozone standard be based
on science and health. It prohibits the EPA from considering
costs when setting the standard, and it rightfully puts the
health and well-being of Americans first.
Despite this fact, we will hear today that implementing a
lower ozone standard will have devastating consequences to the
economy, but has been shown time and time again, the evidence
shows that, on balance, jobs are created and the economy
expands following the passage of major environmental reforms.
Regarding this rule, the EPA estimates the benefits to be
more than double the costs, that is, benefits of 2.9 to 5.9
billion annually compared to costs of 1.4 billion. Such a
return on investment should prove the obvious: that when the
environment is healthy, the economy is healthy.
We are already seeing positive results from strong action
to protect the air. Since 1980, ozone levels have dropped by 33
percent. Now is not the time to rest on our accomplishments.
The only way to ensure we maintain our progress is to keep
moving forward.
It's important to point out that the Bush Administration
ignored the experts on EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee in 2008 and implemented a standard they viewed as not
sufficiently protective of public health. Thankfully, the Obama
Administration is basing its decision on the science, not
industry interests.
Now, let me be clear. In my home State of Oregon, we
recognize the challenges associated with implementing a more
stringent standard. And I'm glad Mr. Bridenstine raised this
point. Wildfires and long-range shifting of ozone from Asia
will need to be addressed if we're to achieve a lower standard.
That being said, comments the State of Oregon submitted support
the EPA's proposal. Specifically, a letter from David Collier,
the Air Quality Manager at the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, on EPA's proposed rule states that
``Oregon welcomes the EPA's proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS
based on advice provided by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee in order to provide the adequate protection to human
health and welfare.''
In its comments to the EPA, Oregon also recommended the
development of guidance and tools to address exceptional events
like wildfires and the long-range transport of ozone.
Thankfully, the EPA is listening to the needs of states and has
expressed in the final rule its commitment to addressing the
implementation challenges faced by Western States.
I want to point out that the EPA has concluded that most
U.S. counties will be able to reach the new standard without
imposing emission controls beyond those already in place or
proposed. Specifically, the EPA has estimated that federal
regulations like the Fuel Economy Standards, the Interstate
Transport Rule, and the Clean Power Plan will reduce emissions
to such a degree that only 14 of the 213 counties expected to
exceed the 70 parts per billion are likely to find themselves
in nonattainment by 2025.
Mr. Chairman, although significant progress has been made
in the past 40 years, it is our job and responsibility to build
on this legacy and e sure that we continue to improve the
quality of our air. A strong economy and a healthy environment
are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and EPA's rule
will continue to take us in the right direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to our
witnesses for being here today, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
And let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today
is Mr. Jeff Holmstead, a Partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP.
Mr. Holmstead is one of the country's leading air quality
lawyers and heads the Environmental Strategies Group at
Bracewell & Giuliani. He previously served as the Assistant
Administrator at the EPA for the Office of Air and Radiation.
He also served on the White House staff as Associate Counsel to
former President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Holmstead received his
bachelor's degrees in economics and English from Brigham Young
University and his law degree from Yale.
Our next witness is Mr. Seyed Sadredin, the Executive
Director and Air Pollution Control Officer of the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District. Under his leadership,
the district developed a clear mission to improve the valley's
health and quality of life through effective and innovative
strategies and provide quality customer service to the general
public and the regulated community. Mr. Sadredin initiated the
implementation of the Technology Advancement Program, which
promotes new clean air technology development in the valley. He
received his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from
California State University at Sacramento.
Our third witness today is Dr. Elena Craft, Health
Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. Dr. Craft has
worked on air toxic issues specifically to reduce criteria and
greenhouse gas emissions from the energy and transportation
sectors. Her efforts have led to the creation of Clean Truck
Programs in Houston and other ports around the Southeast. Dr.
Craft has been appointed to serve a two-year term on the
Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board
Environmental Justice Technical Review Panel. That's the
longest name of any panel I've heard of. Dr. Craft received her
bachelor's degree in biology from the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, her master's degree in toxicology from
the North Carolina State University, and her Ph.D. in molecular
technology from Duke University.
Our final witness is Dr. Michael Honeycutt, the Director of
the Toxicology Division of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality. Dr. Honeycutt has been employed by the
TCEQ since 1996 and has managed the division of 14
toxicologists since 2003. His responsibilities include
overseeing health effects reviews of air permit applications,
the review of the results of ambient air monitoring projects,
and the reviews of human health risk assessments for hazardous
waste sites. Dr. Honeycutt is an Adjunct Professor at Texas A&M
University, has published numerous articles, and serves as--or
served as--or served on numerous external scientific
committees. Dr. Honeycutt received his bachelor's degree and
Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of
Louisiana at Monroe.
We recognize and appreciate all of you being here today and
look forward to hearing what you have to say.
And, Dr. Holmstead, we'll begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFFREY HOLMSTEAD,
PARTNER, BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP
The Hon. Holmstead. Thank you very much for giving me the
chance to testify here this morning.
While I know other people will talk a fair bit about the
controversies regarding the health science and the effects of
ozone, what I'd like to do is just put that to one side and say
this: Regardless of what you think about that, the way that we
deal with ozone today just no longer makes any sense. Ozone is
not a new issue. EPA and state agencies have been focused on
reducing ozone levels for more than 40 years. As a country, we
have spent much more money on ozone than on any other type of
pollution, even though all experts believe that other types of
pollution pose a greater risk to public health.
Now, because of EPA's new ozone standard, we will be forced
to spend much more money--tens of millions of dollars--for very
small incremental reductions in ozone. This is easy to
understand. This is because for almost 40 years, most of the
cost-effective, reasonable things that can be done to reduce
ozone have already been done. Additional reductions will be
much more expensive.
Some people think this is okay because the cost is paid by
big business, but this is not true. The cost is paid entirely
by real people. We all pay the cost in the form of higher
prices, smaller retirement accounts, and lower levels of
economic growth. This is why we should all care about the cost
of regulations, as well as the benefits.
I would like to highlight just two issues. First, the new
ozone standard will effectively ban new industrial development
in many parts of the country. In many areas, it will be
impossible to build or expand an industrial facility even
though it would be built with state-of-the-art emission
controls and even though the local community might desperately
want the jobs it would bring.
Here is why: Anyone who wants to build or expand an
industrial facility must first obtain a Clean Air Act permit.
In some areas, you can't get such a permit unless you can first
show that emissions from the new facility will not ``cause or
contribute to a violation'' of the new ozone standard. But this
will not be possible in areas that met the old standard but do
not meet the new one. You can't show that a new facility will
not contribute to a violation of the new standard because the
area, according to EPA, is now in violation. And if you can't
make this showing, you can't build a new plant, no matter how
clean it is.
EPA says that you might be able to get around this problem
by paying another facility in the area to reduce its emissions
enough to offset emissions from the new plant. This is called
``getting offsets.'' But in many cases, this will not be
possible either. Any areas that exceed the new standard are
rural areas where there is little or no industry. They exceed
the standard not because of local emissions but because of
background ozone and emissions in other areas. In these cases,
there are no offsets to be purchased so no plants--no new
plants can be built.
A related problem will occur in areas that don't meet the
previous standard. To build a plant in these areas, a company
has no choice but to purchase offsets. In fact, it must obtain
offset that are between 10 and 50 percent greater than the
emissions from the new facility. Now, please note that offsets
cannot be created by emission reductions that are required by
EPA or state regulations, only by reductions that go beyond
what is required.
But remember, for more than 40 years, EPA and States have
been looking for every conceivable way to reduce ozone. Where
there are any additional reductions to be had, they are very
expensive. For example, in the Houston area where there is so
much industry, it is possible to purchase offsets, but they are
enormously expensive, as much as $300,000 a ton. Even a
relatively small facility with state-of-the-art pollution
controls would need to spend tens of millions of dollars just
to purchase enough offsets to get a permit.
I will summarize the second issue very briefly. The Clean
Air Act program for dealing with ozone was established in 1970
when Congress believed that air pollution was primarily a local
problem and that States could solve it by regulating local
industry. We now know differently. Ozone is a global issue.
When there are high ozone levels, they are largely caused by
things outside of a State's control: by cars and trucks, which
are regulated by EPA; by natural background; and by emissions
from other States and other countries.
The State only has control over emissions from its own
industrial facilities, but under the Clean Air Act, it has the
sole legal obligation to meet the new standard. In a number of
States, however, a State could shut down all the industrial
facilities in the whole State and still not meet the standard.
Because 70 parts per billion is so close to background ozone
levels in some areas, there is simply nothing a State can do to
meet the new standard.
As a result, the Clean Air Act now appears to give a rather
remarkable authority to EPA, the authority to impose a legal
obligation that is impossible to meet. To me, this seems
contrary to our long-standing notion about the rule of law and
the way the federal government should operate.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Holmstead follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
Mr. Sadredin.
Chairman Smith. Make sure your microphone is on. Push----
TESTIMONY OF MR. SEYED SADREDIN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER,
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Mr. Sadredin. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Bonamici, Members of the Committee. Good morning. It's a great
honor and a pleasure to be here before you today. Thank you for
the invitation.
I come from the beautiful and bountiful Central Valley of
California, San Joaquin Valley. Over the last three decades,
we've done quite a bit of work to improve quality of life and
reduce air pollution in San Joaquin Valley.
I'm not here today to urge your committee to curb EPA's
authority to set new standards or to--or ask you to--ignore
them----
Chairman Smith. Yes, ignore those bells. Yes.
Mr. Sadredin. --or ask you to roll back any of the health-
protected safeguards in the Clean Air Act that have really
brought us to where we are today.
At the outset, I want to say that the Clean Air Act over
the last 40 years has resulted in a great deal of reduction in
air pollution, improved public health and quality of life in
many regions, including our region. What I'm hoping to do,
though, is to give you a preview of what might seem to be
coming to your neighborhood with the new standard that EPA just
published because we have been at the forefront of what we have
to do even with old standards that EPA published because of our
geography, topography. The problems that we have faced over the
last two, three decades are going to be exactly the problems
that you might face in your neighborhood soon with the new
standard.
And I'm here really today to ask the Congress to provide
guidance to EPA. We believe the world is a different world
today compared to 25 years ago when the Congress last amended
the act, or 40 years ago when the Congress passed the act
unanimously--virtually unanimously. There was only a handful of
``no'' votes.
I think if the Congress understood at the time that you
would face a circumstance like we do today, that after having
reduced air pollution by over 80 percent in our region and
having imposed the toughest regulations on every sector of your
economy from the small ma-and-pa operations, drycleaners, paint
shops, all the way to your largest power plants and refineries,
that you would still face a major gap that would dictate a
tremendous penalty on the residents of your region, the
businesses that operate in your area. I don't think the bill
would have passed unanimously, let alone--even if it would pass
at all.
So I just wanted to share with you some of our experiences
and really what we're asking the Congress to do in the form of
a fine-tuning of the act as we call it. It's our 2015 Clean Air
Act modernization that has five specific proposals in it. The
first proposal that we have in our legislative initiative that
we are taking is to eliminate duplication--duplicative
requirements, confusion, and costly bureaucratic red tape that
are--that is--currently happens with our chaotic establishment
of the new standards by synchronizing the new standards. When
EPA publishes the new standards, let's synchronize the old
standards without any rollback. Let's have a unique set of
requirements that we have to follow instead of having multiple
plans in place.
In our region, for instance, right now, we have six
attainment plans in place with four more attainment plans being
due in the next four years, all with redundant, duplicative
requirements that we have to deal with.
The other requirement--the other change that we're asking--
and I agree with what the Ranking Member said--that a good
economy and good environment, good public health are not
mutually exclusive. In fact, we believe you do need a vibrant
economy to have the wherewithal to do all the difficult things
that we need to do to improve our air quality.
So in our proposal we are asking that, instead of the
formula-based deadlines that the Congress set 25 years ago, to
take into account the economic feasibility and technological
achievability in setting deadlines. Give us time to get to
these tough standards. Don't set impossible deadlines that
we're not able to meet. Banning fossil fuel combustion, which
is really what it takes for us to meet the new standard, is not
doable in--simply in 20 years. We need more time to be able to
develop the technology and the infrastructure to do that.
We also ask that the act be amended to really treat
different pollutants differently. Not all pollutants are
created equally. When the Congress passed the act some 25 years
ago with the latest amendments, they thought it was all about
VOCs, volatile organic compounds. We are finding today that
science dictates that different pollutants have different
impacts on air quality, and we need to be able to take--have a
system that allows us to have a weighing--appropriate weighing
of those pollutants and deal with them.
With respect to extreme nonattainment areas such as we are
in--and I'm almost finished--we ask that you remove the
requirement for having contingency measures. It is one of those
well-intended provisions in the act that are leading to
unintended consequences, and I'd be happy to give you more
details on that.
And we also ask that, for regions such as California where
we have done many things to reduce pollution from mobile
sources early on, give us the ability to take credit for those,
as opposed to taking those credits away in a way that some of
the court rulings are being interpreted by EPA.
And I have details about all of these in my presentation
and would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sadredin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sadredin.
And, Dr. Craft.
TESTIMONY DR. ELENA CRAFT,
SENIOR HEALTH SCIENTIST,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
Dr. Craft. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ms. Bonamici, Members
of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify here today
about EPA's revision to the Nation's health-based ambient air
quality standard for ground-level ozone.
My name is Elena Craft. I serve as Senior Scientist at
Environmental Defense Fund, a national nonpartisan science-
based environmental organization where I manage a team working
to identify strategies and opportunities to reduce harmful air
pollution such as ozone from pollution hotspots.
EDF has over 1 million members. Our organization links
science, economics, law, and private sector partnerships to
solve our most serious environmental challenges. In addition, I
have an adjunct appointment at the University of Texas Health
Sciences Center in Houston. And as I was seven months pregnant
the last time I testified in front of this committee, I am also
the mom of a very busy toddler.
The Clean Air Act is a bedrock public health statute
representing the best of a bipartisan America encompassing the
values of environmental protection and healthy air that we
espouse as a nation. The unanimous vision forged into law by
the U.S. Senate has secured healthier air for millions of
Americans netting benefits valued at over $21 trillion between
1970 and 1990.
Indeed, by 2020, EPA estimates the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments will prevent a projected 230,000 deaths, 2.4 million
asthma attacks, 200,000 heart attacks, and 5.4 million lost
school days. EPA also found that these vital health protections
would provide 2 trillion in monetized benefits. Additionally,
EPA projects a net overall improvement in economic growth due
to the benefits of cleaner air.
The Clean Air Act is sharply focused on ensuring the
Nation's health standards that are established solely on the
basis of public health. On October 1, EPA established a revised
ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, improving America's
national air quality standard for ground-level ozone. Why?
Because scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that
the previous 75-part-per-billion standard is not requisite to
protect human health with an adequate margin of safety as
required by the Clean Air Act.
The recommendations of the statutorily established and
independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee underscored
the need, as determined by the latest scientific evidence, to
strengthen the ground-level ozone standard. CASAC found clear
scientific support for the need to revise the standard. While
recommending a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion, the
committee went on to emphasize the inadequacy of a standard at
the upper end of the range. At 70 parts per billion, there is
substantial scientific evidence of adverse effects, including
decrease in lung function, increase in respiratory symptoms,
and increase in airway inflammation.
And CASAC is not alone in concluding that the 2008 ozone
standard was inadequate. The American Thoracic Society, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical
Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung
Association, American Public Health Association, Children's
Environmental Health Network are just a few of the medical and
public health organizations that have supported strengthening
the standards.
Some claim that adopting strong ozone standards will cause
economic harm. Unfortunately, these sky-is-falling
prognostications are not new. The fact is that we can do it and
we have done it. Since 1970, our nation has reduced the six
pollutants regulated under the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards program by almost 70 percent, while GDP has grown by
nearly 240 percent. And currently, 90 percent of areas
designated for the 1997 ozone health standards now meet those
standards.
Regions are not alone in meeting the new health-based
standards. America has already taken steps over the past few
years that will help reduce ozone smog pollution and help
restore healthy air in a cost-effective manner. Some of these
protections include the Tier 3 tailpipe standards, recently
finalized greenhouse gas and fuel standards for medium and
heavy-duty trucks, and EPA's Clean Power Plan.
The Clean Air Act is a vibrant, bipartisan, made-in-America
law that has stood the test of time, delivering a stronger,
healthier, and more prosperous nation. Let's build on this
legacy of bipartisan collaboration and follow the time-tested
commonsense path forward in protecting the health of our
children and our communities. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Craft follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Craft.
And Dr. Honeycutt.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL HONEYCUTT,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS COMMISSION
ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
TOXICOLOGY DIVISION
Mr. Honeycutt. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
the Committee. I'm Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Director of the
Toxicology Division at the TCEQ. I lead a division of 14
toxicologists, who are responsible for evaluating a broad
spectrum of environmental quality issues, including deriving
acceptable levels of air contaminants.
The TCEQ has derived acceptable air contaminant levels for
many thousands of air contaminants over the last 30-plus years,
and our current team of toxicology risk assessors has over 280
combined years of experience in these fields. We derive these
levels using a scientific, peer-reviewed method, and many of
these levels and their derivation process have been published
in independent scientific journals. Other state governments,
federal agencies including the EPA, and other countries use the
TCEQ's acceptable air contaminant values.
On October 1 of this year, the EPA decreased the level of
the ozone standard from an annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour concentration of 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per
billion. Today, I will address considerations of overall health
risk, but first, I would like to set the record straight on the
ozone science.
Based on our extensive background in deriving acceptable
air contaminant levels, we independently reviewed thousands of
studies on ozone, including the studies the EPA reviewed as a
part of setting the final standard. Ozone is a simple oxidizing
chemical that, at high enough concentrations, can cause
inflammation in the lungs, and it can reversibly limit the
body's ability to inhale and exhale a normal volume of air.
However, there remains large uncertainty and variability in the
scientific literature.
With regard to changes in lung function and asthma
exacerbations, eight out of nine studies investigating lung
function changes caused by ozone showed no difference between
asthmatics and healthy individuals. As we stated in our
comments to EPA, the dose that a person would be expected to
receive at 75 parts per billion is almost no different than 70
parts per billion or even 65 parts per billion. And you can see
figure 1 in my comments to see that.
Consistent with this finding, the EPA does not predict--let
me state it again. The EPA does not predict that a decrease in
the ozone standard will cause a statistically significant
decrease in asthma attacks. You can see figure 2 for that
information.
The basis for setting the standard at 70 parts per billion
was to make it lower than the lowest exposure concentration
where adverse effects were observed in human controlled
exposure studies, which was 72 parts per billion. However, in
order to observe any effects at this low ozone concentration,
the authors had to expose the human subjects to ozone while
they were exercising at moderate to heavy exertion for 50
minutes out of every hour for 6.6 hours. This is an unrealistic
exposure scenario for the general public, much less for
sensitive groups. Therefore, it would take higher exposure
concentrations to have the same effect noted in that study.
Although asthma exacerbations and changes in lung function
are the most important and biologically relevant effects, most
of the monetary benefits that EPA ascribes to reductions in
ozone are from reductions in premature mortality. They do this
despite the fact that, from a toxicology standpoint, there is
no explanation for how eight hours of ozone exposure at
ambient, present-day concentrations on one day can cause
premature mortality the next day. In addition, the EPA
Administrator has expressed a lack of confidence in the studies
associating ozone with premature mortality due to the inherent
study uncertainties.
The results from these studies are also contradictory and
inconsistent. For example, in the main mortality study that the
EPA uses, Smith 2009 showed that only seven out of 98 U.S.
cities have a significant association between eight hour ozone
concentrations and mortality. Also, astonishingly, the EPA's
analysis shows mortality increasing in certain cities,
including Detroit and Houston when decreasing the ozone
standard from 75 to 70 parts per billion. And no, I did not
misread that.
Some inconsistency between study findings is not uncommon.
Scientists who are experienced in risk assessment can
incorporate these disparate pieces of information into a
cohesive characterization of health risk. The EPA would be
better advised and critiqued on their risk assessment if a risk
assessor was included on the CASAC. A chemical risk assessor is
essential to put the potential risk highlighted by the other
CASAC experts into content--into context with the inherent
background risk present in our daily lives. The Clean Air Act
does not require that risks are reduced to zero, and risk
assessment with uncertainty analysis can demonstrate the
reduction in risk, or lack thereof, from a reduction in a
regulatory standard.
The lack of consideration of overall risk is perhaps more
apparent--most apparent when reviewing the revisions to the
EPA's Air Quality Index in the final rule. According to the new
category breakpoints, sensitive members of the public will now
be cautioned to consider reducing prolonged or heavy outdoor
exertion at 55 parts per billion ozone, a number that has no
experimental basis. Beginning at 71 parts per billion, the EPA
advises the public to keep their asthma inhalers handy.
Anecdotally, we are told that some schools in Texas will cancel
recess when they receive this alert.
The problem is that this is based on a single study that
showed a mild lung function effect after exposure to 72 parts
per billion ozone for 6.6 hours with vigorous exercise. And it
is being used to cancel a 20-minute recess. In the Dallas-Fort
Worth area of Texas in 2014, there would have been 23 such days
that children might not have been able to play outdoors.
These health messages and the new frequency with which they
will be released can lead to growing public concern over air
quality that is actually getting better and can lead to keeping
our children and ourselves from the well-documented physical
and psychological benefits of outdoor exercise.
Let me be clear. Under certain circumstances at high
concentrations, ground-level ozone can have negative
implications for respiratory health, but our investigations
conclude that low concentrations that we see today, the risks
to respiratory health are small and are not significantly
diminished by the decreased ozone standard.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the intent of the
Clean Air Act, the EPA, and the role that science plays in
setting meaningful policy.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here and I'm happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Honeycutt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Honeycutt.
I recognize myself for questions.
And, Mr. Holmstead, I would like to direct the first one to
you, and that is you've mentioned several examples, but would
you just summarize the adverse consequences of this new ozone
regulation?
The Hon. Holmstead. Well, the most immediate one is really
that it will ban industrial growth in many parts of the
country. That's not universally true, but there will be many
parts of the country where, no matter how hard a local
community wants to attract new industry, it won't be able to do
so because they can't get the permits they need to build or
expand a new industrial facility.
The longer-term consequence is that it really does drive up
the cost of virtually everything we consume, not only energy,
but other products as well.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
Mr. Sadredin, you mentioned the San Joaquin Valley. Does
the technology exist today to actually enable that region to
attain the standards that it needs to attain under the proposed
rule?
Mr. Sadredin. The simple answer is no, but that is not
limited to the newest standard alone. As we speak, EPA has
already classified the San Joaquin Valley as extreme
nonattainment even for the 75 parts-per-billion standard and
the previous standard of 84 parts per billion. And extreme by
definition means that technology today does not exist.
Chairman Smith. Any idea when the technology might exist or
is it just totally unknown?
Mr. Sadredin. At this point it's unknown. EPA in their
own--you know, latest regulatory impact analysis, they talk
about technology that does not exist and they don't know when
it would be available. And that is why we are urging the
Congress to take that into account, make some fine-tuning of
the Clean Air Act to allow that to be considered in setting up
the deadlines and what it takes, how long it takes to come into
attainment.
Chairman Smith. I know you're considering this but I think
you'll find the courts on your side and if you can't comply
because the technology is not available, you can't be held
accountable. So I hope you succeed in that regard.
Mr. Sadredin. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Honeycutt, would you spend a little
time explaining to us the single study that the entire ozone
regulation relies upon and why there are limitations to the
science that were relied upon in that study? First of all, I
can't believe we're just relying upon one study. That clearly
smacks of cherry-picking. But if you'll go into some detail
about the flaws in the one study and why only one study was
used.
Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. It is based on--or the level of the
standard is based on one study, the Schelegle 2009 study where
31 people were exposed to ozone at various levels for 6.6
hours, exercising moderately to vigorously for 50 minutes out
of every hour during the 6.6 hours. And at the 72 part-per-
billion exposure concentration, six of the 31 people had lung
decrements--lung function decrements greater than ten percent,
which EPA considers adverse.
The problem is the group mean was only 5-1/2 percent, a
little over 5 percent. And the group mean wasn't adverse, but
what EPA did was pick out the six that were, so they cherry-
picked those six people out of the group, and you're not
supposed to do that. That's not scientific. That's why the
study authors didn't publish the journal article that way
because it wouldn't have been published because nobody would
accept that. So that's what it's based on.
Chairman Smith. If any other organization relied upon a
single study involving six out of 31 people, it would be
laughable, and the fact that the EPA is going to subject
millions of people to an unworkable standard at great cost
because of that one flawed study is just amazing. And so I
agree with your conclusion.
That also concludes my comments, and we'll go now to the
gentleman from Virginia. Do you want to recognize somebody else
first?
Okay. Mr. Beyer is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
very much for being here. And I'm actually pleased to be part
of this this morning just thinking how far we've come, that we
have four witnesses representing both people for and against
the ozone rule who are here testifying that clean air is a good
thing and that we've come a long way, and all committed to
making it better.
And the debate is about the level that was set and the
costs and benefits, and that for me the factor of this debate
is progress, so thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we have a witness from California here today,
and California really has some unique--okay. I don't need to do
this for the record so never mind. I'm going to go on. Thank
you.
Also for the record, you know, I'm a businessman, family
business. We have our 42nd anniversary tomorrow in retail
automobile sales and service, and so for 42 years I've been
hearing about the devastating consequences of new regulations.
I just want to say that that's nuts. I remember 1982 Ronald
Reagan's Federal Trade Commission was coming out with the used-
car disclaimer on the windows, and everywhere in America, all
the things were this is going to be the end of the free market,
the end of automobile sales. We adapted to it in about a week.
2009 CAFE standards have been set at 22 miles per gallon
from '92 through 2008. President Obama raised it to 35 by 2016,
again, devastating consequences. We were told the technology
does not exist. Well, it's almost 2016. We'll be at 35 miles
per gallon. We're about to sell 17 million new cars in America
this year, and manufacturers and dealers are having all-time
profit years. If anything has pulled down profits, it's been
the internet and the quantitization of our product.
Dr. Craft, we just heard Dr. Honeycutt say that all this is
based on this one study, six out of 35 people. It's my
understanding, though, that before the Schelegle study was
done, in the George W. Bush Administration, his EPA Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel wanted it to
be set between 60 and 70 parts and unanimously recommended that
and were disappointed when the President, you know, recognizing
business pressure, put it at 75. How do you respond to that?
And is this really based on one study and six people?
Dr. Craft. Thank you. No, it's not. We have sound evidence
of the health effects of ozone from three branches of science,
controlled human exposures, community health studies, and
toxicology studies. EPA reviewed thousands and thousands of
papers. They have summarized their scientific findings in the
Integrated Scientific Assessment, which was under review by
three different Science Advisory Committees. They have
published those findings. The public was able to participate in
looking at the review that EPA scientists had done.
And just a couple of examples of the--from the summary--
from EPA's summary, they looked at respiratory effects, causal
relationship between short-term ozone exposure and respiratory
health effects. They have looked at cardiovascular effects
likely to be causal relationship for short-term exposures to
ozone and cardiovascular effects, central nervous system
effects suggestive of a causal relationship between ozone
exposure and CNS effects, total mortality likely to be a causal
relationship between short-term exposures to ozone and total
mortality. These are not summaries that were derived from a
study that picked out six people.
I guess I wanted to also mention that while the
Administrator noted the study in her announcement of the
standard, there are other studies that have shown that there is
a significant effect below 72. It's the Kim study from 2011.
So, you know, the idea that we're relying on just one study is
not accurate, and it has been a process where EPA has included
the public and has been very transparent in this process.
Mr. Beyer. Great. I'd also like to point out quickly that
in the pharmaceuticals, they'll spend hundreds of millions of
dollars testing new drugs, and if they get one or two or three
adverse effects out of 100,000, they'll take the drug off the
market. So six out of 35 actually seems like an awful lot to
me.
Dr. Keet at Johns Hopkins had a paper that has been
misinterpreted to say that poverty makes asthma worse rather
than ozone. Can you respond to this mischaracterization of Dr.
Keet's letter?
And I'd like to enter her response for the record, please,
without objection.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The appears in Appendix II]
Dr. Craft. Sure. That paper, I think, was misunderstood.
The study did not actually look at air pollution at all, so any
characterization that air pollution is caused by poverty was
not the subject of the study itself. And I think that's what
Dr. Keet has sent and submitted as part of her letter.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So we had one person telling us that this
is all based on one study, and we have another witness telling
us that there are thousands of studies that indicate this.
Could you name a few studies, Ms. Craft, that have actually
been accepted by the EPA Administrator as being legitimate
studies that went into this decision?
Dr. Craft. In the Integrated Science Assessment, the EPA
derived--they include all of the studies that they looked at in
referencing----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you name me a couple of the studies
that they--that the--is my understanding that the EPA
Administrator has said that there are thousands of studies that
have happened on this but none that can be trusted. Maybe you
could name us two or three other studies that have been trusted
that would be accepted by the EPA Administrator on this.
Dr. Craft. Yes, I guess I'm not sure what you mean by
trusted. I mean the EPA looked at all of the available studies.
So, for example, Jarrett et al. 2009----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, so you're saying--say this again
now. You're giving us a specific now because I'm going to want
Dr. Honeycutt's response to this. So there was a--what study
you're talking about now specifically?
Dr. Craft. Well, I guess it--is the question what are some
of the studies the EPA examined as part of their Integrated
Science Assessment?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No. Which ones were accepted by the EPA
Administrator as being specific to this decision? We are being
told by Mr. Honeycutt that you--that there's only one study and
that we're naming it now that specifically justified these EPA
rules. You're telling us that--and that the EPA used as an
example of this is why we are putting this new rule out. And
you're saying that there are thousands of other studies. Could
you name us several that the EPA has cited as reasons for their
decision?
Dr. Craft. I guess the question is about EPA relying on
only one study, and I guess my opinion is that that is a
mischaracterization, and I'm not sure where that is
characterized in the----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, maybe you could tell us the name of
three or four studies that--you're saying there are thousands
of them--that the EPA has used to justify this change.
Dr. Craft. Well, they've looked at----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I'm not saying----
Dr. Craft. --a lot of studies.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, no, what have they said this is what
justifies our change, not that there is an amorphous over here.
We've looked at thousands of things for and against. As far as
we know, the thousands--for all we know, maybe half of them,
they believe, were against what they have decided on. What two
or three studies--this guy is saying we've--there's only one.
You're saying there are thousands. Give us two or three studies
that the EPA has used to back up this change in regulation.
Dr. Craft. The Jarrett et al. 2009 study, the Kim et al.
2011 study. There is----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Craft. --the Stevens study. I mean I can name----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Now, we have----
Dr. Craft. --a lot of ozone studies.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. You've just named three, is that
correct?
Dr. Craft. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Now, go for it, Mr. Honeycutt.
What--why--you've said there's only one.
Mr. Honeycutt. Actually, the Kim study did not find
effects. Well, it found significant decrease in FEV1, a 1.8
percent decrease at 60 parts per billion, but by nobody's
definition is that an adverse effect, not the American Thoracic
Association--Society's, not by EPA's, by nobody's.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So you're just saying that there has
only been one study that shows----
Mr. Honeycutt. The Schelegle study.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --an actual detrimental impact, but----
Mr. Honeycutt. Well, it depends on your definition, okay?
By EPA's definition it's not unless you pick out the six
people. So----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Honeycutt. --the previous----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So is this----
Mr. Honeycutt. The previous a standard was set based on
epidemiology data. This one they switched it and based it on
the clinical data.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Honeycutt. And CASAC spent a whole day talking about
this one study and where they should--how--the phraseology they
should use----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Honeycutt. --in----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I want to get to the one that was just
given as an example, and you say that one did not----
Mr. Honeycutt. Jarrett 2009.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And that is not--and that did not
justify----
Mr. Honeycutt. That is the only long-term study out of 12
that found effects--associations with ozone.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, but we just had--what was the--I'm
sorry. I'm new to this. I'm a novice on these specific studies
now.
Mr. Honeycutt. I actually have the studies right here. I
can share them with you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, so you have--Dr. Craft, you have--the
specific study, you just mentioned three studies, is that
correct, to us?
Dr. Craft. Yes, I mentioned three. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And you're saying those three do not
indicate that--and have not been--meet the EPA's justification
for the standard change----
Mr. Honeycutt. Well, there's different things, okay?
There's the--the single study was used to say 72 is the
number----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
Mr. Honeycutt. --okay? And then they said, well, all these
other thousands of studies support that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Honeycutt. Okay? But there was one study that the EPA
says, okay, this is the reason we're going to set it at 72. And
CASAC spent a whole day talking about that one study. I watched
it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But the other studies do indicate that
with the----
Mr. Honeycutt. The Kim study doesn't.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Does not. You're saying that this study
does or you're saying----
Mr. Honeycutt. And actually, the Jarrett study does not
either.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Please go right ahead.
Dr. Craft. Well----
Chairman Smith. The----
Dr. Craft. --I guess I just wanted to mention that these
studies were done in perfectly healthy individuals. So the fact
is is that the Clean Air Act requires that you set a standard
that's requisite with an adequate margin of safety. And so that
is one of the issues. So maybe a 1.8 percent decremented lung
function in a perfectly healthy person is not considered an
adverse health effect, but if someone has asthma or COPD, then
in fact it is so----
Mr. Rohrabacher. But that's your opinion and not the EPA's?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms.
Bonamici, is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by aligning myself with Mr. Beyer's
comments. I think we can all agree that our constituents, our
children, our families expect and deserve to live in an
environment where the air they breathe and the water they drink
is healthy. So start with that premise.
Also, I want to talk a little bit about how there's been a
conversation about the cost and technological challenges
associated with implementing the new ozone standard. And we've
had this conversation many times in the Committee, that
oftentimes the regulation drives innovation and technology.
We're a very innovative country and certainly when there's a
requirement, our companies step up and develop new
technologies. I have confidence in that.
I want to talk, Dr. Craft--we had this conversation in your
testimony and my statement about how the Clean Air Act does not
permit the EPA to consider the costs or the attainability of
technological feasibility. They determine the standard based on
public health concerns. So I want you to comment on why that's
important, but then I also want you to expand a bit, please, on
your comments in your testimony about the prevention of
premature death, asthma attacks, and more. Can you talk about
the costs saved under the lower standard, costs like healthcare
costs and lost productivity?
Dr. Craft. Thank you. You know, Congress intentionally set
the Clean Air Act to specifically not consider cost, and I
think the reason that they did that is because they wanted the
integrity of the science to be maintained. The science is a
separate and distinct issue from costs or implementation. The
primary goal of the standard is that it will protect the health
of the population with an adequate margin of safety. I think in
past history cost estimates have been overblown and
overestimated. If you were to let costs be considered as you
evaluate the science, you may come to different conclusions,
conclusions that would be unduly influenced by cost estimates.
I think that's why Congress is so explicit on this point.
And just as a note on the devastation to the economy, I'd
like to read a section from a report from the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality. In 2009, the Houston region reached
attainment with a 1997 ozone NAAQS. According to an economic
analysis completed by the TCEQ, the Houston area exhibited the
highest economic activity of any three-year period on record
during the 2007 through 2009 time period. The analysis further
describes that over the last two decades, ozone concentrations
and economic growth have rarely been correlated in the Houston
area and that many of the years that saw a robust economic
growth coincided with declines in the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone
design values.
According to TCEQ's analysis, ``reducing ozone
concentrations in the presence of continuing economic growth
through the development of State Implementation Plans and
implementing control strategies for emission reduction is
possible. Expansion of emitting activities during phases of
economic growth certainly makes the task of attaining clean air
standards more challenging, but it should not prevent and has
not prevented the HGB area, among many others, from making
substantial progress in improving air quality.''
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Doctor. I want to get one more
question in. My time is about to expire.
I would like you to comment, please, on the issue that I
mentioned about--like in my home State of Oregon, they have a
concern about the background and the long-range transport of
ozone or precursors. So I know that the act allows for these
exceptional event exceptions when there's something like a
wildfire or transport of air pollution from overseas, so can
you please talk about what recommendations you might have for
the EPA as they begin revising the Exceptional Events Rule?
Dr. Craft. Sure. First of all, instances of elevated
background ozone in Western States are actually infrequent and
have been shown to rarely contribute to exceedances in the
NAAQS. Even where background ozone levels can reach a
considerable fraction of seasonal mean ozone levels,
anthropogenic emission sources are the dominant contributor to
the most modeled ozone exceedances of the proposed NAAQS. And
the days when ozone levels are elevated do not have higher
levels of background ozone.
And then just recently, Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, issued some
guidance. ``Under the Clean Air Act, States are not responsible
for reducing emissions from background sources. We intend to
work directly with responsible air management agencies in these
areas to ensure that all Clean Air Act provisions that would
provide regulatory relief associated with background ozone are
recognized.'' And they are currently developing those revisions
to the Exceptional Events Rule, and I think the process there
is that they want to streamline the procedures that the state
environmental agencies have to go through to have approval of
the exceptional events.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Craft.
My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. [Presiding] I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding back.
The Chairman has stepped out and I'm pleased to sit in, and
I've got a few questions now if I might. And I'm going to start
by submitting two items for the record. The first is a map that
shows the nonattainment areas in Ohio, areas that would violate
the 70 parts-per-billion standard.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. And the second item is a letter by
Ohio's Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor to EPA Administrator
McCarthy, and this letter is from March 2015 in which the
Lieutenant Governor expresses serious concerns with the
proposed rule to change the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to a
standard in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, and asks
that the EPA Administrator reconsider these burdensome
regulations. And as we all know, the EPA has moved forward with
their proposal to lower the standard to 70 parts per billion.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So, Mr. Holmstead and Mr. Sadredin,
how do these stringent ozone standards and regulations
discourage economic development? Mr. Holmstead, you can go
first.
The Hon. Holmstead. Well, as I've tried to say, I think the
biggest issue in the near term is that it just stops people
from building new industrial facilities. And I think what's
especially pernicious about this standard is that it will bring
all these rural areas into nonattainment. And the way the act
works--and this is one of the things I just don't think makes
any sense--is if you want to build a plant in this rural area
where there's no other pollution sources, you can't do it
because the only way you can build that plant is if you pay
someone else in that area to reduce their emissions. And so you
have these communities that would like to have state-of-the-
art, best-controlled plants in their communities to provide
jobs and economic opportunity, but you can't do it because the
Clean Air Act prevents it because of this new standard.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Mr. Sadredin?
Mr. Sadredin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Every time you establish a
standard, it essentially establishes a tolerance limit for your
region for pollution above which you simply will be in
violation of the standard and the Clean Air Act regulations,
which then kicks in very expensive sanctions.
In our region in San Joaquin Valley in California, the
background ozone concentration is about 50 to 60 parts per
billion, and that is not, you know, on days when--Dr. Elena
mentioned that, you know, you should not be worried about
attainment because those are not the days you violate the
standard. We're talking about ground-level ozone concentrations
on the days when our region exceeds the standard. Just simply
the background ozone concentration is about 50 to 60. So when
you have that and then you look at the standard of 70 parts per
billion, you only have that 10 parts-per-billion margin that
can be tolerated by manmade local air pollution, which means
essentially in your area you have no tolerance for growth. You
cannot let new businesses come in. In addition, you have to go
after existing businesses to reduce air pollution.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. If that's the case where you've got
that 10 parts-per-billion margin, if that's going to stymie
growth, is it accurate to say then, is a safe to say that those
areas that are in nonattainment, there is no growth? I mean
they are squelched in terms of being able to grow economically?
Mr. Sadredin. Right. As it's written right now, it requires
that even if you're in attainment right now, let's say with the
existing standard, before you can permit a new facility, you
have to make a finding--scientific finding that the new permit,
new facility will not cause a violation or contribute to
violating a new standard. In this case, you know, with that 10
parts-per-billion margin of error, that's a very tight standard
that is quite difficult to meet, and then you need offsets. As
Mr. Holmstead mentioned, you don't have credits to be able to
bring in facilities, and so it makes it very costly.
In California we are essentially in the position that
businesses do not locate in California unless they have to.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay. You know, One of the things that
has really spurred America's economic energy boom here over the
last few years has been the shale play in eastern and
southeastern Ohio. Do you think these more stringent ozone
standards undermine the benefits that we've seen in the energy
revolution, the energy boom with oil and gas?
Mr. Sadredin. Well, for our region and California in
particular, even southern California, to be able to meet the
new standard, we have to ban fossil fuel combustion emissions.
That has to happen either through totally eliminating fossil
fuel combustion--and I'm not only talking about mobile
sources--cars and trucks--we're talking about industrial
facilities no longer being able to use natural gas, any kind of
fuel in their----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. In an area like eastern and
southeastern Ohio where we still get over 60 percent of our
energy from coal, that's a heavy lift for us.
My time has expired. I'd like to now go to our colleague,
our gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the panelists for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter supporting the lower ozone
standard from locally elected officials from across the
country, including Mayor Rob Dolan from my hometown of Melrose.
And in that letter they state ``the current George W. Bush-era
standard of 75 parts per billion has been widely acknowledged
by the medical community as insufficient to protect public
health. As mayors, we are on the front lines of protecting the
safety and well-being of our constituents, and this long-
overdue update will reap tremendous benefits for our
communities.''
I ask that this letter be submitted for the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Clark. And I would also like to refer to another letter
that I will ask also be submitted for the record, and this is a
letter I would like to ask Dr. Craft about. It's dated April 7,
2008, and this is under the Bush Administration. This is from
the members of CASAC, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee. And in this letter 18 members of that committee,
those scientists, unanimously wrote that they recommend
decreasing the primary standard within the range of 60 to 70
parts per million--I'm sorry, per billion. ``It is the
committee's consensus scientific opinion that the decision to
set the primary ozone standard above this range fails to
satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air Act that you
ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals,
including sensitive populations.''
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Clark. Dr. Craft, could you comment on the difference
between what we're hearing today, that this is based on
something new and perhaps one study in this letter of April
7th, 2008, where we had 18 members unanimously recommending an
even lower standard than the one we're looking at implementing?
Dr. Craft. Yes, thank you. There is strong scientific
consensus that the ozone standard must be significantly
strengthened. Since the last review, scientific evidence has
only grown on the many health risks associated with ozone. It's
documented in EPA's Integrated Science Assessment. The
assessment is a result of a rigorous multiyear expert review
process with several public hearings and comment, and it
concluded that ozone harms lung health, including causing
asthma attacks and increasing the risk of hospital and
emergency room visits.
It also concluded that ozone likely caused premature deaths
and identified new threats, providing strong evidence linking
ozone to cardiovascular harm and low birth weight in newborns.
There have been multiple doctors that have testified in
some of these hearings. I'd like to just point out some that
were given by Dr. Greg Wellenius. He presented to the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee in December. In his
testimony he noted the physiologic mechanisms occurring with
ozone exposure: activation of neural reflexes, initiation of
inflammation, sensitization of bronchial smooth muscle, changes
in immunity, and airway remodeling as some of the underlying
physiological mechanisms associated with ozone concentrations
below the current standard that contribute to those increased
hospital visits, those increased asthma attacks, and those days
of missed work and missed school.
Ms. Clark. Dr. Craft, in the letter from the mayors from
across the country, they estimate that taxpayers would save as
much as 75.9 billion through lower healthcare costs. Is this in
line with the numbers that you've seen?
Dr. Craft. Yes, it is, and I'd like to point out that six
of the top 10 fastest-growing cities in the country are in
Texas and California, so the idea that, you know, we're
trampling economic growth because of an onerous ozone standard
is not held up in the economic development that's been
reported.
Ms. Clark. And going back for a second to the April 2008
letter, it's my understanding that this was based--this
unanimous recommendation of 60 to 70 parts per billion was
based on almost 1,300 scientific studies at that time in 2008.
Is that correct?
Dr. Craft. Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Clark. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
back. I now go to--I recognize our colleague Mr. Bridenstine
from Oklahoma.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So it's really difficult if not impossible to prove a
counterfactual, which means if the economy in Texas is growing,
there's a whole host of reasons that could be, and more
regulations does not grow the economy in Texas, same in
California.
In fact, I'd like to address the issue specifically that
we've been talking about. I grew up in Arlington, Texas. I
represent the 1st District of Oklahoma now. I went to college
at Rice University down in Houston, Texas. And I'd like to
address my question to Dr. Honeycutt.
In your testimony, you wrote ``astonishingly''--and every
time I read testimony and the word astonishingly shows up, what
comes next is critically important. ``Astonishingly, EPA's
analysis''--that's the EPA's own analysis--``shows mortality
increasing in certain cities, including Detroit and Houston,
when decreasing the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to
70 parts per billion.'' That is astonishing. Did that get taken
into account? What they're suggesting is that it's worth maybe
increasing mortality for these regulations? Can you address
this for us?
Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. That's called the NOx disbenefit. And
if you look nationwide, there would be a net--according to EPA,
a net decrease in mortality, but if you look at a couple--some
specific cities, they looked at 12 in particular, those two
cities, lowering the standard would actually increase
mortality. And it's because NOx both creates and destroys
ozone. So what you're going to be doing is increasing ozone
concentrations in the inner cities while decreasing it in the
suburbs.
Mr. Bridenstine. That is good information that we on the
Committee need to hear.
Question for Mr. Sadredin. Maybe you could say that for us.
Sorry.
Mr. Sadredin. Sadredin.
Mr. Bridenstine. Sadredin, thank you. How many different
State Implementation Plans does the San Joaquin Valley have in
effect today?
Mr. Sadredin. As we speak today, we have six different
State Implementation Plans for ozone and particulate matter,
all with multiple milestones, redundant, duplicative timelines
that we have to comply with. And as we speak today, we're in
the process of writing another plan for the standard that was
just replaced, and in the next three years we have to write
four additional State Implementation Plans for a total of 10
State Implementation Plans just for ozone and particulate
matter.
Mr. Bridenstine. And how difficult is it for your agency to
keep up with these SIPs?
Mr. Sadredin. Yes, you know, that's the least of the
problems, you know, the government inefficiency that this
brings about, the staff work. The bigger concern that we have
with this is the confusion that this brings to the public, to
the business community that is subject to these redundant,
duplicative regulations, and a tremendous number of lawsuits
that each of these same deadlines, same targets that are
established in, you know, 10 different vehicles create
opportunities for attorneys. Of course, that's good job
security for them, but good government it is not. Good public
education it is not.
And it is something that could easily be fixed in our
opinion. One of the suggestions that we are making in this 2015
Clean Air Act modernization that we're proposing is that, when
EPA establishes a new standard, for them to subsume the old
standards into the new one, pick the most stringent
requirements from the previous standards, give us a single set
of timelines and deadlines to meet, to be able to educate the
public, and also make sure we can enforce them effectively in a
rapid fashion.
Mr. Bridenstine. And I would just like to conclude by
saying that we've heard folks suggest that, you know, certain
local officials are in favor of more stringent National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for ozone, certain local officials are
opposed to it. I can tell you for my State of Oklahoma, local
officials are very opposed to it.
I hope everybody understands that if the State of Oregon or
the State of California, if other states want to have more
stringent plans, that's not going to bother my constituents in
the State of Oklahoma. They can go ahead and do those things
without having to do it in Oklahoma. And so I just want
everybody to understand, when states become implementers of
federal policy and then they end up getting bullied by the
federal government, if you do this, then X, Y, or Z will
happen, that's not the role of the federal government to say
that we're going to cut off your highway transportation funding
if you don't comply with this new standard. This is federal
bullying. It needs to stop. And if Oregon or another state
wants to implement more stringent standards, I'm okay with
that.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding
back.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm pleased that we have a witness from California on
today's panel, as our State has unique challenges when it comes
to addressing air pollution.
However, I think the changes to the Clean Air Act suggested
by Mr. Sadredin's testimony would have the effect of delaying
future efforts by EPA to protect health and the environment,
and that's a position that's not supported by most
Californians.
In fact, I have a letter from the Coalition for Clean Air
based in California that says, ``what will not help
Californians to breathe easier is the proposal from the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to weaken the
Clean Air Act.''
And I also have a letter from the Central Valley Air
Quality Coalition which says, ``we learn more every day of the
impacts of air pollution on our health, and our valley has
become numb to the information because Mr. Sadredin and the
Valley Air Board disregarded, blame external factors, and have
failed to find a balance between supporting business and
protecting public health.''
And lastly, I have an op-ed by two current members of the
San Joaquin Valley Air District Board, Dr. Alexander Sherriffs
and Dr. John Capitman, who write ``we cannot support a policy
direction which threatens to extend the time valley residents
are breathing unhealthful air. The district needs to focus on
policy and advocacy to increase the tools and resources to meet
more healthful air standards, not on how to delay attainment.''
And I'd like a unanimous consent to put these three
documents in the record, Mr. Chairman. May I have unanimous
consent, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
You know, the Central Valley is--I chair the California
Democratic Delegation, and we have a diverse State, and the
Central Valley is a key and important element of our State.
It's much valued.
It suffers from pollution that comes from the bay area
where I live. It blows in on I-5 from--even from Asia but also
created in the valley itself, including significant volatile
organic compound emissions from dairies and also oil and gas
operations. And those things have created a problem in the
valley. We have the highest asthma rate among children of any
place in the United States right in our Central Valley, and
it's a huge problem.
Now, we can change the impact by technology. I come from
Silicon Valley, and we know that if you have a problem, you
don't have to suffer. You can set standards and meet those
standards. And you can--for example, farmers have switched from
diesel pumps to electric pumps. They've purchased cleaner-
burning tractors thanks to incentive programs. We have--along
I-5 we're switching. We now have a very aggressive standard in
the State for switching to alternative energy we're going to
meet.
You know, we have 1,000 premature deaths every year in the
valley because of air pollution, and among all air pollutants
contributing to cancer, diesel emissions is number one. So I
think we have a great opportunity to promote even cleaner
technologies and to create a cleaner environment for the people
of the Central Valley and most especially for the children.
So here is my question for you, Dr. Craft. The--with so
many children with asthma out in the Central Valley, what is
the adverse physiological effects on kids with asthma from
ozone pollution, and how can increased exposure to ozone impact
the health of children? It costs--the lost time because of
health impacts out in the Central Valley is costing the valley
$1 billion a year. I realize you're looking at just the health
impacts, not the economy, but we are losing money in the valley
because of these adverse health impacts. What can you talk to
us about with these children and others with asthma?
Dr. Craft. Well, I'd like to say that children are
especially vulnerable to the harms of air pollution,
particularly those kids with asthma, and so it leads to
increases in emergency room visits, missed school days, missed
workdays for parents. And it can also lead to permanent long-
term damage. Actually, the Gauderman study didn't--looked and
saw that air pollution in general showed that if air pollution
is reduced, it leads to better lung health later in life.
It's--I think there is a lot of evidence supporting the fact
that cleaner air is good for lungs of all ages, but especially
for our most vulnerable, our kids.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. I'd just like to note that I think
some of the objections from these outside groups that are
running ads reminds me of the tobacco companies fighting
control of tobacco, which caused lung cancer. And, you know,
there's a lot of comments made about how regulation and control
harm the economy. I'd just like to point out that California,
that is embracing the green, looking for health, beat Texas in
job growth by 30 percent----
Mr. Johnson. [Presiding] Well, very good.
Ms. Lofgren. --with our approach and----
Mr. Johnson. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Lofgren. --I would yield back.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Sadredin and Dr. Honeycutt,
your names were mentioned there for the last few minutes. Would
either one of you care to respond to that?
Mr. Sadredin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, just very
quickly. I appreciate the good advice from the Congresswoman,
and we always look to the bay area, our neighbor, to do their
part to help us with the pollution that they sent our way.
But make no mistake, although San Joaquin Valley is a
conservative region in California, today, we have put in place
the most stringent regulations that you can imagine to the
point that Los Angeles now looks up to us in terms of what
could be done. And by no means we're asking for delays in
getting there, but I urge you to take a look at the chart that
I gave the Committee in my testimony on page 5 that talks about
how much reductions we have to make.
If you look at that chart, it breaks down emissions by
various source categories of air pollution. The top part where
it says the stationary and area sources, that's all the valley
businesses, oil production, farming operation. As you can see,
even if we eliminated all of those sources, just simply said
move out of the valley, we'll come nowhere to meeting the
standard. The bottom--the two lines that you see on the bottom
are where we need to go to meet those standards.
So I know industry cries wolf many times, and as a
regulator, I've seen that over the years. But once in a while
that boy is right, that the wolf might be coming, and I think
this is one of those cases. If you look at the numbers that I
have here for you, we have to essentially eliminate all
pollution sources in San Joaquin Valley to meet that.
And just one final comment regarding the health impact and
the cost, and a lot of times people misrepresent these numbers
by saying there's a healthcare cost that you're going to avoid
for ozone. It's very minimal and a big part--90 percent plus
portion of this cost is the life insurance value that they put
on a premature death, which is questionable but it's not a real
contribution in a lot of the economy that we are referring to.
Mr. Johnson. Sure. Dr. Honeycutt, would you like to
respond?
Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. The Gauderman study that Dr. Craft
just mentioned specifically said that ozone does not affect
lung development. And I have it here if you want to read it.
And the follow-up that they just released found the same thing,
that ozone does not affect lung development. And I have both of
those. I'd be happy to read you the conclusions if you'd like.
And also, as far as asthmatics, the data is very clear.
Asthmatics are no more sensitive to ozone than non-asthmatics
are. And again, I have those studies here. I'd be happy to
share them with you.
Mr. Weber. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia. Barry, you're up.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I also noticed that every time Mr.--is it Sadredin--
speaks, the alarm goes off like it's highlighting we better
listen to what he's saying. It's some type of----
Mr. Weber. Ozone levels must really be high when he speaks.
Mr. Loudermilk. I appreciate the testimony here. This is a
very important issue because of the impact that it's going to
have. And I've always been one that it takes--in business and
in everything else, you can only do so much and then you have
diminishing returns because you've gone too far.
Mr. Holmstead, does the Clean Air Act allow for special
treatment for places where air quality may be affected by
emissions from other countries such as Mexico or China or even
in other areas of a state or region? My understanding from the
testimony I've heard and what I've read is that we're not
giving an account for pollution that may be created in another
area and move into an area that would cause the receiving area
to be in non-attainment. Is there an exemption? Is there
allowance for those?
The Hon. Holmstead. I'm sorry to have to say it's
complicated.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
The Hon. Holmstead. In theory, some of those things can be
excused. In practice, EPA has never really allowed that. And
one of the things you're hearing about is this exceptional
events policy. It's been almost impossible for anyone--I mean
it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars and years to try to
get EPA to excuse one exceptional event.
The other thing I would point out, though, is the Clean Air
Act itself--and that's why--you know, we're talking about these
levels. What we really should be talking about is the
implications of the standard. Everybody agrees that we ought to
be improving air pollution, but the way the standard setting
works with all the other regulations just doesn't make any
sense anymore.
And right now, the Clean Air Act specifically says that
certain weather events, the things that cause high episodes of
ozone, cannot be excused. It says meteorological inversions and
stagnant air. Those are events that are completely outside the
control of any State, and yet you're held accountable for those
things. And under the Clean Air Act, that's just one other
thing that just ought to be changed.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, it's interesting you bring that up
because I'm looking at a map here which, Mr. Chairman, I'd like
to submit for the record, which is the impact area on the State
of Georgia that the new standards would have as far as the
areas that would be out of attainment at this point.
And I also have a letter from our governor of our state,
Hon. Nathan Deal, who also served in this body at one time, who
says that in these areas, it would be impossible for us to
reach attainment because of the way the standards are written,
and I also point out that the area that is highlighted here
that would be in nonattainment is not only the economic center
of the State of Georgia but the entire Southeast.
So what is the cost that we could see in an area that is so
important--you're talking about one of the largest airports in
the nation. Atlanta Hartsfield Airport is in this area; one of
the largest power plants in the Southeast is in this area. What
type of economic impact or hidden cost would we expect to see
with the implementation of this standard? Mr. Holmstead?
The Hon. Holmstead. The only thing we know is--for sure is
that the cost of everything will go up, right, because energy
is embedded in everything we do. So you're going to be paying
more for lots of different things.
The thing that's really hard to judge--and people have said
it's certainly true that we've had economic growth even with
tighter standards, but that doesn't mean that this next
increment isn't going to be enormously expensive. So maybe you
can continue to have economic growth there, but it will be much
less than it would otherwise be in part because you're making
it very difficult for businesses to expand in that area. They
just have nowhere to go.
Mr. Loudermilk. Dr. Honeycutt, let me read a portion of
this letter and maybe you can respond to the same question. Our
Governor says, ``these rules are in addition to the fuel
economy standards and the Tier 3 tailpipe emission standards
for cars and trucks implemented by the federal level, which
increases costs for businesses and consumers in my State and
others.'' This is after he's gone through a litany of other EPA
regulations that have affected our area. ``All of these
regulations have required substantial investment on the part of
Georgia companies and consumers and constitute a moving target
for Georgia companies.'' The moving target is one of those
areas that I hear a lot about with federal regulations, that
they are unattainable. Could you and Mr. Sadredin comment on
that?
Mr. Honeycutt. Yes, sir. He's absolutely right. EPA needs
to provide the States guidance as soon as they put a rule out,
not years later as they have in the past, because their
deadlines are flexible, ours are not.
Mr. Loudermilk. Mr. Sadredin?
Mr. Sadredin. You know, it was mentioned earlier that
Congress was very clear about not including economic costs in
certain standards. The fact of the matter is if you actually
read the Supreme Court case, it said Congress failed to give
any guidance on that. Therefore, absent guidance from Congress,
judges, bureaucrats such as myself, and my colleagues at EPA
have become policymakers and they have come up with a scenario
where they say don't worry about the cost-effectiveness or
economic feasibility when we set this standard. During the
implementation, we'll take care of that. And unfortunately, the
Clean Air Act, as written right now, does not give them the
flexibility and the latitude that they need with those very
fixed timelines, deadlines that you have to come into
attainment to actually be able to do what they claim the Clean
Air Act allows them to do to incorporate the economic
feasibility during the implementation phase.
Mr. Loudermilk. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I move to have both of these documents
submitted to the official record.
Mr. Weber. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Loudermilk. And I yield back.
Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back.
Now, the gentleman from Colorado has five minutes to see if
he can make Mr. Sadredin make the alarms go off.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple things I'd like to introduce into the record
if I could. First is an article published in the Durango Herald
supporting the decrease from 75 parts to 70 parts dated October
5, 2015. If I could introduce that into the record, sir?
Mr. Weber. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Perlmutter. The second thing is a little more
cumbersome. That's just 1-1/2 pages. This is 1,251 pages, which
is the compilation, Dr. Honeycutt, of all the studies, some
2,300 undertaken to--and reviewed by the EPA in preparation for
the reduction in the use of ozone numbers. And so I'd like to
introduce the 1,251 pages, which compiles the 2,300 studies for
the record.
Mr. Weber. I will allow that if you'll start reading them.
Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, I will--okay. So Martin, R.V.; Fiore,
A.M.; Van Donkelaar, space diagnosed--diagnosis of surface
ozone sensitivity to anthropogenic emissions.
Mr. Weber. They will be admitted, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. I guess--and then I'm going to
yield to Mr. Beyer.
And I just say to the folks on the panel, you know, in the
Denver area we've had ozone issues for years and years and
years, and our State prides itself on being very outdoorsy, you
know, wanting to get outside, take advantage of, you know, the
beautiful climate that we have. But our air is always something
that has been difficult and because we do have some of the
things that you mentioned in your testimony. You know, we're in
a pocket where the weather, you know, creates inversions and
things like that.
But each year and each time industry complains that this is
going to be unattainable, we can't do it, but then over a
course of time, they do. And it's improved the health of
Coloradans. And we've got to continue to improve that. Our
State has continued to grow, and we have a substantial oil and
gas industry. And so as hard as these things are, the economy
of Colorado has flourished because people want to come there
for a great environment. And part of that is cleaning up our
air as best we can from time to time.
And so I appreciate the testimony of everybody. I
understand this is hard and it can be expensive, but the
rewards are substantial as well, and that's not been so clear
today. But in Colorado we've experienced that success and we've
experienced that growth, and the health of the population has
been improved, I think, over the years, you know, from growing
up as a kid and having the brown cloud. It's improved a lot.
And I yield to my friend from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, my good friend, distinguished
colleague from Colorado.
I was confused by Dr. Honeycutt's comment on Houston and
Detroit. The excellent Democratic staff at the Science
Committee dug out a Texas Tribune article that says that
``paradoxically, lowering levels of nitrogen oxygen--nitrogen
oxide (a pollutant that contributes to forming ozone) can
temporarily increase ozone levels because NOx also helps
dissipate fully formed ozone. That's why EPA predicts a slight
increase in premature deaths if ozone standards are lowered.''
But, Dr. Craft, can you please elaborate on this
phenomenon? Is this a reason to not implement these new lower
standards?
Dr. Craft. No, it's not. It's actually a simulation that's
done, and that simulation was done looking specifically at NOx
reductions. It did not include reducing some of the other
precursors that form ozone, including VOCs. And so when a
region has to put together a plan to reduce ozone, what they do
is they identify an optimized plan to reduce both NOx and VOCs.
And so the idea of NOx scavenging can be addressed through the
way that you implement the new standard.
Mr. Beyer. That's great. And one more quick thought. There
are 25 seconds. They talk about how, gosh, even the national
parks can't get to these ozone standards because of background
ozone levels. How high are background ozone levels? Is Dr.
McCabe's comment that the EPA will work around that? And does
the ozone in the parks come from the parks or as it blown in
from somewhere else?
Dr. Craft. Well, there aren't a lot of power plants or a
ton of mobile sources in the national parks. Most of that is
actually coming from sources that are downwind of those
national parks. And so addressing those sources will help the
areas where we have national parks that are having an
occasional exceedance back into attainment.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Honeycutt, you've been mentioned a couple of
times now. In the 1,200 page study that Congressman Perlmutter
refused to read and here with the article in the Texas Tribune,
would you like to take time to respond?
Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. Thank you. Yes, I've actually read the
human health portions of that document. I didn't read the
atmospheric chemistry portions or the welfare portions, but I
did read the human health portions.
Yes, as far as the NOx disbenefit, it--if you believe that
ozone causes premature mortality, which EPA does, then you have
to accept the disbenefit along with the benefit, because if you
believe ozone causes premature mortality, then you will see it
if you lower NOx in--around highways. So there's no getting
around it. There's no doubling down to hurry up and get the
emissions because you'll just hasten the deaths then.
So--and as far as asthma again, the question is not does
ozone exacerbate asthma? The question is, will lowering the
standard from 75 down to 70 or even 60 reduce the number of
asthma exacerbations? And according to EPA, the answer is no.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the
panelists here today.
I guess in looking at my home State of Illinois and looking
at the impact that this proposed rule would have on jobs and
economic growth, I have real concerns about that. And I want to
cite a recent analysis and study done by NERA Economic
Consulting that is titled ``What Could New Ozone Regulations
Cost Illinois?'' And this is dated August of 2015. In looking
at the proposed rule and the effect it would have on Illinois
specifically, $47 billion in gross state product loss between
2017 and 2040, 35,000 lost jobs or job equivalents per year,
$12 billion in total compliance costs, $650 drop in average
household consumption per year, $1 billion more for residents
to own/operate their vehicles statewide in this period. And I
will submit this for the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. LaHood. And I guess looking at that and a number of
other studies that look at what this would do, what causes
concern for me as I look at companies, particularly in my
district in central and west central Illinois, Caterpillar is
based in my district, a Fortune 40 company, very benevolent,
generous company, but also has been very proactive in the
environmental movement and what they've done at their
companies, a company like John Deere, ADM that's in my
district. And I look at how they are trying to compete
worldwide in the marketplace, and they are trying to obviously
create jobs and opportunities, and when I look at this proposed
rule, what that would do locally to those companies.
And I guess I couple that with when you look at the
statistics, air quality in American cities is the best that
it's been in a century. Ozone pollution has declined 33 percent
since 1980, nine percent since 2008. And so when I look at
those companies and what they're trying to do proactively and
then they have to look at this coming down on top of them, I
guess, Mr. Holmstead, in looking at that, competing in the
world marketplace and whether you're going to create jobs in
Illinois or you're going to go to India or China or someplace
else, can you talk about that a little bit?
The Hon. Holmstead. There's one observation I like to make.
Certainly, you know, California has done very well economically
over the last number of years. There was a time when we used to
manufacture things in California. We don't do that anymore;
it's just too expensive because heavy manufacturing requires
energy. And so that's been to the benefit of other States.
We're getting to the point now where if we turn the rest of
the country into California, we will have no choice but to
export those jobs. And it's not because companies are bad
citizens, but if they compete economically with everybody else
on the globe and all of a sudden you drive up their costs too
much, the same thing that happened to southern California is
going to happen to central Illinois.
And I just think that we--we just need to be smart in how
we continue to make environmental progress. That's my--we can
continue to make progress but we can do it in a way that's much
more reasonable, that is not going to disadvantage U.S.
businesses and consumers.
Mr. LaHood. And would it be fair to say, Mr. Holmstead,
there's a direct correlation between what this rule is going to
do and job loss or economic loss with companies like I
mentioned and others?
The Hon. Holmstead. There is no doubt that this will hurt
the rate of economic growth. I think it's hard to know--and I
have a great respect for NERA. I think that study looked at
even a lower standard, and so that probably overstates the
cost. But there's no doubt that it will impose additional costs
on businesses. It will make it harder for them to grow and
expand, and ultimately, you're going to drive people out of
these areas and they're going to have no choice but to go
somewhere else.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
Dr. Honeycutt, I wanted to ask you, so in terms of the
effect this will have on state and local resources, you know,
when these EPA--if this rule is implemented, in terms of
agencies catching up on implementing the current standard when
they're already working on a standard now, can you talk a
little bit about that?
Mr. Honeycutt. Sure. It is substantial. It costs TCEQ--
we've put money to the numbers--$1 million to do a SIP for a
moderate area. And so that's just the SIP. That's not even
looking at the exceptional events, the long-range transport and
things. Those are hundreds of thousands of dollars. So--and
that's tax money. So, yes, it's substantial.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd like
to submit this study I just referenced and also a letter from
the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in Peoria,
Illinois, asking for a delay in the attainment designation.
Approved without objection, thank you.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Palmer. [Presiding] I will assume the Chair for the
time being and begin my questions.
And my first question is to Dr. Honeycutt. The EPA admits
that much of the control technology to comply with these new
standards does not yet exist. I think the latest estimate is
only about 40 percent of the emission reductions can be
attained with the current control technology. Can you give me
some idea how Texas plans to comply with this if we're dealing
with--basically with a black box?
Mr. Honeycutt. I wish we knew. Most of these sources out
there are vehicle emissions or non-road emissions, so we're
going to do something with those and we're really not quite
sure what yet. This is unchartered territory for not only Texas
but for most of the country.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I think the answer is going to be that
you will shut down whatever industry is producing these ozone
emissions that prevent you from meeting these reduction
standards. So if you don't have the control technology to
install, and earlier in my career, I worked for Combustion
Engineering in the Environmental Systems Division so I have a
pretty good idea of what it costs to design, build, and install
this equipment. You can't design, build, and install stuff that
doesn't yet exist, so the only option is to shut down
whatever's producing the emission. So would you concur with
that?
Mr. Honeycutt. I think at this point in time everything is
on the table.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. In regard to these issues of air quality,
and I pointed out in this hearing before that since 1980 our
GDP has gone up 467 percent, vehicle miles have gone up 94
percent, population has increased 38 percent, energy output has
gone up 32 percent, yet emissions have gone down 50 percent.
The air is demonstrably cleaner than it has ever been. Our
economy is continuing to grow. I think when we talk about the
balance between health and economic growth, one of the
interesting things--and asthma has been mentioned several times
here--is that there's peer-review studies out from the medical
community, including UCLA, that indicate that even though air
quality is dramatically improved, asthma rates have spiked. And
particularly in California, the UCLA study, Mr. Sadredin, that
the single biggest predictor is low income.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Sadredin. Mr. Chairman, people often mistake the impact
of air pollution on asthma claiming that air pollution actually
causes asthma. That is a scientifically--there's little
evidence of that in science. We're talking about exacerbation,
and if you look at cases of asthma in some of the more pristine
areas on the coast in California, asthma rates are going up
much--at a much higher rate compared to Los Angeles and Central
Valley where our pollution is higher. So the relationship is
not there but it's something that tugs at your heart when you
talk about children with asthma, and that's a good bumper
sticker sort of a justification for the enormity of the Clean
Air Act that we're talking about.
In San Joaquin Valley we have reduced pollution by over 80
percent over the last 20 years. We've imposed the toughest
regulations you can imagine on farming operations, agriculture,
dairies. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues from, you know,
urban areas, they think food just shows up on the grocery shelf
somehow magically. They don't really understand all the work
that has to go into producing it.
We're at the point in our region with double-digit
unemployment and low level of education with a large portion of
our Hispanic population. It is very difficult to envision a
scenario where we can meet those new standards without having
to actually shut down businesses, as you mentioned. And that's
the point I wanted to get into.
Congressman Lofgren introduced a letter from Central Valley
Air Quality Coalition earlier saying that everybody's okay in
California with this. This same group had actually recommended
to our agency that we have no-farm days, no-construction days,
no-drive days. And we're not talking about a day or two here
and there. We're talking about 100 days a year during summer
having no commercial activity. They thought that's something
that's reasonable.
Mr. Palmer. Dr. Honeycutt, if you'd like to respond in the
time that I have remaining, but I would like to--the NERA study
was mentioned earlier. Those numbers have been adjusted to
reflect the new standard that the EPA is requiring, and it is a
devastating impact on the economy if you'd like to respond.
Mr. Honeycutt. Sure, just real quickly. As far as asthma
causation, Gina McCarthy testified in July of this year in
front of this committee that ozone does not cause asthma, as
did a minority witness earlier. However, EPA says that it is
likely causal, that ozone likely does cause asthma, which is
the same designation they give to premature mortality--total
premature mortality and which the benefits are based on. So
that's why there's some confusion in this because EPA says one
thing and Gina McCarthy said another thing.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. My time is expired.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas,
Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let's see. Dr. Craft, you work for an organization that's
very concerned about protecting the environment, making sure we
have clean air quality. And is--on the concept of diminishing
returns, do you think we'll ever get to a point where we are
trying to achieve something that the cost to achieve it is more
than it's worth achieving, or should we just make improving air
quality the ultimate goal at any cost?
Dr. Craft. Well, Environmental Defense Fund uses market-
based principles as a foundation for our work. So we've worked
successfully with oil and gas industry, for example, to
implement control technologies on equipment that saves money
and also reduces the amount of pollution in the air.
Getting to the question of diminishing returns, I don't
think we're anywhere near where we need to be in terms of
reducing the amount of pollution. The question of, you know,
how could--how is Texas going to comply, well, you know, we
have VOC emissions in Houston that, through studies funded by
TCEQ, show that those emissions are underestimated by a factor
of five to ten. So looking at reduction of upset events,
looking at one million----
Mr. Westerman. I need to--I'm from Arkansas. I'm not from
Texas so I need to move on here.
It says here in your testimony that to reduce harmful air
pollution such as ozone from pollution hotspot areas--have you
ever been to Arkansas?
Dr. Craft. Yes, I have. We work closely with Walmart, and
so we have an office in Bentonville. I've been there several
times.
Mr. Westerman. Okay. So I was there last week in my
district, which happens to have about 18,000 square miles of
forest. To put that in perspective, just the forests in my
district are about 264 times larger than Washington DC. And I
like to get out in my district in the forest and breathe the
fresh air. Actually, I think the air quality is much better
there than it is here, but if you look at the ozone monitors,
it's really not that much different than the air quality here
in Washington DC. And actually, if you look at some of the
information from the EPA, it talks about trees creating a lot
of ozone through their VOC emissions. So, you know, if--should
we go cut down all the trees in my district so we can improve
air quality?
Dr. Craft. Well, actually, it's funny that you mention
that. We are actually looking into trees as an intervention
strategy for places like Houston. So there is evidence that
some species of trees release VOCs, but not all species.
Mr. Westerman. So maybe we should just plant plantations of
monocrops in Houston to fix the air quality down there. I'm
trained in forestry, so that would be kind of interesting if we
started doing stuff like that.
Moving along, Mr. Holmstead, are you familiar with EPA's
claim that the proposed ozone standard will only impact nine
counties?
The Hon. Holmstead. Yes, that's just silly. They, first of
all, assume all kinds of things and run their models and say,
look, there's only going to be nine counties that don't attain
the standard. The problem--that's not the way the Clean Air Act
works. It's not only counties where there might be a monitor;
it's everywhere elsewhere EPA predicts using models that you're
going to have an area that violates the standard. So that
actually really makes me angry. EPA should be at least honest
about the implications of this because it's going to affect
many, many more parts of the country.
Mr. Westerman. So it's a very dishonest of them not to
include non-monitored counties because we know the air mixes
and you got these autogenic effects.
What about using the year 2025? Is that dishonest as well?
The Hon. Holmstead. Well, yes, because all of these
regulatory consequences happen now. The permitting problems
happen now. All the other regulations happen now. If the Clean
Air Act said, great, if EPA says that everyone is going to come
into attainment within ten years, if that's the way it worked,
that would be great. But we don't wait around. You impose all
these obligations now regardless of what EPA projects for 2025.
Mr. Westerman. And so can you explain quickly the actual
impact of the ozone rule for those of us not inclined to use
EPA's fuzzy math or their fuzzy logic or whatever it is they
use? Maybe we need to pump some of the clean air from Arkansas
over into the EPA building.
The Hon. Holmstead. Just very quickly, it will be very hard
to expand new businesses in many rural parts of the country.
That's the most kind of--the thing people don't understand.
This is--what this affects is--rural parts of the country would
like to attract new business. That is going to be difficult or
impossible.
And then in other areas you just drive up the costs even
more, and you do so unnecessarily. There's just a better way to
clean the air, but unfortunately, we've become so dug into this
statute that was created 45 years ago that just doesn't really
work anymore for the way that the world works today.
Mr. Westerman. You can just cut down all the trees in my
district and we could meet the air quality.
The Hon. Holmstead. Well, at some point afterwards I'll
tell you a story about VOC emissions and trees. It's actually
kind of sad to see what EPA has done in the past about that
issue. But we don't have time to talk about it here.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. The gentleman's time has expired, but I do want
to comment on the gentleman's line of questions and the
responses that apparently the EPA has now gotten in the
business of determining that there are some good trees and some
bad trees and maybe the solution is just clear-cutting. I hope
not.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Abraham, the gentleman from
Louisiana.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I'm going to just hit this from a medical perspective.
The tone and the verbiage from EPA has changed over the past
several months to this theme of childhood asthma. Gina McCarthy
touted, everybody in the EPA touted, and this is what they're
trying to sell, that the ozone is causing this exacerbation.
Again, I am limited in my practice as to--I have to do what we
call standard of care, and we have to do things based on only
evidence-based scientific data. And I usually go to the CDC for
my talking points and when I'm trying to determine what's best
for my clientele.
I've practiced medicine all my life and I've practiced it
in places all over the world, and I look at CDC charts and maps
and I see where there are the lowest emissions standards
there's the highest asthma. And, Gary, it goes back to your
statement of socioeconomic factors being the major cause of
exacerbation of asthma, and I can tell you from a
practitioner's point, that's very true.
I look at some of these other studies from these
nonprofits, and the first thing that we as physicians and any
scientist is taught is to look at who's funding the study
because of the conflict-of-interest possibility. Where are you
getting your money? And, Dr. Craft, when the Congresswoman
asked you a question about ozone and the possible developmental
lung function, I noticed that you didn't use the word ozone.
You admittedly shifted to air pollutants to answer that
question.
So, Dr. Honeycutt, I will start with you. I am concerned
that we are seeing a lot of bias and conflict of interest in
this--in our Scientific Advisory Board, especially the Clean
Act Scientific Board. What can we do to combat that? How can we
tell our constituents and our patients that what we are being
told by EPA, by everyone, are actually based on facts and just
not theory and not being pushed by specific interest groups
that want to sell a product?
Mr. Honeycutt. By the way, I was born and raised in your
district and you represent my parents so----
Mr. Abraham. Hey, I didn't know that.
Mr. Honeycutt. The CASAC is appointed by EPA. Whenever we
do a board like that, we have an external party to vet people
and pick them for us. And the panels need to be balanced and--
as far as----
Mr. Abraham. Are they now balanced in your opinion?
Mr. Honeycutt. No, actually not.
Mr. Abraham. Nor in mine. I will agree with your statement.
Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Mr. Honeycutt. Oh, they need to be balanced in terms of
bias and who they represent, and right now they're not.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. And I think you've answered the question
but I'll ask you to answer it again. Will lowering the ozone
standards from 70 to 60 do anything for asthma?
Mr. Honeycutt. According to the EPA, no.
Mr. Abraham. Yes, and I've seen those studies, too. And is
there any evidence--and any panel member can answer this--that
ozone--specifically ozone exacerbates asthma? Dr. Craft?
Dr. Craft. Yes, I'd like to comment and I guess give the
reason for why I didn't mention ozone specifically with the
Gauderman study. Ozone actually didn't decline that much over
the time period that the Gauderman study focused on, so that's
why I discussed air pollution in general.
Mr. Abraham. But----
Dr. Craft. To get to your question about----
Mr. Abraham. But you understand, Dr. Craft, that was not
the question she asked. I was just referencing the question,
the specific question, and I was just looking for a specific
answer. And I just didn't see that, and that's the reason I
brought that up.
Dr. Craft. Right. So to give an example of a study that you
requested, I'll refer to, again, the testimony of Dr.
Wellenius, who mentioned a 2010 study by scientists at Emory
and Georgia Tech looking at a 30 percent increase----
Mr. Abraham. And may I ask who financed that study? Do you
know who financed that study?
Dr. Craft. I'm not sure who financed that study.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. And see, that's I guess my point. We--
like the gentleman from Colorado, he had a 2,200 page study,
and there are millions of studies, but I want to know who's got
skin in the game as to how the study is going to be presented.
So that's all I'll say. I'm out of time and I appreciate the
panel being here.
Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Dr. Abraham.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members
for their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks
for additional written comments and written questions from
Members. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]