[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE PERSPECTIVES ON
REGULATING BACKGROUND OZONE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 21, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-65
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-876PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JERRY McNERNEY, California
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
GARY PALMER, Alabama PAUL TONKO, New York
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JIM BANKS, Indiana MARK TAKANO, California
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
------
Subcommittee on Environment
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
MO BROOKS, Alabama CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BRIAN BABIN, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY PALMER, Alabama
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina, Vice
Chair
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
June 21, 2018
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Andy Biggs, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Witnesses:
Ms. Diane Rath, Executive Director, Alamo Area Council of
Governments
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Mr. Timothy Franquist, Air Quality Division Director, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Dr. Elena Craft, Senior Health Scientist, Environmental Defense
Fund
Oral Statement............................................... 90
Written Statement............................................ 92
Mr. Gregory Stella, Senior Scientist, Alpine Geophysics
Oral Statement............................................... 107
Written Statement............................................ 109
Discussion....................................................... 116
Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 136
Documents submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 144
Documents submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr.,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 148
STATE PERSPECTIVES ON REGULATING BACKGROUND OZONE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Biggs
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. The Subcommittee on Environment will come
to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``State Perspectives on
Regulating Background Ozone.'' Before we get started, I want to
take a moment to recognize the new Vice Chairman of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Norman from South Carolina. I look forward to
continuing our work together and the success of the Environment
Committee.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
In 2015, the Obama EPA lowered the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts
per billion. Meeting this new, unreasonable standard has placed
an excessive economic burden on States across the country, and
especially those in the Southwest. In my own State of Arizona,
naturally-occurring background ozone, over which we have
virtually no control, has created a compliance nightmare.
The solution to this problem is simple: the EPA should take
local geographic factors into account when determining ozone
standards. Simply slapping a ``nonattainment'' designation on
areas where ozone emissions are not even originating is both
unfair and devastating to business in the state. Background
ozone can come from both domestic and international sources.
For instance, a large amount of Arizona emissions originate in
Mexico. However, the way the NAAQS are set, these emissions
from outside the country are used against U.S. states.
The tragic result is that the Clean Air Act ends up
burdening the very Americans it seeks to help--more often than
not, hard-working people living in rural areas. Cutting
emissions has become synonymous with cutting jobs.
Instead of enforcing unreasonable mandates, the states and
EPA should instead work together to determine the amount of
man-made emissions versus natural and international emissions
in any given area. It makes absolutely no sense to force an
area within the United States to try to compensate for
emissions caused by other countries.
At first glance, Section 179B of the Clean Air Act seems to
offer relief from emissions from international sources.
However, when put into practice, it does not go far enough. A
successful 179B demonstration does not allow an area to avoid a
``nonattainment'' designation; it just relieves it of some
potential sanctions.
We cannot continue to punish states for emissions it cannot
control. A nonattainment designation in turn triggers a
nonattainment New Source Review, which then applies to all new
major sources or major modifications to existing sources of
pollutants. So, if a new business wants to open up or an old
business wants to make certain changes, it has to go through
the NSR process.
One of the requirements in this process is for a company to
offset emissions. But in agricultural communities, where big
business is the exception not the rule, offsets are almost
impossible. There are simply not enough businesses to offset
against. This is why businesses would be reluctant to set up
shop in a rural area that is in nonattainment, and I don't
blame them. In a situation where sanctions are costly and
offsets are impossible, businesses are not given much of a
choice. Job opportunities disappear and environmental
regulations end up institutionalizing poverty.
We need to find a better system, and I look forward to this
hearing as a way to explore these issues and foster a true
discussion on the impacts of background ozone.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for an
opening statement.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful pieces of
public health legislation enacted by Congress. According to the
EPA, the protections helped avoid more than 200,000 premature
deaths in its first 20 years alone. A clean environment is
essential to a high quality of life for every American. It is
important to consider the health effects of weakened air
standards, particularly for children, the elderly and those
suffering from asthma.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, were
established under the Clean Air Act to regulate criteria
pollutants that have significant negative effects on human
health. Congress made sure that public health was the driving
factor in setting the NAAQS by requiring the standards to be
based on exclusively on scientific, health-based evidence.
Since 2008, The Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee has recommended setting the ozone
standard between 60 and 70 parts per billion. In 2015, the
ozone NAAQS were strengthened to 70 parts per billion. Public
health groups were concerned that the new level was still not
as protective as it could have been, but acknowledged the
positive health outcomes the new standard would have for all
Americans.
Some states and localities argue that meeting the 2015
ozone NAAQS levels is impossible because of background or
naturally occurring ozone levels, but that is simply not true.
The EPA determined that background ozone levels remain
relatively constant, and contribute only fractionally to ozone
concentrations above the 70 parts per billion level on high
ozone days. The EPA also recently revised their Exceptional
Events Rule and Guidance to more clearly define the scope of
the rule to help states and localities identify air quality
monitoring data that may be affected by exceptional events.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today.
I'm glad to see Dr. Elena Craft back at the witness table to
provide us with a scientific perspective not only on issues
related to ozone, but also to discuss how the anti-science
actions this Administration has taken at the EPA will undermine
public health protections if left unchallenged.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that it has
been one year and 4 months since Scott Pruitt was confirmed as
the EPA Administrator. In that time, Democratic members of this
Committee have sent multiple letters to Chairman Smith
requesting the Administrator's presence at the witness table.
The Ranking Member of the Full Committee and I have both
requested, on the record, during Committee hearings that
Administrator Pruitt be asked to testify in front of the
Science Committee, only to be told that we could invite him
ourselves. So we did. In fact, I invited Administrator Pruitt
to participate in today's hearing as the Minority witness, but
he rejected our request.
This Committee is doing a disservice to the American people
by not having the EPA Administrator testify to explain his
anti-science agenda and explain the actions he's taking that
will undermine public health and the environment. This is
especially egregious considering that this Committee has
jurisdiction over the EPA, and Administrator Pruitt has found
the time to testify in front of other congressional committees
multiple times.
The EPA Administrator and Committee Chairman are touting
the need for more transparency in science at the EPA. It seems
that Administrator Pruitt's testimony in front of this
Committee would be a key part of fulfilling that goal. It is
our job to monitor Agency activities and to make sure they are
consistent with congressional intent. We should not abdicate
our responsibility to hold this Administration accountable.
So I sincerely hope this Committee will fulfill its duty to
conduct congressional oversight of the EPA's science programs
to make sure the Agency meets its mandate to protect public
health and the environment.
And Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from nine public health,
medical, and nursing organizations that support the full
implementation and enforcement of the ozone NAAQS under the
Clean Air Act. This letter also lays out concerns with the May
2018 memo on updating the NAAQS review process written by EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt that is inconsistent with the
statutory requirements in the Clean Air Act. This letter
highlights the importance of maintaining the NAAQS as a health-
based standard built on scientific evidence and not allowing
additional considerations such as cost or technically
feasibility--technical feasibility to play a role in setting
the standards. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be
entered into the record.
Chairman Biggs. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix I]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I also have a
poll conducted in April of 2018 by the American Lung
Association that found that 75 percent of voters support the
enforcement of the 2015 Ozone Standard. This included a
plurality of Republicans. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add the
results of the American Lung Association's poll into the
record.
Chairman Biggs. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix I]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Chairman Smith, for his opening statement.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
witnesses for being here today as well. And before we begin,
I'd like to congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina to
my right, Mr. Norman, for being the new Vice Chairman of the
Subcommittee. We look forward to his contributions to the
Committee. We've already seen examples of that in the last few
months.
The Science Committee--I'm sorry I'm so hoarse today. It's
better than having lost my voice, which I did yesterday, and
Suzanne, you can't comment on my losing my voice and wishing
that were the case today.
Ms. Bonamici. Duly noted, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The Science Committee has held a number of
hearings on the regulatory overreach of the previous
Administration's Environmental Protection Agency. Today's
hearing is a timely discussion on the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, or NAAQS.
The air in the U.S. is cleaner than it has ever been
before. Yet in 2015 the previous Administration tightened the
NAAQS for ground-level ozone.
The fastest way to hurt our local economy is to implement
far reaching regulations that stunt business growth and
development. The 2015 NAAQS often places heavy burdens on the
American people, with few actual benefits.
Ensuring we have clean air and water, now and in the
future, is important and should be a priority for everyone.
However, regulations that stifle business and innovation, while
doing little to actually meet these goals, are
counterproductive.
Instead of using an unachievable, one-size-fits-all
approach, the EPA should collaborate with the States and come
up with plans that actually work. Background ozone includes
both natural and international ozone. Natural ozone comes from
many sources including wildfires, lightning and vegetation.
International ozone refers to emissions coming from other
countries like China and Mexico.
In some areas of the country, even background ozone levels
exceed 70 parts per billion. In these areas, no matter how much
a State controls its own emissions, it will never be able to
comply with the 2015 NAAQS level.
We simply cannot beat mother nature and we cannot force
other countries to stop their emissions. Geologic areas should
not be held accountable for emissions they cannot control.
Many areas that receive a nonattainment designation suffer
economically. This designation discourages businesses from
moving into the State because they would have to deal with
permitting and compliance obligations. This in turn limits
employment opportunities for hardworking Americans living in
our rural communities.
Let me say, it's good to have a personal friend from San
Antonio, Diane Rath, who happens to live in my district, and is
here to comment on background ozone issues facing Texas. San
Antonio, for example, is directly and adversely affected by the
international ozone from Mexico.
Less than a quarter of ozone emissions detected in San
Antonio actually originated in the city. Yet to comply with the
NAAQS, San Antonio must implement a burdensome regulatory
agenda that adversely affects businesses and citizens alike.
Being a good steward of the environment and promoting a
healthy economy are not mutually exclusive. Hard working
Americans are hit the hardest by these expensive regulations.
Regulatory overreach costs billions of dollars, kills jobs and
hurts the economy. For example, expensive permitting
regulations discourage employers from establishing businesses
and creating jobs.
Because states have no control over international and
natural emissions, even a state's greatest efforts to reduce
emissions often fall short of the benefits envisioned by the
Clean Air Act.
I remain hopeful that the EPA will review the current NAAQS
standards and evaluate the science and process behind setting
future NAAQS. Recently, Administrator Pruitt laid out five
principles that will be implemented in future NAAQS reviews.
This ``back-to-basics'' process will ensure that sound science
is the foundation of the NAAQS standards and that all relevant
data is considered in implementation, including naturally
occurring and international ozone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields, and I now recognize the
Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an
opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Biggs, and I want to
thank all of our witnesses for being here to discuss their
perspectives on air pollution regulations.
For the past several years, whenever the Majority has held
a hearing on air pollution there has been one common thread.
Virtually every hearing has highlighted one or more excuses as
to why air pollution shouldn't be regulated. Today, we will
hear about another excuse: background ozone. This isn't even a
novel excuse. We held a hearing on this same topic just a few
years ago.
One thing the Committee never seems to address is the
public health effects of Americans breathing in air pollution.
I'm a nurse. I've done some studies. And those health effects
are devastating. Disease, misery, and death. In addition to the
severe bodily toll that air pollution takes on Americans, it is
also--it also imposes a serious monetary cost. It is estimated
that the EPA's 2015 Ozone regulations, which were only slightly
more stringent than the previous standards, would result in
hundreds of thousands dollars--of fewer asthma attacks in
children every year. They continue, however, to go up. That
would, in turn, result in over 100,000 less missed school days,
which, in turn, would result in significantly increased
productivity for the parents of those children. And just--that
just deals with asthma. These regulations would also reduce
COPD, cardiovascular disease, and other negative health
effects.
The total health care savings from regulating ozone even
slightly more stringently than before runs well into the
billions of dollars every year. That should really come as no
surprise to the Members of Congress. Healthcare is very
expensive. Rising healthcare costs are one of the primary
drivers of our increasing national debt. As we work to address
these issues, I think it makes more sense to cut the pollution
that is helping to drive those healthcare costs higher, rather
than cutting the healthcare treatments people need to survive.
I hope that the Minority witness, Dr. Craft, can help us
highlight some of the reasons why it is so important to
regulate air pollution in the first place. And I'm sure that
she can also address the rationale being offered today by our
Majority for why we shouldn't be regulating pollution.
I am from Texas, and we get plenty of cross border air
pollution coming from our neighbors to the South. Not just
Mexico, but Louisiana sits over there, too. Quite frankly, we
probably also send a little air pollution to our neighbors in
the east. Every state has its own unique issues related to
reducing air pollution. But I don't think that is an excuse to
let people in Dallas, Houston or San Antonio get sick and
suffer. I hope we can keep that in mind today as we talk about
these compliance issues. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you.
I now recognize Chairman Smith to introduce our first
witness.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to be
able to introduce Diane Rath, the Executive Director of the
Alamo Area Council of Governments, which serves much of my home
district back in Texas.
Ms. Rath began work in public service when then-Governor
George Bush appointed her Chair of the Texas Workforce
Commission. She was then nominated by President Bush to be
Assistant Secretary of Administration for Children and Families
at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. During
this time, she became recognized as a national leader in
workforce development.
Prior to her current position, Ms. Rath served as Senior
Vice President at ResCare Workforce Services with oversight
responsibility for operations at over 300 locations in 28
States.
As Executive Director of AACOG, she oversees 300 employees
and 11 program areas with a budget of $50 million. Ms. Rath
attended Texas Christian University and graduated from the
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
We are pleased to have her here. I yield back.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Smith. Indeed, we are
pleased to have Ms. Rath and all of our wonderful witnesses
here today. We are grateful that you are here.
Our next witness today will be from my home State of
Arizona, Mr. Timothy Franquist. He is the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality's Air Quality Director. He previously
served as the Air Quality Division Deputy Director and has been
with ADEQ for more than 14 years.
Prior to State service, Mr. Franquist worked in a variety
of environmental positions, including private sector
consulting, county government, and environmental non-government
organizations.
As Director of Air Quality, Mr. Franquist has led the
division's effort to become nationally recognized for the
agency's work on international transport of ozone, exceptional
event demonstrations, permitting, and air quality meteorology.
Mr. Franquist received his bachelor's degree in
environmental science and policy from the University of
Maryland and his master's in environmental management from ASU.
Welcome, Dr. Franquist.
Our third witness is Dr. Elena Craft, a senior health
scientist at Environmental Defense Fund. For a decade, Dr.
Craft has strategized to identify, monitor, and mitigate risks
from environmental pollution from the industrial sector, as
well as from within the transportation sector, most
specifically around port areas and freight corridors.
In addition, she has facilitated development of initiatives
to support public health research, including helping to
establish the Hurricane Harvey Environmental Health and Housing
Registry in Houston, the first registry established after a
major flood event.
Dr. Craft's other scientific research focuses on
understanding health disparities associated with living in
pollution hotspots.
She holds a bachelor's of science in biology from UNC
Chapel Hill, a master's of science and toxicology from North
Carolina State University, and a Ph.D. from Duke University.
Dr. Craft also holds an adjunct assistant professorship at the
University of Texas Health Science Center, and is a Kinder
Fellow at Rice University. Thank you for being here, Dr. Craft.
Our final witness today is Mr. Gregory Stella, a senior
scientist at Alpine Geophysics, LLC. For over 25 years, Mr.
Stella has coordinated with both public and private workgroups,
modeling centers, and stakeholders to develop, evaluate, and
apply control measures and program designs in support of
emissions and air quality policy decisions.
Prior to joining Alpine Geophysics in 2003, Mr. Stella was
on staff at EPA's Office of Air Quality, Planning, and
Standards, where he managed and prepared the emission
inventories, control strategies, and associated temporal,
spatial, and speciation data from multiple projects. He is
internationally recognized as a technical authority in the
modeling and policy application of emission inventories for
ozone, and particulate matter, pollutants, and precursors.
Mr. Stella received his bachelor's of science in chemical
engineering from the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,
Maryland.
I now recognize Ms. Rath for five minutes to present her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MS. DIANE RATH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ALAMO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Ms. Rath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
inviting me. I am Diane Rath, Executive Director of the Alamo
Area Council of Governments. I'd also like to introduce my
Board Chair who is with us today, Judge Chris Schuchart, who is
a county judge in Medina County.
I am very pleased to appear today to provide information on
the history of public and private partnerships that have helped
reduced ozone concentrations in the San Antonio MSA, and how
background ozone, international emissions, and ozone transport
contribute to San Antonio's ozone levels. Slide, please.
[Slide.]
Ms. Rath. The San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA has experienced
significant improvement in its ozone levels in the past several
years, with a 20 percent decline from 2004 to 2016. These
improvements occurred despite a population increase of nearly
600,000 folks across the region.
San Antonio is currently the largest city in the country
with attainment with ozone national ambient air quality
standards. The city of San Antonio added the most people of any
city in the country between 2016 and 2017, and high population
growth is expected to continue.
Another example of the improvement in ozone levels is the
number of days when any monitor exceeded an 8-hour average over
70 parts per billion. In 2017, there were only five such days
at regulatory monitors, compared to an average of 12. The
region's success in improving ozone levels is due, in large
part, to local voluntary public and private initiatives to
reduce ozone precursor emissions. Several examples are included
in my written testimony. Slide, please.
[Slide.]
Ms. Rath. Photochemical modeling can be used to estimate
the contribution from other geographic areas to ozone levels at
a given location using the Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability
Assessment. APCA analysis suggests that in 2017, the maximum
local contribution to San Antonio's ozone at Camp Bullis C58
was 12.86 parts per billion, or 20.5 percent. This means that
79.5 percent of San Antonio's ozone is caused by emissions and
transport from outside the San Antonio region; that is, outside
of local control. Slide, please.
[Slide.]
Ms. Rath. A further breakdown of San Antonio ozone
contribution reveals that 24.05 parts per billion, or 38.4
percent of San Antonio's ozone, originates from international
sources. Other Texas cities contribute 16.1 percent. It's
estimated that areas outside Texas contribute 25 percent to San
Antonio's ozone.
The San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA has proven to be a leader
when it comes to reducing ozone levels through its numerous
public and private initiatives that limit ozone precursor
emissions. These voluntary efforts have helped reduced San
Antonio's ozone design value, and is predicted to continue
falling through 2023. These ozone reductions are all the more
impressive, given the unique ozone transport situation that San
Antonio faces with over 38 percent of ozone contribution coming
from international sources.
We urge EPA to take advantage of the flexibility in the
Clean Air Act to recognize the impact of background ozone
levels and all foreign transport on a region. It is important
to acknowledge the amount of ozone that is produced locally and
able to be impacted by local actions. The regulatory burden and
economic consequences of a nonattainment designation can be
devastating to a region when the region is not able to impact
the ozone levels by its own actions.
So Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the unique impact of background ozone
and foreign transport on our region, and share the great
progress we have made as a result of voluntary public and
private initiatives over the concern for the health of the
residents of our region.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rath follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Norman. [Presiding.] Thank you, Ms. Rath, and I too
want to take this opportunity to thank each of you for devoting
your time and talent to educating us on the issue.
I now recognize Mr. Franquist for five minutes to present
his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. TIMOTHY FRANQUIST,
AIR QUALITY DIVISION DIRECTOR,
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Franquist. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, my name is Timothy Franquist, and I am the Air
Quality Director at the Arizona Department of Environment
Quality, and I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony
today.
The Clean Air Act has done a remarkable job of reducing air
pollution across the county for the past 48 years from industry
and vehicles. Now, however, we face a new air quality
challenge: global air pollution, specifically, air pollution
that is transported to the U.S. in such quantities to cause
areas of the country to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Unfortunately, the Clean Air Act is ill-equipped to
address this new air quality problem in terms of protecting
public health and our local economies.
The U.S. EPA has conducted ozone modeling for U.S.
background, or what is more commonly referred to as
international transport, several times over the past three
years. The models continue to indicate that ozone
concentrations are increasing from international sources and
impacting the U.S.
The most recent U.S. model indicates that over 83 percent
of ozone in southern Arizona is attributed to international
sources. Arizona is not only impacted by Mexican emissions, 65
percent of the ozone in the Southwest is attributed to
international transport from Asia, according to a surface ozone
study conducted by a team of researchers from NOAA, Princeton
University, Columbia University, and the U.S. EPA.
The surface ozone study further indicates that during
summertime in the western U.S. ``increasing Asian emissions
approximately offset the benefits of U.S. emissions
reductions.''
Beginning in May 2017, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality installed an ozone monitor in San Luis
Rio Colorado, Mexico, to determine the impacts of international
transport on Yuma, Arizona, a new ozone nonattainment area
proposed by the U.S. EPA as of April 2018. Our preliminary
analysis indicates that prevailing winds from the south and
increasingly high levels of ozone originating south of the U.S.
border are causing Yuma to exceed the federal ozone standard.
Because Yuma exceeds the 2015 Ozone standard, the Clean Air
Act will require the State of Arizona to develop a state
implementation plan for the area. Yuma will be subject to
emission offsets for new large businesses or major expansions
to existing businesses and those sources will be required the
install extremely expensive emission control equipment before
operating. Yuma is not a heavy industrial or urban area and
therefore, it does not generate the requisite emission offsets,
which ultimately discourages new or expanding business in the
area.
The only relief for Yuma under the Clean Air Act is the
state to pursue an international transport demonstration, but
we can only do that demonstration after three years of an area
not meeting the standard. Yuma will remain in perpetual
nonattainment until international emissions decrease to the
extent that Yuma attains the ozone standard. The international
transport demonstration does nothing to better protect Yuma
residents from the health impacts of international pollution or
lessen the burden on their local economy.
The negative health effects of ozone is well documented; as
is poverty's negative effect on public health. The impact of
nonattainment on Yuma's public health and economy creates an
incredibly dire situation for a primarily agricultural
community of 100,000 residents, 19 percent of which live below
the poverty line.
The World Bank states in a report entitled ``Poverty and
Health'' that ``Poverty is a major cause of ill health and a
barrier to accessing health care when needed.''
According to a study authored by Michael McCally, MD, and
his colleagues, people living in countries with a higher Gross
National Product have a longer life expectancy. In short,
public health is not just about clean air, it's also about a
healthy economy.
Finding state-level solutions for ozone nonattainment areas
are made infinitely more complicated when the area is
significantly impacted by international transport of air
pollution, as we are in Arizona. Therefore, we must look to our
federal agencies and representatives for relief to the
international air pollution transport problem so that the
recipients of pollution are not punished, but protected.
The Clean Air Act has not been significantly revised since
1990. As Arizona and the U.S. confront the growing challenge of
global air pollution impacts on the U.S., I urge Congress to
seriously consider meaningful revisions to the Clean Air Act to
address international transport of air pollution.
Senator Flake has introduced Senate Bill 2825, which helps
remove some of the negative economic impacts to areas of the
U.S. that do not meet the Ozone standard due to international
transport, while maintaining adequate air quality control
measures to ensure that public health and the environment are
protected. Senate Bill 2825 would be a major step in protecting
places like Yuma, Arizona, and the West from international air
pollution.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Franquist follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Franquist.
I now recognize Dr. Craft for her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ELENA CRAFT,
SENIOR HEALTH SCIENTIST,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
Dr. Craft. Thank you. Chairman Biggs, Ranking Member
Bonamici, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to be here to testify regarding the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for ground level ozone.
My name is Elena Craft. I serve as a 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 is a
national organization with over two million members that links
science, economics, law, and private sector partnerships to
solve our most serious environmental challenges.
EDF and its members are deeply concerned about harmful air
pollution, including ground level ozone. I am lucky enough to
be joined today by a few moms from Moms Clean Air Force.
Nationally, Moms Clean Air Force is a community of over a
million moms and dads strong. They are mobilizing and engaging
communities across the country on air quality issues because
they care about their kids. They care about the tiny lungs that
are developing. They care about making sure that their kids
make it to school instead of to the doctor's office or to the
hospital because of an asthma attack. They care about the long-
term health implications of living in areas that don't meet
health-based standards, standards supported fervently by
doctors and public health professionals across the nation.
Fortunately for almost 50 years, the Clean Air Act has
provided bipartisan, time-tested solutions for reducing harmful
pollution and protecting public health. National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for deadly pollutants like ground level ozone
form the foundation of the Clean Air Act's health-based
protections. These bipartisan, consensus-backed standards save
lives and protect American families.
But they are under threat. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
is attempting to rescind, weaken, or delay many of these clean
air standards. For instance, the Administrator has opened a
loophole for super polluting, heavy duty long haul trucks.
These glider vehicles are not required to deploy same modern
pollution controls as other new long haul trucks. Gliders emit
43 times as many NOx, or nitrogen oxides, during highway
driving than trucks with modern emission control systems.
Allowing this loophole has resulted in significant increases in
NOx. One years' worth of glider sales accounts for more NOx
emissions than all of the emissions generated as a result of
the VW emissions billion-dollar cheating scandal.
The Administrator has likewise neglected his responsibility
to ensure protections are in place for downwind States and
communities. For examples, the States of Connecticut, Delaware,
and Maryland all submitted Good Neighbor petitions to EPA under
Section 126 of the Clean Air Act, seeking relief from upwind
emissions from coal-fired power plants that cause health-
harming ozone pollution within their borders, pollution that
forms some of the background that you'll hear about today.
Ozone does not discriminate. No matter where it comes from,
the effect on the human body, on our kids' lungs, is the same.
If we are in agreement that we value clean air, that we want
our kids to breathe air that meets health-based standards
recommended by the public health and medical communities, then
the fastest way to achieve that clean air is to deploy the
controls and policies that we know work. The controls that for
almost 50 years have reduced aggregate pollution in our country
by 73 percent, while GDP has grown 253 percent.
Most of our country, including the San Antonio area, and
all of Arizona, is expected to be in attainment with the 2015
Ozone standard by 2025 because of strong Federal policies, like
the clean car standards, the clean power plan, and the cross-
state air pollution rule.
If we are serious about fulfilling the bipartisan agreement
that serves as a bedrock environmental protection for our
nation, then we must protect these policies and we must
continue to support the scientific process that serves as the
foundation for developing them. While there may be some
challenges associated in isolated areas of the West, far and
away, we should be more concerned with the current
Administration's egregious attack on policies that will deliver
tens of thousands of tons of emission reductions and that are
critical in helping all communities across the country meet
health-based standards. The Clean Air Act is important in
reducing hospital visits, saving lives, and reducing healthcare
costs.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craft follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Dr. Craft.
I now recognize Mr. Stella for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. GREGORY STELLA,
SENIOR SCIENTIST,
ALPINE GEOPHYSICS
Mr. Stella. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my
name is Gregory Stella, and I thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of my firm, Alpine
Geophysics regarding information on background ozone
concentrations and its role in regulatory modeling.
I especially would like to thank Representative Biggs for
the invitation to appear before you.
As air quality scientists, one of our main objectives is to
reduce and understand the uncertainty involved with modeling
ozone concentrations in past, present, and future timelines.
Each data input, calculation, model, or method that supports
our analyses have their own uncertainties that need to be
studies in order to understand the impact of these elements on
policy decisions.
To this end, there are a number of categories of pollutant
concentrations that have inherent uncertainty in a regulatory
sense. One of those categories is background ozone.
Background ozone has historically been defined as amounts
of pollutant concentrations that are produced by sources other
than people. Because amounts of ozone measured at ambient air
quality monitors cannot be separated into background or
anthropogenic origin, this amount needs to be determined using
photochemical modeling and source apportionment tools.
We know that many sources of background ozone are global in
origin, and the fact that ozone is not emitted directly;
rather, it is formed by reaction of hydrocarbon and nitrogen
species in the presence of sunlight, complicates the linkage of
particular emissions to downwind ozone concentrations.
In the air quality community, we use global chemistry
models to derive boundary conditions, which include background
emissions, to inform our regional models. What this means is
that we generate global concentrations of ozone at very coarse
scale and mesh them with our own regional and local modeling
platforms, which are of a much finer granularity.
To this, we add regional background ozone concentrations
from models that estimate biogenic or wildfire emissions, and
complete the platform with our national inventories of
anthropogenic sources.
When we look at all these factors and run our own source
apportionment tools with the resulting modeling platforms, we,
EPA, and others have found that background ozone can range from
ten percent of the modeled contribution to close to 90 percent
on any single model day, with higher background contributions
seen in the western high elevation monitor locations. This is a
large fraction of the current 70 ppbos on NAAQS and can make it
very difficult, if not impossible, for many regions of the
country to attain the NAAQS.
So when that leap is made from science to policy, the
various definitions of uncontrollable ozone sources become
important to consider. For example, baseline ozone, U.S.
background, global background, global anthropogenic background,
or even international exceptional vents have all been cited as
applicable to 179B petitions and potential regulatory relief
under the ``but for'' clause of this section of the Act.
However, to be clear, relief using 179B or exceptional
event exclusion does not give anyone cleaner air to breathe. It
is simply recognizing a regulatory reprieve based on the
language of the law.
In the air quality community, these options are not seen as
a free pass to pollute. Rather, this is seen as a reality that
must enter into the regulatory discussion and be understood in
order to develop control programs that maximize air quality
benefit with minimal societal disruption.
Unfortunately, there is a vague regulatory clarity on
exactly what could be considered in many cases, and therefore,
we continue to pursue direction in both definition and
application as it relates to transport contribution of
uncontrollable and background ozone concentration at local
sources.
From a scientific perspective, improvements to
understanding background ozone are being developed using
collateral model attribution studies among EPA, NOAA, NASA,
states, and international organizations looking to reduce the
uncertainty involved with boundary conditions and the relative
international contribution to domestic air quality problems.
Research programs like these are vital and are drastically
underfunded. Without substantive direct funding of these
projects, much of the work is being performed as an aside to
other projects, unacceptable for such an important issue on
that critical interface of science and public policy.
In summary, it is absolutely clear that there is an ever-
increasing impact of uncontrollable emission sources on the
ability of our States to achieve attainment with the current
air quality standards. While much work has occurred related to
the understanding of background ozone, and international
transport's contribution to locally observed air quality
concentrations, we still have a long way to go in understanding
the contribution of these sources and improving the models and
methods used to quantify and qualify their use in a regulatory
framework.
I thank you for your time and this opportunity to present
this information before the Committee, and I will be happy to
answer any questions that Members have on this topic.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stella follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Stella. I want to thank all the
witnesses for testifying.
The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes of
questioning.
This is up close and personal for me, this topic. I'm a
real estate developer, and to have companies to come into an
area and to be on the verge of breaking ground, and then to be
put into nonattainment status is tragic. And Ms. Rath, your
chart showing 20 percent--80 percent basically comes from
outside with no control is real.
So I direct my first question to Mr. Franquist. Can you
explain the remedy a State can get from a successful 179B
demonstration for international ozone?
Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
can. That's what's referred to as the 179B International
Transport Demonstration. The relief really looks like this.
What it does is what's commonly referred to as a ``but for''
analysis is that under the Clean Air Act, if you don't meet a
standard within the given time, you're automatically bumped up
to the next higher classification of nonattainment. Under the
179B, if you can make that demonstration successfully, that
will simply stop that bump up to the higher nonattainment area
classification.
The challenge there is you're still in that nonattainment
classification, until which time--in this case for us in
Arizona, we're waiting for international emissions to drop. So
the relief looks a lot like perpetual nonattainment. It looks a
lot like nonattainment NSR for potentially decades, if we're
waiting on international emissions to decrease.
Mr. Norman. Do you believe that this is a sufficient remedy
compared to the amount of ozone that comes from international
sources that affects the attainment?
Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
do not. Again, in my testimony I want to make it very clear
that we're not disputing some of the health challenges of
ozone, but what often gets lost in this conversation is the
health effects of poverty. And so when we look at areas like
Yuma, Arizona, 19 percent unemployment, 19 percent of the
residents there live below the poverty line, healthy economies
matter.
And so when we're looking at public health holistically, we
do need to look at how these remedies, or lack thereof,
actually really, truly do protect the residents of those
nonattainment areas.
Mr. Norman. You're from Arizona. How do the strict ozone
regulations drive business away from rural counties?
Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
it becomes a discouraging factor. It's a very simple analysis.
If you're going to have to do emission offsets, they range in
Arizona anywhere from $5 to $10,000 per ton, or you can look to
an area that isn't an attainment area. It's a very easy
economic choice. You're going to go to the area that does not
have the nonattainment area issues. So it discourages large
businesses.
I would say the other challenge with what we call the
traditional offset piece is that normally if a business was
looking to get those offsets, what they would do is either shut
down a business and capture that headroom with those emissions,
or put on a pollution control device on an old business and
capture those emissions. What that does is simply shuts down a
business. That may not be a net gain in jobs, so that business
even may be able to come into that nonattainment area, but from
a job perspective, it may be a net zero or even a loss of jobs,
depending on what facility they decide to shut down to get
those offsets.
Mr. Norman. So why can't the businesses in rural counties
offset ozone emissions like the businesses do in the cities?
Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
typically under the traditional offset programs, what you're
looking to do is what I just explained, either shut down a
business or put pollution controls on an existing business.
When you're in a rural area, those businesses, those large
companies--or even small companies--to get those offsets, are
scarce to nonexistent. So when you look in the Yuma area, we
simply just don't have the large heavy industry there to even
generate offsets. So we have to look to what's considered non-
traditional offsets, things like captured fleets,
electrification of truck stops, but it's extremely difficult to
generate those non-traditional offsets and also get a rule
through with the EPA, because it's very difficult to prove how
you qualify and enforce some of those offsets. So for the most
part, states and local areas do not chase down the non-
traditional offset programs.
Mr. Norman. Okay. Mr. Stella, what type of parameters go
into the models that examine background ozone, and do you
consider them reliable?
Mr. Stella. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
There are a number of parameters related to both emissions
inputs or meteorology, or even the chemistry of ozone formation
that go into our local scale models, and these are largely
informed by the global community. The inventories that we have
here in the United States are of a higher quality than those
that go into the global model, and so when we try to mesh the
two, we need to best understand exactly what we're putting into
our simulations.
Right now, it's the what goes in comes out sort of paradigm
of the modeling, and until we can improve and understand what
those conditions are, we're going to be at a loss at fully
quantifying and qualifying how much international or boundary
condition impact we have on our local scale monitors.
Mr. Norman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms.
Bonamici for five minutes for questioning.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I ask my
questions, I want to point out that Dr. Craft included in her
submitted written testimony excerpts from the American Lung
Association's State of the Air 2018 study, and she notes that
in her home State of Texas, there were over 400 orange, red or
purple high ozone days. Fourteen counties received a grade of F
in Texas for ozone pollutions. I know there are a lot of Texas
members on this Committee and I wanted to point that out.
Dr. Craft, environmental challenges are often
disproportionately felt by some of our most vulnerable
populations. That includes children and the elderly, but also
the economically disadvantaged of all ages. Some opponents of
Federal ozone standards attempt to use this as a justification
for not acting on air pollution by claiming that the cost of
implementation will fall on impoverished communities, then
suggesting that it would be better for these communities to
suffer the effects of the pollution than to bear the costs.
Also, I noted Chairman Smith in his opening statement said
that the NAAQS standards we're discussing today create burdens
without clear benefits, so Dr. Craft, can you respond to the
idea that these populations would be better off without
regulations? What are the public health costs of not
implementing the current standard?
Dr. Craft. Yes, I'd be happy to share some information
about healthcare cost numbers.
Two of the largest respiratory disease challenges that we
have in this country are COPD and asthma. COPD is actually the
third most common cause of death in the United States. In 2014,
medical costs for COPD in the U.S. was $36 billion and
projected to be $50 billion by 2020. Seventy-six percent of
those medical costs were primarily paid for by Medicare and
Medicaid.
For asthma, peer reviewed research from this year indicates
asthma costs the U.S. economy more than $80 billion annually
and medical expenses, missed work days, and school days, as
well as premature death.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and Dr. Craft, in your testimony
you mentioned that anthropogenic sources, rather than
background ozone, are the main driver of unhealthy ozone
levels. And you also talk about how emissions reduction
strategies do exist, but as you mentioned, they are often not
implemented.
We have great potential in this country for innovation. So
can you talk about the over-emphasis of background ozone and
the downplaying of anthropogenic sources of air pollution by
opponents of strict ozone standards, why are known emissions
reductions technologies not being implemented, and what can the
EPA do to encourage or enforce the use of these emissions
reduction strategies?
Dr. Craft. Right. So there are a couple of things there.
One thing that I wanted to highlight is the way that the
design values are calculated in this country to determine
attainment or nonattainment is that areas look at the fourth
highest average over the past three years. So it's not that an
area has come into attainment or out of attainment based on
some annual percentage of ozone.
So the question of background really needs to look at is
background contributing to exceedance of the design value, not
an exceedance of the 8-hour daily. So I just wanted to clarify
that a little bit.
Could you repeat the last question that you mentioned?
Ms. Bonamici. Yes, about the technologies. Is there some
reason why--I mean, you suggested that there are technologies
that exist, but they're not implemented. What are the
technologies that are not being implemented and what can the
EPA do to encourage or enforce the use of these emissions
reduction strategies?
We've had conversations on this Committee before about
regulation and policy driving innovation and technology
changes, so can you talk a little bit about that?
Dr. Craft. Yes, and since we are talking a lot about the
intermountain West, I wanted to mention a lot of controls that
have been developed over the last couple of years regarding
pollution controls for oil and gas development. Peer-reviewed
publication from the Cooperative Institute for Research and
Environmental Sciences examined the oil and gas sector's
contribution to ozone formation on Colorado's front range,
specifically focusing on days that exceeded the ozone NAAQS.
The study found that on individual days, ozone and gas ozone
precursors can contribute in excess of 30 part per billion to
ozone concentrations and could be the primary driver of
exceedance of the ozone NAAQS.
There are new pollution controls that have been
implemented. Administrator Pruitt has issued a stay on those
controls, and so right now we're not getting the benefit of
those pollution controls in limiting excess emission--controls
that would save the oil and gas sector money.
Ms. Bonamici. Was there a reason stated for that--
implementing that stay?
Dr. Craft. Not that I know of.
Ms. Bonamici. I see my time is expired. I yield back. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Norman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Chairman
Smith for his questions.
Chairman Smith. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to point out that Ms.
Bonamici in her mentioning of the 14 counties in Texas that
were not in attainment omitted the fact that there are 254
counties in Texas. Fourteen out of 254 ain't bad, particularly
when in many of those counties, if not all of them, much of the
ozone is international ozone from Mexico. My guess is that if
Oregon were subjected to 75 percent of the ozone in that State
coming from Canada, she might have a different view of the
attainment restrictions and the application of NAAQS.
But I'd like to address my first question to Ms. Rath, and
that is what has San Antonio done to remain in attainment with
the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
Ms. Rath. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really have
to salute both our public and our private entities for what
they have implemented voluntarily out of concern for the health
to ensure they are in compliance. We have had very aggressive
action taken.
CPS Energy, which is our municipally owned electrical
utility company, has been very, very aggressive to reduce the
demand for electricity from coal-fired power plants. They
implemented programs and the savings were equal to shutting
down a medium-sized coal plant. They met their goal of
producing 1,500 megawatts of renewable energy capacity two
years ahead of schedule, and this is equal to 20 percent of
their power generation. And that portfolio includes both wind,
rooftop solar, and utility scale solar.
I have to really thank CPS Energy for two aggressive
actions they will be doing this year that will have a
significant impact upon our ozone precursors.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. Rath. They are shutting down the Deeley plant, which is
our largest and oldest coal-powered plant, shutting that down
early which will have a significant improvement, and they've
made tremendous investment of the technology at our remaining
Spruce plant for that.
In addition----
Chairman Smith. Okay. Let me go briefly to my next
question, which is what are some of the economic consequences
of a nonattainment designation?
Ms. Rath. Yes, sir. Last year, we contracted with
economists at St. Mary's University to look at the cost of
nonattainment in Bexar County, and at a marginal
classification, the low estimate is over $117 million annually.
The high estimate is over $1 billion annually. So for every
year we're in nonattainment, there's a potential for over $1
billion cost to just our eight county MSA.
Chairman Smith. Okay, and that has an impact on economic
growth and jobs and income and everything else. Okay.
Ms. Rath. Very much so, yes, sir.
Chairman Smith. Let me ask a final question to all of our
panelists here today, and that is should international ozone be
taken into consideration when applying NAAQS to various regions
in the U.S.? Okay, Ms. Rath?
Ms. Rath. I certainly think it should. How can you hold a
community or a region responsible for what's totally and
completely outside of its control? If they would take
international transport in consideration, we would be well
under the limit because we're barely exceeding it, 72 and 73
parts per billion at our two regulatory monitors.
Chairman Smith. Okay, thank you, and Mr. Franquist?
Mr. Franquist. I would agree with Ms. Rath. I think we have
to take it into consideration, especially when we're seeing
studies indicate that 83 percent of the ozone in Southern
Arizona is from international sources.
Chairman Smith. Okay, thank you. Dr. Craft?
Dr. Craft. I would actually disagree with Ms. Rath. I would
point to the 2015----
Chairman Smith. Let me make certain I understand you. You
do not think international ozone should be taken into
consideration?
Dr. Craft. I guess what I'm saying is that if--are you
talking about San Antonio specifically?
Chairman Smith. No. No, just in general should
international ozone be taken into consideration when we apply
NAAQS to various regions in the U.S., wherever it might be? In
other words, obviously San Antonio is an example. If you've got
75 percent of the ozone being international ozone, should that
be taken into consideration?
Dr. Craft. Well there's two things. One is that
international transport is actually a very small percentage of
the ozone in the region.
I wanted to point out one inaccuracy in Mr. Franquist's
opening statement----
Chairman Smith. I'll tell you what, before you go to the
other witnesses, I'd just like an answer to my question. And
really, it's yes or no. Should the international ozone be taken
into consideration when applying NAAQS?
Dr. Craft. It is taken into consideration.
Chairman Smith. Okay. So you're saying it should be?
Dr. Craft. It is already, yes.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Well saying it is doesn't answer the
question as to whether you feel it should be.
Dr. Craft. Saying it is is saying that it is already being
taken into consideration.
Chairman Smith. And you agree with that?
Dr. Craft. All sources of ozone are taken into
consideration in regard to the NAAQS.
Chairman Smith. But you agree that international ozone
should be taken in consideration? I assume you're saying yes.
Dr. Craft. Yes, it already is.
Chairman Smith. Okay, thank you. Mr. Stella?
Mr. Stella. From a designation perspective, I would have to
say that I would agree that it is and I don't necessarily think
that you can quantify that amount as you go into the
designation. But from an attainment demonstration perspective,
I do believe that international emissions need to be accounted
for. But we have to be cautious because of the large
uncertainty in predicting that amount.
Chairman Smith. Fair enough.
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have some concerns myself about the consideration of
international. Does it--when you have the ozone pollution, no
matter what the source it still has an effect on health, right?
Dr. Craft. That's correct.
Ms. Johnson. So are you aware of any efforts that have been
made to mediate some of that where you have an international
influence?
Dr. Craft. Yes, EPA has actually addressed that very issue
a couple of times. What I was trying to reference a bit earlier
was the technical support document which was released. It's
entitled ``Intended Area Designations for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Technical Support
Document'' that references some of the work in San Antonio. On
page 21 of that technical support document, it says ``From the
same modeling results, a more reasonable estimate of the
impacts from manmade emissions from Mexico is on the order of
less than 1 part per billion,'' so 1 to two percent of the
ozone projected for 2023 in San Antonio. That's one piece.
I wanted to also clarify one of the references made by Mr.
Franquist. He mentioned 65 percent of ozone increase in the
Southwest is coming from Asia. The paper that he's referencing
is actually a Lin paper, and the reference is 65 percent of the
increase in background, not total ozone. So that's actually
less than a part per billion. I'd like to just make sure that
that's accurate for the record.
Ms. Johnson. Now Dr. Craft, in your testimony you discuss
EPA's delay in determining whether San Antonio meets the 70
parts per billion standard set in 2015. This delay is despite
the fact that monitors have detected exceedances for years.
What is causing that delay? Are you aware?
Dr. Craft. As far as I am aware, EPA is the cause of that
delay. It was only in response to a lawsuit filed by States and
public health and environmental organizations that EPA has even
taken initial steps to identify certain areas of the country
that do not meet the 2015 standard. This comes almost an entire
year after the designations were due, meaning that communities
with unhealthy levels of ozone will face another summer without
solutions in place to clean up the air.
I wanted to highlight an additional issue that's going on
in San Antonio. It is correct that ground--that folks on the
ground in San Antonio have stepped up to support clean air
policies. Unfortunately, the Governor of Texas vetoed clean air
planning dollars for the region of San Antonio. Over a million
dollars' worth of planning dollars are gone as part of a line
item veto by Governor Abbott. He claimed that he wanted
planning dollars to go to nonattainment areas. San Antonio, for
all intents and purposes, is actually not in attainment. It's
not officially designated, but it has exceeded the 70 part per
billion standard for several years now.
Ms. Johnson. Well I'm from Dallas, and we don't have San
Antonio that close around, but we are seeing more and more
children and seniors getting asthma.
Have you seen any effect of that in your research in San
Antonio, and what--does that make the cost and the costs on
health important or not?
Dr. Craft. Of course, yes. I also wanted to highlight to
that point very recent evidence from studies published within
the last year solidifying the link between ozone exposure and
an increased risk for death. The key study lead author Domenici
assessed impacts in 61 million Medicare beneficiaries over 13
years in the United States and found that the risk of death
associated with ozone exposure continued below the current
NAAQS. That--those 61 million people are Americans who are
experiencing health effects at concentrations below the current
standard.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
Chairman Biggs. The gentlelady's time is expired. The Chair
now recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Representative
Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the
entire panel for coming here and educating us on this issue. I
specifically want to say thank you to Mr. Franquist, who came
from Arizona. And while I was in the State Senate, I always had
good dealings with your agency, and I think they do a good job.
I think it's really important--I think everybody cares
about air quality. I don't think there's a question about that.
I mean, my daughter had asthma. My grandchildren sometimes need
to use an inhaler as well. But I really think we need to
balance that with reasonable measures that we have influence
over. So what I heard here today is a lot of it has to do--or
at least a large part of it along the border has to do with
pollution that comes over from other countries.
I do have a question for Mr. Franquist. Mr. Franquist, what
changes would you propose to the current National Ambient Air
Quality Standards process to improve the way that it's
implemented in the States?
Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I
think, first of all, I would start to take a look at the five-
year review cycle. Every five years the EPA has the opportunity
to take a look at the NAAQS. It seems to be pretty consistent
that the NAAQS goes up every single year, and that's
challenging for areas that have to put in state implementation
plans. You have three years to do that. It seems by the time we
implement just the beginning states of state implementation
plans, we're right back chasing the tiger's tail again and
having to come up with new measures. So I think, you know,
that's one place I would certainly start.
Again, one area that, you know, we've been working closely
with Senator Flake on is removing some of the nonattainment new
source review offsets and lowest achievable mission
requirements for those international transport areas. It seems
to me if you could make a strong demonstration that those areas
are not exceeding the standard but for emissions outside this
country--and I'll go back and sharpen my pencil and make sure
that the Lin study--the 65 percent increase. What I do know is
the U.S. EPA's modeling said 83 percent of emissions in
southern Arizona are from outside of this country, and so we do
need to take a strong look at how those areas with 19 percent
living below the poverty line can find access to good work and
therefore good health care. And so, again, I think relieving
those areas of layer and offset requirements would be another
good place to start.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I have one more
question.
Chairman Biggs. Please.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Mr. Franquist, as a follow-up, what
has the EPA currently done or what could they continue to do to
help the states?
Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
we're still awaiting the implementation rule for ozone. Under
the past Administration, there was a proposal that these
international transport areas would be required to implement
reasonable available control measures before the area was
reviewed under international transport demonstrations, which
simply means that these areas that are shown not to be
contributing to those issues would have to go above and beyond,
put control measures in place to control emissions that are
coming from somewhere else outside this country. So as we look
to the EPA to finalize the implementation rule, I think, you
know, certainly one area would be not requiring RACM for
international transport areas.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, sir. I yield back my time.
Chairman Biggs. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Lamb.
Mr. Lamb. Good morning. Dr. Craft, I believe you're aware
that in 2016 EDF worked with Peoples Gas and Carnegie Mellon
University on a methane mapping study, basically that I think
was designed to identify areas of methane leaks and figure out
how Peoples and their partners could remedy them. Could you
talk a little bit about that project and how it's related to
ozone reduction?
Dr. Craft. Sure. So EDF partners with science; we partner
with the private sector. The work that we have done looking
into methane issues was done--that particular project was done
in partnership with Google. What we did was we outfitted the
Google street-view cars with methane sensors, and we drove
around cities detecting methane leaks. These were primarily
coming from pipelines around the city.
And we drove around a couple of cities in the United
States, Boston, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, as you mentioned, and
one of the things that we noted was that the older the cities,
the older the pipeline infrastructure, generally the more leaks
that are there. That's important because methane emissions
actually contribute to ozone formation. Globally, you can see
that methane emissions are actually on the rise and
contributing to estimates between 1 and 3 part per billion.
We are very interested in trying to curb those methane
emissions in part because of the climate impacts. Methane is 84
times more potent as a greenhouse gas warmer over 20 years as
compared to carbon dioxide. We are investing millions of
dollars in launching a satellite to measure ground-level
methane around the world. That's how important we think that
issue is. If we can curb methane, we can actually prevent some
of the ozone that is formed by those releases.
One additional item that I wanted to mention is that our
organization has a peer-reviewed paper that is actually going
to be coming out today looking at methane emissions and looking
at the underestimates that--in terms of emissions inventories
that exist.
Mr. Lamb. I'd really like to take a look at that. If you
could send us a copy, I'd appreciate it.
Dr. Craft. Sure.
Mr. Lamb. Are you aware of--what were the gas companies
able to do after that study took place in order to remedy the
situation?
Dr. Craft. So the main thing that they were able to do is
to replace those leaky pipes, and what we were able to do
through our work was to highlight where the leakiest pipes were
so that they could prioritize. I don't think anyone expects
anyone to go in in a week and replace all of the pipes under an
entire city, but if you know where the biggest leaks are, you
can prioritize those, go in and address them, and get those
reductions. It saves everybody money if we're not leaking
natural gas from these pipelines.
Mr. Lamb. And do you think there's anything that we can do
here to encourage similar partnerships or larger-scale projects
based on the one that you guys did?
Dr. Craft. I mean, one thing is that we need to go back and
make sure that there are pollution controls from the oil and
gas sector generally. Those federal rules have been in place to
protect everyone across the country. It would help tremendously
to Intermountain West if we could--there are places in Wyoming
that never had an ozone exceedance day before some of the oil
and gas activity ramped up. So if we put those commonsense
pollution controls on that save money, then that helps
everybody.
Mr. Lamb. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Biggs. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. I'm trying to catch
up. Sorry I'm late but it happens here in Washington. You got
five different things you got to do and they're all important.
And I think this is an important hearing because we need to be
educated about this quite frankly, and I'm not educated about
it, so I appreciate you sharing some of your knowledge.
To the whole committee, what percentage of the atmosphere
is ozone? What are we talking about here? What percentage of
the atmosphere is ozone? We know how much the CO2
is. We kind of know what methane is. Ozone isn't a percentage
of the atmosphere?
Mr. Stella. That's an interesting question. I think from a
holistic value, I'm not sure that that can be answered
adequately. I think the measurements that we tend to take are
more on a regional and local scale, and so we look at the
ambient conditions sort of respective of individual areas.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the fact that we may not have a global
problem here but we have a problem in places?
Mr. Stella. Well, I think there is absolutely a global
problem, and I think what we're focusing on here today is how
that impacts us locally.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Does anybody else----
Dr. Craft. Well, I guess I'll just add. So there are
different types of ozone. We have ground-level ozone, and
that's the ozone that is harmful. That's why we regulate it
across the country. There's also stratospheric ozone, and that
actually is protective. It protects us from UV radiation coming
from the sun.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
So there's good ozone and bad ozone?
Dr. Craft. Good ozone and bad ozone. One of the issues in
the Intermountain West, which is why it's a challenge, is that
in some of these high-elevation places, what happens is there
are stratospheric intrusions meaning that some of the ozone,
the good ozone that's in the stratosphere, can actually intrude
into the troposphere and contribute to some of the ground-level
ozone problem.
The other issue with high-elevation areas is that the
chemistry of ozone is a little bit different. It sticks around
a little bit longer. And that's where you see sort of some of
the pollution issues coming in, blowing in from other States
and whatnot.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So we--and I know that's what the subject
of the hearing is is we want to focus on what's happening and
how it impacts on health in terms of the lower level and that
really has very little to do with the higher level of ozones.
Dr. Craft. Correct. So we're talking about ground-level
ozone here.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And you were mentioning how
different dealings--and again, I'm an amateur on this. This is
not something--I'm happy you're here to tell us about it. There
are leaks from oil and gas--and I remember in California we had
a huge problem, a health problem, and then we were requiring
things on the engines of our cars that cut down ozone. And was
that something--was the ozone higher before that and then we
made it lower because of that? And did that impact on health?
Dr. Craft. So ozone is actually not a primary pollutant.
What that means is that ozone is actually formed by different
precursors. So what happens is in the presence of heat and
sunlight and volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides,
all of that mixes and there's a chemical reaction that actually
forms ozone. That's why it's one of the trickier pollutants to
manage because it's not a primary pollutant; it's a secondary
pollutant. That's what we call a secondary pollutant.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Coming from southern California, I can
still remember people talking about ozone. Are we healthier?
Did we handle that with what we did on our engines? Because I
know that cost a lot of money in terms of gas mileage, et
cetera, but are we healthier because of that now?
Dr. Craft. You are healthier because of that. If you look,
there's actually work done in southern California by a
prominent researcher Gauderman, who's actually been able to
demonstrate the improvement in children's health because of the
reduction in air pollution generally. So we know that these
controls work and that they lead to better health outcomes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we know generally, but I was
thinking about ozone and--do we know--does--is there someone
else want to jump in on that?
Ms. Rath. Congressman, I'll be glad to say that we
appreciate the controls and the impact it's making,
particularly in the NOx because in our area the VOC is a very
small contributor to our ozone precursors.
I would like to address your question about the oil and
gas, and I have to salute the energy companies that operate in
the Eagle Ford Shale. Last year, the highest production of oil
came out of the Eagle Ford Shale, particularly Karnes County,
more than any place else in the world. And the energy companies
that are operating in south Texas have made significant
investments in technology to really respect people's health and
to take those measures to really lower their emissions.
So the emissions from the oil and gas industry in our area
is a very small contributor. I certainly can't speak to what's
going on in the West, but I want to be very clear that that is
not a primary contributor in our area at all.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, what is the primary contributor?
Chairman Biggs. Unfortunately, the gentleman's time is
expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, pardon me.
Chairman Biggs. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Rohrabacher.
I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very much
for being with us.
I would like to talk for a minute about the ``once in,
always in'' policy legal history. And, Dr. Craft, EPA's repeal
memo claims that the ``once in, always in'' policy violates the
plain language of the Clean Air Act. Was the policy ever
challenged in the courts in its 27-year history?
Dr. Craft. The policy has been around for roughly a quarter
of a century, and as far as I know, it has--actually, I'm not
sure about that, whether it's actually been legally challenged.
Mr. Beyer. It was a rhetorical question because at least
our evidence shows that it's never been questioned in court.
And what's remarkable is that the new EPA Assistant
Administrator William Wehrum filed suit against the EPA 31
times when he was in private practice, and he's the primary
person behind this memo, and yet he never challenged it as a
private citizen either.
You know, the decision to increase hazardous air
pollutants, carcinogens, and neurotoxins is completely
irresponsible, and this decision is even more reckless today
given that we know we can successfully control them with
operating control devices, long-range applicable regulations.
And it's the responsibility of the EPA to continue to guard the
health and human environment against potential harms. And
that's why I led a letter with Congresswoman Dingell with 87
cosponsors asking Administrator Pruitt to reinstate these
longstanding toxic air pollution protections. And, Mr.
Chairman, I ask that this be admitted to the record.
Chairman Biggs. Without objection.
[The information follows:]*************** COMMITTEE INSERT
***************
Mr. Beyer. Dr. Clark--Dr. Craft rather, there have been
cases made well by your three panelists about background
radiation or background ozone levels. And one of the--and
you've pointed out in the questions from Chairman Smith that in
fact EPA, the Clean Air Act, already takes this into
consideration. But one of the questions was that a
demonstration can only be submitted after three years of the
area not meeting the standard. This was for Yuma particularly.
Is three years too long?
Dr. Craft. The reason--oh, sorry. The reason for that
three-year requirement is that they don't--EPA does not want to
penalize an area for having sort of a bad year, so what they do
is they average the previous three years to account for any
anomalies that might exist. So that's the purpose of the 3
years.
I just wanted to go back and mention your ``once in, always
in'' question. One of the things that we've done as an
organization is we've gone through to analyze the potential
outcome of reversing such a policy. One of the things that can
happen is that this policy--this loophole that's been created
applies to major sources of hazardous air pollutants under
section 112, and it allows these facilities to reclassify
themselves as area sources if they dip below the threshold
value, which is 10 tons per year for a single hazard air
pollutant or 25 tons per year of a combination of hazardous air
pollutants, whereas before, once they were classified as major,
they had to continue applying those controls regardless of
those emissions.
So in this example a source that had been previously
classified as a major for lead and other HAPs, if they went
down to one ton per year, they could under the new policy stop
applying those maximum achievable control technologies and then
increase its emissions back to 9 tons per year, still avoiding
being classified as a major source. So that is a critical
issue.
And actually, in 2017, EPA issued a fact sheet stating that
1.7 million tons of hazardous air pollution was prevented
because of that policy, so that's an important issue I just----
Mr. Beyer. Okay.
Dr. Craft. --wanted to go back and clarify.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you. I have one more key issue.
Administrator Pruitt on May 9 issued a memo implying that EPA
might consider costs when setting NAAQS standards despite
settled Supreme Court precedent. The standards must be based on
public health. And I don't think I've ever quoted Justice
Scalia positively before, but he wrote the unanimous decision
from the Court that only public health factors may be
considered. And I'd like to submit another letter for the
record signed by 71 Members, Mr. Chairman, objecting to this.
But I'd love your perspective, Dr. Craft.
Chairman Biggs. Admitted without objection.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you.
[The information appears in Appendix I]
Dr. Craft. Yes, that is totally outside the specific
language of the Clean Air Act to require cost to be considered.
Costs are considered in another part of--in terms of
implementation, not in terms of setting the policy--the
scientific standard itself.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Biggs. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
witnesses, for being here.
Mr. Stella, in your testimony you also state that for the
areas that have seen elevated levels of ozone over the last ten
years, an increase in background ozone is likely to blame. Can
you please elaborate how you know this to be true?
Mr. Stella. Thank you for the question.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stella. Specifically, we don't have values that would
allow us to interpret how much of the increased international
or background contribution is there, but what we do recognize
is that when we run our photochemical models and look at our
source apportionment studies, which basically tags the input to
the model, follows it through time and space, and then we look
at the ozone concentrations at each monitor, we're seeing that
as anthropogenic emissions are being applied locally in our
States, the ozone concentrations are being offset by an
increase from this background contribution component. Now,
whether or not that's all international anthropogenic or
international biogenic is uncertain, but the studies seem to
indicate that, based on our source apportionment runs, the
relative percentage of the background ozone is increasing
compared to the reductions we're seeing from anthropogenic
controls domestically.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, you had mentioned modeling. Would
you discuss some of the improvements being made to modeling
through collaborations like the one between NOAA, NASA, and
EPA?
Mr. Stella. Absolutely. Some of the work that's ongoing at
those agencies include looking at the performance evaluation of
the models. Are we adequately predicting and projecting levels
of background ozone. And so, for example, along the West Coast
of the United States where we have a very clean boundary and we
can measure ozone as it comes across the Pacific, studies are
being conducted with satellites, with ozone sons, with high-
elevation monitors, and so we're trying to capture with better
accuracy the amounts of emissions that are coming in without a
domestic anthropogenic or biogenic influence. And so those are
some of the studies that are being conducted, in addition to
looking at the air chemistry involved with the ozone formation
as it's developed over the oceans, as well as attempting to
better understand the impact of wildfires and biogenics, and so
looking at the inputs that go into our modeling.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. And then, Ms. Rath, reducing
ozone emissions can stifle economic development in a region
because of the impacts to construction industry and businesses.
Do you have any sense of how much it costs for your area to
comply with these regulations?
Ms. Rath. Yes, sir. Thank you. As I had mentioned, we had a
study that was performed by an economist at St. Mary's
University, and he said that with a marginal designation, our
eight-county MSA would have costs at a minimal level of $117
million a year up to a maximum of a little over $1 billion a
year, so that's the cost annually if we were to go into a
marginal status of nonattainment. And then we also have the
figures for moderate.
And if I may, Congressman, I would like to say----
Mr. Babin. Sure.
Ms. Rath. --that we have certainly seen an increase in the
foreign transport in our area. In 2015, we were about 29
percent foreign, and it's increased in 2017 to 38 percent
foreign. So we're clearly seeing a much larger impact of
foreign transport, and it's because of the improvements that we
have done locally with the local generation going down, so that
percentage that's foreign has certainly increased at least in
our area.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you very much. And then, Mr.
Franquist, would you please explain the potential economic
impacts on a rural community if it's determined to be in
nonattainment for ozone?
Mr. Franquist. Thank you, and good question. Unfortunately,
I don't have the same numbers for an area like Yuma. What I can
say is, thanks to the good work that Texas has done, we
actually scaled a similar economic study for Phoenix's
nonattainment area, and that's somewhere in the neighborhood of
$80-100 million, again, per year annually.
For a place like Yuma, I think the cost you have to look in
is it voided businesses coming into the area? We know that in
the Phoenix area we lost four large businesses coming into the
nonattainment area just to avoid the offsets and layer
requirements. So, unfortunately, I can't give you a dollar
sign, but I can say it's significant in terms of job loss or
job avoidance.
Mr. Babin. Yes, so I mean it's definitely an impact.
Mr. Franquist. Correct.
Mr. Babin. A number of businesses just won't come into that
area because of the nonattainment.
Mr. Franquist. That's correct.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, I think my time's expired. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. The gentleman yields.
And we're going to turn to the gentleman from California,
Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Craft, I'm--this probably has been asked, but I want to
ask it again. The current law permits mainly health concerns
and science to drive ozone standards, is that correct? It's not
economic impact, is that correct?
Dr. Craft. Correct.
Mr. Takano. And that's been--I think Mr. Beyer submitted
for the record Supreme Court decisions which reaffirmed that.
And I know that even the majority in this House respects the
first branch of government, the legislative branch, as the
maker of the laws, and it's, I think, inappropriate for the EPA
to decide if they're going to use some other criteria to decide
the levels of ozone that are permissible in regulation.
Dr. Craft. Yes.
Mr. Takano. Yes. Are you familiar with the Inland Empire
region of southern California and the work of the Southern
California Air Quality Management District in improving air
quality in my region?
Dr. Craft. Yes.
Mr. Takano. What can you say about that over the past 20,
30 years?
Dr. Craft. I can say that California has been a leader in
developing air quality strategies to reduce emissions.
California has some unique challenges that don't exist anywhere
else in the country, and they have taken that challenge on.
It's one of the most innovative, creative States in terms of
trying to get those reductions. What California has done with
regard to clean car standards is tremendous. We had just this
week actually the State of Colorado signing on to California's
clean car standards. So California has been a model leader for
implementing strategies to reduce pollutants like ozone.
Mr. Takano. I can say from my anecdotal personal experience
that I experienced as a child in the '60s and '70s frequent
days of what we called smog alerts where kids were not allowed
to go out and play because--I think it was because of ozone,
the ozone layers--levels were so high. And I can remember at
night my lungs feeling that burning sensation, and that those
days have been reduced greatly. And I think that's in great
deal--a part--we can attribute that to the aggressive efforts
of the--of the Air Quality Management District in California.
Dr. Craft. Absolutely. And I would say that there's still
more work to do. If you review the State of the Air 2018, it's
estimated that 41 percent of the population of the United
States lives in areas that exceed health-based standards for
pollutants like ozone and particulate matter.
Mr. Takano. And my district in the Inland Empire, we
experience high volumes of traffic from trucking and also other
mobile sources, but we're seeing an increase of truck traffic
as a result of products being shipped to and from logistics
centers in my area. If public health were not the primary
concern in setting ozone standards, would districts like mine
have more to worry about when it comes to air quality and
public health?
Dr. Craft. I think we have to use sound science to
establish these polices. We can't use anything else. Using
anything else jeopardizes the integrity of the science. That's
why we use science. That's why it's so important. We cannot
have policy-led science. We need to have science-led policy.
Mr. Takano. Thank you very much for that. You know, it's my
understanding, Dr. Craft, that the Clean Air Act contains a
number of mechanisms that allow EPA to address high background
levels of ozone, specifically allows for the exclusion of
exceptional events like wildfires and the transport of air
pollution from overseas that contributes to higher ozone
levels. We talked about the good ozone and bad ozone.
This exceptional-events rule was revised in 2016 to address
stakeholder concerns about the rule's clarity and efficiency.
Could you share with us how and why these types of mechanisms
operate to the benefit of public health?
Dr. Craft. Sure. EPA has actually done a lot of work over
the last couple of years trying to address tools, getting tools
in place to help manage ozone. I have a recent white paper from
the agency outlining some of the tools that are available to
manage ozone exceedances from things like exceptional events
and background ozone. So some of those tools are the
exceptional-event exclusions that you mentioned. Small
nonattainment area boundaries for sites minimally impacted by
nearby sources is another. Rural transport areas is another.
And then international transport provisions mentioned here, the
179B, are just a couple of the tools that are in place.
EPA does work hand-in-hand with the States to try to come
up with policies that work for those States. It's not--it's
under an agreement known as cooperative federalism. We want the
Federal Government and the States working hand-in-hand toward
the common goal of protecting public health. That's why the EPA
is there.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Biggs. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Takano. Thank you.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you, sir.
I now recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
I want to begin with a statement regarding the memo that's
received such attention today. Administrator Pruitt, in his
memo on the NAAQS, requested that the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee compile data on background ozone. As we've
just heard in the testimony, that request is in line with Clean
Air Act and its interpretation by the courts, including such
cases as American Trucking Associations v. EPA. The
Administrator of EPA is permitted by law to consider background
ozone in NAAQS implementation.
And with that, Mr. Franquist, Yuma County, bordered by
Mexico, bordered by California, a rural county, very few big
businesses, very few even medium-sized businesses in it, is it
possible for Yuma County to reach attainment even under
diligent efforts to offset emissions?
Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman, I think it's unlikely, given
the sources. When we look at the National Emissions Inventory
for volatile organic compounds and NOx, the two precursors for
ozone, we're looking at something in the neighborhood of two
percent for VOCs and five percent from vehicles--from
essentially anthropogenic sources in the Yuma area. So you
likely could remove all industrial activities in the Yuma area,
but because of the influence of international sources, you
would likely still have a challenge of attaining the standard.
Chairman Biggs. So we hear about the impacts of ozone on
health, but we just talked about you could actually eliminate
all industrial outputs and still fail to meet the NAAQS
requirement levels. So that would further induce poverty into
that area. And so what's the health impacts of poverty? What
have the studies said about that?
Mr. Franquist. Mr. Chairman, we've referenced a couple
today and we've supplied several in the past, but, again, the
connection for poverty and ill health is enormous. We know in
areas like Yuma when we're 19 percent unemployment, what that
does is it adds a burden to healthy foods, access to health
care, so it goes hand-in-hand. And so, again, there's numerous
academic articles linking public health issues and the economy,
and so, again, that's why we don't challenge that ozone in and
of itself is a problem. However, when that ozone's coming from
somewhere else and the Clean Air Act is designed to impact
negatively those local economies, now those impoverished areas
have a one-two punch. And so, again, we think it's really valid
to begin to look at how the Clean Air Act is designed to
protect public health and the environment but to also relieve
some of those areas of some of the significant economic impacts
that go with the 179B demonstration.
Chairman Biggs. And, Mr. Stella, in your testimony you
discussed a diminishing rate of return on U.S.-controlled
programs impacting air quality as the incremental cost of every
ton of emissions increases. Can you elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Stella. Certainly. Thank you for the question. In
essence, what we're seeing is that, as a series of controls
have already been historically put in place and we see domestic
ozone reduced from the anthropogenic sources that we have
control over, and an ever-increasing relative contribution of
uncontrollable sources, whether or not the international
transport or background or stratospheric intrusions and the
like. As we try to get each additional ton reduced to improve
our air quality, the cost becomes higher and higher, and it's
simply because we're not getting the same response out of a
reduction of one ton of NOx or VOC, for example, to reduce an
equal amount of ozone concentration. And so as we get lower and
lower and we see a greater percentage of uncontrollable sources
dominate what our ambient conditions are, it's going to cost
more to reduce less.
Chairman Biggs. Thank you. I would like to elaborate on
that just for a second. As we see the diminishing return
economically, do you see it--is there a diminishing return as
far as health conditions and improvement in health as you move
from, say, 70 NOx down to 69, for instance?
Mr. Stella. I'm not sure that that's a question for me, not
being my area of expertise, but as a scientist, I would believe
that, as you see the ozone levels decreasing, you see
improvements in health.
Chairman Biggs. Is there a statistical--well, you just said
it's not your area, so I'm just wondering if there's a
statistical diminution, but regardless, we have reached
basically the end of our time today. I appreciate all of you
for coming and sharing your testimony. I think it's important
for us as this allows for a robust discussion, and we need a
robust discussion on these issues. And there's a lot of
considerations, a lot of variables that we have to take into
account.
I appreciate those on both sides of the aisle for being
here and participating today, and with that, we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Committee Chairman
Lamar S. Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]