[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REALITY CHECK: THE IMPACT
AND ACHIEVABILITY OF EPA'S
PROPOSED OZONE STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 17, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-888 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
March 17, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Mr. Harry C. Alford, President and CEO, National Black Chamber of
Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Mr. Raymond Keating, Chief Economist, Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Dr. Mary B. Rice, Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School,
Pulmonary and Critical Care Physician, Division of Pulmonary,
Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center, Boston MA
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Dr. Allen S. Lefohn, President, A.S.L. & Associates
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Mr. Eldon Heaston, Executive Director, Mojave Desert AQMD,
Antelope Valley AQMD
Oral Statement............................................... 54
Written Statement............................................ 56
Discussion....................................................... 61
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Harry C. Alford, President and CEO, National Black Chamber of
Commerce....................................................... 90
Mr. Raymond Keating, Chief Economist, Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council....................................... 91
Dr. Mary B. Rice, Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School,
Pulmonary and Critical Care Physician, Division of Pulmonary,
Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center, Boston MA.............................................. 97
Dr. Allen S. Lefohn, President, A.S.L. & Associates.............. 101
Mr. Eldon Heaston, Executive Director, Mojave Desert AQMD,
Antelope Valley AQMD........................................... 199
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 204
Letter submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 250
Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 265
Article submitted by Representative Randy K. Weber, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 292
Letter submitted by Representative John R. Moolenaar, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 300
Letter submitted by Representative Thomas Massie, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 308
Letter submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 310
Documents submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 312
Letter submitted by Representative Frank D. Lucas, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 320
Documents submitted by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 323
REALITY CHECK: THE IMPACT.
AND ACHIEVABILITY OF EPA'S.
PROPOSED OZONE STANDARDS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing, titled ``Reality Check: The Impact
and Achievability of EPA's Proposed Ozone Standards''. I will
recognize myself for an opening statement, and then the Ranking
Member.
Today is the final date to submit comments on the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, or as it is sometimes called, NAAQS. The
agency's proposal seeks to lower the standard to 65 to 70 parts
per billion, from the current 75 parts per billion standard
that was set in 2008, and is only now being implemented. Our
hearing will review the impact of this proposed regulation, and
whether it can be implemented.
By law, the EPA is required to review the ozone standard
every five years, but the agency is not required to set new
standards. According to EPA's own website, and this is on the
PowerPoint screens on either side, according to EPA's own
website, since 1980 ozone levels have decreased by 33 percent,
while volatile organic compounds have decreased by over 50
percent. The air we breathe is significantly cleaner, and will
continue to improve, thanks to new technologies.
However, it is premature and unnecessary for the EPA to
propose a new standard when we have not yet given states the
opportunity to meet the 2008 standard. Many of the technologies
that the EPA forces states to use either do not exist, or will
be excessively expensive. In its regulatory impact analysis,
the EPA assumes that these controls will somehow just
automatically be implemented. As this next chart shows, at 70
parts per billion, over 60 percent of the costs of the program
are based upon so-called unknown controls, and at 65 parts per
billion, unknown controls become 75 percent of the estimated
cost. By the EPA's own admission, this rule is unworkable.
I am also concerned that the science used to justify this
rule is not good science. These proposed standards are
impossible to meet in some places. The ozone level that occurs
naturally would be above the standard set by the EPA, which
would mean trying to beat Mother Nature. International
transport of ozone from countries like China and Mexico further
complicate attaining the existing ozone standards. The EPA has
failed to adequately consider these issues. The proposed air
quality change could cause many areas to be out of compliance
with the Clean Air Act through no fault of their own.
We should all be concerned about the process the EPA used
to reach their conclusions. During earlier stages of this
rulemaking, EPA relied upon studies with data that was not
publicly available. This raises a lot of suspicions.
Furthermore, the EPA has regularly chosen to disregard
inconvenient scientific conclusions, and muzzled dissenting
voices. This hearing provides an example of why we should
support both the Secret Science Reform Act, and the Science
Advisory Board Reform Act, which are on the House floor this
week. The Secret Science Reform Act requires that the EPA use
the best available science in an honest and transparent manner.
The Science Advisory Board Reform Act promotes fairness,
transparency, and public participation to ensure unbiased
scientific advice.
There will be serious economic consequences if the EPA
moves forward with new ozone standards. Implementation of this
rule will cost billions of dollars, and adversely affect many
Americans. The cost is certain, but the health benefits are
not. Today's witnesses will testify on how this proposed rule
will impact American small businesses and job creation.
According to the Business Roundtable's analysis, nearly 60
percent of Americans would live in areas of non-attainment,
including 45 of 50 states that would be completely or partially
violating the standard. A non-attainment designation under the
Clean Air Act has serious consequences. It stops new employers
from moving into the state. Businesses would be forced to deal
with additional burdensome permitting and compliance
obligations, which halts expansion and economic development.
Ultimately, good jobs will be lost. This rule could be
devastating.
Many communities still struggle to meet the standards that
were set in 2008. Other communities have never met the
standards set in 1979. State and local municipalities will bear
the brunt of the regulatory cost. Tighter regulations also will
hamper economic recovery, and put additional burdens on the
backs of hard working American families. According to a
February 2015 National Economic Research Associates
comprehensive study, average annual household consumption could
be reduced by $830 per year. In addition, families will have to
pay for higher energy costs.
In 2010 businesses and communities across the country
protested the EPA's efforts to tighten these standards. The
overwhelming concerns eventually forced President Obama to
withdraw the proposal. The President does not have any reason
to propose these new rules, since our air is already becoming
clearer. These are the wrong regulations at the wrong time. The
EPA should reconsider their proposed rule, and keep the
existing 2008 standard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Chairman Lamar Smith
Today is the final day to submit comments on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
The Agency's proposal seeks to lower the standard to 65-70 parts
per billion (ppb), from the current 75 ppb standard that was set in
2008 and is only now being implemented. Our hearing will review the
impact of this proposed regulation and whether it can be implemented.
By law, the EPA is required to review the ozone standard every five
years, but the agency is not required to set new standards. According
to EPA's own website, since 1980, ozone levels have decreased by 33
percent and Volatile Organic Compounds have decreased by over 50
percent.
The air we breathe is significantly cleaner and will continue to
improve thanks to new technologies. However, it is premature and
unnecessary for the EPA to propose a new standard when we have not yet
given states the opportunity to meet the 2008 standard. Many of the
technologies that the EPA forces states to use either do not exist or
will be excessively expensive.
In its Regulatory Impact Analysis, the EPA assumes that these
controls will somehow just automatically be implemented. As this chart
shows, at 70 ppb, over 60 percent of the costs of the program are based
on so-called ``unknown controls.'' And at 65 ppb, unknown controls
become 75 percent of the estimated costs. By the EPA's own admission,
this rule is unworkable.
I am also concerned that the science used to justify this rule is
not good science. These proposed standards are impossible to meet in
some places. The ozone level that occurs naturally would be above the
standard set by the EPA, which would mean trying to beat Mother Nature.
International transport of ozone from countries like China and
Mexico further complicate attaining the existing ozone standards. The
EPA has failed to adequately consider these issues. We should all be
concerned about the process the EPA used to reach their conclusions.
During earlier stages of this rule making, EPA relied on studies with
data that was not publically available. This raises a lot of
suspicions. Furthermore, the EPA has regularly chosen to disregard
inconvenient scientific conclusions and muzzled dissenting voices.
This hearing provides an example of why we should support both the
Secret Science Reform Act and the Science Advisory Board Reform Act,
which are on the House floor this week.
The Secret Science Reform Act requires that the EPA use the best
available science in an honest and transparent manner. The Science
Advisory Board Reform Act promotes fairness, transparency, and public
participation to ensure unbiased scientific advice.
There will be serious economic consequences if the EPA moves
forward with new ozone standards. Implementation of this rule will cost
billions of dollars and adversely affect many Americans. The cost is
certain but the health benefits are not.
Today's witnesses will testify on how this proposed rule will
impact American small businesses and job creation. According to the
Business Roundtable's analysis, nearly 60 percent of Americans would
live in areas of non-attainment, including 45 of 50 states that would
be completely or partially violating the standard.
A non-attainment designation under the Clean Air Act has serious
consequences. It stops new employers from moving into the state.
Businesses would be forced to deal with additional burdensome
permitting and compliance obligations, which halt expansion and
economic development. Ultimately, good jobs will be lost.
This rule could be devastating. Many communities still struggle to
meet the standards that were set in 2008. Other communities have never
met the standards set in 1979. State and local municipalities will bear
the brunt of the regulatory costs.
Tighter regulations also will hamper economic recovery and put
additional burdens on the backs of hard-working American families.
According to a February 2015 National Economic Research Associates
comprehensive study, the average annual household consumption could be
reduced by $830 per year. In addition, families will have to pay for
higher energy prices.
In 2010, businesses and communities across the country protested
the EPA's efforts to tighten these standards. The overwhelming concerns
eventually forced President Obama to withdraw the proposal.
The President does not have any reason to propose these new rules
since our air is already becoming cleaner.
These are the wrong regulations at the wrong time. The EPA should
reconsider their proposed rule and keep the existing 2008 standard.
Chairman Smith. Now, that concludes my opening statement,
and the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, Eddie
Bernice Johnson, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to our witnesses for being here this morning. We are here
today to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal
to lower the standard for ozone, the pollutant that causes
smog, from the current standard of 75 parts per billion to a
standard in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion.
The scientific evidence supports a lower standard for ozone
than we currently have. According to the EPA's analysis,
strengthening the standard will provide better protection for
our children by preventing 320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks.
It will keep them from missing 330,000 to 1 million days in
school each year, and it will stop between 750 to 4,300
premature deaths. As someone who worked in the public health
field before I entered politics, I am a nurse. I am very
sensitive to the problem poor air quality can have on the
health of Americans, especially the young and the infirm.
Unfortunately, those of us from Dallas-Fort Worth region--
he is from San Antonio, so it must be much better--are very
familiar with the negative effects of smog, and are accustomed
to seeing orange and red alert warnings about being outside
because the air is too polluted to be safe. In fact, the
American Lung Association gives the air quality in Dallas a
grade of F, which means that the health of our--my constituents
is seriously at risk. It is clear that air quality related
illnesses have a very real and destructive effect on the
economy, on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars
annually, and the benefits of reducing those effects will be
seen throughout the country.
Despite that, some will argue that EPA's proposed standard
will kill jobs, decimate the industrial base, and result in
irreparable economic disruption. This is not a new story. It is
what has been said for decades about every major environmental
and consumer protection, from catalytic converters, to
scrubbers, to seat belts. We all know that none of these
predictions have come true. In fact, there is much more
evidence showing that, on balance, jobs are created, and the
economy expands following the passage of major reforms. For
example, the U.S. economy grew by 64 percent in the years
following the passage of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, in a
report to Congress on the cost and benefits of federal
regulations, OMB estimated that major rules promulgated by EPA
between 2003 and 2013 had been benefits between $165 billion
and $850 billion, compared to the cost of just 38 billion to 46
billion. This is significant return on investment.
And however much we might wish for a world where big
environmental issues are addressed voluntarily by industry, or
through the workings of the free market, we all know that it
just does not work that way. Now more than ever the American
people need a strong EPA to protect their right to clean air
and clean water. Let me be clear, I am not insensitive to some
of the concerns we will likely hear today. But I want to remind
everyone that EPA, as required by law, must set the ozone
standard at a level that will protect public health based on
the science, and not based on cost or technical feasibility.
The health of Americans must come first.
That said, I am confident, based on past precedence, that
ultimately these regulations act as a catalyst for the creation
of new jobs in industrial sectors. Stricter pollution limits
force us to push the envelope of scientific innovation and
create new technologies. According to the Department of
Commerce, the United States is the world's largest producer of
environmental protection technologies. Indeed, at $782 billion,
the market for environmental goods and services is comparable
to the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries, and present
important opportunities for the U.S. industry. Thankfully, poll
after poll shows that the public agrees with me, and believes--
even in Texas, and believes that the EPA should protect their
right to clean air and water, more than they believe that
pollution is the price they must pay for an economic security.
Although significant process has been made in the past 40
years, it is our job now to build up on the legacy, and ensure
that we continue to improve the quality of our air. A strong
economy, and a healthy environment, are not mutually exclusive.
The Clean Air Science Advisory Committee recommends lowering
the ozone standards, and I think we should listen to our
scientists. We can, and must, do better for current and future
generations.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here this morning. We are here today to discuss the Environmental
Protection Agency's proposal to lower the standard for ozone, the
pollutant that causes smog, from the current standard of 75 parts per
billion to a standard in the range of 65 to 70 parts per billion. The
scientific evidence supports a lower standard for ozone than we
currently have. According to the EPA's analysis, strengthening the
standard will provide better protection for our children by preventing
320,000 to 960,000 asthma attacks; it will keep them from missing
330,000 to 1 million days in school; and it will stop between 750 and
4,300 premature deaths.
As someone who worked in the public health field before I entered
politics, I am very sensitive to the problem poor air quality can have
on the health of Americans, especially the young and the infirm.
Unfortunately, those of us from the Dallas-Fort Worth region are very
familiar with the negative effects of smog and are accustomed to seeing
orange and red alerts warning us about being outside because the air is
too polluted for it to be safe. In fact, the American LungAssociation
gives the air quality in Dallas a grade of F--which means that the
health of my constituents is seriously at risk.
It's clear that air quality-related illnesses have a very real and
destructive effect on the economy--on the order of hundreds of billions
of dollars annually--and the benefits of reducing those effects will be
seen throughout the country.
Despite that, some will argue that EPA's proposed standard will
kill jobs, decimate the industrial base, and result in irreparable
economic disruption. This is not a new story. It's what's been said for
decades about every major environmental and consumer protection--from
catalytic converters to scrubbers to seatbelts. We all know that none
of those predictions have come true. In fact, there is much more
evidence showing that on balance, jobs are created and the economy
expandsfollowing the passage of major reforms.
For example, the U.S. economy grew by 64 percent in the years
following passage of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, in a report to
Congress on the costs and benefits of federal regulations, OMB
estimated that major rules promulgated by the EPA between 2003 and 2013
had benefits between $165 billion and $850 billion, compared to costs
of just $38 billion to $46 billion. That is a significant return on
investment.
And however much we might wish for a world where big environmental
issues are addressed voluntarily by industry or through the workings of
the free market, we all know that it just does not work that way. Now,
more than ever, the American people need a strong EPA to protect their
right to clean air and water.
Let me be clear, I am not insensitive to some of the concerns we
will likely hear today. But I want to remind everyone that the EPA--as
required by law--must set the ozone standard at a level that will
protect public health based on the science and not based on cost or
technical feasibility. The health of Americans must come first. That
said, I am confident, based on past precedents that ultimately these
regulations act as a catalyst for the creation of new jobs and
industrial sectors. Stricter pollutions limits force us to push the
envelope of scientific innovation and create new technologies.
According to the Department of Commerce, the United States is the
world's largest producer of environmental protection technologies.
Indeed at $782 billion, the market for environmental goods and services
is comparable to the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries and
presents important opportunities for U.S. industry.
Thankfully, poll after poll shows that the public agrees with me
and believes that the EPA should protect their right to clean air and
water more than they believe that pollution is the price they must pay
for economic security.
Although significant progress has been made in the past 40 years,
it is our job now to build upon this legacy and ensure that we continue
to improve the quality of our air. A strong economy and a healthy
environment are not mutually exclusive. The Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee recommends lowering the ozone standard, and I think we should
listen to our scientists. We can and must do better for current and
future generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and I will
introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Harry Alford, the President, Chief
Executive Officer, and co-founder of the National Black Chamber
of Commerce. Mr. Alford put his leadership skills to work in a
series of key sales and executive positions at Fortune 100
companies such as Proctor and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, and
the Sara Lee Corporation. He is also an active member of the
Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he
chairs the Government Oversight and Consumer Affairs Committee.
Mr. Alford attended the University of Wisconsin, and received
top honors as Company Commander at the Army's Officer Candidate
School.
Our next witness is Mr. Raymond Keating, the Chief
Economist of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council is a national
non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization that seeks to
promote entrepreneurship and protect small business. Mr.
Keating writes and speaks on a wide range of issues that impact
the entrepreneurial sector of the economy. He received his
Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration and Economics from
St. Joseph's College, his Master's in Economics from New York
University, and his MBA in Banking and Finance from Hofstra
University.
Our next witness is Dr. Mary Rice, a pulmonary and critical
care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at
Harvard Medical School in Boston. At Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center, Dr. Rice cares for patients with pulmonary
diseases in clinic and in the hospital. In addition, she is a
member of the Environmental Health Policy Committee of the
American Thoracic Society. Dr. Rice spends the majority of her
time engaged in epidemiologic research and studies, and health
effects of day to day and long term air pollution exposure in
large cohort studies of children and adults. Dr. Rice received
her M.D. from Harvard University.
Our next witness is Dr. Allen S. Lefohn, President and
Founder of A.S.L. and Associates. Dr. Lefohn has published over
125 peer reviewed publications, edited four books, and
participated in a number of panel presentations. During his
almost 50 year career, Dr. Lefohn has focused on understanding
the relative importance of background ozone. He also developed
exposure response relationships and indices that describe the
effects of ozone on vegetation and human health, as well as the
analysis of air quality data in biologically relevant forms for
assessment purposes. Dr. Lefohn is an emeritus editor of the
journal ``Atmospheric Environment.'' He received his Ph.D. in
physical chemistry from the University of California at
Berkeley.
I will now yield to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Knight, to introduce our final witness, Mr. Eldon Heaston, who
is the Executive Director of the Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District and the Antelope Valley AQMD. And the
gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an honor to
introduce a constituent of mine. Eldon Heaston was appointed
executive director of the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District in March 2006. During his 23 years with the district,
Heaston has worked to build and uphold its reputation as one of
the most progressive and accessible air districts in the state.
Before joining the district, Heaston spent over 11 years in the
aerospace and petrochemical industry, where he held various
positions in operations, industrial hygiene, and environmental
management.
Heaston recently served six years as governor's appointee
to the state's Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee,
which evaluated the effectiveness of California's smog check
program, and recommended program improvements. And I have a
little bit of a connection to Eldon. My father created the
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District legislation in
California. Mr. Heaston was very much a part of that, so, I
thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight. We will proceed with
our testimony today. And, Mr. Alford, if you will begin?
TESTIMONY OF MR. HARRY C. ALFORD,
PRESIDENT AND CEO,
NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Alford. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, and distinguished Members of the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology. My name is Harry C. Alford, and I am the
President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
The NBCC represents 2.1 million black owned businesses within
the United States. I am here to testify about the Environmental
Protection Agency's proposal to lower the ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Lowering the ozone standard, particularly to the level
suggested by EPA, will almost certainly cause economic harm to
the National Black Chamber of Commerce members, and will shut
off huge parts of the country from economic development and job
growth. As the country continues to recover from the recession,
we should be finding ways to put Americans back to work, and to
attract business here in the U.S. We should not be piling on
yet another rushed, unreasonable regulation on the backs of
American businesses.
As you are aware, last November EPA proposed lowering the
primary ozone standard to a range of 65 to 70 parts per
billion. Now the agency is taking comments on lower the
standard down to 60 parts per billion. The current 75 parts per
billion standard was finalized in March 2008. Significantly,
that standard is being implemented. In fact, the EPA only
finalized the implementation guidelines for the 2008 standard
last month. The comment period for the new proposal closes
today, and, under a court order, EPA must finalize the rule by
October the 1st, 2015.
Last month the National Association of Manufacturers
released an economic study by NERA Economic Consulting on the
impacts of EPA lowering the ozone standard to 65 parts per
billion. The study estimates that a 65 parts per billion
standard would reduce the GDP by 140 billion, resulting in 1.4
million fewer jobs, and it costs the average U.S. household
$830 in lost consumption each year, from 2017 to 2040.
One local area's business community is speaking out about
feeling the negative impacts of the EPA ozone proposal. Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, and the surrounding area, are home to many
successful manufacturing and industrial facilities that help
drive the economic livelihood of the area, and the country as a
whole. In recent years, the state has worked hard to decrease
ozone levels in Baton Rouge. Following a period of non-
attainment, Baton Rouge was found to be in compliance with the
current 75 parts per billion ozone standard in April 2014.
In 2014, the Baton Rouge area Chamber of Commerce worked
with four chemical manufacturers who were investigating
significant investments in the area. Two of the companies
executed purchase agreements on sizable industrial locations,
with the intent to develop them. Unfortunately, all four
companies later decided to search elsewhere for their
investments. The companies all indicated that EPA's ozone
proposal, with the threat of the ozone standard being lowered,
and the area falling back into non-attainment, influence their
decisions to pull the plug on the projects in the Baton Rouge
area.
In addition to the adverse economic impacts of the EPA's
ozone proposal, those already being felt, and the ones being
estimated, I would like to bring to the Committee's attention
the following additional concerns that the National Black
Chamber of Commerce has with the proposal. First, EPA should
retain current 75 parts per billion ozone standard, and fully
implement it. States didn't even find out which of their
counties would be designated as non-attainment until the 2008
standard--under the 2008 standard until April 2012.
Additionally, EPA did not finalize the necessarily
implementation regulations and guidance for the 2008 standard
until recently, in February 2015. States are committing time
and money to meet the 2008 ozone standard, yet EPA now wants to
move the goalposts in the middle of the game. This further
strains what are already limited resources that states have for
implementation, and fails to give states the chance to meet the
current ozone standard.
Secondly, compliance with the new proposal standard may be
unachievable. Many areas have high background levels of ozone
from vegetation wildfires, transport of ozone from Asia,
Mexico, and other places. These areas may not be able to meet
the proposed standard, even with the most expensive controls.
Notably, the Grand Canyon would fail the proposed 70 parts per
billion standard, and Yellowstone National Park could not meet
the proposed 65 parts per billion.
In conclusion, the NBCC and its members value and support
clean air, clean water, and environmental quality. We also
value and support economic growth, job creation, prosperity for
our individual members, and this country as a whole. These are
not mutually exclusive goals. We hope the EPA will hear the
concerns of our organization and others, retain and fully
implement the current 75 parts per billion standard. We
appreciate the committee holding the hearing, and highlighting
the critical issue. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alford follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Alford.
Mr. Keating?
TESTIMONY OF MR. RAYMOND KEATING, CHIEF ECONOMIST,
SMALL BUSINESS & ENTREPRENEURSHIP COUNCIL
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, Members
of the Committee, thank you for hosting this important hearing
today on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ozone
standards. My name is Raymond Keating. I am Chief Economist
with the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council. We are a
non-partisan, non-profit advocacy, research, and training
organization dedicated to protecting small business, and
advancing entrepreneurship. We have nearly 100,000 members, and
we work with some 250,000 small business activists across the
country.
Regarding the EPA's proposal, SB Council is concerned about
the considerable costs involved with these new regulations,
including the resulting impact for entrepreneurship and small
business. My testimony touches on three important points, the
realities of regulation, economic costs in non-attainment, and
disproportionate impact on small business and new business
formation.
In terms of the realities of regulation, as we look at the
EPA's proposal, it must be made clear that the costs of
regulations are real and significant facts of economic life,
about which small businesses are painfully aware. Some
policymakers seem unconcerned or dismissive about regulatory
costs, even claiming that such government mandates and rules
spur innovation, and related job gains. This view of regulation
is very trouble.
Economics 101 makes clear what to expect from increased
regulation, that is higher costs for businesses and consumers,
reduced market exchanges, and expanded political controls,
resources allocated based on political decisions and
influences, rather than via competition and consumer
sovereignty, and, therefore, diminished economic growth. The
tremendous amount of resources funneled into dealing with
government regulation are not about innovation and new jobs, as
some assert. Rather, they are about massive opportunity costs.
That is, effectively, what is lost because resources must be
used for complying with government regulations.
In fact, the costs of regulation have been confirmed in an
assortment of studies, such as the significant losses in
economic growth, for example two percentage points lost
annually on average due to federal regulation over several
decades, as reported by economist John Dawson at Appalachian
State University, and John Cedar at North Carolina State
University. The $1.9 trillion cost of federal regulation
annually, noted by Clyde Wayne Crews in his report ``Ten
Thousand Commandments'', and the disproportionate burden of
federal regulations on small businesses, as explained by a
series of studies from the Small Business Administration's
Office of Advocacy.
Number two, on economic costs and non-attainment, the EPA's
proposed ozone regulations promise to be no different in terms
of imposing costs, except for the fact that these have been
identified by many as being potentially the most costly federal
regulations ever imposed. The NERA study has already been
referenced, so I won't touch on that right now, but those
numbers are certainly significant. And as NERA, the Business
Roundtable, the American Chemistry Council and others show,
significant portions of the nation are in non-attainment under
the current ozone standards. That will expand significantly
under the proposed EPA mandate.
As for the disproportionate impact on small business, when
you are talking about all sectors of the economy being
negatively affected, directly or indirectly, by the EPA's new
regulation, small business will be hit hardest, as is the case
with nearly all regulations, and given that small businesses
account for the overwhelming majority of firms across our
economy. I will just cite a few industries very quickly that
were noted in the NERA study to have negative impact.
Among manufacturing firms, 75 percent have less than 20
workers. Among key energy industries, 91 percent of employers
in the oil and gas extraction businesses have less than 20
workers. 82 percent of the support activities for oil and gas
operations, less than 20 workers. 59 percent of coal mining
firms actually have less than 20 workers. And 65 percent of
support activities for coal mining, less than 20 workers.
Chemical manufacturing, 62 percent, again, less than 20
workers, so this is clearly about small business.
Small business in non-attainment areas will have a
difficult time starting up, expanding, and competing for
offsets, as those offsets will be expensive, or perhaps not
exist when needed. Compliance will be complex and costly.
Economic opportunity and job creation will suffer. The expense
and red tape will be a barrier to new startups and business
formations. These regulations would hamper local efforts to
spur new business creation, and could, in effect, serve as a
cap on entrepreneurship and small business growth.
Given what has already been achieved, what has not yet been
implemented, and the significant costs, including for small
business, that would come with stricter ozone mandates, one is
left bewildered as to why the EPA is going down this path.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keating follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. All right. Thank you, Mr. Keating.
Dr. Rice?
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARY B. RICE,
INSTRUCTOR IN MEDICINE, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL,
PULMONARY AND CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN,
DIVISION OF PULMONARY,
CRITICAL CARE AND SLEEP MEDICINE,
BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER, BOSTON MA
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dr. Mary Rice. I am
a pulmonary and critical care physician at Beth Israel
Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, and I care
for adults with lung disease, many of whom suffer from asthma
and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, known as COPD. You
have my written testimony before you, and there are just a few
points that I would like to add to the discussion.
First, ozone is bad for people with lung disease, and this
has been known for decades. Ozone is a power oxidant that
irritates the lung tissue, and damages the lung. Hundreds of
research studies in different areas across the U.S. and around
the globe have demonstrated that when people with common
disease, like asthma and COPD, are exposed to ozone, they get
sick.
One of my patients with severe asthma tells me that on
those hot ozone days in the summertime, he feels his chest
tighten up, and he feels like he cannot get enough air. He
stays home from work, and he uses his inhaler around the clock,
but that is not enough, and that is when he calls me, asking
for stronger medications. One summer his breathing difficulties
were so severe that he was hospitalized twice in one summer.
Now, this is just one story, but hundreds have studies have
demonstrated that increases in ozone are associated with people
having to increase the use of medications to control asthma,
having to miss school or work to visit the doctor because their
medications aren't strong enough, going to the emergency room
for respiratory symptoms, and hospitalization for respiratory
illness. And for some, especially the most vulnerable people,
such as the elderly and people with COPD, high ozone days
result in premature death.
Second, what sometimes gets lost is that ozone pollution is
a respiratory irritant for otherwise healthy people too, and
research, including my own work in the Framingham Heart Study
with my colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health, has
shown that when normal healthy adults are exposed to ozone
levels above 60 parts per billion, their lungs do not function
as well as when the ozone level is below 60.
And, third, it doesn't matter where the ozone comes from,
whether it is background ozone, transport ozone from other
countries, ozone created by pollution right here in the U.S.,
our lungs can't tell the difference. Ozone is harmful to our
lungs regardless of its source, and it is especially dangerous
for people with lung disease.
Fourth, when people in the medical community talk about
ozone's impact on public health, what we are really talking
about is the accumulation of all the personal stories that make
up America. And I am sure that many people in this room have
personal stories involving respiratory diseases because they
are just so common. I am a physician and a researcher, but my
most important job is my role as a mother to three children
under the age of six, and one of them, my 1-year-old son, has
had two emergency room visits and one hospitalization for
respiratory disease.
Ozone has been found to increase the risk of emergency room
visits for respiratory infection in young children under the
age of four, and when my son develops a cough, I am terrified
that this could mean the next ambulance ride. And when he is
sick, I cannot go to work, I can't take care of my patients, or
my husband can't go to work, or we have to leave our sick child
home with a caretaker. But we are more fortunate than many
Americans, some of whom risk losing their job, or struggle to
pay for the emergency room visit when they or a loved one
suffers and acute respiratory illness, such as an asthma
attack.
Ozone above 60 parts per billion is harmful to public
health. It increases my son's risk of the next hospital visit.
Nationwide, ozone levels above 60 have been estimated to
increase the number of acute respiratory illnesses by 10
million per year in the United States. My son, and every
American, deserve an ozone standard that is protective.
Lastly, the science is strong and compelling. Since 2006,
when the Bush Administration EPA looked at the ozone standard,
the American Thoracic Society recommended a more protective
standard, 60 parts per billion. We were confident of our
recommendation then, and we are more confident of our
recommendation today. The more scientists and doctors have
studied the health effects of ozone, the more confident the
medical community has become about ozone's harmful effects on
the respiratory health of children, adults, and the elderly.
And the EPA is not basing their proposed standard on one
study or 10 studies. The proposed rule is based on literally
hundreds of studies that demonstrate that the current standard
is not protective. These studies include multiple scientific
methods, including animal toxicology studies, human exposure
studies, observational epidemiology studies, natural experiment
studies, meta-analyses that combine the results of multiple
studies, and the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the
current ozone is not protective of public health, and that
levels in the range of 60 to 75 parts per billion are harming
people with lung disease.
On behalf of the American Thoracic Society, I urge the EPA
and the Administration to finalize a more protective ozone
standard of 60 parts per billion. I would be happy to take
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rice follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Rice.
Dr. Lefohn?
TESTIMONY OF DR. ALLEN S. LEFOHN,
PRESIDENT, A.S.L. & ASSOCIATES
Dr. Lefohn. Thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me
here today. It is a long way from Last Chance Gulch in Helena,
Montana.
My name is Allen Lefohn. As the Chairman has indicated, I
have a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley. I perform research for
environmental organizations, federal and tribal governments,
the U.S. Congress, the White House, the United Nations, and
industrial clients. I have published over 125 peer reviewed
publications, and serve as an executive editor of ``Atmospheric
Environment.'' Today I am speaking on my own behalf.
Background ozone plays an important role in affecting the
selection of the level of the human health standard. In my
testimony I will discuss how current levels of background ozone
make up a substantial portion of the observed ozone across the
United States. As emissions are reduced, EPA has estimated
cumulative mortality and morbidity health risks that will be
heavily impacted by background ozone. EPA's margin of safety is
influence by background ozone.
Why is background important in the standard setting
process? Background ozone is continually contributing to
observed concentrations that influence risk estimates across
the entire United States. Background also contributes to
exceedances of the standard and attainability.
What happens to ozone concentrations when emissions are
reduced to attain the ozone standard? Efforts to control ozone
will not only reduce peak ozone concentrations, but will cause
the low level concentrations to shift upward. The result is
that mid-range values, 25 to 55 parts per billion, will
dominate the distribution of concentrations. EPA's mortality
and morbidity risk estimates are dominated by the mid-range
concentrations. Background makes up a large percentage of these
concentrations.
What is EPA's conclusion about the relative importance of
background ozone? EPA, and our international research team's
findings, agree that background ozone makes up a relatively
large percentage, 70 to greater than 80 percent, of the
observed ozone within the intermountain western U.S., and along
the northern and southern U.S. border. The orange and red
circles in this slide illustrate where the large percentages
occur. For many low elevation sites across the U.S., the
contribution of background ranges from 50 percent to greater
than 80 percent, as illustrated by the green, yellow, orange,
and red colored circles.
What is EPA's opinion on the role that background plays in
attaining alternative ozone standards across the U.S.? EPA
agrees that there is no question that as the levels of
potential alternative standards are lowered, background will
represent increasingly larger percentages of total ozone, and
may subsequently complicate efforts to attain these potential
standards.
How much does background contribute currently within
specific concentration ranges? Yellowstone National Park in
Wyoming is dominated by background ozone throughout the year,
with minor anthropogenic contributions. In this slide, the
relative contribution of background, noted by blue, to
anthropogenic, noted by red, within each concentration level
shows that background contributes greater than 80 percent,
including the mid-range, which is an important range that I
have indicated influences EPA's human health risk estimates. In
the next slide, for Denver, the contribution of background
within the mid-range concentrations is approximately 75 to 80
percent. For Los Angeles, a site heavily influence by
anthropogenic emissions, background contributes 60 to 80
percent in the mid-range.
How does background influence the EPA's human health risk
estimates? As emissions are reduced, background influenced
concentrations in the mid-range dominate the cumulative
mortality health risks. In some cases, 90 percent or more of
the accumulated risk is associated with mid-range for cities
across the U.S. The different colors represent the different
standard scenarios. Results shown here are similar for all 12
cities in the epidemiological risk analysis. The Administrator
has placed greater weight on controlled human exposure studies,
rather than on epidemiological results.
As emissions are reduced, we investigated the degree to
which EPA's lung function risk estimates are affected by the
background influenced concentrations in mid-range for Los
Angeles, Denver, Houston, Philadelphia, and Boston. We found
that three, Los Angeles, Denver, and Houston, of the five
cities, a large percentage of the cumulative frequency of
responses is affected by background influence mid-range.
In conclusion, background will be a regional attainment
problem in the west and the intermountain west. There is no
doubt about that. The EPA Administrator will use the background
influenced EPA mortality, morbidity, and lung function risk
estimates to provide a margin of safety when setting the ozone
standard. Background cannot be ignored, and plays an important
role in informing the administrator on the final selection of
the level of the ozone standard.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lefohn follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Lefohn.
And Mr. Heaston?
TESTIMONY OF MR. ELDON HEASTON,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MOJAVE DESERT AQMD,
ANTELOPE VALLEY AQMD
Mr. Heaston. Good morning. I am Eldon Heaston, the
Executive Director, Air Pollution Control Officer for the
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, and also for the
Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District. I am here as
one of the people who will have to implement the Clean Air Act
provisions that will be triggered if the new ozone NAAQS is
changed. My two districts are located in inland Southern
California, adjacent to, and directly downwind from the Greater
Los Angeles area. Together my districts cover more than 21,000
square miles in three different counties. Area-wise, my
districts are as big as some states.
Antelope and Mojave are overwhelmingly impacted by
transported NOX and VOC, primarily from the Los Angeles basin.
It is this simple fact that drives most of my concerns with the
proposed ozone standard. The ozone precursor inventory for
Antelope Valley and Mojave is approximately 192 tons a day.
This is in comparison to roughly 1,000 or 1,100 tons per day in
the South Coast Air District, our biggest upwind contributor.
So what does this mean? Well, to be blunt, we could shut
everything down in the desert, no industry, no transportation,
no housing, no nothing, and we would still have exceedances of
the current 2008 standard. In fact, my district will never
attain the current standard unless and until our upwind
neighbors manage to do so. Our upwind neighbors, South Coast
and the San Joaquin Valley, are struggling to find sufficient
emission reductions to attain even the current ozone standard.
Their plans rely heavily on technology forcing measures, and
the so-called black box reductions which may not, if ever, be
technologically or economically viable. I fear that if the
proposed ozone standards are enacted that the entire southern
half of California will need to be an all-electric zone to meet
the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
I am also concerned that some of the lower standard
proposals are getting seriously close to the ambient
background. So, I mean, how do you improve air quality better
than ambient? Another problem with this is that the closer the
standard gets to background levels, the greater the impact will
be of long range transported pollutants from other countries
and ships at sea. These are sources over which you and I have
no control.
In general, the Clean Air Act has done a pretty good job of
controlling stationary source emissions. How can we tell? Well,
the emissions inventory has shifted from being mostly
stationary or industrial in nature to be more mobile, and area
source driven. In Mojave and Antelope, mobiles run 61 to 66
percent of our ozone precursors. In South Coast and San
Joaquin, it is 85 and 80 percent respectively. To achieve
attainment, we are going to need to do more about emissions
from planes, trains, ships, and automobiles. Under the Act, a
change in the NAAQS is not going to mandate mobile controls to
the same extent as required for stationary source emissions.
Even if you do control the mobile sources themselves more
effectively, there still remains the problem that, in my
district, over 140,000 residents commute over 60 miles one way
to jobs into the L.A. basin. Inherently the more miles a
vehicle travels, the more pollution on a per vehicle basis.
This means that one of the best, most efficient mobile source
control for my district is to move the jobs closer to the
people. Unfortunately, this will be more difficult with a lower
standard.
The Clean Air Act amendments have been in existence for
over 20 years now. Given where we started, we have come a long
way, and we are making progress. Antelope and Mojave have
managed to attain the old one hour standard. We are only now
beginning to implement the current plans and rules under the
2008 8-hour standard. Unfortunately, the proposed new standards
will change the playing field again. I fear that the net
result, at least in our district, will be to confuse the public
into thinking that air pollution is becoming worse, when,
actually, it is getting better. I also am concerned that it is
going to make it extremely difficult for industry to comply so
soon after upgrading to comply with the current standards.
Despite the fact that it gives me job security, it seems we are
chasing an ever-shifting goal.
One of the things that I think we can all agree upon is
that the intent of the NAAQS is to protect public health. It is
our duty, as responsible government officials, to do this in a
cost-efficient manner by getting the most health protection for
each dollar that we spend on pollution control. A good portion
of our district is open desert, with very little population per
square mile. Part of that area is currently unclassified.
However, if the entire district becomes non-attainment, the
cost of compliance for additional industrial sources in the
outlying areas will increase substantially, hurting even more
small business.
As company compliance spending increases, they generally
cut costs elsewhere, often in personnel. As you are no doubt
aware, economic opportunity and economic status also have a
direct correlation with public health. I fear that the proposed
new NAAQS might improve air quality at the expense of
increasing the health burden caused by the lack of economic
opportunity.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to come and testify
here today, and if there is any additional information I can
provide, I will be glad to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heaston follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Heaston, and I will
recognize myself for questions. And, Mr. Alford, let me direct
my first question to you.
And that is, you touched upon this in your testimony, but
who would be hit the hardest by this proposed rule?
Mr. Alford. Those with fewer resources. People in poverty,
people unemployed, urban inner city areas, rural areas. You
know, people who don't have access to jobs, or their job may be
tentative, or tenuous, and anything like this occurring
eliminates the possibility. Jobs are the linchpin to quality of
life, and to health.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Alford, appreciate that.
Mr. Keating, why would small businesses in non-attainment
areas have a particularly difficult time complying with the
proposed rule?
Mr. Keating. Yeah, think about it from a small business
perspective. The costs, you know, you have seen markets develop
in some of these areas for these kind of trade-offs, and they
are enormously expensive. The regulatory burdens, the
paperwork, all of those things, when you factor that in for a
small business owner, essentially is a stop sign. It is not
even a yield sign. So, again, when you look at the cost of
regulations, when you see how much more costly regulations are
for small businesses versus large businesses, you look at the--
on the environmental front, where, again, the difference is
even greater, this is a clear negative for starting up and
expanding your business.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Keating.
And, Dr. Lefohn, does this proposed rule rely primarily
upon just one study, and if so, what are the limitations of
that study?
Dr. Lefohn. Looking at what the Administrator has placed
into the proposal, it is clear to me that the Schlagele, et al
experiment from 2009 is the key experiment. What Ed Schlagele
did--and I designed the exposures that he used, along with Dr.
Milan Hazucha from UNC, we designed the exposures--what Ed
Schlagele did was expose college students to various levels of
ozone. And in that experiment, he found a statistically
significant effect at what I had designed for a 70 part per
billion exposure, variable exposure, meaning raising and
lowering the concentrations over 6.6 hours. He attained 72
parts per billion over the time period. The net result is the
Administrator has clearly shown and stated within the proposal
that 72 parts per billion is the line that she is going to use.
She then will superimpose on top of that line a margin of
safety. That margin of safety, she has said, she will feel
comfortable in getting down to 70 parts per billion, or to 65
parts per billion. But is the--but it is the Schlagel, et al
experiment that appears to be driving the----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Lefohn. --proposal.
Chairman Smith. And isn't it true that this experiment on
which the rule primarily rests only had 31 participants, or is
that----
Dr. Lefohn. That is correct. There were 31, but a lot of
the experiments are--I think in this case there were supposed
to be 32, but there were----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Lefohn. --but there were 31----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Lefohn. --that were used. But the bottom line is this,
is that those experiments are very expensive and lengthy to do.
The experiment itself, I think that the debate concerning
the level of the standard needs to focus on the strengths and
weaknesses of Ed Schlagele's experiment, and also on the margin
of safety to----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Lefohn. --some of the quantification that will go into
that.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Lefohn.
And, Mr. Heaston, many areas of California are not in
attainment. Does the technology even exist to allow these areas
to comply with the proposed rule?
Mr. Heaston. Right now there is still substantial--what we
call black boxes--I referenced those in my testimony, that
those technologies haven't been developed, and----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Heaston. --they were heavily relied on in order to meet
their attainment----
Chairman Smith. So as a practical matter, how can people
comply with the rule if the technologies don't exist? Or is
that a question----
Mr. Heaston. We have--as an air district, you have to come
up with--means. You have to either go to other categories, or
reduce in other areas. If you can't get it one particular area,
you would have to move over to another category in order to do
it. So someone else would have to--some other area of emissions
in your district would have to be lowered to make up the
difference. Everything has to come out, you know, to
attainment.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Heaston. That
concludes my questions, and the gentlewoman from Texas is
recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I
begin my questions, I have a few items I would like to submit
for the record. First I have two articles from the Center for
Public Integrity, one that provides a clear overview of the
problems ozone causes, and the history of intense lobbying that
surrounds this issue, including the American Petroleum
Institute's efforts to convince America that trees cause as
much ozone pollution as cars.
The second article describes how the State of Texas has
fought against strict ozone standards in tandem with industry,
despite calls from Texans for clean air. Also, since we will
likely be discussing the costs associated with the new ozone
standard, I have here a study sponsored by the Nature
Conservancy and the Dow Chemical Company, which concluded that
re-forestation could be a viable, novel approach for abating
ground level ozone pollution that complements conventional
technology-based controls.
Additionally, I have a letter from the Environmental
Defense Fund that highlights the sky is falling claims from
industry, and the true cost of inaction. The cost to families,
the cost to taxpayers, the cost to hospitals, and it goes on--
--
Chairman Smith. Without----
Ms. Johnson. --affected by ozone. And finally, I have an
article from one of our witnesses, Dr. Rice, which outlines the
scientific evidence in support of lower ozone standards. And I
ask unanimous consent that these items be included in the
record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, those four items will be
made a part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. And although the clock has been running, we
won't subtract the time you took to read those excerpts from
your time for questions, so we will start over again, and give
the Ranking Member five minutes for questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, you are
getting better.
In your testimony, Dr. Rice, you state that while the
recommended standards of 60 parts per billion endorsed by the
physician community has not changed, the scientific evidence
supporting the recommendation has significantly strengthened.
You reviewed some of this new scientific evidence in your
testimony, but can you please go over it one more time? How has
the body of scientific evidence changed over the last seven
years, and is there a particular set of studies or results that
have significantly advanced our understanding of the impacts of
ozone on public health?
Dr. Rice. Certainly, Congresswoman, thank you. So nearly
ten years ago, in 2006, the American Thoracic Society
recommended a 60 part per billion standard, as you discussed,
and that was based on the evidence available at that time. And
since that time, we have been able to study the effects of
ozone, both in the U.S. and in Europe, as ozone levels have
continued to decline, thanks to the successes of the Clean Air
Act that we have already realized. And that has allowed us to
study--to have a larger number of studies where ozone levels
are lower, with many studies where ozone levels average in the
ranges of 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. And I would say, as a
scientist, I look for consistency among multiple studies before
I begin to conclude that a particular exposure is associated
with a particular health effect. And this has really been the
case with research on ozone, because there has been remarkable
consistency, both from the evidence that was available in 2006,
and the additional evidence that has accumulated over the last
8 to 9 years.
You asked whether there are particular sets of studies that
I would highlight, and I would say that there are now more
sophisticated studies that examine the effects of multiple
pollutants, not just one pollutant at a time, to try to
disentangle the effects of the different pollutants, because
some of them share the same sources. And the studies have
generally found that the effect of ozone is independent of
other pollutants, that it is not the same health effect as, for
example, particulate matter. And there are also now a
significantly larger number of studies looking at health
effects in children, and particularly respiratory infection in
very young children. That evidence has significantly
strengthened over the last 8 to nine years. And perhaps a third
set of studies I would emphasize is the body of evidence
surrounding the association between ozone exposure and
mortality. That association is very robust, whether you look
here in the United States, you look in Europe, you look in
South America. Combining the results of multiple studies, that
association is seen over and over again.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. I know that some of your research
has focused on the health implications of climate change. It is
my understanding that, while EPA projections show that ozone
levels will continue to decline, over the next decade
especially, if standards such as the one we are discussing
today are implement, the research also indicates that
temperature changes associated with climate change have the
potential to offset improvements in ozone air quality. Can you
please comment on this, and the health implications of climate
change, especially changes in ozone?
Dr. Rice. Certainly. Ozone is a secondary pollutant, and it
is formed as a result of chemical reactions between nitrogen
oxides, volatile organic compounds, and those reactions are
promoted in the presence of higher temperatures and sunlight.
And so one of the major health consequences of high temperature
events is also high ozone events, and that is actually what
experience has shown, as we have seen a number of heat waves in
the last decade. When those heat waves have happened, ozone
levels have reached dangerously high levels. And because of
that, we have seen higher rates of admissions for respiratory
disease, and higher mortality. That has gotten, certainly, a
lot of attention in the press during these high temperature
events, heat waves.
And when scientists have gone back to try to determine what
the causes of those increases in mortality have been, they
found that some of the increased death is due to the
temperature itself, but some of that higher death is due to the
higher ozone levels that accompany the higher temperatures. So
that is just all the more reason, with the change in climate,
that we need an ozone standard that is protective.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time
has----
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. The gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everybody wants clean
air and clean water. And I really love the quote of Mr. Alford,
with the National Black Chamber of Commerce and its members,
when he said they value and support clean air, clean water, and
environmental quality. We also value and support economic
growth, job creation, and prosperity for our individual
members, and this country as a whole. These are not mutually
exclusive goals. We hope EPA will hear the concerns of our
organization and others, and so on.
Very well said, and, you know, what the EPA is proposing at
this point can harm not only businesses that we have talked
about today, we have heard a lot about the businesses it would
harm, but it could particularly harm seniors. And not just
seniors in my district, but seniors across the nation with
higher heating bills, higher utility bills, higher
pharmaceutical bills, and on, and on, and on.
And so, essentially, whether we want to say it in such
frank words or not, but they are proposing a hidden tax on
consumers, because somebody has got to pay for all this stuff,
and it is going to be the consumer that does that. And you all
seem like well-informed witnesses, and I appreciate all of you
appearing here today. I would just like to ask each one of you
your opinion of how much you think the proposed regulations are
going to cost the average American family. Let us start with
Mr. Alford, and go from left to right.
Mr. Alford. I think it is going to be a tremendous amount.
I think it is going to cause loss of jobs. I think it is going
to cause loss of homes. I think it is going to cause education
being denied, and good health being paid for. I think it is
serious.
Mr. Posey. Okay.
Mr. Alford. I hope I answered it.
Mr. Posey. Thank you.
Mr. Keating. I think it is significant. The--when you talk
about the link between wealth creation, and a better
environment, and improved health, that is absolute. We see that
across nations. And it is also critical to understand that
increased regulation his productivity the most. There is a
clear negative impact on productivity. Study--and study after
study shows that. And guess what, productivity is linked to
income. So if we want to have not only job creation, but higher
incomes, this is not the way to go. It is a clear negative.
Dr. Rice. We are already paying for the cost of ozone
pollution, and lowering the standard will benefit the health of
many Americans. So just to take the example of where the
evidence is most robust that ozone contributes to asthma
exacerbations--so take just one asthma exacerbation. You have
the cost of a doctor's visit, you have the cost of the
medications that the doctor prescribes to treat that asthma
exacerbation. You may have the cost of an emergency room visit,
if the patient's asthma cannot be controlled with medications.
You might have the cost of a hospitalization.
Mr. Posey. You think these costs are consistent with the
upgraded requirement, then?
Dr. Rice. I am saying that the----
Mr. Posey. My question is how much do you think the cost
will be to the average family if this policy is implemented?
Dr. Rice. I am a physician. I am not an expert on the----
Mr. Posey. Then just say I don't know. That is allowable
here.
Dr. Rice. --but there are costs that are equally important
that are not being discussed, and those are the human health
costs.
Mr. Posey. Right. That wasn't the question. I would
appreciate it if you would answer my question, if you can.
Dr. Lefohn. Thank you very much for the question. In my
particular case, I am a scientist, and so therefore I am not an
economist, who understands the cost and the benefit. However,
when background ozone contributes major, major role--plays a
major role in the total observed concentration, the implication
is it is going to take a lot of cost, a lot of reduction
effort, to attain whatever level of the standard you are trying
to get to. And the point being this, is that the red and the
blue--the red, white, and blue figure I showed earlier, with
the mostly blue, with a little bit of red, that little bit of
red is going to be very costly to get rid of in some of those
areas.
So, therefore, even if people say it doesn't matter what
background is that it is the total observed concentration that
is important. It is the relative contribution of background
that will determine the amount of effort and the amount of cost
associated with that reduction. Thank you.
Mr. Posey. Okay.
Mr. Heaston. I would say that of course the cost is going
to show up in the price of goods and services. Anytime
regulations go into effect, there is an ancillary cost to that,
and so I wouldn't be able to give a number, because that is way
out of my field, but certainly it is going to cost the
consumers more.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey. The gentlewoman from
Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized for her questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the panel for this very important discussion. I want to
start by asking for unanimous consent to enter into the record
a letter from more than 1,000 physicians, nurses, respiratory
therapists, and public health professionals regarding ozone,
and the importance of a protective National Ambient Air Quality
Standard.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection, made a part of the
record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everyone on this
Committee agrees that we need clean air, and everyone should
agree that we have seen some great improvements in air quality
since the passage of the Clean Air Act. And the improvements
can be attributed in part to the requirement that the EPA
determine air quality standards based on the levels requisite
to protect public health, rather than by cost or ease of
implementation. Now, that in no way means that those of us who
support that determination do not care about businesses or
jobs. Of course we do. But the Clean Air Act requires the EPA
to set the standard for ozone at a level that will protect
public health with an adequate margin of safety.
Now, it seems obvious--for example, Dr. Rice, you are a
medical doctor. You don't make your medical diagnosis
contingent on the cost of treatment. You don't say to your
patient, this is what you can afford, so this is what I am
going to diagnose. So can you just talk briefly about the
importance of making that determination of what it takes to
protect public health in a way that is disconnected from the
cost associated? And I do want to save time for another
question. Thank you.
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, the EPA is
obligated to set the standard based on a level that is
considered to be adequately protecting public health, with an
adequate margin of safety, and costs are not supposed to factor
into this decision. And I think patient care is a very good
analogy, and that is what I am familiar with, and an analogy I
would give is if I am making a diagnosis. So, for example, if a
patient is in the ICU, I might diagnose them with pneumonia due
to a bacterial infection. My diagnosis is not contingent on the
costs and the details of the treatment.
And, similarly, I think, with respect to the science on
ozone pollution, that is the stage that the medical and
scientific community is at right now. We have made a diagnosis.
It is clear, and I would say indisputable, that ozone is
harmful to human health. And that is----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Rice. And I know, since the
passage of the Clean Air Act, there have been technological
improvements, a lot of steps that have been taken by states and
by industry to meet those standards. Dr. Rice, I understand
that EPA and others have estimated the benefits by achieving a
lower ozone standard, and specifically--and I want to ask you
to follow up on your response to Mr. Posey's question.
Specifically, the EPA has estimated that an ozone standard
of 65 parts per billion would generate an estimated 19 to $38
billion worth of benefits, including a range of areas from the
number of premature deaths avoided, to the number of asthma
attacks that can be prevented in children. And we talked about,
you know, some of the other witnesses talked about how this
would impact jobs and small businesses, but people can't go to
work if they are sick or hospitalized. So can you describe some
of the other benefits that the EPA and others have estimated
from an ozone standard--let us just take the range of 65 to 70
parts per billion. What are some of the savings in costs----
Dr. Rice. Certainly. So the EPA has taken into account, as
you said, the savings from avoided premature mortality, the
savings from avoided asthma admissions. There are also
financial benefits that the EPA and others have taken into
account in their analyses, looking at the medication use
associated with asthma exacerbations and respiratory illness.
Avoided missed school days in children, avoided work days in
adults who have respiratory disease, adult use for medication
for asthma, and other exacerbations.
In addition to the EPA analysis, there is a different kind
of analysis that was done and published in 2012 that looked at
the difference between full attainment of a 65 part per billion
and a 75 part per billion ozone standard, and found sizeable
differences in mortality benefits, acute respiratory symptoms,
and also millions of lost school days in children.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I have just a few more
seconds. I want to ask Mr. Heaston, I hope I pronounced your
name correctly--it is my understanding that the EPA is planning
to revise its exceptional event rule, which is a tool to handle
events like wildfires and ozone intrusions, stratosphere ozone
intrusions. What recommendations would you have for EPA on
revising that rule?
Mr. Heaston. Well, we would certainly want to encourage it,
as--at--because there are different ways that--like,
meteorology plays a part in whether you could have a day--you
could, you know, you can just have bad meteorology that causes
you to have an exceedance that exacerbates the issue, and there
may not be any control for that. And those kinds of things
would be important. Obviously wildfires can also have an effect
on that. They have already started to work in that area
cooperatively to address it, especially--PM is another area
where we are already working to do that.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much. My time has expired. I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The gentleman from
Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The new proposed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, which would
lower the allowable level to--the ground level ozone to 65
parts per billion will cost the American economy $1.7
trillion--I think, Mr. Alford, you mentioned that--$1.7
trillion from 2017 to 2040, according to a recent report from
NERA Economic Consulting. With unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to enter this report into the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, that will be made a part
of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Bridenstine. So that is $1.7 trillion is what it will
cost the GDP from 2017 to 2040, according to this NERA Economic
Consulting report. I would also ask unanimous consent to place
into the record a statement from the American Chemistry
Council, and a letter to EPA Administrator McCarthy signed by
11 governors, including my own governor, Mary Fallin from
Oklahoma.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Bridenstine. So in Oklahoma--my entire state of
Oklahoma is within attainment, and we are very proud of that.
And I would also tell you that even though we are in
attainment, we are reducing ozone levels as we speak. The mayor
of Tulsa, Dewey Bartlett, has been working on this and his
administration. Our county commissioners have been working on
this, with their administrations.
This is important to us, because in Tulsa, Oklahoma, we
love our city. We--the suburbs, we all want to see our region,
and want to see the State of Oklahoma do well. I can tell you
Governor Mary Fallin is committed to this. This is a big deal
for all of us from Oklahoma. I would also say we are in
attainment. This is not something where we need, you know,
bureaucrats from Washington, D.C., coming into the State of
Oklahoma to tell us that we need cleaner air, because guess
what, we want cleaner air, and we are working towards that
without the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., telling us how to
do it.
I do have some questions, just out of curiosity, from some
of the stuff I have heard and the testimony, for Dr. Rice. As
you know, we are working to decrease ozone in Oklahoma.
Nationally has ozone been decreasing or increasing since 1980?
Dr. Rice. So nationally ozone has been overall decreasing.
There have been some ups and downs, because, as I mentioned
before, climate also plays in a role in affecting ozone levels,
and that might be part of the reason for some of the
variability.
Mr. Bridenstine. So have the asthma rates been increasing
or decreasing?
Dr. Rice. So asthma rates have been increasing.
Mr. Bridenstine. So ozone has been decreasing, and asthma
rates have been increasing?
Dr. Rice. That is right.
Mr. Bridenstine. Do you have an explanation for that?
Dr. Rice. The question of asthma prevalence rising is a
separate question. That has to do with what causes asthma.
There is no overall conclusion from the scientific literature
that ozone is a cause of asthma and makes asthma worse.
Mr. Bridenstine. So, clearly there is no correlation
between ozone increasing and higher rates of asthma?
Dr. Rice. So you are, again, talking about the prevalence
of asthma, how many people have asthma, but the issue of asthma
exacerbations is a separate issue, and ozone has been found to
exacerbate asthma. And asthma exacerbations, when you correct
it for the number of people who have asthma, that is--to my
knowledge has not been changing.
Mr. Bridenstine. So ozone is an outdoor air pollutant. Most
people spend more time indoors, and rarely are exposed to
significant levels of ozone. What is the role of indoor sources
for the increase of asthma incidences? Like the indoor sources
for the increase of asthma.
Dr. Rice. So, again, you are talking about the increased
incidents of asthma, which is not related to ozone. And I am
not sure I agree with your statement that people don't have
significant outdoor exposures. I think especially children, who
spend time outdoors playing, have--spend a large part of their
day outdoors, and they should.
Mr. Bridenstine. Are there indoor sources that create more
asthma problems?
Dr. Rice. Of ozone?
Mr. Bridenstine. No, are there indoor--like--when--I am
talking about the correlation. So are there indoor exposures to
things that create more asthma problems, or that exacerbate the
asthma that people already have?
Dr. Rice. Absolutely. There is very large literature on
that as well. There are a number of things that have been
identified that make asthma worse. One of them is indoor
allergens, so allergic people tend to be more sensitive to
things that they are allergic to, and that can make their
asthma worse. So if they are allergic to mice or cockroaches,
for example, that has been found to exacerbate asthma. That is
just one example of an indoor exposure.
Mr. Bridenstine. Data shows that hospital admissions for
asthma are actually higher in the winter, when ozone
concentration levels are typically at their lowest. Can you
explain that?
Dr. Rice. So, as I mentioned, there is a lot of different
exposures that contribute to asthma, and ozone is just one of
those exposures. It is complicated.
Mr. Bridenstine. In your written testimony, you have a
figure entitled ``Exposure Response Curve for the Relation
Between Exposure to Ozone and the Risk of Death from
Respiratory Causes''. The X axis--in terms of the daily one
hour maximum, the X axis, is a daily 1 hour maximum ozone
level. Are you basing your recommendation for the sixty parts
per billion with the one hour or the eight hour maximum ozone
level, which is what the EPA uses?
Dr. Rice. I am not basing my recommendation of either of
those things--have to do with how the exposure interval is
defined for setting the standard. I am basing my recommendation
on the overall collected data, looking at ozone measured in
different ways, looking at different exposure intervals,
whether it is one day averages, one year averages, six hour
exposures, as you discussed, or one hour exposure----
Mr. Bridenstine. If it is based----
Dr. Rice. --overall----
Mr. Bridenstine. If it is based on the eight hour standard,
as the EPA's standard, this means that your recommendation--if
your X axis is a one hour standard, that means your
recommendation would actually be below sixty parts per billion,
is that correct?
Dr. Rice. I am not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Bridenstine. So the EPA uses an eight hour standard,
you are using a one hour standard. If you expand it to an eight
hour standard, you could actually go higher than sixty. But you
are using a one hour standard, and saying sixty, which means
your exposure would actually be, for an eight hour standard,
even lower than the sixty parts per billion?
Dr. Rice. So that particular study--first of all, as I
said, I am not recommending a standard based on any particular
average. That decision is made by others. I am talking about
ozone exposures and health effects. And I think what you are
referring to is that if you just pick one hour, you could have
a spike in ozone. If you pick eight hours, that eight hour
average could be lower, is that what you are saying, than what
that one hour spike----
Mr. Bridenstine. I saw--Dr. Lefohn, you smiled there. Did
you have something to add?
Dr. Lefohn. Maybe I shouldn't smile. If, in fact, the sity
parts per billion was referring to that particular figure, and
I am not sure that that was the case----
Mr. Bridenstine. The one hour standard?
Dr. Lefohn. The one hour daily max that was used in the
time series, then the eight hour timeframe would be a lower
concentration, which I think is what you are saying. If, in
fact, Dr. Rice is saying there is a whole group of experiments
that she is looking at, and she was giving the example of the
Jarrett results, then I would question the use of that one
particular study because it was a 1 hour daily max. But if she
says there are lots of others, that is fine.
Mr. Bridenstine. And I would just like to finish, Mr.
Chairman, again, the State of Oklahoma is working very hard to
reduce ozone, and we are doing it even though we are already in
attainment. And I think that is an important point that
everybody here needs to recognize.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine. The gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rice, if you had a magic wand, and you could just wave
that rascal, no costs, no problems, what level would you like
ozone to be at?
Dr. Rice. That is a very good question, Congressman. The
evidence around--I think what you are asking me is what about
the health effects in ozone levels below 60, and how far down
do we go? There is some evidence of health effects below a
level of 60 parts per billion, so if I had that magic wand, if
I could have everything I, you know, if there were--I would
love to be able to just take ozone out of the picture
altogether, but that is not possible. And there is no--the
evidence surrounding health effects below a level of 60 parts
per billion is not strong.
Mr. Weber. Thank you for that. And, Mr. Chairman, I forgot
that I have a health study I want submitted in the committee
record. It is from the ``Journal of Allergy and Clinical
Immunology'', into the record, if that is possible?
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Weber. Thank you. So you think there are health effects
lower than 60. How often do you think it ought--that level
should be reviewed?
Dr. Rice. So as I said, the evidence of health effects
below a level of 60 parts per billion are not strong, so I
don't feel comfortable stating that--definitely health effects
below a level of 60 parts per billion, based on the evidence.
Mr. Weber. Do you believe that science--that the data
behind that should be made open to the public?
Dr. Rice. That data is open to the public.
Mr. Weber. Okay. You are a medical doctor is----
Dr. Rice. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. --is that right? You understand lung disease.
Your specialty is----
Dr. Rice. Pulmonary and critical care medicine.
Mr. Weber. Pulmonary and critical care medicine?
Dr. Rice. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Lefohn, you are a scientist, you said. You--
--
Dr. Lefohn. I am, sir.
Mr. Weber. You am, sir. You did research, and you named a
whole bunch of people in your statement. Can you go back over
those groups again who you did studies for?
Mr. Weber. Yes. I designed, with Dr. Milan Hazucha, the
Schlagele exposures that were used.
Mr. Weber. Okay, but you named a whole bunch of groups,
tribes and government----
Dr. Lefohn. I am sorry.
Mr. Weber. Yeah.
Dr. Lefohn. That--those are the groups that I have done
research----
Mr. Weber. You have done research for? So you are a
scientist--you are a research scientist. Okay. Can you name
those groups very quickly? I am getting----
Dr. Lefohn. You bet.
Mr. Weber. --before I run low on time.
Dr. Lefohn. Yes. Okay. I have done--I have assisted the
American Lung Association with the State of Air report that,
every year----
Mr. Weber. Just the group.
Dr. Lefohn. Okay. The Forest County Potawatomi Group in
Wisconsin, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. EPA, Congress, with
the Office of Technology Assistance, the White House, dealing
with the National Acid----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Lefohn. --Precipation.
Mr. Weber. That is plenty. Thank you for that. So you are a
research scientist, you probably don't know many things about
lungs, and--what did you call that, Doctor? What kind of
diseases? Pulmonary----
Dr. Rice. And critical care----
Mr. Weber. Critical care. As a research scientist, Dr.
Lefohn, you probably don't know much about that.
Dr. Lefohn. I do.
Mr. Weber. You do?
Dr. Lefohn. I do.
Mr. Weber. So you have been studying that too?
Dr. Lefohn. I have.
Mr. Weber. Good for you. You need to get a TV maybe to use
in your spare time. Dr. Rice, you heard Dr. Lefohn's research
stats, that naturally occurring ozone, as I understood the
figures, is somewhere between 40, 50 percent background ozone
in some of these areas, which makes up the numbers that we are
looking at. Is that accurate, Dr. Lefohn?
Dr. Lefohn. In some cases, it is 80 to 90 percent.
Mr. Weber. Well, I wasn't going to go that high, but just
to say as a general rule it is 40 to 50 percent. So you are
aware of that, Dr. Rice? You are also aware, as the gentleman
from Oklahoma said, that ozone is going down, but asthma is
going up, and you don't know what causes asthma?
Dr. Rice. You asked me a number of different questions, and
I will try to address----
Mr. Weber. Well, you are aware of his----
Dr. Rice. So----
Mr. Weber. --statistics, I take it?
Dr. Rice. I am aware----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Rice. --of his studies----
Mr. Weber. And you----
Dr. Rice. --and I am aware of other studies that have given
other projections of the----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Rice. --amount of background ozone. Let me finish,
please, and try to answer your question.
Mr. Weber. My only question was are you aware?
Dr. Rice. All right.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. So you know that ozone is down,
asthma has not gone down. Would you agree that if there are
more stringent controls put on business, that is going to drive
the price up, Dr. Rice, of doing that business?
Dr. Rice. I am a physician. That is not what I am here to
talk about. I am here----
Mr. Weber. Okay. But if they have to add technology to
decrease ozone, it is going to cost something?
Dr. Rice. Um-hum. You also mentioned that--I just wanted
to----
Mr. Weber. Is that----
Dr. Rice. --clarify for the record that you said asthma is
going up. Again, ozone has nothing to----
Mr. Weber. No, I got that.
Dr. Rice. My testimony has nothing to do with the asthma
prevalence.
Mr. Weber. But here is what I am driving to. So we don't
know cause and effect. We do know there is a lot of natural
occurring background ozone. It is going to drive the cost up.
Stringent regulations are going to drive the cost up. And as
Mr. Alford said in his remarks, and I happen to agree with him,
it is going to cost billions of dollars, lost jobs. That is
going to cost money to consumers who cannot afford health care,
and so their level of health care is going to go down as a
result of this, and we really don't know that it is going to
have a positive effect on asthma.
Dr. Rice. Congressman, I respectfully disagree that we
don't know cause and effect. I think the evidence is very clear
that ozone exacerbates asthma.
Mr. Weber. I said cause, I didn't say--cigarette smoking
does too. Are you on a kick to do away with cigarettes?
Dr. Rice. That is a different issue.
Mr. Weber. Okay. I am just blowing smoke, aren't I? Okay. I
got it. Mr. Chairman----
Dr. Rice. What do you think I advise my patients----
Mr. Weber. Okay. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber. The gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we have
a duty to be responsible stewards of our environment, and I
think that is reflected in the tremendous strides we have made
with air quality over the last few decades. I can remember back
in the '60s and '70s, as an avid outdoorsman, some of the
pollutants that we have had in our water and our air, and we
have made tremendous strides in that regard. However, there is
no concrete evidence to support a lower standard for ozone
before we have even complied with the last standard. If
anything more research needs to be done. Based on this, it
makes no sense that the Environmental Protection Agency is
proposing one of the most costly regulations in U.S. history on
a very limited set of studies. The EPA should not be rushing to
issue this new standard.
Now I want to draw attention to a slide, and talk a little
bit about my district, and how this is going to impact us. As
you see up here, I have Texas 36 District, and we have the
notoriety, or the fortune--the good fortune to--I should say to
have more chemical and refining plants in our District 36 than
any other district in the United States. We have the second
largest manufacturing industry in the state, the chemical
industry, $164.6 billion. We directly employ 9,393 individuals
in District 36 alone. We pay out $934 million in wages in the
district. We have an average wage of $99,386 in the state. This
is 94 percent higher than the state average in Texas. We
generate $94 million in federal taxes. We invest $4.982 billion
to build and update equipment and facilities in the State of
Texas. 47 billion in industry products are shipped to global
customers from the State of Texas. This generates an additional
1,224 jobs in the plastics and rubber products industry.
Is it worth, and I am asking all of you panelists, and I
appreciate all of you being here, whichever side of this issue
you are on, is this worth putting all of this at risk, just in
District 36 alone, not counting the rest of the nation, all of
these jobs, all of these industries, and the overall economy of
our nation, is it worth it? I would just like to say--to ask
each one of you panelists that question.
Mr. Alford. No, it isn't, Congressman. Senator Barbra
Mikulski told us in a meeting about NAAQS back around 2000,
2001, she said, I am looking at this NAAQS situation four ways,
is it sound science, the economic impact, which you just
explained up there, is it measurable and achievable, and for
national security? And I think this move to lower NAAQS further
flunks all four of these categories.
Mr. Babin. I appreciate that answer. We produce about 63
percent of all strategic aviation fuels in this area alone.
Mr. Alford. Looks like a nice place to live.
Mr. Babin. It is. Lots of jobs. Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. No, it is not worth it. It makes no sense,
when you look at--your district is a prime example of the good
things that are going on in an otherwise very tough economy.
Why would we want to put that in jeopardy? When you look at,
again, the increased cost of regulations, the negatives for
growth, for productivity, for investment. Study after study
shows this. You talk about exports. That is a wonderful thing.
Wouldn't we want to boost our exports, rather than exporting
more jobs and businesses? So no, it is not worth it.
Mr. Babin. Doctor?
Dr. Rice. Thank you, Congressman. First, I would argue that
the question of whether it is worth it shouldn't be factoring
into the decision of what a safe standard is for the American
public. And the evidence has shown that the current levels are
not protective of public health, and that a level of 60, or in
that range, is more protective of public health. So, setting
the implementation details aside, the second point I would like
to make is that when we look at history, we look at the Clean
Air Act, and a number of people in this room have commented on
the success of the Clean Air Act over the last 10 to 15 years,
and there have been a number of economic analyses of the
benefits of the Clean Air Act, and those have concluded that
the Clean Air Act may be one of the best financial decisions
our government has ever made.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir?
Dr. Lefohn. Yes. Let me be clear, our results for
background ozone that our international team published in late
2013 agrees with EPA's policy assessment numbers that it
published in 2014. There is no disagreement. Background is very
important. Those dots I showed in that figure were from EPA's
own analysis. The bottom line is as follows. We have made great
advances in reducing ozone. The problem we are now getting into
is that background itself is beginning to rear its head. We are
going lower and lower and lower, and we are at that level--and
let me explain.
What EPA did was they ran a model, and they ran their
model--and this is, let us say, the concentrations of ozone.
Low end, high end. As you reduce emissions, you would assume
that the high end goes down toward the low end, and the low end
stays constant. What, in fact, happened, and impacted in a
dramatic way the epidemiological risk assessment, was that the
high end came down, and the low end came up, and they met in
the middle. In the middle was where most of the risk was
associated with, which is predominated by background ozone.
Mr. Babin. Thank you. Mr. Heaston?
Mr. Heaston. I would say that the new NAAQS is not
necessary because the government needs an opportunity to just
do a good job on what we have got in front of us, and let us
just work on doing that from a common sense approach. Let us
try to meet the 2008 standard, and leave this other one for
after, because what I see is negligible gain to the actual
health benefit when maybe a job might be a better control
measure than anything I can put in place to try to meet an
ambient standard.
Mr. Babin. Well stated. Thank you all very much, I
appreciate it.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Babin. And, Dr. Lefohn, let us just say that is the
first time I have ever seen a Slinky used for that purpose, but
it is good.
Chairman Smith. I am glad people recognized it.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar,
is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter from
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, as well as a technical submittal
from Dan Wyant, the Director of the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, that was sent to President Obama on
February 26.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this letter, and
I guess, Mr. Alford, I would like to address this to you, if
that is okay, Governor Snyder states that more stringent
standards could thwart growth and business investment. And,
obviously, we want to be good stewards of our environment in
Michigan, but the National Association of Manufacturers
estimates the proposal before us would cost approximately
20,000 jobs a year. And I just wanted to get your perspective
on this effect, possibly on Michigan, and what these more
stringent ozone standards--how that might encourage or
discourage economic growth? Because some people are arguing
that that would actually encourage economic growth.
Mr. Alford. I lived in Detroit five years back in the late
'70s, early '80s, met my wife in Detroit. It would have a
profound effect, once again--and Detroit, you keep waiting for
it to hit bottom, well, there is going to be a new bottom
caused by that. There is so much opportunity to bring--people
have the skills in Michigan. There is so much opportunity to
bring new business, because the people already there are
prepared.
Mr. Moolenaar. Sure.
Mr. Alford. But--this way, with these standards, would be a
shame.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Keating?
Mr. Keating. Yeah, I would just like to note real quick
that we do an index each year where we rank the states
according to their policy climates, and Michigan has improved
rather dramatically, and kudos to the state, but this is an
instance where you would have the federal government working
against what you have been doing on the state level to improve
the environment, so it clearly would be a negative, I would
say.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Thank you. And, Mr. Heaston, I would
like to ask your thoughts on this. The background ozone
levels--our experts in our state have noted that lowering the
standard below the 75 parts per billion would make this
compliance very difficult, almost impossible, for a state like
Michigan, just due to background ozone levels. Can you comment
on either in particular with Michigan, or with other states who
have a strong manufacturing base what this might mean, in terms
of how they could comply?
Mr. Heaston. Well, I think that mainly the areas that may
come under it as a result of the new NAAQS, the new non-
attainment areas, you are going to find that a lot of them are
going to be transport impacted from maybe some other parts, and
also from the non-anthropogenic emissions. So I think that we
are going to have to determine what is a number that you can
live with, if ambience ozone levels are higher? And I think,
like, in our district, the 60 ppb is probably very close. I
have no way to come into attainment without South Coast making
dramatic and draconian type cuts in the L.A. basin. And so I
mean, when you are a rural area, or where the population
density is down, and you have nothing to control, I don't know
how you get there.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you. Anyone else like to comment on
that? I guess the main question I am asking here is, if we
would agree that it is--the 75 parts per billion, it hasn't
even truly gone into effect, and, you know, measurable ways of
examining how that is affecting states, I guess the question
is, you know, what are the consequences for setting a standard
that isn't really a real world achievable standard for states
who are trying to comply with this across the board?
Dr. Rice. Congressman, I would like to discuss that----
Mr. Moolenaar. Sure.
Dr. Rice. --issue. So, back in 2006, when the Bush
Administration asked the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee to review the evidence, and to develop a
recommendation for what an appropriate standard would be, the
committee recommended a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion
then, and that was almost ten years ago. So, yes, we are
dealing with the implementation of a standard that was
established then, but the evidence that was available even at
that time was in favor of--was consistent with health effects
in the 60 to 75 parts per billion range.
So I guess the point I am trying to make is there is
nothing magic about the 75 parts per billion standard. Even
when it was established, the scientific community did not feel
that it adequately protect public health. And in terms of
looking at health effects, and analyzing whether this standard
is appropriate, one of the advantages of the research that I
do, looking at what we call observational data, so things that
have happened, so looking at historical air pollution data and
health outcomes, we have a breadth of ozone concentrations even
within just the city of Boston, where I do most of my research,
but across the country we have a wide range, and day to day
ranges. So that allows us to look at health effects well below
the 75 parts per billion. And we already have plenty of
evidence to support that the health effects are serious----
Mr. Moolenaar. Now, I guess----
Dr. Rice. --that range.
Mr. Moolenaar. Just, Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up?
Chairman Smith. Yes, Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar. When you use terms like the scientific
community, or when you say plenty of evidence, my sense is
there are probably scientists, in fact even some here with us
today, that wouldn't agree with your conclusions, and would say
that the evidence is inconclusive. Would you acknowledge that?
Dr. Rice. Certainly.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. So----
Dr. Rice. So when I am talking about the scientific
community, I can give you some examples----
Mr. Moolenaar. Right. Well, no, I know, but I bet there are
examples in the scientific community that would not support
your premise, and--but let me just--because I know, Mr.
Chairman, you are trying to conduct this hearing, and get
everybody involved, I appreciate all of you appearing. I am
very concerned if we change the standard at this point, because
I don't believe the scientific community is unanimous on this,
and I do think that the consequences of putting states in non-
attainment, and the chilling effect on the economy is not
appropriate at this time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar. The gentleman
from California, Dr. Bera, is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Right. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member, for having this hearing. You know, as a fellow
physician, you know, it is incredibly important that we take
standards to address respiratory effects, and address asthma
rates. I am empathetic to concerns about increased economic
costs, and, you know, impact on jobs, but, you know, Dr. Rice,
I think you would probably concur that, you know, the
detrimental cost to asthma, the detrimental cost to, you know,
increased respiratory and pulmonary disease also have a huge
economic impact. And I don't know if you can quantify that,
but, again, we know the lifelong impact of, you know, these
increased asthma rates and so forth.
Dr. Rice. Thank you for your question, Dr. Bera.
Absolutely. Many of the cost analyses that have been discussed
so far today have not taken the human health costs of
implementation, or of not implementing a stricter standard,
into account. And those that have examined the health effects
have found enormous health benefits associated with lower ozone
standards, and those are in the form of savings from the use of
medications to control asthma or COPD, lost work days that are
avoided when people can go to work because they are feeling
better, because the air quality is better. Kids can go to
school. The cost of hospitalization for respiratory disease.
And then there is, of course, the difficult to quantify costs
of human suffering when people die as a consequence of higher
ozone levels. Those are very important.
Mr. Bera. So if we are doing a fair economic analysis, we
also should clearly take a look at the prevention by impacting
ozone standards, impacting asthma rates, impacting community
health, and that would give us a much greater economic picture?
Dr. Rice. Absolutely. I agree with that. Thank you.
Mr. Bera. I apologize if you have already touched on some
of these cases, but, by upgrading our ozone standards, can you
quantify the health impact, in terms of reduction in asthma
rates, or----
Dr. Rice. I can give some examples. I could give----
Mr. Bera. Great.
Dr. Rice. --the example of--so each study uses a different
methodology, and they are going to arrive at different numbers,
but one study, for example, by Berman and colleagues at Johns
Hopkins looked retrospectively at asthma, and other health
effects under different ozone standards. So, just to give an
example, this analysis looked at how many lives would be saved
if we fully adhered to the current standard of 75 parts per
billion. And they estimated that approximately 2,000 would be
saved just from the respiratory mortality component at 75 parts
per billion, if we actually were there. And then if we went
down to 70 parts per billion, almost 4,000 lives would be
saved. And that increases to 7,000 at 60 parts per billion, so
triple the benefit. Acute respiratory symptoms, and that
includes things like asthma and COPD exacerbations, about three
million reduced exacerbations if we implemented the 75 parts
per billion, increasing to almost--to more than three times
that, 11 million exacerbations each year. This is going back to
2005.
The EPA used a different approach, looking forward, at
2025, and estimated at 65 parts per billion, 4,300 premature
deaths, and almost a million childhood asthma attacks would be
avoided. Just some examples.
Mr. Bera. So, again, this is incredibly important, right? I
mean, you are talking about children's lives, you are talking
about huge economic impacts when you are talking about millions
of potential exacerbations that are now mitigated by doing
something that is actually a good thing to do. If we look at
the current science, you know, the current standards don't
reflect the current science, is that correct? Is that an
accurate statement?
Dr. Rice. I would agree with that. That was the point that
I made earlier as well, that even when the current standard was
set, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had
recommended a lower standard.
Mr. Bera. Okay. So, again, you know, part of our job as
scientists, part of our job as physicians, is to provide the
best science. And then what we should be doing, as Members of
Congress, is taking that science, taking the recommendations of
the experts, and acting on that. So, again, thank you for your
testimony, and thank you for your time.
Dr. Rice. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera. Are you finished? The
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into
the record a letter from the Governor of Alabama, the Honorable
Robert Bentley, addressed to the Honorable Gina McCarthy of the
EPA.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
Mr. Heaston, reductions in ozone levels can be achieved by
a variety of methods, including control technologies and
control measures. Ozone control strategies generally target
nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which are the
primary contributors to ozone formation at ground levels.
Unfortunately, the EPA has not been able to identify how the
proposed standards will be met. Despite intensive review of
available control technologies, the EPA is forced to heavily
rely on controls that could not identify or predict literally
unknown controls.
If the EPA can't even point to controls capable of almost
half the emissions reductions needed in the east, or all of the
reductions required in California to meet these stringent
proposed standards, this sounds like a shoot first, ask
questions later rulemaking. Should we be imposing this much
burden on the American people when the EPA doesn't even know
how this rule can be accomplished?
Mr. Heaston. Thank you. The broader question, I think, is
the use of the black box, it is just a holding mechanism, so
that you can go through the process and meet the requirements
of the Clean Air Act. And they have to approve them, without
any backup to it. And, I mean, I personally am glad it is there
as a tool, but the reality is that the technology may not be
developed, it may not be cost-effective, and it is--you are
looking into the future with promises of some sort of a deposit
that you may not be able to withdraw later on if they are not
there. And that is one of the concerns I have. You are just
going to make the black box a bigger part of your attainment
strategy, and that is not the way we should be going.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I worked--prior to being a Member of
Congress, I had a real job. I had several real jobs, one of
which was in engineering and environmental systems. And one of
the estimates here is that EPA's cost benefit analysis on the
ozone proposal caps the cost of unknown controls, again,
controls that don't exist, at $15,000. And having worked in
environmental systems, designing and building pollution
controls that our company did, I can't think of a single thing
that we could do for $15,000. So is your experience in
implementing unknown controls, does that sound reasonable?
Mr. Heaston. No, it does not.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. I also want to address something,
Dr. Rice, that you brought up about the need to do this to
improve health. Would you agree that an individual's health is
directly impacted by their economic or income status?
Dr. Rice. Absolutely, yeah, I would agree with that.
Mr. Palmer. So lost jobs would impact their health?
Dr. Rice. It certainly could----
Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
Dr. Rice. --affect someone's health.
Mr. Palmer. I think it would too, particularly when you
look at the preponderance of data on who are likely to have
asthma. It is males living below the poverty line, unemployed.
I want to go back to this other issue, Mr. Heaston, with
you. I also ran a think tank, and every four years we put out a
report on environmental indicators for Alabama and the United
States, and Alabama has done quite well in improving air
quality, particularly in Birmingham, where I live, which was
known as the Pittsburgh of the South. We were a steelmaking
company. In the '60s you could see the air you were breathing.
We have made great progress, despite the fact that the EPA
keeps changing the standards. We still meet them. This new
standard, thought, makes very little sense to me, particularly
since the EPA admits the technology doesn't exist.
Do you have any knowledge of any unknown controls in use
right now, in practice, or are they things like--are these
unknown controls more in the line of shutting down a power
plant, or mandatory electric cars? Is that the black box that
we are talking about?
Mr. Heaston. I would never, ever admit to that as control
strategy, that I am going to try to shut down some industrial
source--not in my district. Now, it might be in other districts
that have no choice, but it certainly wouldn't be a strategy
that I would employ. My job is to try to figure out how to make
the economics and the balancing of human health work together,
because they are not exclusive to each other. You have to have
them both in order----
Mr. Palmer. Well----
Mr. Heaston. --find a way to pay.
Mr. Palmer. --even with that, it wouldn't accomplish the
objective because so much of the ground level ozone occurs
naturally----
Mr. Heaston. Right.
Mr. Palmer. --particularly in the South, where you have got
a number of warm, windless days, and a high density of forest.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. And the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, is recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I found it
interesting a little earlier, when Dr. Rice made an analogy
about the EPA's need to set standards for ozone, comparing that
to her requirement, as a physician, in rendering a diagnosis,
that your diagnosis does not address the cost. That I actually
would agree with, from a health care perspective, but I submit
that most physicians would certainly agree that the course of
treatment for whatever that diagnosis would be would certainly
be a cost consideration, because a physician is not going to be
willing to render that treatment for free, I don't believe.
And I think what we are looking at here is the standards
being set by the EPA, those are a course of treatment. They are
not the diagnosis. I look at the staggering statistics coming
out of the American Petroleum Institute that says that these
new ozone rules--and we are talking about just my state, first
of all. 204.3 billion gross state product loss from 2017 to
2040, 218,415 lost jobs. Across America we are talking about
3.4 trillion in GDP per year from 2017 to--I am sorry, during
that time period, and 2.9 million fewer jobs, or job
equivalents, per year on the average through 2040. The economic
implications of this are staggering. They are profound, and I
think we gloss over those way too quickly.
Mr. Alford, the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, wrote an
op-ed saying that the agency's air standards attract new
business, new investment, and new jobs. Is that what businesses
have found?
Mr. Alford. Not at all, sir. The regulations prevent jobs,
prevent business growth. Onerous regulations, regulations that
may--have no economic sense whatsoever are crippling.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah.
Mr. Alford. And let me say, I have a deep appreciation of
the improvement in our air quality. You know, I played rough,
tough football in Los Angeles back in the '60s, where it was
just terrible. Playing in 102 degrees, and someone is trying to
take your head off. So I have a deep appreciation for the
progress we have made. I think maybe we may be getting it a
little too overboard.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Mr. Keating, do you have a response to
that?
Mr. Keating. Yeah. I just--I agree with Mr. Alford, and I
think it is important to note, for example, the NERA study.
That really is the most, I think, comprehensive look at this
at--so far. Includes any kind of benefits, if you will,
increased jobs that come from the environmental side of things.
So when you--when they talk about the total loss of jobs, let
me look real quick, in terms of 1.4 million jobs per year,
those factor--that includes the benefit, so that is the net
loss there.
Mr. Johnson. Okay.
Dr. Rice. Mr. Johnson----
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Alford--ma'am, I have got some other
questions here, thank you. Mr. Alford, the whole state of Ohio,
under these new ozone rules, would be found in non-attainment.
Some of the counties would be unmonitored counties that are
anticipated to violate a 60 ppb standard based on spatial
interpolation. So could these stringent ozone standards hurt
economic development in areas that are in attainment?
Mr. Alford. Yes, sir. Again, the example of Baton Rouge,
which had just got in attainment, but people fear that they are
going to be out of attainment if these new rules come in. So
prospective businesses from abroad are looking at Baton Rouge,
I am sure they would be looking at Columbus or Cincinnati, but
if there is a chance that you are going to be out of
attainment, all bets are off.
Mr. Johnson. But in areas that are in attainment--we
conduct commerce all over this country. Goods are produced in
one place, they are shipped across the country as raw materials
for other places. The point I am making is that the areas that
are found not in attainment----
Mr. Alford. Um-hum.
Mr. Johnson. --they are not the only ones that are going to
suffer. The whole country is going to suffer under this.
Mr. Chairman, I have exceeded my time, and I will yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And we will go to
the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Newhouse, and is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, let me say I appreciate all of your participation this
morning in this conversation. It is very important. I am from
the State of Washington, and I just--something you said, Mr.
Heaston, piqued my interest.
Washington, like other areas of the country, is exposed to
what is a good deal of ozone and other particulate matter from
other countries, foreign countries. Now, EPA has the authority
to address this issue in its attainment designations, but, if
you could, can you describe how EPA accounts for international
border pollution? I am not saying L.A. is another country, but,
given that Washington, like other areas of the country, we
can't exercise control over foreign sources. And kind of as a
follow-up to that, does EPA, as far as you know, provide any
implementation flexibility so it doesn't punish states that
violate standards due to that outside air--that they have no
control?
Mr. Heaston. Currently there is not a whole lot that can be
done about--especially the stuff that comes over from overseas.
I think more dramatically, if you look at the Mexico-U.S.
border, like, for instance, down in Imperial County, down by
the Salton Sea, the impact there is that they can't sometimes
put in a business without getting offsets, and so they have
gone to drastic ways--not through anything EPA did to help
them, but through their own ingenuity, went into Mexico, put a
gas pipeline so they could get gas into the homes, so we could
get them to quit burning the wood and other debris that they
use to heat their homes, and then tried to find a way to take
credit for those kinds of reductions.
I mean, that is the kind of things that we have to go to,
even in the States of California, just to get a project sited.
And, to me, that--it points to a bigger issue when you go to
the offshore stuff, because we don't have any way to control
that. And if businesses close here--for instance, if the cement
industry was to close, and I think they have made the argument,
many times, that they will just produce the cement over in
Asia, and you still get the emissions back--coming back to the
other way. So it is kind of a catch-22 for them, but there is a
very limited ability to deal with those kind of emissions.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, thank you. Mr. Alford, the EPA's
proposed standards will make it, I think, I have heard today,
harder to get necessary permits to manufacture goods, build
critical infrastructure like roads, and--especially in my
state, as well as others, increase cost of energy on all
businesses and households. In fact, the study that has been
cited a couple times looks to show that Washington State would
put costs about $16 billion by the year 2040, even though it is
projected all of our counties will be in attainment.
So I guess my question is what happens to permitting for
new and expanding businesses throughout the country when these
standards are set to close to background levels, and how will
the proposed standards hurt economic development in states that
are projected to be in attainment? I mean--any idea what those
economic impacts might be?
Mr. Alford. It would be negative, I would believe. You
know, permitting is a catchy thing that you can't really get a
hold of. Some people will say that I am going to build this
edifice, but yet you can't get the permit. You don't see that
until you go and apply for the permit. So I think there would
be a lot of confusion, a lot of--lack of aggressiveness for
investors, or from companies who are willing to grow. They may
take that business elsewhere, instead of taking it to
Washington, or some other place because of the uncertainty.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Dr. Rice. Mr. Newhouse----
Mr. Newhouse. Dr. Rice, yes?
Dr. Rice. I would like to add to the discussion, as there
has been a lot of discussion this morning about the costs of
the new rule. And I would like to--and there was that analogy
that I brought up about making a diagnosis of pneumonia. And I
want to set it clear for the record that, at this stage, when
the EPA is setting the standard, costs are not supposed to
factor into the decision of what a safe standard should be for
public health. That should be based on the scientific evidence
of health effects, and not the cost of implementation.
And one of the witnesses, Mr. Alford, had commented that he
felt that setting the standard in the range of 60 to 70 would
be called--would be going overboard. And I would like to raise
a question of what--what part--which asthma admission is going
overboard? Which child who ends up in the ICU with a
respiratory infection that was triggered by a high ozone event
is overboard? And I would like you to ask the parents of those
children whether they would agree that that is going overboard.
Mr. Alford. Is that a question to me?
Mr. Newhouse. Well, I have gone over my time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Mr. Alford, would you want to respond
to that question?
Mr. Alford. Well, I don't accept--I refute a lot of the
things that have been said here today. You have got ozone going
down, you have got asthma going up. Something else is causing
asthma. I don't--maybe it is just my stupid common sense
thinking that.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Alford. But the--there--I am looking, I am trying to
find a correlation. I am spending money trying to find a
correlation on asthma as it relates to ozone, and so far, sir,
and in a month I can go public with this thing, I don't see the
correlation.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Alford. Thank you, Mr.
Newhouse. We will go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Massie, for his questions.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not an issue
that should be partisan. I mean, we all want clean air, and we
all want a vibrant economy. And as evidence of the fact this
is--this shouldn't be a partisan issue, and is not a partisan
issue in Kentucky, I would like to submit for the record a
letter from our Democrat governor to the President of the
United States, and copied also the Administrator of the EPA.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
Mr. Massie. And I want to read from this letter from our
Democrat governor to the President. ``I am writing concerning
the anticipated EPA's proposed rule relating to ground level
ozone standard. I appreciate the great challenge that the EPA
faces in setting health-based standards. As you are aware,
protecting the health of Kentuckians is of critical importance
to me. However, I must share with you the concern I have that
the new ozone standard could create a hardship for many of our
communities.'' And I will skip to this section, ``This is of
critical importance because if a lower standard is selected,
counties in Kentucky that have never before experienced the
ramifications of a non-attainment designation may be forced
into that position.''
He goes on to say, ``My advisors recommend the ozone
standard should remain unchanged for the time being. There are
many environmental rules driving up costs in Kentucky that will
negatively impact the economy. A new ozone standard does not
have to contribute to these costs. Kentucky is a manufacturing
state. For example, Kentuckians produce many of the vehicles,
and much of the aluminum and steel manufactured in the U.S.,
and our manufacturers rely on low cost electricity to produce
these products. I therefore ask you to retain the current ozone
standard, which will continue to protect the health of our
citizens without burdening our communities with costly non-
attainment compliance programs. The growth of our economy is
dependent on it.''
You know, in Kentucky we found this interesting
correlation, I am sure you are aware of it, Dr. Rice, that
poverty corresponds--is associated with a lot of health
problems, such as diabetes and other things. Do you agree with
that?
Dr. Rice. I do.
Mr. Massie. So that is really what we are, you know, our
number one health problem in Kentucky--in a lot of regions of
Kentucky turns out to be the economy.
Mr. Heaston, can you tell me what the ramifications of non-
attainment designation might be for some of our more rural
areas that are trying to attract industry?
Mr. Heaston. Well, I think the effects are that you are
going to have more bureaucracy. You will have controls you will
have to put into a structure. If it currently didn't have an
air quality program, you are going to have to start from
scratch, and start instituting controls, which immediately sets
into play certain limits on which new sources can be sited, and
then the existing sources are going to have to comply through
prescriptive controls that are for that particular designation
that you have.
Mr. Massie. So I notice that in many days of the year that
Southern California basin is in non-attainment of the current
standard. What would be the economic impacts of saying that
tomorrow they have to attain 75 parts per billion?
Mr. Heaston. Well, I mean, I can't speak for the South
Coast Air Quality District, I can only speak for my own
district, but what is going to end up happening is I will bump
up. If I can't meet the standard by the assigned date, then I
have to go into what they call a bump up provision, and that
means I go into a more stricter controlled environment. So
those sources that are already in my district would then have
to suffer even lower limits when they do changes, or
modifications, or if a new company comes in. So those aren't
very pleasant things to have happen to you if you can't attain.
There are some punitive effects. There is Section 185. Section
185 has the unpleasant presumption presuming that the
stationary sources was the reason you didn't attain.
And when you didn't attain, it levies fines against the
businesses that really weren't part of what was exacerbating
the problem, or caused you not to attain. Because if they did
the cuts that were prescribed into the Clean Air Act, they have
done their part. But if we were still in non-attainment, then
the burden of the fees and the penalty goes on them, and not
the public.
Mr. Massie. So, Mr. Chairman, just to summarize, I want to
say it should not be a partisan issue. We all want clean air.
We all want healthy constituents. We all want a vibrant
economy, but there is clearly a balance to strike here, and I
hope we listen to our governors, Republican and Democrat, and I
hope the EPA will do the same. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Massie. The gentleman from
Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is recognized.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would request
unanimous consent to submit a study from the Institute for
Energy Research, and a letter from the American Forest and
Paper Association.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Westerman. So, as already discussed, there is evidence
that suggests that the basis for the EPA's ozone rule, which
attempts to link asthma to ozone as an outdoor air pollutant,
is not necessarily on a good foundation. In fact, according to
a study published in the ``Journal of Allergy and Clinical
Immunology'', indoor air pollution that is correlated to
poverty creates a higher risk for asthma than outdoor air
pollution.
We all know that forests and forest products are very
environmentally friendly, and are critical for clean air. We
understand the importance of trees in the carbon cycle. We know
that trees, through photosynthesis, pull down carbon. When
those trees are processed into two by four's, and plywood, and
oriented strand board, and put into houses, or put into
furniture, that carbon is sequestered where those trees were
cut down. New trees grow up. When they are younger, they grow
faster, they pull more carbon out of the atmosphere, and they
are very important to clean air. The wood we see in this room
is sequestering carbon, and it has been for some time.
All while sequestering carbon and cleaning the air, the
forest products industry employs nearly 900,000 men and women
in 47 states, and is among the top ten manufacturing sector
employs. This generates wealth, which lifts people out of
poverty, which is good for their quality of life, including
their health. Through existing rules, such as boiler maximum
available control technologies, the forest products and paper
industries are already improving air quality. VOC emissions are
going down, and NOCs are down by over 25 percent from 2000 to
2012.
The ozone rule will drive up costs in the forestry and
forest products industry, which will result in closed
facilities, which will mean less jobs, less carbon
sequestration, more poverty, and more asthma. So, Ms. Rice, I
have a question for you. Do EPA's health effects include the
negative health effects of employment cost?
Dr. Rice. Are you asking me whether the effects on
employment were incorporated in the EPA cost analysis?
Mr. Westerman. Right.
Dr. Rice. I don't believe that the employment related to
the regulation was taken into account.
Mr. Westerman. Even though there are studies that show
that----
Dr. Rice. Um-hum.
Mr. Westerman. --poverty is related to indoor air
pollution, which is correlated with asthma? You have totally
disregarded the effect of employment, and jobs, and poverty on
your cost analysis?
Dr. Rice. So I haven't done any cost analysis, just to be
clear. I am a physician who does----
Mr. Westerman. Well, EPA.
Dr. Rice. --research on air quality. And the standard, as I
have said many times, should be set based on a level that is
considered to protect public health, with an adequate margin of
safety. The evidence that ozone makes asthma worse is very well
established. There are hundreds and hundreds of studies to show
that ozone makes asthma worse.
What you are referring to is a very well designed study
examining asthma prevalence, so how common asthma is in
different parts of the country, and found evidence that poverty
is associated with asthma prevalence. That is--that study did
not look at ozone.
Mr. Westerman. What about in the case of the forest
products industry, where you have a very green material that is
good for the environment, yet these standards are going to hurt
the industry, which will cost jobs, which will close down
facilities, which means less trees will be utilized, which will
mean less carbons being sequestered in the air, is becoming
less clean?
Dr. Rice. We have been talking a lot about costs today, and
I do agree with you that costs are important, and costs present
challenges, and costs should be part of the implementation
process, and the decision process on how to implement the
standard. But I think the standard should be established based
on the health consequences----
Mr. Westerman. Well, if we take cost out of the equation,
and just use the science of air quality, these regulations will
negatively impact air quality because they will remove
operations that ultimately add to the cleanness of the air.
Dr. Rice. Though I am a physician, and not an expert on the
forest industry, I respectfully disagree with the prediction
that these--that setting a lower standard will worsen air
quality.
Mr. Westerman. I am an engineer and a forester, and I
disagree with you, and I can tell you that raising these
standards will hurt this sector of the economy, which will, in
essence, hurt the air quality overall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired, and thank
you, Mr. Westerman. The Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, is
recognized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
letter from Dr. Corinne Keet, the lead author of the study that
was mentioned by my colleague. This letter clarifies the
results of the study, and the misinterpretation by some that
ozone--is not important for asthma. Dr. Keet outlines how the
conclusions drawn in recent articles on her study are false.
She states in the letter that her study found that poverty and
race were major risk factors for asthma prevalence, and that
living in urban areas was not a major risk factor, but that her
study does not suggest that air pollution and ozone are not
important for asthma.
She goes on to state that a link between ozone levels and
respiratory health outcomes is supported by many studies that
have been used--use a variety of methods. And I ask unanimous
consent that this letter be included in the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the letter will be made
a part of the record.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. And the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas,
is recognized.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, I ask by unanimous consent that a
letter from Dale Moore, Executive Policy Director of the
American Farm Bureau Federation, to Gina McCarthy,
Administrator of the EPA, be submitted to the record with the
insights that it provides on this very important subject
matter.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. We have no further Members to ask further
questions. And I just want to thank the panel today. You all
have just given excellent testimony. We appreciate your making
the effort to be here today. We had a lot of good exchanges,
picked up some new ideas as well, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Representative Randy K. Weber
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Representative John R. Moolenaar
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Representative Thomas Massie
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Representative Gary Palmer
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Representative Bruce Westerman
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Representative Frank D. Lucas
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted by Committee Chairman Lamar Smith
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]