[Senate Hearing 105-355]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-355
OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER RESEARCH ACT OF 1997
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1084
A BILL TO ESTABLISH A RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER AND TO
REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL STANDARDS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
__________
OCTOBER 22, 1997
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-427cc WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear
Safety
JAMES M. INHOFE, North Carolina, Chairman
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BOB GRAHAM, Florida
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OCTOBER 22, 1997
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 6
Letter, Position on S. 1084, EPA Administrator Browner....... 29
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S Senator from the State of California.... 3
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Article, Smog Map Technology Is Launched..................... 34
List, supporters of S. 1084.................................. 50
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 5
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 13
WITNESSES
Abbott, Ande, assistant to the international president,
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers, & Helpers, Fairfax, VA................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Grumet, Jason, executive director, Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), Boston, MA........... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 130
Martin, James A., vice president, Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe,
Inc., on behalf of the American Bakers Association,
Chambersburg, PA............................................... 8
Letter, supplementing testimony.............................. 122
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Sharp, Adam, assistant director of governmental relations,
American Farm Bureau Federation................................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Smith, Thomas, president, National Coalition of Petroleum
Retailers, Griffin, GA......................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 146
Thurston, George D., associate professor, Department of
Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine,
New York, NY................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 138
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
S. 1084, Ozone and Particulate Matter Research Act of 1997....... 40
Articles:
Air Pollution's Impact on the Weather........................ 123
Smog Map Technology Is Launched.............................. 34
Letter, Position on S. 1084, EPA Administrator Browner........... 29
List, supporters of S. 1084...................................... 50
Statement, Associated Builders and Contractors................... 148
OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER RESEARCH ACT OF 1997
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and
Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Thomas, and Boxer.
Also present: Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. The hearing will now come to order.
Today's hearing will examine the Breaux-Inhofe bill, S.
1084, which we call the Ozone and Particulate Matter Research
Act of 1997. The legislation was introduced as a result of the
new clean air standards for ozone and particulate matter
promulgated by the EPA on July 17. And in the House we have a
companion bill. It is H.R. 1984. This bill is worded
essentially the same, with some modest changes in the $25
million that would be set aside for ozone research.
Senator Breaux and I thought it was necessary to introduce
this legislation because the EPA ignored the tremendous
opposition to these new standards. Those who oppose the
standards include everyone from the Governors, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors--and I used to be on the board of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and it's one certainly that cannot be
accused of being a Republican organization--National League of
Cities, National Association of County Officials, National
Conference of State Legislators, and local government
officials.
The Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, Cattleman's Association,
American Corn Growers, fertilizer and other groups, small
business community, including NFIB, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Black Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Survival Committee,
and a number of State environmental directors too long to
articulate here.
In total, there have been over 3,200 letters, resolutions,
and comments expressing concern with these standards. While I
don't want to take time to read the names of all the
organizations who have sent these letters, I will distribute
copies of an index. This is the index of these letters, Senator
Sessions. And we're talking about thousands and thousands. Of
course, we have many of them up here on the table. In addition,
a number of organizations have written in support of this
legislation being considered today.
I would also like to introduce these letters into the
record, showing more than 30 organizations supporting it. These
are the letters that we have up here on the table.
[The index of letters is printed at the end of the hearing
record:]
The House version currently has 191 co-sponsors, and the
Senate bill has a bipartisan list of nine co-sponsors. I'm
pleased to say that as of yesterday we added an additional 12
Senators, which means we now have 21 co-sponsors for the Senate
bill.
Before we get to the testimony today, I'd just like to
briefly outline what the bill does. The bill establishes an
independent panel to be convened by the National Academy of
Sciences to prioritize the research needs on the health effects
of particulate matter. This step would help bring consensus to
any new standards proposed by the EPA in the future. So we're
dealing not just with what has happened to us since the past--
in the last 11 months, but also what could happen in the
future. So it would make the process a little bit more
professional and predictable.
With the recent standards, the EPA relied on
epidemiological studies and research performed by former EPA
employees. The National Academy of Sciences would help restore
credibility to this process.
Next, in order to ensure that the Federal dollars are spent
on the research priorities of the independent panel, the
legislation establishes a Particulate Matter Interagency
Committee to coordinate the activities of Federal agencies
engaged in particulate matter research. This committee will be
composed of eight different a agencies and departments. This is
not a new committee, as such, but a coordination of those
efforts that are going on currently.
The EPA will use this research, in addition to private
research, to review the air quality criteria through the Clean
Air Science Advisory Committee--CASAC--set up statutorily. This
review must be completed no earlier than 4 years after the
enactment of this Act.
In addition to this science research, the EPA is authorized
to require State implementation plans in order to establish a
particulate matter monitoring program. During this research,
the monitoring period, the original standards for ozone and
particulate matter will be reinstated and shall not be revised
until scientific review is completed. The legislation also
directs the National Institutes of Health to begin a research
program to study the health effects of allergens in asthmatics,
particularly in regard to urban inner cities. One of the
biggest holes in the EPA's proposal was identifying the true
causes of respiratory problems in inner-city children.
Finally, the legislation authorizes $100 million to carry
out the provisions, with 25 million of that set aside for ozone
research. This plan follows the advice of three of the four
past CASAC chairs who testified before this committee. It
concentrates on understanding the science.
For the farmers, the small businessman, the unions, the
mayors, and the Governors, it provides continuity. Today they
are concerned at the EPA's implementation schedule. They
realize it can be challenged and thrown out by the courts, and
they need stability while they try to implement the 1990
standards. They say these will not be implemented until 6 or 9
years, in accordance with what came from the EPA, but the EPA
knows well and everyone here knows well that there are lawsuits
that could come forward and challenge the fact we have double
standards.
I would like to remind everyone what Mary Nichols, the
former EPA Assistant Administrator for Air, said in our last
hearing. This is a quote. ``Under the President's
implementation schedule, the new standards will not save any
lives over the next 5 years.'' Therefore, the Breaux-Inhofe
bill will provide the necessary research, monitoring, and
stability for the American people without endangering any
lives.
Senator Baucus, do you have an opening statement.
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, I'll defer to my colleague from California,
Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank Senator Baucus for his
understanding. I have to be introducing a nominee over at the
Judiciary Committee at 10:00 am.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to you and Senator
Breaux, I'm dismayed to see that the Subcommittee on Clean Air
would give serious consideration to a bill that, in my opinion,
will jeopardize clean air and the public health.
S. 1084, the Ozone and Particulate Matter Research Act,
would block the EPA from protecting the public health by
blocking the new ozone and particulate clean air standards
which have been in effect since September of 1997. This bill
turns the clock back and reinstates the old, less-protective
standards. S. 1084 would deny the American public the health
protections they deserve, violating the most fundamental
requirement of the Clean Air Act.
The EPA estimates that this bill will result in at least
60,000 premature deaths--this bill that we're considering--
300,000 additional cases of chronic bronchitis, 1.5 million
asthma attacks, and 12.5 million work days lost.
It seems to me for the Committee on the Environment and
Public Works to be considering such a bill is a cruel irony.
EPA has a statutory mandate to protect the public health
with an adequate margin of safety. Those are the words in the
law.
Mr. Chairman, the very same arguments that we've heard
today against new clean air standards we heard before the Clean
Air Act was approved in 1970, an Act that was signed into law
by then President Richard Nixon. And I have some of those
quotes. I will not go into them today, but you couldn't tell
the difference.
When EPA announced the new ozone and particulate matter
clean air standards in July of this year, it did so after an
exhaustive scientific review, which indicated that current
standards do not adequately protect public health.
Under S. 1084, the EPA could not revise the ozone and
particulate matter standards for at least 4 years, until
further research and review by a new National Academy of
Sciences panel and a new Inter-Agency Committee on Particulate
Matter, a virtual duplication of the EPA effort, which resulted
in the new standard.
Are we going to keep redoing studies that we've already
done until we find an answer every single person likes? I
certainly hope not. We need to deal with reality , Mr.
Chairman.
When the EPA issued the new ozone and particulate matter
standards earlier this year, it did so after an exhaustive
scientific and public review process. The EPA analyzed
thousands of peer-reviewed studies and presented its
recommendations to an independent scientific advisory body, the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
This committee concluded that EPA's standards for ozone and
particulate matter needed to be strengthened, and I think it is
important to note that the committee came out with a range--a
range that it recommended--and the EPA took the middle of the
road on this. And the panel included scientists from General
Motors. They all agreed something had to be done, and they came
out with a range, and the EPA hit that right down the middle.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that, as Senators, we have no
greater duty and responsibility than to protect the health and
safety of the American people, and I look at that as an
economic issue. I reject the argument that there's a conflict
between clean air and the economy. I believe, if you look
around the world, what you'll see in countries where the air is
filthy dirty and they don't have any protective laws, economic
growth grinds to a halt. It's very simple: if you can't
breathe, you can't work.
So we need to move forward, it seems to me, with these
standards, and I think blocking them will have significant
adverse impacts on the health of Americans, especially our
children and the elderly. And we all know that when a society
is judged, it's judged the way it treats the most vulnerable
among us.
The current annual average concentration of fine
particulate matter in southeast Los Angeles County may be
responsible for up to 3,000 deaths annually and more than
52,000 incidents of respiratory symptoms, including 1,000
hospital admissions. Young children constitute the largest
group at high risk from exposure to air pollutants. They
breathe 50 percent more air by body weight than the average
adult. In California, alone, there are over six million
children under the age of 14, and approximately 90 percent of
them live in areas that fail to meed State and Federal
standards.
How are our children being affected? Studies show health
effects ranging from 20 to 60 percent loss of lung capacity. It
isn't fair, Mr. Chairman, that a baby born in a certain part of
the county has less lung capacity than another. Despite this,
representatives of industry claim that a 30 percent loss of
lung capacity is not really a health effect because it's only a
temporary, reversible loss in lung function. Tell that to a
mother whose asthmatic child has to stay home or visit the
emergency room a regular basis. Tell that to a mother whose
teenage son suffers from continuous coughing, throat
irritations, chest pain, and shortness of breath.
And what about the potential of causing permanent damage?
We have studies of lab animals which indicate long-term
exposure to ozone causes permanent damage to lungs.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity
to have the floor to cast my strong disagreement with this
bill. You've been very generous in giving me this time. I think
we must work together to ensure that we don't turn back the
clock on the progress we've already made, and I think we should
move forward with the EPA's recommendation.
Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to
express my appreciation to you for your intensive interest in
this important issue, and for coming forward with a positive
solution to a situation I've become very troubled with. For the
past 9 months, as a new member of this Senate and a new member
of this committee, I have looked anxiously and waited anxiously
to find a kind of scientific basis for the kind of significant
regulations that we are--that EPA proposes to impose on
America. I have not found those.
Like you, I hear from the people in my State, from the
business community, from the mayors in the State, from the
county commissioners in the State, and from our Department of
Environmental Management in our State. They have serious
reservations and really objections to the proposals as they
are.
Your idea of giving more intensive scientific study is the
right approach. There was not a witness that said we had the
kind of complete data that they would like to have to make
these important decisions.
On February 5, for example, the Subcommittee on Clean Air
held a hearing, and I questioned Dr. Schwartz, a member of the
EPA's own Scientific Advisory Committee, the CASAC committee,
about the Birmingham study--Birmingham, Alabama. Dr. Schwartz
had conducted that, showing increased mortality on high
particulate matter days.
A subsequent peer-reviewed study using the exact same data
as Dr. Schwartz' study showed that when humidity was a factor
in the model, no statistically significant effect could be
observed.
I don't know the right scientific answer, but EPA admits
relying on Dr. Schwartz' study as a basis for their new
standards.
It was previously mentioned how many lives would be lost. I
have been very concerned, troubled, and really offended that
use of numbers in what I would consider a promotional tactic
that would create fear in America.
EPA announced these standards in late 1996. They stated
40,000 lives could be saved by implementation of the
particulate matter standards, 40,000. On February 12, the EPA
Administrator appeared before the committee and testified that
20,000 deaths, \1/2\ of them, could be prevented by
implementation of these standards. In April of this year, after
an outside analyst discovered an error in the estimates, the
agency again lowered its numbers to 15,000 premature deaths.
Many of these are very elderly and in severe health conditions.
In May the same analyst who first discovered the error in EPA's
estimates found additional errors, which brought the estimates
of premature deaths to under 1,000.
These are not good numbers that we're dealing with. This is
what you are looking forward to to answer, and I think we need
to do that.
The CASAC votes were split. If you add up the numbers--as I
recall their votes, those numbers really totaled in opposition
to the standards adopted by EPA if you added them up. Every
vote was--virtually every vote was severely split.
The cost of these standards will be extremely high. Our air
is getting better. Why asthma attacks are going up we don't
know, but ozone is going down. At a time when ozone is going
down, asthma attacks are going up. You are very wise, I think,
to do some research into why that health condition is
occurring.
I support this approach. I think it is a reasoned, modest,
and moderate alternative to a proposal of the Environmental
Protection Agency that I think is not justified, and I support
you and appreciate the leadership of you and Senator Breaux and
others who put this package together.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions. I appreciate
your attendance, too. This is the sixth hearing that we've had
on this particular subject, and you've been here for all six. I
appreciate that very much.
Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to point out, first, it has been almost one year
since the EPA released its proposal to strengthen the national
ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter,
and since that time we've heard from just about everyone
interested in this issue.
You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has had six
hearings. I might say that both the House and the Senate
together have held 24 hearings to examine the science, the
economics, the health aspects of the new standards, and we
listened to scientists, industry folks, farmers, ranchers,
environmentalists, health professionals, State and local
governments. And I might add, too, that in the end the EPA also
listened, because the final standards that went into effect on
September 18 were changed. They were changed from what EPA
initially proposed.
But, more importantly, EPA acknowledged the potential
difficulties in implementing the new standards.
As a result of our hearings and other comments, it is clear
that the Agency is working hard to fashion a sensible approach
to implementation. I don't think anyone can dispute that.
Today we will hear about recently published research that
supports EPA's decision to set new standards. We will learn
about new technologies that will lower the cost of improving
air quality. That's a familiar pattern.
Air quality standards have always been met with claims of
economic demise. But then technology catches up, innovative
programs are implemented, further research bolsters the initial
decision--and I might add, in our economy, the drive to improve
the bottom line always results in ways to reduce costs. And in
the end, costs are a fraction of the initial claims and
everyone breathes cleaner air.
That is exactly the case with the emissions trading system
set up in the 1990 Clean Air Act. Compliance costs are now one-
tenth initial estimates. That is not to say we should be making
decisions without sufficient information. We need to continue
the high-caliber research that has been a tradition of the
United States.
In fact, EPA's funding bill for fiscal year 1998 contains
almost $50 million for particulate matter research, to the
credit of Senators Bond and Mikulski, but I do not think we
need this bill to authorize more research. Existing Clean Air
Act already provides EPA with the authority it needs to conduct
the necessary studies.
What is much more troubling to me, though, is that S. 1084
would revoke the ozone and particulate matter standards that
just became effective. Furthermore, it prohibits EPA from
revising the standards for at least 4 years, even if new
research uncovers additional health problems resulting from
ozone or particulate matter air pollution.
With all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, and the sponsors
of the bill, I think that's the wrong approach. Instead, I
believe that we must continue to protect public health.
Implementing the current standards is a fair and cost-effective
manner, and a fair and cost-effective manner is the best way to
achieve the goal.
I hope we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to
ensure that it's done right. And I want to underline that I
think that all of us here do want to improve our air quality
standards. They are good in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I don't see very many Americans heading for
the door to go live in other countries because their costs are
so high in this country to comply or because of all the
problems in this country. It's just the opposite. We need to
learn about pollution of other countries. It's because those
countries have not undertaken the immense effort that is
required to try to find air quality standards to assure that
people in those countries breathe clean air. They just don't do
it. They don't because they just don't make the extra effort.
We, in our country, have made an extra effort, and I think
it's incumbent upon us not to take the easy way--which is to
criticize--but, rather the hard and right way--which is to work
together to do this right. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
I now ask our witnesses to take their places at the table.
And, while they're coming forward, as the Chair I'll give
you an overview of how we'll proceed at this hearing.
We do have a time constraint. We have to be out of the room
at 11:30. It should not take the 2 hours.
We have six witnesses who will be testifying today. I also
mention that, while some of the members of the subcommittee are
not here, they will be coming in and out and the staffs are
here at this hearing, both majority and the monitory, who will
be monitoring and reporting back to the members.
The witnesses will be allocated 5 minutes to give an
opening statement. There will be lights in front of you--red,
yellow, green. I think we all know what that means. And we'd
ask you to try to comply with those time limitations.
Following the 5-minute comments by the witness, I will then
ask any member of the subcommittee if they would like to ask
questions. They will have a round of questions and answers.
I think we're ready to begin. Let me just introduce all six
in the order that they will be making presentations: Mr. James
A. Martin is the vice president of Martin's Famous Pastry
Shoppe, Inc., on behalf of the American Bakers Associate in
Chambersburg, PA. In just a minute I will read a letter from
Senator Santorum, who regretted he couldn't be here today.
We'll have Mr. Adam Sharp, assistant director of
governmental relations, regulatory affairs, American Farm
Bureau Federation.
Mr. Andy Abbott, assistant to the international president,
the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, forgers, and Helpers, in Fairfax, VA.
Mr. Jason Grumet, executive director, Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management in Boston, MA.
Dr. George Thurston--I welcome Dr. Thurston back. He has
been here with us before--associate professor, Department of
Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine,
New York.
And Mr. Thomas Smith; president, National Coalition for
Petroleum Retailers in Griffin, GA.
We that, please allow me to call on Mr. James Martin to
present his testimony. I will convey greetings from Senator
Santorum. His letter states every nice thing that he could say
about you, Mr. Martin, and he's very pleased that you are here
today, and I'm sure he'll see you during your visit.
Mr. Martin.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. MARTIN, VICE PRESIDENT, MARTIN'S FAMOUS
PASTRY SHOPPE, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BAKERS
ASSOCIATION, CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Martin. Good day, and thank you for the opportunity to
be here. I am Jim Martin, an owner of Martin's Famous Pastry
Shoppe, Inc. We have bakeries in Chambersburg and Shippensburg,
Pennsylvania. Ours is a family business started in 1955 by my
parents. Perhaps you've seen our Martin's famous potato rolls
in our grocery store bread aisles.
Today I'm speaking for myself and the members of the
American Bakers Association. The American Bakers Association
represents 80 percent of the wholesale baking business, which
includes small businesses like ours and the companies with
national brand names that you may know. Bakeries were captured
by the Clean Air Act because the natural process of yeast
fermentation used to make bread and rolls produces ethanol, an
alcohol, which is considered volatile organic compound. Ethanol
from bakeries is non-toxic, low reactive, probably eaten by the
bacteria in the atmosphere.
The American Bakers Association strongly supports Senate
1084. This bill will ensure that sound science and good
planning have the time to develop before costly and potentially
inappropriate controls area required.
The baking by has already spent $28 million to comply with
existing requirements. We estimate that the banking industry
will spend $236 million to implement the new standard. The
equipment to control bread aroma from a bakery costs about
$500,000 to install and costs between $35,000 a year and
$100,000 a year to operate. That's about $12,000 per ton of VOC
controlled, not the $1,400 per ton estimated by the USEPA.
The American Bakers Association has worked with the bakers
in each State and with the State officials to develop
reasonable rules to bring States and industry into compliance.
The States have worked hard to implement the Clean Air Act
under demanding and often changing EPA policies. We offer our
compliments to Pennsylvania and many of the other States where
hard work has put the most cost-effective control requirements
in place. However, State officials are struggling to further
reduce emissions and are being forced to look at smaller and
smaller sources--that is, small businesses.
Bakers are a low-volume, low-profit-margin business. Let me
give an example how a small baker might be affected by control
requirements.
Imagine Joe's Bakery in your State. Joe is operating a
white bread bakery he inherited from his father. The bakery has
been in business for 80 years, with a profit margin of 1.7
percent. His bakery, like others, is labor intensive, providing
jobs at relatively high pay rate and supporting many families
in the neighborhood. No one is getting rich, but everyone is
being paid and the local area has good, fresh-tasting bread.
His potential of emissions trigger the control
requirements. Joe goes to his bank and asks for a loan for the
$500,000 to install controls and cut his profit margin by 24
percent. The bank denies his request, which is good business
practice for the bank. If he can find a buyer, he can sell his
bakery, or Joe can close. Sadly, some bakeries have closed
during the implementation of the current standard.
Now, let me share with you the situation at our bakeries.
We emit enough ethanol to trigger control requirements. Stack
testing, permitting, engineering reports, communications, and
costs associated with investigating new technology have
exceeded $250,000 to date in our bakeries. Our engineers
calculate that adding a control device will increase our
production energy consumption by 50 percent per package of
rolls. However, rather than purchase the control equipment, we
have chosen to limit our production and the growth of our
business. This means our ability to serve the region with a
maximum variety of product or to respond quickly to changes in
consumer taste and demand is limited. That's not my
understanding of free enterprise, and I have wondered, ``Is
less bread on the table a good trade for no measurable
improvement in air quality?''
I and the bakers I represent urge you to pass Senate 1084
to make clear legal statements about the funding of the
research and science and timing of the implementation of the
air quality standard.
Please help us do the right thing to protect the air and
the earth.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and I'll answer
any questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Sharp.
STATEMENT OF ADAM SHARP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Mr. Sharp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
provide testimony for this important hearing on S. 1084.
I'm Adam Sharp, assistant director of governmental
relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation here in
Washington, D.C. I'm also a partner in my family's farm in
southeastern Ohio where, along with my three brothers, my
father, and my grandfather, I operate a dairy farm and
diversified crop farm. Today I am representing the American
Farm Bureau Federation, the Nation's largest general farm
organization, with more than 4.7 million member families.
The Farm Bureau supports Senate bill 1084 for many reasons,
but foremost because it will allow the necessary time for the
agricultural community and EPA to gain a more accurate
understanding of agricultural emissions, how much we emit, and
to what extent the air quality standards will impact our
industry.
My comments focus primarily on PM2.5 standard.
There has been and continues to be a tremendous amount of
conservation activity by farmers and ranchers across this
country. These activities reduce wind erosion of the soil,
which in turn provides cleaner air. Farmers are cleaning the
air and should get credit for those activities; however,
agriculture is concerned because EPA lacks actual measurements
of what agriculture emits in the form of fine particulate. One
estimate is that 34.3 percent of the primary fine particulate
matter can be attributed to agriculture and forestry, and
others suggest as low as 5 percent.
EPA is finally acknowledging what we have been telling it:
that agriculture is not a major emitter of this pollutant.
However, nothing has been done to date to correct faulty
documentation that over-estimates agricultural sources or
solidifies Administrator Browner's promises that agriculture
will not be impacted. The Administrator's promises have done
little for our concerns because States decide who will be
regulated, not her.
I quote The Honorable Larry Combest, chairman of the House
Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry, Natural resources, and
conservation. He says--and we agree--that we don't have the
research yet to know whether we can actually attain these
standards, how much it will cost the agricultural industry and
the consuming public, and how much agriculture activity
actually contributes to air pollution problems.
Let me focus on an actual situation farmers in California
already face in regard to present PM10 serious
nonattainment area for central and southern California.
Agriculture in other areas of the country may face the same or
similar situation when dealing with the new particulate matter
PM2.5 standard.
The emission inventory for agriculture used by EPA has
proven to have many flaws for PM10. Inaccurate
estimates of the number of times a farmer drives his tractor
over a field is one major example--eight times for alfalfa, 13
times for rice, twice for rangeland. But probably the most
blatant example of an inaccurate inventory was the initial
emission inventory for combustion engines used to drive
irrigation pumps. The original inventory estimated nitrogen
oxide or NOX emissions, a precursor of PM, at 600 tons per day
for all the pumps in the San Joaquin Valley. This would have
been the highest emission category for NOX emissions in the
valley, exceeding all the cars and trucks, which together only
made about 300 tons per day.
Driven by agricultural inquiries, a new study based on
interviews with farmers determined that the NOX emissions for
these pumps was only 32 tons per day--600 down to 32.
We have only begun to address agriculture's concerns with
PM10 measurements, many of which are still
unaddressed and uncorrected. Considering these discrepancies,
it is unimaginable that we are now again faced with the same
problems, only this time with a smaller particulate matter.
In attempting to resolve some of these agriculture emission
issues surrounding PM10 and PM2.5, it
became necessary to conduct a multi-year, multi-faceted air
quality study, which is now underway in California. However, it
will not be completed for roughly 5 years. S. 1084 would give
agriculture the needed time to attain this important
agriculture PM2.5 emissions data.
I want to emphasize that this study is the first
comprehensive study that actually measures instead of
estimating agriculture's PM2.5 emissions. In order
to avoid the mistakes made with PM10, the new PM
standard should be delayed until this study and others like it
are completed and before costly implementation activities
begin.
We fear that, despite guarantees, that implementation of
this new standard may come quicker than what has been spelled
out.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the present
approach of placing a new PM standard before having good
scientific data for fine particulate sources may lead to false
agriculture emission estimates again. Agriculture will also see
a tremendous amount of indirect impacts from the new standards.
Targeted industries such as utilities, fuel, transportation,
chemicals, equipment, and many more will pass their costs on to
their users. One of those is agriculture.
In a study by AUS consultants to be released soon, the net
cash income for all farmers is projected to fall by 10 percent,
or $5 billion annually over the first 6 years of implementation
of these new standards. Those are simply indirect impacts.
Those are not even direct.
The agriculture community enjoys breathing clean air as
much as anybody. This committee must continue to demand that
the concerns of America's farmers and ranchers are addressed by
the EPA in order to ensure a continued safe, abundant, healthy,
and affordable food supply.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Sharp.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Abbott.
STATEMENT OF ANDE ABBOTT, ASSISTANT TO THE INTERNATIONAL
PRESIDENT, THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON
SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS, & HELPERS, FAIRFAX,
VIRGINIA
Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have to
apologize up front. I came down with a serious cold yesterday
afternoon.
With your permission, sir, I'd like to just enter my
statement into the record and just make a very short verbal----
Senator Inhofe. Yes. All your statement will be entered
into the record in its entirety, and you can make any length of
statement you'd like, Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott. Thank you very much, Senator.
The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, along with
all the other building trades unions, as well as the Mine
Workers Union and many of the other unions, had been very
supportive of the Clean Air Act when it was up for
consideration back years ago. We understood that there was
going to be an initial cost, we understood that there were
going to be industries that were going to be economically hurt,
and we knew that there were going to be some jobs at stake.
But, overall, providing clean air to the United States was very
important to our agenda. We all felt that for our generation
and all generations to come, that clean air was necessary.
Mr. Chairman, we met with EPA earlier this year to discuss
these new clean air standards, I guess I can tell you that the
21 or 22 people that were involved from the labor unions were
really quite stunned by what we discovered from EPA. Their
inability to answer questions and how easily some of their
assumptions were being successfully challenged--EPA initially
used the 60,000 premature death figure, and I said, ``Wait a
minute. If you're talking about asthma''--and, Mr. Chairman,
I'm an asthmatic, myself-- ``I know that you could shut down
every combustible, every manufactured source of pollution in
the United States, and you would still have people with asthma
and you would still have some people dying of asthma.'' Other
people are even allergic to the sun, and I don't know what you
can do about some of these.
When you have a background from nature, I just don't know
what EPA is going to do about controlling that. But when I
asked EPA about, ``When you made these studies for the PM
standard down to 2.5,'' I said, ``did you actually analyze the
content of these materials?'' They said no, that they hadn't
really analyzed them, they had no idea what it was. I said,
``Well, would it be safe to say that most of it was from
nature?'' and they said yes.
I become very concerned about that, especially when we
start looking at some of the coastal states, as an example,
California, the Gulf coast, Oregon, Washington, where you have
salt that is just naturally in the air, and all of this starts
getting counted against the PM standards, and all of that is
going to be registering on monitors. I mean, 2.5 microns is
very, very small, and I don't know of any pollen in nature that
is smaller than that. Almost everything is larger.
As a result of that, it has been projected that there will
be over 800 additional counties that will be in noncompliance.
So we asked the question, ``Well, what happens if you have
an area that is continually not in compliance?'' EPA said,
``Well, we're going to shut down heavy construction projects,
we're going to stop mowing the gas, we're going to end
barbecues. We're going to keep people from burning stuff in
their fireplaces.'' And then they volunteered, well, in some
areas--you've got the airline industry in Los Angeles and San
Francisco that's putting hundreds of millions of tons of
pollution in the air every day on takeoff and landings of
airplanes I said, ``Well, what are you going to do about
that?'' They just shook their head. They've got no answer for
it at all.
Mr. Chairman, there were just so many things as we were
going through this that they could not answer even a little bit
of it, and I was, frankly, stunned. In dealing with EPA in the
past, when we were dealing with the Clean Air Act and the
amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, there was no
hesitation. Things made sense. You would go through. There
seemed to be substance to what they were saying, and when you
began to challenge them with any amount of logic in the past
they were able to answer it. With these standards, there is
absolutely nothing that we found that we could support in these
standards.
We just feel that, with the effect that this is going to
have on employment, and especially since they're talking about
expanding NAFTA and everything else, that, among other things,
this is just going to drive more businesses out of the United
States.
It's hard to estimate anything. I mean, you throw out the
numbers of jobs lost. Some people have estimated it will be
over 1.3 million jobs. Some have estimated higher. A few have
estimated lower. But, in any case, I just don't think that we
should be going forward with any standards unless they can meet
somewhat of a logic test and meet somewhat of a scientific
study, scientific scrutiny.
In dealing with the EPA and the issues that they brought up
and the answers that they gave, Senator, we were very, very
disappointed.
I thank you very much, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Abbott.
Senator Inhofe. We've been joined by Senator Thomas from
Wyoming. Senator Thomas, we've heard from Mr. Martin, who has a
small bakery and is in the bakery industry; and, of course, Mr.
Sharp with the Farm Bureau you've met before; and Mr. Abbott
with Boilermakers.
Do you have an opening statement you'd like to offer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. I would like to submit it for the record,
but please proceed with this hearing.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of
Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today to
discuss S. 1084, the ``Ozone and Particulate Matter Research
Act of 1997.'' This is important legislation and I want to
compliment you, and Senator Breaux, for the leadership you have
taken in pursuing enactment of this initiative.
As most are aware, great uncertainty surrounds the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule to tighten
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter and ozone. Since the committee first held hearings on
this issue, scientists--including those on the EPA's own Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)--have testified that
the court-ordered deadline did not allow enough time for them
to adequately examine the rule. We also heard testimony that
more time was needed to conduct additional research.
However, these efforts were thwarted when President Clinton
endorsed the standards on July 18, 1997. This was in spite of
the fact that more than 250 members of Congress, 27 Governors,
labor groups, the agncultural community and the National
Conference of Mayors expressed opposition to the new
regulations. Even several of President Clinton's agencies have
expressed serious doubt.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, the
EPA's regulation ``is certainly one of the most expensive
regulations, if not the most expensive regulation faced by
small businesses in 10 or more years.'' The Department of
Agriculture stated that ``farm groups have expressed concern
that the proposed standards may impose significant costs on
farmers and agribusiness.'' The Department of Energy encouraged
the EPA to ``retain the current primary ozone standard,'' and
the Department of the Treasury believes ``that many areas
cannot achieve the new fine particle standard.''
It's clear, Mr. Chairman, that the scientific evidence for
these new standards is not complete. Under your proposal, an
independent panel would be organized by the National Academy of
Sciences to prioritize research needs on the health effects of
particulate matter. It's my understanding that the EPA would be
required to establish PM monitoring programs through state
grants, and a Particulate Matter Interagency Committee would be
established to coordinate the activities of federal agencies
involved in fine particle research. With regard to ozone, S.
1084 takes the necessary steps to further research programs
looking at the adverse health effects of ground-level smog--
especially in urban areas. I'm also encouraged that the bill
authorizes adequate funding levels to carry out these research
needs for the next 5 fiscal years.
This is good legislation; I am pleased to be a cosponsor,
and willing to help Senator Inhofe and others pass S. 1084 this
year. Let me say, however, that placing a 4-year moratorium on
the EPA's regulations does not mean we are against a clean
environment. We need to continue to look for ways to improve
and protect public health, but this must be achieved in a
balanced manner.
Many uncertainties remain, including the fact that a large
number of areas are having trouble meeting current Clean Air
Act standards and may never reach attainment with the adoption
of these new regulations. Furthermore, the costs will be
extreme and we need to make sure this initiative will be worth
the enormous price that businesses and individuals will have to
bear. I do not believe we should be heading down a regulatory
road before additional research is conducted so we truly know
which pollutants are causing adverse health effects.
We have a diverse panel before us today, Mr. Chairman, and
I look forward to their testimony. Thanks again for your
leadership and willingness to make the EPA come to the snubbing
post and justify their actions.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Mr. Grumet, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF JASON GRUMET, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST STATES
FOR COORDINATED AIR USE MANAGEMENT (NESCAUM) BOSTON, MA
Mr. Grumet. Thank you very much.
My name is Jason Grumet, and I'm the executive director of
the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, or
NESCAUM, which for the last 30 years has been representing the
six New England States, New York, and New Jersey in their
efforts to achieve air pollution standards.
On behalf of my colleagues, who spend each and every day
trying to implement the Federal air quality standards, I
appreciate the opportunity to join you here today.
I'm going to try to continue Mr. Abbott's thoughts about
logic for a moment. We reach a different conclusion. The
northeast States strongly support the new air quality standards
because we believe they represent a more rational, logical, and
accurate physical reality of the problems that we are trying to
address. We think, moreover, these standards are long overdue,
and therefore we are opposed to S. 1084 and any other effort,
for that matter, which would shackle our programs to 20-year-
old science.
What I'd like to do to help you understand this is really
touch on three issues: one, Government's responsibility to
provide the public with accurate information; second, cost--
something that we're all concerned about; and, third, equity,
an issue of particular concern to the northeast.
But, just to get started, I need to say a few things about
the standards. The standards do many things. One of the most
important things, from our point of view, that the standards do
is they provide a blueprint, essentially a road map for how we
can design our air quality programs.
Anyone who has ever been on a country road on a dark night
with a 20-year-old road map will have some sense of what we
think these new standards do for us right now. They give us a
general direction, but they don't get us from here to there in
the quickest, most rational way possible, and I'd like to try
to explain why.
They're 20 years old. They're based on our scientific
understanding of the ozone problem derived largely from the Los
Angeles air basin in the 1970's. They tell us that air
pollution is a local problem. Well, we now know it's a regional
problem, stretching hundreds of miles across many States. They
tell us that our concern should be for peak ozone levels and
one-hour violations. We now know that air pollution is a multi-
day problem, and the health effects are chronic over several
hours at a time.
The old standard also focuses towards VOC controls, the
kind of controls that Mr. Martin was complaining about being
very expensive.
Well, we now know, since the National Academy study about 5
years ago, that the real problem is NOX pollution, which,
fortunately, is much more cost-effective to control.
So we have a situation in which we are being given a road
map which does not, in fact, diagnose the problem.
In 1970, when these standards were adopted, they were
fairly called a ``partial diagnosis.'' Carrying the medical
analogy forward, since we think we do public health work, the
1970 standards right now, frankly, represent air pollution
malpractice, and the suggestion that we should go back to those
standards deprives us of tools that will help us achieve air
quality in a cost-effective manner.
I'd like to now turn quickly to public information. And I'm
going to ask if you have it to take a peak at attachment A
which I included in my testimony.
We believe government has a fundamental responsibility to
provide people with accurate information, and one of the most
important things the standards do is just that.
The map that I included is a map that shows the highest
daily ozone levels every single day for five summers--from 1991
to 1995. It's a depiction of chronic exposure to ozone.
Many critics of the standards have told us there's no
threshold beneath which people are safe. Well, what this map
shows you is that there are dramatic health effects in States
right now which are deemed attainment. Massachusetts, where I'm
proud to live, is deemed a serious ozone non-attainment area,
yet the chronic ozone exposure in Massachusetts is far less
than the ozone exposure in Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio,
Illinois--States that are now told that they are in attainment.
I suggest to you that this is misleading tens of millions
of Americans into believing that they, in fact, are not facing
any risks from air pollution. And to go back to that standard I
think would be a grave mistake.
I want to focus for a moment on cost, because this is
something that we all spend a great deal of time thinking
about.
We have heard and Senator Baucus indicated that the worst
case dire projections, the fears of economic ruin that have
accompanied every air quality regulation to date have not been
realized. We posit the same will happen here. Simply put, the
new standards focus us on nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide
emissions. These are emissions which come from two main
sources--heavy-duty diesel vehicles and utilities. These are
some of the most cost-effective control options available
today. We can achieve the utility controls we want without
adding more than 1 or 2 percent to the residential electric
bill, and, since heavy-duty vehicles have yet to be regulated,
we also believe there are very cost-effective measures there,
as well.
The reason that costs are continuously overstated is really
three-fold: we have worst-case projections, understandably, by
concerned industries; we have a failure to take account for
competition; and a failure to account for innovation.
If you look at attachment C, which I won't go into, you'll
see that in each and every instance utilities--gasoline,
automobiles--the costs are dramatically overstated. There's
only one dynamic that will stop this innovation from bringing
these costs down in the future, and that dynamic is uncertainty
and delay, and it's our fear that that would be the result if
S. 1084 became law.
Let me just end by talking about equity for a moment.
Unsurprisingly, the areas with the highest chronic exposure to
ozone also have the highest utility NOX emissions.
If you look at attachment B, you will note that all the
States listed have more NOX emissions from their utilities than
all eight northeast States combined. One of the reasons for
this is that the old standards have mislead these communities,
these political leaders, and these residents to believe that
they don't have a problem. They have had no self-interested
incentive to reduce their pollution. And we have found that
altruism, alone, has not gotten the job done.
We believe that the new standards will provide people with
good, accurate information, and with that information the
political leaders and the residents of the midwest and the
southeast will take the same self-interested rational actions
we have to cost-effectively reduce our emissions.
So, in conclusion, we think the new standards provide
better information. We think they will provide more cost-
effective approaches and more-equitable approaches to air
pollution problems, and for those reasons we support them.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Grumet.
Dr. Thurston, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. THURSTON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. Thurston. Thank you. I am George Thurston, a tenured
associate professor of environmental medicine at New York
University School of Medicine. My scientific research involves
investigations of the human health effects of air pollution.
I'm also the director of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences' Community Outreach and Education
program at NYU. A goal of this program is to provide an
impartial scientific resource on environmental healthy issues
to decision-makers, and that's my purpose in testifying to you
here today.
I must take issue with much of the intent of S. 1084 and
with the findings upon which it is based.
First, the new ozone standard will not disrupt or delay
ozone reductions, as implied by finding four. Instead, it is S.
1084 that would increase uncertainty in the marketplace and by
regulators, thereby slowing air quality progress.
Second, findings five and six fail to acknowledge that
CASAC reached a consensus that a PM2.5 standard is
needed and that the ozone standard should be changed to an
eight-hour basis, both of which the EPA promulgated on July 18,
1997.
I really would like to take issue with Senator Sessions'
statement that there were lots of differences of opinion on the
committee, on all these issues, and that their CASAC vote was
split.
I can show you the quote from the closure letter saying
that there was a consensus by CASAC on these two points--the
need for the PM2.5 and the need for an eight-hour
ozone standard, as the new standards reflect.
The revocation of these new standards called for in bill S.
1084 would be unwise and would be inconsistent with the intent
of the Clean Air Act.
Moreover, bill S. 1084 wrongly seeks to fundamentally
rewrite the Clean Air Act by restructuring who decides whether
new standards are needed. The existing Clean Air Act requires
that EPA review the standards every 5 years and then leaves
that standard-setting decision to the Administrator with advice
from CASAC.
Bill S. 1084, in contrast, seeks to shift that power to
Congress by imposing a change back to the old ozone and PM
standards. To my knowledge, this would be the first time that
the Congress has intervened to interfere with air quality
standards set by the EPA.
The bill also says that the next science review of these
standards may not occur any earlier than 4 years from now, but
sets no requirement for the latest that these reviews may
occur, which could possibly be interpreted as eliminating the
Clean Air Act requirement for every-5-year reviews of these
pollutants. These changes would represent a dramatic and
unacceptable change in the Clean Air Act.
The newly promulgated EPA air quality standards for ozone
and particulate matter are based on sound science and need to
be retained if the public's health is to be adequately
protected. The adverse health consequences of breathing ozone
or PM are serious and well-documented, even at levels below the
US national ambient air quality standards that were in effect
before July of 1997. This documentation includes impacts
demonstrated by controlled chamber experiments and by
observational epidemiology showing consistent associations
between each of these pollutants and adverse impacts across a
wide range of human health outcomes.
These adverse impacts include: decreased lung function, a
measure of our ability to breathe freely; more frequent
respiratory symptoms; increased numbers of asthma attacks; more
frequent emergency department visits; additional hospital
admissions; and increased numbers of daily deaths.
In previous Congressional hearings, much discussion has
centered on New York City hospital admissions effects, but the
adverse impacts on hospital admissions are only the tip of the
iceberg of adverse effects associated with PM and ozone
pollution.
Indeed, in my testimony and in this table figure that's
included in my testimony, I show that hospital admissions
account for only approximately .01 percent of all ozone-induced
adverse health impacts in New York City. Also, while there are
about seven million persons in New York City, there are a total
of some 122 million persons throughout the U.S. who now live in
areas exceeding the ozone standard and will, therefore, also be
benefitted by that new standard.
Thus, the New York City hospital admissions effects are
best viewed as an indicator of a much broader spectrum of
potentially avoidable adverse health effects being experienced
by the public today as a result of air pollution exposures.
The scientific evidence that has been published since the
PM and ozone criteria documents were written is consistent with
a need for the immediate implementation of the more stringent
standards that the EPA promulgated. Indeed, while the exact
causal mechanism--i.e., the smoking gun of the PM mortality
association--is not yet known, there are biologically plausible
mechanisms that are now known--and these weren't available and
weren't included in the criteria document--that could account
for the associations. For example, recent animal experiments by
Godleski and coworkers at Harvard University confirmed that
exposures to elevated concentrations of ambient PM can result
in cardiac-related deaths in animals.
Epidemiological evidence has also accumulated over recent
years, indicating a role by ozone in daily human mortality, a
fact not fully considered by the EPA.
I've attached a list of over 20 studies showing
associations between ozone and mortality which were not
considered.
Thus, it is more clear than ever that important reductions
in public health risk can be achieved by rapidly implementing
the standards recently promulgated by the EPA.
They for this opportunity to testify.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Thurston.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS SMITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COALITION OF
PETROLEUM RETAILERS, GRIFFIN, GEORGIA; ACCOMPANIED BY: JIM
DASKEL, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL COALITION OF PETROLEUM
RETAILERS
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Tom Smith, president of NCPR, the chief advocate of the
interests of America's 45,000 mom and pop gasoline retailers
across America, and a Texaco dealer from Griffin, Georgia. And
with me is our counsel, Jim Daskel.
NCPR strongly supports Senate 1084, the Ozone and
Particulate Matter Research Act, and we want to make three
major points in our testimony today.
First, a claim that there is no need for the legislation
because the compliance deadlines are well off in the future is
misleading. Without Senate 1084, compliance schedules would be
dictated by citizen suits and sanction threats, because the
Clean Air Act mandates that the states adopt a number of
control technologies.
Second, EPA's claims of a flexible implementation process
are undercut by the statutory mandates and, more importantly,
by EPA's actions with respect to vehicle IM and SBREFA.
EPA hurts its credibility with statements such as telling
the Agriculture Committee that the standards will lead to more
ethanol fuel sales. EPA tried to rewrite the Clean Air Act to
mandate ethanol before and got shot down by the court of
appeals.
Our third point is that we need Senate 1084 to ensure that
we do not rob Peter to pay Paul. If you do not pass Senate bill
1084, our members' limited resources would be diverted from
compliance with the 1998 underground tank regulatory deadline,
where they would most benefit human health and the environment,
into ineffective redundancies like stage two vapor recovery.
Let me first talk about the idea that there is no need for
the legislation because the compliance deadlines are well off
into the future.
Once an area becomes a nonattainment area, the Clean Air
Act forces the States and our members to implement control
strategies such as stage two, enhanced IM, and the sale of
reformulated gasolines. These mandatory control strategies can
be enforced by citizen suits and other threats which will
inevitably occur well before the date EPA is talking about.
States will be forced to act now if the legislation is not
passed. The threat is so severe that NCPR has had to file suit
against EPA, alleging that the provisions of the Clean Air Act
that mandate certain control strategies are unconstitutional
under the 10th Amendment and a 1997 Supreme Court decision.
Though EPA has promised to be flexible, this statute ties
their hands. Based on our experience in the motor vehicle/IM
debate, our members have deep-seeded reservations over EPA's
flexibility promise. To quote Georgia State Representative Mike
Evans, testifying under oath before the House Commerce
Committee in the 104th Congress, he stated, ``EPA's assertion
that they have been flexible is simply not so. We have not seen
it in Georgia, nor do we believe that other States have seen
it, either. The only thing that we have heard is sanctions,
sanctions, and sanctions.
We also question the flexibility claim in light of EPA's
absurd position that changing the standard does not implicate
SBREFA.
The EPA says we will not hurt small businesses and farmers,
such as those in my family. EPA has a funny definition of the
word ``hurt.'' My family members and farm-based customers do
not buy the EPA line and are concerned that higher fuel prices
and regulatory costs will squeeze already thin farm margins.
I also do not see how EPA can make the claim that the
standards would mean more use of ethanol-blended gasolines with
a straight face. Ethanol cannot be used in many nonattainment
areas because it will hurt or worsen the ozone problems. Let me
add that the ethanol subsidy is destructive to competition in
the gasoline industry, and any version of a highway bill that
extends the ethanol subsidy for another 7 years to us is just
poisoned tea and would force us to oppose the entire bill,
though we support CMAQ funding.
As very small locally owned and operated businesses,
gasoline dealers' limited resources must be used in a way so as
to achieve the maximum environmental bang for their buck. Our
members need to spend money on the underground tank upgrades
required by 1998 in order to protect groundwater. Due to the
requirements of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, many
stations and their tanks will be sold to small dealers and have
to be replaced in the next 15 months.
Gasoline dealers have long been involved in the debate over
the clean air, primarily because the dealer and his family, as
well as our employees and their families, breathe the same air
and drink the same water as our friends and neighbors do.
We support the 1990 Clean Air Act as amended, even though
they cost us at least 15 percent of the independent dealer
stations.
We cannot support the new standards and urge the passage of
Senate 1084.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
We'll have some 5-minute rounds up here, and we will adhere
to our time schedule so that we can have as many rounds as
possible within the time limit that we have, and we'll have
some other Members that are coming here shortly.
Mr. Martin, I'll start with you. In your testimony you
offer two very profound examples on impact of the air standards
on small, family-owned bakeries. First is the inability to
secure loans to get their equipment, the control equipment; and
then your own example, where you've literally decreased
production so that you don't trigger the control levels.
You know, neither example helps your businesses or the
supply of bread--to me, at least. It doesn't seem efficient to
force companies to cut production.
If the regulations were to continue in effect, as
promulgated by this association, what do you think would happen
to your industry? What is the--can you give us idea of what a
profit margin is of a small bakery.
Mr. Martin. I think, within our own experience, it would
probably range from--just looking at a 10- to 15-year period--
from probably a small percentage loss to a high of maybe 3 to 4
percent.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. How do you think these regulations
would impact that.
Mr. Martin. I guess it would depend. If you want to put it
on a percentage, we know up front we're going to spend the
500,000 at least to make building modifications and put the
technology in which we have gone and looked on site and have
promised with the way it would apply to our industry, and then
for the extra cost of operation it would be another 100,000 a
year, probably.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Grumet had said that the industry
normally over-estimates the cost of compliance. In your
testimony you stated the cost to bakers is $12,000 per ton of
DOCs controlled, not the 1,400 per ton estimated by EPA. Who is
right, you or the EPA.
Mr. Martin. Well, I can understand where they came up with
some of those numbers, although I was not particularly a part
of it. I asked some of those questions, myself, and, simply,
the $1,400 would be taken from the handful of a certain type of
baking operation, the 12,000 would be looking at the overview
of all bakeries of many different sizes and shapes and forms.
Senator Inhofe. You know, it is a difficult thing--and I
think that Senator Sessions touched on this--that the original
estimate of the cost of compliance by the EPA was--in fact, the
one they're still using--is $8 billion. The President's own
Economic Council used $60 billion per year. And the Reason
Foundation out in California--I think came out with theirs
right before our last hearing--they estimated somewhere between
$90 and $150 billion per year. So it's difficult to use these
estimates in any logical sense.
Mr. Sharp, I was particularly impressed with your testimony
because I spent quite a bit of time talking to farm bureau
groups last Monday night. I was their speaker at the banquet in
Cherokee, Oklahoma. That was a regional group. Not long before
that I was up in North Dakota at the North Dakota Farm Bureau.
A very consistent thing comes out of these guys. They say
that the biggest problem they have is over-regulation, and that
they don't recall any time, including the BTU scare, that the
over-regulation would be a greater problem to the small
farmers. Do you agree with that? Is this what you hear out
there.
Mr. Sharp. Absolutely. Small- and average-sized farms
obviously are the ones that would suffer the most under
regulation as is and under new regulation. Even USDA came out
in their comments with concerns for small- and average-sized
farms under this standard and, of course, under other
regulation.
Senator Inhofe. I understand that there is a copy of the
economic report on the impacts of these regulations on
agriculture. I think it is just coming out today. The results
of these are pretty dramatic. Have you had a chance to see
that.
Mr. Sharp. I mentioned in my testimony the numbers that
we've seen. This is the first study that we have seen that has
come out with any numbers on agriculture impacts from the new
standard, and a 10 percent decrease or a $5 billion annual
income loss to farmers is something that is going to knock you
way below any small- or average-sized farm profitability
margin. When you only deal with a few percent anyway, a drop of
10 percent is quite dramatic for those folks in the average or
small farm arena.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Mr. Abbott, I was interested in some
of your comments as to the effect on jobs. I was one who was
very much concerned back when NAFTA was first imposed what
would happen. If you go industry-by-industry--I'm from
Oklahoma. Of course, it's a big agriculture State. Also, we
have a refinery industry. I was listening with some interest to
Senator Dorgan, when he was talking about the loss of jobs that
has come, the fight from across the border. And I'd kind of
like to get your idea as to what you think that job loss would
be. You mention an estimated 35,000 jobs, but is that just
within your union or your particular--how would you broaden
this to cover other jobs.
Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. Just within our small union--and the
number, I think, that the building trades department of the
AFL-CIO is using is 1.3 million amongst all the crafts and
trades. That loss comes because of a lot of different factors.
We not only construct, but we maintain a lot of the refineries,
and the large power plants, as well as cement kilns.
One of the things that happened with the Clean Air Act last
time, there was a lot of the refinery business that moved into
the Caribbean region, they actually moved off-shore. Very few
refineries are actually left in the United States, which really
is a problem. But, of course, if you had maybe 8,000 or 10,000
people nationwide, like the boilermakers did, that was
maintaining those refineries, those are just jobs lost. That's
just man-years of work lost.
Senator Inhofe. I'll cover that in just a minute.
Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grumet, I'm very interested in this chart of yours in
your testimony that's labeled ``C.'' It's entitled, ``Actual
Costs are Less than Original Estimates.''
Mr. Grumet. Yes. What I tried to do----
Senator Baucus. I can tell what you tried to do here, and I
find it very interesting that you've taken five different areas
and you've given the projected costs for each and the actual
costs and you've given a source, and the source is essentially
industry sources. Now, is that industry source the source for
the projected cost? And does that source actually agree with
the actual costs in each of those areas.
Let's take number one, unleaded gasoline.
Mr. Grumet. Unleaded gasoline, the suggestion at the time
of enactment by API and others was it would be eight to ten
cents per gallon. The actual cost, based on surveys by the
Energy Information Association and others, has been one cent
nationally and two cents in California.
And I should just add that these aren't the costs that
people are seeing. People are seeing no cost whatsoever. What
we've tried to do here is be absolutely accurate and indicate
the costs that the----
Senator Baucus. But the point is here that the actual cost
of unleaded gasoline is about one-eight or one-seventh of the
projected cost.
Mr. Grumet. That's correct.
Senator Baucus. Let's take VOC controls for marine vessel
boating. Why don't you explain that.
Mr. Grumet. This was a nice example in that this was a very
particular issue in New Jersey. We had the industry testify at
a public hearing that the cost would be, at minimum, two cents
per gallon, based on the controls.
New Jersey's penalty structure is based on the notion of
disgorging any undue economic benefit a company gets from
noncompliance. So it turns out that one of these Company's
failed to comply, and in the penalty phase they demonstrated
conclusively to the State that the actual costs were, in fact,
one-tenth of the costs they suggested 2 years earlier.
Senator Baucus. One-tenth of the projected.
Mr. Grumet. Yes.
Senator Baucus. All right. Let's take power plant SO2
controls.
Mr. Grumet. Well, this is an example that I think many
people refer to, the acid rain controls in the 1990 Clean Air
Act. Again, I think we were somewhat conservative. There were
many industry estimates that the cost for a tons of SO2 removed
would be over $1,500 a ton. But, looking at really just kind of
the basic industry projections--because what I think I want to
stress here is that this isn't an effort, I think, on the part
of industry to mislead anybody.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Mr. Grumet. I just think there are some natural dynamics--
--
Senator Baucus. Right.
Mr. Grumet. ----that inevitably inflate cost. The costs
were projected to be $500 to $1,000, and recently the costs
were $101. They're down actually to $75.
Senator Baucus. And the same general phenomenon occurred
with respect to power plant NOX controls.
Mr. Grumet. Yes. Absolutely same with NOX controls.
Senator Baucus. And the California low emission vehicle
program.
Mr. Grumet. That's correct.
Senator Baucus. I just saw something on the news last
night. I don't know if you saw it. It's a combination fuel cell
gasoline, which looked pretty promising. I don't know if it's
going to turn out to be as good as it sounds like it's
projected to be, but, as I recall, I think it was on ABC news
last night.
Mr. Grumet. Daimler-Benz has committed to have 100,000 fuel
cell operated vehicles on the road in the next 10 years. The
Ballard Company in Canada is producing buses that run on fuel
cells right now.
What's unfortunate is that there is no one in the U.S.
doing it.
Senator Baucus. But I understand this car uses a
combination of regular gasoline and fuel cells.
Mr. Grumet. Correct.
Senator Baucus. And it will be available in 5 or 6 years
maybe, or maybe sooner than that; that it will cost no more to
operate than current cars; it would have the same performance;
and it will have virtually none of certain emissions. I suppose
it would be----
Mr. Grumet. The only emissions would be some CO2 and some
water.
Senator Baucus. CO2 and water. But no other emissions.
Mr. Grumet. Correct.
Senator Baucus. Now that would help with ozone, wouldn't
it.
Mr. Grumet. That would be a dramatic advantage. Yes.
Senator Baucus. And so maybe these ozone standards might
not turn out to be quite so bad to the degree that those
technologies are developed, when there is no additional cost.
Mr. Grumet. We have found time and time again that many of
the gentlemen to my left and right and their industries are
incredibly capable of achieving cost-effective reductions when,
in fact, we set clear requirements and stick to those
requirements.
Senator Baucus. Yes. Well, are there other technologies
that might develop.
Mr. Grumet. There are a host of technologies. Just to touch
on a couple that are pertinent to these new standards, as I
mentioned, the main requirement would be to reduce nitrogen
oxide emissions, which would come as some comfort to Mr. Martin
because bakers really don't emit much NOX emissions, if any. In
order to get NOX emissions down, there are two technologies
that people are using.
One is selective catalytic reduction. It's like taking the
catalytic converter you have in a car and putting it on a big
smokestack. For years we were told that it wasn't possible,
even though it was happening in Europe. Well, now it has
happened in two of my States, New Hampshire and New Jersey, and
it has happened incredibly cost-effectively. We are able to
achieve up to 90 percent controls of nitrogen oxide emissions
for under $1,000 a ton, and that is, as Mr. Martin indicated,
far and away more cost effective than the control strategies
that the old standards were bringing forward.
I don't know how many more you want me to touch on, but we
have--Honda just announced the ultra-low-emission vehicle for
the exact same cost as a regular vehicle. People said it
couldn't even be done 4 years ago.
Senator Baucus. And one of the reasons this happens, as you
mentioned, is competition.
Mr. Grumet. Absolutely.
Senator Baucus. Different companies want to develop a
better product--cheaper, more-efficient product. It's just
competition.
Mr. Grumet. That's the American way. And the ``New York
Times'' last Friday had an article showing that, in fact,
pollution control companies had stagnated their sales. Their
sales have actually gone down since 1985, showing that, in
fact, we're really not pushing our industrial base to improve
our environmental quality.
Senator Baucus. Thank you. I see I've got a red light here,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Well, we'll have more rounds, Senator
Baucus.
Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Yes. As I listened to you, Mr. Grumet, if
competition is driven by more efficiency, then why do we need
regulation.
Mr. Grumet. Well, pollution, in my micro-economics class--
and I wasn't very good--was the example that was used to
describe market failure. When we have a situation----
Senator Thomas. I don't think that's true. We're talking
about efficiency and cost is mostly why these new things come
about, not----
Mr. Grumet. Well, Senator Thomas, I may not understand, but
I think it's very possible for a company to have very low costs
while creating a tremendous amount of pollution, which inposes
high costs on other people, but----
Senator Thomas. I won't pursue it any farther, but if
you're talking about competition and efficiency driving these
things, that's what drives it, and not the setting by EPA of
standards.
Senator Baucus. If I might say, Mr. Chairman, the point is
to internalize the cost, and therefore the competition drives
the technology. You have to have standards to internalize the
cost.
Senator Thomas. Senator Baucus, I was questioning them, but
thank you very much. I certainly appreciate it. I'm talking
about efficiency, and we get efficient----
Senator Baucus. If they internalize it, they get some
efficiencies.
Senator Thomas. Absolutely, and it doesn't take regulation
if you believe in the marketplace. That's an aside.
Doctor, you sort of indicated that there was great
scientific consensus. You're the first one I've heard say that.
Mr. Thurston. Well, the points of consensus of CASAC have
been under-represented in hearings here, I think, and I think
especially George Wolfe, when he talks about what happened at
CASAC, he tends to dwell on the points of lack of consensus.
But I feel that more emphasis should be put on where there was
a consensus, and I think that's where EPA acted.
There was a consensus, and I can read you right out of
George Wolfe's closure letter where they said that there was a
consensus--let's see. Here's one. ``There was also a consensus
that a new PM2.5 NAAQS be established.'' It's right
out of his closure letter. And, similarly, for ozone.
Senator Thomas. Well, wait a minute. You may have this
group consensus. I'm talking about science, in general.
You know, one of the real problems for us--and you can
understand this--is on all these things, ``Let's have a
scientific basis.'' ``Let's do it on good science.'' We have
ten scientists come, and all of them have a different view.
Now, how many of this consensus group agreed on 15
micrograms daily.
Mr. Thurston. There was a consensus to have a standard.
They didn't attempt to set the actual standard. That was left
to the Administrator. They----
Senator Thomas. Only two out of twenty-one agreed with the
initial proposition.
Mr. Thurston. I think that what happened, if you read the
transcript of the day that they talked about this, as I have,
George Wolff simply asked them where they would set it, and
each person gave a number, and I think that had they perhaps
gone around the table again you would have seen a little more
consensus. But the fact of the matter is there was a large
agreement--there was a consensus that they needed a
PM2.5 standard, and the way it reads is that EPA
sets the standard. Their job wasn't to come to a specific
number. As a matter of fact, I think George Wolff was the first
chairman who has done such a poll asking for a number, because
I don't think it is the job of CASAC to set a number. That's
the Administrator's job, and that's exactly what the
Administrator did.
Senator Thomas. Exactly, and not many scientists agree with
that. That's the problem. And I understand science isn't always
going to come the same, but to suggest that there is consensus
among science I think is a little misleading. That certainly
hasn't been what we've heard from everyone who has come here.
Also, you've talked about the costs will not be
substantial, and I don't know what ``substantial'' means. Small
Business Administration says, ``It is certainly one of the most
expensive regulations, if not the most expensive, faced by
small business in 10 years or more.''
Mr. Thurston. I don't believe I said that----
Senator Thomas. No, I'm talking to Mr. Grumet. I'm sorry.
Mr. Grumet. Thanks.
Senator Thomas. Small Business. This is the government
agency.
Mr. Grumet. Yes, I agree. Government is also not immune
from overstating costs--EPA does it all the time--because all
Government can do is use the best information that they are
given by the same people who are providing you this
information. I think, though, that you also know that there are
very often times tensions in any large organization--the
Administration being a very large one--and EPA is going to
great ends to try to diminish the impacts on small businesses.
We care very deeply about small businesses in the
northeast. We are not apologists for EPA. We have many
conflicts with them. We are of the belief that these standards,
because they reflect the true science, will, in fact, bring
forward--now, when I say ``science'' I'm not talking health
science, because----
Senator Thomas. True science.
Mr. Grumet. Well, Senator, let me back up for a second.
These standards are not perfect, but there's a choice before us
that is presented by S. 1084, and that choice is between the
old standards or the new standards. And if you ask yourself
which standards better reflect the health costs and the health
impacts, which standards better reflect the true reality of the
problem, since that is the relative choice we have, I think
there is little question that the new standards are a better
reflection of the health issues.
Senator Thomas. That's your view, and I understand that.
Mr. Grumet. That's why I'm here to offer it.
Senator Thomas. But that's not a consensus, obviously. Not
everyone thinks that's--it seems like the northeast seems to
have more problem with air quality. Is that valid.
Mr. Grumet. It partially----
Senator Thomas. I can almost tell where people came from as
to what they're going to say.
Mr. Grumet. I think the map I showed you--and I refer back
to attachment ``A''--demonstrates that if you care about
chronic exposure to ozone, the midwest actually has a greater
health risk than the northeast. If you look at the highest one
hour experienced each year, the northeast has a worse problem
than the midwest.
Senator Thomas. Is the northeast generally in compliance.
Mr. Grumet. By and large, no, for two reasons--our own
pollution and the pollution that wafts into our region from
other regions.
Senator Thomas. Why would you then ask for more stringent
controls if you're not in compliance with what's in place.
Mr. Grumet. That's an excellent question, and the answer is
because the existing standards call forth irrational and
ineffective controls, which is why implementing them doesn't
fix the problem.
Senator Thomas. The EPA director said that they're not
putting in the control; that they're leaving that to somebody
else. All they're doing is setting standards.
Mr. Grumet. You have to apply standards in order to try to
meet a certain end point. If that end point is trying to reduce
peak ozone levels and your only opportunity is to try to place
controls in the urban area where you have that kind of
violation, you are left with doing things like regulating
bakeries very stringently.
Senator Thomas. But you haven't met the controls now.
Mr. Grumet. We have implemented far more controls than
other regions of the country, yet we still have----
Senator Thomas. No. Let's talk about results. Let's talk
about goals. Your goal is compliance with current, isn't it.
Mr. Grumet. It is, absolutely. And if we are given an
inappropriate set of tools which are ineffective in achieving
those goals, it's hard for me to understand how we could be
criticized for our failure.
Senator Thomas. I don't understand that, but my light is--
--
Mr. Thurston. Maybe I could help if I responded to this
point.
Senator Thomas. My time is up.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I think it is kind of interesting.
You talk about where you are out of attainment, and out there
you are. I've often thought--I can remember when Secretary
Browner talked about when she goes around the country, so yes,
you have an attainment problem. It's not your fault. It's the
guys west of you. This happened down in Louisiana when she was
making a presentation down there. ``You mean we're going to
have to actually implement all these changes?'' No, your
problem comes from Texas. And I'm sure if she were in Texas
she'd say it was from Arizona, and eventually get maybe to
Wyoming. I don't know.
I was pleased yesterday to hear from Secretary Pena on this
zero emissions car, but I think we're losing site of something
here because I'd like to remind my colleagues that Carol
Browner had previously stated that no new requirements would be
placed on mobile sources under these standards, anyway; that it
would all be from utilities.
And also I'd like to point out that I can remember some 20
years ago when they said by the year 1998 we'd all be driving
electric cars. Well, that's next year, and I don't see that
coming up either.
So I think in the best of circumstances the announcement
yesterday--he said that this would be available in the show
rooms in 10 years. Well, I wouldn't want to predicate our
decisions today on what we think is going to happen in 10
years.
Back to you, Mr. Abbott. When you talked about the
refineries, and I don't think you and I either one would blame
the owner of a refinery for going south of the border in that
very competitive industry, because they could be down there
where they do not have the requirements--the EPA requirements
and other requirements.
I can remember during the debate on NAFTA one of my
concerns was that in the transportation industry that we would
allow--NAFTA would allow a Mexican trucking line to pick up a
load in Brownsville, Texas, and take it to New York City and
not comply with all the requirements. And, of course, that gave
them a competitive advantage. And so I don't think either one
of us would blame them for doing that. I just want to correct
an environment that encourages that.
Mr. Abbott. Absolutely. Yes, sir. One of the things that's
important to point out, too, is that these cars that Senator
Baucus talked about, all of these things have been going for
quite a while under the old EPA Act. I mean, there has been a
lot--there has been an evolving technology that has been going
on for some time. That certainly did not come about because EPA
decided to change the standards.
We are on the cutting edge. The building trades unions do
install a lot of the environmental controls, and therein is one
of the problems, because a lot of these large utilities have
gone to a tremendous expense, hundreds of millions of dollars,
to install pollution control equipment, and then all of the
sudden the goal post is moved and now some of the other
businesses that were not in compliance perhaps under these
standards have an additional 10 years to comply.
It just seemed that the Clean Air Act was working, we were
getting excellent results all the way through. The emissions
were being reduced, the pollution was being reduced, the ozone
level was going down, and the control equipment that was being
put on or had been ordered in the last few years, some of that
equipment, because these standards were being proposed, the
owners held off installing clean air equipment. So there were a
lot of jobs that were lost just from the fact that these
standards were pending and not knowing what was going to
happen.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Abbott, I think in all the seven
hearings we've had I don't recall one person suggesting that
the air isn't getting cleaner every day. It is. However, that
doesn't seem to be factored in to all these considerations,
what we're going to do from this point forward.
I think the most--when you talk about moving the goal
posts, Government doesn't understand what it costs to move goal
posts. When an industry--I don't care if it's a baking industry
or the family farmer or the power industry--invests millions of
dollars, and then all the sudden finds, ``Well, we now have
implemented new standards, so you have to do--'' there just is
not an appreciation for the cost and who bears that ultimate
cost, whether it's the cost of labor, the cost of
manufacturing, the cost of production. It's going to be
ultimately the consumer. That's the thing that concerns me.
Mr. Grumet, I understand that the standards that are
proposed by the EPA are really not enough for you, are not set
high enough for you. I think you've been quoted many times
saying you want a more stringent standard.
Mr. Grumet. Are you speaking of the recently-set standards
or the old standards.
Senator Inhofe. The recently-set standards.
Mr. Grumet. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but
back, I guess, 6 months ago we did comment that the particulate
standard, the daily particulate standard, should be set more
strictly than the 65 micrograms per cubic meter, so we do think
that standard is inadequately protective.
But, again, we're not going to let the best become the
enemy of the good.
Senator Inhofe. I was really wondering whose side you're
on. You're against our bill, but you also are against the----
Mr. Grumet. No. I'm strongly supportive, as are the
Northeast States, of the standards recently adopted by the
Administrator.
Senator Inhofe. But you said those standards do not go far
enough.
Mr. Grumet. I'm saying that I don't think they're perfect
and I don't think any standards ever will be perfect. I think
those standards are far better protective of public health and
far better in terms of inspiring cost-effective results.
Senator Inhofe. All right. I'm going to pursue this, and I
don't have to leave but Senator Baucus does, so I'll yield to
him.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd just like to--first of all, I have a letter I want to
insert in the record. This is from Administrator Browner. She
has information that bears on this hearing and the fact that
she asked to testify and she was refused the ability to come to
testify at this hearing, so I'll put this letter in the record.
[The information to be supplied follows:]
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of the Administrator,
October 21, 1997.
The Honorable Max Baucus,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Baucus: I am writing in response to your letter of October
15, 1997 requesting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) views
on S. 1084, a bill that would repeal EPA's recent update of the air
quality standards for ozone and particulate matter.
As you know, these new standards are a major step forward in public
health protection. Each year, they will prevent approximately 15,000
premature deaths, as well as hundreds of thousands of cases of
significantly decreased lung function in children and hundreds of
thousands of asthma attacks in children and adults.
EPA strongly opposes S. 1084 because it would undermine these
important public health protections. The bill would revoke the
stronger, updated standards, reinstate the old standards, and prohibit
EPA from revising or replacing these outdated standards for at least 4
years. The decision to strengthen the air quality standards was based
on compelling science indicating that the old standards were not
adequately protective. Repeal or delay would only result in needless
suffering for millions of Americans. In addition, delay would have
other adverse health consequences and environmental effects such as
reduced yields of agricultural crops, damage to commercial and non-
commercial forests, and continued visibility impairment.
Furthermore, the public has a right to know whether the air in
their communities is safe to breathe, as determined by the latest, best
available science--and these standards are the means by which
government makes this information available.
As you know, the President has announced a flexible, common-sense
implementation plan for the new standards. This implementation approach
will continue current progress in achieving cleaner air. It will give
states, local governments and business the flexibility to meet the new
standards in a cost-effective way. EPA's strategy for regional
emissions reductions, as proposed by EPA last week, will allow the vast
majority of areas to meet the new ozone standard without additional
local pollution controls. The President's implementation policy also
ensures that at a new round of review of particulate matter science
will be completed within 5 years, and that no areas will be designated
as nonattainment for fine particles during this period.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no
objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the
President's program.
I hope that these views are helpful. If I can provide any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner.
Senator Baucus. Second, I'd just like to remind us all of
the time line--I'll just take PM2.5--that something
might happen.
This year EPA issues its final PM2.5 standard.
This year EPA begins new scientific review of health effects of
fine particulate matter. Next year, voluntary State discussions
on regionally transported particle pollution. Between the year
1998 and the year 2000, monitors are put in place nationwide. I
might add that in Administrator Browner's letter she states
that, with respect to PM2.5, that the President's
implementation policy also ensures that the new round of review
of particulate matter science will be completed within 5 years,
and that no areas will be designated as nonattainment for fine
particles during this period, so there is a whole 5-year study
that will be in place before any decisions will be made on
particulate matter.
In the period 1998 to 2003, collect monitoring data; in the
year 2002, EPA completes the 5-year scientific review of
particulate matter standards, which I just mentioned and she
states in her letter. Between the years 2002 and 2005, EPA
designates areas. Between the years 2005 and 2008, the States
submit their plans, their SIPs, outlining how they will meet
the PM2.5 standard, and the States needing
reductions begin. That's in the period between 2005 and 2008.
So, in summary, between the years 2012 and 2017, following
designation, States may have up to--the point it, the States
may have up to 12 years under the Clean Air Act to meet
PM2.5 standards.
We're going to learn a lot in the next 12 years. We're
going to learn the degree to which the standards selected by
the Administrator make sense and the degree to which they don't
make sense, reminding ourselves that the standards that she
selected were for range proposed by CASAC, the scientific
review panel. She didn't just pick these out of thin air. This
is a range of standards presented to her by CASAC, which is
required under current law, a 5-year review of every 5 years.
So I understand some of the concerns that people have about
these standards. I have concerns, myself. I come from a farm
State. But I also think that this period of time gives us
adequate time to adjust it, to change the standards that they
should be changed, depending upon data that we get and studies
that are conducted.
All this makes much more sense to me to continue down this
time line rather than to pass this bill, which says stop. In
fact, it implies we don't do anything. It just says do nothing
for 4 years. And, as has been pointed out, there's nothing in
this bill that says we do anything after 4 years. It just says
stop.
And we do know that there are a lot--that these standards
will avoid many premature deaths, certainly avoid a lot of
unhealthy--some people that have unhealthy conditions that have
caused them to be very unhealthy. And I trust, frankly, the
American people. I trust the process. It's the only one we've
got, folks. It's us, our country, our Government. We should
work to make it work, not just say stop, do nothing with
respect to PM2.5 and ozone.
Another point I'd like to make is with respect to
PM2.5. It's my understanding that virtually none of
the PM2.5 would be directed at agriculture. One
could dispute whether it's 1 percent or 2 percent or what not,
but it's a very small amount. In fact, we all know the letter
from Carol Browner to Secretary Glickman saying it's not
targeted at agriculture, etc.
I have some sympathy to what you're saying, Mr. Sharp. A
lot of farmers and ranchers, it's a very small margin and
they're out of business. There's no doubt about that. I know
that's the case. But I also strongly suspect that when States
implement implementation plans for areas that are in
nonattainment, they're not going to sell it to agriculture.
They just won't. At least they won't in my State. I can tell
you that. I can't speak to other States, but I think that
farmers should be slightly concerned about all of this, but I
don't think they should be alarmed.
Mr. Sharp. Could I reply to that.
Senator Baucus. Sure.
Mr. Sharp. Our concern is that EPA has no idea how much we
emit of PM2.5. That's the biggest concern for us. We
want to avoid regulation that California has already included
for PM10. I'll read----
Senator Baucus. We don't have time here. We don't want to
talk about PM10, because we're not talking about
PM10. We're talking about PM2.5.
Mr. Sharp. Okay. PM2.5 for agriculture fugitive
dust from crops, three million tons is their estimate from
agriculture; agricultural livestock, 181,000 tons. Those
figures are what has been given to the States to use----
Senator Baucus. That's 2.5.
Mr. Sharp. That's 2.5
Senator Baucus. And whose studies are those.
Mr. Sharp. Those are all credited in STAPPA and ALAPCA, the
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, and
ALAPCA, the Association of Local Air Pollution Control----
Senator Baucus. I hear you and I understand that. But,
again, just to remind ourselves, we have a 5-year period here
under the law with which to study PM2.5. At the end
of that 5-year period, we're going to know whether that study
is valid or invalid or to what degree it's valid or invalid.
We're going to know a lot more than we know now, and we can
proceed from that point.
Mr. Sharp. We're not sure if that time line is going to
hold. As was mentioned earlier, I do believe, at the end of the
table down here, civil suits have a big play in this, and this
guarantees we don't----
Senator Baucus. I understand the argument, but I just, with
the deepest respect, think there's not much validity in that
argument. That is, I don't think that anyone who sues now,
files a civil lawsuit saying EPA doesn't have this authority,
is going to get very far. And most attorneys I've talked to on
this issue have the same conclusion.
The light has been red for a long time. I don't want to
take too much of the chairman's time.
Senator Inhofe. Well, let me go ahead and resume the
questioning.
On my time, Mr. Sharp, why don't you go back to your
documentation on California and PM10.
Mr. Sharp. You mentioned regulation to begin with, and this
is the exact type of regulation we want to not run into a
problem with on PM2.5. We need the data first.
This was included. This regulation or this control measure
was included in California's State implementation plan that has
now gone to EPA for final approval, and they have a list of
them here, but my favorite one--and, being from a farm family,
I didn't even know what tracking control was or what you would
be doing by trying to gain or implement tracking control, so I
had to look this one up. But included for PM10--and
this is the exact same thing we're trying to avoid here--
tracking control, ``Prevent tracking soil on unpaved public
roads when turning at the end of runs during tillage operations
from August through October. Prevent tracking mud and dirt on
paved public roads from farm roads when water is used to
prevent dust during this period. The effectiveness of this
measure would be dependent on the reduction of mud and dirts
tracked onto the paved public roads and the amount of traffic
traversing the affected paved public road.''
They want us to control the dust that drops off the tractor
tires or between the treads onto dirt roads before you drive it
out, before you drive your tractor on the road or turn around
on a road. Things like that, we don't know how you would
implement.
Also regulation that's impacting agriculture, the new
regional haze proposal and a non-road diesel proposal, both
have come out in the last couple months, both of which are
under the guise of a new PM2.5 plan. Both of those
would control particulate matter, PM2.5, from
agriculture or have an impact, either directly or indirectly,
to agriculture. The non-road diesel is an obvious one through
equipment, and the regional haze one has been spelled by the
Park Service and the Forest Service, and targets agriculture
PM2.5 controls for burning and for agriculture
tillage.
Senator Inhofe. All right, sir. Thank you very much. I hope
that I have not been misrepresenting what would happen with
implementation--not the setting, but the implementation of
these standards, when I talk to farm groups.
A week ago Monday I was in western Oklahoma, seven
different communities, ending up talking to the Farm Bureau in
Cherokee. I commented to them that it would be more regulation
by the Federal Government in terms of when you can plant a
crop, when you can harvest a crop, when you can burn a field,
when you can burn your diesel. And this is what really does
concern. Am I misrepresenting this to these people.
Mr. Sharp. No. That's accurate.
Senator Inhofe. You're a family farm owner, as well as a
professional.
Mr. Sharp. Based on what has happened in California under
PM10 for those controls, and then based on a
document put together by the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee--
they call it an opportunity matrix. It's a draft document. But
in that document they list a couple different pages of controls
for agriculture for PM2.5, including everything from
banning burning, which is number one on the list to taking land
out of agricultural production; planting trees and permanent
grasses; dietary changes for cattle, for hogs, for poultry. The
list goes on and on.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Mr. Sharp. So there are a number of these that have been
spelled out very clearly. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. I would say this: the family farmers that I
talked to, at least in the State of Oklahoma, are very
sensitive to this and are very well-informed on this, so
someone has done a good job. I would like to also mention that
it's not just the Farm Bureau. The Farmers Union has been
active in this, as well as the Cattlemans Association and other
groups, too.
Mr. Sharp. There are over 30 agricultural organizations.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Grumet, going back to you, I was going
to read a quote and see if you still stand. You're talking
about such steps that could be taken, and now we're back
referring to ozone.
Mr. Grumet. Can you tell me where it's from, also.
Senator Inhofe. Steps such as reducing car emissions, using
manual lawn mowers, and filling gas tanks during evening hours
will have a profound effect on reducing the levels of smog we
all breathe.
Mr. Grumet. Can you remind me where that was from.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Thursday, August 7, 1997, on
``Business Wire.'' I have it right here.
Mr. Grumet. Okay. I'm----
Senator Inhofe. And the reason I bring this is up is that
if there's anything that has bothered me more than anything
else in the whole issue this last 11 months, it's when
Administrator Browner, who is a very intelligent person, a very
remarkable person, is always saying that nothing like this is
going to have to happen. Nothing like this is going to have to
happen and everything is going to be fine. In fact, she goes so
far as to say to the petroleum marketers, ``Well, it's not
going to affect you. You guys aren't going to be affected. It's
going to be refineries.'' To the bakers, ``It's not going to
affect you.'' To the mayors of our cities, ``It's won't affect
you.'' Everybody is outside. And even geographically, as I
mentioned a minute ago, it's always in some area other than
where you are.
Mr. Grumet. Two comments. I'm pretty sure what you're
referring to was probably a quote from the ``Good Morning
America'' show when the Northeast States were rolling out an
ozone map which tried to depict--and your staff is nodding--
trying to depict the daily ozone levels, and I was discussing
the benefits of giving people this information, because it
would give them the ability to take voluntary steps, ``such
as.''
So, just to be absolutely clear, the suggestion that these
new standards or any standards in the northeast would stop
people from mowing lawns or restrict when you can fill up your
gas tank would be incorrect.
Senator Inhofe. Would be incorrect.
Mr. Grumet. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. So you don't agree with this statement.
Mr. Grumet. I guess I didn't speak clearly.
Senator Inhofe. I'm going to go ahead and put this document
in the record at this point, because I see what I consider to
be a contradiction.
[The information to be supplied follows:]
(Business Wire, Thursday, August 7, 1997)
Smog Map Technology is Launched; Public to Learn of Ground-Level Ozone
Dangers
Boston--Watching your television news broadcast can be good for
your health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction
with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Air Management Association (MARAMA) today launched an animated smog map
to broadcast during daily weather reports in many states that
experience high levels of summertime ground-level ozone, commonly known
as smog.
Smog is a major air pollutant and respiratory irritant that can
cause permanent lung damage and sends thousands of people to hospitals
each year with respiratory ailments. As of June 1997, over 100 million
people reside in areas of the country that do not meet National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for ozone.
``The ozone map was developed to warn people about dangerous air
quality,'' said Jason Grumet, executive director of NESCAUM. ``Although
we can't see or smell smog, individuals have the right to know what
they are breathing and what is making them ill. Just as important, the
map will also serve as a way to educate individuals so that they take
actions every day to reduce their own contribution to ground-level
ozone. Steps such as reducing car emissions, using manual lawn mowers
and filling gas tanks during evening hours will have a profound effect
on reducing the levels of smog we all breathe.''
The high-tech mapping system gathers air quality data from more
than 200 state and local air monitoring stations from North Carolina to
Maine and provides colonized maps several times daily to show the
concentration and location of smog. The new smog map allows residents
to reduce their exposure to unhealthful air and to take proactive
measures to reduce the amount of pollution they contribute.
``Information is power. This information will give parents,
athletes, seniors and others the power to protect themselves,'' said
EPA's New England Administrator John P. DeVillars. ``Last month
President Clinton took a strong stand in favor of better air quality by
issuing a decision for stringent new standards for clean air. The Ozone
Map takes these efforts a step further by making Americans aware of air
quality in their own backyards.''
Jeanne Fox, EPA Region-2 Administrator, said, ``The 14-state Ozone
Mapping Project provides the public with critical data about a
potential health hazard. We all benefit from the investment in new
technology that brings air monitoring data to the TV screen in a way
that is useful to the viewing public.''
According to Dr. Alfred Munzer, past president of the American Lung
Association, ``Ozone air pollution is a health risk for the millions of
Americans who live in affected areas, but especially for children, the
elderly and people with respiratory disease. A recent Lung Association
study of 13 cities found that hospitalization among people with asthma
and other lung disorders doubled during the summer ozone season.
Providing air quality information directly to these vulnerable
individuals gives them a valuable tool to limit their exposure and
protect their health.''
Jane Nishida, secretary of the Maryland Department of the
Environment, stated, ``Maryland pioneered the ozone map technology 3
years ago with the American Lung Association of Maryland. Maryland has
aired the map locally for 3 years and is excited about the enhanced
expansion of the ozone map throughout the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic
states.''
Susan Wierman, executive director of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association, added, ``In 1994, a group of key individuals
believed that a map of ground-level ozone was possible and pursued the
concept tenaciously. Building on their efforts, we can now offer this
state-of-the- art technology to broadcasters, print, radio and Internet
providers throughout our 14-state region.''
Ozone pollution is not just a danger to susceptible populations;
healthy individuals who work, exercise or play outdoors for even an
hour or two can suffer respiratory difficulty in the form of coughing,
chest pains and throat irritation. Experts estimate that between $50
and $100 billion per year is spent treating medical ailments caused by
air pollution. Further, the consequences of ozone pollution go beyond
health and safety concerns, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
reports that lowering ozone exposure will reduce the yield loss of
major agricultural crops by almost $500 billion.
Bruce Carhart, executive director of the Ozone Transport
Commission, said, ``Seeing the new ground-level ozone map on TV will
bring to light the true extent of our smog problem. The partnerships
between states and media outlets to provide air quality information
will add to the public's understanding of ground-level ozone's impact
on their health.''
Ground-level ozone is created through the interactions of man-made
emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the
presence of heat and sunlight. Cars and other gasoline-burning engines
are large sources of volatile organic compounds. Other sources include
oil-based paints, insecticides and cleaners. Nitrogen oxides, the other
chemical precursor of ground-level ozone, are produced whenever fossil
fuels are produced whenever fossil fuels are burned and are primarily
produced by motor vehicles and power plants.
Ozone mapping data is available at no charge to broadcasters and
the public on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/regionO1/eco/ozone/
The data will also be available at no charge to clients of Weather
Service International, a leading weather service provider, as
``SMOGcast''. Additional weather service providers will be sought to
distribute the map.
``TV stations are very interested in using the map on their weather
forecasts because demand by the public for health and safety
information has never been greater,'' said Maria Pirone of Weather
Services International. ``We are pleased to serve the public by
providing this free information through our partner television
stations.''
For those wishing to learn more about ground-level ozone call the
U.S. EPA at 1-800-821-1237 to receive your free Air Quality guide and
informational brochure.
Mr. Grumet. Senator, please let me try again, because I
don't think I was contradicting myself. I was indicating that
those are voluntary measures that people could choose to take
if they were given this kind of ozone smog map information on
their nightly news. I was not suggesting, nor am I, nor would I
ever suggest those were prescriptive measures that the
Government would impose upon anybody. So I would welcome you
putting it into the record, as long as it is in the proper
context.
Senator Inhofe. How many volunteers are you going to get
out there on using manual lawn mowers instead of automatic lawn
mowers.
Mr. Grumet. Senator, I think----
Senator Inhofe. A groundswell of volunteers.
Mr. Grumet. I guess, you know, it depends on what kind of
yard you have. Where I live in Boston, people have yards
somewhat smaller than the horseshoe right here.
Senator Inhofe. And instead of watching the World Series at
night, you think they want to go out and gas their cars.
Mr. Grumet. I guess, Senator, the issue--and I think you're
talking it out of context, which I object to. The point is that
we're trying to give people information and we were trying to
explain to the TV audience what kinds of actions individuals
could take of their own volition if they, in fact, cared enough
to try to reduce their pollution. And these proposed----
Senator Inhofe. That's clear. I understand what you're
saying, Mr. Grumet.
Mr. Grumet. I have no idea how many people would choose to
take those options. Probably few.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Dr. Thurston, you testified before--
and I really appreciate your coming back. One thing that has
come from your testimony is that not only do scientists
disagree occasionally, but so do doctors. And you might
remember that--I think you were here at our first scientific
hearing, which was in February. Later on in April, Dr.
Christopher Grand, an emergency room doctor, talked about how
much more cost-effective in saving actual lives it would be to
invest a fraction of the ozone PM costs into trauma care. Since
then we have statistics--and he sent us these statistics--the
flu vaccine for all citizens would be approximately $140 per
life saved; a mammogram for women over 50, $810 per life saved;
pneumonia vaccine for elderly, $2,000 per life saved. And then,
compared to the PM ozone, based on EPA's estimate, which is
dramatically different than some of the others we have, it
would be $533,000 per life saved. Based on the Reason
Foundation out in California that I referred to earlier, it
would be $10 million per life saved.
Do you think this is a good use of their funds.
Mr. Thurston. I'm glad you bring this up, because I think
that that's a specious argument that has been made quite a bit
up here in Washington.
The fact is that if we were to say we don't want to clean
up the air, we won't make utilities put scrubbers on, I don't
think they would take that money and donate it to hospitals so
they could set up units like that.
The fact is that they're a separate thing, and I think
that's a specious argument. In other words, it's not a trade-
off of one versus the other at all; the question is whether to
go forward and clean up the air and get the benefits that those
offer or not.
Senator Inhofe. What I'm trying to get to--and it seems as
if it's not just when we're talking about clean air, but the
same is true with endangered species, superfund, wetlands, kind
of a cost/benefit analysis is something that I think should be
somewhere induced into this thing.
It may be true that that money wouldn't be spent, but when
Dr. Grant was asked that same question he responded that, as an
emergency room doctor, he has a whole host of drugs that worked
that he needs more funds for trauma centers. And I think we'd
probably agree with that.
Mr. Thurston. Well, there is a cost benefit. I mean, the
RIA looks at the cost and it looks at the benefits, and
obviously there are lots of benefits which are not monetized on
that. EPA has had cases where it has over-estimated the cost. I
think the one that was being mentioned before, the scrubbers,
as I recall, EPA estimated much higher cost for the acid rain
cleanup than the less than $100 that a ton of SO2 is trading
for today. So that's a case where not only industry but EPA
also, as I recall, over-estimated the cost. So there are these
cost/benefit analyses that are done as part of the regulatory
process.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Thurston.
Mr. Smith, you have your attorney with you. Mr. Daskel is
it.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Mr. Daskel. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Daskel, you may want to answer this
question. You'd probably be a little bit more familiar with it
than Mr. Smith would. I'm interested in your lawsuit under the
10th Amendment. Am I correct? And would you explain what that
is.
Mr. Daskel. Yes, sir. The 10th Amendment fundamentally
guarantees State sovereignty, and under the Supreme Court's
decision back in July striking down the pre-notice--the
background check provisions of the Brady bill, the Supreme
Court found that the provisions were Constitutionally invalid
because they effectively commandeered the regulatory apparatus
of the States. States were forced to pass legislation,
implement regulations, and enforce them, essentially dancing to
the strings of a Federal puppeteer, as some of the language of
the opinion.
In the opinion they talked about Federal--the IM
requirements, which are one of the mandatory strategies under
the Clean Air Act, and the court noted that it was fortunate
for EPA that the IM cases of the late 1970's did not reach the
high court because they would have invalidated those control
measures, as well.
Now, it is our position that, because the Clean Air Act
mandates that once an area reaches a given area of
nonattainment, certain controls are triggered as a matter of
law. There is no flexibility. For example, in our industry we
have to sell reformulated gasoline, we have to install stage
two vapor recovery, even though you're controlling the same
emissions now through on-board vehicle canisters. We have to do
enhanced IM. And that forces the States to do exactly the same
thing. The States have no choice but to pass legislation, adopt
regulations, and implement and enforce those regulations
against noncomplying parties, all to the strings of EPA.
And I think what--my issue with Senator Baucus' remarks was
that he was talking primarily in the context of
PM2.5 versus ozone, and legally they are two
entirely different things, although I could certainly conceive
of a way down the road apiece where, if I see that a control
measure is going to--it's reasonably foreseeable that a given
control measure is going to be needed to control
PM2.5, that I could bring a citizen suit and enforce
it, and that's one of our concerns.
We talked about the process. And, with ozone, in
particular, what really concerns us is that you're talking
about rewriting the entire classification scheme of the Clean
Air Act. I mean, EPA has got to talk about areas of influence
and areas of violation. And while we were up here, I brought my
Montana folks in to see Senator Baucus, himself, on occasions
on this issue.
You had the bill out of this committee, S. 1630, that had a
very different classification scheme than the three House
bills, and then the House bill that was ultimately enacted.
What concerns us about the process is this grab that EPA
can rewrite a classification scheme that was bitterly fought
over between the two houses of Congress. That's one of the--I
mean, as my friend, Mr. Smith, wanted to say, we elected you
folks to make these decisions, not to hand them off to EPA.
Senator Inhofe. Since we're speaking to an attorney here,
let me ask if you've given some thought to potential lawsuits
that could be brought by adopting a standard today that would
not be implemented for 6 years in the case of ozone or 9 years
in the case of PM, that, in fact, it's a double standard. What
would be the legal ramifications of that, or have you given any
thought to that.
Mr. Daskel. I really--in other words, that the agency has
essentially violated a duty by adopting a standard but by
putting the implementation off into the future.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. That has been the concern of a lot of
people, the unpredictability. I think Mr. Sharp would agree
that the fact that you can't predict into the future--and Mr.
Abbott, also, because this is something that you make
preparations for, as you pointed out. You spend a lot of money
to do that, and then you find that maybe a lawsuit could come
along and say, ``Wait a minute. You say you're not going to
lower those standards, whether you're talking about ozone or
PM, for a period of 6 years, and yet you've already adopted the
standards, therefore you don't know when these standards could
come down on you and how to prepare for them.'' The same would
go for you, Mr. Martin. That's a concern I have. Am I correct
in the fact that it's the nonpredictability that is probably
one of the greatest problems here.
Mr. Grumet. Senator, could I comment for one moment.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Of course.
Mr. Grumet. Whatever the lawyers or judges decide, there
are just some absolute realities. You need time to set up the
monitoring network. That's going to take about 2 years. You
need time to monitor, since the Act requires 3 years of data.
That's 3 years. My States have to develop the implementation
plans. Those take public hearings and State legislation. No
matter what the courts say, lawyers can't make us do the
impossible.
Senator Inhofe. We're almost out of time here. I just want
to cover a couple of things. One is that Senator Baucus made a
comment that Administrator Browner was not a part of this
panel. I can assure you Administrator Browner has been in many,
many panels before my committee, as well as others. She said,
when she testified, she's testified over 20 times on this
issue. In our seven hearings, one was devoted entirely to her,
and the other devoted entirely to her assistant, Mary Nickles.
And earlier this month Carol Browner testified in the House
committee on the House companion bill, which is House bill
1984. So certainly it was not an effort to exclude her from
testifying. She's very gifted, and she also has a talent of
consuming time.
And I think that there is something that I would like to
invite all of you to read. It's the current edition of ``Forbes
Magazine.'' It's entitled, ``Watch out for this Woman.'' I
won't go into it, but if you'd like to read that you might find
it to be of some interest. And you also might--it might be more
revealing and maybe answer the question that so many people
have asked me, ``Why is it, if there is no scientific
justification for imposing such hardships and overregulation on
the American people, all the way from the farmer to the union
member to the entrepreneurs, why would she want to do this?'' I
think that answers the question.
I would like to--I know we have to conclude this, because
we have to give up the room, but I hope that everyone who is--
and if there are any responses to this, I'd be glad to hear
from any member of the panel. But when we talk about the
premature deaths, that is really a great disservice to the
American people, implying that people are going to die.
I remember when we had one of our hearings here, and I
asked the definition of what constitutes a premature death, and
I don't remember if any of you--I don't think any of you were
on that particular panel. And when they described it, I told
the story of my very dear mother-in-law, who on New Year's Day
of this year died at age 95, and it was really a blessing that
it came at a time that it was the appropriate time. However,
she would have fit in the category of premature deaths as
defined before this panel.
And then, when you go from 60,000 premature deaths down to
20, down to 15, down to 5, down to 1,000, it's a moving target.
It's kind of like the amount of money. They said it's only
going to cost $8 billion a year, and yet the President's own
Economic Advisory Council said it's going to be $60 billion a
year. And, as we have talked about, many of the foundations
around say it is going to be somewhere between $90 and $150
million a year. We've put that to an average family of four,
Mr. Abbott, to be around $1,700 a family. I don't know how many
of your union members want to incur that kind of a financial
hardship.
So I do appreciate very much having this panel. We do feel
very enthusiastic about doing something with this bill. I
disagree with your comments about the bill. It's not a matter
of just doing nothing. As Senator Baucus said, we want to
outline a system to put something in place so that we would be
able to predict that there is going to be proper scientific
input on not just this change that is being advocated by the
EPA and the Administration, but also any future changes insofar
as the clean air is concerned. And I think that's very
reasonable.
It is my intention, I can announce to you, that even though
I don't think we do have the votes to pass Senate bill 1084 and
they do have the votes to pass in the House the House bill
1984, I doubt if we would have the votes to override a veto. It
is my intention to go ahead and try to put this on as an
amendment, for example, in the ISTEA bill that's before us
right now. I'm not sure we're going to get to it, but I have an
amendment already drafted that is this particular bill, because
it is appropriate to be on the intermodal transportation
reauthorization bill, as well as perhaps fast track, if that
should come along.
So I appreciate the input that we've received from all of
you, and I appreciate the time that you have devoted to this,
and we are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[The introduced bill, S. 1084, and additional statements
submitted for the record follow.]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State
of Oklahoma
Today's hearing will examine the Breaux/Inhofe Bill, S. 1084 the
``Ozone and Particulate Matter Research Act of 1997.'' This legislation
was introduced as a result of the new clean air standards for ozone and
particulate matter promulgated by the EPA on July 17. This bill is a
companion bill to H.R. 1984 introduced by Congressmen Klink and Upton
and supported by Commerce Chairman Bliley and ranking member John
Dingell.
Senator Breaux and I felt it necessary to introduce this
legislation because the EPA ignored the tremendous opposition to these
new standards. Those opposed to the standards include everyone from:
Governors
U.S. Conference of Mayors
National League of Cities
National Association County Officials
National Conference of State Legislators
Local government officials
Agriculture Community (including:)
Farm Bureau
Farmers Union
Cattlemen
American Corn Growers
Small Business Community (including:)
NFIB
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Black Chamber of Commerce
Small Business Survival Committee
A Number of State Environmental Directors (including):
Montana
Michigan
Louisiana
Alabama
Nebraska
Mississippi
Idaho
Ohio
Oklahoma
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
In total, there have been over 3,200 letters resolutions and
comments expressing concern with these standards. While I don't want to
take the time to read the names of all of the organizations who sent
these letters, I will distribute copies of an index to these letters to
the members of the Committee and enter the index into the record.
In addition, a number of organizations have written in support of
the legislation being considered today and they include:
U. S. Chamber of Commerce
Grocery Manufacturers Association
Steel Manufacturers Association
American Trucking Associations
National Federation of Independent Business
National Indian Business Association
National Food Processors Association
National Restaurant Association and the 1995 White House Conference
on Small Business Environmental Implementation Chairs
I would also like to introduce these letters into the record
showing more than 30 organizations supporting the Breaux/Inhofe Bill.
The House version currently has 191 cosponsors and the Senate Bill
has a bipartisan list of 9 cosponsors. The cosponsors are:
Kempthorne
Ford
Hagel
Byrd
Hutchison
Hollings
Phil Gramm
And I am pleased that yesterday we added an additional 12
cosponsors to the bill:
Landrieu
Cochran
Sessions
Tim Hutchinson
Murkowski
Ashcroft
DeWine
Hatch
Shelby
Enzi
Thomas
Roberts
Before we get to the testimony of today's panel, I would like to
briefly outline the bill.
The bill establishes an independent panel to be convened by the
National Academy of Sciences to prioritize the research needs on the
health effects of particulate matter. This step will help bring
consensus to any new standards proposed by the EPA in the future. In
coming out with the recent standards the EPA relied on epidemiological
studies and research performed by former EPA employees. The National
Academy of Sciences will help restore credibility to the process.
Next, in order to ensure that the Federal dollars are spent on the
research priorities of the independent panel, the legislation
establishes a Particulate Matter Interagency Committee to coordinate
the activities of the Federal agencies engaged in particulate matter
research. This committee will be composed of 8 different Agencies and
Departments.
The EPA will use this research in addition to private research to
review the air quality criteria through the Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee (CASAC). This review must be completed no earlier than 4
years after the enactment of this Act.
In addition to the science research, the EPA is authorized to
require State implementation plans in order to establish a particulate
matter monitoring program.
During this research and monitoring period, the original standards
for ozone and particulate matter will be reinstated and shall not be
revised until the scientific review is completed.
The legislation also directs the National Institute of Health to
begin a research program to study the health effects of allergens on
asthmatics, particularly in regard to urban inner cities. One of the
biggest holes in the EPA's proposal was identifying the true causes of
respiratory problems in inner city children.
Finally, the legislation authorizes $100,000,000 to carry out the
provisions with $25,000,000 of that sum set aside for the ozone
research provision.
This plan follows the advice of three of the four past CASAC
chairs, it concentrates on understanding the science. For the farmers,
the small businessmen, the unions, and the mayors and Governors; it
provides continuity. Today they are concerned about the EPA's
implementation schedule. They realize it can be challenged and thrown
out by the courts and they need stability while they try to implement
the 1990 amendments.
I would like to remind everyone what Mary Nichols, the former EPA
Assistant Administrator for Air said at our last hearing. ``Under the
President's implementation schedule, the new standards will not save
any lives over the next 5 years.''
Therefore, the Breaux/Inhofe bill will provide the necessary
research, monitoring, and stability for the American people without
endangering any lives.
__________
ATTACHMENT
list of letters, resolutions, and comments expressing concern about
changes to the naaqs
State legislative resolutions
Alabama House Resolution (4/16/96)
*Alabama Senate Joint Resolution (SJR 77) (3/13/97)
*Arkansas House Resolution (HR 1011) (2/21/97)
*Arkansas Senate Resolution (SR 7) (3/10/97)
*Colorado Senate Joint Resolution (SJR 34) (no date)
Delaware Senate Resolution--Delaware House concurs (5/9/96)
*Delaware House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 5) (1/29/97)
*Delaware House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 42) (1/30/97)
Florida House Resolution (HB 1927) (no date)
*Georgia House Resolution (HR 379) (3/13/97)
*Georgia Senate Resolution (SR 278) (3/17/97)
*Idaho House Joint Memorial (HJM 7) (3/18/97)
Illinois House Resolution (5/2/96)
Illinois Senate Resolution (5/2/96)
*Indiana Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR 30) (1997)
*Iowa Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR 12) (no date)
*Iowa House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 8) (no date)
*Kansas Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR 1608)
*Interim Joint Committee on Agriculture and Natural
Resources of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (no date)
*Michigan House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 11) (3/12/97)
*Michigan House Resolution (HR 13) (2/26/97)
*Michigan Senate resolution (SR 22) (2/27/97)
*Mississippi Senate resolution (SCR 577) (3/25/97)
*Missouri House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 23) (3/6/97)
*Missouri Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR 12) (2/25/97)
Ohio Resolution--passed both Houses of Legislature (11/14/
96)
*Ohio Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR 2)
*Ohio House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 8)
*Ohio House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 9)
*Ohio House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 10)
*Oklahoma House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 1007)
Rhode Island Senate Resolution (4/11/96)
*Rhode Island Senate resolution (3/4/97)
South Carolina Resolution--passed both the House and Senate
(4/18/96)
*South Carolina Senate Resolution (SB 814) (4/22/97)
*South Dakota Concurrent Resolution (SCR 4) (2/28/97)
Tennessee House Resolution (4/3/96)
*Utah Senate Joint Resolution (SJR 12)
*West Virginia House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 7) (2/26/
97)
__________
Letters from Governors
*Arizona Governor Fife Symington to Carol Browner (3/12/97)
*Arizona Governor Fife Symington to President Clinton (6/
12/97)
*Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to Carol Browner (3/3/97)
*Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to President Clinton (5/
16/97)
Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker to Carol Browner and OMB
(4/9/96)
*Delaware Governor Thomas Carper to Mary Nichols (3/12/97)
Florida Governor Lawton Chiles to Carol Browner (5/7/96)
*Florida Governor Lawton Chiles to Carol Browner (1/8/97)
Georgia Governor Zell Miller to President Clinton (9/19/96)
Illinois Governor Jim Edgar to Carol Browner (5/2/96)
Indiana Governor Evan Bayh to Carol Browner (7/16/96)
*Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon to Carol Browner (3/12/97)
*Kansas Governor Bill Graves to Carol Browner (3/11/97)
Kentucky Governor Paul Patton to Carol Browner (5/23/96)
Kentucky Governor Paul Patton to President Clinton (6/12/
96)
Louisiana Governor Mike Foster to Carol Browner (5/23/96)
*Louisiana Governor Mike Foster to Carol Browner (3/11/97)
Michigan Governor John Engler to Carol Browner (6/12/96)
*Michigan Governor Engler to his colleagues at the NGA
meeting (2/2/97)
Mississippi Governor Kirk Fordice to Carol Browner (7/2/96)
Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan to Carol Browner (9/24/96)
*Montana Governor Marc Racicot (3/11/97)
*North Carolina Governor James Hunt to Carol Browner (3/11/
97)
*North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer to Carol Browner (3/10/
97)
*North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer to U.S. Senator Kent
Conrad (D-ND) (9/12/97)
*North Dakota Governor Ed Schafer to U.S. Representative
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) (6/10/97)
Ohio Governor George Voinovich to Carol Browner (5/3/96)
Ohio Governor George Voinovich to Carol Browner (11/25/96)
Ohio Governor George Voinovich to Carol Browner (no date)
*Ohio Governor Voinovich to Carol Browner (3/10/97)
*Joint letter from Ohio Governor Voinovich, the Speaker of
the Ohio House, and the President of the Ohio Senate to Senator
Chafee (1/7/97)
*Ohio Governor Voinovich and Lieutenant Governor Hollister
to all Ohio mayors and county commissioners impacted by the
proposed NAAQS revisions (1/13/97)
*Ohio Governor Voinovich to U.S. Representative Sherrod
Brown (D-OH) (7/23/97)
*Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge to Carol Browner (3/12/97)
South Carolina Governor David Beasley to Carol Browner (5/
7/96)
*South Carolina Governor David Beasley to Carol Browner (3/
7/97)
*Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist to Carol Browner (1/13/
97)
*Texas Governor George W. Bush to Carol Browner (3/11/97)
Utah Governor Michael Leavitt to Carol Browner (7/12/96)
Virginia Governor George Allen to Carol Browner (9/13/96)
Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson to Carol Browner (5/23/
96)
*Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson to Carol Browner (3/12/
97)
*Wisconsin Governor Tommy G. Thompson to President Clinton
(5/22/97)
*Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer to North Dakota Governor Ed
Schafer (12/19/96)
*Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer to Carol Browner (3/6/97)
Letter signed by New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman and
Nebraska Governor Benjamin Nelson (Chair and Vice Chair of the NGA
Committee on Natural Resources) to Carol Browner (8/27/96)
*Western Governors' Association letter signed by four
Governors: Nelson (NE), Schafer (ND), Leavitt (UT), and Miller (NV)
(5/9/97)
__________
Letters from members of the Clinton Administration
Jere Glover (U.S. Small Business Administration) to Carol
Browner (11/18/96)
*White House Conference on Small Business to President
Clinton (no date)
*Department of the Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base Ohio (2/11/97)
*U.S. Department of Defense comments (3/12/97)
*U.S. Department of Agriculture to EPA (3/31/97)
*U.S. Department of Agriculture Air Quality Task Force to
USDA Secretary Dan Glickman (3/10/97)
*U.S. Department of Energy (3/97)
U.S. Department of Transportation to Sally Katzen, OMB (11/
20/96)
*Memo from Alicia H. Munnell, Executive Office of the
President, Council of Economic Advisors to Sally Katzen, OMB (12/
10/96)
*Memo from Alicia Munnell to Art Fraas, OMB (12/13/96)
__________
Public policy group resolutions
National Association of Counties (NACo) resolution (7/14/
96) *National Association of Counties (NACo) resolution (3/2/97)
Policy Statement (Resolution) adopted by the Energy Council
(the Energy Council is an organization of elected state legislators
from ten energy producing states and the province of Alberta. The
member states are AK, WY, CO, NM, TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, and AL.) (6/
18/96)
*Policy statement (resolution) adopted by the Energy
Council (3/2/97)
ALEC Resolution (11/19/96)
Western States Coalition Resolution (11/17/96)
*Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)
resolution (12/10/96)
*Council of State Governments (CSG) resolution (12/96)
*Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State
Governments (7/13-16)
*National League of Cities resolution (12/96)
*National League of Cities resolution (7/11/97)
*Western Governor's Association resolution (1/22/97)
*National Governors' Association resolution (2/4/97)
*National Conference of Black Mayors (NCBM) (4/25/97)
*National Council of Elected County Executives (NCECE) (5/
9/97)
*Midwestern Governors' Conference (6/9/97)
*U.S. Conference of Mayors (6/24/97)
__________
Letters from public policy groups
*Representatives of several public policy groups (CSG,
International City/County Management Association, NACo, NCSL, NGA,
National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors) (12/
19/96)
Executive Director of the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) (5/17/96)
*Western Governors' Association to U.S. Senators Inhofe (R-
OK) and Graham (D-FL) (3/3/97)
Energy Council (organization of legislators from ten
energy-producing states and a Canadian Province to U.S. Senator
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Letter from the Republican Governors Association (went to
Browner and Nichols) (11/26/97)
*Joint letter from the National Association of Counties
(NACo) and the National League of Cities (3/12/97)
*Letter from the Executive Director of the National Council
of Elected County Executives to President Clinton (no date)
*Letter and materials distributed by Paul Helmke, Mayor of
Fort Wayne, Indiana and President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
to mayors nationwide (Aug., 1997)
__________
Letters from members of the U.S. Congress
*U.S. Representatives John Dingell (D-MI) and Ron Klink (D-
PA) to Mayor Daley (Chicago), President of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors (6/20/97)
*Joint letter from conservative Democrats (referred to as
Blue Dog Democrats) to President Clinton (4/30/97)
*Joint letter from 42 House Democrats (previously referred
to as the ``Dingell letter'' to President Clinton (4/24/97)
*Joint letter co-signed by 114 House members (the ``Boucher
letter'') to President Clinton (4/22/97)
*Letter from members of the U.S. House Committee on
Agriculture to Carol Browner (5/9/97)
*Letter co-signed by 35 members of the U.S. Senate (the
``Inhofe letter'') to President Clinton (6/4/97)
*Joint letter from 8 House members to Speaker Gingrich (R-
GA) and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) (4/23/97)
Eight U.S. Senators (James Inhofe (R-OK), Don Nickles (R-
OK), Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), John Warner (R-VA), Kit Bond (R-MO),
Larry Craig (R-ID), Robert Bennett (R-UT), Craig Thomas (R-WY)) to
Carol Browner (10/9/96)
*Letter from members of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to Carol Browner (6/9/97)
*Five Democratic U.S. Senators (Robert Byrd (D-WV), John
Glenn (D-OH), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Wendell Ford (D-KY), Chuck
Robb (D-VA)) to Carol Browner (3/4/97)
*U.S. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) and Dale Bumpers (D-AR) to
Carol Browner (1/7/97)
*U.S. Representatives John Dingell (D-MI) and Sherrod Brown
(D-OH) (2/25/97)
Alabama Congressional Delegation to President Clinton (8/
23/96)
*Alabama Congressional Delegation to President Clinton (4/
18/97)
*Joint letter from U.S. Reps. Bud Cramer (D-AL), Spencer
Bachus (R-AL), and Sonny Callahan (R-AL) to Carol Browner and U.S.
Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater (4/1/97)
*Arkansas Congressional Delegation to President Clinton (5/
13/97)
*Opening statement of U.S. Senator Tim Hutchinson (R-AR)
before the Senate Env. and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air,
Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety (3/3/97)
*U.S. Representative Gary Condit (D-CA) to Carol Browner
(3/7/97)
*U.S. Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA) to Carol Browner
(2/11/97)
U.S. Representative Michael Castle (R-DE) to Carol Browner
(6/20/96)
*Florida Congressional Delegation to President Clinton (5/
7/97)
*U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) to Carol
Browner (1/10/97)
*U.S. Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) to Carol Browner
(5/2/97)
*Georgia Congressional Delegation to Carol Browner (2/25/
97)
*Illinois Congressional Delegation to Carol Browner (4/11/
97)
U.S. Representative Lane Evans (D-IL) to Carol Browner (5/
8/96)
*Indiana Congressional Delegation to President Clinton (5/
6/97)
U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) to Carol Browner
(10/29/96)
U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) to President
Clinton (11/18/96)
U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) to Michael Kantor,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce (11/26/96)
U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) to Franklin Raines,
OMB (11/26/96)
*U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) to Michael Kantor,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce (1/8/97)
*U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) William Daley,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce (3/13/97)
U.S. Representative John Hostettler (R-IN) to Carol Browner
(2/25/97)
*U.S. Representative David McIntosh (R-IN) to Carol Browner
(1/24/97)
*U.S. Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) to Carol Browner
(2/14/97)
*Kentucky Congressional Delegation to Carol Browner (3/20/
97)
*U.S. Representative Richard Hugh Baker (R-LA) to Carol
Browner (2/13/97)
Five U.S. Representatives from (MI) to Bill Clinton (11/26/
96)
*U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) to Carol Browner
(12/13/96)
*U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) to his colleagues
(7/15/97)
*U.S. Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) to Carol Browner
(3/13/97)
*U. S. Representative Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (D-MI) to
President Clinton (6/24/97)
U.S. Representative Pat Danner (D-MO) to President Clinton
(10/23/96)
*U.S. Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) to Carol Browner
(2/7/97)
*Joint letter from U.S. Representatives Karen McCarthy (D-
MO), Ike Skelton (D-MO), and U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) to
Carol Browner (3/12/97)
*U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) to President Clinton (2/
6/97)
*U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) to Carol Browner (2/6/
97)
*U.S. Representative James Walsh (R-NY) to President
Clinton (6/10/97)
*North Carolina Congressional Delegation to Carol Browner
(5/15/97)
*U.S. Representative Howard Coble (R-NC) to EPA (2/18/97)
*U.S. Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC) to Lyons Gray, NC
Gen. Assembly (5/27/97)
*U.S. Representative Mike McIntyre (D-NC) to Lyons Gray, NC
Gen. Assembly (5/29/97)
*U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) to NC state
representative Timothy Tallent (3/19/97)
*U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) to NC state
representative Frank Mitchell (3/19/97)
*U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) to NC state senator
R.L. Martin (3/13/97)
*U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) to NC state
Representative Lyons Gray (5/9/97)
*U.S. Representative Bob Etheridge (D-NC) to NC state
Representative Lyons Gray (5/7/97)
*U.S. Representative Bob Etheridge (D-NC) to NC Rep.
Richard Conder (5/5/97)
*U.S. Representative Bob Etheridge (D-NC) to NC State
Representative Lyons Gray (6/12/97)
*U.S. Representative Cass Ballenger (R-NC) to NC state
representative Frank Mitchell (3/20/97)
*U.S. Representative Eva Clayton (D-NC) to NC state
representative Richard Conder (4/17/97)
*U.S. Representative Eva Clayton (D-NC) to Carol Browner
(6/17/97)
*U.S. Representative Bill Hefner (D-NC) to NC state Senator
Richard Condor, Majority Leader (4/30/97)
*U.S. Representative Bill Hefner (D-NC) to NC Rep. Mia
Morris (5/14/97)
*U.S. Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) to NC State
Representative Lyons Gray (6/6/97)
*U.S. Representative David Price (D-NC) to NC state Senator
Richard Condor, Majority Leader (4/28/97)
*U.S. Representative David Price (D-NC) to Lyons Gray, NC
Gen. Assembly (5/9/97)
*Letter from 17 of 21 members of the OH Congressional
Delegation (including 5 democrats) to Carol Browner (2/26/97)
*U.S Representative Paul Gillmor (R-OH) to Carol Browner
(1/16/97)
*U.S. Representative Ted Strickland (D-OH) to Carol Browner
(2/26/97)
*U.S. Representative Robert Ney (R-OH) to Carol Browner
(12/16/96)
*U.S. Representative Bob Ney (R-OH) to Carol Browner (2/6/
97)
*U.S. Representative Bob Ney (R-OH) to Carol Browner (2/20/
97)
*U.S. Representative Bob Ney (R-OH) to Carol Browner (7/15/
97)
*U.S. Representative J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK) to Carol
Browner (2/13/97)
U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) to Carol Browner (11/
22/96)
*U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) to Carol Browner (3/12/
97)
*U.S. Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) (2/25/97)
*U.S. Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) to U.S.
Representative Thomas Bliley (R-VA) (2/25/97)
*U.S. Senator John Chafee (R-RI) to Carol Browner (4/16/97)
*South Carolina Congressional Delegation to Carol Browner
(6/6/97)
U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) to Robert Hickmott (EPA)
(5/16/96)
*U.S. Representative John Thune (R-SD) (3/11/97)
*U.S. Representative John Thune (R-SD) to Sally Katzen, OMB
(5/8/97)
*U.S. Representative John Thune (R-SD) to Kathleen McGinty,
Council on Environmental Quality (5/8/97)
*U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) (5/28/97)
*U.S. Representative Ed Bryant (R-TN) to Carol Browner (2/
25/97)
*U.S. Representative John Duncan (R-TN) to Carol Browner
(12/16/97)
*U.S. Representative John Duncan (R-TN) to Carol Browner
(1/24/97)
*U.S. Representative John Duncan (R-TN) to Carol Browner
(2/14/97)
*U.S. Representative Van Hilleary (R-TN) to Carol Browner
(1/20/97)
*Texas Congressional Delegation to Carol Browner (4/17/97)
*Joint letter from U.S. Representatives Kenneth Bentsen (D-
TX) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) to Carol Browner (4/17/97)
*U.S. Representative Martin Frost (D-TX) to Carol Browner
(3/11/97)
*U.S. Representative Kay Granger (R-TX) to President
Clinton (6/17/97)
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) to Carol Browner
(8/2/96)
*U.S. Representative Max Sandlin (D-TX) to Carol Browner
(3/4/97)
U.S. Representative Frank Tejeda (D-TX) to Carol Browner
(8/21/96)
*U.S. Representative Tom Bliley (R-VA) to Carol Browner (2/
26/97)
*U.S. Representative Thomas Bliley (R-VA) to Carol Browner
(6/17/97)
*U.S. Representative Tom Bliley (R-VA) to Carol Browner (2/
3/97)
U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) to Lynne Ross (EPA) (6/14/
96)
U.S. Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV) to Carol Browner
(6/13/96)
*U.S. Representative Bob Wise (D-WV) to Carol Browner (3/
12/97)
*U.S. Representative Mark Neumann (R-WI) to Carol Browner
(6/20/97)
Letters from state regulatory agencies
*Letter from 13 environmental commissioners to U.S. Sens.
Trent Lott (R-MS), Tom Daschle (D-SD), and U.S. Reps. Newt Gingrich
(R-GA) and Richard Gephardt (D-MO) (7/21/97)
*Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (3/11/97)
*Alabama Department of Environmental Management (3/12/97)
*Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Forestry to Carol Browner (3/12/97)
*Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (3/11/97)
*Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (4/
15/97)
*Arkansas State Highway Commission (2/11/97)
*Florida Department of Transportation (3/4/97)
*Georgia Department of Natural Resources (3/11/97)
*Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of
Environmental Quality (3/10/97)
*Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (3/10/97)
*Illinois Department of Transportation (2/11/97)
*Illinois Department of Transportation to President Clinton
(6/2/97)
*Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Commissioner Michael O'Connor to Carol Browner (no date)
*Indiana Department of Environmental Management to Carol
Browner (7/8/97)
*Iowa Department of Economic Development (3/10/97)