[Senate Hearing 113-810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-810
OVERSIGHT HEARING: EPA'S
PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR
AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 17, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-362 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
DECEMBER 17, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 1
Kirsten, Hon. Gillibrand, U.S. Senator from the State of New York 12
WITNESSES
Mccabe, Janet, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Wellenius, Gregory A., SC.D., Associate Professor of
Epidemiology; Associate Director, Center for Environmental
Health and Technology, Brown University School of Public Health 15
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 23
Patton, Vicki, General Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund....... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 41
Ferkol, Thomas William, Jr., M.D., Alexis Hartmann Professor of
Pediatrics; Professor of Cell Biology and Physiology, Division
of Allergy, Immunology and Pulmonary Medicine, Washington
University School of Medicine.................................. 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 50
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
National Association fo Manufactures......................... 63
Texas Commission of Environmental Quality.................... 84
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of the Governor............. 103
Senate Resolution 253, 113th Congress............................ 106
OVERSIGHT HEARING: EPA'S PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIRQUALITY STANDARDS
FOR OZONE
----------
THURDSAY, DECEMBER 17, 2014
U.S. SENATE
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Washington, DC.
The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse
(chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Whitehouse, Gillibrand.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Good afternoon, everyone. I think I
will call this hearing to order at the exact moment that at
least my little BlackBerry says it is 2:30.
Welcome, everyone, to what is virtually assuredly the last
congressional hearing of this Congress. I think most of the
building is empty but for us, and we are relatively empty here
as well. But I am very pleased that we are here, and I thank
the witnesses for coming today.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, which if you initialize that, it turns
to NAAQS, which in turn gets pronounced as ``nacks.'' So that
is why everybody talks about NAAQS in this area. It requires
EPA to review NAAQS standards for ozone and for five other
pollutants every 5 years to ensure that they protect public
health.
The current 75 parts per billion ozone standard has been
too high since the day it was finalized by the Bush
administration back in 2008. That decision by the Bush
administration was so out of line that the scientific advisory
committee actually pushed back after the fact and wrote a very
unusual letter to Administrator Johnson, telling him that he
had made a mistake and that the number could not be justified.
But given the priorities of that Administration, the scientific
advice was not reckoned with.
So therefore, the standard was set. Since then we have had
false comfort that the air we breathe every day is safe. The
revised standard is a significant improvement. It is based on
extensive scientific research, including over 1,000 studies
that have been published since the 2008 standard. This is a
particularly big deal in my home State of Rhode Island. The
congressional Research Service has looked at the history of
these air quality standards and it has in its report a map from
the EPA Green Book that shows the non-attainment areas and the
State of Rhode Island and a good deal of the northeast coast is
just whack in the middle of the area.
There is a significant reason for that that I will get to
in a minute. But Providence and Kent Counties in Rhode Island,
as a result, get F grades for high ozone days in the American
Lung Association's 2014 State of the Air Report. Regrettably,
there is not a whole lot that we can do about it in Rhode
Island, because the causes tend to be out of State. And
specifically, they include out of State power plants that for
years dodged providing adequate pollution controls. At the same
time, they used particularly tall smokestacks to launch the
ozone-forming pollutants that they produced up into prevailing
winds that move northeast from the Midwest, from the Ohio
Valley, from that heavy coal-burning area. And they come
landing on us. It is actually a pretty deliberate path to ozone
formation that pollutes the air and the lungs of people in
downwind States like mine.
Now, the industry claims that an ozone standard that
protects public health will devaState businesses and the
economy. But when you look at history, over and over again,
those claims have been shown to be exaggerated and usually the
contrary is true. In this case, I believe Ms. McCabe will
testify that in terms of cost and benefit, the benefits of this
rule in health and in other areas are three times the cost.
EPA's analysis shows that health benefits of a 65 to 70
part per billion ozone standard translate into economic
benefits that, excluding California, which I guess already
complies with this, would be $4 billion to $23 billion higher
than the costs in 2025. These EPA regulations have already
lowered the number and severity of bad air days in the United
States. These bad air days are days where ozone levels are so
high that it is unhealthy for sensitive individuals like the
elderly or infants or people with breathing difficulties to be
outdoors.
We get those in Rhode Island. We get those in Rhode Island
in the summer. It is a perfectly nice day, you are driving into
work, you are listening to the radio and the voice on the radio
suddenly says, today is a bad air day in Rhode Island, and
advises the elderly and infants and people with breathing
issues to stay indoors. Basically, the day of those people has
just been taken from them by out of State polluters who have
been reckless about complying with the laws.
As climate change warms things up, it actually makes the
conditions for ozone formation more common and therefore, more
bad air days more likely. CASAC, the Science Advisory
Committee, is again recommending that EPA set a standard within
the 60 to 70 parts per billion range, noting that 60 parts per
billion would offer more public health protection than a
standard between 65 and 70 parts per billion. I hope that EPA
will set a standard of 60 parts per billion that prioritizes
public health protection.
I thank Ms. McCabe for being here, and invite her to
proceed.
STATEMENT OF JANET McCABE, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on EPA's recently proposed
updates to the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or
NAAQS, as you described them.
Because the air we breathe is so important to our overall
health and well-being, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review
the NAAQS every 5 years to make sure that they continue to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. For
at-risk groups, including millions of adults and children who
have asthma, this is critical.
Establishing and implementing a NAAQS is a two-step process
for improving air quality. Setting the standards is step one.
It is about defining what is clean air to protect public
health. Implementing the standards is step two, and involves
the Federal Government, States and tribes, if they wish to,
putting measures and programs in place to reduce harmful
pollution.
For this review, EPA examined thousands of scientific
studies and, based on the law, based on a full review of the
science, based on the recommendations of the agency's
independent scientific advisors, and based on the assessment of
EPA scientists and technical experts, the Administrator has
proposed to strengthen the standards to within a range of 65 to
70 parts per billion to better protect Americans' health and
welfare. This is a proposal, and taking public comment on a
range is exactly how the process is supposed to work. The
agency welcomes comments on all aspects of the proposal,
including on setting the level as low as 60 parts per billion.
We will accept comment on retaining the existing standard, as
well.
We are also proposing to update the Air Quality Index for
ozone. The AQI is the tool that you just referred to, Senator,
that gives Americans real-time information to help them make
the best choices to protect themselves and their families. And
we are proposing to make updates to monitoring and permitting
requirements, to smooth the transition and to assure that the
public has full information about air quality. All of these
updates are designed to ensure that Americans are alerted when
ozone approaches levels that may be unhealthy, especially for
sensitive people.
To protect the environment from damaging levels of ground
level ozone, as required by the Clean Air Act, the EPA has also
proposed to revise the secondary standard to within the same
range to protect against harm to trees, plants, and ecosystems.
The science clearly tells us that ozone poses a real threat to
our health, especially to growing children, older Americans,
those of us with heart or lung conditions, and those who are
active or work outside. The proposal to strengthen the
standards is designed to better protect children and families
from these health effects of ozone pollution.
For example, we estimate that meeting a level of 70 parts
per billion would prevent hundreds of thousands of missed
school days and asthma attacks and hundreds of premature deaths
per year. This would yield annual health benefits of $6.4
billion to $13 billion. These estimated benefits include the
value of avoiding asthma attacks, heart attacks, missed school
days and premature deaths, among other health effects.
States will ultimately determine what measures beyond the
Federal ones are appropriate for their clean air plans. EPA has
estimated illustrative annual costs at $3.9 billion for a
standard of 70 parts per billion. The estimated benefits
outweigh the estimated costs by as much as a ratio of three to
one. And meeting a standard of 65 parts per billion is
projected to provide additional benefits.
Implementing a NAAQS has always been and will continue to
be a Federal, State and tribal partnership. Local communities,
States, tribes and EPA have already shown that we can reduce
ground level ozone while our economy continues to thrive.
Nationally, since 1980, average ozone levels have fallen by a
third. And 90 percent of the areas originally identified as not
meeting the ozone standard set in 1997 now meet those
standards. We have reduced air pollution and our economy has
grown. We fully expect that this progress will continue.
Existing and proposed Federal measures like vehicle
standards and power plant rules are leading to substantial
reductions in ozone nationwide, which will help improve air
quality and help many areas meet any revised standard.
Exposures to ground level ozone, a key component of smog,
can have very serious consequences for our families' health and
the environment. We are looking forward to hearing what the
public thinks about the proposal. There will be a 90-day public
comment period, which I believe starts today. I am told that
the rule published today. We will be holding three public
hearings, as well, as we work toward completing the final
standards by October 1st, 2015.
Senator, I look forward to your questions. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Ms. McCabe. Let me
welcome Senator Gillibrand. Being a fellow Northeasterner, it
is no surprise to me that she has taken the trouble to come to
this hearing. Our States are on the receiving end of the ozone
that other States and the power plants in those States emit.
Can you describe what you think the methodology is likely
to be for compliance with this standard in other States? Is it
cleaning up at the smokestack? Is it policy changes at the
State level? What are you expecting by way of a compliance
method?
Ms. McCabe. It will really depend on a couple of things.
The States are ultimately responsible for designing plants to
meet the standard. They can take into account any Federal
measures that have been put in place. EPA, for example,
recently finalized the Tier 3 engine and fuel standards, which
will provide substantial benefits, way out into the future, in
the timeframe needed for these areas. So I would expect that
many States would rely on programs like that, and other Federal
programs that are going forward.
Senator Whitehouse. So some things, some compliance regimes
that will help States achieve the standard are already in
place. Measuring their effect will be a part of the compliance.
Ms. McCabe. That is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you expect that there are new
requirements that, for instance, power plants will have to
apply?
Ms. McCabe. When it comes to power plants, we have, of
course, the mercury rule. We have the cross-State air pollution
rule. We have the Clean Power Plan, which is moving forward as
a proposal at this time. There are other tools that either we
or States would look at. The cross-State air pollution comes
from our good neighbor provisions in the Clean Air Act. States
are obliged to address pollution that they are contributing to
downwind areas. We will be working with the States to assess
whether there are those kinds of contributions, in light of the
other programs that are in place. And as appropriate, then we
and the States would work together to put in place requirements
that might affect large sources like power plants.
Senator Whitehouse. So a power plant owner looking at this
proposed rule could expect that the improvements in emissions
that they would be obliged to make as a result, for instance,
of the good neighbor policy, would count toward the new ozone
standard and would likely help reduce their emissions of ozone
precursors as well, correct?
Ms. McCabe. That is correct. It all depends on what the
monitors show, and any program that is helping those monitors
show compliant air quality is helping.
Senator Whitehouse. EPA's analysis that the benefits are
between $6 billion and $13 billion and the costs around $4
billion, that analysis is not a first effort by EPA. You have
looked at the question of cost benefit analysis of clean air
regulations for many years, have you not?
Ms. McCabe. We do, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. What is the track record of your
estimates?
Ms. McCabe. We generally are conservative in estimating the
costs of the measures that would be put in place. I think there
is a fairly steady track record of technologies coming in at
lower costs than we expected.
Senator Whitehouse. So you are pretty confident in the
track record of your previous estimates, and that gives you
some confidence that these estimates have merit?
Ms. McCabe. Yes, and I should note also that these costs
are illustrative, because as I said, it will be up to the
States ultimately to determine what makes the most sense for
them, and they will look for the most cost-effective
approaches. We do our best to do an illustrative case.
Senator Whitehouse. And would costs that would be required
to meet this standard also be costs that would be pertinent to
meeting the good neighbor rule?
Ms. McCabe. Well, we don't double-count things, so if costs
have already been assumed in other rules, then we don't count
them again here. So we try to make very clear that the costs
for each rule are associated with that rule.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Gillibrand.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you so much, Senator Whitehouse,
for chairing this hearing today. I am very eager that we have a
chance to address the EPA's proposed National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone.
I also want to thank Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe
for joining us today. I am very grateful.
At a time when pictures of smog-filled foreign capitals are
making front pages around the world, the United States should
be taking the lead on the issue of air quality. I believe it is
an urgent public health challenge and we have to take it very
seriously. We are long overdue in this Country for updated air
quality standards from the EPA.
This past April, the American Lung Association released its
annual State of the Air Report. They found that nearly half of
all Americans, more than 147 million people, live in counties
where ozone or particle pollution levels make the air unhealthy
to breathe. Although some air quality indicators improved,
levels of ozone and smog are much worse than they were last
year. The report also found the 22 out of 25 most smog-polluted
cities, including New York City in my home State, had more high
smog days on average than last year.
In the richest and most innovative Country on earth, it is
stunning that our air quality is moving back in this direction
in the year 2014, and we have to reverse the trend. Because as
global temperatures continue to rise, and it is clear that they
are doing so, the risks for smog in our communities will
continue to grow.
I have heard from many New Yorkers whose children have
asthma about the challenges they face in addressing air quality
in their own communities. So this is something that we all have
to be concerned about, not just for kids, but for our seniors
and anyone with any type of lung or heart disease. I find it
especially disturbing that more than 35.6 million children
under 18 right here in the United States live in counties that
have poor air quality. I am very concerned particularly about
the levels of bronchitis and lung infections that we have in
our communities. And we are failing them if we can't enact more
stringent air quality controls.
The Southern California Children's Health Study looked at
children who grew up in more polluted areas, and it came to the
stunning conclusion that lung function for those kids dropped
by 20 percent from what was expected for their age. It is as if
these children grew up in a home with parents who smoke, except
the side effects just came from playing outside.
Senator Gillibrand. So I have a couple of questions to ask
you that I can submit for the record if we don't have enough
time.
Senator Whitehouse. We are good, it is just us.
Senator Gillibrand. Just us, OK.
Ozone values for New York City, Staten Island and Long
Island have been dropping since 1990. But values are still at
or above the current 75 parts per billion standard, especially
during summer months. What are some of the standards that could
be put in place to help New York and other States meet the
proposed lower standard?
Ms. McCabe. Sure. I mentioned the Tier 3 engine and fuel
standards that the agency finalized at the beginning of this
year. Those will go into effect starting in 2017 and will
significantly reduce the NOx emissions from motor vehicles. In
a populated place like New York, Rhode Island, the east coast,
that will have a tremendous and very quick impact.
Reductions by power plants of NOx will also have
an impact and that has been mentioned already. Ozone is a
regional pollutant, so emissions reductions that happen many
miles away can help reduce impact in local areas.
There are also a number of local measures that areas can
take to reduce local emissions. Many areas have put a lot of
those in place already, New York City, Rhode Island, those
areas certainly have done that. But we know that there continue
to be reductions that can be achieved out there, both locally
and regionally.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Throughout the history of the Clean Air Act, we have
continually heard claims by polluters and other opponents of
strong clean air standards that they can't afford to clean up
emissions, that it just costs too much. This implication is
that somehow we can't have both a clean environment and a
healthy economy. This is something I strongly disagree with and
we have not seen the doomsday scenarios that they have
predicted time and time again.
Now, we are hearing the same industry chorus again saying
that it is too costly to implement the new proposed ozone
standards. Can you address some of these claims head-on, and
how do you see the ability of industry to adapt and innovate to
meet strong ozone standards? Can you describe the benefits that
we will see as a society and the cost savings for families that
will come from taking more pollutants out of the air?
Ms. McCabe. The first thing to really emphasize in response
to your question, Senator, is that the decision that the
Administrator proposed just recently and that is out for public
notice today is all about what is the right level that means
safe air quality. It is not about implementation, it is not
about the costs associated with implementation. There are
processes laid out in the Clean Air Act to address that. This
is about making sure that Americans can know what is a safe
level for them to have in their air. So that is what we are all
about here.
However, I will go on to say that over the last 40 years,
40-plus years now that the Clean Air Act has been in effect,
air pollution in this Country has declined by 70-plus percent.
The economy has tripled. The record jus doesn't bear out that a
clean economy and clean air don't go together. I share your
view on that.
We have found time and time again that American industry,
American engineers have innovated, have developed technologies
that we didn't know existed at the time that standards were
established or existed but were not in widespread use or were
costly. And those costs came down, and those technologies have
become the norm now. Things like selective catalytic reduction,
catalytic converters for cars, low or zero VOC coatings. All
these things are technologies that have developed and have
helped to bring clean air and to grow business and industry in
this Country.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. One last question with respect to the
NOx emissions from the power plants. How are those
reduced?
Ms. McCabe. Typically, technology like selective catalytic
reduction or non-selective catalytic reduction are the two main
technologies that are used. There are low-NOx
burners, other technologies like that.
Senator Whitehouse. Equipment that is manufactured in order
to clean up the emissions?
Ms. McCabe. That is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. Great, thank you. Thank you very much
for your testimony. Good luck with the rule. I know that you
have a lot of input ahead of you before you finalize it. And
thank you for your efforts.
Ms. McCabe. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. I will now call the next panel. What I
would like to do is introduce the witnesses who are here and
then invite them to speak sequentially. Our first witness is
Greg Wellenius, who is an Associate Professor of Epidemiology
and Associate Director of the Center for Environmental Health
and Technology at Brown University School of Public Health. His
work is primarily focused on studying the effects of ambient
air pollution on the risk of cardiovascular events and its
effects on cardiovascular physiology. He received his Bachelor
of Science and Master of Science in Physiology from McGill
University and his doctorate in epidemiology and environmental
health from Harvard University. He has been doing ground-
breaking work in Rhode Island studying heat-related deaths and
hospitalizations. So I am particularly proud that Dr. Wellenius
is with us today.
He will be followed by Vicki Patton, who is Environmental
Defense Fund's General Counsel, and manages the organization's
national and regional clean air programs. Prior to joining EDF,
Patton worked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of General Counsel here in Washington, where she
provided legal counsel on a variety of national air quality
initiatives. She serves as a member of EPA's National Clean Air
Act Advisory Committee. She received her B.S. in hydrology from
the University of Arizona and her J.D. from NYU School of Law.
Dr. Thomas Ferkol is the Alexis Hartmann Professor of
Pediatrics and a professor of cell biology and physiology and
director of the multi-disciplinary division of Pediatric
Allergy, Immunology and Pulmonary Medicine at the Washington
University School of Medicine. In addition to his work at
Washington University School of Medicine, Dr. Ferkol is the
President of the American Thoracic Society, an international
organization with over 15,000 members. He also serves as a
member of the American Board of Pediatrics sub-board of
Pediatric Pulmonology. Dr. Ferkol is a graduate of Case Western
Reserve and the Ohio State University College of Medicine.
The remaining two witnesses on our panel, Mr. Ross
Eisenberg and Dr. Bryan Shaw are no-shows. They were invited,
they accepted the invitations and they confirmed their
attendance. We informed them that the hearing would proceed as
clearly as allowed under Senate rules. So it is unfortunate
they have chosen not to attend this official Senate hearing.
But we will go ahead with the witnesses who did choose to
attend.
If you would proceed, Dr. Wellenius, thank you very much
for coming down from Rhode Island for this hearing.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY A. WELLENIUS, SC.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
OF EPIDEMIOLOGY; ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH AND TECHNOLOGY, BROWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Mr. Wellenius. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Dr. Greg Wellenius, and I am an associate
professor of epidemiology at the Brown University School of
Public Health and associate director of the Brown University
Center for Environmental Health and Technology. I earned my
doctorate in environmental health and epidemiology from the
Harvard School of Public Health, and previously served on the
faculty at Harvard Medical School. I have been conducting
research on the health effects of air pollution for more than
15 years and it is my pleasure to provide testimony in this
area today.
There is broad scientific and medical consensus that the
current standard of 75 parts per billion is outdated, and that
a protective standard should fall within the range of 60 to 70
parts per billion. Reducing ozone pollution will save lives and
improve air quality for everyone, especially vulnerable
populations like children and those with asthma.
For the reasons I will detail in a moment, I encourage the
EPA to give full consideration to setting a 60 parts per
billion standard and to finalize a standard that will protect
the public's health.
As I mentioned, there is a broad consensus in the
scientific and medical communities that ambient ozone is
harmful to human health. In 2011, 14 leading medical and public
health organizations, including the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, the American Lung
Association and the American Thoracic Society, co-signed a
letter to the Obama administration saying that ``To safeguard
the health of the American people, help to save lives and
reduce health care spending, we support the most protective
standard under consideration, 60 parts per billion, averaged
over 8 hours.''
EPA staff and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,
a panel of external, independent scientists, have also
concluded that there is a causal relationship between short-
term ozone exposure and respiratory health effects. This
conclusion is based on the findings of more than a thousand
studies carried out over decades and overall demonstrating that
ozone exposure leads to increased risk of respiratory deaths,
hospital admissions and emergency department visits, increased
respiratory symptoms and medication use, reduced life function
and increased airway reactivity.
As one example out of very many, a 2010 study by the
scientists at Emory and Georgia Institute of Technology found
that in the Atlanta metropolitan area, ozone was linked to
higher rates of pediatric emergency department visits for
asthma, even at levels well below the current standard. Many
other studies also indicate measurable adverse health effects
at levels below the current standard. For example, meaningful
and statistically significant reductions in lung function have
been observed in exercising young, healthy adults exposed to
ozone levels as low as 60 parts per billion. Other studies have
found increased respiratory symptoms during controlled
exposures to ozone at levels of 70 parts per billion. Of note,
these controlled exposure studies have been conducted in
healthy adults. It is expected that people with asthma,
including asthmatic children, would be even more sensitive to
these effects.
The scientific evidence clearly shows that the current
standard for ozone is inadequate to protect the public's
health. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee concluded
that there is ``clear scientific support for the need to revise
the standard'' and that ``there is adequate scientific evidence
to recommend a range of levels for a revised primary ozone
standard from 70 parts per billion to 60 parts per billion.''
Lowering the primary ozone standard would have significant
public health benefits, including fewer deaths, fewer hospital
admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory diseases,
fewer respiratory symptoms and improved lung function,
especially amongst the most vulnerable members of the
population. In Rhode Island, the State that you represent and
where I work, at Brown University, asthma rates in adults and
children are above the national average. Ensuring ozone
pollution is at safe levels will save lives and improve the
quality of life for the people of Rhode Island and for people
across the Country.
Rising temperatures from climate change could further
exacerbate the health effects of ozone. Research has shown that
formation of ground level ozone is affected by weather and
climate and that there is a strong link between higher
temperatures and increased ozone levels. Ozone itself is also a
major greenhouse gas and an important contributor to global
climate change. Thus, reducing ozone pollution today would not
only provide immediate and long-lasting public health benefits,
it would also help slow the pace of future climate change. At
the same time, addressing climate change could help reduce
ozone pollution.
In conclusion, EPA's proposal to revise the ozone standard
is based on scientific and medical consensus and supported by
extensive scientific evidence. I encourage the EPA to give full
consideration to setting the primary ozone standard at the
health-protective level of 60 parts per billion.
Thank you for your attention, and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wellenius follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Dr. Wellenius. I very much
appreciate that you have come down to give not only your
scientific perspective, but your Rhode Island perspective.
Ms. Patton, thank you.
STATEMENT OF VICKI PATTON, GENERAL COUNSEL, ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND
Ms. Patton. Chairman Whitehouse, thank you very much for
your leadership on behalf of clean, safe air for our
communities and families. We sure appreciate it.
The United States' commitment to clean air is a broadly
shared American value, whether you live in a red State, a blue
State or a purple State, or in the case of my own home State,
in the heart of the Rockies in Colorado, which is all of the
above. Americans want clean, healthy air for our communities
and for our families.
The establishment of the health-based air quality standards
for ozone is really the bedrock foundation of our Nation's
clean air laws. It is why Congress has instructed the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
establish those standards on the basis of human health. The
question for the Administrator is whether the air in our
communities is safe to breathe.
This determination on the basis of human health was
affirmed in a landmark Supreme Court decision, penned by
Justice Antonin Scalia, who broadly affirmed that it is EPA's
solemn responsibility to establish health-based standards for
ozone on the basis of whether the air in our communities is in
fact safe to breathe. And we know, as others have already
commented, that it is not safe to breathe on the basis of the
current health-based standard. The Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee, which was established by Congress under the
Nation's clean air laws, to give EPA rigorous, independent
advice on the scientific foundations of the national health-
based air quality standards, has in fact concluded that the
current health-based standards is not adequate to protect our
children's health, our Nation's health, and that we do in fact
need to strengthen that standard in a range between 60 and 70
parts per billion. And indeed, they further recommended that a
standard in the lower end of the ranges would be appropriate,
and questioned whether a standard in the higher levels of those
ranges, up toward 70 parts per billion, would in fact carry out
the Administrator's responsibility to protect human health with
an adequate margin of safety.
We know that the effects of ozone are profound. There is
difficulty breathing on high ozone days, there are asthma
attacks, emergency room visits, hospital admissions and
premature deaths. Indeed, one of the most significant findings
since the Bush administration reviewed and revised the ozone
standard in 2008 is the strong basis of science linking ozone
concentrations to premature death.
The populations at risk include our children, it includes
individuals with asthma, elderly, those who are outside
working, exercising and living. The Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee looked at a whole host of information in
concluding that these effects are significant and the
populations at risk are imperiled, including clinical studies,
epidemiological studies, animal toxicological studies, exposure
and risk assessments.
We have heard the numbers. We have heard the numbers of
health impacts at stake. But if you are a mother or a father of
a child with asthma and that child suffers an asthma attack on
a high ozone day, the impacts are profound on your family. It
changes your family's fabric in so many fundamental ways.
This is why Congress has long instructed the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish the health-based standards, on
the basis of science, on the basis of public health. We have
already talked about how we are well on our way to achieving
those standards. Senator Gillibrand talked about sort of the
fact that our Nation can achieve both vital human health
protections and grow our economy. Indeed, in her own home State
of New York, there are manufacturers that are going to be
making the clean air technologies that will help deliver
fundamentally cleaner vehicles under the Tier 3 tailpipe
emission standards that others have talked about, and that will
reduce ozone-forming pollution by 80 percent beginning with
model year 2017 vehicles.
There has been lots of skepticism throughout the history of
the Nation's clean air laws that we can't meet these
challenges, that we can't deliver cleaner, healthier air for
our communities and families and grow our economy. When the
Nation confronted this challenge in 1997, there was one
Senator, Senator Whitehouse, who commented at the time that if
we moved forward with strong ozone health standards, that our
hair salons would be imperiled. In fact, we have achieved
cleaner, healthier air, and those businesses are up and running
and strong.
Senator Whitehouse. Hair salons are not extinct. Glad to
hear it.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Patton. And Senator, you indicated at the outset that
not all the Senators are here today. I want you to know who is
here today. Moms Clean Air Force is here today, they are here
in the audience listening to this hearing. And Moms Clean Air
Force represents over 400,000 moms across our Nation, moms who
are faith-based moms, moms who live in purple States and red
States and moms who are united by their abiding commitment to
clean air for our children. Those moms know that when we tuck
our children into bed at night, we are overwhelmed by our love
for them and we are overwhelmed by our commitment to ensure a
clean and safe and healthy environment for our children.
Your leadership in ensuring that we have strong, health-
based ozone standards is really one of the single most
important gifts you can give to our communities, to our
families and to all children who are threatened by unhealthy
air. So thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Patton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Ms. Patton. And welcome to
Moms Clean Air Force. As a dad, I will be the first one to
admit that when a young child is in an emergency room with an
asthma attack, it is likely to be the mom who had to take off
work and go and sit there with them. When a child has had to
miss a day of school, it is likely to be a mom who is called
home and has to organize coverage for the child who is not in
school. So even if it is not affecting the lungs of the moms,
it sure is affecting their lives.
Dr. Ferkol.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS WILLIAM FERKOL, JR., M.D., ALEXIS HARTMANN
PROFESSOR OF PEDIATRICS; PROFESSOR OF CELL BIOLOGY AND
PHYSIOLOGY, DIVISION OF ALLERGY, IMMUNOLOGY AND PULMONARY
MEDICINE, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Dr. Ferkol. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak today.
I am Tom Ferkol, I am a division director of Pediatric
Allergy, Immunology and Pulmonary Medicine at Washington
University in St. Louis, Missouri. To put it simply, I care for
children with lung disease, some with severe, even life-
threatening disease. You have my written testimony before you.
Dr. Wellenius has already provided scientific background on why
reducing ozone pollution is important for public health.
I just have a few brief points that I would like to make
that I think adds to the discussion. First, with each breath,
the lungs and airways are exposed to the outside environment.
Breathing is not an option. Airborne pollutants, if present,
are unavoidable. And children are far more vulnerable than
adults to the effects of air pollution.
The lung is not completely formed at birth. It is still
growing, it is still developing. The developing lung is
particularly susceptible to the harmful effects of air
pollutants. Air pollution is associated with impaired lung
growth that may be permanent. So what is happening during
childhood does not end in childhood, but continues on well into
adulthood.
Ozone exposure increases the risk of developing asthma in
childhood, including children that seemingly were previously
healthy. Ozone pollution is particularly harmful to children
who do have lung disease. That is not surprising, and it has
been said before, but it is worth repeating. For children with
asthma, the most common chronic disease of childhood that
affects nearly 7 million children and adolescents in the United
States alone, ozone levels below the current EPA standards are
associated with increasing respiratory symptoms and the need
for rescue medications. In some cases it requires greater
medications, higher doses, to control their asthma systems.
That may sound OK, except that often these medications or these
increases in doses lead to unintended side effects.
School absences, emergency room visits, hospital
admissions, are all clearly associated with ambient air
pollution. This is common knowledge. Every pediatrician who
cares for a child, especially a child with asthma, understands
this relationship. Sometimes it means children with asthma die,
which is tragic and I like to think avoidable.
Third, ozone exposure as a child can lead to deficits that
persist well into adulthood. I mentioned that before, but I
felt the need to repeat it. The data is emerging, and there are
several lines of evidence that are clearly showing that early
exposures to air pollution, including ozone pollution, have
long-term effects. It is not surprising that the cumulative
exposures during childhood would impact lung health later in
life. Indeed, very few people begin their lives as adults.
Fourth, when we in the medical community talk about the
ozone impact on public health, it sounds like public health is
a high-level concept. It really is not. Public health is just
the accumulation of all the personal stories that make up
America. Public health includes the mother of the child with
asthma who is in the emergency room, worried whether their son
will recover from a severe asthma attack. She is also thinking
that she cannot afford to miss another day of work to stay home
with her son.
Air pollution not only leads to direct costs for medical
care of the ill child, but also increases indirect costs from
lost productivity due to missed work and school.
Last, as has been stated by the previous speakers, the
science is strong and compelling. Since 2006, when the Bush
administration reviewed the ozone standard, the American
Thoracic Society recommended a more protective level of 60
parts per billion. We were confident of a recommendation then,
we are even more confident of that recommendation today. The
research evidence is growing. The medical community has no
doubts about air pollution's adverse effects on pediatric
health.
The EPA is not basing their proposed protective ozone
standard on one study or 10 studies. The proposed rule is based
on literally hundreds of studies that demonstrate that the
current standard is not protective. These studies deployed
multiple scientific methods and models, as mentioned by the
previous speaker.
But the data are clear. The current ozone standard is not
protective of public health, and the EPA must issue a more
protective standard. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferkol follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Let me ask a few questions, and let me start with Dr.
Wellenius. You have done some impressive work in Rhode Island,
studying heat-related deaths and hospitalizations. Is ozone
formation exacerbated by climate change, in your view? What is
the linkage between added heat and added ozone?
Mr. Wellenius. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
Senator Whitehouse. It is a local question, in Rhode
Island.
Mr. Wellenius. Yes. In Rhode Island, what we have looked at
is the relationship between warm temperatures and extreme heat
and the number of emergency department visits and deaths in the
State of Rhode Island. We found a strong association. That
means that more people are hospitalized and die for heat-
related illnesses on those hot days.
What we are trying to explore right now in Rhode Island is
whether that is made worse on high ozone days. We think from
other studies in other parts of the Country and across the
world that days that are both hot and high ozone are generally
worse for people than days that are either hot or high ozone,
but not both together. So we are looking at that currently in
Rhode Island. I don't have the results to share with you today,
but I would be happy to provide those in the near future.
Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Shaw did not choose to attend the
hearing, but he did file pre-filed testimony with us, in which
he told us that asthmatics are not in fact at greater risk of
adverse health effects from ozone. Do you have any reaction to
that statement?
Mr. Wellenius. I think it is just not true, to be frank.
There is substantial evidence that asthmatics are at least at
as great a risk as non-asthmatics to the health effects of
ozone. There are, as with any body of science, body of
evidence, not every study shows that, but the overwhelming
consensus in the field is that people with asthma are at
greater risk.
Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Patton, the existing standard, the
previous standard, the 75 parts per billion standard, was
criticized at the time that it was adopted by the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee, saying, they actually took the
step of writing to Administrator Johnson to say that they do
not endorse the new primary ozone standard as being
sufficiently protective of the public health. And that that
decision ``failed to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the
Clean Air Act'' that you ensure an adequate margin of safety
for all individuals, including sensitive populations.
You were at EPA for a while, and you are familiar with the
Scientific Advisory Panel, the CASAC. Was that an unusual step
for them to take?
Ms. Patton. It was an unusual step, Senator Whitehouse. It
also highlights why the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, in its recommendations to the Administrator in June,
was so clear about its findings. It wanted to leave really very
little room for ambiguity about the foundational science that
supports two really central conclusions. One is that the
current standard is not adequate to protect public health. That
is what that body found in June in its recommendations to the
Administrator, and also that there is clear evidence warranting
a stronger standard.
The 2008 standard was criticized sharply at the time, not
only by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee that had
advised EPA to establish a stronger standard, but a number of
other leaders in the medical and health community.
Senator Whitehouse. Somebody obviously didn't find the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to be very credible, in
ignoring their recommendations back in 2008. What can you tell
the committee for the record of this hearing about the
credibility and the credential of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee? Should we pay attention to what they say?
Ms. Patton. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is
established under the law to provide the Administrator with
independent scientific and medical advice on these really
important public health questions. So this particularly
advisory committee that most recently communicated to the
Administrator in June is comprised of leading scientific
experts at institutions across our Country from leading
academic institutions in North Carolina to the research arm of
the U.S. power industry, the Electric Power Research Institute.
A wide variety of experts, a wide variety of perspectives, wide
and deep expertise in epidemiology, toxicology, the leading
scientific foundations. They have communicated clearly to the
Administrator, it is her solemn responsibility to strengthen
the health-based standard for ozone.
Senator Whitehouse. So a private citizen listening to this
hearing can take comfort that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee is a reputable and reliable body?
Ms. Patton. That body is a reputable, highly regarded body
of leading scientific experts. Its recommendations are also
confirmed by the leading medical and health associations, the
American Lung Association, the American Public Health
Association, the American Thoracic Society. So there is an
extensive body of just leading public health and medical
associations and experts that further confirm the findings and
recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
Senator Whitehouse. You have made a perfect segue to Dr.
Ferkol. For the record, tell us a little bit about the American
Thoracic Society, and presume that I have challenged the
credibility of the American Thoracic Society. Presume that I
come at you with the point of view that this is an
irresponsible, liberal organization and explain what the
American Thoracic Society actually is.
Dr. Ferkol. I would say we are anything but that. We are
somewhat egalitarian when it comes to our political leanings.
The American Thoracic Society is an organization,
professional organization of over 15,000 members. It includes
scientists, physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists,
patients, families, all of whom are interested in improving the
pulmonary health of patients, dealing with patients who are
critically ill, as well as focusing to some extent on sleep
disorders. It is a very proud organization. There are a lot of
different people with a lot of different views, with a lot of
different political leanings. I would say that we are neither
left nor right in that respect.
Senator Whitehouse. And so the American Thoracic Society,
in your view, is also reputable and reliable when it makes a
recommendation like this on a matter with its expertise?
Dr. Ferkol. I would hope so. Otherwise, I don't think I
would want to be the president.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
So let's say you are a mother in Rhode Island, or a father.
It is a summer day and you wake up in the morning and you are
preparing breakfast, and you are listening to the radio and
your kids are home, and they are small. And the radio announces
that today is a bad air day in Rhode Island and that infants
should be kept indoors. You are not really sure what that
means. You take your child out to get some sunshine, to run
around a little bit. Is there harm that could be happening to
that child that wouldn't be to a parent, to the dad or mom?
Dr. Ferkol. The scenario that you give is a very common
one, and it is a dilemma that families have, especially when
you hear about particularly bad air days. We have them in St.
Louis as well.
Yes, there is in fact harm, and it is invisible. You don't
smell ozone, you don't see ozone, but you are being exposed to
ozone. The effects of this noxious agent in the air is
cumulative. It is not just, you go out, you get exposed to
ozone and you suddenly have an asthma attack. This is something
that certainly can precipitate asthma, we think that is very
clear. That is one of the causative factors. But it also can
lead to cumulative damage the airways, to the lungs, that makes
your lung function, as was mentioned previously, that makes
your lung function worse and may lower the threshold for the
next time that you have an asthma exacerbation.
Senator Whitehouse. So the risk is not that the child or
the vulnerable person is going to suddenly begin coughing or
having shortness of breath or have an asthma attack, it is that
lasting, permanent insidious damage that is being done to the
lung that is not apparent that day.
Dr. Ferkol. That is exactly right. I mean, certainly, I am
sure that it is contributing to the inflammation of the airway
that leads to an asthma exacerbation. But I think the
cumulative effect, that is, you used the exact right word,
insidious, it sort of sneaks up on you, sneaks up on the
patient, sneaks up on the family. And how much of that
influences the progression of lung disease, how much of this
contributes to lung disease in adults is something that is a
very interesting question. But we, needless to say, have more
than a few concerns that this is happening.
Senator Whitehouse. So a vulnerable person who goes out on
a bad air day and experiences no apparent, immediate ill
effects, doesn't feel shortness of breath, doesn't cough,
doesn't in any way have a present sense during the bad air day
that they have been affected, nevertheless could suffer, could
be suffering harm as a result.
Dr. Ferkol. It doesn't mean that there hasn't been some
incremental injury to the airways that then predisposes the
child or, when the child grows up, the adult to later problems
with their lungs.
Senator Whitehouse. And does the harm tend to be
cumulative?
Dr. Ferkol. That is a very good question. I would probably
defer to Dr. Wellenius to answer.
Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Wellenius, could you answer that
question? The type of harm that we have been discussing, that
is not manifest in a particular discomfort or coughing or
shortness of breath or anything else during the day,
nevertheless is happening, and could potentially manifest
months or years later, correct?
Mr. Wellenius. Yes, absolutely. The strongest evidence is
for the short-term effects, for those effects on the same day.
You could be outside 100 high-ozone days and not suffer an
obvious effect and then on the 101st, you could suffer an
asthma attack that lands you in the emergency department, or
have really bad respiratory symptoms.
But then there are also these cumulative effects that we
have been talking about. Those are not just respiratory
effects, but there is increasing evidence that those could also
be cardiovascular effects. So we are very concerned, not just
about the short-term effects of ozone, but about the longer,
life-long effects of ozone.
Senator Whitehouse. And you did say that they were
cumulative. Could you explain that?
Mr. Wellenius. Yes. Again, the science still needs to be
refined in the area of over what timeframe they can be
cumulative. But for instance, some of the cardiovascular
effects can be seen even in young adults with having enhanced
cardiovascular damage from their lifetime exposure to ozone.
There are some studies demonstrating that.
Senator Whitehouse. All right. Let me ask you to stand by
one moment.
I think at this point I will conclude the hearing. I do
want to, with unanimous consent of all present, put into the
record a combination press release and letter issued by the
ranking member of the committee, actually inviting the
Republican witnesses not to attend. So their failure was not
just a failure to appear of their own. They were invited not to
appear by the ranking member.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. And I would also like to State for the
record that the question about proceeding with this hearing
after the adjournment of the Senate last night was one that we
have taken up with Senate legal counsel. We have been advised
that we can proceed, that this is a legitimate hearing. So we
have gone forward with that advice.
So we are going to continue to treat this as a legitimate
hearing, I believe that it is. That means that the record of
the hearing remains open for an additional week after the
conclusion of the hearing.
Let me also add to the record a statement for the record by
Senator Inhofe, ``Chairman Whitehouse, thank you for holding
this hearing,'' and so forth. Senator Inhofe's hearing
statement will be also admitted to the record, alongside
Senator Vitter's press release denying that this is a hearing.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. It is getting interesting around here
already.
Anyway, for a week, the record of the hearing will remain
open. Let me thank you again, all of our witnesses, for coming
down. This is, in my view, a long overdue change in a rule that
had no validity from the very beginning. And thank you very
much for not only your support for the EPA action, but for your
support for EPA pushing toward the lower 60 part per billion
standard, which I believe is the unanimous recommendation of
the assembled panel.
Without further ado, we will adjourn the hearing. Again,
thank you all very much for your participation.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]