[Senate Hearing 118-459]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-459
EXAMINING THE STATE OF AIR QUALITY
MONITORING TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 10, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-205 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
APRIL 10, 2024
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Hammad, Omar, Environmental Policy Analyst, Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress.......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 24
Obermann, William ``Bill'', Air Program Supervisor, Department of
Public Health and Environment, City and County of Denver....... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 36
Austin, Anne, Former Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........ 46
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter from Anne L. Idsal, EPA of Washington DC, to EPA Regional
Administrators regarding Air Sensors........................... 57
From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: The Enhanced Air
Sensor Guidebook, Andrea Clements and Rachelle Duvall.......... 59
Letters to Senator Carper and Senator Capito from:
Tall Timbers................................................. 268
Climate & Wildfire Institute................................. 269
EXAMINING THE STATE OF AIR QUALITY MONITORING TECHNOLOGY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Markey, Kelly, Padilla,
Sullivan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to
call this hearing to order.
Though air pollution can be a complex topic, as we all
know, the goal of this hearing is pretty simple. It is to
examine the role that low-cost air quality sensors can play in
helping us collect more data about the quality of our air so
that we can do a better job of protecting public health and
engaging communities in those responses. That is really what we
are up to.
Today, we will discuss how new air quality sensor
technology is making it possible for State and local air
quality agencies to work with businesses and with their
communities. In particular, we are going to hear about how low-
cost sensor technology is supplementing existing data gathering
and how the technologies are evolving, as well as how local
regulators are incorporating these sensors into their own work.
Low-cost air quality sensors are becoming an important tool
in the toolbox of air agencies, but it is important for us to
distinguish what their limitations are so that they can be
integrated successfully into community-level public health
initiatives. As you know, almost anybody can buy one of these
sensors, almost anyone. They cost a couple of hundred dollars.
The Environmental Protection Agency refers to these low-
cost devices as sensors. They should not be confused with
monitors that our States use to regulate air quality under EPA
guidance. This distinction between sensors and monitors is
important, so let me just repeat it. Today, we are going to be
talking about sensors, which are low-cost tools to collect data
on specific pollutants. We are not talking about the monitors
that States use, our States, my State, and other States here,
use for regulation under EPA direction.
Low-cost air quality sensors are not replacing regulatory
monitors. Regulatory monitors are far more sophisticated. They
cost tens of thousands of dollars and are the backbone of EPA's
ability to regulate air quality across this Country of ours.
Many of us already have low-cost air quality sensors in our
own homes. Carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detectors
``sniff'' the air and alert us when a problem is detected. The
air quality sensors that we are going to discuss today work
pretty much the same way.
As members of this committee have heard me oftentimes say,
everything I do, I know I can do better. I think that is true
for just about all of us, and it is also true for reducing air
pollution. We as a Nation can and must do more to address
pollutants in our air. Despite our Nation's significant strides
since passing the Clean Air Act of 1970, air pollution still
negatively impacts far too many Americans, especially in low-
income communities, including communities of color.
The Center for Air, Climate, and Energy Solutions found
that people of color are disproportionately exposed to an air
pollutant called fine particulate matter, also known to most of
us as soot. Exposure to these small but powerful pollutants is
linked to lung and heart problems, especially for our kids or
people with chronic respiratory diseases. The good news is that
low-cost air quality sensors can help detect this kind of
pollution, and those sensors are being used appropriately in a
growing number of communities.
I believe we have a moral obligation to ensure that all
Americans, no matter what their ZIP code might be, are free
from the burden of pollution, air pollution in particular. That
means equipping communities with tools to improve individuals'
access to information about the quality of their air. Sensors
help us do that.
Some of you might recall that this committee held a hearing
in July 2022 that discussed the risks of living near or
downwind of facilities that emit air pollution. Harmful air
pollutants disproportionately affect these so-called front-line
communities, but many Americans today do not even know they are
being exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution. That is why
sensors are critical, because they sniff the air and detect
pollutants that the human eye or the human nose cannot detect.
This technology is getting better and more affordable by the
day.
Collecting local air data helps States, it helps tribes, it
helps communities find pollution hotspots and identify
facilities that may be generating excess pollution. Low-cost
sensors also save air agencies money by enabling them to direct
resources to where the worst pollution is.
As I often say, find out what works and do more of that.
Today, we will hear from one of our witnesses about what is
working with low-cost air quality sensors in, among other
places, Denver, Colorado, one of the best examples of a local
air agency working proactively with health care organizations,
with schools, and with neighborhoods.
In other places across our Country, cities and local groups
are working with their air regulators at the State level. For
example, Utah's Department of Environmental Quality is
partnering with the University of Utah, as well as with other
State and local organizations, to stand up a new air quality
sensor program on the west side of Salt Lake Valley. This
program will provide almost instant local air quality
information through air maps and through alerts.
These sensors complement regulatory monitors. For example,
during the wildfires last summer in Delaware, the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, we
call it DNREC, used data from 11 regulatory monitors, data from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and data
from low-cost sensors to track air pollution. Using all three
sources, DNREC was able to quickly issue public health
advisories for vulnerable residents.
In closing, clean air is good for human health. It is good
for our economy, and it is good for our planet. It is good for
all of us. We look forward to hearing today from our colleagues
as they arrive and from our witnesses on the ways in which low-
cost air quality sensors can help us reduce air pollution and
protect public health.
Before I turn to Senator Capito, I want to thank not just
our witnesses for being here and testifying today and preparing
for this hearing, I want to thank our staff for helping to find
you and to convince you to come today and to share some
thoughts and responses to some of our questions. We appreciate
the good staff work that has been done.
With that, let me turn to our Ranking Member, Senator
Capito, for her opening statement. Senator Capito, you are
recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and thank you
all for being here with us today, and I appreciate the travel,
and I appreciate the expertise that you will bring.
I think we can all agree that clean air is vital to the
health and well-being of Americans across the Nation. However,
I am a bit concerned about the Administration and some of the
neglect I have seen in the major flaws in the air monitoring
data quality. It seems as though the Administration is
prioritizing an agenda while misallocating taxpayers' dollars
on projects that have limited benefits to our public health and
welfare.
First, I think it is important to acknowledge that
Americans enjoy some of the cleanest air in the world and
recognize just how much air pollution in the United States has
been reduced. According to the EPA, between 1980 and 2022, the
combined emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursor
pollutants was reduced by 73 percent. Hazardous air pollutant
emissions have also similarly declined.
Despite this fact, many Americans are led to believe
through inaccurate claims that our air quality is getting
worse, when, in fact, air quality has significantly improved
and can get better. Congress has made significant investments
to support the ambient air quality monitoring network. The
Federal Government partners with States, localities, and tribes
to build and operate the system. This network is comprised of
official stationary air monitors that gather data to inform
regulatory decisions and determine regulatory compliance.
While use of these official monitors has been generally
successful, deficiencies with one model's accuracy and
reliability demonstrate the need to ensure that the monitoring
system is maintained at the highest standards and is the most
accurate it can be.
One year ago, EPA modified a measurement method on the
Teledyne PM Mass Monitory used to track and measure particulate
matter. These monitors are crucial to inform potential
regulatory actions undertaken by the EPA and the States,
including implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, or the NAAQS.
Peer-reviewed analysis reported that the monitors had led
to over-inflated measures of fine particulate matter, or PM
2.5. In other words, the monitors led the EPA and States to
believe that the air quality was actually worse than it
actually was. These artificially high readings date all the way
back to 2017 when they were first deployed. Those Teledyne
monitors had a significantly high bias relative to other
monitors, including the gold standard reference monitors that
the Chairman spoke about.
On February 14th of this year, the EPA issued a proposal to
retroactively modify PM 2.5 data reported from the Teledyne
monitors from when they were first deployed from the years of
2017 through April 2023. The EPA proposal notes that more than
400 Teledyne monitors in our official ambient air monitoring
network were consistently producing PM 2.5 data that was 20
percent higher than the real concentration levels.
To be clear, this level of inaccuracy could be stated as
unprecedented. It is absolutely critical that EPA prioritize
correcting this unprecedented error, which they are doing, and
refocus on high-quality, accurate monitoring data that is
relied on for regulatory compliance. This is where the EPA's
focus should be in a monitoring context before the agency
promotes the use of emerging and less accurate sensors.
Despite the challenges faced by the existing network used
for regulatory purposes, there has been a choice to prioritize
funding for less-accurate, difficult to use, low-cost monitors.
The partisan American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act
funded the use of less accurate and reliable low-cost air
quality sensors.
A recent GAO report identified key challenges and data
deficiencies associated with use of those low-quality air
sensors. GAO found that users face difficulty understanding the
capabilities, operations, and maintenance requirements and
accuracy of those sensors.
Particularly, GAO noted users often lack the knowledge to
select the right sensors or deploy them in a way that best fits
their intended use to gain accurate and actionable data. This
leads to confusion when the data lacks the high degree of
confidence necessary to make regulatory decisions and can cause
misunderstandings about the concentration of air pollutants
that are affecting our local communities.
Of particular concern, GAO points out that the EPA has not
taken basic steps to address issues with sensor use, such as
issuing guidance on how to make the sensors more usable for
communities. This confusion can undermine confidence in EPA and
State regulatory actions, as well as cause our communities and
residents to panic about their air quality and misallocated
resources.
I am concerned that spending more money on new, unproven,
and inaccurate monitors that can not be used reliably to direct
our regulatory action will at best be a waste of money or a
misplaced priority. Instead, we need to make improvements in
the existing monitoring network so that we can build on the
substantial progress that have made to improve our air quality.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am.
We are now going to turn to our panel of witnesses. I had a
chance to meet all of you personally and to welcome you. We are
delighted that you were able to come today.
First of all, I am going to start off with Mr. Omar Hammad.
Has anyone ever mispronounced your name?
Mr. Hammad. Often.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Okay. We will try not to do that today. Mr.
Hammad is an analyst in environmental policy in the Research
Science and Industry Division of the congressional Research
Service, which does such great service for all of our Country
and certainly for folks on this committee. I understand that
your work focuses primarily on environmental policy issues,
including the Clean Air Act, indoor air quality, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and environmental permitting. Before
joining CRS, Mr. Hammad worked in the Air Progress Branch at
the Environmental Protection Agency in Region 2.
Our second witness is Mr. Bill Obermann. Mr. Obermann, good
to see you. He is an Air Program Supervisor at the Denver
Department of Public Health and Environment. In this role, I am
told that Mr. Obermann manages the Denver Department of Public
Health and Environment's Love My Air Program. I love that
title, Love My Air Program.
Love My Air is a city-led air quality monitoring program
that provides real-time air quality information and education
to residents of Denver. Mr. Obermann has been with the City
since 2019, but has over 25 years of experience in air quality
and transportation planning industries.
Third, last but not least, we are going to hear from Ms.
Anne Austin, who I believe is from Austin. This does not happen
every day; it is pretty cool. We are going to hear from you,
Ms. Austin.
I understand you are the former Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the
Environmental Protection Agency, and also a former EPA Region 6
Administrator. Prior to joining EPA, Ms. Austin spent her
career working for the Texas State government. What did you do,
working for the Texas State government?
Ms. Austin. I served at the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality and also the Texas General Land Office.
Senator Carper. Thank you. We thank all of you again for
your preparation. We thank all of you today for your service
and for joining us here today to testify and to respond to the
questions that we have.
Mr. Hammad, I am going to ask you to please lead us off,
our lead-off hitter, and proceed with your statement, if you
are ready. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF OMAR HAMMAD, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ANALYST,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Mr. Hammad. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
members of the committee, good morning, and thank you for this
invitation to appear before you on behalf of the congressional
Research Service.
I am Omar Hammad, and I am an analyst in environmental
policy. My testimony draws on my area of specialization at CRS,
the Clean Air Act and air quality monitoring.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, defines
low-cost air sensors as a class of non-regulatory technology
that is lower is cost, portable, and generally easier to
operate than the air monitors used for regulatory purposes.
Some stakeholders have asserted that EPA, State and local air
agencies should consider the use of low-cost air sensors in
their regulatory regimes due to competitive costs, increasingly
better technologies, and expanded coverage.
This testimony summarizes my written statement that I offer
for the record and aims to introduce and address the elements
of this debate. I will discuss ambient air monitors, also known
as regulatory monitors, and their uses; low-cost air sensors
and their uses; and the benefits and challenges of both
technologies.
Congress recognized the need to address air pollution,
establishing the Clean Air Act with the purpose of protecting
and enhancing the quality of the Nation's air resources and
providing assistance to State and local governments in
connection with the Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Programs.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is to issue national ambient,
or outdoor, air quality standards known as the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS for short, for criteria
pollutants. There are currently six criteria air pollutants:
particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide, and lead.
Establishing NAAQS does not directly limit emissions or
compel specific emission controls. Rather, it represents EPA's
formal judgment regarding the level of ambient air pollution
that will protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety.
Ambient air monitoring is the systemic long-term assessment
of pollutant levels by measuring the quantity and types of
pollutants in the surrounding outdoor air. The Clean Air Act
directs EPA to promulgate regulations that establish an ambient
air monitoring system throughout the United States.
Regulatory monitoring sites established primarily by State
and local air agencies will differ from site to site in the
number and type of required monitors and pollutants monitored
at each site. These monitors must meet EPA-designated reference
or equivalent methods for monitoring.
Regulators, researchers, communities, and others have
relied on the network of ambient air monitors to provide the
data needed for studies, source permitting, NAAQS attainment
and implementation, air quality alerts, and a host of other
applications.
Low-cost air sensors, unlike ambient air monitors, are non-
regulatory and relatively low-priced devices, often priced
below $2,500 compared to the regulatory monitors that can reach
prices of up to $50,000. Advancements in technology, micro
processing capabilities, and miniaturization have led to an
expansion in the availability of low-cost air sensors to
measure a variety of air pollutants.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the
use of low-cost air sensors is increasing, driven in part by
policy and public interest in air quality stemming from
wildfire smoke, neighborhoods near pollution sources, and other
concerns.
EPA is involved in the advancement of low-cost air sensor
technology, including performance evaluations and best
practices for effective use. EPA found that these low-cost air
sensors are generally less accurate than their more expensive
regulatory counterparts, and stated that data from new air
sensor instruments should not be used in a regulatory context
at this time, unless those instruments meet all applicable
regulatory requirements. EPA did note that they could be used
in identifying pollution hotspots, providing local community-
scale air monitoring, assisting in the site selection for new
or relocated regulatory monitors, and conducting scientific
research.
Ambient air monitoring networks have provided reliable air
quality data throughout the Country for decades. In recent
years, some observers have raised concerns about the increase
in cost to establish and maintain regulatory monitors. Some
States and local air agencies assert that low-cost air sensors
have been successfully used to supplement regulatory monitors
and fill data gaps. Some contend the sensors help
decisionmakers address specific needs, such as directing
limited enforcement resources to achieve emission reductions,
saving time and money.
Federal agencies have also made low-cost air sensors
available for deployment to wildfire locations upon the request
of firefighting agencies. Stakeholders have noted the low-cost
sensors have been particularly useful for monitoring wildfire
smoke in areas without regulatory monitors.
This concludes my brief remarks. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hammad follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Mr. Hammad, we thank you for your
testimony. We look forward to asking you some questions in a
couple of minutes, but let us now turn to Mr. Obermann.
Mr. Obermann, please proceed. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM OBERMANN, AIR PROGRAM SUPERVISOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF
DENVER
Mr. Obermann. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Carper,
Ranking Member Capito, and members of the committee and fellow
panelists. My name is Bill Obermann, I go by Bill. I am an Air
Program Supervisor at the Denver Department of Public Health
and Environment.
I manage the Denver Love My Air Program, and it is a
program that uses air quality sensors to generate real-time
pollution measurements for the residents of Denver.
Denver has been in nonattainment of the EPA's standard for
ozone since the early 1990's. Add in our population growth,
wildfires, and the unique geography of our city up against the
mountains, and you have a persistent ozone pollution issue, as
well as other pollutants like PM 2.5, which is fine particulate
matter 2.5 millionths of a meter in diameter, as you know.
Ozone and PM 2.5 drive our air quality index in Denver and
the alert system that is then operated by the State. It is as
common to check the air quality index and scan for air quality
alerts as it is the weather on a typical summer day in Denver.
This is the context in which the Love My Air Program exists
today. It is an example of how local governments are responding
to educate the public about health and air quality. We take
real-time data from our sensors and display it on TV screens in
33 Denver public schools. We also have a smartphone app and
public website for any member of the public.
Our information is easy to consume and timely. For example,
nurses use our information when caring for asthmatic children
on high air pollution days. Our program started in the schools,
and what we learned is the most responsive population were the
nurses. It is best to use these trusted partners to help build
more awareness around air quality and health. Today, we are
expanding our program into three local health clinics, because
they too are trusted partners in health.
Here we are at a pivotal point. Sensors are providing more
information on air quality and the official air monitoring
equipment by EPA in State agencies is also becoming more
affordable and ready for real-time display. The big questions
are, how can these monitoring technologies be used to improve
health outcomes? From our perspective, there are two ways that
Congress can help.
The first way is to direct EPA to establish how air quality
monitoring data from programs like ours can be used to
complement State analysis and decisions on where to further
reduce air pollution, especially in ozone and PM 2.5
nonattainment areas.
EPA has been issuing guidance, as Mr. Hammad said, on how
to operate sensor technologies and networks and performance
testing of different sensor technologies, and all that
assistance has been very helpful. Denver corrects its sensor
data using the State monitoring network and using some of those
EPA protocols.
We agree with the GAO report that there is clearly an
emerging need to take the next steps in clarifying how our data
can be used in a regulatory context. This is even more relevant
with the EPA's newly revised annual standard for PM 2.5.
Second, we need to understand how local air quality data
captured near large industrial facilities, like refineries, can
be used. EPA has guidance that details how this data needs to
be collected so it can complement, but not replace, air
monitoring conducted by State and Federal agencies.
Today, our air sensor data would not be considered high
enough quality to use in an enforcement setting, and we agree
with that conclusion. We use our data almost exclusively today
as a public health education tool.
These monitoring technologies are constantly improving, and
we will continue to get pressure from our residents on how to
take action with this data in a regulatory context. We are only
a few short years away from collecting high-quality data at a
large scale in our neighborhoods and neighborhoods all over the
Country, particularly those adjacent to industrial sources of
air pollution.
I want to reiterate that EPA has been a great partner thus
far by establishing data quality standards by publishing things
like the Air Sensor Toolbox online available for everyone. We
ask that the EPA continue to work directly with us and States
to start to answer how sensor data can be used in air quality
planning and assessing facility compliance.
EPA should continue to support the local level by providing
monitoring equipment and even helping us install it on the
ground and help us validate our data. The EPA resources could
be increased here as more communities start to use this
technology and more of them become available on the market.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Obermann follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. You bet. Thanks again for joining us.
Thanks for those words, and thanks for what you do with your
life, serving our Country.
Mr. Obermann. Thank you.
Senator Carper. We are now going to hear from Ms. Anne
Austin, who is from Austin. I do not think we have ever had, in
the years that I have been chairing, someone who has a name
that just rings a bell like that. That is great.
We are happy you are here. Please feel free to go ahead
with your statement, and we will ask some questions once you
are finished. Thank you. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ANNE AUSTIN, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Austin. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
members of the committee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify on the topic of air quality monitoring
technology. It is a pleasure to be with you here today and in
such good company with my fellow panelists.
As you know, the U.S. has experienced dramatic progress in
air quality in recent years, and these improvements have
spanned Presidential Administrations and hold true for criteria
air pollutants such as ozone and PM, greenhouse gases like CO2
and methane, and hazardous air pollutants like formaldehyde and
benzene.
As envisioned by Congress and embedded in the Clean Air
Act, this progress is built on cooperative federalism between
the USEPA and its State, local, and tribal partners, as well as
a backbone of high quality, regulatory-grade monitors. It is
important to note that as our air quality has improved, and
while the NAAQS have become more stringent, the contribution of
air pollution from forest fires and international transport
have grown in significance. This makes a high-quality
monitoring network and the ability of EPA and its State and
local partners to provide regulatory relief through Clean Air
Act tools like exceptional events even more important.
Consequently, nonattainment designations for areas that
cannot meaningfully address the background, fire-related, or
international contributions will not address the remaining air
quality issues in our Country, and this raises the important
issue of the current State of technology with respect to air
monitors and sensors and where low-cost, portable air sensors
fit into the picture.
As you know, EPA, State, local, and tribal partners have
long relied on a robust monitoring network which complies with
quality control and quality assurance measures and data quality
specifications that conform to Federal reference methods and
Federal equivalent methods used for regulatory purposes. These
monitors are subject to Federal regulations, and in short, they
are carefully tested, very carefully calibrated, and carefully
maintained because of the important role the data generated
from the monitoring networks plays in the regulatory
decisionmaking at the local, State, tribal, and Federal levels.
The appeal of low-cost air sensors is readily
understandable, as they are widely accessible to individuals,
as well as interested parties. They are good tools with which
to explore one's local environment and to learn more about air
quality and perhaps may even have a role to play with respect
to identifying local air quality issues that merit further
monitoring and analysis by a regulatory agency.
However, and among other things, the personal air sensors
lack quality control and quality assurance measures. They have
not been subjected to the same rigorous FRM, Federal Reference
Method, and FEM, Federal Equivalent Methods, testing and
analysis, and they may have high levels of variability between
the different instruments.
In short, they are certainly an air quality tool, and they
have their place in that toolbox, but the technology has not
yet been subjected to the same level of rigorous testing and
analysis that the existing monitoring network has stood up to
for years, albeit with its own shortcomings. Therefore, low-
cost sensors may not quite be ready for prime time when it
comes to being fully incorporated into the Clean Air Act
required network utilized for agency regulatory, permitting
attainment, and enforcement decisions.
Instead, it would be worthwhile to refocus our attention,
energy, and resources to Clean Air Act programs focused on the
most pressing air quality issues grounded in cooperative
federalism and focused on a robust, high-quality regulatory
monitoring network. For one, how Federal funds are directed via
intergovernmental organizations and State and local and tribal
agencies. All of those organizations have raised longstanding
concerns about the relative lack of resources for building and
maintaining that robust monitoring network for criteria and
hazardous air pollutants.
Furthermore, EPA has repeatedly proposed to shift Federal
resources for PM 2.5 monitoring to a different part of the
Clean Air Act, which would limit Federal funds, require a 40
percent cost share for States, and potentially divert State and
local resources from other priorities. Fortunately, these
proposed shifts have yet to be implemented.
Third, you have also seen the reduction of key State,
local, and tribal experts on EPA air quality programs and with
respect to the science advisory boards. This should also be
reversed to ensure that the proper perspective and leveraged
expertise is provided when these decisions are being made at
EPA.
Fourth, there is a significant need to address
comparability issues between FRM and FEM standards to mitigate
challenges for future PM NAAQS attainment designations. Fifth,
as Ranking Member Capito highlighted, there is a clear and
present need to address positive biases identified in the EPA's
air quality system. This is critical, given the recently
updated PM 2.5 primary standards and the tight timeline under
which States much provide initial area designations and
subsequently craft State implementation plans.
In conclusion, while personal air sensors can be useful
tools to better understand our air quality, and they may be
useful indicators, they are not dispositive. The existing air
monitoring network which we rely upon for regulatory
decisionmaking deserves our far greater focus, energy, and
resources now and in the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I
stand by for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Austin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
I am going to telegraph my pitch. I am going to give you an
idea of what I am going to ask next, but first, I am going to
ask a question about FRM and FEM standards.
Before I do that, one of the things we try to do in this
committee is look for consensus. Sometimes, it is not that hard
to find. Other times, it is pretty hard and we have to work at
it especially diligently.
The question I am going to ask you after I ask you to talk
to us about it, FRM and FEM standards, the question I am going
to ask you is where do you think there is agreement among the
three of you? Where do you think there is agreement among the
three of you and the relevant issues before us? Where do you
think there is disagreement, and how might we reduce that
disagreement?
First of all, Ms. Austin, FRM and FEM standards, not
everybody knows what we are talking about. Just give us a quick
primer.
Ms. Austin. I would be happy to. Thank you for the
question, Senator Carper.
FRM standards, the Federal Reference Method, is considered
the gold standard by EPA as it relates to monitoring networks.
Very rigorous testing and analysis is required for that label
to be attached to a monitor. FEM is an equivalent method that
EPA can also designate to monitoring technology when new ones
come online and as technology continues to innovate.
Then, you have the more recent advent of the low-cost air
sensors, which are not subject to those two types of federally
recognized and required methods of analysis and data
collection.
The FRMs and FEMs are standardized. The low-cost air
sensors are not at that place yet, and quite frankly,
understandably so. I think one thing that everybody on the
panel could agree on is that technology innovation within this
space is a good thing. We want to continue to innovate.
The better data, better technology that is at a lower cost
is good for the public. It is good for the U.S. taxpayer. At
the same time, rushing lower cost technology for the cost of
something new does not necessarily put us in the right position
from a regulatory standpoint to ensure that we have maintained
that public trust and confidence that, when regulatory
decisions are made, it is on correct data that is going to be
durable.
I hope that helps.
Senator Carper. It does.
Let me ask you the same question, just for your thoughts on
this, Mr. Obermann, and then Mr. Hammad.
Mr. Obermann. Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe Ms. Austin is correct. We do have a problem with
our air monitoring network, the regulatory monitoring network.
It is in need of attention.
Our State programs maintaining these pieces of equipment,
some of them decades old, there is need for funding there and
attention, no doubt about it. We are on those monitoring
locations co-locating our air sensors to ensure that our
sensors are reading correctly. I see that equipment a lot in
the field.
The need for those programs to be fully funded, especially
as we are now in Denver and other cities looking very carefully
at the new annual PM 2.5 standards, those regulatory monitors
will be depended on more than ever. I think there is some
consensus there.
Are there other questions I can answer for you there?
Senator Carper. No, that is good. Thank you.
Mr. Hammad, same issue. Anything you would like to add or
take away?
Mr. Hammad. I will just say, according to EPA, the Federal
reference methods are designed to provide the most
fundamentally sound and scientifically defensible concentration
measurements, so they serve as the basis of comparison upon
which to judge all other measurements.
The FEMs are intended to use innovation and innovative
technology to provide comparable levels of monitoring as FRMs.
FRMs and FEMs will differ from low-cost air sensors because
they will undergo technical and administrative reviews. A lot
of quality assurance is going to go into them; a lot of testing
is going to go into them.
Low-cost air sensors, there are no standard methods for
testing, data collecting, or siting. They provide data that is
non-uniform, non-standardized. Again, depending on who is using
it and for what the data is being used, they could provide
insights into further information that might be needed.
However, we do not differ in terms of what the FRMs and
FEMs are meant to do and their use and benefits, and we can
agree all on that.
Senator Carper. How would you explain that to your
grandmother if she was on this panel, sitting up here with us?
Seriously, how would you explain it to your grandmother? Is
your grandmother still alive?
Mr. Hammad. They passed away.
Senator Carper. Well, that is too bad. They are listening.
Mr. Hammad. If I was going to explain it to my
grandmothers, I would tell them that there is, for regulatory
purposes, the government is going to use for their monitoring
monitors that they have checked, double-checked, and triple-
checked, assess the network, assess how they are laid out,
assess how they collect the information. They co-locate
monitors to make sure that they are operating the way they are
supposed to operate. They make sure that the data they are
getting from these are useful and accurate to a degree where,
if there is something off, they can assess what is off and
correct it, as well.
They have important uses and purposes. They last for
decades. The information we get from them is a very important
and reliable source of data.
Low-cost air sensors, like other emerging technologies, my
grandmothers saw the advent of cell phones, and they saw how
they came to be, but like all technology, with the advancements
in micro processing and the miniaturization of data and
technology, these low-cost air sensors have become smarter.
They have become better tools to do what they are meant to do.
Senator Carper. All right. Well, I am sure that your
grandmothers are looking down and saying, that is our boy.
Thank you for that response.
Now, Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you. My first question was going to
be to Mr. Hammad, but I think you have already answered it, and
that is the difference in the technology and quality. I think
we have established that, on the Federal reference monitors,
and then the portable low-cost. I think we pretty much
understand what that is. It is a licensing thing; it is an
accuracy thing.
I brought up, Ms. Austin, in my comments about the
Teledyne. I am a bit confused, because everybody is saying that
these low-cost air monitors are not being used in a regulatory
environment. I have a map here that shows the regulatory
monitors and then, in the blue, it has the Teledyne monitors,
which are meant to augment, I think, what is going on with the
regulatory monitors.
Are you telling me that these blue dots do not really have
any effect in terms of finding data for regulatory purposes?
Ms. Austin. My understanding is that they do, in fact, have
and have been used for regulatory purposes. As I am sure you
all know, the EPA recently proposed an update for the PM 2.5
data from T640 and T640-X PMS monitors manufactured by
Teledyne, and have proposed to actually retroactively apply the
network data alignment equation to all of the hourly, unaligned
monitors in EPA's air quality system.
Senator Capito. Let me just stop you there.
Ms. Austin. Sorry. Yes, it is a lot.
Senator Capito. Thinking about the grandmothers, and I am
thinking, what that is saying is what I think I said in my
opening statement, is that they have to recalibrate their data
because it was inaccurate.
Ms. Austin. Yes. That is correct, going back to 2017. The
reason why that is so important is because, as you are looking
at a NAAQS designation and whether or not an area falls in or
out of attainment or stays in attainment is critical to States.
Senator Capito. Okay.
Ms. Austin. The reason for that being, and if you do not
mind, I will use the State of West Virginia as an example. As I
understand it, you have some monitors that are showing that you
have 9.1, 9.2 micrograms per cubic meter of PM concentration in
different parts of the State.
Well, if those monitors are Teledyne monitors and are one
of the two models that have been used and need to have that
information retroactively corrected for the high positive
biases that have been recorded over the past six to 7 years,
that could make the difference, potentially, whether or not
those areas fall into nonattainment or are considered
attainment areas. That has subsequent regulatory and economic
repercussions that could be rather significant.
Senator Capito. Right, right. Okay, so that is the point,
is, and thank you for that clarification.
This concerns me, because as we see this NAAQS or the PM
2.5 moving down, those that are on the edge or close to the
edge, it is going to have a big impact if there was inaccurate
data. They will be correcting that. I think it does go to, it
is going to impact regulatory. I do not think we can say that
these low-cost monitors are impacting any regulatory data. Is
that a true statement?
Ms. Austin. Yes, I would say that they certainly inform.
EPA would not go through the process of seeking to correct the
data inaccuracies, which I think they do a very solid job
laying out the rationale for making that correction.
Senator Capito. Right, thank you.
Mr. Obermann, what is the Denver, what is your particulate
matter? Where are you measuring right now?
Mr. Obermann. Where are we measuring in our concentrations
of PM 2.5?
Senator Capito. Yes.
Mr. Obermann. We are just below that 9 micrograms per, it
depends on what years you are looking at.
Senator Capito. So, 8.9, or 8.5, or are you way below?
Mr. Obermann. No, we are, I would say, in between 8.5 and
9.
Senator Capito. Okay. What impacts is that going to have on
Denver's ability to do new projects, economic development,
manufacturing? Is this going to have some impacts on that as
that moves down and you are close to the nonattainment area?
Mr. Obermann. There will certainly be much planning in
process if we actually become nonattainment for PM 2.5. We do
not have that clearly stated yet, that is not a formal
declaration that has been made for the Denver area. It could be
multiple counties. It depends on which counties would become
non-attainment, potentially, for PM 2.5.
Would there be impacts to business in, say, Denver County
if that happened? Yes. Yes, absolutely. There would be control
technologies, most likely, that would be implemented at certain
types of facilities that are high emitters of PM 2.5, and we
would go through an extensive regulatory process at the State
level, which we do today, it is why I know so much about it,
with ozone, to bring reductions down, not only from industry,
but also transportation from even other practices that generate
air pollution that are not just at an industry.
Senator Capito. There are, agriculture, yes. Right, yes.
Yes, I think that is a good point. This will have a lot of
impacts on economic development, so we have to get accurate
data, certainly at the minimum, accurate data.
When you were talking about your citizens' use of the
index, I was thinking back to maybe 6 months ago when we had
the Canadian wildfires. I was following every day what the
index is on this, so I really see what the public health
implications are to be able to access that.
I just pulled up the Weather Channel, actually, when we
were talking, to see if they have it still on there since we
are not in a crisis kind of thing. It is all right there, so
you can see it.
Would those measurements be on a regulatory measure, or are
those on low-cost measurers, or do we know?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, I appreciate that question. The air
quality index that you are viewing through your smartphone,
while I do not know exactly which one or app you are using, is
most likely based on the regulatory monitoring network, the
FEM-FRM network.
Senator Capito. It is? Yes.
Mr. Obermann. Love My Air, for example, in that city
program, we do not push air quality alerts out to smartphone
apps or anything like that.
Senator Capito. You do not?
Mr. Obermann. We do have our own AQI, Air Quality Index,
generated for our school program, where when you walk in the
school building, it is the conditions outside of the school
that has an air sensor on it. Those students, that community,
does see our AQI calculation, which is based on EPA's, but the
mass communication of AQI and air quality alerts in Denver is
all handled by the State, and that is based on their reference
network.
Senator Capito. Yes, Okay. All right. Thank you.
Senator Carper. You bet. We have been joined, as I am sure
you noticed, by a couple of Senators who thought a lot about
these issues and have been very much involved with them,
particular Senator Markey. I will recognize you, and then
Senator Padilla. Welcome. Thanks for joining us.
Senator Markey. Yes, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. We
are well into a new information era, but our air quality
monitoring systems can be seen to be stuck in the stone age.
Black, brown, low-income communities that live in the shadow of
air pollution deserve better. They deserve to know what they
are breathing, and they deserve to have regulators do something
about it.
To tackle this problem, I introduced the Technology
Assessment for Air Quality Management Act, cosponsored by 11 of
my Senate colleagues, which would report on air quality
monitors and sensors that provide a holistic understanding of
local air pollutant measurements. It would also support
additional staff at the Environmental Protection Agency who
would provide accessible information advice and resources to
communities about how to use air quality tools and,
importantly, the data which they produce.
Mr. Obermann, do you agree that low-cost, local air quality
sensors can complement regulatory monitors, finding pollution
in fence line communities that these monitors might miss?
Mr. Obermann. Absolutely.
Senator Markey. Mr. Obermann, can this information be used
to spur action that addresses air pollution in fence line
communities and other pollution-burdened communities?
Mr. Obermann. Yes.
Senator Markey. Thank you. That information could support
decisions to issue alerts to wear an N-95 mask, to use mass
transit, to halt outdoor activities, all across the board. It
could be used for that purpose, sir?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, I think it could be used for that
purpose if we had more clarification and understanding with EPA
on how to use that data for mass air quality alerts through the
State's existing system.
Senator Markey. Yes. I would welcome my colleagues' support
for my legislation to provide more access to and information on
these important technologies. Just getting the information then
requires a response to it, but we first have to have the
information.
As the author of the Environmental Justice Air Quality
Monitoring Act, last Congress, I fought for the inclusion of
funding for air quality monitors and sensors in the Inflation
Reduction Act, including $3 million just for low-income and
disadvantaged communities. That funding is already being put to
work with $2.1 million heading to Massachusetts. I thank the
Chairman for all his work on that issue. The Mystic River
Watershed Association received $500,000 for a new network of
air quality monitors in Charlestown, East Boston, Everett, and
my hometown of Malden.
I grew up breathing dirty air. I lived in an environmental
sacrifice ward in Malden, Massachusetts, where there was just a
big black cloud. The Malden River was completely polluted. The
Malden River was three blocks from my house. My mother used to
say, Eddie, whatever you do, do not swim in the Malden River,
because it was kind of black with a pre-Jimi Hendrix purple
haze over it. When your mother says do not swim in the Malden
River, you know that you are not growing up on the Mississippi
like Tom Sawyer.
Senator Carper. Did you say purple haze?
Senator Markey. Purple haze.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Senator Markey. Thank you so much, and thank you for maybe
actually being one of the only people who remember that great
song, long ago and far away.
Mr. Obermann, in your experience, with Denver's Love My Air
Program, was it important to have outcomes for communities
beyond just a collection of data?
Mr. Obermann. Yes. I would say, in the future, we are
looking at how this data can be used for more outcomes than
just public health education and awareness, which is how we are
using it today. A big reason we are only using it at that level
today is, one, the sensor technology is not robust enough to
bring it into a regulatory context, but that technology is
improving. We are about to buy six high-quality monitors. They
have come down in price dramatically.
They are FEM monitors, so they are that higher-grade of
monitoring technology. Here we are in this city, able to buy
them and deploy them. As we deploy those pieces of equipment at
health clinics in front-line communities, we will absolutely be
looking for how can this data be used in the policy and
regulatory space.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Obermann.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks for all of your work in
these fields.
Before I turn to our next questions from Senator Padilla, I
am going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
materials on the differences between sensors and regulatory air
quality monitors. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, how are you doing? Good
morning.
Senator Padilla. I am doing well, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Welcome. Good to see you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thank you for organizing this
hearing today and the opportunity to discuss the air quality
monitoring technology, something that the State of California
has more than 50 years of experience with. We have maintained
one of the most extensive air monitoring networks in the world,
actually, not just in the Nation, but around the world, which
allows us to track progress and identify opportunities to act
decisively to protect public health. It is both about air
quality, but also about public health.
Mr. Obermann, I want to thank you for your leadership in
Denver. As you know and as you mentioned in your testimony, in
California, we have a lot of experience with this, especially
in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District, where they have worked
diligently to deploy low-cost air monitoring sensors in
impacted communities.
My first question for you is, how can we best share these
experiences and best practices across jurisdictions and
certainly across State lines?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, thank you for the question. We are
sharing information between the air quality management
districts, for example, in California frequently. They are
definitely great partners, and there is actually an
international conference on sensor technology starting April
30th through May 4th. I know both the air quality management
districts will be there presenting. They have great staff and
stories to tell about how they have been using sensors in those
communities, and they serve as a model, really, for the rest of
the Country.
We share information just between agencies on occasion, and
we also, there are several conferences nationally where we
present on our sensor programs to each other.
Senator Padilla. Just to be clear, specific, and
intentional here, the information sharing, it is not just data
that is collected or how it may be interpreted, analyzed, acted
upon, but also just evolving technologies and practices,
programmatic information exchange?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, we definitely exchange information
around what technologies we are using, how that data is
corrected against the regulatory monitoring network, for
example, and how we use it in our public health and awareness
programs.
Senator Padilla. Great. You have spoken well and eloquently
about the need to maintain this as a priority.
I appreciate the Chairman's leadership and the work of,
frankly, Democrats in Congress when we were very intentional in
crafting the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction
Act to include significant resources to help disadvantaged
communities who are disproportionately impacted by poor air
quality and tend to have less monitoring capabilities, less
ability to obtain accurate air quality data, et cetera.
Recent EPA awards have gone to California applicants like
the Pala Band of Mission Indians to enhance air monitoring on
their tribal reservation. Another recipient has been the Comite
Civico del Valle organization to upgrade real-time air
monitoring networks in the Salton Sea area of California. I
think the recent influx of funding will enhance monitoring to
other underserved communities.
Mr. Obermann, next question for you is, what can the
Federal Government do to make is easier for local or tribal
jurisdictions to lessen the learning curve in implementation of
low-cost air quality sensors?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, thank you for that question. It is to
provide boots-on-the-ground assistance. It is for EPA and other
technical experts, consultants that they have oversight over,
to be in those communities helping them not only stand up the
sensors, and that is critically important because where is the
sensor located, or even higher quality monitoring equipment
that they could buy. It might not be a low-cost air sensor.
Like I mentioned, Denver is purchasing monitors that are
higher quality. Some of those grants could absolutely go toward
purchasing higher quality monitors. They are not each $50,000
anymore.
Where do you site those? How do you power them correctly?
How do you compile the data, and then even some assistance on
what does that data mean for your health? There is a lot more
assistance that EPA and the States could provide at the local
level to show communities what this data really means,
especially as higher quality data is collected.
Senator Padilla. Can you speak to any specific or
additional efforts needed to help avoid improper sensor
selection, for example, or incorrect data interpretation so we
can actually just make sure the program is effective, but we
build the trust and support from communities that rely on it?
Mr. Obermann. That is an important point. I think, with the
EPA's first round of community air monitoring grants, while
Denver did not receive one, I do know that there is a quality
assurance plan that they require from those grantees, meaning
if you are going to implement this type of sensor in this type
of context, what is the quality assurance? What is the quality
of the data that you are planning to collect?
I think that is a really good requirement EPA has put in
there to answer that question, so that we know what the quality
is of these different sensors when they are used in these
programs.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Keep up the good
work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One last note, I am eagerly
awaiting your Earth Day playlist.
Senator Carper. One of the songs might have ``purple'' in
it. We will see.
I have several more questions, but I am going to yield to
Senator Capito. Thanks very much for joining us. See you later.
Senator Capito. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to
scoot after I have asked my final question here.
Mr. Hammad, the low-cost sensors have been known,
obviously, we have talked about this, inaccurately high
pollution levels while operating in high humidity or smoky or
other less-than-ideal circumstances. Are there negative side
effects that State agencies face with regard to risk
communications or public trust that could result if publishing
inadvertent high pollution levels, what kind of impacts would
that have in terms of trust and communication?
Mr. Hammad. Thank you, Senator. I will point out that the
Teledyne monitors that you were pointing to earlier, those are
regulatory monitors. They are not low-cost air sensors.
Senator Capito. Right, Okay. Thanks for that distinction.
They are inaccurate?
Mr. Hammad. Those are the ones that need the corrections.
Those are FEMs, not FRMs, but FEMs and FRMs are both combined
regulatory monitors. FEMs use innovative technology like light
and lasers to check optically how much particulate matter is in
there, whereas a reference method monitor for PM would use
something like a filter that you would send to a laboratory to
test.
Senator Capito. Do you happen to know, this is not the
question I was going to ask, but now that we are on this, do
you happen to know how that discrepancy was discovered by the
EPA?
Mr. Hammad. The State air agencies had been pointing to
this since roughly 2019, 2020 to some of these discrepancies
that they were finding, because they have co-located. Again,
they do not have just one PM monitors or two PM monitors.
Oftentimes, three or four air monitors are in their monitoring
site. They will have several of them, and they will run them to
ensure that they are getting accurate measurements.
The FRMs are what we base, in this Country, EPA bases
everything off of the FRMs. The FRMs do not give you real-time
data, but they will give you sometimes 24 hour or 3 day, you
pull it through a filter, and then you send that filter to the
laboratory, and it will tell you how much particulate matter of
a certain size exists. You use that to then make sure that your
Federal equivalence method, your FEM regulatory monitor, is
reading correctly.
In the T640, T640-X corrections that were noted earlier,
EPA pointed to the fact that there had been, according to
temperature variations, humidity variations, wildfire smoke
issues, there have been issues where, with low temperatures and
high humidity, these monitors, the equivalent monitors, the
FEMs, which are still regulatory, were reading abnormal data
that wasn't correlating to the FRMs. Based on the weather data
and all the other sensor data that is available at these
regulatory monitoring stations, EPA is able to go in and make
the corrections based on the location of where your monitoring
station is.
Senator Capito. The other data that they have. This has
been in front of the EPA since 2019 with State monitoring
agencies, and they are just now getting around to figuring this
out?
Mr. Hammad. Well, they needed to then formulate the actual
correction equations with Teledyne to figure out, well, how do
they adjust based on location, based on the technical expertise
of the people who manufacture the monitors along with EPA's
expertise. They lay it out in their technical support document
that they published in that February 14 Federal register, but
they had to work with Teledyne and the scientists that EPA had
to figure out how, based on your location and how to correct
this.
Senator Capito. How to do it. Did they put a date on that,
like when they would complete that?
Mr. Hammad. The corrections, they proposed the corrections
on February 14th. The comment period closed March 14th. They
will finalize it; I do not know when. Once it gets finalized is
when they will push out the correction, but they have the
equations ready to roll out. They will work with the State
agencies to perform those corrections.
Senator Capito. Well, it would be very timely with this new
regulation coming out to make sure that we are dealing with
correct data. I think we would all agree with that.
Thank you all very much. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thank you. Thank you very
much.
I understand Senator Kelly is trying to join us today, but
hopefully he will arrive while we are all still here.
I have a question for Mr. Obermann. The term Love My Air
Program. I love that. That is really a cool way to label a
program, make it alive and real. Where did that come from?
Words actually matter, and I like the choice of those words.
Mr. Obermann. Sure, yes, thank you for the question,
Chairman. Our program name came from our own staff from within
our department. We were working with our communications group
and when through several options and came up with Love My Air.
It is not a very exciting story, but that is really where it
came from.
Senator Carper. I was just thinking, maybe in our
respective States, we could come up with something like Love My
Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I do not know if we could get away with
that. Probably not.
Mr. Obermann, seriously now, the city of Denver is a pretty
clear example of how local governments are using low cost air
sensor data to educate the public about health and about air
quality. My question, and I will have a followup to this as
well, but my question is: in addition to informing students
about whether to stay indoors or play outside, how else does
the Love My Air Program benefit public health?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, thank you for that question. The ways
that Love My Air benefits public health is much more than just
sensors displaying information in a public school or even
emerging now into health clinics. It is not just about the
data; it is what does that data mean for students, for the
community, for whoever we are streaming that data to.
We accompany our data with a lot of education, and our
education is very group and small group focused. It is not
broadcast to the millions of Denver residents. It is working in
classrooms. It is doing teacher trainings. It is doing nurse
trainings about air pollution and health.
It is working at an individual level, and we find that is a
really successful way to have a dialog about what this
information means and how it is important to either their own
personal health or the care that they administer to others,
such as nurses. Really, our air pollution monitoring and the
sensor network, it is an introduction to a discussion about air
quality, and I would say we probably spend 75 percent of our
time actually working with individuals to understand air
pollution and health.
Senator Carper. Good, thank you.
Do you know if there are any other cities that are
replicating the efforts that you all have taken in Denver with
your Love My Air Program?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, there are. Yes, thank you for that
question. There are several others that are replicating our
programs. We even licensed that name, Love My Air. There is an
entity in Wisconsin that is implementing a Love My Air program
in Milwaukee public schools. Some of our adjacent counties in
Denver along Denver's front range are also replicating the Love
My Air Program and using that same name.
The emergence of these programs, particularly in public
health departments, is rapid. Not only with the EPA grant
funding to help start many of those programs, as you are all
well aware of, but also, I will say this: our Love My Air
Program is not EPA funded. It never has been.
Our program was funded initially by a generous grant from
the Bloomberg Foundation in 2018, and now, we are expanding
into health clinics through another grant from the Kaiser
Permanente Foundation. There is a lot of interest even from
grant-making entities other than EPA to fund these types of
programs from a public health standpoint.
Senator Carper. I am going to ask you for the record, if
you could just give us some idea of what other cities that are
interested in replicating what you are doing in Denver, who
might they contact and how might they contact that person or
persons. You do not have to respond right now. You can just
respond for the record.
Mr. Obermann. Some of the other people in other cities that
are replicating?
Senator Carper. If someone wanted to reach out to you all
in Denver.
Mr. Obermann. Oh, that can be myself. Yes, Bill Obermann at
the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment.
Senator Carper. All right, that is good. I like to say find
out what works, do more of that, right?
I will go ahead and ask, because I think we have sort of
asked this already, but the city of Denver is a pretty clear
example of how local governments are using low-cost air sensor
data to educate the public about health and air quality.
I think you may have already addressed this, but I will ask
it again, anyway. In addition to informing students about
whether to stay indoors or play outdoors, is there anything
else that the Love My Air Program does to benefit public health
that you want to mention?
Mr. Obermann. Love My Air is engaged in a number of policy
contexts at the State level. I want to be clear: we do not use
our sensor data today in any policy settings like at State air
quality rulemakings, but I am involved there quite a bit.
Knowing the information that comes from our sensor network,
plus all the dialog, like I mentioned before, 75 percent of our
time is spent in dialog with communities, hearing their
stories, knowing those front line communities, bringing their
stories, and bringing them to air policy convenings at the
State is critical, and Love My Air has a big role to play
there.
While we do not use our data today in those policy
settings, we certainly bring the voices of those communities
that are experiencing that air quality.
Senator Carper. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Hammad, in your written testimony, I believe you
mentioned that low-cost air sensors have been particularly
useful for monitoring wildfire smoke in areas without
regulatory monitors. Question, how does the Federal Government
use low-cost sensors and their data to inform citizens about
healthcare risks from wildfires?
Mr. Hammad. Thank you, Chairman. Led by the United States
Forest Service, the Interagency Wildland Fire Air Quality
Response Program was created to address risks posed by wildfire
smoke. The program has a national cache of air sensors and
other equipment and deploys technical specialists called air
resource advisors during large smoke events.
Air resource advisors may provide, install, and operate
low-cost air sensors and other equipment. It is portable in
nature. They develop smoke forecasts and share the information
with wildfire response teams, air quality regulators, and the
public.
They also have, as I mentioned in my statement, they have
air sensors that they will loan out to firefighting agencies
upon request, as well.
Senator Carper. Thanks.
Beyond Denver, how are other communities and local air
regulators using low-cost sensors to identify hotspots that
need more resources?
Mr. Hammad. Some local air agencies have used non-
regulatory low-cost air sensors to help direct their regulatory
enforcement resources. They use them to locate hotspots and
then implement targeted inspection initiatives. This can be to
go after truck idling or to inform regulatory inspections that
might happen less than frequently in one location or another.
Senator Carper. All right.
We have been joined by Senator Kelly. Senator Kelly, good
morning. How are you doing?
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I am late.
Senator Carper. No, you are right on time.
Senator Kelly. I deferred my time to Senator Rosen, so I
had to go to the back of the line in Armed Services.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. I
want to start with Mr. Obermann. Air quality, obviously, a
pressing issue in the west, in Arizona, but really throughout
the western United States. As I imagine has already been
discussed, worsening wildfires, interState and international
air emissions have also had real impacts in the State of
Arizona, especially when it comes to particulate matter and
ozone pollution.
Right now, in the Phoenix metro area, we are seeing ozone
concentrations increase even as the region's emissions of ozone
precursors, the chemicals that contribute to ozone, are going
down. The chemicals are going down, but ozone concentration is
still going up. This means that a region is being pushed into a
more serious classification of nonattainment without having a
full understanding of what steps can be taken to bring the
concentrations back down.
What leaders in Arizona have been calling for is a renewed
commitment by EPA, both at the regional and headquarters level,
to focus on the data and science to help understand these new
challenges. That is what I think makes this hearing important
today.
Mr. Obermann, I know that the Denver region is also in
nonattainment for ozone pollution. Can you speak to some of the
regional issues like wildfires in western States, like Arizona
and Colorado, and how this makes air quality attainment more
challenging and why?
Mr. Obermann. Sure, thank you for that question, Senator
Kelly. Wildfires are a persistent and major impact to air
quality. We have experienced that in Denver, much like other
western cities.
With the new PM 2.5 annual standard, I think the pressing
need to understand how wildfires qualify as exceptional events
will be very important. Whether it is called an exceptional
event though, for nonattainment area planning and conformity
with the Clean Air Act, it is still a public health issue.
Wildfires are really, I believe, one of the principal reasons
we are here today talking about air sensors, because the public
is more aware of air quality through the wildfires we have
experienced and through the response of the sensor network than
ever before.
The need for understanding how that data can be relayed to
people and relayed timely and accurately is more important than
ever. The nonattainment issues around ozone that we have had in
Denver since the early 1990's, we agree that much of that
pollution is also transported. It is not due specifically to
wildfires, since we know that wildfires are really emitting
precursor emissions to ozone, as you mentioned, but ozone is
transported, certainly, from States upwind of ours.
The more research we do in ozone pollution, the more we
find that that transport, we have little control over, so what
kind of things can we do on the ground that would actually
reduce emissions that admit the precursor pollutants of ozone.
We are working very hard on that in the Denver region. We will
continue doing so through the next decade.
Senator Kelly. How many of these low-cost sensors do you
have deployed?
Mr. Obermann. We have them deployed in 33 schools, Denver
public schools, and several others just really for reference,
network, and QA-QC, Quality Assurance/Quality Control.
Senator Kelly. They give you both ozone concentration and
precursor chemicals?
Mr. Obermann. No, they only read PM 2.5, particulate matter
2.5. They do not read ozone, and they do not read other, what
we would call precursor pollutants, like NO2 to ozone.
Senator Kelly. Is that because they are, are there sensors
available that do?
Mr. Obermann. Yes. The reason we use PM 2.5 is partly the
age of our program. At the time our program was implemented, PM
2.5 sensors were some of the best technology on the market, the
most reliable technology. We can correct it against the
reference monitoring network that is operated by the State.
It is not to say that we wouldn't monitor ozone in the
future or emissions, pollutants like nitrogen dioxide. We
could, and we actually will be in those higher quality
monitoring stations that we are going to be buying this year
and next.
Senator Kelly. What would an ideal system look like of
monitoring? What would you want if you could get all the data?
How many would you deploy in a city the size of Denver?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, thank you for that question. The ideal
monitoring system we would deploy would monitor multiple
pollutants at the same time, and that is what we are
purchasing. Much of the air sensor technology available today
really monitors one or two pollutants. That is what makes it
more affordable.
The city can purchase multiple monitors that they put in
one box, and we can purchase up to 10 of those over the next
several years and disperse them throughout the city. In a city
the size of Denver, about 10 is a good number, and that is
partly because some of these pollutants we monitor do not vary
tremendously location by location. PM 2.5 does not vary
tremendously location by location.
Ozone is a regional pollutant, so there is not really a
need to monitor that on every block. There are other pollutants
like black carbon, nitrogen dioxide, certainly other pollutants
that we can monitor today that do vary tremendously location to
location.
Senator Kelly. When a pollutant like nitrogen dioxide or
black carbon varies location to location, can you then infer
some kind of vector from it, and say, well, since we have this
variation, we can say that it is coming from a certain
location, or at least a direction?
Mr. Obermann. We, today, do not look at our data at that
short of a time period. We look at trends over, say, the last
month or the last year. Do we see hotspots in our network, even
our PM 2.5 sensor network, when we look at a day-to-day? Yes,
but I wouldn't say that there are persistent hotspots that we
see from our PM 2.5 network today.
We do not know if we are going to see that when we start to
implement our NO2 monitoring that I mentioned we are going to
be purchasing in the future here. The answer is, we do not
really know yet if we would see a lot of variation in those
pollutants, but we are going to find out.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, can I have a
few more minutes, or are you ready to wrap it up?
Senator Carper. I am ready to hear more from you. Go right
ahead.
Senator Kelly. Ms. Austin, I appreciate the comments in
your testimony about how the EPA and the need to invest in more
resources to help regions track regulated pollutants. I think
another important aspect of this issue is developing region-
specific models to help air quality officials understand what
needs to be done to improve air quality.
Can you expand a bit on what kind of costs are involved in
developing these regional airshed models, and can you explain
why modeling for ozone pollution is challenging?
Ms. Austin. I would be happy to get back to you on the cost
related to regional airshed modeling. I do not have that
information before me now, but I would be happy to get it to
you after the hearing.
I would say that some of the general challenges related to
regional air modeling and the State of Arizona's, State of
Colorado, most western States, for something like ozone, do
present unique challenges, given the seasons in which ozone are
traditionally higher. Your topography and geography can play
significant roles in how that modeling is done and how it is
captured, and ultimately, how that is reflected in the data.
An ozone challenge in the eastern part of the United
States, say, down in the Carolinas or even Virginia, which is
right next door, will present probably very differently than it
would out in the west. Those are important considerations for
EPA to be able to take into consideration when it is
promulgating policy, when it is recommending changes, when it
is reviewing State implementation plans.
I definitely think that those are the types of issues that
EPA endeavors to in a way accordingly and appropriately and
consider recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach,
especially with something like ozone, is not appropriate, just
given the chemistry.
Senator Kelly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You are quite welcome. Thank you for
joining us.
I have a question for Ms. Austin, but I am going to delay
it until we have heard from Senator Sullivan. Welcome. Good to
see you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. You bet.
Senator Sullivan. I want to thank the witnesses. I
appreciate your focus on this important issue.
I wanted to kind of get to the PM 2.5, particulate matter,
issue. We have a real challenge in the interior part of Alaska.
We have a nonattainment area in interior Alaska, the Fairbanks
area.
The challenge there is 60 to 80 percent of the pollution
putting Fairbanks over the standard comes from wood-burning
stoves in people's homes. We have a unique environment, winter
environment, there. Fairbanks is kind of in a bowl, and if you
have been to interior Alaska, it is really cold, 50 below zero
in the winter. You have this kind of inversion challenge.
The community has been working really hard to reduce
emissions, really hard. The EPA in back-to-back actions in 2023
has started to initiate sanctions against the community for its
inability to meet the existing PM 2.5 standard and has
concurrently proposed to lower emissions.
Then, really badly, in my view, worked with an outside
environmental group, I think it was the Sierra Club, without
coordinating with the State or the congressional delegation to
get an agreement with some far-left environmental group on what
Alaskans should do. Really bad approach from the EPA that
myself and my congressional colleagues have written them about,
like hey, you have to check in with the people who are in
charge of the State.
I would like any and all, why do not we start with you, Ms.
Austin, to discuss how a one-size-fits-all approach to
monitoring PM 2.5 can be very challenging but fail community-
specific needs. Like I said, the extreme winter environment,
the use of woodstoves to address sub-zero climate conditions,
these kind of create a real challenging situation where, in
Alaska, a lot of times, one-size-fits-all approaches from D.C.
just do not work. They do not fit, and we end up spending an
enormous amount of time trying to address that.
Do you have any thoughts? I will just go to each of the
witnesses. It is really my only big question, but it is a
really important one. This is just a specific example where we
have been putting an enormous amount of work and effort into
trying to reduce these emissions. We understand the importance
of doing that, and yet, the unique elements of what goes on in
Alaska, particularly in the winter, make it a challenge.
Ms. Austin. Senator Sullivan, thank you very much for the
question. I think your characterization of a one-size approach
fits all is unfortunately but understandably, to some degree.
EPA is there to set national standards, but you look back to
the Clean Air Act, which has that cooperative federalism
approach deliberately embedded in it.
Senator Sullivan. A lot of times, EPA forgets about that
cooperative federalism approach, right, where the States are in
the lead. A lot of people do not know that that is the law.
Ms. Austin. What I would say to that is, I think one area
where EPA has striven to really do more and should continue to
do and probably up the ante a bit is engage with States.
Engage, engage, engage.
Senator Sullivan. When they like, with a national
environmental group, and do a consent decree without bringing
the State of Alaska or the congressional delegation in, you
would call that a foul in terms of engaging with the States?
Ms. Austin. I would posit that that is not the way to move
forward and actually find a path forward to environmental
improvement to benefit public health.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, I agree with that. Thank you.
Mr. Obermann, do you have a view on this, in general?
Mr. Obermann. Sure, thank you for the question. Yes, I am
not just familiar with the context in Alaska, but I can say PM
2.5 pollution due to wood-burning stoves is an issue in Denver,
too.
Senator Sullivan. Yes. You guys have kind of the inversion
thing with the mountain.
Mr. Obermann. Yes, Salt Lake City, where I grew up,
actually does as well.
There are State rules, and there may be in Alaska as well,
I am not familiar with the regulatory context there, that
require certain types of stoves that are EPA-certified to be
burned.
The air pollution sensor network that we have in Denver can
be a great complement to the public health that those
individuals are experiencing in your community. They can look
at their property's air pollution level and say, what does that
mean for my health today? If I am asthmatic, or if my
grandmother is asthmatic, what does that mean?
Honestly, in the context from my perspective, what we hear
is people need to know what the air pollution is in those
communities and why they potentially feel off that day.
Programs like ours can help people just get quicker information
and understand what that means for their health and even have
resources to understand more about air pollution and health, if
say, they go to our website or other means of communication.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Hammad, do you have a view on this, given your CRS
perch?
Mr. Hammad. Yes, thank you, Senator Sullivan.
First, the State of Alaska and Fairbanks in particular have
made strides in their Change Out Program, and that is where
they change out the wood-burning stoves, and they have
developed the program, been leaders across the Nation in
developing that program.
Senator Sullivan. You know, the EPA is supposed to be
certifying those stoves, and they have not done a very good job
at that. I do not know what the issues in Denver are, but in
Alaska, they have not done a good job on certifying the stoves.
Mr. Hammad. The certification program works for the
manufacturers and the retailers of the stoves, and Alaska
joined the northeast States in their recent litigation action
against EPA for their certification program. They just have
some disagreements about the way, the method, that EPA is
completing those certifications.
Senator Sullivan. Would you agree that the EPA is kind of
failing in that certification process, just from the CRS
perspective?
Mr. Hammad. I will say that the States feel that EPA is
failing them. Alaska and the northeast States did file suit.
CRS is going to give you the facts on that, and that is what we
will give you. The States do feel that EPA needs to update
their certification methods for that Change Out Program.
It is the method in which the wood is burned in the oven
that they disagree on, and the organization real-world
applications versus a test location are not the same. That is
where the disagreement and discord happens.
Senator Sullivan. Good. Well, I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I went over time there,
but it is an important issue particularly in interior Alaska.
Senator Carper. It is Okay. Yes, we are glad you could join
us.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Ms. Austin, I promise we are not going to
forget you here. I am going to have at least one question just
for you.
I think you agreed that sensor technology is improving
fairly rapidly. Do you support even more work by EPA to improve
the integration of sensor data into EPA's work?
Ms. Austin. Yes, I do, but with the caveat that those
resources not be diverted from otherwise maintaining, updating,
and correcting the reference monitor network.
Senator Carper. Would any of our other witnesses want to
comment as well on that issue? Anything you want to add, take
away?
Mr. Obermann. Yes, the air pollution monitoring
technologies for our criteria air pollutants like Mr. Hammad
mentioned earlier, the six criteria air pollutants, are
actually more affordable than ever. I believe there is a path
to help States continue their regulatory monitoring efforts, as
well as also help local communities and governments implement
air sensor programs on the ground. I think there is space for
both.
Senator Carper. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Hammad?
Mr. Hammad. The potential future uses of low-cost air
sensors and where it goes from here depends, I think, on a
range of factors, including the State of the technology,
whether the improvements have been made and such. The leaps in
the technology that we have seen in the last few years have
shown that there have been a lot of advancements.
In addition, their continued or expanded use may depend on
any changes in EPA assessment regarding their capabilities and
whether EPA can determine certain devices would meet any
regulatory standards for monitoring. I think that would change
the landscape for low-cost air sensors and where they go from
here.
Senator Carper. Okay, thank you. I have another question,
Mr. Hammad, for you. It is one that deals with funding from
Congress.
As you know, Congress has provided funding for EPA to
administer community air quality monitoring grants through the
American Rescue Plan and through the Inflation Reduction Act.
In November of, I think it was 2022, EPA selected over 100,
maybe a 130-some air monitoring projects across some 37 States
to receive this funding.
My question is, in your testimony, you discuss how low-cost
air sensor projects that have received funding or will receive
Federal funding, how can federally funded sensor projects
ensure a high quality of data? I will say that again: how can
federally funded sensor projects ensure a high quality of data?
If you would, just please elaborate on the process for
projects to undergo quality assurance. In your answers, just,
if you would, please also describe the type of entities that
received this funding and for what types of projects.
Mr. Hammad. Thank you, Chairman Carper. According to GOA,
there are 132 community air projects that will be conducted by
groups including nonprofits, States, local air agencies,
tribes, and more than half these projects plan to use sensors.
I included that in my testimony, and the funding recipients
conducting low-cost air sensor data collection would be
required to submit a quality assurance project plan. EPA refers
to these as QAPPs, quality assurance project plan.
Senator Carper. As what?
Mr. Hammad. QAPPS.
Senator Carper. What does that stand for?
Mr. Hammad. Quality assurance project plan, QAPP.
Senator Carper. Thank you. An acronym for everything.
Mr. Hammad. That is the government.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Hammad. Per the requirements of the CFR, the quality
assurance project plan is a written document that provides a
blueprint for the entire project and each specific task to
ensure that the project produces reliable data that can be used
to meet the project's overall objectives and goals. It provides
the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the project, and
according to EPA, a quality assurance project plan, a QAPP,
aims to ensure the credibility of information collected or used
by the community air project itself.
Senator Carper. Okay. Thank you.
I have a question, one more question, that I think I will
ask for all of you to respond to, if you would. Ms. Austin, if
we could just start with you.
The question is, in closing, would each of you take a
moment or two and tell us where you see common ground with your
fellow witnesses? If the answer is that we are farther apart
than we started, that would be too bad, but I hope you can
identify maybe some areas where you already had some common
ground and now it is maybe more or less, but just be really
honest with us, and that will be helpful.
If you could go first?
Ms. Austin. Chairman Carper, thank you. I certainly see
common ground where technology innovation is going to further
reduce costs. Data quality will improve with respect to air
sensors. I think that is a very exciting place to, frankly, be
as a Country. We have seen it in various other technology
applications that affect us and make our lives easier in
everyday life. I think air sensors are certainly on that train
and it is moving in the right direction.
I think we can also agree that when it comes to the
reference and regulatory monitors, that more need to be done
and that those should continue to serve as the backbone for any
regulatory decisionmaking at State air agencies and at the
Federal level.
Perhaps 1 day, the air sensors will catch up, they will get
to a level where they are equally robust. I look forward to
that day. I hope it gets there, but alas, I do not think today
is that day. I think there is a lot to look forward to in both
contexts.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you. I like that note of
optimism. Thanks so much.
Mr. Obermann, please, same question, common ground.
Mr. Obermann. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
I agree that our reference air quality monitoring network
run by the EPA and the States needs a lot of support and help.
It needs to innovate over time as these new technologies become
available that are reference quality.
We know of several vendors in Colorado that have gotten
that stamp of approval from EPA to use their monitors as
reference-level monitors, and that is the same process that
other makers like Teledyne have used for a long time. We know
that there is a need, and I agree to support that monitoring
network.
The reality is there are many, many areas in our Country
where we will never be able to cover it with a regulatory-grade
monitoring network. The sensors that are available on the
market today help fill in those voids, and there are some big
voids out there, especially in areas where they are prone to
wildfires.
I think an area where we can agree is that that sensor
network can absolutely help inform where some of our air
pollution challenge is changing. If in some of our more rural
communities, air pollution is actually increasing due to things
like wildfires, we can know that through the air sensor network
so that perhaps we can bring regulatory air monitoring there in
the future.
I believe there is a lot of agreement here on the panel
about sensors broadening that awareness and perhaps for
attention with regulatory air monitoring in the future.
Senator Carper. Mr. Hammad?
Mr. Hammad. Thank you, Chairman Carper.
I think we do agree on the current State of our regulatory
monitors and their importance and the information that they
have been able to provide the Country for the past few decades
has been invaluable.
Where low-cost air sensors are and how they fill these data
gaps and help identify opportunities for regulatory agencies to
direct their resources, I think we also agree on that.
Where the technology goes from now, again, depends on the
level of investments and the capacity for EPA to review and
continue to review these technologies and to provide further
guidance on their use and the data collection and the handling
and proper siting of them. Like my co-panelists, I think I
agree in saying, you know, hopefully 1 day they do reach the
capacity to be used in a regulatory purpose.
Senator Carper. Okay. Thank you.
I think we are going to close here. We had one or two other
colleagues that are trying to get here, but there are a bunch
of committees that are meeting at the same time, and it is, we
got a pretty good bipartisan cross-section that was able to be
here. I had hoped that we might get one or two more, but I do
not think we are.
I am going to go ahead and begin to close this.
I just want to thank you all for coming today and for the
time you put into actually coming here in person and really for
the work you do with your lives and what you do for your own
communities and for your States and our Country and our planet.
We thank you for that.
I want to thank members of our staff for the very good work
that they do week after week after week. I have always
surrounded myself with people smarter than me. My wife says it
is not hard to find them. We have some smart cookies behind me.
The other thing that we have going for us is they sort of
like each other and they work well together. You all heard of
something called ``trickle-down theory.'' I believe in that. I
think Senator Capito does, as well. We, for the most part, I
think, work really well together, and I think that is a
positive influence on the members of our staff.
I want to maybe mention one or two other things, but I
think that we can all pretty much agree that folks in this day
and age should not have to worry about whether the air that
they breathe is safe for them and for their families, whether
young or old, yet far too many communities are exposed to
harmful air pollution, even despite all of our efforts to
reduce those threats.
Fortunately, as we have learned today, the advancements in
low-cost air quality sensors equip a lot of communities with
knowledge about their air quality, and this knowledge is
helping local policymakers make evidence-based decisions in
order to improve public health further.
Before we adjourn, I am going to ask unanimous consent to
submit for the record materials relating to today's hearing.
This is my favorite part of the hearing, when I get to ask,
make a unanimous consent request, and there is no one here to
object, no other Senators. Hearing no objection, I am going to
move on to some housekeeping.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Senators will be allowed to submit written
questions for the record through the close of business on
Wednesday, April 24th. We will compile those questions. We are
going to send them to our witnesses, and we are going to ask
you all to reply, if you would, by Wednesday, May the 8th.
With that, I think we will just declare this hearing
adjourned. Thanks so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]