[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 120 (Thursday, September 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9963-S9965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  NOTE

  [In yesterday's Record beginning on page S9829, a colloquy between 
Senators Craig, Bond, and Inhofe appears with material omitted. The 
permanent Record has been corrected to reflect the following.]


                        particulates rulemaking

  Mr. CRAIG. If I might ask the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations about 
the EPA review of the national ambient air quality standard for 
particulate matter. I understand that there are recent epidemiological 
studies that indicate a correlation between exposure to air polluted 
with particulates and adverse human health effects, and that EPA is 
studying this matter as a high priority.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Idaho for raising this important 
point. The EPA has indicated to our committee that it is highly 
concerned about the health effects of particulates. We have met the 
EPA's request for funding for this program, and included $18.8 million. 
These funds are for health effects research, exposure research, 
improving monitoring technologies, modeling studies, and other key 
requirements.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am pleased to learn that the committee has directed this 
level of funding to EPA for this important research. This comprehensive 
research program is very much needed. At present, there appears to be 
insufficient data available for the agency to decide what changes, if 
any, should be made to the current standard. There is no scientific 
consensus on whether it is necessary to change the current ambient air 
quality standards for particulate matter to protect human and 
environmental health. It has come to my attention that in a letter to 
EPA on June 13, 1996, EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 
concluded that ``our understanding of the health effects of 
[particulates] is far from complete,'' and these scientific 
uncertainties prevented the committee from agreeing on the agency's 
suggested new particulate standards. In addition, the former chairman 
of this advisory committee who is now a consultant to the advisory 
committee, Roger McClellan,

[[Page S9964]]

wrote the current chairman in May to advise him that ``the current 
staff document does not provide a scientifically adequate basis for 
making regulatory decisions for setting of National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards and related control of particulate matter as specified in the 
Clean Air Act.'' Finally, in a peer-reviewed article just published in 
the Journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 
scientists John Gamble and Jeffery Lewis conclude that the recent 
epidemiology studies that show statistically significant acute health 
effects of particulate air pollution do not meet the criteria for 
causality. They suggest that the weak statistical correlations of 
increased mortality are as likely due to confounding by 
weather, copollutants, or exposure misclassification as they are by 
ambient particulate matter.

  As the chairman is aware, EPA is under a Federal court order to make 
a final decision on whether to revise the current clean air rule 
regarding particulate matter. Under the court order, EPA must make a 
proposed decision on or before November 29, 1996, and a final decision 
on or before June 28, 1997. Can the Chairman inform me whether the 
court order allows the agency to decide not to revise the particular 
standard until there is sufficient scientific basis for doing so?
  Mr. BOND. It is my understanding that the court order only requires 
the agency to make a final decision on whether to revise the current 
ambient air standard for particulates, but the order does not require 
the agency to promulgate a new standard.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If I might interject, the fact that EPA has found 
several studies that indicate a correlation between loading of 
particulates in the air and premature mortality is important. This 
suggested link to human health problems needs to be promptly and 
thoroughly investigated. My objective is to provide protection of 
public health and the environment by designing control strategies that 
reduce harmful particulates and other pollutants from the air people 
breathe. However, I am concerned that EPA may be rushed to judgment by 
the Federal courts before real science has been developed to inform the 
agency about which pariculates, in which geographic locations, and in 
which concentrations are harming people and the environment. There are 
many questions that need to be answered about particulate matter, as 
EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, referred to as 
``CASAC,'' made clear in its June 13, 1996, letter to EPA--to which the 
Senator from Idaho just referred. For example, we do not know the 
mechanisms by which particulates might affect public health. Since 
1988, particulate matter concentrations have declined by more than 20 
percent, with substantial future declines in particulates expected to 
result from compliance with existing clean air standards. Moving 
forward with the targeted research program recommended by the CASAC is 
essential to understand the health problems associated with 
particulates. That better understanding of the health effects caused by 
particulates is needed before we can design an effective control 
strategy. I would note for my colleagues that this EPA advisory 
committee is meeting again in early September to design this 
particulate research program.
  Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator would yield, I would ask the chairman that 
if EPA is only going to begin to implement the CASAC research program 
in October of this year, how can it be expected to issue a proposed 
rule on November 29, as required under the court order?
  Mr. INHOFE. If I might add an additional comment to address the 
Senator from Idaho's question, I want to assure my colleagues that I 
share their concern that there is evidence of potential harm to 
Americans from exposure to fine particles. I want to know what kinds of 
particulates cause health problems. And I want to know where those 
particulates are and what are the best ways to reduce them.
  I would note for the Senator from Idaho that the chairman of the 
subcommittee stated earlier the court order does not require the EPA to 
propose a change in the particulate standard. The EPA can satisfy its 
obligations by proposing not to change the particulate standard until 
there is a better understanding about which particulates cause health 
effects, and where those particulates are prevalent in unhealthful 
levels. I would like to add that the Clinton Administration's Executive 
Order or Regulatory Review states the Administration's own regulatory 
philosophy as requiring agencies that are deciding whether and how to 
regulate must ``assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory 
alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.'' I believe 
the only prudent course would be for EPA to include consideration of 
retaining the current particulate standard in its proposed rule. In 
following this path, progress will continue to be made by the ongoing 
implementation of the existing Clean Air Act while the necessary 
research is being conducted to address the unanswered questions.
  Mr. CRAIG. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma. I 
do not want the people in our states breathing unhealthy air. I applaud 
and fully support the funding provided by the Senator from Missouri's 
committee for particulate research. I just don't think it makes much 
sense to promulgate new standards until you know what particles are 
unhealthy. It is my understanding that rural fugitive dust might be 
further regulated by the EPA when it issues its new particulate 
standards. Idaho, and I believe, my colleague's State of Oklahoma, are 
renowned for the volumes of fine, natural dirt that are carried by our 
breezes out West. Even without winds, just driving down a road, tilling 
a field, running cattle, sanding roads in the winter, or the gentlest 
of mining operations, will create dust. If dust is unhealthy, I'm sure 
the hard working people of my state will want to know about it, and 
would want to take measures to protect themselves. So I look forward to 
the CASAC's targeted study to be implemented before the rural fugitive 
dust standards are changed.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. If the chairman would yield, I would ask whether any 
of the money in the FY 1997 funding for particulate research will go to 
implementing an ambient air quality and emissions monitoring program, 
and will EPA be placing the monitors, or simply telling the States to 
do it? We want to know not just whether this expense will bring any 
health benefits, but also whether it will create serious unfunded 
mandates problem. I would ask the chairman if he would join me in 
requesting that the EPA send the appropriate committees of Congress, 
within 90 days, a description of the monitoring program they will be 
implementing and to what extent EPA will fund the cost of that program, 
and whether they intend to ask for additional funding in FY 1998.
  Mr. BOND. Yes, the agency has informed me that it will be using the 
1997 appropriation for both increased health effects research and, in 
addition, more than $2 million will be for initiating an emissions 
monitoring program. In addition, it is my understanding EPA will be 
requesting additional funds for monitoring in its FY98 budget 
submission. It is my expectation that the agency will request the funds 
necessary to establish a thorough and scientifically defensible 
monitoring program. I concur that EPA should send us a description of 
their proposed comprehensive monitoring program and a budget proposal.
  I thank my colleagues, and I agree with my colleagues that EPA should 
seriously consider a ``no change'' option as part of its proposed 
decision due by November 29. However, I would add that in view of the 
potential for harm to the public from particulates, a prudent option 
for the November deadline would be to reaffirm the current ambient air 
standard--and thus not disrupt ongoing programs--while moving 
expeditiously to implement a sound research agenda upon which to base 
future decisions.
  Mr. President, I am also concerned that EPA must pay closer attention 
to the potential adverse impacts of changes to the particulates 
standard on small businesses. I am aware that EPA is taking the 
position that changes to the particulates standard do not impact small 
business in terms of implicating the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
because the EPA's standards do not create burdens on small business, it 
is the State implementation plan. As a primary author of the 1996 
amendments to the Regulatory Flexibility

[[Page S9965]]

Act, I strongly disagree with the agency's interpretation, and believe 
that EPA agency should fully comply with the requirements imposed on 
Federal agencies by that act.

                          ____________________