of the Clean Air Act and believe we must do everything possible to protect against the adverse effects of air pollution and the long-term effects of chronic exposure to air pollutants. Exposure to particulate matter and ozone has been linked to serious respiratory disease and might contribute to early death. If adopted, however, the new standards will substantially increase the number of nonattainment areas and might magnify the difficulties faced by present nonattainment areas in reaching attainment. Nonattainment sets in motion a state of planning process that could impose new controls on a wide variety of pollution sources, placing additional burdens on industry, utilities, transportation, the service sector, and individuals. The burdens of nonattainment might be worth the effort, but only if we're certain that the health benefits associated with the stringent standards are real. EPA's case for tightening the standard for particulate matter seems much stronger than its case for a tighter ozone standard. There are concerns about the health data for both particulate matter and ozone, but the findings on particulate matter are much more solid, and point to more serious damage to health, than those on ozone. On February 11, 1997, the EPA published a new ozone health risk analysis. For seven out of nine selected cities, EPA's proposal would lessen the risks of elevated ozone exposure to children playing outdoors, than under the current standard. However, the risk exposure for both Houston, which I represent, and Los Angeles projects that fewer children playing outdoors would be exposed to and suffer the effects of elevated ozone levels under the current one-hour standard than under EPA's proposal for an eight-hour standard. This analysis is troubling to me and might suggest that the science is not sufficiently conclusive to make a decision on a new ozone standard. The testimony from the chairman and former chairmen of the CASAC is a good first step at determining the impact of these proposed standards on our constituent and our industries. I would encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to continue this series of hearings so that we may also hear from EPA Administrator Browner, as well as industry, health, and environmental representatives. Mr. BARTON. The Chair does not see any other members seeking recognition for an opening statement. [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Chairmen, I am very pleased that we are holding this hearing today to examine the scientific basis for the EPA's proposed new clean air standards for ozone and particulate matter. It will be most helpful to have the perspective of the four chairmen of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CÁSAČ). I have grave concerns about the impact the proposed new standards, if implemented, will have on communities in my district in western Michigan and in Michigan more generally. Michigan currently has six ozone nonattainment counties. According to information provided by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, under the EPA's proposal, an additional 11 counties would violate the standard, based on data from the 1994-1996 ozone monitoring seasons. When all associated urbanized areas and adjacent counties are included, most of southern lower Michigan would be thrust into nonattainment status, seriously undermining and perhaps reversing the progress we have made in recent years to diversify and develop our economy and produce good jobs. The only justification for imposing such onerous burdens on individuals, local and state governments, and businesses would be a clear and substantial increase in public health protection. As I think we will learn in today's hearing, there is no consensus among the scientists and other experts who have reviewed the proposed standards that they will in fact produce a real health benefit. The proposed new standards pose a particular problem for western Michigan, which is overwhelmingly impacted by transient ozone from Gary, Chicago, and Milwaukee. No matter how many costly restrictions and regulations might be imposed on many western Michigan communities to reduce local emissions, they would still not meet the standards. Take Muskegon County, for example. We could close down every factory, turn off every car, douse every backyard grill, and remove every occupant and the county would still fail to meet the standards because of transient ozone from the other side of Lake Michigan. The proposed regulations do not appear to provide any regulatory relief for such areas victimized by transient ozone. Therefore, it seems to me that instead of imposing stringent new air quality standards that will thrust many communities now in attainment back into non-at tainment and that will be impossible for areas impacted by transient air pollution from heavily polluted cities to meet, no matter how stringent their pollution reduction restrictions, the EPA ought to be focusing its efforts on the nearly 50 percent of cities that have not yet come into compliance with the current standards for ozone and particulate matter. That is only common sense. Mr. Chairmen, I hope that today's hearing will be only the first of several that we will have to closely examine the strength of the EPA's rationale for the new standards and their real world impact on individuals and communities. PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE NORWOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA I want to thank Chairmen Bilirakis and Barton for holding this hearing this morning on EPA's proposed ozone and particulate matter revisions. We have an impressive panel testifying; so I look forward to hearing their insight on the science that has somewhat driven these proposed rules. If EPA's proposals are promulgated in July as is expected, there will be at least four counties in my district in Georgia that will immediately be in violation. One of these counties, Washington County-how appropriate that is-is located in the heart of kaolin country. Kaolin, known in my district as "White Gold," is a very rare, very fine type of clay, that is mined and used for making, among other things, china. The kaolin industry is a huge provider of jobs in this part of Middle Georgia and there are a lot of residents down there who were breathing just fine until they heard about what the EPA is proposing. The biggest question I have is, "What's the rush?" You won't find one person in this hearing room today who doesn't want clean air, but if there is more science that needs to be done, and if evidence shows that emissions and air quality have improved significantly over the last ten years, is, perhaps, the EPA acting precipitously? I am aware that these rules are to be reviewed every five years, but I wasn't aware that they had to be changed before all the facts are in. Like I said, clean air must be the top priority, but we must be making our best educated guesses, and I am not so sure we are at this point yet. Again, I thank the two chairmen for holding this hearing that has garnered much interest over the last few months, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman? Mr. BARTON. Excuse me. Mr. KLINK. May I seek unanimous consent to submit the statement of ranking committee member John Dingell? Mr. BARTON. Without exception, so ordered. [The prepared statement of Hon. John D. Dingell follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN This hearing on EPA's proposed air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter considers a very important subject: Whether EPA adequately resolved concerns about its proposed new air quality standards raised by departments and agencies during the interagency process. Clearly there was a lively debate, especially on the ozone standard. It is unfortunate that EPA's procrastination and a District Court Judge's arrogance left OMB and other agencies within this Administration less than a month to review these proposals and the cost and benefit analyses submitted by EPA to support them. Worse, EPA-with OMB's apparent acquiescence compounded this difficulty by arbitrarily holding the ozone standard to the same kamikaze schedule as the court imposed for particulate matter. While I agree that the public should be given the chance to review and comment on both these overlapping proposals at once, EPA could have delayed the ozone standard for a month or more and still provided the public with this opportunity. I look forward to an explanation of why a delay of even one month on the ozone standard was not possible. In my view, a delay of the decision on ozone was and remains both possible and proper given the complexities and consequences of the matter. I also look forward to hearing from OMB and EPA as to what steps they will take to ensure that the final regulatory analysis on these rules is complete and accurate. While these are health-based standards, an accurate statement of costs and benefits associated with the proposals still must be prepared. This is necessary not only to satisfy President Clinton's executive order, but to provide for a full and fair understanding of the impact of these standards. Finally, I must comment on EPA's conduct in responding to Committee requests for information and documents. As everyone in this room knows, I view the Committee's oversight responsibilities very seriously and have never countenanced anyone in any Administration doing otherwise. I understand that EPA failed to disclose fully and in a timely manner its activities in seeking to influence OMB's response to the Chairman's December 16, 1996 letter. EPA has since provided additional responses and documents and Administrator Browner has specifically sought to assure the Committee that requests for information will be properly and timely answered in the future. I will hold the Administrator to this commitment. While I do not approve of EPA's behavior on this matter, I also cannot condone the Majority's reaction either. A strategy of press release first, investigation second only serves to jeopardize the credibility of this Committee's Oversight activities. With that reservation, I look forward to today's important testimony. Mr. BARTON. The Chair wants to recognize our distinguished panel. Three of you are past chairman, and one of you is the current_chairman, of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the Environmental Protection Agency reviewing the Clean Air Act. We have Dr. Joe Mauderly, who is the chairman, current chairman of the committee. He is also the Director of External Affairs for Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico. We have Dr. George T. Wolff, who was chairman of the advisory committee from 1993 to 1996. He is the Principle Scientist for General Motors Environmental and Energy Staff in Detroit, Michigan. We have Dr. Roger O. McClellan, chairman from 1988 to 1992. He is currently the President of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. Last but certainly not least, we have Dr. Morton Lippmann, who was the chairman from 1983 to 1987. He is currently the Professor of Environmental Medicine at the Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine in Tuxedo, New York. I hope each of you gentlemen understand that you are entitled to be advised in your testimony by counsel. Do any of you so wish for that opportunity? [No response.] Mr. BARTON. I think you also need to be advised, it is the tradition of the Oversight Subcommittee that everybody who testifies before the Oversight Subcommittee testify under oath. Are each of you willing to testify under oath? Would you all then please stand and raise your right hand? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. BARTON. Please be seated. Your statements will all be submitted for the record. We are going to begin with Dr. Mauderly. We would ask that you try to summarize in 5 minutes. We are not going to shoot you if you go a little bit longer than that, but we would hope that you can be as concise as possible. Dr. Mauderly. TESTIMONY OF JOE L. MAUDERLY, CHAIRMAN, CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (1997-PRESENT), DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, LOVELACE RESPIRATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Mr. MAUDERLY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittees, I have served on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific Advisory Board, CASAC, since 1992 and was appointed chairman of that committee in February of this year. I was asked in the letter that I received to comment on a range of items, including the history and background of CASAC's consideration of these standards. I defer to Dr. Wolff and my predecessors. I think that Dr. Wolff's written comments that he had submitted adequately summarize those historic activities. I would like to comment on our recent review of the EPA proposed draft documents on research needs and research strategy, because I chaired CASAC's review of those documents. In its letter to the EPA administrator, CASAC recognized several areas in which important information is lacking in our understanding of the relationships between particulate matter and health and strongly encourage the commitment of greater resources to particulate matter research. I note several issues that convey the sense of CASAC's comments on these documents. CASAC recommended that EPA focus its research strategy on the most critical risk assessment uncertainties, that that be the paradigm for prioritizing research, that it develop its strategy with an acknowledgement that the sole causality of PM in the majority of the health effects under consideration has not been fully confirmed, that it emphasize long-term health effects, that it emphasize understanding personal exposures of presumed susceptible populations, that it emphasize the study of potential mechanisms by which these effects might occur, that it consider examining health benefits from past reductions of particulate matter, and that it emphasize cross-disciplinary inter-agency and international research strategies. I will now give some of my personal perspectives on the proposed ozone and particulate matter standards. First, for ozone, from a scientific viewpoint, I support EPA's proposal to move from a 1-hour standard for ozone to a multi-hour standard, recognizing the reality that responses of exercising individuals can occur at concentrations lower than the current standard if the exposures continue for several hours. From a practical viewpoint, however, I would point out that, by EPA's estimate, over 100 million citizens are currently living in areas that do not meet the current standard. It may be arguable that our commitment of resources might be better directed toward bringing these areas into compliance with the current standard or a standard of equivalent stringency than by implementing a more stringent standard across the country. With regard to particulate matter, I support EPA's proposal to continue the present annual and 24-hour PM10 standards at their present concentrations, adopting perhaps a more robust form to increase the stability of compliance status. I support EPA's proposal to implement an additional particulate matter standard targeting the finer portion of respirable airborne particulate matter. Particulate matter-PM-I will use the term-is a collection of diverse materials common only in their existence in the air as par ticles, and continuing indefinitely to treat all PM as a single class is not scientifically reasonable. Now, the epidemiological findings, although still attended by important uncertainties, I do not believe should be ignored. From our present understanding of the composition and toxicity of the finer portion of airborne particulate matter, it is reasonable to generalize that the finer particulate matter should be more toxic than the courser particulate matter, but I believe that a fine particle standard should be implemented at a concentration and in a form that places a degree of increased pressure on peak ambient concentrations. I do not believe that our present knowledge provides a sufficient basis for implementing a standard necessitating what I would consider draconian measures. Only a small portion of our present epidemiological information is derived from studies in which concentrations of fine particulate matter were actually measured. The extent to which particulate matter was the sole causal agent, the principle among multiple causal agents, or acted as a surrogate exposure index for the effects of the total pollutant mixture is not well understood. We do not have a very good understanding of the individuals affected seriously by particulate matter or their exposures, their locations, or their activities preceding their deaths. We do not yet have a very good understanding of the biological plausibility of the mechanisms of mortality from particulate matter at the concentrations to which the decedents were likely to have been exposed. I stated a preference for annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 at mass concentrations of 20 and 50 micrograms per cubic meter respectively implemented in a robust form. I agree with the form and concentration of the 24-hour standard proposed by EPA, but I believe that an annual concentration standard of 20 micrograms per cubic meter, while above the range recommended by EPA, would serve to place increased pressure on fine particle concentrations in cities where these concentrations may be causing problems and thus confer an increased degree of health protection while we gather more information to understand the problem more thoroughly. I believe that 1 micron would be a better criterion than 2.5 microns for distinguishing between the important classes of particulate matter and between the physiological differences in the behavior of course and fine particles in the respiratory tract. Mr. BARTON. Doctor, you are at the 62 minute mark. Again, you have waited a long time for your day in the sun. We have got three other gentlemen that also want their day in the sun. So, can youin the next 12 minutes, perhaps, summarize Mr. MAUDERLY. Certainly. It will not take that long, sir. Mr. MAUDERLY. In Albuquerque, we are accustomed to glancing at the horizon and seeing things 60 or 70 miles away, and I am concerned that, in arid regions of the west, with alkaline soils, the 2.5-micron criterion would include a considerable amount of soil |