REVIEW OF EPA'S PROPOSED OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER NAAQS REVISIONS THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1997 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, JOINT Washington, DC. The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Michael Bilirakis (Chairman) presiding. Members present Subcommittee on Health and Environment: Representatives Bilirakis, Barton, Upton, Greenwood, Deal, Burr, Bilbray, Whitfield, Ganske, Norwood, Coburn, Lazio, Cubin, Bliley (ex officio), Brown, Waxman, Pallone, Stupak, Green, Strickland, DeGette, Furse, and Eshoo. Members present Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Representatives Barton, Greenwood, Crapo, Bilbray, Ganske, Coburn, Bliley (ex officio), Klink, Waxman, Stupak, and Sawyer. Also present: Representative Gillmor. Staff present: Bob Meyers, majority counsel, Steven Sayle, majority counsel, Charles Ingrebretson, general counsel, Joe Stanko, majority counsel, Mark Paoletta, majority counsel, Tom Dilenge, majority counsel, and Bill Tyndall, minority counsel. Mr. BILIRAKIS. The hearing will come to order. Good morning. I first want to thank our panel of very distinguished witnesses for being with us this morning. These are tough subjects, and you good people certainly are being very, very helpful in terms of our deliberations. Each member of our witness panel has been or is, in the case of Dr. Mauderly, Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Board. In addition, all members of our witness panel took part in the most recent reviews of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter. Thus, I believe that it is fair to say that, collectively, our witnesses represent a blue ribbon panel of experts in ozone and particulate matter. Although our witnesses have different academic and professional backgrounds, they have spent many hours reviewing the science behind the ozone and particulate matter standards and, perhaps more importantly, the subsequent analysis of the relative strength of the science and the conclusions which can be drawn. (1) The scientific evidence behind the proposed ozone and particulate matter standards is crucial to our understanding of the policy choices that will be made regarding any new standards. This science is represented in summary form in the documents which are stacked to my right. These documents are the criteria documents for both standards, the EPA staff papers, and the Federal Register notices for the proposals. I am sure you all would agree that it is an impressive stack of paper. It represents the work of many highly educated and trained professionals. It required years to complete. However, the essential question remains: what do all the studies, all the statistics, all the charts and tables, and all the interpretative analyses actually prove? In my mind, that is what we are here for today. We need to begin our committees' review, and I might add, when I say committees', I mean joint committees both the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, led by Congressman Barton, and the Health and Environment Subcommittee are involved-hear from the experts, and attempt to understand what the science behind the proposals does and does not show. I believe this is the same critical examination of law and policy which this committee has engaged in during previous reviews of the Clean Air Act and regulations established under the authority of the Act. In fact, the first oversight hearing concerning the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was held less than 4 months after the law was enacted. The ink was barely dry before the Health and Environment Subcommittee was critically reviewing implementation activities of EPA and the executive branch. I also believe that, over the years, the Commerce Committee has a history of bridging substantial differences with respect to environmental legislation. I remember quite well the clean air negotiating sessions of late 1989 and 1990. Although our political philosophies varied substantially and regional differences were significant, we were able, in the end, to craft responsible legislative language. While we did not craft perfect legislative language, the final legislation fairly reflected the compromises that were necessary to deliver a comprehensive reauthorization measure. Thus, at the heart of all endeavors regarding the Clean Air Act is a deliberative process. This process is born of the fact that the law itself is long and complex. This process also reflects the fact that environmental law cannot be effectively established and implemented in a vacuum, that we must necessarily consider the impact of a law or regulation on everyday life. In this regard, I do find it disconcerting, I must say, that the present process has been driven by a Federal lawsuit filed in Ari zona. I do not question the legal interpretation in this case that the Act requires a periodic review of each standard nor that the review for particulate matter is past due. However, I find it troubling that an EPA official indicated under oath and threat of perjury in this case that it would take 51 months-51 months from September 1994-to complete the necessary review of the proposed standards. Let me quote directly from the court papers filed in that case. In opposing a motion for summary judgment, EPA stated that any shorter timetable than December 1, 1998, for final promulgation of the particulate matter standard "would require EPA to reach conclusions on critical scientific and policy issues with enormous consequences for society before it has had an adequate opportunity to collect and evaluate pertinent scientific data." EPA further stated that 51 months was "an extremely ambitious schedule and represents the minimum time necessary to complete the review consistent with satisfying applicable legal requirements and reaching a sound and scientifically supportable decision." The promulgation date for the new standards is now over 16 months earlier than the date EPA considered, "extremely ambitious." Thus, I would like to hear in detail from the CASAC members here how this truncated review period affected their deliberations. When coupled with other factors like an extremely rushed 3week review period by the Office of Management and Budget, I believe conditions could have been set for a rush to judgment on the proposed standards. While we cannot change the past nor control the actions of the executive branch, I believe that, at a minimum, this committee must take the time necessary to ensure that our review of the standards is deliberate, careful, and fully informed. I will not rush to judgment on the proper level of the new standards, but I expect that the committee and this House should have a full opportunity to review all pertinent information and make whatever independent judgments which are necessary. Mr. Chairman, you are recognized for an opening statement. Chairman BLILEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Bilirakis, and I would like to commend both you and Chairman Barton for holding today's hearing. The laws regulating this Nation's air quality have been under a great spotlight in recent months, and rightly so. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued air quality proposals that would dramatically increase the Government's regulation of the air we breathe. These proposals would make the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone and particulate matter significantly more stringent, bringing hundreds of additional American communities under Federal controls. They are major regulatory proposals, and they merit our immediate and careful attention. The purpose of today's hearing is to explore the science behind EPA's proposed standards. Let us begin on common ground. We all share the goal of effective and achievable air quality standards to ensure clean air and good health for all Americans. The question for this committee and for the American public is whether EPA's proposals will help us achieve this goal. For several months now, the committee has been trying to educate itself about EPA's proposals, including the quality of the sci The scientific evidence behind the proposed ozone and particulate matter standards is crucial to our understanding of the policy choices that will be made regarding any new standards. This science is represented in summary form in the documents which are stacked to my right. These documents are the criteria documents for both standards, the EPA staff papers, and the Federal Register notices for the proposals. I am sure you all would agree that it is an impressive stack of paper. It represents the work of many highly educated and trained professionals. It required years to complete. However, the essential question remains: what do all the studies, all the statistics, all the charts and tables, and all the interpretative analyses actually prove? In my mind, that is what we are here for today. We need to begin our committees' review, and I might add, when I say committees', I mean joint committees both the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, led by Congressman Barton, and the Health and Environment Subcommittee are involved-hear from the experts, and attempt to understand what the science behind the proposals does and does not show. I believe this is the same critical examination of law and policy which this committee has engaged in during previous reviews of the Clean Air Act and regulations established under the authority of the Act. In fact, the first oversight hearing concerning the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was held less than 4 months after the law was enacted. The ink was barely dry before the Health and Environment Subcommittee was critically reviewing implementation activities of EPA and the executive branch. I also believe that, over the years, the Commerce Committee has a history of bridging substantial differences with respect to environmental legislation. I remember quite well the clean air negotiating sessions of late 1989 and 1990. Although our political philosophies varied substantially and regional differences were significant, we were able, in the end, to craft responsible legislative language. While we did not craft perfect legislative language, the final legislation fairly reflected the compromises that were necessary to deliver a comprehensive reauthorization measure. Thus, at the heart of all endeavors regarding the Clean Air Act is a deliberative process. This process is born of the fact that the law itself is long and complex. This process also reflects the fact that environmental law cannot be effectively established and implemented in a vacuum, that we must necessarily consider the impact of a law or regulation on everyday life. In this regard, I do find it disconcerting, I must say, that the present process has been driven by a Federal lawsuit filed in Ari zona. I do not question the legal interpretation in this case that the Act requires a periodic review of each standard nor that the review for particulate matter is past due. However, I find it troubling that an EPA official indicated under oath and threat of perjury in this case that it would take 51 |