U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–602 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–502

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW AIR QUALITY

STANDARDS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER AND

OZONE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE,

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND

PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 1, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

JOHN CORNYN, Texas

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

JOHN CORNYN, Texas

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

HARRY REID, Nevada

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

APRIL 1, 2004

OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 17

Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New York ........ 26

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 9

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 11

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........... 6

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 1

WITNESSES

Eckels, Robert, County Judge, Harris County, TX ............................................... 37

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 175

Fisher, Michael, president, Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce ............. 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 177

Leavitt, Michael O., Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ............. 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Responses to additional questions from:

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 69

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 60

Senator Jeffords ..................................................................................... 102–174

Senator Lieberman .................................................................................... 100

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 65

Thurston, George D., New York University School of Medicine, Department

of Environmental Medicine ................................................................................. 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 180

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

History of the Delays—Milestones in the Particulate Mater and Ozone

NAAQS Reviews ................................................................................................... 13

Letter, from Christopher Jones, director, Ohio EPA to Thomas V. Skinner,

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region V .................................................... 18

Statements:

American Lung Association ............................................................................. 195

Baroody, Michael E., executive vice president, on behalf of the National

Association of Manufacturers ....................................................................... 208

Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC ........ 185

Stec, Robert, chairman and CEO, Lexington Home Brands, Lexington,

NC, on behalf of the American Furniture Manufacturers Association

(AFMA) .......................................................................................................... 206

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW AIR QUALITY

STANDARDS FOR PARTICULATE MATTER

AND OZONE

THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2004

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND

NUCLEAR SAFETY,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in room

406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Voinovich, Lieberman, Thomas, Carper, Clinton, Jeffords [ex officio] and Inhofe [ex officio].

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Senator VOINOVICH. The hearing will come to order.

I want to thank all of you for coming. We are here today to conduct oversight on the implementation of the new air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone.

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency

to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards and assigns

primary responsibility to the States to assure compliance with

them. The NAAQS are set without consideration of costs to protect

public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Areas

not meeting the standards are referred to as non-attainment areas

and are required to implement specified air pollution control measures.

EPA is required to review the scientific data every 5 years and

revise the standards, if appropriate. In 1997, EPA set a new, more

stringent 8-hour ozone standard and a fine particulate standard of

2.5 ppm. This year EPA will finalize designations and implementation rules for both standards.

It is very important for us to put the standards in context. Our

air is not getting dirtier, on the contrary, our air is significantly

cleaner. I remember well when the Clean Air Act was enacted in

1970. I was a member of the Ohio House of Representatives and

was working on legislation to create the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Since 1970, while gross domestic product has increased by 164 percent, vehicle miles traveled has increased by 155

percent, energy consumption by 42 percent and population by 38

percent. Emissions of the six criteria plants have been reduced by
2

48 percent. This success in improving our environment is simply

not told enough. Air quality standards are an important part of the

story. We still need to do a lot more.

I have been intimately involved with improving air quality

throughout my 37-year public career. As Governor, I was very concerned with my responsibilities to the environment and believe

strongly that we needed to do a better job in reducing emissions

to improve the environment and protect public health. We worked

to more than double the Ohio’s EPA budget from $69 million in

1991 to over $149 million in 1998.

I am very familiar as the Administrator is with the difficult decisions that must be made to bring States and counties into attainment. When I began my term as Governor, 28 of Ohio’s 88 counties

were in non-attainment for ozone. We worked with the State legislature to create a situation where American Electric Power could

install scrubbers costing $616 million to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at one of this country’s largest coal-fired facilities.

As part of bringing the State into compliance we chose to implement it an automobile emissions testing program called E-Check

because it made the most sense from a cost-benefit point of view.

This program wasn’t popular with the Ohio General Assembly and

with the people of Ohio. As a matter of fact, the General Assembly

passed a bill to remove the E-Check Program which I vetoed and

the legislature chose not to override that veto.

Furthermore, we implemented regulations to capture vapors

when motorists fueled their cars, required controls on industrial

sources and pushed to get a 15 percent reduction in emission in

each non-attainment area. Due to the success of these efforts air

toxins in my State were reduced significantly from about 381 million pounds to 144 million pounds in several years. Since the

1970’s, Ohio levels of carbon monoxide have been reduced by more

than 70 percent, sulfur dioxide by 90 percent, lead by 95 percent

and ozone by 27 percent.

While all Ohio counties meet air quality standards, these improvements have not been without cost. Over the last 10 years,

Ohio has spent more on emissions reductions than New York, New

Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island,

Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, Delaware and Washington, DC.

combined. All of them combined is what we spent on our utilities.

The cost of attaining these new air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone is going to be more costly. This chart shows

all the counties that were exceeding the new air quality standards

over the 2000–2002 period. Although you may like the colors, this

isn’t a pretty picture. Yellow is for those counties not meeting the

ozone standard, orange for PM2.5, and red for both. The red shows

all of the counties in this country that are not meeting either the

ozone or particulate standard.

When surrounding counties are added, the number of non-attainment counties in the country is likely to be over 500 for the 8-hour

ozone standard and over 200 for PM2.5. This is no April Fool’s Day

joke, these standards are going to cast a wet blanket over some

parts of our Nation. When EPA proposed the new standards in

1997, the agency estimated that bringing all areas into attainment
3

with standards by the year 2010 would cost $46 billion annually.

Another analysis claims significant job losses.

The projected impact of these standards has caused a great deal

of concern in non-attainment counties that will cause the loss of

jobs, restrict economic growth, discourage plant location and encourage manufacturers to move overseas. As was highlighted last

week during the natural gas hearing which the chairman held, our

manufacturers and businesses are in grave trouble today and are

unable to compete in the global marketplace.

During the 1990’s, we were able to bring new businesses to my

State. For 3 consecutive years, Ohio was No. 1 in Site Selection

Magazine’s highly coveted Governor’s Cup. While this is good news,

the question is whether we can keep these businesses and attract

more. When I look at this chart, I am not sure. This is a map of

the projected non-attainment counties in Ohio. Right now business

owners are looking at the same map and thinking twice about moving operations to or expanding existing plants in our State. This is

happening right now.

Unfortunately the story gets worse before it gets better. This

chart shows all the different clean air regulations that States, localities and businesses are going to have to deal with over the next

decade. We are only at the beginning of this uncertain mess. This

is what we are confronted with today in this country because of all

of the various kinds of rules and regulations that have been set by

the Environmental Protection Agency.

Additionally, as a result, our courtrooms are being cluttered with

lawsuits by environmental and industry groups, we have not made

the progress we could to improve our environment and protect public health. My theory is that because of the mess we have today,

we are not doing as good a job in cleaning up the environment and

we are not providing energy in the most efficient way possible in

this country.

That is why, in my opinion, the Clear Skies Act, which I sponsored and co-sponsored with several members of this committee, is

needed. It presents a very clear path forward on where we are

going and when and provides the flexibility needed to get there. It

cleans up the regulatory mess and greatly helps States and localities bring counties into attainment and provides the certainty

needed to make significant environmental benefits.

Chart 5 shows the benefit of Clear Skies in terms of meeting air

quality standards. This is really significant. By 2010, EPA estimates this legislation would bring 42 additional counties and 14

million people into attainment for PM2.5 and sooner than under existing programs. So we are going to go from this situation to this

situation if we could get Clear Skies passed in this country. This

is the President’s major initiative in cleaning up the environment

in this country. Under Clear Skies, more than 20 million additional

people would be breathing air that meets the national standard by

2020.

There is no doubt that we can and should do more to improve

our air quality. While bringing counties across the Nation into attainment for the air quality standards, we are going to make some

progress. It would be very costly and cumbersome if we do not approach them carefully. The Clear Skies Act will get cleaner air fast-
4

er and reduce the negative impact of the new standards. We need

this legislation to help States and localities deal with these standards. We need this legislation to provide certainty and keep jobs in

this country. We need this legislation to dramatically improve our

environment. While Clear Skies is needed, the provisions in EPA’s

implementation rules will have a significant effect.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how these

standards can be implemented in a way that maximizes cleaning

up the environment and protecting public health, and minimizes

the impact on jobs in other localities and States across this Nation.

I remind my colleagues and the witnesses that this hearing is

not about the standards themselves. The battle of standards, folks,

is over. Now the question is how do we go about implementing

them in the best way possible.

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OHIO

The hearing will come to order. Good morning and thank you all for coming. We

are here today to conduct oversight on the implementation of the new air quality

standards for particulate matter and ozone.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and assigns primary responsibility to the states to assure compliance

with them. The standards are set without consideration of costs to protect public

health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Areas not meeting the standards are designated as nonattainment and are required to implement specified air

pollution control measures.

EPA is required to review the scientific data every 5 years and revise the standards, if appropriate. In 1997, EPA set a new more stringent 8-hour ozone standard

and a fine particulate standard—or PM2.5. This year, EPA will finalize designations

and implementation rules for both standards.

It is very important for us to put these standards in context. Our air is not getting

dirtier. On the contrary, our air is significantly cleaner.

I remember well when the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. I was a member

of the Ohio House of Representatives and was working on legislation to create the

Ohio EPA. Since 1970—while Gross Domestic Product has increased by 164 percent,

vehicle miles traveled by 155 percent, energy consumption by 42 percent, and population by 38 percent—emissions of the six criteria plants have been reduced by 48

percent.

This success in improving our environment is simply not told enough, and air

quality standards are an important part of this story. Still, we need to do more.

I have been intimately involved with improving air quality throughout my 37-year

public career. As Governor, I was very concerned with my responsibilities to the environment and believed strongly that we needed to do a better job in reducing emissions to improve the environment and protect public health. We worked to more

than double Ohio EPA’s budget from $69 million in 1991 to $149 million in 1998.

I am very familiar with the difficult decisions that must be made by a State to

bring counties into attainment. When I began my term as Governor, 28 out of Ohio’s

88 counties were in non-attainment for ozone. We worked with the state legislature

to create a situation where American Electric Power could install scrubbers costing

$616 million dollars to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at one of the largest coalfired power plants in the country.

As part of bringing the State into compliance with the NAAQS, we chose to implement an automobile emissions testing program—called E-check—because it made

the most sense from a cost-benefit standpoint. This program was not popular and

Ohio’s General Assembly passed a bill to remove the program. I vetoed this bill because I understood the importance of programs such as this to meet the air quality

standards.

Furthermore, we implemented regulations to capture vapors when motorists fuel

their cars, required controls on industrial sources, and pushed to get a 15 percent

reduction in emissions in each non-attainment area.

Due to the success of these efforts, air toxins in Ohio have been reduced significantly from approximately 381 million pounds in 1987 to 144 million pounds in
5

1996. Since the 1970’s, Ohio levels of carbon monoxide have been reduced by more

than 70 percent, sulfur dioxide by 90 percent, lead by 95 percent, and ozone by 27

percent.

While all of Ohio now meets the air quality standards, these improvements have

not been without cost. Over the last 10 years, Ohio has spent more on emissions

reductions than New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont,

Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, Delaware, and Washington, DC

combined.

And the costs of attaining the new air quality standards for particulate matter

and ozone will be even more costly. This chart shows all of the counties that were

exceeding the new air quality standards over the 2000 to 2002 period. Although you

may like the colors, this is not a pretty picture—yellow is for those counties not

meeting the ozone standard, orange for PM2.5, and red for both. When surrounding

counties are added, the number of non-attainment counties in the country is likely

to be over 500 for the 8-hour ozone standard and over 200 for PM2.5. This is no April Fool’s Day joke, these standards are a wet blanket on the Nation.

When EPA proposed the new standards in 1997, the Agency estimated that bringing

all areas of the country into attainment with the standards by the year 2010 would

cost about $46 billion annually and other analyses claimed significant job losses.

The projected impact of these standards has caused a great deal of concern in

non-attainment counties that they will cause the loss of jobs, restrict economic

growth, discourage plant location, and encourage manufacturers to move overseas.

As was highlighted last week during the natural gas hearing, our manufacturers

and businesses cannot absorb any more costs and still compete globally.

During the 1990’s, we were able to bring new businesses to Ohio. For three consecutive years, starting in 1993, Ohio won Site Selection Magazine’s highly coveted

Governor’s Cup, which recognizes the state in which the most new or expanded

plant activity took place.

While this is the good news, the question is whether we can keep these businesses

and attract more? When I look at this chart, I am not so sure. This is a map of

the projected non-attainment counties in Ohio. Right now, business owners are looking at this same map and thinking twice about moving operations to or expanding

existing plants in Ohio.

Unfortunately, this story gets worse before it gets better. This chart shows all of

the different Clean Air Act regulations that states, localities, and businesses are

going to have to deal with over the next decade. We are only at the beginning of

this uncertain mess.

Additionally, as a result of our courtrooms being cluttered up with lawsuits by environmental and industry groups, we have not made the progress that we could to

improve our environment and protect public health.

That is why the Clear Skies Act is so desperately needed. It presents a very clear

path forward on where we are going and when, and provides the flexibility needed

to get there. It cleans up the regulatory mess, greatly helps States and localities

bring counties into attainment, and provides the certainty needed to make significant environmental benefits.

This chart clearly shows the benefit of Clear Skies in terms of meeting the air

quality standards. By 2010, EPA estimates that this legislation would bring 42 additional counties with 14 million people into attainment for the PM2.5 standards sooner than under existing programs. Under Clear Skies, more than 20 million additional people would be breathing air that meets the national standards by 2020.

There is no doubt that we can and should do more to improve our air quality.

While bringing these counties across the Nation into attainment for the air quality

standards will make great progress, it could be very costly and cumbersome if we

do not approach them carefully. The Clear Skies Act will get clean air faster and

reduce the negative impact of the new standards.

We need this legislation to help States and localities deal with these standards.

We need this legislation to provide certainty and keep jobs in this country. We need

this legislation to dramatically improve our environment.

While Clear Skies is needed, the provisions in EPA’s implementation rules will

have significant effect. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how

these standards can be implemented in a way that maximizes cleaning up the environment and protecting public health and minimizes the impact on states and localities across the Nation.

I remind my colleagues and the witnesses that this hearing is not about the

standards themselves. The battle on the standards has already been fought, and we

will not be re-litigating them here today. They are what they are and counties

across the country will need to meet them.

Thank you.
6

Senator VOINOVICH. I would now like to call on the chairman of

our committee, Senator Inhofe. I am sorry, our Ranking Member

is here.

Joe.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Senator LIEBERMAN. Where was I? The air was clean enough for

me to know exactly where I was, so I thank you. It is good to be

back.

Welcome, Administrator Leavitt.

I was thinking as I was listening to the Chairman’s opening

statement that in the 15 years I have been privileged to be a member of the U.S. Senate, one of the most productive experiences I

have had, which is to say one of the most satisfying that created

really good results was the work that was done in 1990 on the

Clean Air Act Amendments under former President Bush and Senator George Mitchell, a very bipartisan experience. Contentious,

difficult, but ultimately produced real progress. Obviously the proof

of a law is in its implementing and I do want to say what Senator

Voinovich has said is true, that the air is cleaner today. It is one

of the great successes of our government over the last decades. Programs has been made both in clean air and in clean water.

Clearly problems continue to persist as Senator Voinovich has

also said. We are going to need exactly the same kind of bipartisan

cooperation and leadership that brought forth the Clean Air Act

amendments of 1990 to reach the goals and implement the standards that we want. The fact is that thousands of Americans are

still dying prematurely because of the impacts of particulate matter. That is an extreme articulation of the statement but all the

public health studies show that is true.

I can tell you that in Connecticut, my home State, a recent study

found that over 40 percent of the children in Hartford have been

diagnosed with asthma which is now a disease that has been

linked to air pollution by peer-reviewed studies. It is through the

implementation of the Clean Air Act that we are going to continue

to do better and better and protect the health of the American people and the beauty of our natural environment.

As has been said, I know the EPA will soon release the color map

showing which areas of America do and do not comply with the

Clean Air Act and when it does, it is clear that large swathes of

our country including I expect the entire State of Connecticut, will

be, if I can put it this way, in the black as in polluted, not as in

profitable, unfortunately. We have to do better. That says it all.

I want to comment on a few of the challenges ahead of us. First,

with regard to NOx and SOx, the Administration’s proposed NOx

and SOx rules I think are real steps forward. I am troubled, however, about the two-phased implementation, 2010 and 2015. The

reason given, which is there are not enough boilermakers to build

the pollution control equipment, that seems to be a significant reason given. However, in October 2002, the EPA issued a report saying there were plenty of workers to build the needed equipment

and I, therefore, urge the Administrator to talk this morning to

that factor.
7

Another clear and present environmental danger comes from

mercury. We have fallen far short in our efforts to limit toxic mercury emissions. This now has been shown to cause developmental

problems with children, 1 in 12 women of child-bearing age have

shown dangerous levels of mercury in their blood. Public Health

agencies in 43 States, as you know, Administrator Leavitt, have

issued formal advisories warning people against eating certain

kinds of fish because of mercury contamination. In Connecticut,

every fish taken from every lake and stream in our State have such

a warning attached to them.

Greater mercury reductions are both technologically and I believe

politically feasible. In Connecticut, on the last point, legislators on

a bipartisan basis worked with industry and environmental groups

to agree on a consensus proposal that would result in an 85–90

percent reduction in mercury emissions from all coal plants. Here

I am concerned that rather than pushing forward on mercury reductions, the EPA is rolling back and appears to have retreated

from its plans to require strict mercury reductions by 2007 and instead proposing a rule that would require no reductions that would

not result without the rule until 2018. We can and must do better

than that. That is why I was happy to join 44 of my colleagues in

a letter that will be released today by Senator Leahy which asks

EPA and Administrator Leavitt to withdraw the proposed mercury

rule package and repropose a rule that better protects the public

health and the environment.

Next, global warming, a third challenge on which I believe we

cannot procrastinate. Last week, expert witnesses at a hearing of

the Commerce Committee described the devastating effects of global warming on coral reefs, wildlife and arctic animals and tribes.

One of the most riveting stories told is that robins have appeared

in Native American Alaskan villages, some of the tribes having a

history of 10,000 years and their vocabulary has no word for robin

because they have never seen one before. So talk about the canary

in the coal mine, this is a robin in a normally cold and inhospitable

Alaskan village which is a warning to us.

Senator McCain and I have put forth what we believe is a practical progressive program to tackle this threat. Joined this week in

the spirit of my opening remarks by 20 members of the House of

Representatives, 10 Republicans, 10 Democrats who have introduced similar legislation. It is critically necessary for us to work together to deal with CO2 emissions.

I have a final concern, Administrator, that I wanted to address

to you that I hope you will be able to speak to this morning which

is the concern that EPA is thinking of backing off on the courtmandated rule to reduce air pollution that hampers visibility in our

parks, called the BART rule for Best Available Retrofit Technology.

The rule as you know was required by the 1977 Clean Air Act but

it has not been promulgated due to continuous delay in litigation.

Here again, there is bipartisan interest in this. A former colleague,

Senator Fred Thompson, was particularly active in pursuit of this

and I hope you will reassure us that the efforts of EPA to clean

up the air around our national parks will continue.

Mr. Administrator, in a speech that I was happy to read and that

you recently gave, you observed that no one should see society’s in-
8

terest in environmental improvement as a fad. I agree, you are exactly right. No one should view what people think about and worry

about their health and the world that we leave to our children and

grandchildren as a fad. That is exactly the policy and political challenge each of us must rise above and beyond party lines to work

together to leave our children and grandchildren a world that is as

great as the one we found but also as safe for their health.

I thank you for being here today and I look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Administrator Leavitt.

Mr. Administrator, one of my best moments since I came to the Senate was the

passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act. We worked hard on that bill, during the first

Bush administration, to come up with a bill that worked. The test of that bill is

now in its implementation.

We need that kind of bipartisan leadership now in tackling our pressing environmental challenges. No area of the environment requires more attention than air pollution. Thousands of Americans are dying prematurely from the impacts of particulate matter released by power plants. In my home state of Connecticut, a recent

study found that over 40 percent of children in inner-city Hartford have been diagnosed with asthma a disease that has now been linked to air pollution by peerreviewed studies.

I am glad the Clean Air Act is at work to require progress on these measures.

I am concerned, however, that we are not doing enough, quickly enough. The EPA

will soon release the color maps showing which areas do not comply with the Clean

Air Act and when it does, I have no doubt that swaths of our country—including

the entire State of Connecticut—will be in the black, as in polluted. We must do

better.

That Administration’s proposed NOx and SOx rules are a step forward. But I am

concerned about the fact that they would cut emissions in two phases one by 2010,

the other by 2015. The reason? Not enough boilermakers to build the pollution control equipment. But in October 2002, the EPA issued a report that there were plenty

of workers to build the needed equipment. The phase-in looks more like an unjustified break for polluters than a breakdown in boilermaking.

Another immediate environmental challenge we must confront now is mercury.

We have fallen far short in our efforts to limit toxic mercury emissions from power

plants. Mercury has been proven to cause development problems with children and

1 in 12 women of childbearing age have shown dangerous levels of mercury in their

blood. Public health agencies in 43 states have issued formal advisories warning

people against eating certain species of fish because of mercury contamination. In

my State of Connecticut, every single lake and stream has such a warning.

Greater mercury reductions are both technologically and politically possible. In

Connecticut, legislators worked with industry and environmental groups to agree on

a consensus proposal that would result in an 85 to 90 percent reduction in mercury

emissions from all coal plants.

But rather than pushing forward on mercury reductions, the EPA is rolling back.

It appears to have retreated from its plans to require strict mercury reductions by

2007 and instead has proposed a rule that would require no reductions that would

not result without the rule until 2018. We can and must do better. That’s why I

was proud today to join 44 of my colleagues in asking the EPA to do just that.

Global warming is a third challenge we cannot procrastinate on. Last week, expert witnesses at a hearing Commerce Committee described the devastating effects

from global warming on coral reefs, wildlife, and Arctic animals and tribes. Despite

the mounting evidence, we are doing next to nothing to reduce our ever-increasing

greenhouse gas emissions.

Senator McCain and I have put forth a practical program to tackle this threat.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If we work together to address this problem

in a serious, bipartisan way, we can send a powerful signal to the Nation’s investors

and innovators to develop the long-term solution to our global warming problem.

Finally, I am concerned that the EPA is thinking of backing off on the court-mandated rule to reduce air pollution that hampers visibility in parks—called the BART

rule for Best Available Retrofit Technology—in order to allow the Administration’s
9

Interstate Air Quality Rule (IAQR) to go forward. The BART rule was required by

the 1977 Clean Air Act, but has not been promulgated due to continuous delay and

litigation. It is slated to be released on April 15, but I am fearful that they are continuing putting it into repose until after the IAQR is fully implemented in 2018.

Administrator Leavitt, in a speech you recently gave, you observed that no one

should see society’s interest in environmental improvement as a fad. You are exactly

right in that. No one could view what people think about their health and the world

they leave their children and grandchildren as a fad. That is the policy and political

challenge we must rise to together or we and our children will suffer together.

Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Inhofe.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

holding this hearing. It is on a topic of great interest to a lot of

locations around the country, including my State of Oklahoma.

As an initial observation, I would like to ask your staff to put

this up again. I don’t think people have really paid attention to

what has been happening. Since 1970 up to 2 years ago, the gross

domestic product going up 164 percent, vehicle miles traveled, 155

percent, energy consumption $2 percent, U.S. population increased

38 percent and yet the aggregate emissions down 48 percent. You

don’t see a success story like that very often. Certainly there are

people who talk about that and they should. I think everywhere we

go we need to carry that with us and show people that good things

are happening, in spite of what they might hear to the contrary.

In the first 2 years of the Bush administration, the two major

pollutants declined dramatically. Nitrogen oxide has gone down by

13 percent and sulfur dioxide has gone done by 9 percent. As Senator Lieberman said, the Clear Skies Initiative is the most aggressive reduction mandate in the history of this country of any President. I think people need to realize that.

The reason these areas will be designated non-attainment is that

new health standards were developed that require lower ambient

concentrations of pollution for public health reasons. Whether

someone believes these standards have been set too low or two high

is irrelevant for the purpose of this hearing. Unfortunately, many

jobs will be lost unnecessarily. Mr. Chairman you have probably

been the champion of that concept stating it every opportunity you

get.

In the mid-1990’s, I pushed for the EPA Administrator to identify

and regulate the particles that are most harmful, known as speciation. Yet Administrator Browner utterly failed to take action. The

communities across the country will suffer for it. Fewer jobs would

be exported overseas if Administrator Browner had focused on

harmful pollutants and didn’t penalize communities whose emissions may be largely innocuous.

I want to make clear to Administrator Leavitt that I remain committed to correcting this flaw and look forward to EPA addressing

it. The simple fact is communities will be required to meet these

standards and it is important that they do so with the fewest lost

jobs possible. We need to recognize that implementing these standards will cost jobs.

Businesses and areas designated as non-attainment face higher

costs simply to do business. As Mr. Fisher noted in his written tes-
10

timony, obtaining an air permit in a non-attainment area is so

complex, businesses are advised to hire consultants. That may be

easy for some of the large corporations, but it is very difficult, if

not impossible, for some of the smaller businesses to do.

With restrictions on existing businesses and extra burdens new

manufacturers would face, these new standards could be a significant factor in whether these areas continue to grow and could even

result in jobs exported overseas. It is for this reason that these

standards be implemented in a rational way. It is critical that

areas be given flexibility to meet the standard and that the implementation be coordinated with the expected benefits from other

regulatory measures. In that vein, it is critical that designates

properly account for the areas of the country that entered into

early action compacts to meet their clean air requirements and

thus ensure the implementation of standards and avoids yet again

introducing uncertainty into the planning process and unnecessary

costs.

I want to comment to the EPA in its proposal for trying to build

in some flexibility. We need the flexibility and it is directly related

to jobs.

Let me make one comment about my distinguished colleague,

Senator Lieberman’s comments on global warming. The first thing

that I said over a year ago when I became Chairman of this committee was the one thing I wanted was to base our decisions on

sound science. At that time, people were thinking that there was

no science that would contradict this whole concept of global warming. However, since 1999, virtually every new scientific finding has

refuted the whole concept, No. 1, that androgenic or man-made

gases either CO2, methane, cause climate change and No. 2, that

it is changing at all. It is not just me saying this. Certainly I am

not anymore qualified than anyone else at this table to make these

judgments. We have to rely on the scientists and when you read

the accord signed by some 4,000 scientists that refuted this, you

had to stop and think. Look at the economic consequences should

we adopt something such as signing onto a Kyoto-like treaty when

the Horton Econometrics Survey said if we did this, it would cost

1.4 million jobs, it would double the cost of energy, it would increase your gasoline by 65 cents a gallon, it would cost the average

family of ours $2,700 a year. That is huge, Mr. Chairman. I think

before jumping into something that is not scientifically based, we

need to keep in mind that our job is to use good science and to consider all the factors and not just follow some fad, and that is exactly what we have been doing.

I look forward to your testimony, Administrator Leavitt and forward to pursuing this subject.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on a topic of great interest to

a great many localities across the Nation. A great number of communities that have

been fully in compliance with the Clean Air Act are soon to be designated as being

in nonattainment with the new, far more stringent standards being implemented.
11

As an initial observation, I want to reassure the public that this does not mean

our nation’s air quality is deteriorating. In fact, the opposite is occurring. As this

chart shows, from 1970 to 2002, our Gross Domestic Product and vehicle miles traveled both more than tripled and energy consumption and population increased about

40 percent, yet the pollution in this country was literally cut in half. And that improvement has continued under the helm of President Bush although national environment groups rarely admit this inconvenient fact.

In the first 2 years of President Bush’s first term, the two most major pollutants

declined dramatically, with nitrogen oxides going down by 13 percent and sulfur dioxide going down by 9 percent—and I suspect that when the data is compiled, they

will show further declines last year. And President Bush has proposed legislation

that will reduce the utility sector’s emissions of these pollutants by another 70 percent, the biggest emission reduction initiative ever proposed by an American President.

The reason these areas will be designated nonattainment is that new health

standards were developed that require lower ambient concentrations of pollution for

public health reasons. Whether someone believes these standards have been set too

low or too high is irrelevant for purposes of this hearing.

Unfortunately, many of these jobs will be lost unnecessarily. In the mid-90’s, I

pushed then-EPA Administrator to identify and regulate the particles that are the

most harmful—known as speciation. Yet Browner utterly failed to take action. And

the communities across the country will suffer for it. Fewer jobs would be exported

overseas if Browner had focused on harmful particulates and didn’t penalize communities whose emissions may be largely innocuous. I want to make clear to Administrator Leavitt that I remain committed to correcting this flaw and expect EPA to

revise its standards to target harmful particles.

The simple fact is that communities will be required to meet these standards and

it is important that they do so with the fewest lost jobs possible. And we need to

recognize that implementing these standards will cost jobs. Businesses in areas designated as nonattainment face higher costs simply to do business. As Mr. Fisher

noted in his written testimony, obtaining an air permit in a nonattaiment area is

so complex, businesses are advised to hire consultants. That may be business as

usual for a large company, but it’s a luxury many small businesses simply cannot

afford.

With restrictions on existing businesses and the extra burdens new manufacturers

would face, these new standards could be a significant factor in whether these areas

continue to grow. And could even result in jobs exported overseas.

It is for this reason that these standards be implemented in a rational way. It

is critical that areas be given flexibility to meet the standard and that the implementation be coordinated with the expected benefits from other regulatory measures. In that vein, it is critical the designations properly account for the areas of

the country that entered into early action compacts to meet their clean air requirements and thus ensure the implementation of the standards avoids yet again introducing uncertainty into the planning process and unnecessary costs.

I want to commend EPA in its proposal for trying to build in some flexibility into

the way the Act is implemented regarding general non-attainment requirements

versus more prescriptive measures.

I look forward to your testimony, Administrator Leavitt.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Jeffords.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This hearing is very important and timely. The implementation

of our Nation’s ambient air quality standards of NAAQS and the

Clean Air Act in general is a matter of life and death. Approximately 70,000 Americans die prematurely every year as a result of

air pollution according to researchers at Harvard University. The

main cause of these deaths is fine particulate matter, also known

as PM2.5. The bulk of this pollution comes from power plants, diesel

fuel combustion and elsewhere. Ozone is a serious lung irritant

that can trigger asthma or even cause it and has recently been

linked to birth defects.
12

If the country was achieving the 8-hour ozone standard, we could

prevent nearly 400,000 asthma attacks, 5,000 hospital admissions

and about 600,000 lost school days each year. Unfortunately, the

trend on ozone pollution has been going the wrong way for the last

few years according to EPA’s 2002 Trends report. Concentrations

will increase as population grows and the average temperature

rises, and 200 million Americans have an increased risk of cancer,

reproductive dysfunction, developmental problems and other health

effects do to air toxics exposure.

What has the Administration’s response been to these troubling

facts? To issue rules to guide the new source review, NSR Program,

so that large polluting sources could be exempt from applying modern pollution controls permanently. This exemption would condemn

thousands of people to earlier death every year in delayed attainment, to halt or slow down investigations in the enforcement of

NSR requirements, not to mention obstructing congressional oversight, to propose power plant reductions that are too little and too

late to help areas achieve attainment of the standards or to obtain

quick recovery of ecosystems sensitive to acid rain, to delay nonattainment designations, to delay revisions to the air quality standards that would be more health protective, and to propose to violate a settlement agreement and defer any mercury reductions for

at least 10 years longer than the law provides, unnecessarily exposing more than 600,000 women and children to health risks, further

to pretend that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are not having

an impact on the global climate system, to issue all sorts of environmental rules without an adequate consideration of the risk, benefits and costs associated with them. All of this adds up to more

disease, damage and death due to closed door policymaking, and coincidentally, more profits for polluters. This Administration has a

growing credibility gap, maybe even a credibility chasm on air pollution policy.

I am hopeful that Mr. Leavitt will have more luck than his predecessor in rebuilding trust with Congress and with the public but

I am doubtful because of the White House influence. How could the

Administrator build trust? To start, withdraw the mercury proposal

as I and 44 other Senators are requesting today. Stop the filibustering of the PM2.5 review. Work constructively with Congress to

get a four pollutant bill sooner rather than later. Add one new dangerous chemical to the list of hazardous air pollutant for the first

time. Give Congress and this committee access to the documents on

decisionmaking that we have requested. Do the analysis that the

EPA promised on a wide range of mercury standards. Request an

Inspector General investigation of industry memoranda in EPA’s

mercury rule. These things would be a start.

The Administration could also make sure that the ozone implementation rule does not add delay on top of the 7 years of delay

we have already had. That delay has caused the people health

train wreck because more stringent standards are needed now

based on current scientific findings. Even this scientific standard

review process has been delayed by those less interested in protecting public health.

I ask that a brief history of the delays in the review process and

some studies from 2003 be placed in the record.
13

Senator VOINOVICH. Is there objection?

[No response.]

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection.

HISTORY OF THE DELAYS—MILESTONES IN THE PARTICULATE MATTER AND OZONE

NAAQS REVIEWS

PARTICULATE MATTER (PM)

July 1997—Presidential memo directing completion of review within 5 years, by

2002

October 1997—FR Notice of Laying out Schedule for Review

February 1998—Draft PM CD Development Plan for CASAC Review

April 1998—FR Notice—Initial call for information

May 1998—CASAC meeting to review Development Plan

Summer 1998—NCEA began drafting chapters of CD

August 1998—Revised Schedule for Development of PM Workshop Draft Chapters

April 1999—Peer Review Workshop to discuss draft chapters of CD

May 1999—Request for recently published papers and manuscripts

October 1999—1st External Review Draft of CD

November 1999—OAQPS Development Plan for SP

December 1999—CASAC and public review of 1st Draft CD and Development

Plan

September 2000—Original target date for completion of CD

March 2001—2d External Review Draft of CD

April 2001—Five years from completion of 1996 CD

June 2001—Preliminary Draft SP and RA Scoping Plan

July 2001—CASAC and public review of Second Draft CD, SP, and RA Scoping

Plan

January 2002—Proposed Methodology for RA

February 2002—CASAC consultation on RA methodology

April 2002—3d External Review Draft of CD

May 2002—CASAC teleconference on RA methodology

July 2002—Five years from promulgation of 1997 NAAQS

July 2002—CASAC and public review of 3d Draft CD

November 2002—EPA workshop on statistical issues

December 2002—Health and environmental groups file 60-day notice

March 2003—Health and environmental groups file complaint in U.S. District

Court

April 2003—Preliminary Draft Methodology for coarse particle RA

May 2003—CASAC consultation on coarse particle RA

May 2003—HEI Report on Reanalyzed Time-Series Studies

June 2003—4th External Review Draft of CD

July 2003—Consent Decree with Schedule for Review Filed in U.S. District Court

August 2003—CASAC and public review of 4th draft CD

August 2003—Draft OAQPS SP and RA

October 2003—CASAC teleconference to review framework for new 4th draft

Chapter 9

November 2003—CASAC meeting to review 1st Draft SP

December 2003—First extension of Consent Decree filed in U.S. District Court

December 2003—5th Draft of CD Chapters 7 and 8

February 2004—CASAC teleconference to review 5th draft Chapters 7 and 8

February 2004—EPA initiates discussion of second extension to Consent Decree

OZONE

April 2001—Five years from completion of 1996 CD

July 2002—Five years from promulgation of 1997 NAAQS

November 2002—Draft Ozone CD Development Plan released for public comment

December 2002—Health and Environmental Groups file 60-day notice

February 2003—CASAC Teleconference to review CD Development Plan

March 2003—Health and Environmental Groups file Complaint in U.S. District

Court

July 2003—Consent Decree with Schedule for Review Filed in U.S. District Court

October 2003—Peer Review Workshop to review draft chapters 2,3,5,6 of the CD

Note: CD = Criteria Document, SP= Staff Paper, RA= Risk Analysis
14

Senator JEFFORDS. Unfortunately the current version of the draft

final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard is flawed, incomplete and late. The PM2.5 rule is late too. There are problems with

revoking the 1-hour ozone standard. The new classification scheme

should not be used to grant inappropriate extensions of attainment

deadlines, especially if that would be unfair to areas that have attained.

I know my expectations are high but when life is in the balance,

we can and must do better. I urge the Administration and the Administrator to bridge the chasm that currently looms and exists. By

doing some of the things I have suggested and working with us in

Congress, there might be a chance of rebuilding the trust and

credibility that we must have in your office. That would go a long

way to really make our air cleaner and our people healthier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF VERMONT

This hearing is very important and timely. The implementation of our nation’s

ambient air quality standards (or NAAQS), and the Clean Air Act in general, is a

matter of life and death. Approximately 70,000 Americans die prematurely every

year as a result of air pollution, according to researchers at Harvard University.

The main cause of these deaths is fine particulate matter, also known as PM-2.5. The bulk of this pollution comes from power plants, diesel fuel combustion and elsewhere.

Ozone is a serious lung irritant that can trigger asthma or even cause it, and has

recently been linked to birth defects. If the country was achieving the 8-hour ozone

standard, we could prevent nearly 400,000 asthma attacks, 5,000 hospital admissions and about 600,000 lost school days every year. Unfortunately, the trend on

ozone pollution has been going the wrong way for the last few years, according to

EPA’s 2002 Trends Report.

Concentrations will increase as population grows and the average temperature

rises. And, 200 million Americans have an increased risk of cancer, reproductive

dysfunction, developmental problems, and other health effects due to air toxics exposure.

What has this Administration’s response been to these and other troubling facts?

To issue rules to gut the New Source Review (NSR) program so that large polluting sources could be exempt from applying modern pollution controls permanently. This exemption would condemn thousands of people to an earlier death

every year and delays attainment.

To halt or slow-walk investigations and the enforcement of NSR requirements, not

to mention obstructing congressional oversight.

To propose power plant reductions that are too little and too late to help areas

achieve attainment of the standards, or obtain quick recovery of ecosystems sensitive to acid rain.

To delay non-attainment designations.

To delay revisions to the air quality standards that would be more health protective.

To propose to violate a settlement agreement and defer any mercury reductions

for at least 10 years longer than the law provides, unnecessarily exposing more than

600,000 women and children to health risks.

To pretend that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are not having an impact on

the global climate system.

To issue all sorts of environmental rules without an adequate consideration of the

risks, benefits and costs associated with them.

All of this adds up to more disease, damage and death, due to closed-door policymaking. And, coincidentally, more profits for polluters.

This Administration has a growing credibility gap, maybe even a credibility chasm

on air pollution policy. I am hopeful that Mr. Leavitt will have more luck than his

predecessor in rebuilding trust with Congress and with the public, but I am doubtful

because of White House influence.
15

How could the Administrator build trust? To start:

Withdraw the mercury proposal, as I and 44 other Senators are requesting today.

Stop the filibustering of the PM-2.5 review.

Work constructively with Congress to get a 4-pollutant bill, sooner rather than

later.

Add one new dangerous chemical to the list of hazardous air pollutants, for the

first time.

Give Congress and this Committee access to the documents on decisionmaking

that we have requested.

Do the analysis that EPA promised on a wide-range of mercury MACT standards.

Request an Inspector General investigation of industry memoranda in EPA’s mercury rule.

The Administration could also make sure that the ozone implementation rule does

not add delay on top of the 7 years of delay that we have already had. That delay

has caused a public health train wreck, because more stringent standards are needed now based on current scientific findings. Even this scientific standard review

process has been delayed by those less interested in protecting public health.

I ask that a brief history of the delays in the review process and a list of some

of relevant health studies from 2003 be placed in the record.

Unfortunately, the current version of the draft final rule to implement the 8-hour

ozone standard is flawed, incomplete and late. The PM-2.5 rule is late too. There are

problems with revoking the 1-hour ozone standard. The new classification scheme

should not be used to grant inappropriate extensions of attainment deadlines, especially if that would be unfair to areas that have attained.

I know that my expectations are high. But, when life is in the balance, we can

and must do better. I urge the Administration and the Administrator to bridge the

chasm that currently looms. By doing some of the things that I have suggested and

working with us in Congress, there might be a chance of rebuilding trust and credibility.

That would go a long way to really making our air cleaner and our people

healthier.

Thank you.

Senator INHOFE. Could I be recognized for a UC, a unanimous

consent request? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we

put in the record at this point a statement by Mr. Robert Stec, the

Chairman and CEO, of the Lexicon Home Brands. He has actually

put together a study on the number of manufacturing jobs that

have gone overseas. I think this should be in the record.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection.

[The referenced document referred to may be found on page 206.]

Senator VOINOVICH. Administrator Leavitt, thank you for being

here today. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, ADMINISTRATOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. LEAVITT. Mr. Chairman and Members, that chart is good

news. It is good news for all Americans. Today, my purpose is to

talk about our national strategy to take clean air to the next level.

I will be introducing a strategy that will provide for the most productive period of air quality improvement in our Nation’s history,

a strategy that is not simply taking our previous experience for

granted but is accelerating the velocity of our progress and will do

so in a way that will protect our economic competitiveness.

I will talk today about four parts of that strategy. The first will

be the Clean Air Ozone and Fine Particle Rule of 2004 which will

be issued on April 15. Through that rule we will designate as prescribed in the Clean Air Act, the areas of this country that have

not achieved attainment in meeting our new and more protective

standard. Those designations have come after long discussions with
16

State and local officials working to meet the unique needs of each

of the metropolitan areas involved.

The second will be to provide for a series of national tools that

will be available for the purpose of each State meeting its Clean

Air obligations. It is impossible for States to meet needs when

there is interstate transport of pollution that they don’t control.

The same can be said with mobile sources. Today we will talk some

about the Clean Air Interstate Rule of 2004 which will reduce the

major pollutants of NOx and SOx by some 70 percent over the

course of the next 15 years that will result in some $50 billion

being spent putting new equipment on old power plants that will

provide for the highest amount of pollution being reduced in the

least amount of time in our history.

We will also talk about the Clean Air Diesel Rule which will be

promulgated by the end of this month. It will remove forever that

black puff of diesel smoke that we have become accustomed to seeing from on-road vehicles and construction equipment. It will be

something the next generation will never know and will contribute

substantially to the length and quality of the lives of the people in

this country. That is the second phase, the series of national tools

that we are providing.

The third portion of the plan will be development of State implementation plans. Each State will come up with a plan that, when

the national tools have been applied, will take care of the remainder. They will have 3 years to do that.

Last, the success period when we go into attainment. By 2015,

I am happy to say that every Senator who sits at this table will

find their areas for the most part in attainment. Oklahoma will be

in attainment. Ohio, for example, will have gone from 30 counties

not in attainment to 0.

Delaware will have gone from 3 counties in non-attainment to 0.

Vermont has the good fortune of starting with none out of attainment but they will still be in attainment. Connecticut, you indicated most of the State will unfortunately be in non-attainment but

only 3 counties will remain by 2015. That is good news, the most

productive period of air quality improvement in our Nation’s history.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to interacting

with members of the committee. This process of going through designations of these ozone areas is not easy. Some parts of this as

prescribed by the Clean Air Act are strong medicine, but necessary.

It is a national prescription that Congress concluded we should

move forward on. It will protect the health of our citizens. Without

it, people will have shorter lives and not live as well, so this is an

important undertaking. I look forward to our discussion.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Administrator.

Senator Carper, you weren’t able to make your opening statement and I turned over your proxy to Senator Lieberman, but since

you have recaptured the ranking membership, would you like to

proceed with an opening statement?
17

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Senator CARPER. I think I would. I just want to say to our friend

and former colleague, Governor Leavitt, welcome. We are always

pleased to have you here.

I am going to ask unanimous consent that my statement be entered for the record. I will just make a quick comment if I can.

You mentioned Delaware has three counties, the northern county, New Castle County where about two-thirds of our people live,

Kent County in the central part of our State, the home of Dover

Air Force Base and our State Capital; and the southern part of our

State which is probably best known for our beaches, Bethany, Rehoboth and Dewey. We have a problem with non-attainment in a

couple of those counties, we have a problem with non-attainment

in our State.

I never liked it as Governor when I was faced with the threat

of loss of transportation money for clean air sins that frankly were

not entirely of our making. My fear is that given the rule you may

be anticipating implementing, to pass Clear Skies we will still end

up in 2015—Delaware is going to be in attainment, but a number

of the counties around us—we are a little State surrounded by New

Jersey to the east and Pennsylvania to the north and Maryland to

the west and we have a number of counties around us that will

still be in non-attainment in 2015. That is just not acceptable. I am

pleased we are going to be making progress but we want to see

more progress being made around us.

The longer we go in time the more we learn about the effects on

public health, our health, from the stuff we are putting into the air.

We will have a witness later today who is going to speak to that

more directly. I am just troubled that while we seem to be making

some progress, we are not making enough. In fact, we are not making it as quickly as I would like.

Having said that, welcome.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Carper.

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Governor Leavitt, good to see you again.

I am looking forward to this morning’s hearing. The clean air challenges my State

of Delaware faces today, and will face in the years ahead, require the assistance of

the Federal Government to solve. I am encouraged that the EPA is moving forward

on implementing measures to address clean air issues. I am interested to learn how

the EPA envisions states will achieve clean air and meet the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards.

I recognize that achieving clean air across the country is a difficult task, and I

do not pretend to understand all of the history of the Clean Air Act or the details

of its voluminous set of regulations. However, I have a good enough understanding

of the situation to see that Delaware’s air quality will continue to be worse than

what it should be for many years to come. And that is not acceptable to me, nor

should it be to the EPA.

Delaware has three counties: New Castle, where 75 percent of the population lives

and which is bisected by I–95. Kent, which houses the state capital, Dover, and the

Dover Air Force Base. And Sussex, home to the Delaware beach towns of Rehoboth,

Dewey, and Bethany and booming destination for retirees and second homes.

We expect that the entire State of Delaware will be designated as non-attainment

for Ozone, and New Castle County will also be in non-attainment for PM2.5. The

State will continue to take steps to reduce ozone and fine particulate matter, but
18

there is only so much a little State like Delaware can do by itself to come into attainment. An important question is what will the EPA do to help us if much of the

offending air comes from outside of the State?

We will hear from our witnesses today, including Mr. George Thurston, of the impacts ozone and fine particles have on humans. We are in agreement that more

needs to be done to protect public health from these harmful pollutants. And we are

likely also in agreement that 10 years from now, as the science and our understanding advance, we may find that we need to make even larger reductions.

But today, we should focus upon what states like Delaware are doing, and will

do to meet the standards that EPA has proposed.

I see three major issues before us.

First, the agency is moving from the current ozone standard to a new, supposedly

better standard that is designed to be more protective of public health. At some

point, the old ozone standard will probably need to be removed so that the newer

standard can take its place. I am interested in how the states will handle this transition, and if making the transition will delay progress toward cleaner air.

Second, I am interested to know if the Interstate Air Quality Rule—the plan the

EPA is developing to achieve cleaner air—will actually result in counties like New

Castle County Delaware being able to achieve the clean air standards? I believe that

the modeling for the Interstate Air Quality Rule predicts that in 2015, 26 eastern

U.S. counties will STILL fail to meet the new ozone standard. Further, 13 eastern

counties are predicted to fail to meet the particulate matter standard. A number of

these counties are in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland—not too far from

Delaware. So even if Delaware is able to meet the clean air standards, we will continue to be at the mercy of the winds blowing from outside the State that can carry

dirty air across our border.

And finally, I am interested to learn if the standards that are being established,

for both ozone and for particulate matter, are being set at the proper level. Our

knowledge of the science behind public health increases each year, and we are

learning more about the impacts of various pollutants on humans. I understand that

the EPA is currently reviewing the particulate matter standard and could suggest

an even tighter standard in the near future. If that is the case, we need to be confident that we are going to achieve at least the current standard, and possibly be

able to go even further if the standard is revised.

If proposals such as the EPA’s Interstate Air Quality Rule, or the Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative are insufficient to meet the clean air standards we are

discussing today, what would we do if even tighter standards are proposed. Today’s

hearing is not about multi-pollutant proposals, but we should come back later and

consider the merits of the clean air proposal I have introduced—The Clean Air Planning Act. I am interested in discussing how that bill, by reducing power plant emissions of SOx and NOx, could be an additional tool to help States achieve cleaner

air.

In closing, I am pleased that the EPA continues to work on ways to make the

air cleaner. I know we have come a long way, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate that we have a significant amount of work ahead of us. Lets get started.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to start with a real practical

point of view with my questioning. I have a letter from the Ohio

EPA sent to Region V about Knox County, OH. I ask that it be inserted in the record.

OHIO EPA,

Columbus, OH, March 29, 2004.

Mr. THOMAS V. SKINNER, Regional Administrator,

U.S. EPA, Region V,

77 West Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL.

Re: Knox County 8-hour Ozone Recommendation

Dear MR. SKINNER: I am writing to revise the recommendation for the nonattainment designation of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Columbus Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Knox County was included as part of the Columbus MSA due to

a monitored violation at the Centerburg monitor. This monitor is located in the extreme southwestern corner of the county in Hilliar Township. See enclosed map.

Hilliar Township is located adjacent to the recommended nonattainment counties of

Delaware and Licking. We do not believe that the ozone data from this monitor are
19

representative of the entire county but are, instead, an indication of the outer

reaches of the impact of the Columbus MSA.

Knox County is a rural, agricultural county with a total population of 55,000.

There are only two Title V facilities in the entire county, neither of which emit over

one ton of either volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or nitrogen oxides (NOx). Based

on the geographic location of the monitor and the lack of any significant sources of

emissions in the county, it is apparent that any control strategy that will bring the

Centerburg monitor into attainment must be directed to sources outside of Knox

County.

We, therefore, are amending our July 15, 2003 recommendation to only include

Hilliar Township as the portion of Knox County that should be included in the nonattainment designation of the 8-hour ozone standard.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions concerning this request, please feel free to contact me at 614–644–2782.

Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER JONES,

Director.

Senator VOINOVICH. You don’t have to go into the specifics but

I am interested in the process of making non-attainment designations because it involves the Federal, State and local levels of government. I just get letters and letters, am I in or am I out, and

many of them don’t want to be in and there is a lot of debate going

on in the States because there are a lot of counties that feel if they

are in, it is going to have a negative impact on their economic development plans. I just wonder what are you doing to reconcile

this. I know you have pressure on you from environmental groups

who say they should be in, so how is this being handled?

Mr. LEAVITT. I would like to describe the full process to you and

your colleagues. The Clean Air Act and subsequent consent decrees

require the Administrator of the EPA to designate all parts of the

United States as to their attainment or their non-attainment. In

my role, I will be required to essentially create metropolitan areas

that are consistent and we can say they are in non-attainment, so

I will by rule, on April 15, meet that deadline and designate some

500-plus counties that are not in attainment.

The law requires that those who are not in attainment are so because they have not met the standard or they contribute to those

areas that do not meet the standard. We have used a collaborative

process with the States to determine an 11 part test that could be

applied to each of the areas. The States were then asked to make

suggestions or to make recommendations as to the counties or to

the groupings of counties that should be considered in non-attainment. They made their recommendations. The EPA then had a period to analyze the recommendations and to either add or take

away from their suggestions and we are now in the process of discussing between State and local government what those actual designations will be. That is the rule that will be finalized on April

15.

It has been a matter of a great deal of discussion. Some of the

areas are very clear cut, some of them are not. We are working

hard.

Senator VOINOVICH. Is the EPA going to make the final determination?

Mr. LEAVITT. The decision will be made on April 15.

Senator VOINOVICH. The EPA is going to reconcile if there is a

difference in the State, you are going to come in and say, ‘‘We are

the referee and we are going to call this one?’’
20

Mr. LEAVITT. That is the obligation given the Administrator

under the law.

Senator VOINOVICH. Look in the television and replay the play

and then say this is the way it is going to be?

Mr. LEAVITT. That is the obligation I have, and I will meet that

obligation.

Senator VOINOVICH. You stated in your testimony that you prefer

that Congress pass the President’s Clear Skies Act. You have

issued some new regulations to try and compensate for the fact

that we have not done anything in the area of Clear Skies. Why

is it that you prefer Clear Skies to the present situation? You put

that chart up here, the complex situation that my State is confronted with today and our local communities.

Mr. LEAVITT. Senator, may I suggest that one of the great pieces

of environmental legislation that has passed in this country is the

Clean Air Act. However, it is not without complexity and nearly all

of those things you see on there are a reflection of the four corners

of the Clean Air Act. It is complex but we are having success.

Senator VOINOVICH. The question is, in terms of preference, in

terms of implementing the ozone and particulate rules, why is it

that we’d be better off with Clear Skies than with this chart here

with all these ‘if’, ‘and’, ‘whereas’ and ‘but fors’?

Mr. LEAVITT. I became Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on November 6. Among my first duties was to send

to 31 Governors a letter indicating that large portions of their

States, or in the case of Connecticut, the entire State, would be

found in non-attainment. Having just completed 11 years as Governor, I knew full well what those letters meant. I knew it would

have economic consequences, I knew it would have health consequences and that the Governors would be deeply concerned and

would need to have tools.

I also knew that there were many of my former colleagues who

felt as if they were to take all the cars off the highways, cleanup

the power plants in their areas, and close some factories, they still

wouldn’t be in compliance because of the problem of transport from

one area to another and because of the capacity of mobile sources

to move around, and that it was fundamentally unfair for me to

send those letters saying you are going to be found in non-attainment without providing the tools that would have been provided

under the Clear Skies legislation.

Therefore, I made the decision to move forward with what will

be know as the Clean Air Rules of 2004, one of them being the

Interstate Transport Rule. That is the rule that will reduce NOx

and SOx by 70 percent and will require all power plants nationwide to invest in essence $50 billion to put new equipment on old

power plants.

To answer your question directly, the reason we needed these

regulations is because the legislation hadn’t passed and in order

get into attainment, in order to make that clean map become a reality, these rules have to be in place or some tool for Governors and

local communities to respond in the areas of interstate transport

and mobile sources.

Senator VOINOVICH. The only thing I would say is from what I

understand from the National Governors Association and from
21

State and local governments, they would prefer to have this in the

law as prescribed in Clear Skies rather than buy rules because

rules are subject to lots of controversy.

Mr. LEAVITT. Senator, could I echo that point? It is clear that the

preferred way of resolving this would be with legislation. We support it, we want to move it forward and hope that can occur. There

is I would say a 100 percent probability that these rules will be

challenged in litigation by someone on perhaps many sides of the

issue and it will take us time to work through that. Regrettably

that has become a ritual of environmental action, but the States

and local communities have to have these tools or they simply can’t

work their way through these non-attainment designations.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Jeffords.

Senator JEFFORDS. Is what you are saying is that the present

rules are too strict?

Mr. LEAVITT. No. I am saying we need tools in order to resolve

them. A good example is that many of the States in Senator

Lieberman’s neighborhood could take all the cars off their roads,

they could close their factories and cleanup their power plants and

still not be in attainment under this new, more protective standard

that we support. They need to have a national approach on power

plants and a national approach on mobile emissions. We will be

proposing national tools that will, by their implementation, allow

nearly every metropolitan area in this country to come into compliance and attainment and meet the standards I know you so much

want to have met.

Senator JEFFORDS. Isn’t it correct that the existing laws are

stricter than Clear Skies?

Mr. LEAVITT. That would not be a true statement, in my judgment, Senator. We are moving from a 1-hour ozone standard to an

8-hour averaging measure. We are going in particulate matter

down to particles 2.5 microns and smallaer. Those are higher

standards of health, they are more rigid and stringent standards

and are more protective standards, and we support them.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Lieberman.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Administrator Leavitt, let me go to the comment I made in my

opening statement about the NOx and SOx rule you propose which

as I said I think represents a step forward but I am concerned

about the two stages, the phasing in, and you have justified those

two stages by stating there is not a sufficient labor force to install

the pollution control equipment by 2010. However, as I indicated,

an October 2002 report which is printed in the docket on that matter, it seems to say just the opposite, which is that there is sufficient work force, certainly at least as of that time.

I wanted to ask you, if it is established that the work force is

there to make the tighter reductions by 2010, will you change the

proposed rule to eliminate or at least significantly alter the dates

of the phasing in?

Mr. LEAVITT. Senator, our industry survey that was done prior

to the proposed rule being made, indicated that the Boilermakers

Union did have significant recruitment and training problems

through 2010. We are soliciting comment currently on this rule and
22

we will be making a reassessment based on the information we receive before we complete the rulemaking.

I will say that we are proposing a rule that will be the single

largest investment in air quality improvement in this Nation’s history. Over the course when it is fully implemented, $50 billion will

have been invested by the American people and it will result in

more pollution being reduced in a faster time than in any period

in our history, and we will be using the same strategy that was so

successful with our acid rain success in the mid-1990’s. What we

find is that those power plants that have the most to reduce will

do so the fastest and will do the most because of the market pressures. It is part of what I like to refer to at the EPA as the better

way. We have picked the low hanging fruit in many cases, this is

about getting to the more difficult reach and that is what this rule

will imply.

Senator LIEBERMAN. As I said, I appreciate the positive change

the rule will bring. I take it that what you have just said is that

if there is further indication that the work force is capable of implementing the rule or rapidly that you would reassess and consider altering the phases?

Mr. LEAVITT. We are using a cap and trade strategy that provides incentives for people to accelerate. We will propose a glide

pattern that will get us to the 70 percent reduction. The market

will drive it just as it did with acid rain.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Incidentally, there is a good point made

here which is that environmental protection is a job creator. It is

an interesting comment that the judgment is that there may not

be enough people in the particular field of endeavor to implement

the rule as quickly as you or I might otherwise like to implement

it. Maybe anybody thinking about what to do ought to think about

going into this field. It sounds like it is going to be a profitable field

for a period of years as a result of the rule you are contemplating.

Let me go to the other area I mentioned which is the national

parks. It is my understanding that several of our national parks

will have to be classified as non-attainment areas under the new

8-hour ozone regulations. That concerns me greatly as it does a lot

of Americans, both because of the beauty of our natural resources

and national parks but also because millions of Americans visit

those parks every year and ozone is, as Senator Jeffords’ statistics

indicated, a significant health risk. So I think it is in all of our interest to work to bring the national parks, particularly into compliance.

I understand you will be releasing the EPA’s proposed BART

rules for haze reduction a little bit later this month. I wanted to

ask you how many of our national parks do you believe will fail to

meet the safety requirements of the 8-hour ozone standard?

Mr. LEAVITT. I will have to answer on the record with respect to

the specific number. I don’t know the answer to that sitting at this

table. I will indicate to you that we are committed to improving visibility in our national parks. A very significant experience in my

life was co-chairing the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, which I believe was among the pivotal points in our national strategy. It ultimately resulted in the Western Regional Air

Partnership, which is not just changing the way the West solves
23

environmental problems but providing new collaborative tools

across the country as an example.

We do plan to propose the best available retrofit technology provisions later this month. It is in response to a court remand. We

intend to issue a rule that will contribute to visibility improvement

and do it in a significant way.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Will the new BART rules bring our national

parks into attainment within the 8-hour ozone standard?

Mr. LEAVITT. In time.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Details to follow?

Mr. LEAVITT. Details to follow.

Senator LIEBERMAN. There is some concern that you are considering putting the Bart rules into repose until 2018 on the theory

that the Interstate Air Quality Rule will be good enough. Can you

reassure us that is not your intention?

Mr. LEAVITT. Consulting with my colleague, we are currently engaged in a broad discussion and what we do will, in fact, meet the

provisions of the law. I am not in a position at this point because

we are in the rulemaking process. As we get further along I would

be happy to give you a direct individual report.

Senator LIEBERMAN. I understand. I would close with an appeal

that to put the BART rules in a repose on the theory that the

Interstate Air Quality Rule is good enough, is in my opinion not

the way to go and it doesn’t make sense. The IAQR rules control

different pollutants for different purposes and move to different

standards and are not a substitute for the BART rule. I hope that

after all these yeas and all the court battles and now the staff time

to finalize the proposed BART rules by April that you will not take

action that will not effectively delay them and the cleanup of air

quality at our national parks for another 14 years.

I look forward to your statements on this in the next couple of

weeks.

Mr. LEAVITT. Thank you. We will get back for the record on the

matters I was not able to respond to.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Carper.

Senator CARPER. When I leave here today, I just want to have

a better understanding of where we are in the process, first of all

with the ozone standard, and second, with the particulate standard. Explain to me again where are we in the process with respect

to an ozone standard and are we looking at tightening it further?

Mr. LEAVITT. In 1997, it was the opinion of the Environmental

Protection Agency that the standard should be changed from a 1-

hour standard, that is to say average over 1 hour on particular

days to an 8-hour standard, which is considered a more protective

standard.

Since 1997, we have been in the process of doing analysis and

study. Most recently, our purpose has been to take the first step,

which is to designate the areas that are in attainment and nonattainment with this new and higher protective standard.

On April 15, as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, I will issue a rule that will designate each part of the

country as being either in attainment or out of attainment. That

will happen on time and as expected. At the same time, we will
24

designate the classification of non-attainment among those who are

not in attainment.

Senator CARPER. Say that again.

Mr. LEAVITT. At that time, we will also designate among those

that have been indicated as in nonattainment, essentially the degree of nonattainment that they have achieved. There are six different classifications of nonattainment. There is marginal which is

just above attainment status, there is moderate, then there is serious, then severe, there are actually two areas of severe, and then

extreme. The further away from attainment a community is, the

longer it has to provide a plan and to come into attainment, but

the more aggressive it must be in being able to seek attainment.

There are provisions of the law that will follow each of those classifications. They will have 3 years to create a plan. The EPA will

then have 1 year in which to actually approve their plan and then

implementation will need to follow.

Senator CARPER. During the 3 years States are working on their

plan, I presume there is back and forth with EPA so that when you

get to April 2007, there has been a fair amount of discourse and

when their clock runs for the other hour, does EPA need that full

year to determine whether or not the plan is going to cut the mustard?

Mr. LEAVITT. It should be the objective of every community to

reach attainment and there are more than ample incentives for

them to do so. While they are developing their plan, it is our hope

and our optimism that many of them will begin immediately to implement those steps necessary to move them toward attainment.

There are already communities who anticipate their non-attainment status, who have begun to implement the provisions necessary to get there. This is about clean air, it is about healthy air,

is about getting results, not simply following a process.

Senator CARPER. Other than our stewardship and our concern

about the health of our constituents, what incentives do different

counties have to move toward attainment?

Mr. LEAVITT. The status of nonattainment is not a happy outcome for anyone. Senator Voinovich indicated that there are many

local government officials, some of whom you will hear from later

today, who are gravely concerned about the impact it could have

on their communities and are working with great devotion to cure

or to heal that ailment.

One of the reasons we make these designations is to communicate to the citizens of those areas that the air they are breathing

is currently not as healthy as our national standard or the protective standard that we have established as a Nation. So there is a

communication aspect and it also clearly brings attention that

causes public officials to move forward. So the incentives are clearly there. There are economic incentives because there are circumstances where it becomes more difficult for a business to site

their facility there because they ultimately will have to find some

way to reduce otherwise. So there are incentives here. Our purpose

is to achieve clean air, not simply walk through a process.

Senator CARPER. I mentioned earlier we have three counties in

my State and New Castle County is the northern-most county

where about two-thirds of our people live. New Castle County,
25

Delaware is going to be designated as a non-attainment area under

the 8-hour ozone standard. According to EPA’s analyses, New Castle County is projected to still be out of attainment in the year

2010. Interstate 95 runs right through it, 295 and 495 run literally

right through it as well. We are expected to still be out of attainment in 2010 even with the implementation of the proposed interstate air quality rule.

I don’t expect you to be able to answer this but I want to ask

you on the record. As you know, Senators Gregg, Alexander, Chafee

and I have introduced legislation called the Clean Air Planning

Act. My question is when would New Castle County come into attainment if our legislation, the Clean Air Planning Act, were enacted? I don’t expect you sitting here today to be able to answer

that. For us, that is an important question as we consider whether

to enact Clear Skies, the Clean Air Planning Act which I have introduced, Senator Jeffords has his own proposal with a fair amount

of support. My question is, for New Castle County, when could we

expect to be in attainment if the Clean Air Planning Act were enacted?

Mr. LEAVITT. Mr. Chairman, do I have time to respond? I don’t

want to get off schedule. I saw a red light.

Senator VOINOVICH. I think what Senator Carper wants to do is

if you can’t answer that question today, he wants it on the record

and he would like a response.

Mr. LEAVITT. May I parenthetically insert this? The structure of

this national strategy frankly is very solid. We are saying here are

the areas that are in nonattainment, some of which are in your

State and some of which are in many other States. Here we are

saying to the State and local communities are some tools that deal

with problems that you can’t deal with on your own, the interstate

air quality issue where you have air pollution drifting from one region to another or the mobile source where it can come from anywhere and we don’t want to control who comes in and out of a particular State. We are providing those tools and they are very powerful tools, powerful enough that, when combined with existing control programs, they will bring nearly every metropolitan community in the country on their own into attainment.

There are areas where they won’t be powerful enough on their

own and it is going to be incumbent on those local communities to

develop in a collaborative way a neighborhood strategy to solve

that problem. We have national standards, but we have to have

neighborhood strategies. I hear what you are saying about wanting

to have your idea modeled and we will do our best to do that, but

I wanted to make clear that the fact that there are still some areas

that may not be in attainment under this national strategy only

implies that there are some areas who have a long ways to go, further than most areas. We need to help them, and we are, because

without these national tools, they couldn’t even get close. In most

cases, they are getting very close just with the national tools we

are providing.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Clinton.
26

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much, Administrator Leavitt, for being here once

again. I so appreciate the cooperative relationship that we have developed and look forward to working with you.

I was told there was a chart before I arrived which showed that

the gross domestic product has climbed as emissions have declined.

I think that proves the point that economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand, to choose one over the other is

a false choice, but I am concerned that in the testimony today and

in some previous Administration testimony the fact we have made

progress at a period of time both economically and environmentally, is being used to argue that we can change direction now.

I worry about that.

I have a specific question because in the work that I have been

doing on environmental health, and I know Senator Jeffords made

reference to this and we are going to have an excellent witness, Dr.

Thurston, on the next panel to talk about the results of very important research. We know that the public health costs of not providing more clean air requirements are going to be severe.

Along with that, I understand you are on the verge through EPA

of providing guidance to the States as part of a permitting process

that would actually limit the options States can consider when applying best available control technology to new coal-fired power

plants. As I understand the guidance, it would prevent States from

considering fluidized bed combustion or even integrated gasification

of coal, both of which are substantially cleaner and more efficient

than conventional pulverized coal.

Why would the agency limit the States’ options since what we

are trying to do, as you just eloquently said, was to have neighborhood so-called State responses, why would you limit the States’ options and curb the development of these and other important new

technologies?

Mr. LEAVITT. I am going to confer because I don’t know of any

decision on any guidance at this point. Senator, we have made no

decision on that point. Our basic philosophy at the agency is national standards, neighborhood solutions. That is to say we need to

optimize the number of tools available to people to meet our high

protective standards.

May I echo what has been said about the link between economic

prosperity and environmental progress. Without economic prosperity, there is nothing that fosters pollution like poverty. We see

very clearly at the Environmental Protection Agency that link and

it is for that reason that our purpose in this national strategy is

to accelerate the velocity of our progress but to protect our national

competitiveness as we do it.

Senator CLINTON. I am delighted to hear that no guidance has

been formulated and I would strongly urge that we do everything

possible to incentivize new technologies because in your testimony,

you state,

‘‘Our past experience under the Clean Air Act suggests that development of

cleaner technologies which is continuing on many fronts, will help even the
27

areas with the most difficult pollution problems make progress at a reasonable

cost in new ways we cannot identify today.’’

I could not agree more. I am one of those who think that we

could have a jobs explosion in this country with clean energy, with

smart technology, with pollution control devices and anything that

the EPA can do to try to incentivize that, I think would have tremendously positive effects.

I know that when we tighten environmental and public health

standards, we drive the private sector to innovate and we have had

some very positive results from that. The cost of pollution control

then comes down in ways that we couldn’t have foreseen when the

standards were set, and that leads me to a followup question.

Why do you think this experience applies to the control of ozone

and particulate matter emissions but not to mercury emissions?

Why are you backing a mercury rule that will not result in mercury specific emission controls on power plants until 2018 because

if you follow the thinking that I agree with completely in your testimony about what we can do to force the private sector to innovate, I would argue strongly that just squarely impacts on what we

could make happen with respect to mercury control as well.

Mr. LEAVITT. Senator, the discussion on mercury has occupied a

great deal of my attention. It is something I feel deeply about on

a personal basis. There have been a number of what I will term,

for the purpose of description, fictions that have crept into this discussion and I think it would be valuable for me to clarify them.

One fiction is that the EPA does not view mercury as a toxin.

The fact is mercury is a toxin and it needs to be reduced. Another

fiction is that somehow the agency is seeking to roll back standards. The fact is there has never been a standard; this will be the

first time that we will have regulated mercury from power plants

in our Nation’s history and we want to do it right.

The third fiction is that someone previously had indicated we

could do it by as much as 90 percent. Senator, I have searched the

records of the agency and I can find no place where a person representing the agency indicated that was possible and if they did,

they were misinformed.

The next fiction is that it is possible between now and 2007 to

get a 90 percent reduction on mercury from power plants. I have

spent an enormous amount of time with the engineers and the scientists who not only understand this but who invented it, and it

has become very clear to me that as optimistic as I am about the

mercury-specific technology, particularly activated carbon injection,

which I think is clearly the way we will get to large scale reductions, that it will not be adequately tested, nor widely deployable,

until 2010. That is as close to a fact as I can provide you.

Another fiction is that we are somehow putting off the reductions

until 2018. The fact is we are considering two mercury rules right

now: first, that would be a MACT rule, which would have to be

complied with by 2007, and the second, and what we think is more

aggressive and in our opinion, a better way, which would allow us

to reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent using a cap and trade

system. We believe the second approach gets more reductions and

happens faster, but we are receiving comment on both and trying

to learn about both.
28

In both cases, there are short-term objectives that have to be met

on mercury, and we have no interest or intention of putting off our

action on this until 2018.

Senator CLINTON. I thank you very much for that answer, Administrator Leavitt. I look forward to further engagement with you

on this issue because I appreciate the fact that it is a toxin, I worry

about the cap and trade system creating hot spots that will have

very damaging effects on the people who are directly impacted by

those particular emission sources. So I look forward to having an

ongoing discussion about this. I would hope though that we would

keep in mind the fact that we have been quite successful in not

only reducing emissions but creating technologies that have had

spinoffs and very positive economic effects.

I would conclude by saying that if you look around the world

right now, the Japanese, the European Union, they intend to corner the market on clean technology and pollution control devices.

They are going to have a tremendous economic comparative advantage over us in this technology. I think that is unfortunate and it

is being driven by government policy, not just by the market, because with any new venture oftentimes you need some support for

investment and the like, so I think we are missing the boat by not

being really aggressive in creating incentives and regulations that

will both lower pollution and also trigger the development of technology.

Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Clinton.

[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be here today, and am pleased to welcome George Thurston of

NYU back to the committee.

The air pollution issues that we are here to discuss today—ozone and particulate

matter—are critical public health issues.

Ozone pollution causes a range of respiratory problems—from difficulty breathing,

to aggravation of asthma, to lung damage. Ozone pollution is also linked to premature death.

Similarly, particulate matter pollution is linked to aggravation of heart and lung

diseases and to premature death. I believe that Senator Jeffords has already stated

that Harvard research indicates that as many as 70,000 Americans die prematurely

each year as a result of air pollution. That is a staggering figure, and shows that

we have a lot of work to do.

There was considerable controversy when the ozone and particulate matter standards that we are finally implementing were set in 1997.

Since that time, the scientific evidence has grown stronger, and suggests that

even though we are just beginning to implement the 1997 standards, they may not

be adequately protective of public health.

I want to briefly mention a couple of those studies, and I know that Dr. Thurston

will expand on this point in his testimony.

The first is a Yale University study by Janneane Gent, which was published last

October in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study looked at

271 children under the age of 12 with active asthma in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and measured their response to two air pollutants, ozone and very small particulate matter.

The key funding from this study is that a 1-hour exposure to air containing 50

parts per billion of ozone caused a significant increase in wheezing and chest tightness in those children, and increased their use of symptom-relieving drugs. In other

words, ozone exacerbates asthma in children at concentrations below the current 1-
29

hour level of 120 parts per billion and the new 8-hour exposure standard is 80 parts

per billion.

The second study I want to cite is one that Dr. Thurston was principal investigator on. This study, published in 2002 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that long-term exposure to particulate matter is associated with an

increased risk of death from cardio-pulmonary disease and lung cancer. The increased lung-cancer risk in polluted U.S. cities was found to be comparable to the

risk to a non-smoker from living with a smoker.

Given these studies and the mounting evidence which suggest that ozone and PM

pollution are harming our children and those who live in polluted areas, I think we

need to move to quickly implement the new particulate matter and ozone standards.

We also need to look at revising the standards, as the Clean Air Act requires. I understand that EPA has been dragging its feet on revising the PM2.5.

They are certainly important issues in my State of New York.

The New York City metropolitan area is a non-attainment area under the 1-hour

ozone standard. It will be a non-attainment area under the 8-hour standard as well,

and it appears that most urban upstate areas will be as well.

Implementing these new standards will be complex, and I think there are a number of outstanding questions that I hope we will have time to get into today and

in subsequent hearing.

Finally, I want to note that I am one of the 44 Senators who is today calling on

Governor Leavitt to withdraw the proposed mercury rule and put out a new, more

protective standard.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to say that I believe the new

rules you are going to promulgate are ambitious in terms of cleaning up the environment and its impact on public health. Would you

say that, yes or no?

Mr. LEAVITT. Yes, absolutely.

Senator VOINOVICH. And Clear Skies, the legislation I have introduced on behalf of the President and Senator Inhofe is ambitious

in terms of reducing emissions and also the impact of emissions on

public health?

Mr. LEAVITT. It would be the most aggressive this Nation has

ever had.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to say this gross domestic product, picking up on what Senator Clinton had to say, is very, very

robust but the world has changed in the last 4 or 5 years. Competition from China and from other countries around the world have

impacted us. The litigation tornado that is cutting through the

economy of the United States of America is having a negative impact on our jobs in this country, particularly in my State. Health

care costs are soaring and making our businesses a lot less competitive than they were before. We had a hearing last week on natural gas. We are having people move out of this country because

of the fact that we have limited the supply of natural gas and exacerbated the demand for it, and it is devastating my State.

I would like to say I think the economy has changed in America

today and I would love to have that kind of growth but we are not

by ourselves anymore, we are competing now in a global marketplace.

On the mercury issue, President Clinton and the EPA Administrator, and I don’t want to get partisan here but I would like to

get the record clear, did nothing on the mercury issue for 8 years.

Two days after the Supreme Court ruling on the election, they

issued a regulation that said mercury should be regulated and left

office. Eight years and the day after the election, said mercury

shall be regulated. If it was such a big problem, why didn’t we deal

with it 2 years before or 3 years before or 4 years before?
30

President Bush came into office and he didn’t shy away from the

issue. He developed the first ever proposal to reduce mercury emissions that is being picked at by a lot of people in this country.

Mr. Administrator, you and I have talked. My main concern

about the mercury rule is that it could disproportionately affect one

region of the country over another and further exacerbate the natural gas crisis by causing us to fuel switch. That gets into the issue

of lignite coal and bituminous and sub-bituminous coal. I went

through this when I was Governor in terms of the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act where they set up the rules so that it

would advantage one area of the country over another.

I would like you to talk about those mercury rules and what are

we doing about this problem?

Mr. LEAVITT. It is not our intention to, nor will we be issuing regulations that will, affect the coal distribution or the sale and purchase of coal on a regional basis. Also, one of the criteria for me

is that we do this in a way that will allow us to protect our economic competitiveness. I think that graph shows that without economic vibrance, environmental progress does not occur. We have to

accelerate the velocity of environmental progress, but it has to be

done in a way that protects our economic competitiveness.

The keys to that are new technology, collaborative work focusing

on the result and the use of markets. One of the criteria is we have

to assure that when we move into regulating mercury, that we do

it in a way that does not require fuel switching because ultimately

that would not work to our advantage as a country.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to emphasize one other thing

and that is in your testimony you talked about tremendous

progress is possible because we are putting forward a number of air

quality improvements that are about to become effective and will

soon be adopted. The proposed interstate air quality rule you

talked about should be even more dramatic—cuts in power plant

pollution—you did a lot more with legislation, I think, the NOx CIP

call which states you are implementing to reduce power plant emissions, is underway right now. Our power plants are dealing with

reducing NOx standards for new cars and light duty trucks and the

fuels that they use, and that is one of the questions I think you

are going to have to answer, how effective is emission testing? We

have a big debate in our State again, are we going to continue

emissions testing, how good is it? We have not automobiles out

today that are so much cleaner than before and if we don’t have

emissions testing, what other things should we have to do in order

to meet the standards.

The standards for heavy duty, on-road diesel engines and the

fuels they use, that is coming on board right now. You are also

starting this new program in terms of buses which is another issue

and we really need to move on that.

Construction agriculture, mining, airport and the fields they use,

use voluntary diesel retrofit and link programs to reduce emissions

from the existing fleet.

So you are moving forward with some pretty significant things

and a lot of these things, in all fairness, started out before you

came on board. There is some significanct stuff going on out there

and I think it is really important that we make it clear. What we
31

are trying to do is cleanup the air, reduce its impact on public

health and at the same time, have an economy that provides jobs

so that they can take care of themselves and family and we have

vibrant communities. That is what we are trying to do here.

Senator Jeffords.

Senator JEFFORDS. I have two additional questions I would like

to ask.

Clear Skies or this proposed interstate air quality rule won’t

really start getting serious reductions for a decade or more from

now or perhaps 2015 at the best. Most PM2.5 and most ozone attainment areas will need those emissions reductions to take place

by 2010 or sooner to achieve attainment by the deadlines. The

Ozone Transport Commission has proposed much lower SOx and

NOx caps and earlier deadlines that would help the region to attain on time.

If the goal of the Administration’s proposals is to provide maximum reductions from the most cost-effective sources, that is power

plants, to help States and areas reach attainment, then why are

the deadlines so late and the reductions so minimal? I know this

isn’t a labor shortage issue because there will be plenty of boilermakers available after 2007 or even earlier, assuming EPA keeps

the NOx SIP call on track.

Mr. LEAVITT. Senator, I have very good news for you. The vast

majority, a very high percentage of the benefit of the interstate air

quality rule happens in the early years, a very high percentage of

it coming before 2010. On the ozone and fine particle rules, a very

high percentage of our communities will have come into complete

attainment prior to 2010. So we have front-loaded these. There is

serious progress that is going to occur and it will happen soon.

There will be more pollution taken out of the air faster than at

any time in our Nation’s history. We have a national strategy that

increases the velocity of our environmental progress and does it in

a way that will protect our economic competitiveness. This is a

solid national strategy. It is not one I don’t take credit, this is

something we have worked on as a country. The progress we are

continuing over the past 30 years is historic. There has been a new

environmental maturity that has come across this country that we

will now build on because we have picked the low-hanging fruit. It

is going to require that we use technology and collaboration and

neighborhood strategies, that we focus on results, not just processing through these programs, and that we are using markets

that will incentivize people to do more.

There is a great link between the incentives created by a cap and

trade system and the development of technology. I agree with Senator Clinton, this is a huge opportunity for us economically and the

world, and the best way for us to create incentives is to give people

a reward when they achieve a technology that gets results that can

be exported to the world. On many of these pollutants, we benefit

when others in the world deploy the technology. Mercury is a great

example. We produce a very small percentage of the mercury in the

world. We need to be an example, a leader, and aggressive in doing

it, but if we have technology, if we have ACI technology that is

fully implemented, let us get it to the world. It puts Americans to

work; it will cleanup the air: it will cleanup our waters. Women
32

who buy tuna fish for their children, will have the safety of knowing that not only are we doing it in America but American technology is being exported to other countries where the vast majority

of it is produced.

Senator JEFFORDS. I appreciate that enthusiastic answer. Under

the Clear Skies light cap and trade scenario, EPA predicts that approximately 200 power plants will not have applied advanced pollution controls for NOx, SOx or mercury by the year 2020, largely because of emissions banking and trading. Yet MACT requires that

each and every unit at every power plant reduce emissions. How

could your cap and trade proposal for the mercury possibly be more

protective of public health than MACT at every unit?

Mr. LEAVITT. This is actually a matter we are taking comment

on right now and trying to learn about. The concern you are expressing is whether there is a localized effect on mercury from a

power plant. We want to learn about that. A lot of that concern

was expressed in the acid rain debate. It didn’t turn out to be the

same kind of problem, but if there are health effects, we need to

study them, we need to understand and learn about this. That is

part of what we are receiving comment on right now from tens of

thousands of Americans at public hearings across the country because we want to be responsive to that.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Carper.

Senator CARPER. A month or two ago, I mentioned to you in a

conversation we had that near the end of the Clinton administration an energy efficiency standard was adopted for air conditioners

called SEER 13. I think it was adopted in the year 2000. It called

for air conditioners to become 30 percent more efficient in their use

of energy by the year 2006. I want to say maybe the second year

of the Bush administration, maybe 2002, a less rigorous standard

was adopted called SEER 12. The SEER 12 standard calls for 20

percent more energy efficient air conditioners by 2006. It ended in

a court battle, as I think I have mentioned to you, in the Second

District Federal Court. The court ruled a month or two ago that

the more rigorous standard, SEER 13, should stand.

A number of us here in the Senate signed a letter to the President last month urging the Administration not to appeal the Second District Court decision. We have consulted with some of the air

conditioning manufacturers in this country and late last month,

their trade association went on record as saying they felt they

could live with the more rigorous SEER 13 standard by 2006. A

majority of us have called on the Administration, Democrats and

Republicans in the Senate, simply to say we are not going to appeal

the Second District Court decision, let us get on with adhering to

the more rigorous efficiency standard.

I am told if the more rigorous standard stands, that come 2020,

we will have to build 48 fewer new electric power plants. Most of

them are going to be built with natural gas but by having the more

rigorous conservation standard in place, we will reduce our need by

as many as 48 fewer power plants. In addition, I am told by 2020,

CO2 emissions will be reduced biannually by 2020 2.5 million tons,

simply by putting in place this more rigorous standard.
33

In our conversation earlier I urged you in your position to work

within the Administration to try to convince your colleagues and

the President not to appeal the decision. I have no idea if you can

give us an update today on where the Administration is taking that

but if you could, I would welcome it.

Mr. LEAVITT. As I think you are probably aware this is a rulemaking that is being conducted at the Department of Energy.

Therefore, it is one of the few controversies the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t seem to be in the middle of right now.

May I add that during the time I was Governor, we lived through

a couple of western energy crises where the primary focus of our

attention became energy conservation. We began to run campaigns

publicly asking people to use more energy efficient devices and to

reduce their energy usage. We accomplished it in one particular

summer by as much as 20 percent, a huge impact economically, a

huge impact environmentally.

I am not able to comment on the specific standard, I don’t have

information but may I say that in terms of a national strategy,

learning to conserve energy is a very powerful tool in being able

to meet our national economic and cultural goals.

Senator JEFFORDS. I have asked you privately and I ask you publicly to use your influence within the Administration. I have had

a similar conversation with our Secretary of Energy. I would ask

you to use your very considerable influence within the Administration to convince our President to simply say the decision has been

made, courts have ruled, and we are going to live with that.

I want to go back to something raised by Senator Clinton. I have

heard rumblings as well that our Federal Government, presumably

EPA, may not be interested in moving the utility industry toward

greater utilization of clean coal technology, fluidized beds, coal gasification efforts. The technology has been around for a long time.

My understanding is it has been implemented in a rather limited

way. I think there may be one or two operating coal gasification

plants, I am told there are a couple others actually formally proposed or actively being planned. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

We have more coal than probably any other country in the world.

We have the technology that allows us to use it in ways environmentally friendly but I don’t feel a sense of urgency or priority

from the Administration or from the Congress. Rather than continue to build new natural gas plants and jacking up the price of

natural gas, why don’t we find ways to implement the technology,

commercialize it.

I think you said in response to Senator Clinton’s question that

there was no decision made but it would be real encouraging to

hear you say, that makes a lot of sense. It passes a common sense

test for me. What do you plan to do to move us down that road?

Mr. LEAVITT. I will read you the note and then comment. The

guidance on the new source review for new plants, we require them

to consider new technologies. I have not received a recommendation

yet, but let me comment philosophically.

I can’t break into song over this matter. I don’t think we would

find any disagreement at either of our tables today about the fact

that if we can produce zero emission coal in this country in the

generation of electricity, it is a powerful driver of our economy and
34

it ought to be and is a priority. The Administration has committed

$1 billion for a project called Future Gen, a collaboration between

the industry and the Department of Energy; EPA is involved, our

labs are involved, another reason I am anxious to have you to our

labs in North Carolina.

Senator JEFFORDS. Only if Senator Voinovich would come with

us.

Senator VOINOVICH. I will do it.

Mr. LEAVITT. Call the travel agent.

This would be a powerful driver of the American economy. We

have rich resources of fuel of coal. Without using them, we put upward pressure on natural gas which is having a substantial impact

on large areas of our economy and keeping us competitive. It is a

priority, it needs to be a priority. We can, I believe, in the course

of the early part of this century produce the capacity to generate

electricity with zero emissions from coal and if we do, it will be a

driver not just in our country but in the world economy and we will

be the leader.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

I would like to say Ohio University, my alma mater, is a leader

in the country in clean coal technology and they are so excited and

so is the Ohio Air Quality Authority on Future Gen and its potential. Thank you for the initiative and I would like to editorialize

and say it would also help if we could get an energy bill passed because there are lots of stuff in the energy bill that deals with clean

coal technology and moving us in that direction.

We are going to have a vote at 11:30 a.m. Senator Clinton, you

still have some questions I am sure you would like to ask and we

will try and wrap it up after Senator Clinton so we can get to the

other witnesses before we have to go and vote and then come back

and ask questions of the next panel of witnesses.

Senator Clinton.

Senator CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to submit for the record a letter going out today to

Administrator Leavitt from 45 Senators including three Republicans, asking that EPA with respect to the mercury rule withdraw

the entire proposed rule package and repropose a rule for adequate

comment that meets the terms of the 1998 settlement agreement.

I agree with the Chairman that this has been going on a long

time but the sequence of events are such that the 1990 Clean Air

Act legislation mandated the study. It took longer to do than was

anticipated. Originally, it was thought to be a 3-year study, it

turned into a 5-year study. Shortly after the study was completed,

the NRDC sued the EPA to force action, then proceeded to have a

long, drawn out negotiation. There was a settlement reached in

1998 and under the terms of the settlement, rules were to be promulgated by December 2000 and that was shortly before the end

of the Clinton administration. It is to the Bush administration’s

credit, although it is under a court order to proceed with mercury

rulemaking and that is what we all want. We want good mercury

rulemaking that makes a difference in the atmosphere. I think

however we got here, whatever the sequence happened to be, we

need to proceed as expeditiously as possible and there is considerable concern on the part of 45 of us about the proposed rule.
35

In addition, I know there was a recent white paper issued by the

EPA Office of Research and Development on mercury control technologies last week. The paper cast doubt on most of the agency’s

arguments regarding the availability of technology for mercury control and potential emissions reductions. I would also like to submit

‘‘The Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fire, the Electric

Utility Boilers,’’ a report done by the Office of Research and Development from the EPA from the Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina for the record.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection.

[The referenced document referred to may be found on page 185.]

Senator CLINTON. This report says that existing widely used

technology such as fabric filters could achieve a 90 percent reduction of mercury at bituminous coal plants and 72 percent removal

at sub-bituminous. If you added a wet scrubber, the reduction is 98

percent. It further says that activated carbon injection technology,

which can be added in 1 year’s time, can achieve 70 percent reduction in mercury from all coal types by 2010. Adding a fabric filter

to that which can be done in 2 years achieves a 90 percent reduction. This is without new technology. This is not even going as far

as Senator Carper and I would like to see but using existing technology. I hope Administrator Leavitt, as you do study this important rule, you will take a look at this report. I don’t understand a

lot of it, it is very technical but I know you have lots of people

around you who do and really calculate the cost of this.

I am one of those who have long advocated doing whatever we

could to incentivize the utility industry to take these actions. This

is a public health issue. This affects all of us. The numbers of people who are going to be impacted by the continuing level of emissions is such that we are paying on one hand for health care costs

when we could be trying to find a way of acting much more efficaciously and cost effectively to deal with this problem at the source.

Again, this letter from 45 Senators, including 3 Republicans, will

be on the way to you but the bottom line is we all need to work

together to get this underway. I think there is a perception that

you are very thoughtfully trying to go through all this and I don’t

in any way doubt that, because I trust you to really take a hard

look at all this, but there are other factors at work, other concerns

and special interests at work and it is so important that we go as

far as we possibly can technologically.

If there are costs associated with it, let us honestly look at those

costs. Let us not end the rulemaking at a point less than where we

should just because there are costs attached to it. Let us figure out

whether there is a way we can help to defray them or deal with

them but it is so critically important.

I thank you for your consideration.

Mr. LEAVITT. Quick responses on both of those. As you indicated,

I am under a consent decree to act by December 15, 2004. Given

the nature and complexity of this, we are moving forward with all

rigor to assure that we get there. It is my intention to do it in a

way that will serve the best interests of the American people and

those who have, as we all have, concerns.

This turns, in large measure, around the technology. The paper

you have, I have read and have been doing all I can to understand
36

it. I have had a chance to spend enough time crawling around the

blueprints of power plants to begin to know more than I expected

I would, but I would just make this conclusion. There are places

and ways that you can use other technologies to get high percentages but they are unique.

In the Northeast for example, in New England, there are a couple of power plants that have achieved high levels of reductions.

They bring in coal from the Philippines and they have been able

to use particular combinations of circumstances that allow them to

uniquely do it, but you can’t deploy that over 1,200 power plants.

We have every reason to be optimistic about ACI technology. So

far, we have used ACI technology on medical waste incinerators,

and we have used them very effectively and we have been able to

achieve almost 90 percent on municipal waste incinerators.

We haven’t had that experience yet on coal-fired power plants. In

fact, we have never put ACI technology on a coal-fired plant and

had it used over a period of time sufficient to know whether it will

work with all kinds of coal in all kinds of circumstances. If we are

going to be asking the American people to invest billions into this

technology, and we are, we ought to make certain that it works. So

the reason we are at the 2010 conclusion isn’t because it doesn’t

exist, it is because we have to have it adequately tested and widely

deployable. There are lots of considerations, as you said.

My purpose is to do this by the time the court has ordered me

to do it and to do it in a way that will clearly make the biggest

gains we can, but do it in a way that will also protect our competitiveness. I believe we can do that. As you have suggested, technology is the key, but we ought not to move until we have the technology. Once we have the technology, it will take care of the problem.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Administrator. I am delighted to

know that you are getting into the issue of mercury because there

is a big debate out there about where the technology is. There are

some that argue that co-benefits from NOx reduction of emissions

would do a great deal to reduce mercury but then how do you go

to the next step. With the letter coming from many of my colleagues, you are going to be in the eye of the storm on this one.

Again, it is good science that will make the difference.

Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate the new

leadership you are bringing to the Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you for your conscientiousness and your commitment to

making our air cleaner and minimizing the impact on public health

and also understanding that we have to do that within the framework of the economy of this country and right now, jobs, jobs, jobs.

Thank you.

Senator CLINTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could correct the record, it

is seven Republicans, not three.

Senator VOINOVICH. I bet they are from the Northeast.

Senator CLINTON. Well, that is right. Not all of them, though.

John McCain is on there.

Senator VOINOVICH. Will the other witnesses come forward? I

have just been informed that the vote has now been moved to 12

o’clock.
37

We are very fortunate to have Robert Eckels, County Judge, Harris County, TX. For those folks not from Texas, a County Judge in

our neck of the woods is a County Commissioner. Michael Fisher

is president of the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, and

George D. Thurston is from New York University School of Medicine, Division of Environmental Medicine is also with us today. We

are very happy to have all of you here.

We will move quickly into the testimony and I would like to call

on Judge Eckels first.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ECKELS, COUNTY JUDGE,

HARRIS COUNTY, TX

Mr. ECKELS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

my name is Robert Eckels. I am the County Judge for Harris County, TX.

Senator VOINOVICH. What city is in Harris County?

Mr. ECKELS. Houston is our county seat. We have 35 cities in the

county and about 1.5 million people.

I want to thank the committee for allowing me to be here today

to testify and asking me to comment on implementation of the 8-

hour ozone and fine particulate National Ambient Air Quality

Standard.

In the years that I have served as a legislator first and later as

Harris County Judge and as a member of the Board of Directors

of the National Association of Counties, I can tell you from firsthand experience that air quality issues are among the most complex that any elected official can experience. Clean air is of vital

interest to all of us. It is important for the health of our citizens

and for the health of our economy.

We have made good progress but as we have noted here this

morning, much more work is needed. I would like to relay to the

committee my personal experiences in developing clean air plans to

maintain the 1-hour ozone standard in the Houston-Galveston region. I believe it is relevant to what other major metropolitan areas

are about to experience as the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate

standards are implemented.

We have embarked on a consensus plan with industries investing

$4 billion over the next 3 years to reduce nitrogen oxides by 80 percent. The Texas Legislature funded the Texas Emission Reduction

Program, a $150 million per year on a 7-year grant to reduce emissions from mobile source sectors faster than the Federal controls

would otherwise achieve. We have reformulated the diesel in our

region, reduced speed limits, and in some cases, banned the use of

commercial law maintenance before noon and initiated the first

phase of a light rail mass transit system in the Houston Area at

a $350 million cost without Federal funding. This is on top of an

80 percent reduction in industrial and automobile hydrocarbon

emissions over the past 20 years. I believe it speaks well for our

strong commitment to clean air in the Houston region.

As a public official, I also worry about the economic vitality of

our region. In 2000, our local chamber of commerce, the Greater

Houston Partnership, sponsored an independent socioeconomic

study of our clean air plan by respected economists at the University of Chicago and Houston.
38

The study concluded that by 2010 the region would have 38,000

fewer jobs, reduce gross regional product by $3.5 billion and reduce

tax receipts to the State and local governments by $300 million

each year. There are serious economic consequences by any

yardstick but we did feel they were important for us to attain that

1 hour standard.

Looking to the future, some 530 counties nationwide will be designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. We are in

the process of making similar determinations for the fine particulate standard. EPA is now in the process of developing the regulatory framework for States to implement these standards and

their modeling shows that many of these areas will attain the

standards with measures already in place or planned. I do want to

commend the EPA and the Administration for their efforts.

However, some large metropolitan areas such as Harris County

in the Houston region, Philadelphia, the New York City metropolitan area, that same modeling shows continuing nonattainment of

8-hour ozone standard as far out as 2020. This is after significant

reduction in transport emissions, cleaner fuels and engines and

local 1-hour ozone control measures. It presents several important

public policy issues for EPA, local elected officials and for this committee to consider.

The first policy issue for consideration is the attainment deadlines proposed for some of these areas. EPA has proposed attainment deadlines of the 2010 to 2013 timeframe well before emission

reductions from Federal measures such as transport and mobile

source controls are fully realized. As a result, in these areas, we

will not be able to submit approval State implementation plans to

the EPA and in such circumstances, the Clean Air Act imposes

sanctions including the loss of Federal highway funds which in our

county alone could be up to $1 billion a year.

One options suggested is to have States volunteer to move into

a more severe air quality classification to get more time for attainment. I can tell you as an elected official it is not really a feasible

option. The second issue is attainability of the standards. I am not

here to say we need to change or eliminate the 8 hour ozone or fine

particulate standard, that is for public health professionals to decide. I can say that the EPA modeling suggests these standards

will not be attainable in some areas in the foreseeable future despite our best efforts.

Again it places the severe economic sanctions under the Clean

Air Act. I don’t think it is good public policy, it creates division in

our community and results in litigation which further slows the

clean air process.

Where do we go? First, I would say we need attainable standards

and attainment deadlines that are technically and economically

feasible. We need sound public policies that will not attain them in

the foreseeable future. Senator Carper and Administrator Leavitt

agreed earlier, it is not really fair to be held responsible for the actions of others. So I believe we should capture the admission reductions benefits from existing and pending Federal control measures

before implementing the next round of the very high cost controls

at the local level.
39

We need to take a closer look at how our current air quality

management process is working and how it can be improved. We

have invested literally hundreds of billions of dollars over the last

few years at the Federal, State and local control measures in many

of these non-attainment areas and suggest that we have systemic

science and policy problems that need to be addressed.

In conclusion, speaking as a representative of the National Association of Counties, many of the rural and suburban counties in our

communities are brought into the plans because they are up wind

from a non-attainment area or large urban area. They need a seat

at the air quality table as well and should not be penalized solely

due to geography.

They need the resources, support and flexibility from the Federal

agencies you have oversight for.

I share your comments earlier that clean air and economic development are interrelated and they do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is an obligation, as we develop policy, that the citizens of

this country expect us to take very seriously a solution I think they

will be looking closely for.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Are you representing NaCo

today?

Mr. ECKELS. In my capacity as a former chairman of the Committee on Environment and Energy for NaCo and as a member of

the board of directors. I am here as a NaCo representative as well.

Senator VOINOVICH. It would be very, very helpful if NaCo, the

National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the

Municipal League would spend some time looking at where we are

going in this area and come back with some of your thoughts to the

committee. You are the ones who are going to have the obligation

to implement these rules and regulations. A consensus among the

various groups, a bipartisan consensus would be greatly appreciated by me and all the members of this committee.

Mr. ECKELS. This is an issue that cuts across all the counties and

we will be happy to do that for you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Thurston.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. THURSTON, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE

Mr. THURSTON. There has been a lot of discussion of the costs of

meeting the clean air standard. What I really want to talk about

today are the ongoing costs we have of adverse health effects to the

U.S. public, the fact that we have not met these standards, and

that we need to meet them as rapidly as possible so that we stop

incurring those health costs.

The adverse health consequences of breathing ozone or particulate matter are serious and well documented. Ozone is a highly irritating gas which is formed in our atmosphere in the presence of

sunlight from other ‘‘precursor’’ air pollutants, including nitrogen

oxides and hydrocarbons. These precursor pollutants, which cause

the formation of ozone, are emitted by pollution sources including

automobiles, electric power plants, and industry.

Particulate Matter air pollution is composed of two major components: primary particles, or ‘‘soot,’’ emitted directly into the atmos-
40

phere by pollution sources such as industry, electric power plants,

diesel buses, and automobiles, and; ‘‘secondary particles’’ formed in

the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide gases, emitted by many combustion sources, including coal-burning electric

power plants.

Observational epidemiology studies have shown compelling and

consistent evidence of adverse effects by ozone and PM including:

decreased lung function, a measure of our ability to breathe freely;

more frequent respiratory symptoms; increased numbers of asthma

attacks; more frequent emergency department visits; additional

hospital admissions, and; increased numbers of daily deaths.

Among those people known to be most affected by the adverse

health implications of air pollution are: infants, children, those

with pre-existing respiratory diseases, such as asthma and emphysema, older adults, and healthy individuals exercising or working

outdoors.

In my own research, I was principal investigator of an NIH funded research grant that showed in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that long-term exposure to particulate matter air pollution is associated with an increased risk of death from cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer, as displayed in Figure 1. In fact, the increased risk of lung

cancer from air pollution in polluted U.S. cities was found in this

study to be comparable to the lung cancer risk to a non-smoker

from living with a smoker. We really have no choice. You can

choose whether to live with a smoker or not but you have no choice

but to breathe the air in the city that you live. Thus, the health

benefits to the U.S. public of meeting these new air quality standards by reducing ozone and particulate matter will be substantial.

Air pollution affects a much broader spectrum of human health

than mortality. This is actually something I presented in 1997,

when the late Senator Chafee was running the committee, pointing

out the pyramid of effects, not just mortality. I made up these

working estimates of what kind of health benefits there could be

in New York City on an annual basis from meeting the then proposed standards.

Unfortunately we haven’t made a lot of progress if you look at

the next figure. The other plot showed from 1970, but I don’t know

how long we are going to try to take credit for what happened in

the 1970’s. We have to look more recently. Over the last 20 years,

we have been basically flat. This is from an EPA trends report.

From 1993 to 2002, the last 10 years of data reported, was actually

a 4 percent increase nationwide in ozone. We are not making a lot

of progress in recent years.

Similarly, the next chart is from a paper that is being published

soon. We can see, while there was great progress made in controlling fine particle levels over time, since 1995 the progress has

slowed significantly, sort of like ozone: flat. If you look at the map,

you see where the biggest problems are. The green areas are where

we are clearly meeting the standard. These are spatial averages of

metropolitan areas.

The places where we have a problem are in yellow, orange and

red. We see the worst problems are in California, which is largely

traffic related, and then in the eastern United States in the Ohio
41

Valley and Midwest and the Southeast. If you look at this plot, you

will see a lot of the problems we are having today are related to

the large sulfur oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. To

paraphrase a fairly famous political campaign, ‘‘It’s the power

plants, stupid’’, and they are really causing a lot of pollution. I

agree with the Administrator: we need a regional approach, and go

after the low hanging fruit, which he says are all gone. But, really,

the fact is that we changed the New Source Review (NSR) regulations to change the compact that was made when the Clean Air Act

was developed in the 1970’s which was that the power plants would

be exempted from the requirements of the Clean Air Act until they

upgraded. That was a covenant that was made.

These new changes proposed in the New Source Review are violating that covenant, and allowing these sources which, if you are

worried about jobs, then I agree with what Senator Inhofe said, we

ought to go after the most pernicious particles, which certainly

coal-fired power plants and residual oil power plants are among

those. We ought to go after the things uncontrolled, the low hanging fruit. Certainly, these power plants, this bulls eye, certainly

points to those power plants.

Overall, we must move forward in a vigorous fashion to achieve

the new PM and ozone standards throughout the Nation as quickly

as possible. If we don’t, the U.S. public will unnecessarily continue

to bear the ongoing diminished quality of life and health care costs

we presently pay because of the adverse health effects of these air

pollutants.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Fisher.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FISHER, PRESIDENT, GREATER

CINCINNATI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. FISHER. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I

think my role is going to be to talk about a community that has

been in a non-attainment status, albeit moderate nonattainment

for ozone.

First of all, our chamber is a 6,000 member chamber. We have

companies ranging from the biggest companies in the world like

Procter and Gamble, Toyota and GE Transportation to sole proprietors. About 80 percent of our businesses have fewer than 50 employees in the greater Cincinnati area. About 1,000 of our companies are manufacturing companies.

Our region is unique. We have a 15 county region covering three

States and that three State dimension makes it particularly interesting for these kinds of issues and approximately 2 million citizens.

To put these comments in some personal context, I actually am

only recently in the civic role of the Chamber president. I have

spent the majority of my career as an entrepreneur building what

became a successful global automotive supplier, creating 2,500 jobs

in 11 countries the vast majority of which are in the United States,

so I do know a little bit about creating jobs. I am also a life long

fourth generation resident of Cincinnati. I have four kids and our

8-year-old son, Johnny, has asthma, so I am very sensitive and

keenly interested in these issues that affect health.
42

As a Chamber and as a community, we are about trying to capture our place as one of the world’s favorite American business centers. Certainly you can’t be favorite without having a great economy and a healthy community.

Our Chamber has been very involved in clean air for some time.

We were a co-founder of a regional ozone coalition. We are currently working with our metropolitan planning organization (authority), OKI on the forthcoming standards and even our Chamber

website has helpful hints about what you can do for cleaner air.

I think as recognized during previous testimony by Administrator Leavitt on the national scale, even at the local level, Cincinnati, while being in nonattainment, has made significant

progress over the last number of years. I think it is also a bit ironic

that in 3 weeks I will be back in Washington leading a delegation

of Cincinnatians to receive recognition at the National Press Club

as being one of America’s Most Livable Communities and yet we

have this black eye and stigma of being considered a non-attainment area as we sit here today.

To be a little more specific about impact and so forth in our community, in 1995 there was a study that projected about 14,000

manufacturing and spinoff jobs would be lost in our community in

the 1995–2000 period. In fact, from 1995–2003, 35,000 manufacturing oriented jobs have been lost. We know that is not exclusively

related to this non-attainment designation but we know non-attainment has been a factor.

It has also been a significant factor relative to business expansion and new business investment. Many of you may know that

about 80 percent of a region’s job growth comes from existing businesses and their expansion. The extra costs and complexities involved with compliance has been a disincentive. Our Chamber has

been very involved in international economic development attracting foreign companies and companies around the country to invest

in our region. We have been told that our non-attainment status

has been a reason why some companies haven’t even considered investing in our region. In fact, one environmental consultant said

specifically four companies chose not to make additional investment in our area because of our non-attainment status.

I think it has been captured already today but the current laws

tend to be a bit confusing. When I referenced this increased cost

to business, let me make a couple of points. We have found in

Hamilton County, our core urban area, they have encouraged us,

businesses I should say, to have a consultant engaged in the permitting process. While we think it is good to have consultants and

attorneys employed, that is not the type of job growth we are typically most interested in.

In fact, as I talked to some friends of mine who are in the plastic

bag manufacturing industry and the specialty chemical industry,

the length of time required for permitting has been particularly

problematic to them as they pursue new business. We are talking

12 to 18 months in some cases.

Referencing in particular the utilities and coal industry, our big

utility, Cinergy will spend about $1.2 billion on emission control

equipment between 1990 and 2010 and another industry that is

important to our region in this case represented by a company like
43

AK Steel who is spending over $65 million in emission controls at

a time when they are being challenged on many other fronts competitively.

We also experience some interesting things in terms of process

versus substance which we can get into in terms of our being recognized as being in nonattainment because the fact is our air is

cleaner and meeting all standards and we have not experienced one

monitoring violation since 1995. Again, I think it is a process

versus results dilemma at times.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Fisher, could you wrap up your testimony?

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir.

Finally, in terms of help from Congress, again, we seek predictability, ample time for businesses to implement new and best technology as Senator Clinton referenced, being sensitive to compliance

costs particularly as related to small businesses and encouraging

incentives in every way.

With that, I thank you for the opportunity.

Senator VOINOVICH. I appreciate you all being here today.

Mr. Thurston, I want to mention the fact that according to the

statistics I have in front of me, in the last couple of years NOx has

gone down 13 percent and sulfur dioxide has gone down 9 percent.

It is my understanding that these are precursors for ozone and PM.

First of all, is New York City in attainment?

Mr. THURSTON. I don’t think it has been designated yet. That is

about to happen.

Senator VOINOVICH. No, no, I am talking about the current ambient air standards. Have they met the current ambient air standards?

Mr. THURSTON. I don’t believe so but I am not an expert on attainment.

Senator VOINOVICH. That is interesting because I wonder how

many of these communities on this board haven’t even met the current ambient air standards and are now being asked to take on

some more responsibilities. That would be an interesting statistic.

Mr. Fisher, what impact do you believe these new ambient air

standards are going to have in terms of your community, in terms

of job creation? I was shocked that you projected the loss of 14,000

jobs between 1995 and 2000. Am I correct, you said between 1995

and 2003, it has been 35,000?

Mr. FISHER. These were manufacturing jobs.

Senator VOINOVICH. Have you done any calculation on what impact these new standards are going to have on the economy of your

region?

Mr. FISHER. I don’t think we have statistical projections yet but

we do know, as I referenced anecdotally, we have national site location consultants telling us our non-attainment status and these increasing standards will make it difficult for companies to consider

making investments in our region.

Senator VOINOVICH. Are you familiar with the Clear Skies legislation?

Mr. FISHER. Somewhat.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Eckels, are you familiar with it at all?

Mr. ECKELS. Yes, sir.
44

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like you to comment on the alternative between Clear Skies and understanding, and you were here

for the things I ticked off when Administrator Leavitt was here

that there are national things going on. In fact, Mr. Fisher, I don’t

know if you know this or not, but some of the most significant research on the issue of particles is being done at the Children’s Hospital at the University of Cincinnati. I visited with them and am

anxious to see what they have to say.

Judge Eckels, could you comment on this versus Clear Skies and

your opinion in terms of the alternative?

Mr. ECKELS. My personal opinion is that Clear Skies is a much

simpler approach. It has at a local level a much easier compliance

for the attainment for the local jurisdictions, particularly on the

East Coast. There are still some areas that don’t fall into attainment under Clear Skies. Houston is one of them that still does not

meet the standards but in general, it is a much easier method. The

State implementation plan for most local jurisdictions, most States

would simply be Clear Skies and that would be the end of their

plan. It would not be a long, cumbersome, expensive process for

them because they would, through the efforts of the Clear Skies

legislation, have a very simple process and fall into compliance

with the requirements of the Act.

Senator VOINOVICH. In other words, with something like Clear

Skies, it lays out NOx, SOx, mercury over a period of time that the

States in putting together their SIP, it would be easier to try and

put something together to comply with this rather than dealing

with silos that are out there in terms of the current law.

Mr. ECKELS. Clear Skies is much easier for the local jurisdictions

and the States to put together than the current complex process

that has evolved and the frustrations we have particularly in areas

like Houston and throughout the Nation is that so many of the provisions of the State implementation plan requires Federal action.

We cannot control the cars, we don’t have a national clean car yet,

we don’t have national clean fuel, we don’t have national clean diesel, so we are having to find things that eat around the edges of

the plan and we are not able to under the current schedule capture

national clean cars.

Even if you have a national clean car, you have a fleet turnover

issue and probably New York is worse than Houston. The cabs

there are not known for being new cars. So you have to have time

for that to implement. Clear Skies lets us capture all those Federal

control measures and makes it much easier for the States and localities to comply with the rules and do their State implementation

plans.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Carper.

Senator CARPER. Judge Eckels, you are a judge, right?

Mr. ECKELS. County Judge of Harris County. It would be equivalent to county executive or county mayor in other parts of the country.

Senator CARPER. We don’t have county judges in my State, we

have State judges. Our county commissioners are county commissioners, so thank you for clarifying that.

I want to go back to something I thought I heard you say, talking

about being in compliance. Even under the Clear Skies proposal of
45

the Administration, you would still not be in compliance I think

you said by 2020. As you probably heard from earlier questions,

there are other alternatives to Clear Skies. One is that proposed

by Senator Jeffords, very rigorous standards and a rigorous timetable. A number of us have come up with what we think is a third

way of getting at the same issue. It is called the Clean Air Planning Act. I don’t even know if you are familiar with it but if you

are not going to be in compliance in your county under the Clear

Skies proposal, I am wondering where you would be in compliance

in the third way if the Clean Air Planning Act was adopted.

Mr. ECKELS. I cannot speak to your legislation. I know that on

the specific legislation Senator Jeffords has sponsored, the modeling and the information we have seen on that shows us not in

compliance under any of these standards because of the issues of

fleet turnover and implementation. When you look at the motor vehicles and the motor source emissions, it takes time for the new

cars to come into place. When you look at the new diesel emissions,

the clean fuel can come on board much quicker but it is probably

a 20-year replacement cycle on the heavy diesel emissions. Then we

have the larger Federal controls on trucks, ships, airplanes, locomotives, things we cannot control locally. I will be happy to look

into the legislation you have sponsored in well but in general, we

have not seen any other legislation that would bring every area

into compliance with the requirements of the Act by 2020. There

are still going to have to be some local controls and we are willing

to do those things but it seems it would be more sensible and as

you mentioned earlier that we would first take those things we

cannot control locally, the Federal Government could capture those

benefits plus Federal controls, the transport issues you are dealing

with in this committee, the national standards for fuels and vehicles, that we would capture those benefits before we start the much

more expensive marginal benefits we have to do locally. We are

even saying people can’t mow their yards in the morning. That is

measuring pounds of emission reduction, not tons of emission reductions. It is very expensive and very inconvenient for folks.

As we start evolving in that process and as we learn from the

control measures we put in place, we can start developing better

science and better measures and better economics to make it work

for everybody.

Senator CARPER. I don’t know what your experience is in Houston with the mass transit but are you all using mass transit as a

way to achieve attainment?

Mr. ECKELS. Yes, sir, we are.

Senator CARPER. Give me some idea of what you are doing.

Mr. ECKELS. We have probably the Nation’s most extensive use

of high occupancy vehicle lanes, dedicated bus lanes in the major

thoroughfares coming in and out of the city. We move tens of thousands of people through what is evolving into the high occupancy

toll lanes in some cases. We have built our first train.

Senator CARPER. Do you let folks who are using energy efficient

cars and hybrids use your HOV lanes?

Mr. ECKELS. We have not to this point. To this point, it is a

three-plus passenger car pool typically. We have had a unique partnership between the Harris County Toll Road Authority and our
46

community. The county owns the toll roads and we are now building a high occupancy toll facility that is essentially a transit facility

that was not built with FTA dollars, it is a totally different issue

on flexibility but we used local toll revenue to build the transitways

for the buses. We will mix single occupancy vehicles on there to

help pay for the transit facility but it provides a better, more efficient transit facility both on West Park and I–10. We are in the

middle of the county doing the commuter rail study, partnering

with Metro and the transit agency. They have built an 8 mile segment of light rail in downtown Houston where we have recently

passed a referendum to have 70-plus miles of light rail. I don’t

think the money is there for that totally but we will be merging

the light rail and commuter rail building on the bus/car pool program.

Beyond the Metro service area, Metro serves probably two-thirds

of the Houston region through our regional transportation planning

council which I also chair. We are establishing expanded van pool,

car pool and alternative fuels.

Senator CARPER. Other than that what are you doing?

[Laughter.]

Senator CARPER. That was pretty comprehensive.

Mr. Thurston, I am struck by the fact that over in Europe about

40 percent of the cars, trucks and vans sold last year were diesel

powered. They have lower sulfur diesel fuel over there that is mandated and produced than we do. I was at the Detroit auto show

about 2 months ago and talked to a fellow named Dr. Dieter Zetcha

who is the CEO of Daimler Chrysler. He shared with me a partnership they are entering with Archer Daniels, a big agricultural company to see if we couldn’t expand the use of clean burn, lean burn

diesels in this country. Forty percent in Europe were lean burn/

clean burn diesel last year. I think in this country it was about .4

of 1 percent by comparison.

As you know, as we go forward in time, we have more stringent

emission standards for diesel powered vehicles. The folks at

Daimler Chrysler and Archer Daniels are interested in seeing if

there is a way to use renewable fuel to mix it with diesel fuel and

soy bean oil. We are trying to do that in our part of the world as

well. We have a soy/diesel mixture of 20 percent soybean oil, 80

percent diesel, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, provide another way to use a commodity we have a little bit too much of.

I just want to ask some of your thoughts on our ability to try to

address our dependence on foreign oil, to help reduce the emissions

of CO2, diesel puts out a lot less emissions of CO2 than regular gasoline powered engines, internal combustion engines. Talk to us as

we go forward with ever more stringent requirements for clean diesel, what are the implications for introducing a new generation of

diesel powered vehicles in our country.

Mr. THURSTON. I certainly think that new technology is really

the way to go to address our pollution problems. I think that is

what America is about. It is about confronting problems, not delaying and putting them off. Senator Voinovich forgot to ask me about

the Clean Skies Program. It seems to me that the Clear Skies Program is years and years away and there is lots and lots we could

do sooner and faster.
47

I mentioned the new source review. If that were implemented

vigorously by this Administration, that would cleanup things really

fast and cheaper and have less impact on places like New York.

Senator Voinovich pointed out New York has a problem with ozone

and PM. I served on the State DECs committee and they showed

us some analysis where if they zeroed out all the pollution sources

in New York State, they still would violate the standards because

of all the pollution spewing across our border. I think every State

has a right to have air that meets the air quality standards entering it and that is not happening today. A lot of it has to do with

the power plants that I pointed out.

We have to be much more vigorous in going after those and

cleaning up the diesel emissions. The sulfur regulations that were

implemented by the last Administration that are going into effect

now are going to do a lot to help California. We saw on the plot

I had that they have a problem with fine particles. Those sulfur reductions are going to lower the particle levels in southern California because of that. Also the new diesel regulations are going to

lower that problem. We are addressing the California problem pretty well and they are going to be making progress.

If you look nationwide over the last decades in the EPA reports,

California has the largest progress that is being made in meeting

the ozone standards. One of the worst is the Midwest, Region 5.

That is because we have these power plants and they are just not

being cleaned up. I visited a power plant years ago in Pennsylvania

and they had two units. One of them was grandfathered in and

was burning coal with no controls and spewing pollution and the

one next to it had modern emission controls on it, had coal cleaning

plant, kind of a dirty place and I don’t recommend it but it had the

effect of cleaning up the pollution. They had one unit putting out

a minimal amount of pollution and another one right next to it that

was putting out pollution uncontrolled. Why? Not because they

couldn’t, because they didn’t have to. I think it is time we lived up

to that covenant that when they upgrade these plants, they implement the emission controls that were promised to people like Senator Muskie back in the 1970s when these deals were made. Now

we are abrogating those agreements by not implementing the new

source review properly. We need to do that, implement all of these

controls.

Senator CARPER. Let me say to Mr. Thurston, I appreciate the

answer. It wasn’t the answer to my question but that was a good

answer.

Senator VOINOVICH. We have a vote and Senator Clinton hasn’t

had a chance to ask her questions yet.

I would like to say to you that we respectfully disagree on new

source review. I think we need certainty here and I think the Administration has come back with a new rule on new source review,

it is understandable, it tells everyone where they are and will get

us out of the environment that we are in today where power plants

have in the past increased the efficiency of their facilities by putting in new boilers, producing energy at less cost, in many instances not pumping up more emissions into the air and reducing

them instead of having a situation today where everybody is in

court over this issue. If you look back over the record in terms of
48

where we are in the environment in terms of cleaning up the environment, the lawsuits have really clogged our efforts to make this

country have better air.

If we could get some understanding for example with Clear

Skies, maybe with a combination of Clear Skies and Senator Carper, some understandable, clearcut way of doing this, I think we

would be far more ahead in terms of cleaning up the environment,

its impact on public health and at the same time providing energy

sources we need in this country so that we can continue to be competitive in the global marketplace. It is this harmonization that I

think we should be striving for today.

Mr. THURSTON. I agree, we disagree because I am no lawyer but

I understand that the effect of these lawsuits has many times been

to speed up things like getting the criteria documents finished

sooner and issues like that, so moving things forward through

using the lawsuits. You talk about costs and the thing I have to

keep reminding you is you are trying to lower costs. The way to

lower costs is to clean up the air because these costs are being born

by the American public. All we are doing is talking about transferring the costs we are paying right now in health effects to the

American people back to the polluters. That seems fair. That seems

like justice and justice delayed is justice denied.

Senator VOINOVICH. Let me tell you this. From somebody who

has lived in a manufacturing State, I am sorry that some people

don’t understand but I have lived in a manufacturing State, I consider myself to be an environmentalist but if we don’t balance this

thing between some of you on the environmental side.

Mr. THURSTON. I am not on the environmental side, I am on the

health side.

Senator VOINOVICH. The point is if we don’t balance it, all we are

going to do is move the jobs to China, to India and other countries.

It is happening now and they are moving into countries that don’t

have the environmental regulations that we have. For instance,

global warming, if you move the jobs over to China where they

don’t have the environmental laws that we have here in the United

States or India or some of these other countries, in terms of global

warming, instead of helping the problem, you exacerbate the problem.

Senator CARPER. Believe it or not there is a third way and it is

the Clean Air Planning Act I keep talking about which you and I

need to talk about a little bit more.

Senator VOINOVICH. I am supposed to be the Chairman here, not

you. Forgive me.

Senator Clinton.

Senator CLINTON. I would like that to continue. Maybe we can

reach some kind of deal here because clearly as is evident there are

strongly held opinions on all sides of this. The bottom line for me

as I keep saying over and over again is that I think we are spending money in other areas that we don’t need to spend because we

have not figured out how to incentivize those who are responsible

for the emissions to move more rapidly to clean them up. I don’t

understand why this is so complicated. I believe there are solutions

out there that for whatever reason we seem to be dug in on different points of view.
49

My bottom line too is that I am deeply concerned about the

health effects. The more studies that are done, the more we know

how much we are paying in health care costs because of the effects

of particulate matter and ozone. One of the other studies that has

been done also published in the Journal of the American Medical

Association last October looked at 271 children under the age of 12

with active asthma in Connecticut and Massachusetts and measured their response to two air pollutants, ozone and very small particulate matter. The key finding is that a 1-hour exposure to air

containing 50 ppb of ozone caused a significant increase in wheezing and chest tightness in those children and increased their use

of symptom relieving drugs. In other words, ozone exacerbates

asthma in children at concentrations below the current 1-hour level

of 120 ppb and even the new 8-hour exposure standard of 80 ppb.

It is absolutely true that New York City’s metropolitan area is

a non-attainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard. It will be

a non-attainment area under the 8-hour standard and we have an

epidemic of asthma. The highest concentration of asthmatic children in our country are in Harlem and parts of the Bronx. As Dr.

Thurston said, if we could eliminate every source of pollution that

we had any control over, if we were given the tools to do that right

now, if we could wave a magic wand and every taxicab and truck

moved to clean fuel or clean diesel, whatever it might be, if we

could control every emission that we had within the boundaries of

New York City and New York State, we would still not meet the

attainment standards. So this is a national problem.

Dr. Thurston, the one chart you showed about ozone air quality,

I think that is a chart that shows ambient concentration.

Mr. THURSTON. That is right.

Senator CLINTON. So yes we can see national standards of decreasing NOx and SOx, but if you look at a map of the country,

if you take those national standards, yes, we are doing a good job

in seeing it fall in many parts of the West because they don’t have

the wind currents, they don’t have the industrial sources, but if you

look at southern California and look at east of the Mississippi and

go to places like Cincinnati or New York City, you see concentrations of particulate matter and ozone. This chart is the ozone air

quality and the concentration has not decreased. In fact from 1983

to 1992 it decreased 18 percent but from 1993 to 2002 it increased

4 percent.

We have a problem in the eastern part of the United States and

we are not acting in an expeditious manner to deal with that. I respect totally the Chairman’s commitment to jobs and he knows a

lot about this. He was a very successful mayor and Governor and

the State he represents is one of the economic engines of our country. I just honestly believe that it is not an either/or issue, that we

can do both.

I understand Mr. Fisher’s point about places where you are trying to recruit jobs that are from other parts of the country saying

instead of going to Cincinnati because you are a non-attainment

area, we will go to Austin, TX or go to Las Vegas, NV because you

look at the figures and they are doing better. They are not doing

better because of actions they have taken on themselves, they are

doing better because of national conditions that you have very little
50

control over in Cincinnati or that we have little control over in New

York.

I know this remains a point of contention and disagreement

about the best way to proceed. I think everybody shares the same

goal but we are gridlocked and it is unfortunate because we are

seeing increases in concentrations of ozone and we are seeing impacts on health that are costing us money.

I would like to ask the panelists to clarify in writing because we

have to go vote any other suggestions you have. I read your testimony, but it is quite a general testimony and I understand but perhaps on behalf of not just yourself, Judge Eckels, but the National

Association of Counties and perhaps Mr. Fisher on behalf of the

Chamber and others and certainly Dr. Thurston because we are too

smart a country not to figure this out.

With respect to some of our competitors like China and India, we

have no leverage over them and I think we have to develop some

other means of trying to do so.

Mr. THURSTON. Couldn’t we have U.S. companies building plants

abroad to behave responsibly and build plants that meet the standards we meet here? Is there any way to do that?

Senator CLINTON. No, but I think there are ways through trade

agreements and through perhaps invigorating some kind of international effort, we have obviously put Kyoto aside and there were

good reasons in many minds to do that because there was no real

standard imposed upon the developing countries but now I understand China has moved to impose some standards of its own with

respect to emissions. So we should encourage that, we should provide incentives and assistance for that.

Mr. THURSTON. We should provide the technology that they can

use and that is where we can get jobs, out of the environment that

we can gain jobs by being first with the technology that others will

use.

Senator CLINTON. I agree with that and I am very fortunate to

represent some companies in New York that have a lot of this technology and are hoping to have a national market some day and are

looking for an international market but right now there are not

many incentives to do that.

Mr. Chairman, we will keep working on this and we will hopefully come up with some consensus at some point. I hope in our

lifetimes.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

I would like to say, Mr. Thurston, in terms of the Future Gen

Project, I think you heard that mentioned earlier, that is I think

a very, very good initiative. My feeling is we should develop our

clean coal technology, we should use it, take advantage of it. We

should sell it or give it away to other nations so that we help reduce their emissions and deal with the problem of global warming.

Mr. THURSTON. I agree with you on that.

Senator VOINOVICH. Good. I just want to thank you all for coming. I would like to mention that the National Association of Manufacturers wanted to be here to testify and weren’t able to. I am

going to insert this in the record, without objection.

[The referenced document referred to may be found on page 208.]
51

Senator VOINOVICH. I would hope the three of you on the panel,

if you get other questions, would be willing to answer those questions in writing and get them back to us.

Last but not least, Judge Eckels, I really, as the former chairman

of the National Governors Association, president of the National

League of Cities and as you know, there are a lot of good things

we did together as a team. We were able to get the TANF legislation passed, the unfunded mandates and a lot of other things. I

think it is really incumbent on the national organizations for you

to get together and come back here with your thoughts on where

we are going and how we ought to get there.

Mr. ECKELS. We will have that for you, sir.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at

the call of the chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity

to come before you today to discuss the status of the Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA) progress in implementing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particle (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone pollution. I am proud to say

that our implementation of these standards demonstrates that we are increasing the

velocity of environmental progress. As an Agency and as a country, I believe we

have initiated the most productive period of air quality improvement in the history

of our Nation.

On April 15 of this year, I am required by consent decree to tell certain local areas

across the country that their air quality does not meet Federal health-based ozone

standards. Later this year, pursuant to the schedule Congress enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Bill of fiscal year 2004, I will do the same for those areas

that do not meet Federal health-based fine particle standards. As a former Governor, I understand what this means.

That is why I also want to tell the affected state and local governments, and their

citizens, that the Federal Government is doing its part to help them meet these

standards and improve air quality. That is why the Agency is moving forward with

both the Interstate Air Quality Rule (IAQR) that we proposed last December and

the proposed nonroad rule for construction, agricultural and industrial diesel equipment. Those two programs, as proposed, combined with other existing programs, including the Tier 2/gasoline sulfur standards for cars and light trucks, the NOx SIP

Call Rule to reduce interstate ozone transport, and the Clean Diesel Program for

new trucks and buses, would bring well over half of the counties now monitoring

nonattainment into attainment with the fine particle and ozone standards between

now and 2015.

In 1997, EPA adopted health-based standards for fine particles and ozone. At the

time, the standards were controversial, especially the fine particle standards. Numerous parties challenged the standards in the courts. After several decisions, including a Supreme Court decision, the legal questions surrounding the standards

were largely resolved in EPA’s favor. Since the standards were issued, the scientific

understanding of the fine particle problem has grown and deepened independent reviews of the scientific basis for EPA’s decision, and additional research, have affirmed the need to regulate fine particles.

With the legal issues settled, and our understanding of the science even further

advanced, we are focusing on implementation of the standards. When the PM2.5 and

8-hour ozone standards were adopted, some raised significant concerns about whether it was possible to reduce air pollution enough to meet the standards at a reasonable cost. The picture is much improved since 1997. Today we already have proposed or adopted national programs that will bring many areas in the country into

attainment with these standards at a reasonable cost. Our past experience under

the Clean Air Act suggests that the development of cleaner technologies, which is

continuing on many fronts, will help even the areas with the most difficult pollution

problems make progress at a reasonable cost in new ways we cannot identify today.
52

My testimony will focus on two different aspects of implementing these standards.

First, in the Clean Air Act, Congress established a framework for attaining air quality standards. This framework includes milestones for defining the scope of the

problem, setting forth solutions, and measuring progress. Today I will report on

where we are in meeting these milestones. The second major aspect of implementation is identifying and achieving the emission reductions necessary for communities

to meet the standards. We are doing this in a better way than we have done in the

past. Even though we are at a relatively early stage in the implementation process

(State plans are not due until 2007), we have already identified major steps that

EPA needs to take at a Federal level and are well on our way to adopting these

measures. We are also working with our State, Tribal and local partners to address

ozone and fine particle problems in a coordinated manner. We have put together a

package of actions combining Federal action on stationary, mobile and nonroad

sources that put us on the way toward meeting the national standards for fine particles and ozone.

BACKGROUND

Before discussing what we are doing to reduce fine particle and ozone pollution,

I would like to explain why we need to reduce this pollution to bring healthy air

to our communities.

Of the many air pollutants regulated by EPA, fine particle pollution is perhaps

the greatest threat to public health. Dozens of studies in the peer reviewed literature have found that these microscopic particles can reach the deepest regions

of the lungs. Although it is difficult to establish causality, exposure to fine particles

is associated with premature death, as well as asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis,

decreased lung function, and respiratory disease. Exposure is also associated with

aggravation of heart disease, leading to increased hospitalizations, emergency room

and doctor visits, and use of medication. Based on 2000–02 data, 65 million people

live in counties showing violations of the fine particle standards (see Figure 1). At

the present time, PM2.5 violations are occurring primarily in California and in the

eastern half of the United States.
53
54

Particulate matter is the general term used for a mixture of solid particles and

liquid droplets found in the air. PM2.5 describes the ‘‘fine’’ particles that are less

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. PM2.5 is formed mostly through atmospheric chemical reactions. These reactions involve a number of precursor gases

including sulfur dioxide (SO2) from power plants and industrial facilities; nitrogen

oxides (NOx) from power plants, automobiles, diesel engines, and other combustion

sources; carbon formed from organic compounds, including a number of volatile organic compounds from automobiles and industrial facilities; and ammonia from animal husbandry. These chemical reactions take place in the hot summer and cooler

autumn and winter seasons. PM2.5 can also be emitted directly from certain sources,

such as industrial facilities, diesel engines and fire. PM2.5 concentrations can be elevated at all times of the year, not just in the summertime. Changing weather patterns contribute to yearly differences in PM2.5 concentrations from region to region.

Also, PM2.5 can also be transported into an area from sources found hundreds or

thousands of miles upwind.

Ground-level ozone continues to be a pollution problem in many areas of the

United States. Ozone (a major component of smog) is a significant health concern,

particularly for people with asthma and other respiratory diseases, and children and

adults who are active outdoors in the summertime. Ozone can exacerbate respiratory symptoms, such as coughing and pain when breathing deeply. Ozone may

reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lung. Ozone has also been associated with increased hospitalizations and emergency room visits for respiratory

causes. Repeated exposure over time may permanently damage lung tissue. Based

on 2000–02 data, more than 110 million people live in counties that have monitors

registering violations of the 8-hour ozone standard (see Figure 1).

Ozone is rarely emitted directly into the air but is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx in the presence of sunlight. Ground-level

ozone forms readily in the atmosphere, usually during hot summer weather. VOCs

are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial products, other industrial sources, and

biogenic sources. NOx is emitted from motor vehicles, power plants, and other

sources of combustion. Changing weather patterns contribute to yearly differences

in ozone concentrations from region to region. Ozone and the pollutants that form

ozone also can be transported into an area from pollution sources found hundreds

of miles upwind.

CLEAN AIR ACT FRAMEWORK—MILESTONES FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS

The Clean Air Act establishes a joint Federal and State process for air quality

management. The process starts when EPA sets (or revises) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS.) These standards are based on the best available scientific information and are to be set at a level requisite to protect public health with

an adequate margin of safety and to protect public welfare from adverse effects. Although States are given primary responsibility for developing plans to meet the

standards, EPA also issues Federal rules that will result in emission reductions at

a national or regional level.

In 1997, EPA set fine particle standards. Although EPA had previously issued

standards governing particle pollution, this was the first time that EPA specifically

regulated particles 2.5 microns or smaller. At the same time, EPA also set a new

ozone standard, measured over 8 hours instead of 1 hour, that is more protective

of public health. Setting these standards triggers Federal, state and local actions to

ensure that all areas in the country meet these standards. Although some of these

actions were delayed due to litigation, we are now implementing these standards.

The first phase in implementing these standards is to assess and define the scope

of the problem by designating areas with respect to their attainment status. The

Clean Air Act requires that those areas that violate the standards, or contribute to

a violation, be designated ‘‘non-attainment’’ areas. All other areas are attainment

or unclassifiable. States, Tribes, and EPA collect data from air quality monitors and

evaluate the results. The calculation for determining whether an area is violating

the ozone or fine particle standard is based on 3-years of air quality data. Based

on this data, States and Tribes recommend to EPA each area’s designation and, considering additional factors, also recommend to EPA each area’s boundaries. EPA responds to the recommendations and explains any modifications to the State and

tribal recommendations. Then, EPA issues a final action setting each area’s boundaries and its designation. As part of this process for many ozone areas, EPA also

sets the date by which each non-attainment area must come into attainment. Air

quality designations inform citizens living and working in an area of the quality of

air that they are breathing.
55

Under the Clean Air Act, once an area’s designation as a non-attainment area becomes effective, a number of Clean Air Act provisions designed to bring areas into

attainment are triggered. States, some Tribes, and local governments develop implementation plans that contain enforceable measures to reduce emissions and demonstrate that non-attainment areas will come into attainment. These plans can rely

on a combination of Federal, State and local measures to achieve the necessary air

quality improvements. These plans generally are due 3 years after the effective date

of the designation of a non-attainment area. EPA reviews these plans to ensure that

they meet the minimum Clean Air Act requirements.

Progress on Milestones for Fine Particles

We are in the process of designating areas with respect to their fine particle attainment status. These designations will be based on data from a new monitoring

network that Congress funded and that EPA and the States installed after the fine

particle standards were set. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Bill of fiscal

year 2004, States and Tribes were to give us their recommendations for designations

of areas as attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable and for the boundaries of

those areas in February 2004. As of March 19th, 44 States and 2 Tribes have submitted their recommendations. In late summer, we will send letters to the States

responding to their recommendations. The public will have an opportunity to submit

additional information before EPA designates areas in December 2004.

Fine particle State Implementation Plans (SIPs) will be due in February 2008.

EPA intends to propose a rule this June that would describe the minimum elements

required for a fine particle SIP, and intends to finalize this rule later this year or

early in 2005. The Clean Air Act requires areas to attain the fine particle standards

as expeditiously as practicable. Given the guidance in the Clean Air Act, attainment

dates for PM2.5 are expected to range from about 2010 to 2015 depending on the

severity of the air quality problem and other factors.

Progress on Milestones for Ozone

We are farther along in designating areas with respect to their ozone attainment

status because we already had an ozone monitoring network in place when we

issued the revised ozone standards in 1997. States and Tribes have submitted their

recommendations, EPA has provided initial responses to those recommendations

and given the public an opportunity to comment on them. No later than April 15,

2004, EPA will issue a final action designating all areas of the country with respect

to their 8-hour ozone attainment status. (This date is set forth in a consent decree

entered to resolve a lawsuit).

As a former Governor, I know that, for many non-attainment areas, setting the

area’s boundaries is not a decision to be made lightly. I have already spent much

time talking to representatives of specific areas and States to ensure that EPA is

adequately taking specific local circumstances into account. In setting boundaries,

EPA started with the presumption that they should mirror the boundaries of the

consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) or metropolitan statistical area

(MSA) (as defined in 1999). The presumed boundaries can be adjusted, however,

based on 11 factors that EPA negotiated with the States. These factors include traffic and commuting patterns, meteorology, population density, and location and size

of emissions sources. EPA’s role is to ensure that the law is applied consistently

across the country, while taking into account the particular facts in each area. Decisions about non-attainment areas in one State or Tribal area can impact our choices

in other areas. We are working with our Regional offices and the various Tribes and

States now to ensure that the designations I make are fair and defensible.

After areas are designated nonattainment, they will have 3 years to submit plans

demonstrating that they will attain the 8-hour ozone standard. The Clean Air Act

requires areas to attain the ozone standards as expeditiously as practicable. Given

the guidance in the Clean Air Act, attainment dates are expected to range from

2007 to 2019 depending on the severity of the ozone problem and other factors.

In response to the Supreme Court decision on the NAAQS, EPA is issuing an 8-

hour ozone implementation rule to clarify the Clean Air Act requirements that apply

to state plans for meeting the 8-hour ozone standard. We proposed this rule in June

2003, and will issue it as a final rule in two parts. The States, affected sources, environmental organizations, as well as the public at large, have offered substantial

input in the development of this rule. The first phase of the rule contains a system

for categorizing areas based on the severity of their air quality problem, sets deadlines for attaining the standards, defines when EPA will revoke the 1-hour ozone

standards, and defines requirements to avoid ‘‘backsliding’’ or losing progress in air

quality improvements as we make the transition from implementing the 1-hour

standard to the 8-hour standard. We intend to issue this phase no later than April
56

1To achieve the required reductions in the most cost-effective way, the proposal suggests that

States regulate power plants under a cap and trade program similar to EPA’s highly successful

Acid Rain Program. Emissions would be permanently capped and could not increase.

15, 2004. We intend to finalize a second phase of this rule late this summer. After

publication of the second phase of the rule, we anticipate providing an outreach program to facilitate States’ understanding of the provisions of the rule.

IMPLEMENTING THE STANDARDS—PROGRAMS TO REDUCE OZONE AND

FINE PARTICLE POLLUTION

The Clean Air Act sets up the framework for assessing our air quality problems

and our progress in addressing them, but in large part it leaves open what I believe

is the most interesting and most pressing issue—how do we reduce pollution to

make the air cleaner so that the standards are met. I am very pleased to report

that we already have a plan to bring many areas of the country into attainment

with these standards, even though we are just at the beginning of the time period

that the Clean Air Act set up for the development of attainment plans. While we

know that in some places local controls will be key for areas to attain the standards,

EPA is focusing on the two major sources of pollution that are best controlled at

the national level power plants and new mobile sources. By controlling these

sources, we will eliminate or significantly reduce the fine particle or ozone pollution

problem across large parts of the country. Thus, States will know the scope of the

air quality issue they need to address, which will help them focus their planning

efforts.

We have initiated as an agency and as a country what I believe will be the most

productive period of air quality improvement in the history of our Nation. EPA

projects that adopted and proposed regulatory measures, combined with other existing Federal and state programs, will bring well over half of the areas of the country

into attainment with the fine particle and ozone standards between now and 2015.

With these programs, even before new local controls are considered, our projections

indicate that the number of Eastern counties in the United States violating the

ozone and fine particle standards in 2015 will drop from 317 to 39, as highlighted

in Figure 2. In addition to the health benefits of reducing fine particle and ozone

pollution, these programs will also help improve visibility, decrease acid rain, and

reduce eutrophication of our lakes, streams and rivers.

This tremendous progress is possible because we are putting forward a suite of

air quality improvements that are about to become effective or will soon be adopted:

• the proposed interstate air quality rule, which should make even more dramatic

cuts in power plant pollution;

• the NOx SIP Call, which States are implementing to reduce power plant emissions;

• standards for new cars, and light duty trucks and the fuels they use; standards

for heavy-duty on-road diesel engines and the fuels they use;

• the proposed standards for new heavy-duty nonroad diesel engines (used in construction, agricultural, mining, airport service, etc.) and the fuels they use; voluntary diesel retrofit and idling programs to reduce emissions from the existing

fleet, including school buses.

Power Plants

EPA has proposed the Interstate Air Quality Rule, which would cap power plant

emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the East by 70 and 65 percent

respectively below 2000 levels. This would go a long way to help many areas attain

the fine particle standards and, to a lesser extent, the ozone standards.1 Power

plants emit 63 percent of the country’s SO2 emissions, which are a major contributor

to fine particle pollution. They also emit 22 percent of man-made NOx emissions,

which contribute to fine particle pollution year-round and to ozone pollution in the

summer. We proposed that power plants reduce these emissions through a cap-andtrade program, which would tell industry what level of reductions are required but

allow them to make them in the most economical way. Although we would prefer

that Congress pass the President’s proposed Clear Skies Act, the emission reductions are so important that we are moving forward to cut emissions administratively. I signed the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule (IAQR) last December and

intend to finalize it later this year. This rule will dramatically reduce fine particle

pollution. We estimate that, in 2015, the IAQR as proposed would avoid 13,000 premature deaths and 1.3 million lost work days annually. Based on the most recent

data (2000–02), 99 counties with monitors in the Eastern United States violate the

fine particle standard. EPA projects that the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule
57

and other Clean Air Act programs would bring 86 of these violating counties into

attainment.

This year, EPA and 19 States and the District of Columbia will be complying with

the NOx SIP Call, a 1998 rule pursuant to which power plants and large industrial

sources will significantly reduce NOx emissions in the summer. Full implementation

of the NOx SIP Call in 2007 (including Phase II, as proposed) is expected to achieve

about a 1 million ton NOx emissions decrease annually. Compliance with the NOx

SIP Call requirements will bring many areas into attainment with the 8-hour ozone

standard, and the IAQR will further help the remaining non-attainment areas meet

the standards.

Since 1995, EPA has been implementing the Acid Rain Program to reduce SO2

and NOx emissions from power plants nationwide. The centerpiece of the program

is an innovative, market-based ‘‘cap-and-trade’’ approach to achieve a nearly 50 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from 1980 levels. The results of the program have

been dramatic and unprecedented. Compliance has been nearly 100 percent. Reductions in power plant SO2 emissions were larger and earlier than required, providing

earlier human health and environmental benefits. Now, in the tenth year of the program, we know that the greatest SO2 emissions reductions were achieved in the

highest SO2-emitting states; acid deposition dramatically decreased over large areas

of the eastern United States in the areas where reductions were most critically

needed; trading did not cause geographic shifting of emissions or increases in localized pollution (hot spots); and the human health and environmental benefits were

delivered broadly. The compliance flexibility and allowance trading has reduced

compliance costs by 75 percent from initial EPA estimates.

Cars, trucks, school buses and other mobile sources

Emissions of NOx and other pollutants will decrease significantly as a result of

a series of EPA regulations controlling emissions from new mobile sources and the

fuels they use.

EPA has proposed, and will finalize in the near future, new emission standards

for nonroad diesel engines used in construction, agricultural, and industrial operations. These engine standards will be combined with requirements limiting sulfur

in the fuel for these engines, which will allow optimal performance of the engines’

pollution control equipment. EPA’s proposed nonroad standards are estimated to reduce 127,000 tons of PM and 826,000 tons of NOx in 2030, which is estimated to

prevent annually in 2030 9,600 premature mortalities, 16,000 non-fatal heart attacks, over 8,300 hospital admissions, and 5.7 million days when adults must restrict their activity because of pollution related respiratory symptoms.

The benefits of the proposed nonroad rule will be added to those from two other

mobile source rules. With this model year (2004), 25 percent of cars and light trucks

must comply with the Tier II program, announced in 1999, which established tighter

tailpipe standards for new passenger vehicles and limited the amount of sulfur in

gasoline. The program will be fully phased in by 2009. The heavier light-trucks have

a slightly delayed phase-in schedule, with 100 percent by 2009. This rule required

for the first time that larger vehicles like SUVs, minivans and pick-up and trucks

meet the same standards as cars. The associated gasoline sulfur standards will ensure the effectiveness of low emission-control technologies in vehicles. These new

standards require passenger vehicles to be 77 to 95 percent cleaner than those on

the road today.

Fine particle and ozone pollution will also decrease as a result of a rule announced in 2000 to clean up pollution from new diesel trucks and buses. When fully

in effect, these rules will result in diesel trucks and buses being 95 percent cleaner

than today’s models for smog-causing emissions and 90 percent cleaner for particulate matter. The rule also requires very low sulfur diesel fuel to enable the use of

advanced aftertreatment technologies. As a result of this program, there will be a

dramatic transformation of diesel engines over the next decade. We estimate that

this program will prevent 8,300 premature deaths and 1.5 million lost work days.

Although EPA’s mobile source standards will reduce pollution from new mobile

sources, they do not require reductions from existing vehicles and equipment. Given

the long life span and high level of emissions from existing diesel engines, significant air quality benefits are possible by reducing these emissions. EPA is working

with state and local governments on creative, voluntary programs to reduce emissions from existing engines. For example, the President has requested $65 million

in fiscal year 2005 funding for the Clean School Bus USA program, which would

assist school districts across the country in replacing or retrofitting school buses.

Clean School Bus USA addresses the growing concerns about children’s exposure

to diesel exhaust. The vast majority of the nation’s schools buses are older technology diesel buses that produce as much as six times the pollution as a new school
58

bus. Since school buses can remain in service for 30 years, today’s kindergartner

will have graduated from college by the time the full benefits of the new engine

standards are fully realized. Some of the cleaner technologies that will be used to

meet future diesel emission standards are available now and are practical for use

in today’s school buses. Clean School Bus USA is designed to jump-start the process

of upgrading the fleet so that today’s generation of school children can reap the benefits of technologies that are available now to reduce emissions.

CONCLUSION

Bringing healthy air to our communities is a responsibility we all share. I am

proud to report that EPA is doing its part to bring areas into attainment with the

fine particle and ozone standards by issuing tight controls on power plants and new

mobile sources. We are looking forward to continuing to work with state and local

governments to ensure that all communities have healthy air.
59
60

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL O. LEAVITT TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. It is not clear that EPA has provided sufficient supporting data and

analysis for the regional EGU proposed reductions in Phase II. This could mean

that EPA’s findings concerning Phase II EGU regional reduction requirements are

premature, or subsequent corrections may be needed. EPA has not provided modeling of Phase I projected reductions, nor has it indicated that it is appropriate do

so.Has EPA considered updating emissions inventories for Phase II by conducting

additional studies and modeling on Phase I that include (1) all emission reductions

made in upwind states and (2) local and statewide reductions in downwind states

in order to assess what appropriate targeted additional emissions reductions are required from EGUs in order to bring the remaining non-attainment areas into attainment?

Response. EPA established the list of states subject to the proposed CAIR using

a ‘‘contribute significantly’’ test on the basis of their modeled contribution to nonattainment in 2010 and the cost-effectiveness of obtaining state-level emissions reductions. In a separate and independent step we evaluated the ability of states—

assuming that they controlled specified sources—to comply with the level of emissions reductions we determined to be highly cost-effective. In that separate step we

determined that the highly cost-effective reductions could not be fully achieved by

2010, due to logistical and other resource reasons. Our proposed solution for achieving the full level of reductions determined to be highly cost-effective is to implement

the reductions in two phases, with the Phase I effective in 2010 and Phase II effective in 2015. The proposed rulemaking reviews our analysis of local control measures, as well as the basis for our conclusion that the reductions for upwind States

are required. We will address this issue in the final rule documents.

Question 2a. Has EPA considered modifying the cost-effectiveness component

(costs per ton) of its ‘‘significant contribution’’ test in order to measure the comparative cost-effectiveness of upwind reductions on downwind states to assure that both

the most effective and the lowest cost reductions are being pursued for bringing the

remaining non-attainment areas into attainment?

Response. This question raises an important issue, and one on which the Agency

has requested public comment and will address in the final decision on CAIR.

In the proposed CAIR, EPA proposed to use the same approach for determining

‘‘significant contribution’’ that it had used in the NOx SIP Call, which was upheld

by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the

NOx SIP Call, EPA included both an air quality and a cost-effectiveness component

in the determination of whether one state ‘‘significantly contributes’’ to another

area’s non-attainment problem. In that rule, EPA defined the cost component of the

‘‘contribute significantly’’ test in terms of a level of cost effectiveness (i.e., dollars

spent per ton of emissions reductions), and then looked at whether controls were

‘‘highly cost effective.’’

To determine what controls (if any) would be ‘‘highly cost-effective’’ for power

plants, EPA compared power plant controls to other recently adopted SO2 and NOx

control strategies. This evaluation provided ranges of cost-effective control strategies. EPA believes that controls with costs toward the low end of the range may

be considered to be highly cost-effective because they are self-evidently more cost

effective than most other controls in the range.

EPA’s analysis also looked at other factors, including the applicability, performance, and reliability of different types of pollution control technologies for different

types of sources, and other implementation costs of a regulatory program for any

particular group of sources. Based on these considerations, EPA proposed requirements based on highly cost-effective emissions reductions obtainable from electric

generating units.

After determining highly cost-effective controls through these criteria, EPA then

conducted air quality modeling of the resulting amount of emissions reductions.

EPA believes that the observed air quality improvements confirm that the highly

cost-effective controls are needed.

EPA also noted in the preamble to the proposed CAIR that comparisons of the

cost per ton of pollutant reduced from various control measures should be assessed

carefully. Cost per ton of pollutant reduction is a convenient way to measure cost

effectiveness, but it does not take into account the fact that any given ton of pollutant reduction may have different impacts on ambient concentration and human exposure. These differences would depend on factors such as the relative locations of

the emissions sources and receptor areas, and the mix of pollutants in the atmosphere. EPA solicited comment in the CAIR proposal on whether to take such consid-
61

erations into account and what, if any, scientifically defensible methods may be

available to do so.

Question 2b. Do you believe EPA has the CAA regulatory burden to make an affirmative finding on a state-by-state basis that each state in Phase I should be included in Phase II due to a continuing ‘‘significant contribution’’ to downwind nonattainment after considering local and intrastate measures in downwind states?

Response. EPA established the list of states subject to the proposed CAIR using

a ‘‘contribute significantly’’ test on the basis of their modeled contribution to nonattainment in 2010 and the cost-effectiveness of obtaining state-level emissions reductions. In a separate and independent step we evaluated the ability of states—

assuming that they controlled specified sources—to comply with the level of emissions reductions we determined to be highly cost-effective. In that separate step we

determined that the highly cost effective reductions could not be fully achieved by

2010, due to logistical and other resource reasons. Our proposed solution for achieving the full level of reductions determined to be highly cost-effective is to implement

the reductions in two phases, with the Phase I effective in 2010 and Phase II effective in 2015. The proposed rulemaking reviews our analysis of local control measures, as well as the basis for our conclusion that the reductions for upwind States

are required. We will address this issue in the final rule documents.

Question 2c. Do downwind states have primary responsibility for bringing areas

into attainment and maintaining attainment?

Response. The state (or states) where the designated non-attainment area is located has responsibility for planning for attainment of the standards. This would

include coordinating with other States that contribute to the non-attainment problem. However, regardless of downwind states’ efforts to coordinate solutions to the

non-attainment problem, upwind states significantly contributing to nonattainment

in downwind states have an independent, and equally important, responsibility to

mitigate their interstate contribution.

Question 2d. Please provide us with your views on these points and any legal

bases to conclude otherwise.

Response. Clean Air Act (CAA) section 101(a)(3) provides that ‘‘air pollution prevention . . . and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of

States and local governments. . . .’’ This provision assigns responsibility to all

states—upwind and downwind—and neither limits responsibility to the downwind

state nor assigns it primarily to downwind states. Various other sections provide requirements and mechanisms for controlling upwind emissions. These include, among

others, section 110(a)(2)(D) (the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision that requires every State

implementation plan (SIP) to prohibit sources in the State from emitting emissions

in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment in a downwind State),

section 126 (which authorizes downwind States, or political subdivisions, to petition

EPA to control upwind sources that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment), section 176A (which establishes interstate transport commissions), section

184 (which establishes special requirements for control of interstate ozone). These

provisions indicate that Congress has apportioned responsibility for achieving clean

air to the upwind significant contributors. We are not aware of legal authority to

the contrary.

Question 3a. Before proceeding with Phase II, and in order to assure that the estimated health benefits are realized, it would be prudent for EPA and other government agencies to conduct speciation studies specifically aimed at the different components or subspecies of PM2.5 to identify those components associated with the

greatest ill-health effects. John Graham, Director of the OMB Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, has urged EPA to redirect research funds to address this

very issue when he stated in his December 2001 letter to then-EPA Administrator

Christine Todd Whitman that there is ‘‘emerging evidence that some types of fine

particles may pose a greater health risk.’’ At that time, Dr. Graham recommended

that EPA retarget some of its research budget to study the comparative effects of

different types of particles.

‘‘If research can identify those particles most responsible for health risks, it

may be possible to design controls that do more for public health and cost the

economy less than would occur through policies that assume all particles are

equally toxic.’’

What actions has EPA taken to fund additional PM speciation studies targeted

at the relative toxicity of different components of PM and what studies will be completed before Phase II has gone into effect?
62

Response. EPA’s Particulate Matter Research Program comprises a coordinated

effort that targets not only what health effects arise from exposure to air pollution,

but also what attributes of particulate matter (PM) are ‘‘causal’’ with regard to

health. EPA agrees with Dr. Graham that information from this research may be

important in ensuring that control strategies are designed and focused on the PM

sources that most strongly impact public health, and to provide a sound scientific

basis for the development of future PM standards. Consistent with both the recommendations of the NRC panel on research priorities for particulate matter and

Dr. Graham’s comments, EPA has invested substantial funding to support research

into the potential ‘‘causal attributes’’ of the relationship between particulate matter

and health effects, including both physical measures, such as size, and of course

chemical composition. As recommended by the National Research Council Committee on PM research priorities, source attribution has evolved to become the focus

of the PM Research Program. This research spans the spectrum from empirical laboratory studies to those in the field and is being integrated between health effects

and monitoring.

Examples of EPA research addressing this question are the extramural toxicological studies in humans and animals using combustion derived PM—initially

diesel emissions, which have become a growing concern. EPA has redirected efforts

from other sources that now are better understood (e.g., metals from oil fly ash) to

exploring empirically the role of organic materials in lung, cardiac, and systemic

outcomes. These studies are cross-laboratory and encompass significant investment

in directed source understanding. Speciation profiles from the sources and the inclusion of novel approaches are being explored in an effort to develop biologic profiles

with sources which can be used in field studies. The Detroit Exposure and Aerosol

Research Study (DEARS) is a new project starting this year and continuing for the

next several years to link personal PM-component exposures to local monitoring

data and source attributed contributions in people strategically selected around Detroit. This area has multiple sources making it ideal for such study. The associated

Children’s Asthma Study that follows school children in the area who are most exposed to mobile sources is expanding that source data base from the El Paso studies

reported 2 years ago.

In addition, EPA is revising its monitoring program to decrease the multiple types

of monitoring programs now in place to a more strategic and integrated program

(NCORE). Considerable efforts have been made by the Air Office to ensure that EPA

understands the needs of the research community with respect to air quality monitoring. Our goal is to devise a monitoring program that will serve to expand efforts

in assessing regional PM compositional differences and associated health outcomes.

In keeping with Dr. Graham’s suggestion, we have tasked HEI with coordinating

the design and execution of possible multi-pollutant, multi-city studies that would

take advantage of our extensive monitoring to examine the role of specific components and sources. Indeed, HEI has already had workshops specifically on how the

monitoring program can be used to enhance its research agenda to explore source

attributed health effects.

A variety of these studies will be completed before Phase II goes into effect. However, given the our inability to predict the results of these studies, it is not possible

to determine whether sufficiently informative information will be available in time

for use in Phase II.

BACKGROUND ON STUDIES OF THE HEALTH RISK FROM PARTICLES

Several hypotheses regarding the role of specific PM components have emerged

from EPA-sponsored and other research since 1997. The latest scientific information

on these issues is included in the ongoing review of the scientific criteria and standards for PM. In essence, EPA’s assessment is that the weight of evidence from multiple studies indicates that there are adverse, PM-associated impacts on human

health, and that multiple components and combinations of the PM and gaseous pollutant mixtures may be involved.

Although much of what we know about the health effects of PM and its constituents comes from community epidemiological studies; the chemical composition of PM

has received considerable scrutiny in toxicology studies. Studies of inorganic constituents have generated the most data to date. Sulfate and nitrate anions derived

from combustion emissions or atmospheric processes usually combine with other

constituents in PM, especially the water soluble materials. Although the intrinsic,

independent toxicities of sulfate and nitrate appear to be rather low, such components are associated with adverse health effects in a number of studies. It is hypothesized that these substances may influence the toxicity or bioavailability of other

PM components. Little is actually known about the cardiovascular effects associated
63

with acidic aerosols, and the possibility that they might mediate some of the reported PM effects is now being explored in EPA-funded programs.

EPA toxicology studies have found that inhalation of certain metals resulted in

inflammation in the lung and cardiac arrhythmias. While these studies were conducted with doses or concentrations of PM higher than typical ambient conditions,

they demonstrate the potential for similar effects to occur in humans. Nevertheless,

perhaps the most striking evidence for the importance of metals is from studies of

PM-associated metals extracted from ambient filters in the Utah Valley at the site

of a steel mill that was temporarily closed because of a labor dispute. Human and

animal exposure studies, as well as laboratory tests, using material from particles

collected when the plant was open and closed observed a similar pattern and types

of effects. These EPA-supported studies corroborate the results of a separate study

that found a decrease in hospital admissions for similar causes in the local population while the plant was closed.

EPA is investing substantial resources toward investigating the toxicity of other

chemical attributes of PM. For example, organic constituents are of particular concern, due, in large part, to the contribution of various industrial sources as well as

diesel and other mobile sources to the fine PM fraction. While not as directly toxic

as some of the metal compounds, certain organic compounds appear to be able to

generate oxidants that might have delayed or subtle effects not readily measured

by conventional methods.

Question 3b. What procedures does EPA have in place to incorporate the results

of these studies (and other studies conducted worldwide on this subject) into decisions on the design of Phase II?

Response. The proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is driven in large part

by the need to address significant contributions of upwind sources to non-attainment by downwind areas of the primary and secondary PM2.5 and ozone standards.

We have chosen to propose implementation of cost effective reductions in two phases

based on our assessment of the feasibility and costs associated with eliminating

such significant transport that contributes to non-attainment.

Based on the information we have on the health and visibility effects of PM and

its components, Phase II of the proposed CAIR is appropriate and necessary, and

is likely to produce very significant health and environmental benefits.

The most appropriate vehicle for incorporating new information would be the

process Congress established in the Clean Air Act for reviewing and, as appropriate,

revising the ambient air quality standards for fine particles. If new, peer-reviewed

information on the health effects of fine particles or components of fine particles becomes available, it should be incorporated into an appropriate future review of the

criteria and standards for particulate matter, and, if necessary, an additional rulemaking might also be appropriate to determine whether changes to Phase II of

CAIR would be appropriate.

Question 4a. Should EPA measure the ‘‘significance’’ of upwind contributions to

PM2.5 non-attainment in terms of relative contribution to the exceedance level?

Response. EPA is currently conducting a rulemaking process, including reviewing

public comments, to decide the appropriate way to measure the significance of

upwind states’ contributions to downwind non-attainment areas. Your question

raises an issue that we are considering and that will be addressed more fully in the

documents supporting the final Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

To determine which states are significantly contributing to downwind nonattainment and what level of emissions reductions should be required, in CAIR, EPA has

proposed to use the same basic approach for determining ‘‘significant contribution’’

that it used in the NOx SIP Call, which was upheld by the United States Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the NOx SIP Call, EPA included

both an air quality and a cost-effectiveness component in the determination of

whether one state ‘‘significantly contributes’’ to another area’s ozone non-attainment

problem.

The proposed air quality impact assessment for PM2.5 involves evaluating the impact of SO2 and NOx emissions from upwind states on downwind nonattainment of

the annual average PM2.5 standard. EPA has proposed that a state’s maximum impact on the most affected downwind non-attainment area is the critical metric for

determining inclusion under the air quality component of the two-part test. Using

this metric, EPA proposed that a state that is causing at least 0.15 ug/m3 impact

on a downwind area’s annual average PM2.5 level would be subject to emissions reduction requirements. EPA is taking comment on this and other proposed metrics.

Prior to issuing the proposed CAIR, EPA considered several other metrics to

quantify the relative contribution of upwind states to downwind receptors. For example, EPA examined the contribution above the level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
64

of upwind states to downwind nonattainment. This metric does not substantially

change the relative ordering of upwind states with downwind impacts when compared to the maximum impact metric (which EPA proposed to use).

Question 4b. In the IAQR, a state emissions budget is determined based on IAQR

percent reduction of the overall regional emission inventory. Thus, a state contributing a relatively small amount to downwind non-attainment is treated the same

as a state contributing a relatively large amount to downwind non-attainment.

Emission budgets are set for the states without regard to the impact of those states

on downwind non-attainment. The net result could be over-control in many areas

and under-control in others. Please comment on this issue.

Response. In the CAIR proposal, EPA establishes emission budgets only for those

states that the modeling shows contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment

with the 8-hour ozone and fine particle standards. The state emissions budgets are

based on control opportunities and not on differences in absolute downwind impact.

However, all of the measures in EPA’s calculation for how a state would meet the

emissions budget are highly cost effective, and in that sense there is no over-control

in any state. As illustrated by our modeling predictions, some of the counties that

we project will attain the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS because of Federal measures, including the proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule, would have new design values below

the level of the NAAQS. Given the uncertainties in the projections and the many

advantages of a uniform level of control in the power sector (among the states affected), EPA believes this outcome is appropriate for this rule.

EPA-based emissions control responsibility, in part, on the relative cost-effectiveness of control measures, in terms of dollars per ton of pollutant reduction. Cost per

ton of pollutant reduction is a convenient way to measure cost effectiveness, but it

does not take into account the fact that any given ton of pollutant reduction may

have different impacts on ambient concentration and human exposure, depending on

factors such as the relative locations of the emissions sources and receptor areas.

An alternative approach might adopt the effect of emission reductions on ambient

concentrations in downwind non-attainment areas as the measure of effectiveness

of further control. EPA solicited comment in the CAIR proposal on whether to take

such considerations into account and what, if any, scientifically defensible methods

may be available to do so.

There are counties and states for which the Clean Air Interstate Rule alone will

not be enough for the area to reach attainment for ozone and PM2.5, and in that

sense there is under-control. These states will need to identify and implement appropriate additional local or state-wide measures. EPA believes this outcome is appropriate.

EPA solicited comment in the CAIR proposal on whether to take such considerations into account and what, if any, scientifically defensible methods may be available to do so.

Question 5. Why has EPA indicated a preference for states to conduct NOx allowance auctions and to have states retain the revenues? This is somewhat similar to

a provision I changed in S. 1844, the Clear Skies Act of 2003 because it reallocated

wealth in a manner that encouraged increased reliance on natural gas when the Nation is facing difficulties meeting its current supply needs. What is your rationale

for increasing the cost of emission control to power generators above and beyond the

cost of the controls themselves?

Response. In the proposed rule and supplemental notice of CAIR, EPA proposed

to give each state the flexibility to choose its own allocation method. EPA proposed

an example allocation to give states the benefit of that information. In the proposal’s

preamble, EPA discussed various options available to states, including an auction.

In the supplemental notice to the CAIR proposal, EPA provides an example allocation methodology that includes an input-based allocation for existing units with provisions for updating the data that will take new units into account.

Allocating allowances through an auction has a number of benefits. Auctions ensure that all parties, including the general public, have access to allowances. Auctions should also be the most economically efficient way to allocate allowances since

sources would bid their perceived values for allowances. Auctions treat existing and

new sources in a similar fashion. Auctions also eliminate the permanent right to

emit and can provide distortion-free revenues to States.

State auctions of some portion of their allowances should not encourage increased

reliance on natural gas. Since allowances have a value in the allowance markets,

allocating them for free impacts the distribution of wealth among different generators. However, any generator selling in a market would seek to operate (and burn

fuel) to meet energy demand in a least cost manner, and this does not depend on

how the permanent allowances were allocated. Thus, the choice of method of allo-
65

cating permanent allowances whether distributed on the basis of a historic baseline

or auctioned, would not be expected to result in increased reliance on natural gas,

or in fact result in changes in generators’ choices for fuel consumption.

Question 6. EPA also stated in the Preamble of the proposed rule that it might

require states to auction a portion of a state’s allowance budget and to fully retain

the revenues for a state to use as it sees fit. What authority does EPA cite for such

a mandate?

Response. The preamble of the proposed CAIR states that EPA ‘‘strongly encouraged each State to consider reserving a portion of its allowance budget for an auction.’’ EPA has not proposed to require such an approach.

RESPONSES BY MICHEAL O. LEAVITT TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR VOINOVICH

Question 1. In your testimony, you mention a ‘‘suite of air improvements’’ that will

help bring counties into attainment. How do you expect these Federal regulations

to be consolidated into State Implementation Plans?

Response. When states prepare their state implementation plans, including demonstrations of how they will bring areas into attainment with the NAAQS, states

are allowed to take into account the projected emission reductions from Federal regulations. EPA provides guidance to States on how to calculate credit for emission

reductions for federally mandated control measures. For instance, for highway mobile source emissions, EPA updates the ‘‘MOBILE’’ model used to calculate future

emission factors (grams of emissions per vehicle mile) for various operating conditions. In preparing the demonstration of attainment for its implementation plan, a

State would project emissions into the future—accounting for all currently applicable emission limits, including Federal measures—and use those emissions projections as input to a photochemical grid model to predict ambient ozone concentrations. If those concentrations show that the area would continue to be violating the

ozone standard at the future date, the State would have to adopt sufficient additional control measures such that the concentrations would be indicative of attaining the standard.

In addition, EPA performs photochemical modeling on a broader scale, sometimes

covering a number of States, to assess the effect of national and regional control

measures on transported ozone and precursor emissions. In performing their own

atmospheric modeling for specific non-attainment areas, the State would account for

the future effects of those national and regional measures (viz., lowering future

ozone concentrations) that affect those non-attainment areas based on the EPA modeling.

Question 2. EPA has concluded that attainment will be reached in many counties

as a result of the Interstate Air Quality Rule (IAQR) and several other new Federal

standards. However, the IAQR has been proposed to be implemented in two phases

with deadlines of 2010 and 2015 and Subpart 1 non-attainment areas must demonstrate attainment by 2009 or 2014. What effect does this mismatch have on EPA’s

analyses? Is EPA considering synchronizing these years?

Response. Assuming that EPA finalizes PM2.5 designations by the statutory deadline of December 2004, the PM2.5 attainment deadlines would be no later than early

2010, or no later than early 2015 for areas receiving a maximum 5-year extension.

In addition, the Administrator can grant up to two 1-year extensions under certain

circumstances. EPA’s modeling analysis of projected air quality in the years 2010

and 2015 will provide useful information to states with non-attainment areas. Because of the structure of the proposed CAIR emissions trading program, which creates a strong financial incentive for early reductions to ‘‘bank’’ allowances, EPA

projects that many participating power plants will begin to reduce SO2 emissions

prior to the phase I emissions cap year of 2010. (For purposes of attainment of the

PM2.5 standard, early SO2 reductions are more beneficial than early NOx reductions.) These substantial early reductions should provide air quality benefits even

for non-attainment areas with attainment dates in early 2010.

When a state develops and submits its overall implementation plan in 2008, it

will need to provide for each area a demonstration supporting a date for attainment

that is ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable.’’ In its demonstration, the state will be able

to take credit for any emission reductions projected under CAIR in addition to any

reductions projected from other national, state, and local programs. Based on its

analysis, the state will need to propose an attainment date for each of its non-attainment areas. The proposed attainment date can range up to 2015, depending on

factors specific to each area. Thus, the CAIR modeling for 2010 and 2015 will pro-
66

vide important information about potential air quality benefits from the EGU reductions. Because attainment dates will be established on a case-by-case basis, we believe that the modeling for CAIR will provide useful information to support state

attainment planning.

Question 3. You stated in your testimony that you ‘‘prefer that Congress pass the

President’s Clear Skies Act.’’ Why is legislation better than the regulatory approach

you are now taking? How specifically is the legislation better for helping states and

localities meet the NAAQS?

Response. The President committed to enacting multi-pollutant legislation using

a flexible market-based program which would reduce NOx, SO2 and mercury, and

increase regulatory certainty for the utility sector. EPA was directed by the President to propose this legislation the Clear Skies Act—and work with Congress to

enact it. Clear Skies is a strong nation-wide program that requires statutory

changes. Comparing our experience on the Acid Rain Program with the NOx SIP

Call and the Section 126 petitions demonstrates the benefit of having certain key

issues resolved by Congress rather than left to Agency rulemakings. Congressional

resolution of key issues decreases the possibility that the program will get tied up

in protracted litigation, provides states with greater certainty of the timing of the

reductions, and ensures a consistent, nation-wide market system.

Question 4. During the hearing, I inserted a letter into the record from Ohio EPA

that was sent to EPA’s Region 5 office about Knox County in Ohio. The letter was

amending Ohio’s recommendation to only include part of Knox County. On April 15,

EPA designated several counties across the Nation as only in partial nonattainment

for the standards but not Knox County. What criteria did EPA use in making a determination on whether to designate a county as partial nonattainment?

Response. Knox County, contiguous to the Columbus consolidated metropolitan

statistical area (C/MSA), was measuring a violation (88ppb) of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard based upon the most recent air quality data

(2001–2003). EPA’s policy was to designate full counties as nonattainment if they

had a violating ozone air quality monitor and had no other ‘‘clean’’ monitors in that

same county. This was the case for Knox County, Ohio. Exceptions to this policy

were made for very large western counties, counties divided by high mountain

ranges, and mountain top/national park areas—none of which applied to Knox

County. Also, since cities and townships are the building blocks for OMB’s C/MSA

definitions in the New England states, EPA honored this distinction.

Question 5a. What has been EPA’s experience with the effectiveness of emissions

testing programs?

Response. Regardless of their individual design, stringency, or level of enforcement—all of which can impact the effectiveness of individual vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) programs—the overall effectiveness of I/M as a control strategy

varies depending upon the timeframe under consideration. For example, an I/M program developed in response to the 1990 Clean Air Act’s (CAA) original I/M requirements is likely to have been more effective in terms of tons of excess emissions reduced than is likely to be the case with a brand-new I/M program starting today.

Vehicle standards and relative vehicle durability have evolved over time, as has the

proportion of vehicles built to meet these changing standards. The in-use fleet of vehicles is constantly turning over to cleaner and more durable vehicles. One of the

side effects of this fleet turnover is that the mass of excess emissions from which

the I/M credit is drawn is itself shrinking. It is also important to note that the effectiveness of an individual I/M program will vary depending upon when in the program’s lifetime it is being evaluated. For example, a brand-new I/M program tends

to be at its most effective during the first few test cycles, when previously undetected vehicle tampering and years of poor maintenance can be identified for the

first time and corrected.

Studies that purport to assess the effectiveness of individual I/M programs have

varied widely in their conclusion depending on the type of I/M program being evaluated, when, and at what age, using what combination of evaluation methodologies.

That is why the National Research Council’s (NRC) July 2001 report, ‘‘Evaluating

Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Programs,’’ refrained from providing

a one-size-fits-all assessment of I/M effectiveness based upon its survey of numerous

I/M effectiveness studies. Instead, the NRC reported a range of potential I/M effectiveness. As a general matter the turnover of the automotive fleet to cleaner vehicles

with improved durability reduces the emissions impact of I/M programs over time.

EPA took this into consideration, among many other factors, in updating the emission impact of I/M programs in its MOBILE model in 2003. Nevertheless, the re-
67

1Within an Ozone Transport Region (OTR), enhanced I/M is required for any metropolitan

statistical area (MSA) with a population of 100,000 or more, regardless of the area’s attainment

status for ozone.

maining air quality benefits of I/M are still significant and needed by many areas

in the country—a conclusion echoed by the NRC’s July 2001 I/M report.

Question 5b. What are some alternatives?

Response. Under the Clean Air Act, the level of flexibility and discretion an area

has with regard to adopting I/M versus some alternative measure depends on several criteria, most notably: (1) air quality classification, and (2) local urbanized population. For example, if an ozone non-attainment area is classified as serious or

worse, and it has a 1980 Census-defined urbanized population of 200,000 or more,

the 1990 Act requires that such an area implement an enhanced I/M program as

a non-discretionary, mandatory measure1. Similarly, if an ozone non-attainment

area is classified as moderate, and it has a 1990 Census-defined urbanized population of 200,000 or more, such an area must implement a basic I/M program (at

a minimum).

On the other hand, an ozone non-attainment area that has successfully redesignated to attainment may be able to shift its I/M program from an active to a contingency measure if it can demonstrate that doing so will not interfere with the area’s

ability to meet its other, applicable requirements under the CAA. One way an area

can demonstrate such non-interference is by replacing the emission reductions lost

as a result of discontinuing the I/M program with reductions from other, non-mandatory, previously unclaimed control measures. The range of possible alternative

control measures that falls under these criteria will vary from area to area, depending upon what is already in (or required to be in) the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Question 5c. If a state chooses not to continue an emissions testing program, does

their SIP need to make up these reductions in addition to what is needed to meet

the new standards?

Response. If an existing I/M program area which was previously only required to

have a basic I/M program has already or can successfully redesignate to attainment

for the 1-hour ozone standard (and is not classified under the 8-hour standard at

a level which would trigger the I/M requirement on its own) then the area may

qualify to shift the I/M program from an active measure to a contingency measure

as part of the area’s maintenance plan. Before converting I/M to a contingency

measure, however, the area must demonstrate that doing so will not interfere with

the area’s ability to meet its other CAA requirements, including attainment of all

applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). One way to demonstrate non-interference is by replacing the emission reductions lost as a result of

discontinuing the I/M program with reductions from other, non-mandatory, previously unclaimed control measures. Such additional measures would need to be included as part of the SIP revision converting the I/M program to a contingency

measure.

If an existing I/M area is not able to redesignate to attainment for the 1-hour

standard prior to revocation of that standard on June 15, 2005 (and is also designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour standard, regardless of classification or

subpart) then that area will be required to continue implementing an I/M program

until it has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. Whether the I/M program that must

be implemented is basic or enhanced will be determined by whichever ozone classification is worse—the area’s 1-hour or 8-hour classification. For example, if an area

was classified as serious nonattainment under the 1-hour standard (and was therefore required to implement an enhanced I/M program for that standard) but is classified as only moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour standard (which would normally only require a basic I/M program) the area must continue implementing an

I/M program that meets the enhanced I/M performance standard. In other words,

having a less severe classification under the 8-hour standard than under the 1-hour

standard does not grant the I/M area a license to downgrade its program from enhanced to basic.

Question 6. Can EPA speed up their schedule for the PM2.5 implementation rule?

What is EPA going to do to help communities and states deal with the unfamiliar

PM2.5 non-attainment designations?

Response. The draft PM2.5 implementation rule has been transmitted to OMB for

interagency review. We hope that the rule will be proposed soon.

EPA has been working with State and local air quality agencies in a number of

ways in preparation for addressing non-attainment area problems. EPA has issued
68

a number of national rules in the past several years (e.g. Tier II on-road vehicle

standards, heavy duty diesel engine standards, nonroad diesel engine standards) to

reduce emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors, and we are actively working to finalize

the Clean Air Interstate Rule to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from electric generating units. We have a significant program in place to encourage and subsidize diesel engine retrofits in trucks, buses, and other vehicles. EPA has also provided grant

funding to STAPPA/ALAPCO to develop a ‘‘Menu of Options’’ document providing

technical information on technologies and programs to reduce emissions of PM2.5

and its precursor pollutants.

In addition, EPA has been working with State and local agencies on the improvement of a number of technical tools needed to assess future strategies for reducing

PM2.5 concentrations. These tools include air quality models, emission inventories

and emission factors, meteorological data bases, analyses of air quality monitoring

data, analyses of chemical composition of PM2.5 in various urban areas, and specialized in-depth studies in several cities under the SUPERSITES monitoring program.

Question 7a. North Carolina recently filed a Section 126 petition against several

‘‘upwind’’ states, including Ohio, on the new 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards.

What impact could the Section 126 petitions have on the implementation of the

NAAQS?

Response. Section 126 of the Clean Air Act is designed to remedy interstate pollution transport. Section 126(b) authorizes States to petition EPA for a finding that

major stationary sources or groups of sources in upwind states are contributing significantly to non-attainment problems in downwind states.

The North Carolina petition requests that EPA make a finding that emissions of

sulfur dioxides (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from large electric generating units

in 13 States are contributing significantly to PM2.5 and/or 8-hour ozone non-attainment problems in North Carolina. EPA is currently evaluating the petition and has

not yet proposed whether to grant or deny the petition.

If EPA grants the petition, EPA would establish Federal control requirements for

the affected sources to mitigate the pollution transport. Reducing the interstate

transport would assist the downwind petitioning State in achieving its clean air

goals as well as providing cleaner air in the upwind States where the reductions

would be occurring.

In a separate action published on January 30, 2004, EPA proposed the ‘‘Rule to

Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air

Quality Rule),’’ now known as the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This action is

a regionwide, state implementation plan (SIP) based transport program. That is, the

action proposes to require 29 States and the District of Columbia to submit SIP revisions reducing SO2 and/or NOx emissions that are contributing significantly to

PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone non-attainment problems in downwind States. North Carolina’s section 126 petition is seeking reductions from the same types of sources and

pollutants as proposed in EPA’s CAIR. North Carolina’s petition relies, in part, on

EPA’s findings and analyses supporting the CAIR proposal.

In the CAIR proposal, EPA observed that it may receive section 126 petitions, and

that if it did, it would expect to approach them in the same manner as it approached section 126 petitions during the NOx SIP Call rulemaking—which, like

CAIR, was a regionwide SIP-based transport program—that is, to approve the section 126 petitions only in the event that States failed to fulfill their obligations

under the CAIR.

Question 7b. Could the possibility of these petitions being successful undermine

the ability of localities to adequately plan with some reasonable degree of certainty

as to what actions they will be required to undertake to meet the NAAQS?

Response. As noted above, in the CAIR proposal, EPA observed that it expected

to approve any section 126 petitions it may receive only in the event that States

failed to fulfill their obligations under the CAIR. Under this approach, any obligations that might affect sources under the section 126 petitions would be consistent

with the CAIR obligations. However, EPA is in the process of completing the CAIR

rulemaking and beginning action on the North Carolina section 126 petition, and

EPA cannot speculate as to the possible outcome of its action on the petition or the

effect of that action on localities.

Question 8. Does the Agency plan to work, in consultation with DOE, to analyze

the impact of the new NAAQS on fuel supply and demand?

Response. EPA will meet the obligations under E.O. 13211 to analyze energy implications of any Federal control programs that EPA adopts to help achieve the

NAAQS and consult with DOE as required by Executive Orders.
69

1Tables 2–1 and 2–2 are based on modeling done for the proposed CAIR. When EPA issues

the final rule, it will use updated information and modeling.

RESPONSES BY MICHEAL O. LEAVITT TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARPER

Question 1a. I understand that New Castle County in Delaware will be designated

as a non-attainment area under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard. According to EPA modeling data for the Interstate Air Quality Rule, New

Castle County is projected to be out of attainment in 2010 even with implementation of the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule. When would New Castle County

come into attainment if the Clean Air Planning Act were enacted?

Response. Under the Clean Air Planning Act (CAPA), we expect that New Castle

County would come into attainment with the 8-hour ozone standards in the same

timeframe as it would under either Clear Skies or the proposed Clean Air Interstate

Rule (CAIR). We previously analyzed the projected impacts of CAPA on 8-hour

ozone using a linear interpolation technique. This interpolation technique was based

on changes in NOx emissions. The results of this analysis indicate that this Act

would provide ozone reductions similar to the Clear Skies Act in 2010 and 2020

(which is not surprising given the similar levels of eastern NOx emissions projected

under the two proposals). For New Castle County, our modeling for Clear Skies and

the proposed CAIR indicates that this county would be out of attainment in 2010

under CAIR or Clear Skies and would be in attainment in 2015 with baseline control measures (i.e., with currently adopted control programs such as the NOx SIP

Call and motor vehicle controls). (Modeling was not completed for interim years.)

We expect the same attainment status and timeframe under CAPA.

Question 1b. When would Delaware’s two other counties, Kent and Sussex,

achieve attainment under the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule?

Response. Our modeling for the CAIR proposal projects that both Kent and Sussex

counties would be in attainment in 2010 with baseline control measures (i.e., currently adopted control programs such as the NOx SIP Call and motor vehicle controls). Modeling was not completed for interim years between the present day and

2010, so it is not possible to pinpoint the exact year in which attainment would be

reached.

Question 1c. When would these three counties achieve attainment if the Clean Air

Planning Act were enacted?

Response. We expect that each of these counties would achieve attainment of the

8-hour ozone standards under CAPA in the same timeframe as they would under

Clear Skies or CAIR given that similar levels of eastern NOx emissions are projected under all three of these proposals.

Question 2a. I understand that numerous neighboring counties in the mid-Atlantic

region states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey will be designated as nonattainment areas under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

When will counties in these states come into attainment if the Interstate Air Quality Rule is enacted?

Response. Table 2-1 shows the 2010 and 2015 projections for ozone design values

for counties in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey under the modeling done

for the proposed CAIR.1 Counties with design values less than 85 ppb are projected

to attain the 8-hour ozone standards. Many of the counties in these three states are

projected to come into attainment in 2010 or earlier if the CAIR (formerly known

as the Interstate Air Quality Rule) were adopted as proposed. (Note that we project

future 8-hour ozone design values based on county-level 2000–2002 design values

and the model-predicted change between a 2001 base case and each of the future

year simulations.)
70
71

Question 2b. When would they come into attainment if the Clean Air Planning

Act were enacted?

Response. We would expect that, under CAPA, the future ozone concentrations for

counties in Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania would be similar to those given

above under the proposed CAIR given the similar projected levels of NOx emissions

for the two proposals.

Question 3. In keeping with EPA’s recently announced commitment to undertake

further analyses in support of the proposed Utility Mercury Reductions Rule, I request that the Agency undertake a more detailed analysis of the Clean Air Planning

Act of 2003 (S. 843). Specifically, I request that EPA analyze the S. 843 mercury provisions with the same models, to the same level of analysis (i.e., state-level emissions), and reporting results for the same analytical endpoints as EPA used in analyzing the proposed Utility Mercury Reductions Rule and its new analyses of additional alternatives to those proposed in the rule.

In addition, as EPA undertakes analysis of the mercury program included in

S. 843, I request results for SO2 and NOx using the same models, level of analysis,

and analytical endpoints employed in the detailed analysis of Clear Skies and recent

regulatory proposals.

Response. Please see the attached letter from Assistant Administrator Holmstead

to Senator Carper, dated July 26, 2004.
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98

Question 4a. EPA’s Office of Research and Development released a white paper

on February 27, 2004 stating that mercury removal of 70–90 percent is possible on

96 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power generation capacity by 2010. In contrast,

the alternatives proposed in EPA’s Utility Mercury Reductions Rule aim to achieve

only a 29 percent reduction from current emissions levels by 2008 or 2010. This ‘‘cobenefits’’ level would require no installation of mercury control technology. Why is

the 2008/2010 emissions target in the Utility Mercury Reductions Rule set at 34

tons?

Response. The white paper cited states:

‘‘[a]ssuming sufficient development and demonstrations are carried out, by

2010, [activated carbon injection] ACI with an [electrostatic precipitator] ESP

has the potential to achieve 70 percent Hg control.’’

Further, it states that ‘‘ACI with an ESP and a retrofit fabric filter, or a fabric

filter alone, has the potential to achieve 90 percent Hg reduction.’’ The paper goes

on to indicate that 2010 is ‘‘the date by which the demonstration of the most difficult case (e.g., lignite) for the particular technology would be completed.’’

Demonstrations on easier situations could be completed ‘‘somewhat earlier.’’ Further, the paper states that:

‘‘it is important to note that completion of such demonstrations would represent only the potential initiation of the retrofit program which would take a

number of years to fully implement, assuming of course, both successful demonstrations and a regulatory driving force.’’

The paper then goes on to caveat the length of time necessary to fully deploy such

technologies and to indicate that the issues related to residues need to be addressed.

Thus, we do not believe that the white paper states that ACI technology, or any

other, will be fully deployed by 2010. Rather, it may only be ready for commercial

application on boilers at that time. The prerequisite full-scale ACI tests are either

just underway or not yet begun. Short-term tests of ACI technology on full-scale

bituminous- and sub-bituminous-fired units have been completed. A long-term test

on a bituminous-fired unit is underway. To our knowledge, short-term tests on a

full-scale Texas lignite-fired unit have not begun nor have full-scale, long-term tests

on either sub-bituminous- or lignite-fired units. Full-scale tests on wet scrubberequipped units have begun and are expected to last 5 years or more. In addition,

full-scale testing of more cost-effective sorbents (e.g., brominated powdered activated

carbon) has just started and the potential for re-release of mercury from residues

(e.g., spent sorbents and scrubber sludge) is under investigation.

The Agency also received public comment on the topic of mercury control technology availability. The utility industry and related stakeholders (e.g., mining

groups, unions) are in general agreement that mercury-specific control technology

will not be demonstrated within the timeframe that EPA has suggested. However,

the environmental community and many of the State, local, and tribal organizations

believe that such technology will be available much sooner than the Agency has projected.

Based on this information, we are not certain that the necessary demonstrations

will have even been completed by 2010, delaying the schedule provided in the white

paper. We believe that the proposed section 111 regulatory approach will provide

the necessary regulatory driver to ‘‘speed up’’ demonstration of these advanced technologies. The basis for the MACT continues to be that level of mercury control

achievable through the installation of existing controls for other pollutants (i.e., the

‘‘co-benefits’’ level).

Question 4b. Is EPA considering lower emissions targets for 2008 (Section 112

proposal) or 2010 (Section 111 proposal) in its further analyses of the Utility Mercury Reductions Rule? If so, what are those target levels?

Response. EPA will ensure that we have all the analysis necessary to make the

decision about how to address mercury emissions from power plants. A central part

of this work is to understand the exposure pathway better so that we will have confidence that the final rule will protect the environment and public health.

Question 5. For some time now, representatives of the pollution control technology

industry have stated that existing commercially available technologies can achieve

90 percent mercury removal when combined with NOx and SO2 control technologies.

For example, control technology industry representatives claim that Activated Carbon Injection requires minimal capital costs, can be retrofitted with little or no

downtime, is suitable for use with most existing emissions control technologies, and

can achieve 70–90 percent mercury removal from various types of coal. In testimony

before the Environment and Public Works Committee on April 1, 2004, Adminis-
99

trator Leavitt, you stated your expectation that Activated Carbon Injection technology should be adequately tested and widely deployable by 2010.

Why, then, do the rule’s proposed alternatives call for only a 70 percent reduction

in mercury emissions by 2008 or 2010, depending upon the proposed alternative,

and delay implementation of the phase 2 cap until 2018?

Response. As stated in our response to question 4, we believe that implementation

of activated carbon injection (ACI) and other advanced mercury control technologies

will not be possible until 2010 or after. We have had several meetings with, and

heard presentations from, many of the same equipment vendors from whom you

have heard. We do not believe that recent statements by the pollution control industry contradict our view that advanced mercury control technologies are not yet commercially proven. EPA agrees with the equipment vendors that these new technologies show great promise. In addition, we recognize that various segments of the

utility industry state that these mercury-specific control technologies are not, and

will not be, available within a 3- to 4-year time-frame or, even, by 2010. The 2018

cap when combined with an earlier less stringent cap in 2010 provides strong incentive for companies to develop and implement advanced mercury controls as soon as

the program begins.

Question 6a. Administrator Leavitt, you recently committed EPA to undertake

analyses of alternatives in addition to those proposed in the Utility Mercury Reductions Rule. Is EPA analyzing options that would propose a tighter Section 112

MACT standard? Or, are EPA’s new analyses focusing solely on the Section 111 capand-trade program proposal?

Response. The Agency has determined that some types of MACT analyses are not

appropriate because IPM is not currently configured to analyze the type of nearterm scenarios that would be required under MACT. However, the Agency has not

ruled out performing more analysis of a Section 112 MACT approach.

Question 6b. If the focus is on Section 111 alternatives only, why is this the case

given the EPA Office of Research and Development white paper released on February 27, 2004 showing that existing NOx and SO2 control technologies, as well as

mercury control technologies that soon will be available, enable mercury control well

beyond the Section 112 proposal level?

Response. EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) study builds on and

contributes to extensive work that ORD and others have been doing to understand

the state of mercury-specific control technologies. This study is one of the primary

sources of information that we have used to inform our current understanding of

the state of technology. The study concludes that, based on current information, it

is projected that ACI technology will be available for commercial application after

2010 and that removal levels in the 70 percent to 90 percent range could be achievable. This assumes the funding and successful implementation of an aggressive,

comprehensive R&D program at both EPA and DOE. Such applications represent

only the initiation of a potential national retrofit program which would take a number of years to fully implement.

The Section 112 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) approach has

a clear timeline for compliance. Under MACT, reductions are required prior to the

projected timeframe for when mercury-specific technologies will be broadly available.

The Agency has determined that some types of MACT analyses are not appropriate because IPM is not currently configured to analyze the type of near-term scenarios that would be required under MACT. However, the Agency has not ruled out

performing more analysis of a Section 112 MACT approach.

Question 7. In its analysis of additional alternatives to those proposed in the Utility Mercury Reductions Rule, is EPA completing the Section 112 options analyses

that were requested by the Federal Advisory Committee that EPA convened in conjunction with development of the Utility Mercury Reductions Rule? If not, why not?

Response. The Agency conducted preliminary Integrated Planning Model (IPM)

analyses in Spring 2002. The results of these analyses, which included a range of

potential regulatory outcomes, were discussed with the Working Group. These discussions led to the members of the Working Group making a number of suggestions

on modifications that should be made to the IPM input and assumption files. These

changes were discussed with the Working Group during Summer 2002 and were incorporated into the Agency’s modeling for Clear Skies 2003 and the regulatory work

done prior to proposal of the alternative approaches in January 2004. As the Working Group prepared its final report to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee in fall

2002, it became clear that the Working Group would not achieve consensus on the
100

issues. The Agency then moved forward on its own to prepare the analyses necessary to develop the proposed rulemaking.

Individual stakeholders of the Working Group made suggestions regarding additional analyses that the Agency should consider and, possibly, conduct. However,

the Working Group’s final report demonstrates that there was no consensus on this

issue. We will continue to consider the input of the Working Group as we move

ahead to finalize the mercury rule.

Question 8a. EPA’s Office of Research and Development released a white paper

on February 27, 2004 stating that mercury removal of 70–90 percent is possible on

96 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power generation capacity by 2010. According

to the white paper, the reduction targets ‘‘assume sufficient research and development and demonstrations’’ of technology. Yet, the President’s FY2005 budget cuts

EPA’s science and technology budget by $93 million. Does EPA’s FY2005 science

and technology budget proposal cut research funding necessary to develop and demonstrate the technologies discussed and described in EPA’s February 27 white

paper?

Response. The President’s Budget request in FY2005 for science and technology

does not reduce the Agency’s research efforts to evaluate mercury control technologies for coal-fired power plants. Research planned for fiscal year 2005 includes

activities to understand and evaluate, at a fundamental level, the factors that influence mercury capture; determine, at bench and small pilot-scale, the performance

of different control options; and determine the leaching characteristics of residues

generated by key mercury control technologies. EPA also plans to keep abreast of

all technology development, evaluation, and demonstration activities in order to ensure the Agency is up to date on the state-of-the art of control technology to help

guide future regulatory and enforcement programs. Finally, the Agency will continue to conduct research to evaluate and field test continuous emission monitors

for coal fired power plants.

Question 8b. Does EPA’s FY2005 science and technology budget proposal include

sufficient funding necessary to develop and demonstrate the technologies discussed

and described in EPA’s February 27 white paper?

Response. The projected timeframe for mercury control technology availability discussed in the referenced white paper is based on ‘‘best engineering judgment and

the assumption that a focused Research, Development & Demonstration program is

carried out in an effective and expeditious manner.’’ The funding included in the fiscal year 2005 President’s budget is adequate for the three components of the EPA

part of the program described above. However, it should be noted that the total research effort is much broader than the scope of the Agency’s research program, and

is comprised of both Federal (DOE and EPA) and private (Electric Power Research

Institute, several large utilities) projects. In fact, by far the largest component of

this comprehensive effort, and the bulk of the large-scale testing and demonstration,

is being funded by the Department of Energy.

Question 8c. If not, how much additional funding would be necessary to fund the

research and development effort so that mercury control technologies would be adequately tested and widely deployable by 2010?

Response. As indicated in the response above, EPA believes the funding included

in the fiscal year 2005 President’s budget is adequate for the three components of

the EPA part of the program described above.

RESPONSES BY MICHEAL O. LEAVITT TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Question 1. Concerning the NOx and SOx rules, where you justified a two stage

approach on the basis of an insufficient labor force to install the pollution control

equipment. Have you reviewed the October report of the EPA which states that the

labor force is sufficient? Will you make the reductions tighter for 2010?

Response. The October report you mention in your question was published in

2002: Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies For Multi-Pollutant Strategies, US EPA, October 2002. This analysis was

performed in support of the Clear Skies legislative proposal. The report examined

the resources required for the construction and operation of control technologies for

multi-pollutant control strategies. This report made no conclusions with respect to

the proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

Based on the analysis in the report, EPA concluded that the Clear Skies proposal

was projected to have sufficient resources to meet the Phase I caps in 2010, although some resources were projected to be put under more pressure than others.
101

Boilermaker labor was one of the resources that was projected to be under pressure

in the early part of Phase I due to the simultaneous installation of NOx controls

for the NOx SIP call. For the proposed Clear Skies Act, EPA also concluded that

it would be difficult to predict the market supply of resources beyond Phase I but

that the 2018 Phase II caps should allow ample time for the market to meet the

resource demands.

Concerning EPA’s proposed CAIR, EPA used the October 2002 report as its basis

for the conclusions it made for emissions caps and timing of those emission caps.

However, the assumptions EPA made about resources and timing under Clear Skies

would not necessarily apply under CAIR. EPA assumed legislation would have been

enacted in the late 2003 or early 2004 timeframe, allowing over 6 years for sources

to plan and install pollution control devices under Phase I. Under CAIR, this time

would be shorter given that EPA intends to finalize the rule the latter half of 2004;

states would have a year and a half to submit SIPs outlining their control strategies

for sources; and sources would have about 3 and a half years for the planning and

installation of controls before the start of Phase I in 2010. Therefore, EPA reached

different conclusions about the timing and level of control under the CAIR rulemaking when compared to Clear Skies.

EPA believes its proposed emissions caps and timing under CAIR are appropriate

given our understanding of resource availability to install pollution control equipment. As part of the proposed rule, EPA has taken comment on these conclusions.

Question 2. I am concerned about the number of our national parks that are in

non-attainment areas. Can you assure this Congress that the boundaries for nonattainment areas for the 8-hour Ozone rule have been drawn to include the sources

of ozone in the areas of nonattainment?

Response. When we designated areas as attaining or not attaining the 8-hour

ozone standard, we took into account whether a nearby area was significantly contributing to ozone non-attainment problems on National Park lands. Our designation decisions reflect the best information available and we are confident that air

quality in parks will improve due to the combination of local and regional programs

to reduce emissions of ozone precursors.

EPA is taking action to improve air quality across the nation, including in national parks and wilderness areas. Our proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule, NonRoad Diesel Rule, and the NOx SIP call are just a few of the programs that will

dramatically reduce regional transport of ozone, a key component of improving air

quality in national parks.

Question 3. Will you allow the BART rules to come into force on schedule, and

assure this Congress that you will not delay their implementation?

Response. We fully intend to allow the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

rules to come into force and be implemented on schedule, without delay. We are

under consent decree to finalize the BART rules by April 15, 2005, and we intend

to meet that deadline. We have already met the consent decree deadline for issuing

the proposal on April 15, 2004.

We expect States to include BART determinations for all sources subject to BART

in their regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs), due in January, 2008.

Consistent with the 1999 regional haze rule, all States must meet their BART requirements either through source-specific control requirements or through an approved trading program that achieves greater visibility improvement than would

source-specific control requirements. EPA has proposed to find that the proposed

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) would be an approvable trading program under

BART for the electric generation sector in the states that the CAIR would cover.

Such a program would achieve a greater visibility improvement than the source-specific BART, cover a larger number of electric generating units in those states, create

greater emissions reductions, and, unlike BART, cap emissions from this sector.
102

RESPONSES BY MICHAEL O. LEAVITT TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ECKELS, COUNTY JUDGE, HARRIS COUNTY, TX

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Robert Eckels. I

am the County Judge of Harris County, Texas. I want to thank the Committee for

inviting me to testify on the implementation of the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since 1995, as the presiding officer of the

Harris County Commissioners Court, the governing body of the county, I represent

all the citizens of the third most populous county in the United States. Harris County, which includes the city of Houston, is 1,788 square miles in area and home to

3.6 million residents making us more populous than 21 states. In my years of public

service, first for 12 years as a member of the Texas Legislature and currently as

County Judge, I have had the opportunity to be directly involved in air quality planning for the region. As Chairman of the Transportation Policy Council of the Houston-Galveston Area Council since 1998, I have overseen the environmental planning

aspects of more than $2.7 billion in state and Federal funds invested to rebuild and

expand the region’s roadways. As a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Counties (NACo) and immediate past Chair of the NACo Environment, Energy and Land Use Policy Steering Committee I have had the opportunity to engage in national environmental issues, including air quality. Finally,

over the past 4 years I’ve worked closely with citizens and community leaders in

the Harris County region, with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

and with the EPA to devise an acceptable air quality plan for that region. I can say

from first-hand experience, air quality issues are among the most complex and divisive an elected official can experience.

Clean air is of vital interest to all of us. It’s important for the health of our citizens and for the health of our economy. This Nation has made great strides in improving air quality. Since 1970 we’ve achieved a 50 percent reduction in emissions

while at the same time seen a 160 percent increase in the Gross Domestic Product

and a 40 percent increase in energy consumption. Yet, some 145 million citizens live

in areas that are or will be designated as non-attainment for ozone and fine particulates. Clearly, more work is needed.

I want to relay my personal experience in developing clean air plans to attain the

1-hour ozone standard in the Houston-Galveston region. I believe it will be relevant

to what other major metropolitan areas are about to experience as the 8-hour ozone

and fine particulate standards are implemented. We’ve embarked on an ambitious

plan, with the backing of the environmental organizations, elected officials, the business community and state regulators, which touches all aspects of the air pollution

problem. Industries in the 8-county Harris County region are investing $4 billion

over the next 3 years to install state-of-the-art controls to reduce nitrogen oxides

by 80 percent—ambitious by any standard. The Texas Legislature has funded the

Texas Emission Reduction Program, a $150 million per year, 7-year grant program

to reduce emissions from the mobile source sector faster than Federal controls will

otherwise achieve.

We’ve reformulated the diesel in our region, reduced speed limits, banned the use

of commercial lawn maintenance before noon and initiated the first phase of a light

rail mass transit system at a cost of $350 million with no Federal funding. We’ve

even regulated residential hot water heaters, requiring high efficiency units in new

construction, and this is on top of an 80 percent reduction in industrial and automobile hydrocarbon emissions over the past 20 years. I believe this speaks to a

strong commitment to clean air in Houston.

As a public official, I worry about clean air and also about the economic vitality

of our region. We want clean air and a sound economy. In 2000, the Greater Houston Partnership, our local Chamber of Commerce, sponsored a thorough, independent economic study of our clean air plan. This study was conducted by Dr.

George Tolley, a former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and Professor Emeritus

of Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Chicago. He worked closely

with Dr. Barton Smith of the University of Houston, a well-known and respected

expert on the Houston regional economy. The study, published in 2001, looked at

the socio-economic impacts of Houston’s clean air plan and concluded that by 2010

the region will have 38,000 fewer jobs, Gross Regional Product reduced by $3.5 billion and reduced tax receipts to state and local government by $300 million dollars

per year. These are serious economic consequences by any yardstick, but we believe

they are necessary to attain the 1-hour standard.

Let me look to the future for a moment. Some 530 counties nationwide will be

designated as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard; and we’re in the process for making similar determinations for the fine particulate standard. Many of

these areas will be non-attainment for the first time ever; others have been trying

to attain for 30 years.
176

EPA is now in the process of developing the regulatory framework for states to

implement these standards. EPA modeling shows that many of these areas will attain the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate standards with measures already on the

books such as cleaner fuels and engines, and with measures being implemented to

reduce transported emissions. I want to commend the EPA and this Administration

for these efforts.

However, for some large metropolitan areas such as the Harris County region,

New York City, large areas of New Jersey and Connecticut, Philadelphia, and others, the same EPA modeling shows continued non-attainment of the 8-hour ozone

standard as far out as 2020. This is after significant reductions in transport emissions either from Clear Skies or the Interstate Air Quality Rule, reductions from

cleaner fuels and engines, and local 1-hour ozone control measures. Modeling by

third parties such as the Ozone Transport Commission in the northeast and the

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium in the mid-west supports the EPA predictions. This presents several important public policy issues for EPA, local elected

officials and for this Committee to consider.

The first policy issue for consideration is the attainment deadlines that EPA has

proposed for these large metropolitan areas that modeling shows will not attain for

the 8-hour ozone standard by 2020. These areas have proposed attainment deadlines

in the 2010–2013 timeframe, well before emission reductions from Federal measures

such as transport and mobile source controls are fully realized. In fact, modeling in

Harris County shows you can completely eliminate the industrial emissions or mobile source emissions and still not attain the standard. As a result of these areas

not being able to achieve enough emission reductions to demonstrate attainment by

their respective deadlines, they may not be able to submit approvable State Implementation Plans to the EPA. Unless these metropolitan areas can demonstrate

through modeling that they will attain the standard by their designated deadlines,

the Clean Air Act imposes sanctions, including the loss of Federal highway funds.

In Harris County, this is about $1 billion per year in loss of Federal highway dollars

and other restrictions on economic growth. One option suggested is to have states

volunteer to move up into a more severe air quality classification to get more time

for attainment, I can tell you from the standpoint of an elected official, this is not

a feasible option.

The second issue is the attainability of the standards. I’m not here to say we need

to change or eliminate the 8-hour ozone or fine particulate standards. That is for

the public health professionals and scientists to determine. However, I can say that

EPA’s modeling, and modeling by others, suggests these standards will not be attainable in some areas for the foreseeable future despite our best efforts. Unattainable standards only place more areas in the position of facing severe economic sanctions under the Clean Air Act because they can’t submit approvable State Implementation Plans. I don’t believe this is good public policy. It creates division in our

communities and often results in litigation, which slows clean air progress.

So, where do we go from here?

First, I believe all areas need attainment deadlines that are technically and economically feasible. We need to acknowledge the EPA’s modeling work and develop

sound public policies for those areas that will not attain in the foreseeable future.

Second, I believe air quality standards should be reasonable and attainable; otherwise areas will be in a position of not being able to submit approvable SIPs and

living under economic sanctions or the threat of sanctions for the foreseeable future.

Third, I believe we should fully capture the emission reduction benefits from existing and pending Federal control measures. We have and will continue to invest

in cleaner fuels, engines and transport controls; let’s capture those benefits at the

local level before implementing the next round of very high cost controls, if any remain.

Fourth, we need to take a closer look at how our current air quality management

process is working and how it can be improved. One indicator I use to suggest the

need for improvement is that despite literally hundreds of billions of dollars spent

on Federal, regional and local control measures over the past 20 years, we still have

not attained the ozone and PM standards in many areas. We’re not even close in

some areas. This suggests to me that we have an underlying science and policy

problem that needs to be addressed.

Finally, and speaking as a representative of NACo, county governments are ultimately responsible for protecting the health, welfare and safety of their citizens.

Many rural and suburban counties do so with limited resources and are often

brought into clean air plans because they are adjacent to large urban areas. Many

times such counties are non-attainment because of upwind transport or because

they have emissions from major freeways leading to the urban centers. These counties need a seat at the air quality table and they should not be penalized solely be-
177

cause they are impacted by adjacent urban areas. They need resources, support and

flexibility from Federal agencies.

In conclusion, as we continue our efforts to clean the nation’s air, there needs to

be a balance with economic prosperity. We need to be especially mindful of this, as

we are required to make even more costly local investments and begin to look at

how to alter human behavior to affect positive environmental change. Clean air and

a sound economy do not have to be mutually exclusive but to accomplish both does

require thoughtful public policy. That is an obligation the citizens of this country

expect of all of us.

I want to thank the EPA, this Administration and this Committee for the ongoing hard work required to clean the nation’s air. We’ve made progress and will

continue to do so. I want to thank the Committee for asking me to testify today.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FISHER, PRESIDENT, GREATER CINCINNATI

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Chairman Voinovich, ranking member Carper, and distinguished members of the

Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee good morning.

Chairman Voinovich, thank you for the invitation to present testimony today. My

name is Michael Fisher and I am the President and CEO of the Greater Cincinnati

Chamber of Commerce. It is an honor to have the opportunity to speak to the Subcommittee this morning. The issues on which you are deliberating on which many

Americans, in the public and private sectors, are deliberating are issues critical to

Greater Cincinnati its people, its environment and its economic prosperity.

Our Chamber is one of the largest such business organizations in the country. We

have more than 6000 business members ranging from global companies like Procter

& Gamble, Toyota and GE Transportation to strong privately held middle market

companies to sole proprietors. Eighty percent of our members have fewer than 50

employees. The number of manufacturing companies in our membership approaches

1000. Our region includes 15 counties in Southwestern Ohio, Northern Kentucky

and Southeastern Indiana.

Importantly, I want to stress that our Chamber’s interests are aligned with the

larger community interests. I mention this because the topic and process of attaining and maintaining environmental quality especially air quality has a common bottom line for our region undoubtedly for every region in America. That is: we want

to achieve and exceed clean air standards—for ozone, particulates and regional

haze. We want healthy citizens in healthy communities in a clean environment.

The Greater Cincinnati Chamber has a long-standing commitment to clean air

and a strong history of engagement in this issue. The Chamber played a lead role

in local cooperative efforts to reduce ozone-levels while minimizing potential adverse

economic consequences (government-mandated pollution-control measures and penalties that would curtail regional economic development). The Chamber was a cofounder of the Regional Ozone Coalition in 1994 and continues to participate with

this group. The first such partnership among local government, business and community organizations in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, the Coalition works to prevent

ozone levels from threatening the region’s future. Coalition efforts resulted in redesignation of our region to ‘‘attainment’’ of the Federal ozone standard in early 2000.

More recently, the Coalition has awarded financial incentives covering the incremental cost difference between a traditionally fueled vehicle and an alternatively

fueled vehicle that creates less pollution. The Chamber has also encouraged businesses to participate in the Coalition directly.

More recently, we also began collaboration with OKI (Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments), our local metropolitan planning organization, to

work with the state EPAs in our region on managing the impact of new regulations

forthcoming as a result of the April 2004 attainment designation announcement.

Before I share with you my thoughts on the business impacts of the current clean

air standards, I would like to offer some personal context for my comments. First,

I may be somewhat unique as a Chamber President. This is my first position as a

civic leader. After building a manufacturing support service business that started

with one customer and fifty employees to a substantial enterprise with eighty locations in 11 countries and 2500 employees, I stepped into my new community role

3 years ago. I am a fourth-generation, life-long resident of Cincinnati with a deep

interest in improving not only the region’s business climate, but its quality of life.

I am also a parent of four children ages 8 to 15. For all of these reasons, I believe

in improving our region’s air quality: for my family, for the two million residents
178

of our region and for the long-term economic attractiveness and competitiveness of

Cincinnati USA.

I am also very proud that we will be named one of America’s Most Livable Communities at a National Press Club ceremony here in Washington in just a few

weeks. But I find it ironic, and a bit frustrating, to be here today acknowledging

that our community is also considered in non-attainment status by US EPA ozone

standards.

AIR QUALITY IS IMPROVING

Of course, it is important to celebrate real progress. Like many of our nation’s

urban areas, our region has made great strides in improving local air quality. Greater Cincinnati meets all air quality standards except for ozone and as I will point

out later, our problem with the ozone standard does not result from monitoring

data, but because, at the state level, certain control policies were improperly credited by Ohio EPA. In particular, the good news for Greater Cincinnati is that large

particulate matter (PM10) has decreased by 33 percent since 1988. Fine particulates

(PM2.5) have decreased 12 percent since 1999. In 2001, sulfur dioxide was measured

at .005 parts per million, against a standard of .09. Nitrogen oxides are down from

.035 parts per million in 1994 to .02 in 2002.

Clearly, this demonstrates significant advances, even as our economy increased,

energy consumption increased and vehicle miles traveled increased. But the work

is not finished. We are committed to continuous improvement.

The Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce seeks continued air quality improvements and predictable regulatory and legislative requirements for business.

Our members and our broader region are interested in a clear and comprehensive

approach to air quality.

Currently, our businesses face a confusing series of environmental laws and regulations that often lead to miscommunication, regulatory uncertainty, lost business

investment and even higher energy costs. Hopefully, Congress will help by identifying improvements focused on results and predictability.

BUSINESS IMPACT OF NON-ATTAINMENT DESIGNATION

Simply stated, conducting business in an area designated as non-attainment is

more complicated, more time-consuming and more costly. In addition to the incremental burdens that are placed on the businesses already located here, the nonattainment designation is a disincentive for new business investment into our region.

First and foremost, the consequence of regulatory uncertainty and the corresponding concerns over investment in non-attainment areas is job loss. A 1995

study conducted by NERA (National Economic Research Associates) Economic Consulting concerning the economic impact of ozone non-attainment in Greater Cincinnati projected job losses of 14,000, including both manufacturing and spin-off

jobs, for the period 1995 until 2000.

In 1995 Greater Cincinnati was home to 162,000 manufacturing jobs according to

state employment data. By 2003, that number had fallen to 127,000. While it is difficult to discern the specific number of job losses attributable to the non-attainment

designation, it is clear that the 35,000 workers were displaced and the non-attainment status was at least one contributing factor.

The fact is, job growth and capital investment for existing operations in our region

have been hindered by the non-attainment designation. This point is critical as one

considers that 80 percent of a region’s job growth stems from expansion of resident

companies, not new business attraction.

Sophisticated businesses carefully analyze the costs and risks associated with expansion in different locations. The increased scrutiny, potential for higher fines if

permit violations occur, and the uncertainty over what the next round of regulations

may bring; all serve as a disincentive for reinvestment and expansion of businesses,

especially manufacturing operations, located in non-attainment areas like ours. Of

course non-attainment areas are often urban areas—the very locations large metropolitan Chambers are frequently trying to revitalize.

Our Chamber’s internationally recognized and award-winning economic development team, the Cincinnati USA Partnership, has been told by national site location

consultants that non-attainment areas are frequently not even included as potential

locations for major new manufacturing projects. As a non-attainment area, Greater

Cincinnati suffers in some cases because we never make it onto the prospect list.

This can be especially true of foreign investors who are highly sensitive to compliance costs, potential public relations problems associated with environmental con-
179

cerns, and the quality of life perceptions of their executives soon to be relocated to

the United States.

The tougher standards also add to the complexity. The Hamilton County (our

major urban county) Department of Environmental Services strongly advises applicants for air permits to hire a consultant to assist in the development of information

required for submission. While this is good for consulting businesses and for the applicant companies’ lawyers, these are not the growth industries in which we are

most interested.

Air quality permits for companies in non-attainment areas are held to tougher

standards and closer review. These stricter standards cost businesses time and

money, and sometimes negatively impact the ability of a company to keep or win

customers—especially when competitors, both domestic and overseas, are not held

to the same standards.

One of the most important assets of Greater Cincinnati is our outstanding transportation system. Because we are located within a 1-day drive of 60 percent of the

North American population, our surface transportation infrastructure is an important selling point for our regional economic development efforts. The non-attainment

designation even threatens the viability of this valuable asset, in part, because essential Federal highway dollars are jeopardized in non-attainment areas. Our region’s metropolitan planning organization is required to demonstrate that its regional transportation improvement plan is consistent with the overall emissions

budget for the region. Failure on this can also result in significant reductions in

Federal highway funding.

PROCESS VERSUS RESULTS

I would like to share with you one example of the impact of confusing regulations—the designation of Greater Cincinnati as a non-attainment area.

Based on data from the 1980’s, the Cincinnati area was classified as a moderate

non-attainment area. After that designation, government, businesses and the community came together to develop a plan to reach attainment status. Following much

work by a large and diverse group of stakeholders, and at substantial expense, the

Greater Cincinnati region was designated as in attainment for ozone in 2000.

Our success was short-lived. An adverse 2001 court decision by the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled on a technicality that the Ohio EPA erred in

its evaluation and approval of our region’s attainment plan, and the region was

abruptly placed back in non-attainment. This re-designation happened in spite of

the fact that the region’s air quality has not exceeded the current 1-hour ozone

standard since 1995—not a single violation has been recorded! (A violation occurs

when a high level—greater than 120 parts per billion, averaged over 1 hour—of

ozone is recorded more than three times at a single monitor within a 3-year period.)

The 2001 ruling was a surprise and scuttled much hard work by our community.

The case also illustrates a fundamental flaw with the current system great emphasis is placed on the process, often at the expense of focusing on actual air quality

results.

NEW DESIGNATIONS AND REGULATIONS ON THE HORIZON

As you are well aware, the national business community is especially anxious

about April 15th this year, and only not because it is ‘‘tax day.’’ In 2004 it is also

‘‘final designation’’ day. On that day, the US EPA is scheduled to issue its final designation of non-attainment areas under the 8-hour air quality standard for ozone,

likely to affect thousands of communities across the country.

For businesses and state EPAs alike, the permitting process has been challenging.

We’re concerned it may become overwhelming beginning later this month as the

new regulations draw in thousands more facilities including many mid-size and

smaller businesses. These businesses will be newly subject to air quality permitting

requirements and state agencies will be challenged to thoroughly, and expediently,

review more applications. The early months of the new regulatory framework are

critical as state EPAs prepare for an onslaught of applications from an entirely new

group of businesses in need of permits.

In addition, the small- and mid-sized businesses facing these new equipment and

compliance costs have scant resources to allocate for expert consultant assistance

when adding new equipment or expanding operations.

As a region and as a business community we need help. The current array of laws

and regulations are difficult even for the experts to explain. The evolving standards

challenge our businesses and ultimately cost us jobs. Strong businesses and strong

regional economies are the result of good ideas, good planning, adequate resources

and strong leadership—they succeed when they create a road map and follow it. We
180

hope for a similarly focused approach from our very important partner, the Federal

Government—development of a clear roadmap that provides certainty, and points

business, and other sectors of the community, in the right direction to attain clean

air compliance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In that spirit, I encourage the Congress to consider several improvements to the

current legal and regulatory framework:

(1) Increase certainty and predictability in regulations and laws so businesses can

first understand them, and then do what they do well—plan accordingly, make

smart investments and adjust to market conditions and opportunities.

(2) Allow ample time for businesses to evaluate emission reduction strategies and

technology options in order to make the best decisions.

(3) Be sensitive to the compliance costs—especially as they impact small busi- nesses. (4) Balance the solutions between stationary and mobile sources—proportionate to

the sources of the pollution.

(5) Place emphasis where it belongs—on results, NOT process.

(6) Remember that businesses respond to incentives—consider providing more incentives to encourage compliance, rather than emphasizing enforcement measures.

In closing, thank you for championing cleaner air, even as we all work hard together to build healthy communities and strong economies for the long-term.

Chairman Voinovich, again, thank you for the opportunity to visit with you. Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate your attention and will answer any questions

you may have about my testimony.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. THURSTON, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am George D. Thurston, a

tenured Associate Professor of Environmental Medicine at the New York University

(NYU) School of Medicine. My scientific research involves investigations of the

human health effects of air pollution.

I am also the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’

(NIEHS) Community Outreach and Education Program at NYU. A goal of this program is to provide an impartial scientific resource on environmental health issues

to decisionmakers, and that is my purpose in testifying to you here today.

The adverse health consequences of breathing ozone or particulate matter are serious and well documented. This documentation includes impacts demonstrated by

controlled chamber exposures and by observational epidemiology showing consistent

associations between these pollutants and adverse impacts across a wide range of

human health outcomes. The implementation of the NAAQS promulgated by the

U.S. EPA on July 18, 1997 will provide a substantial improvement in the public

health protection provided to the American people by the Clean Air Act.

Ozone (O3) is a highly irritating gas which is formed in our atmosphere in the

presence of sunlight from other ‘‘precursor’’ air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides

and hydrocarbons. These precursor pollutants, which cause the formation of ozone,

are emitted by pollution sources including automobiles, electric power plants, and

industry.

Particulate Matter (PM) air pollution is composed of two major components: primary particles, or ‘‘soot’’, emitted directly into the atmosphere by pollution sources

such as industry, electric power plants, diesel buses, and automobiles, and; ‘‘secondary particles’’ formed in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen

oxide (NOx) gases, emitted by many combustion sources, including coal-burning

electric power plants.

Observational epidemiology studies have shown compelling and consistent evidence of adverse effects by ozone and PM. These studies statistically evaluate

changes in the incidence of adverse health effects in a single population as it undergoes varying real-life exposures to pollution over time, or across multiple populations experiencing different exposures from one place to another. They are of two

types: (1) population-based studies, in which aggregated counts of effects (e.g., hospital admissions counts) from an entire city might be considered in the analysis;

and, (2) cohort studies, in which selected individuals, such as a group of asthmatics,

are considered. Both of these types of epidemiologic studies have confirmed the associations of ozone and PM air pollution exposures with increased adverse health impacts, including:

• decreased lung function (a measure of our ability to breathe freely);
181

• more frequent respiratory symptoms;

• increased numbers of asthma attacks;

• more frequent emergency department visits;

• additional hospital admissions, and;

• increased numbers of daily deaths.

Among those people known to be most affected by the adverse health implications

of air pollution are: infants, children, those with pre-existing respiratory diseases

(such as asthma and emphysema), older adults, and healthy individuals exercising

or working outdoors.

The state of the science on particulate matter and health has undergone thorough

review, as reflected in the in the recently released draft of the U.S. EPA Criteria

Document for Particulate Matter—of which I am a contributing author. Since the

PM2.5 standard was set in 1997, the hundreds of new published studies, taken together, robustly confirm the relationship between PM2.5 pollution and severe adverse human health effects. In addition, the new research has eliminated many of

the concerns that were raised in the past regarding the causality of the PM-health

effects relationship, and has provided plausible biological mechanisms for the serious impacts associated with PM exposure.

In my own research, I have found that both ozone and particulate matter air pollution are associated with increased numbers of respiratory hospital admissions in

New York City, Buffalo, NY, and Toronto, Ontario, even at levels below the current

standards. My results have been confirmed by other researchers considering locales

elsewhere in the world (e.g., see Schwartz, 1997). Indeed, the U.S. EPA used my

New York City asthma and air pollution study results in their ‘‘Staff Paper’’ when

setting the ozone air quality standard in 1997. Furthermore, I was Principal Investigator of an NIH funded research grant that showed in an article published in the

Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that long-term exposure to

particulate matter air pollution is associated with an increased risk of death from

cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer, as displayed in Figure 1 (Pope et al,

2002). In fact, the increased risk of lung cancer from air pollution in polluted U.S.

cities was found in this study to be comparable to the lung cancer risk to a nonsmoker from living with a smoker. Thus, the health benefits to the U.S. public of

meeting these new air quality standards by reducing ozone and particulate matter

will be substantial.

But air pollution affects a much broader spectrum of human health than mortality. In 1997, in order to give the Congress some insight into the large numbers

of adverse health effects that could be avoided by meeting the new air quality standards, I made working estimates of some of the other documented adverse health impacts of ozone exposure that will also be reduced in New York City when the proposed new ozone standard is fully implemented. The results of my analysis, which

were included in the Senate hearing records at the time, are presented in Figure
182

1 below, entitled the ‘‘Pyramid of Annual New York City Adverse Impacts of Ozone

Avoided by the Implementation of the Proposed New Standard’’.

While there are about 7 million persons in New York City, there are many more

millions of persons throughout the U.S. who now live in areas exceeding the new

O3 and particulate matter standards, and will therefore also benefit from the rapid

implementation of these air quality standards. Thus, these New York City effects

are best viewed as an indicator of a much broader spectrum of the avoidable adverse

health effects being experienced by the Nation today as a result of ongoing air pollution exposures.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that the new, more health protective ozone and

particulate matters were set nearly 7 years ago, we have not made progress toward

meeting those standards. As shown in Figure 3 below, ozone levels have been flat

over the last decade, even rising slightly in the last 10 years, with a majority of

U.S. air quality areas in non-compliance with the new ozone air quality standard.

Among the worst areas, in terms of change over the last two decades is EPA’s Midwest Region 5, including Ohio. We need to rapidly bring polluted areas into compliance with the new air quality standards if we are to adequately protect the U.S.

public’s health.
183

Similarly, as shown in Figure 4, while there was historical progress in reducing

fine particle levels as a result of the states’ command and control regulations and

the U.S. EPA’s SO2 emissions trading/cap programs, this progress has slowed significantly since 1995. As noted in the figure, the areas of the country where regional

particulate matter levels are worst are: the Midwest, the Southeast, and in California. The problems in California can be expected to improve in future years as low

sulfur fuels and diesel controls are implemented, but the problems in the Eastern

U.S. will not significantly improve until SO2 and NOx emissions from the unregulated coal-fired power plants are controlled.
184

Thus, it is important for committee members to realize that the downside to any

further delay in controlling these pollutants is that these pollutants’ adverse health

effects will continue to occur unabated.

Therefore, we must move forward in a vigorous fashion to achieve the new PM2.5

and ozone standards throughout the Nation as quickly as possible. If we don’t, then

the U.S. public will unnecessarily continue to bear the ongoing diminished quality

of life and the health care costs we presently pay because of the adverse health effects of these air pollutants.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue.

REFERENCES

Lall, R., Kendall, M., Ito, K., and Thurston, G. (2004). ‘‘Estimation of Historical

Annual PM2.5 Exposures for Health Effects Assessment’’. Accepted for publication in:

Atmospheric Environment.

Pope, C.A. III, Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., and

Thurston, G.D. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality and long-term exposure to

fine particulate air pollution. J. Am. Med. Assoc. (JAMA) 287(9):1132–1141 (2002).

Schwartz, J. (1997) Health effects of air pollution from traffic: ozone and particulate matter. Health at the Crossroads: Transport Policy and Urban Health, T.

Fletcher and A.J. McMichael Eds., John Wiley and Sons Ltd., New York, NY.

Thurston, G.D. (1997) Testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Clean Air Act: Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards. Hearings Before

the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety.

105th Congress. ISBN 0–16–055638–4. U.S. GPO, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. (2003) Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 STATUS AND

TRENDS, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA 454/ K–03–001, August 2003, RTP, NC.

U.S. EPA (2003) Fourth External Review Draft of Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (June 2003). EPA/600/P–99/002aD. National Center for Environmental

Assessment—RTP Office, Office of Research and Development. Research Triangle

Park, NC
185

STATEMENT OF THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL RISK MAN- AGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AIR

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL DIVISION, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC

CONTROL OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILERS

INTRODUCTION

During combustion, the mercury (Hg) in coal is volatilized and converted to elemental mercury (Hg0) vapor in the high temperature regions of coal-fired boilers.

As the flue gas is cooled, a series of complex reactions begin to convert Hg0 to ionic

mercury (Hg2+) compounds and/or Hg compounds (Hgp) that are in a solid-phase at

flue gas cleaning temperatures or Hg that is adsorbed onto the surface of other particles. The presence of chlorine gas-phase equilibrium favors the formation of mercuric chloride (HgCl2) at flue gas cleaning temperatures. However, Hg0 oxidation reactions are kinetically limited and, as a result, Hg enters the flue gas cleaning device(s) as a mixture of Hg0, Hg2+, and Hgp. This partitioning of Hg into Hg0, Hg2+,

and Hgp is known as mercury speciation, which can have considerable influence on

selection of mercury control approaches. In general, the majority of gaseous mercury

in bituminous coal-fired boilers is Hg2+. On the other hand, the majority of gaseous

mercury in sub-bituminous- and lignite-fired boilers is Hg0.

Control of mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers is currently achieved via existing controls used to remove particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). This includes capture of Hgp in PM control equipment and

soluble Hg2+ compounds in wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. Available

data also reflect that use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) NOx control enhances oxidation of Hg0 in flue gas and results in increased mercury removal in wet

FGD.

Table 1 shows the average reduction in total mercury (HgT) emissions developed

from EPA’s Information Collection Request (ICR) data on U.S. coal-fired boilers.

Plants that employ only PM controls experienced average HgT emission reductions

ranging from 0 to 90 percent. Units with fabric filters (FFs) obtained the highest

average levels of control. Decreasing average levels of control were generally observed for units equipped with a cold-side electrostatic precipitator (CS-ESP), hotside ESP (HS-ESP), and particle scrubber (PS). For units equipped with dry scrubbers, the average HgT emission reductions ranged from 0 to 98 percent. The estimated average reductions for wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers were

similar and ranged from 0 to 98 percent.

As seen in Table 1, in general, the amount of Hg captured by a given control technology is greater for bituminous coal than for either sub-bituminous coal or lignite.

For example, the average capture of Hg in plants equipped with a CS-ESP is 36

percent for bituminous coal, 3 percent for sub-bituminous coal, and 0 percent for lignite. Based on ICR data, it is estimated that existing controls remove about 36 percent of the 75 tons of mercury input with coal in U.S. coal-fired boilers. This results

in current emissions of 48 tons of mercury.

There are two broad approaches to mercury control: (1) activated carbon injection

(ACI), and (2) multipollutant control, in which Hg capture is enhanced in existing/

new SO2, NOx, and PM control devices. Relatve to these two approaches, this paper

describes currently available data, limitations, estimated potential, and Research

Development and Demonstration (RD&D) needs. Depending on levels appropriated

by Congress, EPA may not be able to continue it’s review of mercury removal technologies in fiscal year 2004.

Table 1.—Average mercury capture by existing post-combustion control configurations used for

PC-fired boilers

Post-combustiion Control

Strategy

Post-combustion

Emmission Control Device

Configuration

Average Mercury Capture by Control Configuration

Coal Burned in Pulverized-coal-fired Boiler Unit

Bituminous Coal Subbituminous Coal Lignite

PM Control Only .......... CS-ESP .......................

HS-ESP .......................

FF ...............................

PS ...............................

36 percent ..................

9 percent ....................

90 percent ..................

not tested ...................

3 percent ....................

6 percent ....................

72 percent ..................

9 percent ....................

0 percent

not tested

not tested

not tested

PM Control and Spray

Dryer Adsorber.

SDA+CS-ESP ..............

SDA+FF ......................

SDA+FF+SCR .............

Not tested ..................

98 percent ..................

98 percent ..................

35 percent ..................

24 percent ..................

Not tested ..................

Not tested

0 percent

Not tested
186

Table 1.—Average mercury capture by existing post-combustion control configurations used for

PC-fired boilers—Continued

Post-combustiion Control

Strategy

Post-combustion

Emmission Control Device

Configuration

Average Mercury Capture by Control Configuration

Coal Burned in Pulverized-coal-fired Boiler Unit

Bituminous Coal Subbituminous Coal Lignite

PM Control and Wet

FGD System(a)

.

PS+FGD ......................

CS-ESP+FGD ..............

HS-ESP+FGD ..............

FF+FGD ......................

12 percent ..................

75 percent ..................

49 percent ..................

98 percent ..................

0 percent ....................

29 percent ..................

29 percent ..................

Not tested ..................

33 percent

44 percent

Not tested

Not tested

(a) Estimated capture across both control devices.

CS-ESP = cold-side electrostatic precipitator.

HS-ESP = hot-side electrostatic precipitator.

FF = fabric filter.

PS = particle scrubber.

SDA = spray dryer absorber system.

STATE-OF-THE-ART OF CONTROLLING MERCURY EMMISSIONS BY ACTIVATED CARBON

INJECTION

ACI has the potential to achievw moderate to high levels of Hg control. The performance of an activated carbon is related to its physical and chemical characteristics. Generally, the physical properties of interest are surface area, pore size distribution, and particle size distribution. The capacity for Hg capture generally increases with increasing surface area and pore volume. The ability of Hg and other

sorbates to penetrate into the interior of a particle is related to pore size distribution. The pores of the carbon sorbent must be large enough to provide free access

to internal surface area by Hg0 and Hg2+ while avoiding excessive blockage by previously adsorbed reactants. As particle sizes decrease, access to the internal surface

area of particle increases along with potential adsorption rates.

Carbon sorbent capacity is dependent on temperature, the concentration of Hg in

the flue gas, the flue gas composition, and other factors. In general, the capacity

for adsorbing Hg2+ will be different than that for Hg0. The selection of a carbon for

a given application would take into consideration the total concentration of Hg, the

relative amounts of Hg0 and Hg2+, the flue gas composition, and the method of capture [electrostatic precipitator (ESP), FF, or dry FGD scrubber].

ACI may be used either in conjunction with existing control technologies and/or

with additional control such as the addition of an FF. To date ACI has only been

evaluated during short-term tests on commercially operating electrical generating

plants. Longer-term tests of ACI have been limited to continuous operation, 24 hr/

day–7days/week, for a period of less than 2 weeks at four field test sites. Also, combustion modification, such as coal reburning technology, may increase the carbon in

fly ash and yield enhanced Hg capture in PM control devices.

The Department of Energy/National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL),

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and a group of utility companies have

funded projects to evaluate the use of ACI as summarized in Table 2. The Hg removal via ACI is measured between the inlet and outlet of the particulate matter

control device. Note that these projects represent ACI applications that can be used

to control Hg emissions from units that (1) are currently equipped with an ESP, and

(2) burning bituminous or sub-bituminous coals. The tests at Alabama’s Gaston

Plant show the potential Hg control levels that can be achieved by installing a compact hybrid particulate collector (COHPAC) or small pulse-jet FF downstream of an

existing ESP and injecting activated carbon upstream of the COHPAC unit.

Table 2.—ACI Field Test Projects

Test Site Information Mercury Capture, Percent

Test Site Coal Particulate Control Baseline ACI Test

Results

Long-term Test

Duration

PG&E NEG Brayton Point, Unit 1 Low-sulfur Bituminous.Two CS-ESPs in

Series.

90.8 94.5 ACI for two 5-day

periods

PG&E NEG Salem Harbor, Unit 1 Low-sulfur

Butiminous.

CS-ESP .................. 90 94 ACI for one 4-day

period

Wisconsin Electric Pleasant

Prairie, Unit 2.

Subbituminous ...... CS-ESP .................. 5 65 ACI for one 5-day

period
187

Table 2.—ACI Field Test Projects—Continued

Test Site Information Mercury Capture, Percent

Test Site Coal Particulate Control Baseline ACI Test

Results

Long-term Test

Duration

Alabama Power Gaston, Unit 3 Low-sulfur Bituminous.HS-ESP+COHPAC .. 0 25–90 ACI for one 9-day

period

University of Illinois, Abbott

Station.

High-sulfur Bituminous.CS-ESP .................. 0 73

A mobile sorbent injection system and a mobile test laboratory were constructed

for use at all test sites except Abbott. Norit lignite-based carbon, Darco-FGD, was

used as the benchmark sorbent at all test sites. Tests at the sites generally included:

• the use of Apogee Scientific semi-continuous emission monitors (S-CEMs) for

measurement of Hg0 and total vapor-phase Hg (Hgv);

• periodic measurements of Hgp, Hg2+ and Hg0 with the Ontario-hydro (OH)

method;

• laboratory and slipstream sorbent screening tests;

• baseline tests without the use of sorbents;

• parametric tests to evaluate the effects of process conditions and sorbent variables; and

• 4- to 9-day tests with Darco-FGD.

The purpose of tests at each site was to determine the performance and costs of

activated carbon sorbents for controlling Hg emission from coal-fired electrical generating plants equipped only with an ESP. The field tests are summarized below.

Brayton Point

ACI testing was conducted on the 245-MW Unit 1, which fired a low-sulfur bituminous coal with 0.03 ppm Hg and 2000–4000 ppm chlorine. The unit is equipped

with low-NO, burners and typically has high levels of unburned carbon (UBC) in

the fly ash as indicated by loss on ignition (LOI) measurements. The PM control

system at the unit is unusual in that it consists of two CS-ESPs in series and long

duct runs. Carbon was injected between the ESPs.

The average baseline removal efficiency across both ESPs averaged 90.8 percent,

as measured during three tests with the OH method. During parametric tests, a variety of activated carbons, including Darco-FGD, were injected just downstream of

the first ESP. Incremental Hg removal efficiencies across the second ESP ranged

from 3 to 93 percent depending on the carbon injection concentration. Total average

Hg removal efficiencies across both ESPs as determined by the S-CEMs averaged

94.5 percent during injection of Darco-FGD at 10 lb/MMacf.

Longer-term performance tests involved the continuous injection of Darco-FGD 24

hours/day for 10 days at two different injection concentrations. Five days of injection

at 10 μg/dncm was followed by 5 days of injection at 20 μg/dncm. The average removal efficiency across both ESPs during ACI concentrations of 10 lb/MMacf was

94.5 percent as measured during 3 OH method tests. These high Hg capture efficiencies are considered to be atypical of other CS-ESP units because of the high

UBC concentrations, the two ESPs, and the long duct runs.

Salem Harbor

Tests were conducted on Unit 1, an 88 MW single wall-fired unit which is

equipped with low-NOx, burners, a selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) system

for NOx, control and a CS-ESP. Salem Harbor fires a South American low-sulfur

bituminous coal with 0.03–0.08 ppm Hg and 206 ppm chlorine. The resulting fly ash

had an LOI of 20 to 30 percent.

Parametric tests at reduced loads that lowered fly ash LOI to 15 to 20 percent

did not significantly reduce Hg capture. Increasing the ESP inlet temperature from

300°F to 350°F reduced Hg removal from approximately 90 percent to the 10–20

percent range. The effects of changes in LOI over test range of 15 to 30 percent were

not as strong as the effects of temperature changes.

During November 2002, 4 days of long-term sorbent injection tests were conducted

with Darco-FGD at an injection concentration of 10 lb/MMacf. The average Hg capture efficiency during 3 OH tests was 94.0 percent. The Hg0 concentrations for all

inlet and outlet samples were below the method detection limit. More than 95 percent of the total inlet Hg was measured as Hgp, indicating nearly complete in-flight

capture of Hg upstream of the ESP. The very high in-flight Hg capture by the UBC
188

1Performance and Cost of Mercury and Multipollutant Emission Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility Boilers, EPA/600/R-03/110, October 2003, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research

Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.

in fly ash and injected activated carbon are not believed to be representative of

plants equipped with a CS-ESP.

Pleasant Prairie

ACI testing was conducted on the 600-MW Unit 2, which fired a PRB coal with

0.11 ppm Hg and 8 ppm chlorine. The unit is equipped with an ESP. Testing was

conducted on one ESP chamber (1⁄4 of the unit). The plant sells its fly ash for use

in concrete.

Baseline tests using the OH method exhibited Hg capture in the ESP of about

5 percent with more than 70 percent of the Hg at the ESP inlet being Hg0. Major

parametric test variables included sorbent properties and sorbent injection concentration. At low ACI concentrations, Hg reductions across the ESP were higher

than expected, reaching 60 to 65 percent at injection concentrations near 10 lb/

MMacf. Increasing sorbent injection concentrations to 20 to 30 lb/MMacf increased

Hg reduction efficiencies to only about 70 percent. Subsequently, in long-term tests

carbon was injected continuously at 24 h/day for 5 days. OH measurements confirmed that about 60–70 percent mercury removal could be achieved at a carbon injection concentration of 10 lb/MMacf.

Gaston

ACI testing was conducted on the 270-MW Unit 3, which fired low-sulfur eastern

bituminous coals with 0.14 ppm Hg and 160 ppm chlorine. The unit is equipped

with low-NOx burners, a HS-ESP and a COHPAC, which was retrofit earlier to capture residual fly ash escaping the ESP. Testing was conducted on one-half of the

flue gas stream.

Baseline test results showed that neither the HS-ESP nor COHPAC captured a

significant amount of Hg. During ACI parametric tests, Hg capture efficiencies

ranged from 25 to more than 90 percent, depending on the carbon injection rate.

ACI concentrations of 3 lb/MMacf resulted in gas-phase Hg reductions greater than

90 percent across the COHPAC. However, it was determined that ACI resulted in

a significant increase in COHPAC cleaning frequency. The different activated carbons used in the parametric tests produced Hg capture efficiencies similar to DarcoFGD, the benchmark sorbent. Differences in sorbent particle size or base material

(bituminous coal or lignite) did not result in appreciable performance differences.

Subsequently, in long-term tests, carbon was injected continuously at 24 h/day for

9 days. The COHPAC cleaning frequency and ACI rate was kept at a reduced level

to avoid adverse impacts on COHPAC bag life. Relatively short duration OH measurements reflected about 90 percent removal of mercury, but measurements taken

with S-CEMS reflected about 78 percent removal over the period of the long-term

testing.

Abbott

In the summer of 2001, EPRI sponsored ACI tests at the Abbott Power Plant located in Champaign, Illinois. Unit 5, the test unit, is a stoker-fired unit followed

by air heater and a CS-ESP. During the tests, Unit 5 burned an Illinois Basin coal

with nominal sulfur and chlorine contents of 3.8 and 0.25 percent, respectively. Activated carbons used during the parametric tests included Darco FGD, fine FGD (size

segregated Darco FGD), and an experimental Corn Char sorbent.

During the parametric tests ACI concentrations were varied from 5.1 to 20.5 lb/

MMacf. The ESP inlet temperatures ranged from 340°F to 390°F. The performance

of Darco FGD and the corn char sorbents were similar, showing increases in Hg capture proportional to the ACI concentration. The fine FGD sorbent exhibited improved performance relative to the standard FGD. The best performance, 73 percent

Hg capture, was achieved by injection of fine FGD at 13.8 lb/MMacf at an ESP inlet

temperature of 341°F. The high sulfur flue gas appeared to impair the performance

of the activated carbon. This is consistent with bench-scale research that shows that

high SO2 concentrations diminished the adsorption capacity of activated carbons.

Recently, EPA has estimated cost for ACI-based controls.1 These estimates range

from 0.03–3.096 mills/kWh. However, the higher costs are usually associated with

the plant configuration utilizing SDA+CS-ESP or HS-ESPs. Excluding the costs associated with the plant configurations involving SDA+ESP or HS-ESP, cost estimates are from 0.03 to 1.903 mills/kWh. At the low end of this cost range, 0.03
189

mills/kWh, it is assumed that no additional control technologies are needed, but

mercury monitoring will be necessary.

RD&D Needs for Sorbent Injection Systems

In order to enhance the cost effective capture of Hg by ACI, and other sorbent

injection systems, for the important coal type/retrofit control combinations, the following RD&D efforts are needed. • Research efforts on Hg speciation and capture should be continued. These efforts will include bench- and pilot-scale investigations on the effects of flue gas composition, fly ash properties (UBC content and catalytic metal content), flue gas

quench rates, and other important parameters. Speciation and capture computer

models must be developed to evaluate field test results and for application to other

utility sites.

• Development and demonstration of low-cost sorbents, impregnated sorbents and

innovative sorbents that are effective in controlling Hg emissions from sub-bituminous coal and lignite should continue. High temperature sorbents for use with

HS-ESPs also should be investigated.

• Development and demonstration of techniques to improve Hg capture in units

equipped with an ESP, SDA/ESP or SDA/FF and burn sub-bituminous coal and lignite is needed. This will include evaluation of coal blending, combustion modifications, use of oxidizing reagents, and use of impregnated sorbents.

• Evaluation and demonstration of cost-effective ESP retrofit approaches including installation of ducting to increase residence times and use of circulating fluidized bed absorbers for optimal utilization of sorbents should be conducted. The use

of multipollutant sorbents that capture SO2 and Hg should also be investigated.

• Determination and demonstration of optimum design and operating conditions

for COHPAC applications on a range of boiler operating conditions is needed. This

will include evaluation of the effects of air-to-cloth ratios, fabric filter material,

cleaning frequencies, and baghouse arrangements on Hg capture. COHPAC-based

tests should be conducted with both mercury and multipollutant sorbents.

• Continued evaluation of potential leaching or re-emission of mercury from sorbent/ash residues that are disposed of or utilized is needed.

MERCURY CONTROL BY ENHANCING THE CAPABILITY OF EXISTING/NEW SO2/NOX

CONTROLS

Implementation of fine PM standards, EPA’s Interstate Air Quality Rule, Utility

MACT rulemaking to control mercury emissions from utility boilers, the Clear Skies

legislation and other multi-pollutant reduction bills in the Congress are focusing on

future reductions of NOx, SO2, and mercury emissions from power plants. Also, a

significant fraction of existing boiler capacity already has wet or dry scrubbers for

SO2 control and/or SCR for NOx control. As such, multipollutant control approaches

capable of providing SO2/NOx/Hg reductions are of great interest. These approaches

and their potential impact on mercury reductions are discussed below.

Multipollutant Removal in Wet FGD

More than 20 percent of coal-fired utility boiler capacity in the United States uses

wet FGD systems to control SO2 emissions. In such systems, a PM control device

is installed upstream of the wet FGD scrubber. Wet FGD systems remove gaseous

SO2 from flue gas by absorption. For SO2 absorption, gaseous SO2 is contacted with

a caustic slurry, typically water and limestone or water and lime.

Gaseous compounds of Hg2+ are generally water-soluble and can absorb in the

aqueous slurry of a wet FGD system. However, gaseous Hg0 is insoluble in water

and therefore does not absorb in such slurries. When gaseous compounds of Hg2+

are absorbed in the liquid slurry of a wet FGD system, the dissolved species are

believed to react with dissolved sulfides from the flue gas, such as H2, to form mercuric sulfide (HgS); the HgS precipitates from the liquid solution as sludge.

The capture of Hg in units equipped with wet FGD scrubbers is dependent on the

relative amount of Hg2+ in the inlet flue gas and on the PM control technology used.

ICR data reflected that average Hg captures ranged from 29 percent for one PCfired ESP plus FGD unit burning sub-bituminous coal to 98 percent in a PC-fired

FF plus FGD unit burning bituminous coal. The high Hg capture in the FF plus

FGD unit was attributed to increased oxidization and capture of Hg in the FF followed by capture of any remaining Hg2+ in the wet scrubber.

RD&D Needs for Wet FGD Systems to Enhance Mercury Capture

• Achieving high Hg removal efficiencies in a wet scrubber depends on mercury

in the flue gas being present in the soluble Hg2+ form. While the majority of mercury in bituminous coal-fired boilers exists as Hg2+, the fraction available as Hg2+
190

varies. Further, as discussed above, flue gases from sub-bituminous and lignite coalfired boilers predominantly contain Hg0, which is insoluble. Therefore, to ensure

high levels of mercury capture in wet scrubbers in a broad range of applications,

process means for oxidizing Hg0 in coal combustion flue gas are needed. RD&D efforts should be conducted with the objective of making available oxidizing catalysts

and reagents by 2015. Also, RD&D efforts should be undertaken to examine coal

blending as a means to increase oxidized mercury content in flue gas. • Scrubber design and operating conditions may require modification to optimize

Hg dissolution in the scrubber liquor. Therefore, optimization research should be

undertaken at pilot-scale and then demonstrated at full-scale. • It has been noted that in some scrubbers, dissolved Hg2+ is reduced to Hg0, which can be stripped from the scrubbing liquor and entrained in the stack gas.

RD&D efforts should be conducted in this area with additives developed in benchand pilot-scale testing and demonstrated at full-scale. • Since a significant portion of the absorbed Hg may end up in the spent scrubber

liquor in the form of dissolved aqueous-phase Hg2+, RD&D should be conducted to

develop Hg removal techniques from wastewater. • RD&D efforts should be conducted to make available multipollutant scrubbers

capable of removing SO2, Hg, and NOx, from flue gases of coal-fired boilers. Research conducted in the 1970’s through 90’s has investigated removal of NOx in wet

scrubbers. Since use of wet scrubbers at power plants is expected to increase in the

near future in response to regulatory requirements, it is very desirable to develop

wet scrubber-based technologies capable of providing simultaneous SO2-Hg-NOx,

control. Such technologies would not only make wet scrubbers more cost-effective,

but would avoid the need for installing additional control equipment, especially at

constrained plant layouts. • Full-scale demonstrations should be conducted to achieve high levels of mercury

control using ACI with wet FGD, with or without additional oxidizing agents. This

is especially relevant to sub-bituminous- and lignite-fired boilers.

Multipollutant Removal in Dry Scrubbers

More than 10 percent of the U.S. coal-fired utility boiler capacity uses spray dryer

absorber (SDA) systems to control SO2 emissions. An SDA system operates by the

same principle as a wet FGD system using a lime scrubbing agent, except that the

flue gas is mixed with a fine mist of lime slurry instead of a bulk liquid (as in wet

scrubbing). The SO2 is absorbed in the slurry and reacts with the hydrated lime reagent to form solid calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate. Hg2+ may also be absorbed.

Sorbent particles containing SO2 and Hg are captured in the downstream PM control device (either an ESP or FF). If the PM control device is a FF, there is the potential for additional capture of gaseous Hg0 as the flue gas passes through the bag

filter cake composed of fly ash and dried slurry particles.

ICR data reflected that units equipped with SDA scrubbers (SDA/ESP or SDA/FF

systems) exhibited average Hg captures ranging from 98 percent for units burning

bituminous coals to 24 percent for units burning sub-bituminous coal.

RD&D Needs for Dry Systems to Enhance Mercury Capture

• SDA is considered to be quite effective in removing Hg2+ from flue gases. Fullscale demonstrations of SDA and ACI should be conducted to achieve high levels

of SO2 and mercury controls on sub-bituminous and lignite-fired boilers. These demonstrations should include both ESP and FF PM controls. • Circulating fluidized bed absorber technology appears promising to provide high

levels of SO2 and Hg control. Recent applications of this technology reflect SO2 con- trol in excess of 90 percent. As for mercury control, limited pilot-scale experience

has shown high mercury removal rates. This technology, with or without ACI,

should be demonstrated for mercury control in several full-scale tests using a range

of coals.

Multipollutant Removal Via SCR and Wet FGD

As mentioned above, the speciation of mercury is known to have a significant impact on the ability of air pollution control equipment to capture it. In particular, the

oxidized form of mercury, mercuric chloride (HgCl2), is highly water-soluble and is,

therefore, easier to capture in wet FGD systems than Hg0 which is not water-soluble. SCR catalysts can act to oxidize a significant portion of the Hg0, thereby enhancing the capture of mercury in downstream wet FGD.

Several studies have suggested that oxidation of elemental mercury by SCR catalyst may be affected by the following:

• The space velocity of the catalyst;

• The temperature of the reaction;

• The concentration of ammonia;
191

• The age of the catalyst; and

• The concentration of chlorine in the gas stream.

DOE, EPRI, and EPA have co-sponsored a field test program that evaluated mercury oxidation across full-scale utility boiler SCR systems. Testing was performed

at four coal-fired electric utility plants having catalyst age ranging from around

2500 hours to about 8000 hours. One plant fired sub-bituminous coal and three

other plants fired Eastern bituminous coal. The test results showed high levels of

mercury oxidation in two of the three plants firing eastern bituminous coal and insignificant oxidation at the other two plants (one firing bituminous coal and the

other, sub-bituminous). For the bituminous coal-fired plant with low mercury oxidation, over 50 percent of the mercury at the SCR inlet was already in the oxidized

form. It is also noted that the SCR system at this plant was operated with significantly higher space velocity (3930 hr¥1) that those of the other plants (1800–2275

hr¥1). Finally, ammonia appeared to have little or no effect on mercury oxidation.

The two bituminous coal-fired plants at which high levels of mercury oxidation

across SCRs was observed were retested in the following year (2002). Again, similar

high levels of oxidation were observed. Two additional plants firing bituminous coals

were also tested in 2002. Results of the tests showed high levels of mercury oxidation, similar to the two plants tested previously. Currently, a DOE-sponsored field

test program is further evaluating the potential effect of SCRs and FGDs on mercury removal.

RD&D Needs for SCR and Wet FGD Systems to Enhance Mercury Capture

• Aging of SCR catalyst with regard to mercury oxidation should be examined in

bench-, pilot-, and field tests.

• SCR impact on mercury oxidation should be examined for sub-bituminous and

lignite-coal-fired boilers and boilers firing coal blends. These impacts should be evaluated on pilot- and field-scales.

• Bench- and pilot-scale research on understanding the science behind SCR-Hg

interactions should be continued. This research has the potential to provide valuable

information for optimizing SCR catalysts for combined NOx and mercury control.

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF COAL USE AND AVAILABILITY OF NOX/SO2 CONTROLS ON

MERCURY CONTROL

In general, the extent to which mercury control approaches discussed above may

be utilized in the future would depend on the extent to which coal would be used

in U.S. power plants and the availability of existing/new NOx/SO2 emission controls

in response to potential emission reduction requirements.

Figures 1 and 2 depict projected United States coal consumption and production

trends for the United States, respectively. It is evident from Figure 1 that the majority of coal consumed in the U.S. is by the electric power generation sector and

that this consumption rate is expected to increase in the future. Figure 2 reflects

that the amount of low-sulfur coals (e.g., sub-bituminous coals) produced has been

significant and this production is expected to increase in the future. Based on these

data, it can be deduced that consumption of low-sulfur coals in the power generation

sector is expected to increase in the future. As discussed above, control of mercury

emissions from boilers firing low-rank (sub-bituminous and lignite) coals is more difficult that from boilers firing bituminous coals. Considering the projected increase

in use of low-sulfur (i.e., low-rank) coals, it is important that cost-effective approaches for controlling mercury emissions from boilers firing such coals be developed via focused RD&D efforts.
192

2Source: Annual Energy Outlook 2003 with Projections to 2025, DOE/EIA–0383(2003), Energy

Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of

Energy, Washington, DC 20585, January 2003.

The trends in coal-fired capacity equipped with SCR and scrubbers based on

EPA’s analysis of Clear Skies Act are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. It is

clear from these figures that current and future NOx and SO2 emission reduction

requirements are expected to result in large capacities (about 100 GW each) of SCR

and scrubber systems for coal-fired utility boilers, as early as 2005. Further, these

capacities are expected to increase at steady and significant rates. These projections

underscore the need to engage in focused RD&D efforts to determine cost-effective

means for optimizing/tweaking these NOx/SO2 controls to achieve mercury control

as a co-benefit with small incremental costs.
193

3Source: ‘‘2003 Technical Support Package for Clear Skies: Section D: 2003 projected impacts

on generation and fuel use,’’ available at http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/technical.html.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Although the potential Hg emissions are calculated to be 75 tons per year based

on the Hg content in coal, the actual current emissions are estimated to be 48 tons

per year due to Hg capture with pollution controls for PM and SO2. The reduction

at any individual plant ranges from 0 to 98 percent dependent on coal type, control

technology type, and other unquantified factors.

A very limited set of short term full-scale trials of activated carbon injection have

been carried out as described earlier in this white paper. These trials do not cover

a representative range of control technology/fuel combination that would be required

to demonstrate the widely achievable levels of Hg control that might be achieved

in a cost-effective manner. Furthermore, they represent short-term (4–9 day) continuous operation and do not address all of the operational issues and residue impacts

that may be associated with commercial operation. Therefore, these technologies are

not currently commercially proven to consistently achieve high levels of Hg control

on a long-term basis.
194

These data provide a basis for hypothesizing the levels of Hg reductions that

might be achievable using technology specifically for Hg control alone or enhanced

capture in existing or new systems for control of SO2 and NOx, These estimates contained in Table 3 are based on best engineering judgment and the assumption that

a focused RD&D program is carried out in an effective and expeditious manner.

Key observations are as follows:

1. The data base clearly indicates that Hg emission controls for low-rank (sub-bituminous and lignite) coal-fired boilers are more difficult than for bituminous-fired

boilers. Further, a significant amount of low-rank coal is currently being used by

the electric utility industry, and this use is expected to increase in the future. Accordingly, it is important to engage in focused RD&D efforts aimed at developing

emission controls for low-rank coal-fired boilers.

2. Assuming sufficient development and demonstrations are carried out, by 2010,

ACI with an ESP has the potential to achieve 70 percent Hg control. ACI with an

ESP and a retrofit fabric filter, or a fabric filter alone, has the potential to achieve

90 percent Hg reduction. Proper design and consideration of operational and residue

impacts need to be incorporated into the effort.

3. Projections reflect that current and future NOx and SO2 emission reduction requirements are expected to result in large capacities (over 100 GW each) of SCR

and scrubber systems for coal-fired utility boilers, as early as 2005. Further, these

capacities are expected to increase at steady and significant rates. Ongoing R&D

has the potential to provide the basis for enhanced Hg removal in retrofitted system

by 2010. Assuming sufficient research development and demonstration of representative technologies, by 2015 new and existing systems installed to control NOx, and

SO2 (e.g., SCR+FGD+FF) have the potential to achieve 90 to 95 percent control of

Hg. Subbituminous and lignite systems may require Hg oxidation technology and/

or additional advanced sorbents to achieve these levels. The longer timeframe for

these systems is driven by the fact that more R&D is required to optimize Hg control approaches before demonstrations are conducted.

4. Cost estimates fall in a wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the

annualized cost of power production. Control by an enhancing/optimizing FGD and

SCR has the potential to reduce such costs substantially, since optimized systems

may require little additional investment and/or operational costs, especially for bituminous coals.

5. The projected performance in Table 3 represents the date by which the demonstration of the most difficult case (e.g., lignite) for the particular technology would

be completed. The demonstrations of the technology for easier situations (e.g., highchlorine bituminous coal) could be completed somewhat earlier. It is important to

note that completion of such demonstrations would represent only the potential initiation of the retrofit program which would take a number of years to fully implement, assuming of course, both successful demonstrations and a regulatory driving

force. The time it would take to fully deploy such technologies would depend on a

number of factors, including the specifics of the regulatory mandates, available vendor capability to meet the hardware demand, and the time for design and construction of the specific retrofit technologies selected.

Based on our experience with coal-fired utility boiler retrofit technologies, we estimate that once a utility has signed a contract with a vendor, installation on a single

boiler could be accomplished in the following timeframe:

• ACI on an existing ESP or FF could be installed in approximately 1 year;

• ACI and a retrofit fabric filter (e.g., COHPAC) could be retrofitted to an existing

ESP in approximately 2 years; and

• a new SCR/FGD/PM/Hg control system could be retrofitted in 3–4 years dependent on the retrofit difficulty.

• existing SCR or FGD to enhance Hg control could be retrofitted in about 1 year

6. Table 3 also reflects the existing capacities associated with key coal type/control

technology combinations. These capacities, with the exception of CS-ESP + retrofit

FF and PM + dry FGD, are significant, thereby underscoring the fact that development of mercury control approaches would need to take into consideration these key

coal type/control technology combinations. The relatively low capacity associated

with the CS-ESP + retrofit FF combination is not surprising because in the absence

of mercury reduction requirements, relatively few plants have used this combination

to control residual amounts of fly ash escaping their ESPs. Again the relatively low

capacity associated with PM + dry FGD is a result of the present economics associated with sulfur reduction via wet or dry FGD or firing low-sulfur coal. However,

as discussed above, in the presence of mercury reduction requirements, these latter

combinations will offer attractive mercury control approaches.
195

Table 3.—RD&D goals for projected cost-effective mercury removal capability (percent) for key

coal type/control technology combinations.4

Control Technology

Existing

Capacity

(MW) in

20035

Projected Hg Removal Capability

in 2010 by the Use of ACI4

Projected Hg Removal Capability

in 2010 by Enhanced Multipollutant Controls4

Projected Hg Remnoval Capability in 2015 by Optimizing

Multipollutant Controls4

Bituminous

(Bit.)

Low-rank

coals Bit. coals Low-rank

coals Bit. coals Low-rankcoals

PM Control Only-CSESP.153133 706 ............. 706 ............. NA7 ............ NA .............. NA .............. NA

PM Control Only-CSESP + retrofit FF.2591 90 .............. 90 .............. NA .............. NA .............. NA .............. NA

PM Control Only-FF .. 11018 90 .............. 90 .............. NA .............. NA .............. NA .............. NA

PM+ Dry FGD ........... 8919 NA .............. NA .............. 908 ............. 60–708 ...... 90–958 ...... 90–958

PM + Wet FGD ......... 48318 NA .............. NA .............. 909 ............. 70–809 ...... 90–959 ...... 90–959

PM + Wet or Dry

FGD + SCR.

22586 NA .............. NA .............. 90 .............. 70–8010 ..... 90–9510 ..... 90–9510

4 Based on the assumption of aggressive RD&D implementation as outlined elsewhere in this white paper.

5 Capacity values have been obtained from EMF controls available in ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Clear Skies Act parsed file for 2010’’ available at http://

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/results2003.html. The capacity values have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 6 This control level is based on data from the Pleasant Prairie field tests.

7 NA = not applicable.

8 Assumes that additional means to ensure oxidation of Hg0 or innovative sorbents will be used as needed. 9 Assumes that means to oxidize Hg0 will be used as needed. Note that in some cases this may, in part, be accomplished by FF. 10 Assumes that additional means to ensure oxidation of Hg0 or innovative sorbents will be used as needed.

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION

2003 SELECTED AIR POLLUTION HEALTH STUDIES OF NOTE: OZONE AND

PARTICULATE MATTER

Periodically, the American Lung Association summarizes selected studies from

current research in the published literature on outdoor air pollution. These summaries are grouped below by major topic. These summaries are in no way intended

to substitute for medical information from a physician, nor are they intended to represent conclusions of the American Lung Association. Citations for all studies are

provided.

ADVERSE BIRTH OUTCOMES

L.A. Women Who Live Near Busy Roads Have Increased Risk of Premature Births.

Researchers at UCLA have previously reported that increases in ambient air pollution in the Los Angeles basin increase the risk of low birth weight babies and premature births. This followup study examined mothers’ differential exposure to air

pollutants resulting from living near roadways with heavy traffic.

Researchers examined data on low birth weight and/or pre-term birth in Los Angeles County between 1994–1996. They mapped the home locations at birth, and estimated exposure to traffic-related air pollution using a measure that takes into account residential proximity to and level of traffic on roadways surrounding homes.

The study reported a 10–20 percent increase in the risk of pre-term births and

low birth weight in infants born to women potentially exposed to high levels of traffic-related air pollution. Women whose third trimester fell during the fall or winter,

when atmospheric stability tends to limit dispersion of pollutants, experienced the

greatest effects.

Willhelm, M., and Ritz, B. Residential Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth

Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, 1994–1996. Environmental Health

Perspectives, Vol. 111, No. 2, pp. 207–216, February 2003.

Maternal Exposure to Air Pollution May Lower Birth Weight of Babies

A study in Kaohsiung, Taiwan has reported a significant exposure-response relationship between material exposures to sulfur dioxide and PM10 during the first trimester of pregnancy and lowered birth weight. The study of 54,000 deliveries in Taiwan’s second largest city correlated mothers’ residences with data from air quality

monitoring stations less than 2 kilometers away.

Maternal exposures were estimated for the different gestational stages of each

child. Various confounders including maternal age, season, marital status, maternal

education and infant gender were controlled for.

Another study on the relationship between low birth weight and air pollution exposure in Seoul, Korea found that exposure to carbon monoxide, PM10, sulfur diox-
196

ide, and nitrogen dioxide during early to mid-pregnancy contributes to risks or lowbirth weight babies.

Yang, C.Y., Tseng, Y.T., Chang, C.C. Effects of Air Pollution on Birth Weight

Among Children Born Between 1995 and 1997 in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. J Toxicol Environ Health, A. Vol. 65, No. 9, pp. 6070816, May 9, 2003.

Lee, B.E., Ha, E.H., Park, H.S., Kim, Y.J., Hong, Y.C., Kim, H., and Lee, J.T. Exposure to Air Pollution During Different Gestational Phases Contributes to Risks of

Low Birth Weight. Human Reproduction. Vol. 3, pp. 638–643, March 2003.

Low Concentrations of Gaseous Air Pollutants and Adverse Birth Outcomes

Recent studies in China, the Czech Republic, and the United States have related

ambient air pollution to adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study examines relationships between pre-term birth, low birth weight, and intrauterine growth retardation

and ambient concentrations of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide,

and ozone in Vancouver, Canada, a relatively clean city.

Researchers conclude that, overall, the associations among SO2 and low birth

weight, pre-term birth, and intrauterine grown retardation ‘‘appear to be the most

robust against copollutant adjustment,’’ but that the effects of air pollutants on

birth outcomes are likely related to more than one component of the complex mix

of air pollutants present in urban environments.

Siu, S., Krewski, D., Shi, Y., Chen, Y., and Burnett, R.T. Association between Gaseous Ambient Air Pollutants and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Vancouver, Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives., Vol. 111, No. 14, pp. 1773–1778, November 2003.

EFFECTS ON INFANTS AND CHILDREN

Infants are Most Susceptible Age Group to Mortality from Air Pollution

This is the first study to determine that infants are more susceptible to mortality

from air pollution than other age groups. Researchers tracked daily counts of total

and respiratory death in Seoul, Korea relative to PM10 and other air pollutant concentrations for three age groups: infants aged 1 month to 1-year old, those from 2-

years to 64-years old, and those over 65 years of age. Newborns were not included

in the study.

For all age groups, the number of total deaths and particularly respiratory deaths

increased on days when PM10 air pollution was the worst, but the effect was most

pronounced in infants. The elderly were second in increased susceptibility.

Researchers hypothesize that:

‘‘Infants are more vulnerable to respiratory disease leading to death from particulate air pollution, because the infant lung and immune system is immature

and unable to control adequately the inflammation resulting from exposure to

ambient particles.’’

The researchers conclude that the results of their study have ‘‘serious implications

on the air pollution criteria, which should be based on the effects on infant health

rather than on adult health.’’

Ha, E.-H., Lee, J.-T., Kim, H., Hong, Y.-C., Lee, B.-E., Park, H.-S., and Christiani,

D. Infant Susceptibility of Mortality to Air Pollution in Seoul, South Korea. Pediatrics. Vol. 111, pp. 284–290, February 2003.

Ozone Alters Development of Trachea in Infant Rhesus Monkeys

This study examined the development of the ‘‘basement membrane zone’’ in the

trachea of infant rhesus monkeys exposed to ozone, filtered air, and ozone plus allergen from house dust mites. In monkeys, this structure develops after birth, allowing

studies of the effects of environmental exposures.

The study found significant differences, including irregular width, in the tracheal

‘‘basement membrane zone’’ in monkeys exposed to either ozone, or ozone plus allergens, during the developmental period. This resulted in altered regulation of proteins that may explain the atypical development of the lung observed in rhesus

monkeys after exposure to ozone.

Evans, M.J., Fanucchi, M.V., Baker, G.L., Van Winkle, L.S., Pantle, L.M., Nishio,

S.J., Schelegle, E.S., Gershwin, L.J., Miller, L.A., Hyde, D.M., Sannes, P.L., and

Plopper, C.G. Atypical Development of the Tracheal Basement Membrane Zone of

Infant Rhesus Monkeys Exposed to Ozone and Allergen. American Journal of Physiology—Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology. Vol. 285, pp. 931–939, June 27,

2003.
197

Diesel Exposure Increases Susceptibility to RSV Infection

Researchers studied the impact of inhaled diesel engine emissions in mice, to investigate the potential mechanisms for inhaled pollutants in modulating susceptibility to respiratory infection. Prior exposure to diesel particulate pollution was

shown to increase lung inflammation in response to respiratory syncytial virus

(RSV), a common respiratory pathogen in young children.

The lungs of the mice were flushed, and inflammatory cells in the fluid were

found to increase in a dose-dependent manner with the diesel exhaust exposure.

Changes in the mucous cells increased markedly in the diesel exposed mice following RSV infection. Researchers suggest that diesel exhaust exposure ‘‘modulates

the lung host defense to respiratory viral infections and may alter the susceptibility

to respiratory infections leading to increased lung disease.’’ Harrod, K.S., Jaramillo, R.J., Rosenberger, C.L., Wang, S.-Z., Berger, J.A.,

McDonald, J.D., and Reed, M.D. Increased Susceptibility to RSV Infection by Exposure to Inhaled Diesel Engine Emissions. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and

Molecular Biology. Vol. 28, pp. 451–463, 2003.

Particle Pollution Worsens Asthma in School-Aged Children

A large number of epidemiologic studies have found that short-term increases in

particulate matter levels can trigger lung function decrements, use of asthma medications, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and symptoms in people

with asthma. A group of researchers at the University of Washington sought to investigate the severity of asthma symptoms in relationship to air pollution. The researchers recruited a panel of 133 children with mild to moderate asthma, ages 5

to 13 years old, who were enrolled in a clinical asthma management program in Seattle. The children completed daily diary cards for an average of 58 days to indicate

their medication use and asthma severity.

Researchers found that daily increases PM2.5 and PM10 increased the risk of having a more severe asthma attack, and increased the use of rescue inhaler medication

in the children. Specifically, a 10 μ/m3 rise in PM2.5 concentrations increased the

risk of having a more serious asthma attack the next day by 20 percent.

Increases in carbon monoxide were also associated with more severe asthma attacks, but researchers believe that this pollutant is a marker for exposure to combustion byproducts.

Slaughter, J.C., Lumley, T., Sheppard, L., Koenig, J.Q. and Shapiro, G.G. Effects

of Ambient Air Pollution on Symptom Severity and Medication Use in Children with

Asthma. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. Oct. 1, 2003, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 346–53.

Air Pollution Triggers Bronchitis in Children with Asthma

The Children’s Health Study has followed a cohort of children with asthma in 12

Southern California communities for over a decade. This study explored the role

that different components of the air pollution mix can have on various symptoms

of bronchitis, such as cough, congestion, and phlegm, in children with asthma. The

study found that effects varied in relation to changes in yearly concentrations of air

pollutants within each community. The authors found associations of bronchitic

symptoms with yearly changes in PM2.5 and organic carbon particles (from gasoline

and diesel exhaust), and with gaseous nitrogen dioxide and ozone.

Researchers suggest that previous cross-sectional studies may have underestimated air pollution risks and conclude that:

‘‘The yearly variability in bronchitic symptoms in association with changes in

air pollution provides indirect evidence that even modest reductions in air pollution could result in improved respiratory health in children.’’

McConnell, R., Berhane, K., Gilliland, F., Molitor, J., Thomas, D., Lurmann, F.,

Avol, E., Gauderman, W.J., and Peters, J.M. Prospective Study of Air Pollution and

Bronchitic Symptoms in Children with Asthma. American Journal of Respiratory

and Critical Care Medicine. Vol. 168. pp. 790–797, 2003.

Low Levels of Ozone Increase Respiratory Risk in Asthmatic Kids

Yale University researchers studied a group of 271 asthmatic children under age

12, living in Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts involved in a prospective

study of asthma severity. The children’s mothers tracked their asthma symptoms

such as wheeze, persistent cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath, and their

medication use, on a daily basis.

The study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reported

that a 50 ppb increase in 1-hour ozone concentrations dramatically increased the

likelihood of wheeze (by 35 percent) and chest tightness (by 47 percent). The study

found that asthmatic children using maintenance medication were particularly vulnerable to ozone even after controlling for co-exposure to fine particles, and even at
198

pollution levels below EPA’s current air quality standards for ozone. The highest

levels of ozone on a 1-hour and 8-hour average basis were associated with increased

shortness of breath and rescue medication use. PM2.5 was not significantly associated with a worsening of asthma when both ozone and fine particles were co-analyzed.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. George Thurston and Dr. David Bates write

that ‘‘air pollution is one of the most under-appreciated contributors to asthma exacerbations.’’

Gent, J.F., Triche, E.W., Holford, T.R., Belanger, K., Bracken, M.B., Beckett, W.S.

and Leaderer, B.P. Association of Low-Level Ozone and Fine Particles with Respiratory Symptoms in Children with Asthma. Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 290, No. 14, pp. 1859–1867, October 8, 2003.

Thurston, G.D. and Bates, D.V. Air Pollution as an Underappreciated Cause of

Asthma Symptoms. Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 290, No. 14,

pp. 1915–1917, October 8, 2003.

Air Pollution and Asthmatic Symptoms in Panel of Hispanic Children

Researchers conducted a panel study of 22 Hispanic children aged 10–16 years old

with asthma living in a Los Angeles community with high traffic density. Subjects

kept daily diaries of their symptoms for 3 months. Air quality measurements were

collected for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, PM10, as well

as for the elemental and organic carbon fractions of PM10 and for numerous toxic

volatile organic compounds. PM2.5 data was not available.

Researchers presented new evidence that particle composition is important to adverse respiratory effects. There were positive associations reported between asthma

symptoms and organic carbon, elemental carbon and PM10, but the evidence was

stronger for organic carbon and elemental carbon in the two-pollutant models. Elemental carbon is a marker for diesel emissions. Positive associations were also reported for selected volatile organic compounds associated with motor vehicles, including benzene, formaldehyde, toluene and xylene.

Delfino, R.J., Gong Jr., H., Linn, W.S., Pellizzari, E.D., and Hu, Y. Asthma Symptoms in Hispanic Children and Daily Ambient Exposures to Toxic and Criteria Air

Pollutants. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 111, No. 4, April 2003.

Poor Children in U.S.-Mexico Border City Suffer Effects of Air Pollution

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America commissioned

a study of the health impacts of air pollution on the children of Ciudad Jua ́ rez, Mexico a city where children may be more vulnerable because of poor living conditions.

The study found significant associations between ambient levels of ozone, and respiratory-related emergency visits by children, for upper respiratory infections and

asthma. No association was observed with ambient concentrations of PM10.

Overall, ambient air pollutants were not related to respiratory deaths, but when

data were stratified by socioeconomic status, an increase in respiratory mortality

was observed among infants in the poorest group.

Romieu, I., Ramirez Aguilar, M., Moreno Macias, H., Barraza Villarreal, A., Hernandez Cadena, L., Carbajal Arroyo, L. Health Impacts of Air Pollution on Morbidity and Mortality Among Children of Ciudad Jua ́ rez, Chihauhua, Mexico. Working Paper prepared for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, November

10, 2003 available online at: http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUTANTS/cdjuarez—

en.pdf.

Urban Air Pollution Damages Children’s Lungs

Children in Mexico City are chronically exposed to a complex mixture of air pollutants, including hydrocarbons, ozone concentrations well above the NAAQS, and

significant concentrations of metal-containing PM. Researchers followed 174 children aged 5–17, and compared them to 27 control children living in low-polluted

areas. Researchers assessed several measures of respiratory damage in the children,

including nasal abnormalities, hyperinflation and interstitial markings in the lungs

observed by chest X-ray, lung function changes, and blood concentrations of proteins

that are indicative of the health of the immune system.

Researchers found that the air pollution exposure produces significant chest X-ray

abnormalities in the exposed children, depressed lung function, and an imbalance

of blood proteins important to immune response. They found that 22 percent of the

exposed children had grossly abnormal nasal mucosa, which can impair nasal defense mechanisms against inhaled gases and particles. The lung damage observed

is similar to the chronic inflammatory damage observed in an earlier study of dogs

in Mexico City. Researchers report that the x-ray and lung function changes they

found in the exposed children could be due to pollution-associated chronic
199

bronchiolitis, which could put the children at greater risk of developing chronic obstructive airway disease later in life.

They conclude that lifelong exposure to urban air pollution causes respiratory

damage in children and may predispose them to development of chronic lung disease

and other problems due to suppression of the immune system.

Caldero ́n-Garciduen ̃ as, L., Mora-Tiscaren ̃ o, A., Fordham, L.A., Valencia-Salazar,

G., Chung, C.J., Rodriguez-Alcaraz, A., Paredes, R., Variakojis, D., VillarrealCaldero ́n, A., Flores-Camacho, L., Antunez-Solis, A., Henriquez-Rolda ́n, and

Hazucha, M.J. Respiratory Damage in Children Exposed to Urban Pollution. Pediatric Pulmonology. Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 148–61, August 2003.

More Ozone ‘‘Responders’’ Among Children and Asthmatics

Large differences in the sensitivity of individuals to ozone have been well documented. Those that are particularly sensitive are known as ‘‘responders.’’ This study

sought to establish the prevalence of ‘‘responders’’ in four different population subgroups: children, asthmatics, the elderly, and athletes, by assessing symptoms and

measuring respiratory function.

The study found higher rates of ozone responders in asthmatics (21 percent) and

children (18 percent), as compared to the elderly and athletes (both 5 percent). This

means that children and asthmatics have a higher risk of being ozone sensitive and

experiencing more acute lung function decrements than other population groups.

Ho ̈ppe, P., Peters, A., Rabe, G., Praml, G., Lindner, J., Jakobi, G., Fruhmann, G.,

and Nowak, D. Environmental Ozone Effects in Different Population Subgroups.

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. Vol. 206, pp. 505–516,

2003.

CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS IN ADULTS

Air Pollution Boosts Stroke Risk

Higher levels of air pollution increase the risk of hospitalization for stroke, especially in warmer weather, according to a study in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Researchers

tracked data on multiple air pollutants and 23,000 hospital admissions for stroke

over a 4-year period in Taiwan’s second largest city. They compared air pollution

levels of the dates of admissions with the levels 1 week before and after admission.

They found that PM10 and nitrogen dioxide were the most important pollutants and

that their effects were greatest on warmer days.

Another recent study in England and Wales reported that road traffic pollution

is associated with excess risk of mortality from stroke. Researchers reported that

stroke deaths were 7 percent higher in men living within 200 meters of a main road,

compared with men living more than 1,000 meters away.

Tsai, S.-S., Goggins, W.B., Chiu, H.-F., and Yang, C.-Y. Evidence for an Association Between Air Pollution and Daily Stroke Admissions in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Stroke. Published online before print October 9, 2003, doi:10.1161/01.STR.

0000095564,33543.64

Maheswaran, R., and Elliott, P. Stroke Mortality Associated with Living Near

Main Roads in England and Wales, A Geographical Study. Stroke. Vol. 34, pp.

2776–2780, 2003.

Ozone Pollution Sends Elderly to Hospitals in Denver

A large number of epidemiologic studies from around the world have reported an

association between various air pollutants and hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes. Extremes in weather have also been associated with adverse health

effects, including mortality.

This study tracked hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases at all 11 Denver County hospitals during July and August, two extreme temperature months, for

a 4-year period. The study focused on men and women older than 65 years of age.

Researchers found that ozone increases the risk of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, coronary atherosclerosis, and pulmonary heart disease. Sulfur dioxide was related to increased hospital stays for cardiac dysrhythmias, and carbon

monoxide was significantly associated with congestive heart failure hospitalization.

No associations were found between particulate matter or nitrogen dioxide and hospitalizations. Higher temperatures were an important factor in increasing the frequency of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, but were associated with a decrease in the frequency of visits for the other

heart conditions studied.

Researchers conclude that:

‘‘exposures to higher air pollutant concentrations (except for particulate matter and NO2), even at levels that meet Federal air quality standards, appear
200

to have an effect of increasing the number of hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases as a whole.’’

Koken, P.J.M., Piver, W.T., Ye, F., Elixhauser, A., Olsen, L.M., and Portier, C.J.

Temperature, Air Pollution, and Hospitalization for Cardiovascular Diseases among

Elderly People in Denver. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 111, No. 10, pp.

1312–1317, August 2003.

PARTICULATES LINKED TO HOSPITAL STAYS FOR HEART ATTACKS

A study in Rome, Italy, used a ‘‘case-crossover’’ design to evaluate the relation between daily indicators of air quality and hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarctions, or heart attacks. Individual data on patients was considered as possible

effect modifiers. The study period was over 2 years and included over 6,000 patients.

The strongest and most consistent positive effects were found for total suspended

particulates, with positive associations also reported for nitrogen dioxide and carbon

monoxide.

The study suggests that traffic-derived air pollutants increase the risk of heart

attacks, especially during the warm season, among the elderly, and in people with

heart conduction disturbances.

D’Ippoliti, D., Forastiere, F., Ancona, C., Agabity, N., Fusco, D., Michelozzi, P.,

Perucci, C.A. Air Pollution and Myocardial Infarction in Rome: A Case-Crossover

Analysis. Epidemiology, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 528–535, 2003.

Air Pollution Particles Lower Heart Rate Variability in Elderly Humans

Investigations of cardiovascular health effects are being carried out to better explain the mechanisms responsible for mortality attributable to particulate air pollution. For instance, recent studies have reported associations between elevated PM

levels and serious ventricular arrhythmias and myocardial infarctions.

Several recent panel studies have investigated heart rate variability in relationship to particle air pollution. Heart rate variability reflects the autonomic function

of the heart. In this study, a small panel of healthy elderly volunteers aged 60 to

80, were exposed to concentrated particles derived from the ambient air in Chapel

Hill, North Carolina, and to clean air. Changes in heart rate variability were measured before, immediately following, and 24-hours after exposure.

The study found that a 2-hour exposure of healthy elderly subjects to moderate

levels of particulate pollution—comparable to levels seen in many metropolitan

areas—resulted in alterations in heart rate variability. Lowered heart rate variability has been associated with increased risk for developing coronary heart disease

and to sudden cardiac death.

These results are in contrast to the findings of the same researchers in a similar

study of healthy young adults, suggesting that elderly people are more responsive

to particulate matter pollution.

Devlin, R.B., Ghio, A.J., Kehrl, H., Sanders, G., and Cascio, W. Elderly Humans

Exposed to Concentrated Air Pollution Particles Have Decreased Heart Rate Variability. The European Respiratory Journal. Vol. 21, Suppl. 40, pp. 76s–80’s, 2003.

Fine Particles and Ozone Suppress Heart Rate Variability in Nursing Home Residents

Thirty-four residents of a nursing home in Mexico City underwent 5-minute electrocardiograms every other day for a 3-month period. Ambient ozone measurements

were obtained, as well as indoor and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations. After adjusting

for age and heart rate, investigators observed a decline in heart rate variability in

association with air pollutants, particularly among those with high blood pressure.

Reductions in heart rate variability are correlated with increased rates of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the high-risk and general population, but the

clinical significance of minor, transient changes such as observed in this study are

uncertain.

Holguin, F., Tellez-Rojo, M.M., Hernandez, M., Cortez, M., Chow, J.C., Watson,

J.G., Mannino, D., and Romieu, I. Air Pollution and Heart Rate Variability Among

the Elderly in Mexico City. Epidemiology. Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 521–527, 2003.

Mittleman, M.A. and Verrier, R.L. Air Pollution: Small Particles, Big Problems?

Commentary. Epidemiology. Vol. 14. No. 5. pp. 512–513, September 2003.

Fine Particles and Gaseous Air Pollutants Increase Risk of Hospitalization

This time-series study in Atlanta, Georgia funded by the Electric Power Research

Institute used data on more than 4 million emergency department visits from 331

hospitals, and detailed air quality data on criteria air pollutants. For the last 2

years of the study, detailed data on several chemical characteristics of PM were

available.
201

Researchers found evidence for an association between hospitalization for cardiovascular disease and PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and components of

PM2.5 including organic carbon, elemental carbon, and oxygenated hydrocarbons.

The effect of ambient pollution on cardiovascular conditions tended to be rapid,

with the strongest associations observed with pollution levels on the same day as

emergency department visits.

Metzger, K.B., Tolbert, P.E., Klein, M., Peel, J.L., Flanders, W.D., Todd, K.,

Mulholland, J.A., Ryan, P. B., and Frumkin, H. Ambient Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Emergency Department Visits in Atlanta, Georgia, 1993–2000. Epidemiology, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 46–56, January 2004.

RESPIRATORY EFFECTS IN ADULTS

Living Near a Major Road Exacerbates Respiratory Symptoms in U.S. Veterans

There have been numerous population-based studies investigating the health effects of exposure to traffic, many focusing specifically on the effects on children, and

most undertaken in other countries.

This study focused on effects in over 5,000 veterans—adult males—living in

southeastern Massachusetts. Participants completed questionnaires on their chronic

illnesses and respiratory symptoms, and a Geographic Information System was used

to estimate the distance of their residence from a major road.

The results of this study point to increased risk for persistent wheeze and possibly

chronic phlegm for people living within 50 meters of heavily trafficked roads. The

authors conclude that ‘‘exposure to vehicular emissions by living near busy roadways

might contribute to symptoms of chronic respiratory disease in adults.’’

Garshick, E., Laden, F., Hart, J.E., and Caron, A. Residence Near a Major Road

and Respiratory Symptoms in U.S. Veterans. Epidemiology. Vol. 14. No. 6, pp. 728–

736.

Hospitalizations and Emergency Room Visits Increase Following High Particulate

Matter Episodes

A study of half a million Kaiser Permanente members living in the San Joaquin

Valley of California has reported that following wintertime episodes of high PM2.5

and PM10 concentrations, and to a lesser extent carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, hospital admission rates and emergency room visits increased for patients who

suffer from acute respiratory ailments such as asthma and bronchitis. Admissions

for chronic respiratory ailments such as emphysema were similarly elevated, particularly during the winter. The study followed patients over a 4-year period. Effects

estimates were consistently greater for PM2.5 than for PM10. Investigators did not

find convincing evidence of associations with coarse particles or with ozone.

Van Den Eeden, S.K., Quesenberry, C.P., Jr., Shan, J., and Lurmann, F. Particulate Air Pollution and Morbidity in the California Central Valley: A High Particulate Pollution Region. Final Report to the California Air Resources Board, Contract

97–303, July 12, 2002. Available at: ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/research/apr/past/97–

303.pdf.

Fine Particles Induce Symptoms in Elderly Heart Patients

This is the first study in recent years to explore the relationship between cardiovascular symptoms and air pollution. Researchers followed a panel of non-smoking

elderly subjects with coronary heart disease in three cities during the winter of

1998–1999: Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Erfurt, Germany; and Helsinki, Finland.

Participants recorded occurrence of selected cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms in a daily diary. Air quality measurements were made for PM10, PM2.5,

ultrafine particles, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and ozone. Information on potential confounding factors such as weather variables and influenza

data was also collected.

Researchers reported consistent positive associations of PM2.5 with shortness of

breath and phlegm, and weak positive associations between PM2.5 and being awakened by breathing problems and avoidance of activities. Associations were more consistent with PM2.5 than with other pollutants, including ultrafine particles. There

was no association between chest pain and air pollution.

de Hartog, J.J., Hoek, G., Peters, A., Timonen, K.L., Ibald-Mulli, A., Brunekreef,

B., Heinrich, J., Tittanen, P., van Wijnen, J.H., Kreyling, W., Kulmala, M., and

Pekkanen, J. Effects of Fine and Ultrafine Particles on Cardiorespiratory Symptoms

in Elderly Subjects with Coronary Heart Disease. American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 157, No. 7, pp. 613–623, 2003.
202

Ozone Exacerbates Symptoms in COPD Patients

Thirty-nine senior adults with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

(COPD) were followed by their physicians in Paris, France, during a 14-month period. Daily levels of PM10, ozone, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide were monitored.

No evidence of symptom exacerbation and PM10, SO2, or NO2 was observed. However, the 8-hour average ozone concentration was associated with exacerbation of

COPD symptoms.

According to the researchers,

‘‘our results are consistent with those of toxicological studies that have shown

the inflammatory mechanisms of O3. The recruitment of inflammatory cells into

the lung presents a risk of tissue damage through the release of toxic mediators

by activated inflammatory cells. Perhaps this phenomenon would be more serious among patients suffering from COPD, in whom a pre-existent inflammation

of the small or large airways would be constant.’’

Desqueyroux, H., Pujet, J.C., Prosper, M., Le Moullec, Y., Momas, I. Effects of Air

Pollution on Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 57, No. 6, pp. 554–560, Nov.–Dec. 2002.

Autopsies Show Evidence of Particle Damage to Small Airways

Researchers evaluated a series of autopsied lungs from Mexico City, a city with

high PM levels, and compared them by formal grading analysis to lungs from Vancouver, a region of generally low air pollution. The small airways in the Mexico City

lungs showed markedly higher levels of fibrous tissue and muscle, and microscopic

evidence of particle accumulation in the respiratory bronchioles. The study demonstrates that particle pollution penetrates into and is retained in the walls of the

small airways. The type of airway wall remodeling found here is the same as that

associated with chronic airflow obstruction in cigarette smokers and in asthmatics,

and may have a similar effect in those exposed to PM.

A related laboratory study has demonstrated that air pollution particles produce

airway wall remodeling in rat tracheal tissue maintained in culture. Researchers exposed the tissue to two types of particles—Ottawa urban air particles, and diesel

exhaust particles. The study found that exposure to these particles can induce expression of genes involved in fibrogenesis and airway wall fibrosis, suggesting an

explanation for the fibrosis and increased muscle observed in human airways subject to chronic exposure to high levels of PM.

Researchers conclude that ‘‘PM-induced airway wall remodeling may play an important role in producing airflow obstruction in individuals living in high PM regions.’’

Churg, A. Brauer, M., Avila-Casado, M.d.C., Fortoul, T.I., and Wright, J.L. Chronic Exposure to High Levels of Particulate Air Pollution and Small Airway Remodeling. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 111, No. 5, pp. 714–718, May 2003.

Dai, J., Xie, C., Vincent, R., and Churg, A. Air Pollution Particles Produce Airway

Wall Remodeling in Rat Tracheal Explants. American Journal of Respiratory Cell

Molecular Biology. Vol. 29, pp. 352–358, 2003.

SARS Deaths Higher in More Polluted Regions

High levels of air pollution may increase the risk of dying from SARS—severe

acute respiratory syndrome. A study in China found that patients with SARS who

were living in areas with high air pollution were more than twice as likely to die

from the illness than those living in cleaner areas.

Researchers developed an air pollution index from data on ambient concentrations

on ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide,

to compare with data on SARS illnesses and fatalities. There have been over 5,000

cases of SARS reported in China since November 2002, with 349 fatalities.

The study authors suggest that air pollution might compromise lung function, predisposing SARS patients to illness and death.

Cui, Y., Zhang, Z.-F., Froines, J., Zhao, J., Want, H., Yu, S.-Z., and Detels, R. Air

Pollution and Case Fatality of SARS in the People’s Republic of China: An Ecologic

Study. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source. Vol. 2, No. 15, November 20, 2003. Available online at: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476–

069X–2–15.pdf.

Prior Exposure to Fuel Oil Combustion Particulates Enhances Allergic Response

Experimental studies have shown that diesel exhaust and gaseous pollutants may

enhance the allergic response.

In this human experimental study, researchers sought to determine whether preexposure to combustion particles would enhance the response to subsequent expo-
203

sure to pollen. The combustion particles used in the study were residual oil fly ash

from a Boston power plant. Nasal cells were examined following exposure for evidence of inflammation and allergic response.

Researchers reported evidence of a greater than additive interaction between particulate exposure and allergen challenge. Specifically, they found an increase in certain inflammatory cells and cytokines that are measures of irritant or allergic response, relative to subjects pre-exposed to clean air.

Hauser, R., Rice, T.M., Krishna Murthy, G.G., Wand, M. P., Lewis, D., Bledsoe,

T., and Paulauskis, J. The Upper Airway Response to Pollen is Enhanced by Exposure to Combustion Particulates: A Pilot Human Experimental Challenge Study.

Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 111, No. 4, pp. 472–477, April 2003.

Diesel Exhaust Emissions Causes Chronic Damage to Nasal Mucous Membrane

Diesel exhaust contains numerous toxic substances such as sulfur dioxide, acrolein, formaldehyde, metals, and particulate matter. Many of these combustion byproducts are known to be genotoxic, cytotoxic, fibrogenic, and carcinogenic. Uncontrolled diesel emissions from heavy equipment constitute a major public health concern.

Researchers in Switzerland studied some 200 male, non-smoking customs officers

over a 5-year period. Some of the officers were engaged in the clearing of diesel

trucks over 8 hours per day during the workweek, while the control group worked

in the office. Researchers measured concentrations of diesel exhaust in the ambient

air and collected nasal swabs from the workers during the summer and winter.

In humans, the nose is the initial site of injury by inhaled irritants, and it is a

common site for particle deposition and for the absorption of potentially toxic gases.

Researchers found increased abnormalities in the nasal skin cells and an increase

in white blood cells, in the workers chronically exposed to diesel exhaust. They describe the changes as a chronic inflammation of the nasal mucous membrane. In addition, researchers report that the cell changes may be indicative of a genotoxic effect (capable of causing damage to DNA) of chronic diesel exposures in humans.

Gluck, U., Schu ̈tz, R., Gebbers, J.-O. Cytopatholo of the Nasal Mucosa in Chronic

Exposure to Diesel Engine Emission: A Five-Year Survey of Swiss Customs Officers.

Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 111, No. 7, pp. 925–929, June 2003.

LONG- AND SHORT-TERM STUDIES OF PREMATURE MORTALITY

Soot’s Impact on Heart Comparable to Risk for Former Smokers

In a followup analysis to the American Cancer Society cohort study, researchers

have reported a striking link between chronic exposure to fine particle air pollution

and increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease in the United States. The

increased risk was comparable to that associated with being a former smoker. The

new analysis is based on data collected by the American Cancer Society on the

cause of death of 500,000 adults over a 16-year period, and on data on air pollution

levels in cities nationwide. Data on other risk factors such as body mass, smoking,

occupational exposures, and diet were also considered.

The study identifies a strong link between particulate air pollution and ischemic

heart disease (which causes heart attacks), and also a link between pollution and

irregular heart rhythms, heart failure, and cardiac arrest. It also suggests general

biological pathways through which pollution might cause these diseases that lead

to death—increased inflammation and nervous system aberrations that change

heart rhythm. Mortality attributable to respiratory disease had relatively weak associations in this study.

Researchers conclude that:

‘‘the results of this analysis are largely consistent with the proposition that.

the general pathophysiological pathways that link long-term PM exposure and

cardiopulmonary mortality risk include pulmonary and systemic inflammation,

accelerated atherosclerosis, and altered cardiac autonomic function.’’

Pope, C.A. III, Burnett, R.T., Thurston, G.D., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski,

D., and Godleski, J.J. Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution: Epidemiological Evidence of General Pathophysiological Pathways

of Disease. Circulation. Vol. 109, pp. 71–77, 2004. Published online before print at:

http://www.circulationaha.org, DOI: 10.1161 /01.CIR.0000108927.80044.7F.

Short-Term Studies Underestimate Premature Deaths

The APHEA–2 project was a major study of the health effects of air pollution in

30 cities across Europe and in adjacent countries. That and many other studies have

reported that short-term changes in PM10 lead to short-term fluctuations in sickness

and death. This study uses a statistical model—known as the distributed lag
204

model—to explore whether those deaths are advanced by just a few days or a few

weeks, or more.

The researchers found that the adverse effects of short-term increases in air pollution persist for more than a month after exposure. They estimate that the size of

the effect of exposure to PM10 doubles for cardiovascular deaths when looking at effects 40 days after exposure, and increases five-fold for respiratory deaths. These

results are consistent with higher risk estimates found in cohort studies such as the

Harvard Six Cities Study, and strongly suggest that estimates of the effects of shortterm exposures to air pollution seriously underestimate the impact of particle exposure. Researchers conclude that:

‘‘risk assessment based on the short-term associations likely underestimate

the number of early deaths that are advanced by a significant amount, and that

estimates based on the cohort studies, or studies such as this one, would more

accurately assess the public health impact.’’

Another research group took a different approach to evaluate the extent of lifeshortening implied by short-term estimates of particulate air pollution on mortality.

They sought to establish a separate relative rate of mortality for different time

scales. They applied this method of a database on particulate air pollution, daily

mortality, and weather in four cities: Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Seattle, and Chicago.

The authors found that the mortality rates during periods from 14 days to 2

months after exposure were larger than the rates from 1 to 4 days after the exposure. This refutes the ‘‘harvesting hypothesis’’: that is the argument that any increase in mortality associated with increased particle concentrations stems entirely

from the death of very frail persons who die a few days early. If ‘‘harvesting’’ were

the case, the rate of mortality would not continue to be higher for these extended

periods of time.

Zanobetti, A., Schwartz, J., Samoli, E., Gryparis, A., Tuoloumi, G., Peacock, J.,

Anderson, R.H., Le Tertre, A., Bobros, J., Celko, M., Goren, A., Forsberg B.,

Michelozzi, P., Rabczenko, D., Perez Hoyos, S., Wichmann, H.E., and Katsouyanni,

K. The Temporal Pattern of Respiratory and Heart Disease Mortality in Response

to Air Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 111, No. 9, pp. 1188–1193,

July 2003.

Dominici, F., McDermott, A., Zeger, S.L., and Samet, J.M. Airborne Particulate

Matter and Mortality: Timescale Effects in Four US Cities. American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 157, No. 12, pp. 1055–1065, June 15, 2003.

Dutch Study Confirms that Long-Term Exposures to Particulate Matter are Deadly

This long-term cohort study confirms the findings of the Harvard Six Cities Study

and the study of the American Cancer Society Cohort that found an association between chronic exposure to particulate air pollution and shortened life expectancy.

Investigators assessed the association between long-term exposure to trafficrelated air pollution and cause-specific mortality in a cohort of 4,500 elderly people,

participants in the ongoing Netherlands Cohort study on Diet and Cancer. People

who lived near major roads had a 95 percent greater risk of dying early from

cardiopulmonary causes than people living in cleaner air areas.

Hoek, G., Brunekreef, B., Goldbohm, S., Fischer, P., and van den Brandt, P. A.

Association Between Mortality and Indicators of Traffic-Related Air Pollution in the

Netherlands: A Cohort Study. The Lancet. Vol. 360, pp. 1203–1209, October 19,

2002.

INTERVENTION STUDIES

Control of PM Substantially Diminishes Daily Deaths

Air quality in Dublin, Ireland deteriorated in the 1980’s after a switch from oil

to bituminous coal for domestic heating. In 1990, the Irish Government banned the

marketing and sale of bituminous coals within the city of Dublin. A dramatic improvement in air quality ensued. This study investigates the effect of a ban on coal

sales.

Concentrations of air pollution, measured as ‘‘black smoke’’ and death rates were

compared for 72 months before and after the ban. The analysis was adjusted to reflect age, weather, respiratory epidemics, and other factors. Respiratory and cardiovascular death rates fell markedly following the ban on soft coal.

The authors conclude:

‘‘Our findings suggest that control of particulate air pollution in Dublin led

to an immediate reduction in cardiovascular and respiratory deaths. These data

lend support to a relation between cause and the reported increase in acute

mortality associated with daily particulate air pollution. Moreover, our data
205

suggest time-series studies could be underestimating the benefits of particulate

air pollution controls.’’

A followup study presented an analysis of the medium term (weeks to months)

exposure effects of particulate pollution, measured as ‘‘black smoke’’ and temperature, over a period of 17 years in Dublin. Investigators found that the effects of particulate air pollution are strongest on the day of and the few days following exposure, but extend out over 40 days following exposure. This was especially noticeable

for respiratory causes of death. ‘‘These extended followup effects were two to three

times greater than the acute effects reported in other studies, and approach the effects

reported in longer term survival studies. This analysis suggests that the studies on

the acute effects of air pollution have underestimated the total effects of temperature

and particulate air pollution on mortality,’’ report the investigators.

Clancy, L., Goodman, P., Sinclair, H., and Dockery, D.W. Effect of Air-Pollution

Control on Death Rates in Dublin, Ireland: An Intervention Study. The Lancet. Vol.

360, pp. 1210–14, October 19, 2002.

Goodman, P.G., Dockery, D.W., and Clancy, L. Cause Specific Mortality and the

Extended Effects of Particulate Pollution and Temperature Exposure. Environmental Health Persepctives, In Press. Available online November 12, 2003, doi 1289/

ehp.6451, available at http://dx.doi.org/.

Improvement in Air Quality Benefits Children’s Health

Following German reunification in 1990, there was a tremendous decline in combustion-derived emissions of sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulate (TSP) in

Eastern Germany. This provided a unique opportunity to study trends in the prevalence of respiratory illness along with the improvement in air quality.

This review focused on the results of two repeated surveys of nonallergic respiratory disease of children living in East Germany. The surveys found that declines

in chronic bronchitis were associated with the decline in TSP.

Another study of three communities in East Germany measured lung function in

2,500 children. Lung function increased as TSP and sulfur dioxide pollution declined. Researchers concluded that ‘‘a reduction of air pollution in a short time period may improve children’s lung function.’’

Heinrich, J. Nonallergic Respiratory Morbidity Improved Along With a Decline of

Traditional Air Pollution Levels: A Review. European Respiratory Journal. Vol. 21,

Suppl. 40, pp. 1s–6s, 2003.

Frye, C., Hoelscher, B., Cyrys, J., Wjst, M., Wichmann, H.-E., and Heinrich, J. Association of Lung Function Declining Ambient Air Pollution. Environmental Health

Perspectives. Vol. 111, No. 3, pp. 383–387, March 2003.

Reductions in Pollution Particles Linked to Reductions in Infant Mortality

Economists at the University of Chicago and the University of California, Berkeley have reported new evidence of an association between particles in the air, and

infant health. They examined the sharp reduction in manufacturing, and in turn,

reductions in particulate air pollution (measured as Total Suspended Particulates

(TSP)) during the 1981–1982 recession, in relation to county-specific data on infant

deaths.

In Chicago, for instance, researchers estimated that the decline in air pollution

lowered the infant mortality rate by 5 percent between 1980 and 1982.

Their research suggests that 2,500 fewer infants died during this period than

would have, absent the reductions in air pollution. The majority of the infant deaths

occurred within 1 month of birth, suggesting a possible impact of air pollution on

fetal development.

Another study by these same researchers examined the relationship between implementation of the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments and infant mortality. They

documented sharp reductions in TSP pollution between 1971 and 1972, when the

Clean Air Act took effect, and a corresponding reduction in infant death rates.

Chay, K.Y., and Greenstone, M. The Impact of Air Pollution on Infant Mortality:

Evidence From Geographic Variation in Pollution Shocks Induced by a Recession.

Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. CXVIII, pp. 279–300, August 2003. (Available

online at: http://wwwnews.uchicago.edu/releases/03/particles/chay-greenstone.pdf.)

Chay, K.Y., and Greenstone, M. Air Quality, Infant Mortality, and the Clean Air

Act of 1970. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. w10053,

October 2003. (Available online at: http://www.nber.orig/cgi-bin/author papers.pl?author=kenneth+chay).
206

MISCELLANEOUS

Air Pollution Hits Poor People the Hardest

This study investigated mortality in relation to neighborhood levels of income and

air pollution in a cohort of 5,000 people who had been referred for pulmonary function testing in the urban area of Hamilton-Burlington in southern Ontario. Income

was estimated using census data, and average neighborhood levels of total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide were estimated by interpolating data from

the monitoring network.

Mean pollution levels tended to be higher in the lower-income neighborhoods, and

these neighborhoods also had higher mortality rates. While biologic risk factors were

not controlled for, investigators reported that ‘‘two of the broader determinants of

health—income and air pollution levels—were important correlates of mortality in

this population.’’

Finkelstein, M.M., Jerrett, M., DeLuca, P., Finkelstein, N., Verma, D.K., Chapman, K., and Sears, M.R. Relation between Income, Air Pollution and Mortality: A

Cohort Study. Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 169, No. 5, September 2,

2003.

PM Research Centers Report Progress

In 1988, Congress directed the U.S. EPA to substantially increase its level of

funding on PM health effects research. It also mandated that a National Research

Council (NRC) committee be established to provide scientific oversight for PM research. In its first report, the NRC Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne

Particulate Matter recommended the establishment of interdisciplinary research

centers to be funded on a multi-year basis to foster comprehensive and integrated

research on particle health effects. In a competitive process, EPA awarded grants

to five centers: A California consortium headquartered at the University of California Los Angeles, Harvard University, New York University, the University of

Rochester, and the University of Washington.

This review article reports on the substantial accomplishments of the PM centers

in their first two and a half years of operation, and lays out short- and longer-term

research goals. Six topics are discussed: biological mechanisms, acute effects, chronic

effects, dosimetry, and exposure assessment.

Lippmann, M., Frampton, M., Schwartz, J., Dockery, D., Schlesinger R.,

Koutrakis, P., Froines, J., Nel, A., Finkelstein, J., Godleski, J., Kaufman, J., Koenig,

J., Larson, T., Luchtel, D., Liu, L-J., S., Oberdo ̈rster, G., Peters, A., Sarnat, J.,

Sioutas, S., Suh, H., Sullivan, J., Utell, M., Wichmann, E., and Zelikoff, J. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Particulate Matter Health Effects Research Centers Program: A Midcourse Report of Status, Progress and Plans. Environmental

Health Perspectives. Vol. 111, No. 8, pp. 1074–1092, June 2003.

Autopsy Evidence Points to Diesel’s Role in 1952 London Smog Episode

Researchers obtained archived lung tissue from autopsies of 16 victims of the London smog disaster over 50 years ago. This provided a unique opportunity to examine

the form and composition of the particulate matter found in the lungs of those

known to have died from exposure to the smog. Pathologists examined samples from

different compartments of the lungs: for instance the airway, airspace, interstituim,

and lymph node. This allowed researchers to see what people had been exposed to

just before their deaths and over the longer term.

The study found high volumes of ultrafine carbon particles and various metals including lead. But most significant was the evidence of particles associated with diesel fuel, given that London had made a switch from electric trams to diesel buses

early in 1952.

Hunt, A., Abraham, J.L., Judson, B., and Berry, C.L. Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate

Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol.

111, No. 9, pp. 1209–1214, July 2003.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STEC, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, LEXINGTON HOME BRANDS, LEXINGTON, NC, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (AFMA)

Chairman Inhofe and members of the committee, I am Robert Stec, Chairman and

CEO of Lexington Home Brands of Lexington, North Carolina. I appreciate the committee’s interest in the potential impact that Clean Air non-attainment designations

would have on furniture manufacturing facilities like ours.
207

Lexington started out as Dixie Furniture Company, organized in 1901 by a group

of Lexington, North Carolina, business leaders to capitalize on the region’s abundant natural resources and skilled labor force. The company produced its first oak

bedroom group on the site where our largest plant is still located today in downtown

Lexington, NC.

As sales increased, the new company expanded throughout downtown Lexington,

buying adjacent factory buildings, renovating them, and erecting new ones, until it

eventually occupied nine city blocks and 31 acres of land. Additional expansion

stretches west along Interstate 40 from the town of Lexington to Hildebran, North

Carolina, some 75 miles. Such a grouping of facilities, typical of furniture manufacturing, magnifies the potential adverse impact of county-by-county non-attainment

designation.

As a full-line furniture manufacturer, we produce bedroom, dining, casual dining,

occasional, home entertainment, home office, youth, upholstered, leather, and wicker

furniture for domestic and international customers. Local production is augmented

with imported product and components manufactured to Lexington specifications in

the Far East, Central America, and Europe. Over 2000 associates manufacture,

service, distribute, and sell Lexington products. Lexington pioneered lifestyle furniture brands with the introduction of the Bob Timberlake collection in 1990, the

world’s all-time, best-selling furniture brand.

While the furniture industry is a small contributor to air emissions compared to

most manufacturers, two types of emissions are characteristic. These include evaporative volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during the staining and finishing

process, as well as NOx emissions from the combustion of fuels used to provide

steam for plant heat and finishing operations.

The industry is dramatically reducing emissions pursuant to a cooperative rulemaking under the Clean Air Act. Changes in our manufacturing process, combined

with redesigned paints, coatings, glues and application equipment has so far yielded

a 73 percent reduction in emissions, substantially more than regulators and environmental interests originally sought. Then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner

called this achievement ‘‘a credit to industry-environmental-government cooperation.’’

Lexington Home Brands takes a proactive approach concerning environmental

issues. One initiative geared to exceeding regulatory compliance obligations is our

partnership with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources in their Environmental Stewardship Initiative. This voluntary program uses

pollution prevention and other approaches to exceed regulatory compliance.

Lexington was also the first company to implement the American Furniture Manufacturers Association’s environmental management system (EMS) on a company

wide basis. The system, know as Enhancing Furniture’s Environmental Culture

(EFEC), has allowed Lexington Home Brands to review and improve operations for

better environmental performance. Environmental targets have been established to

facilitate the integration of environmental management with business management

processes. These goals include reducing air emissions, reducing the amount of waste

generated and increasing recycling efforts.

Our success and the success of many other North Carolina employers could be

threatened by an upcoming decision by U.S. EPA regarding ozone non-attainment.

As you may be aware, the counties of the Triad region have entered into an agreement with EPA to develop strategies to reduce emissions of the ozone precursors

NOx and VOC. Data, including modeling done by the State of North Carolina, clearly indicates that NOx emissions from mobile sources are the major precursor to

ozone formation in the region.

Consequently, the Early Action Compact (EAC) has focused on transportation

NOx as the central mechanism to achieve ozone attainment by 2007. Subject to EPA

approval, the compact would move the timetable for non-attainment designation to

2007 in order to provide an opportunity for these strategies to be implemented effectively. EPA will release their non-attainment boundaries April 15, 2004 and the

EAC stakeholders are hopeful that the non-attainment designation will be scheduled to coincide with the 2007 timetable.

If EPA instead decides to set the non-attainment boundaries this April, manufacturing facilities located in those areas will be required to reduce NOx and VOC

emissions on a very short timeline. Local business leaders are convinced that severity of permit restrictions prescribed in both the NSR and PSD requirements would

effectively put an end to plans for facility expansion, and could force companies to

evaluate the possibilities of relocation or outsourcing. This is clearly not the sort of

outcome for the manufacturing sector that the American people and their elected

representatives are demanding.
208

If the Triad area of North Carolina is designated as non-attainment, furniture

plants would have to evaluate their total VOG emissions and determine the

‘‘amount of reduction required’’ based on the non-attainment designation and determine the type of controls necessary to achieve this reduction. Add-on control options

would include catalytic oxidation, thermal oxidation, carbon absorption, the conversion of the current finishing system to water base coatings or a combination of

water-based coatings coupled with one or the previously mentioned controls. These

options would prove very costly and disruptive to our business plan.

One AFMA member company is using catalytic oxidation to control VOC/HAP

emissions and employees this technology to capture the entire finishing exhaust air

stream with an installed cost of $450,000. A typical carbon absorption system capable of handling large make-up air streams could cost in excess of $500,000 with an

annual operations and maintenance cost in excess of $50,000.

The capital costs associated with transition to water-based coating are also significant, since most of the existing lines, pumps, bulk storage, day mixing tanks, regulators and spray guns must be replaced. Further, water-based coatings, while suitable for some applications, are not commercially viable for much of our product line.

They tend to exhibit less sheen and mar resistance than conventional coatings.

Water-based coatings can also react with the wood, causing grain raising, splitting

and other quality control problems.

Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the last few years have been the most challenging in the history of the U.S. furniture industry. According to the Bureau of

Labor Statistics, since September 2000, more than 98,000 furniture manufacturing

employees have lost their jobs. Domestic plants are competing with a tidal wave of

imports from low-wage nations of the Pacific Rim. The driving force is China, where

the combination of two-dollar-a-day labor, and lower environmental and workplace

health and safety standards has made that country the dominant producer of wood

furniture in the world. None of us would trade our standard of living, including environmental safeguards, for those of developing nations like China. The realities of

global competition do, however, compel us to design our regulatory systems in the

most cost-effective ways, always sensitive to the preservation of jobs.

On behalf of the employees of Lexington Home Brands and other members of the

American Furniture Manufacturers Association, I recommend that the Committee

urge EPA to respect the terms and timetable of the compacts. Adhering to the compacts will maintain the proper focus on transportation NOx as the primary mechanism for ozone control. It will help preserve the role for cost-effective state implementation of criteria pollutant standards envisioned by the Clean Air Act. And, significantly, it will help protect the competitiveness of furniture manufacturing facilities in North Carolina and across the Nation.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. BAROODY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

On behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), I would like to

thank the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety for conducting an oversight hearing on implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) and ozone. As you know, air

quality has improved dramatically over the past 33 years as hundreds of communities have complied with current rules. However, new standards for ozone and fine

particulate matter (PM2.5) will put hundreds of additional communities into noncompliance with the Clean Air Act. In order to reduce production costs and improve

the condition of U.S. manufacturing and its millions of workers, Congress must ensure that implementation of the NAAQS does not drive up the cost or reduce supplies of natural gas, transportation fuels or electricity, discourage businesses from

investing in non-attainment communities or otherwise negatively affect the economy.

The NAM is the nation’s largest industrial trade association. The NAM represents

14,000 members (including 10,000 small- and mid-sized companies) and 350 member

associations serving manufacturers and employees in every industrial sector and all

50 states. The NAM’s mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers

and to improve American living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory

environment conducive to U.S. economic growth and to increase understanding

among policymakers, the media and the public about the importance of manufacturing to America’s economic strength. Accordingly, the NAM has a vested interest

in the implementation of air quality standards in a cost-effective manner that does

not interfere with affordable and reliable energy for American manufacturers, consumers and others.
209

Manufacturing is on the front line in the unprecedented competition we are seeing

in the world marketplace. More and more frequently, domestic manufacturers cannot pass through increased operation costs, making it more difficult to stay competitive in the United States or sell products in export markets. Our analysis shows

that weak exports, coupled with low capital investments, have been prolonging the

anemic recovery in the manufacturing sector. The economic situation in the manufacturing sector is serious, as shown by 43 consecutive months of employment decline that has totaled 3 million lost jobs.

External overhead costs from taxes, health and pension benefits, tort litigation,

regulation and rising energy prices add approximately 22 percent to U.S. manufacturers’ unit labor costs (nearly $5 per hour worked) relative to their major foreign

competitors. A NAM study comparing costs faced by manufacturers in the U.S. and

its nine leading trading partners shows that, contrary to much national and international political rhetoric, United States spending for pollution abatement is higher

than that of other countries purporting to be more conscientious about the environment. As a percentage of output, American manufacturers spend considerably more

on pollution abatement than do their competitors in Germany, Japan, France, the

U.K., Canada, Mexico, China, South Korea and Taiwan. Manufacturers even spend

more on the environment as a percentage of overall GDP. In light of global deflationary pressures that prevent American manufacturers from raising the prices of

their products, it becomes increasingly clear that Congress must do more to help

us remain competitive. With ozone non-attainment area designations slated to be finalized this month, we must take this opportunity to urge adoption of a commonsense and reasonable NAAQS implementation approach.

In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new NAAQS governing ozone and PM2.5. On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the

EPA’s ability to set air quality standards, without consideration of costs, but ruled

that the agency’s implementation of the ozone standard was unlawful. The issue

was sent back to the EPA to develop a reasonable ozone implementation strategy.

The EPA appears to be ready to finalize its ozone implementation rule at the same

time that it makes final designations of ozone non-attainment areas on April 15,

2004. Last year, the EPA proposed an ozone implementation rule intended to provide flexibility to states and tribal governments as they address their unique air

quality problems. In summer 2004, the EPA plans to propose its PM2.5 implementation strategy, with a deadline to follow in December 2004, to designate areas in and

out of attainment with the PM2.5 standards. However, the new ozone and PM2.5

standards may be difficult, or in some cases impossible, to meet without shutting

down new development altogether and perhaps curtailing some existing economic

activity.

Hundreds of counties nationwide are expected to be designated as non-attainment

for the new 8-hour ozone standard. A designation of ‘‘non-attainment’’ will create a

black mark on communities in those areas. A non-attainment designation will substantially reduce business opportunities, investments and competitiveness in a particular area. Once an area is designated to be out of compliance with air quality

standards, businesses already located in those areas face additional and more expensive pollution control requirements. Manufacturers and small businesses will

need to carefully analyze how much the additional costs, increased permitting and

reporting requirements and higher fines for potential violations will affect their ability to operate in the newly designated area. Meanwhile, companies seeking to locate

or expand will see these factors as a disincentive to invest in non-attainment areas.

Cost estimates to comply with the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards range from $48

billion to hundreds of billions of dollars.

From an energy security standpoint, implementation of the NAAQS must be consistent with the need for reliable and affordable electric power. Energy prices have

been identified by the NAM as one of the significant competitive disadvantages facing U.S. manufacturers in the world marketplace. During the late 1990’s, the historic surplus of natural gas disappeared due to a growing economy, governmental

access restrictions to large gas deposits onshore and offshore and clean air regulations that encouraged electric generators to build almost all new capacity to use natural gas. By 2000, spot market prices soared and the average annual prices for gas

have continued to be more than double the average natural gas prices of the 1990’s.

The manufacturing sector, unable to pass through costs, has been hit hard. U.S.

natural gas production is not keeping pace with the demands of a growing population and a slowly recovering economy. Due to the current supply/demand imbalance, domestic natural gas prices are substantially higher than the equivalent

prices paid by most foreign manufacturers. These high natural gas prices are undermining U.S. economic recovery and pushing jobs offshore in gas-dependent industries and are increasing the cost of electricity to most consumers.
210

Electricity prices being paid by U.S. manufacturers continuing to rise due not only

to high natural gas prices, but also the ever-increasing burden of Clean Air Act

(CAA) regulations. During the past dozen years, CAA regulations have played a

major role in pushing electric generators to build natural gas units instead of new

coal units. Yet, coal is the most abundant and inexpensive domestic energyproviding natural resource in the United States. Coal-fired generation still provides

approximately 52 percent of the nation’s electricity, with no other energy source able

to replace it in the near-term.

Accordingly, coal must be maintained and expanded as a viable and affordable energy source if we are to keep natural gas from becoming increasingly more expensive and potentially less readily available for homeowners, manufacturers and electric generators. Implementation of the new ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS must not aggravate the already precarious natural gas supply and price situation by allowing

the market to select coal-fired generation for new electricity capacity, as well as

avoiding any wholesale switching from existing coal-fired generating capacity to natural gas. The United States must maintain a diverse fuel supply that includes affordable coal options if the economy is to continue to rebound and prosperity is to

continue.

States and the EPA need maximum flexibility to adopt controls and other requirements that will contribute to the timely achievement of attainment of the 8-hour

standard, in light of current knowledge regarding controls that may help or hinder

progress toward attainment of that standard. The EPA should implement the necessary policy and administrative options to recognize and fully credit within the

state implementation planning process the significant air quality progress that will

be made by new Federal measures such as cleaner fuels and engines. Such a process

will help minimize the burden of this very expensive implementation on state and

local entities.

Specifically, there are currently various regulatory mandates in effect, or about

to come online, that will further reduce air emissions. Before we implement the next

set of stringent expensive controls, we should realize the local controls that are currently in effect. Attainment deadlines should be linked to when reductions will occur

from transport and mobile source controls (e.g., on-road and off-road diesel rule in

2006–10 timeframe; clean gasoline and engine standards in the 2012–15 timeframe;

transport emissions from the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule in the 2010–15

timeframe).

In your oversight and authorization capacity, please take into account the following suggestions to mitigate the impact of the stringent NAAQS on businesses in

non-attainment areas. First, consider options that would make it easier to extend

attainment deadlines that may be economically or technically infeasible for areas to

meet. Second, as the EPA continues its review of the current ozone and PM NAAQS,

please consider legislation to ease the rigid deadlines and control requirements flowing from NAAQS standard-setting which ignores actual health benefits, compliance

costs and technical feasibility.

Third, we urge you to continue to oppose all efforts to weaken, delay or block the

EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) reforms. NSR reform is needed for business certainty, energy security and environmental quality. The reforms would encourage

emissions reductions, promote pollution prevention and provide incentives for energy efficiency improvements. For more than two decades, states, industry and the

EPA have recognized that the NSR program needs serious repair. The final NSR

rules will help promote safer, cleaner and more efficient factories, refineries and

power plants.

Finally, we urge that you continue to support multi-emissions legislation that will

reduce emissions while replacing conflicting and problematic regulations with one

clear set of rules that will improve upon the gauntlet of CAA requirements and litigation. Such legislation must provide electricity generators with regulatory certainty

that will allow investment decisions needed to meet both objectives of cleaner air

and affordable power from a diverse fuel base. To be successful, any multi-emissions

legislation must be consistent with a viable and affordable fuel mix for growing the

economy, including manufacturing.

Since 1970, all of the major pollutants targeted by the CAA have been drastically

reduced by 48 percent against the backdrop of a 164 percent growth in gross domestic product, 42 percent increase in energy consumption, 155 percent increase in vehicle-miles traveled and 38 percent rise in population. There is certainly much work

ahead for Americans as leaders in the stewardship of our global environment. And

we must remain vigilant and relentless in our efforts to create cleaner and safer

technologies and efficient energy sources for a more secure and healthy future. But

we also must insist that sound science—not political scare tactics—drives our environmental regulations. And with a clear understanding that economic growth and
211

a cleaner environment do indeed go hand-in-hand, we must resist the scare tactics

of those who would have us believe the sky is falling when, in fact, science tells us

we can all breathe a little easier.

We request that you make this letter a part of the record for the subcommittee

hearing on NAAQS implementation. If you have any questions, please have your

staff contact Jeffrey Marks at (202) 637-3176.

Thank you.

Æ