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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–821PDF 2013

THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT: 

EVALUATING PROGRESS AND PRIORITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2013 

Serial No. 113–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. ANDY HARRIS, Maryland Chair 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah, 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, February 14, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Andy Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White, Distinguished Fellow-in-Residence 

& Director, Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment, Texas Public 

Policy Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Mr. Richard Trzupek, Principal Consultant, Trinity Consulting 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 83 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 86 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 101

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White, Distinguished Fellow-in-Residence 

& Director, Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment, Texas Public 

Policy Foundation ................................................................................................. 122 

Mr. Richard Trzupek, Principal Consultant, Trinity Consulting ........................ 139 

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health ........................................................... 161 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

TEPA’s Pretense of Science: Regulating Phantom Risks submitted by The 

Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White .................................................................. 168 

Memo, Re: Questionable Claims in Testimony from February 14, 2013 Environment Subcommittee hearing, submitted by Representative Suzanne 

Bonamici ............................................................................................................... 186 

(1) 

THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT: 

EVALUATING PROGRESS AND PRIORITIES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Harris 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texes 

CHAIRMAN 

Q:ongress of the tlnittd ~tates 

iRDnsc of 1R.cprcscntatiDC,s 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www.science.house.gov 

Subcommittee on Environment 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANKING MEMBER 

The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities 

Thwsday, February 14, 2012 

10:00 a.m. -11:30 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White, Distinguished Fellow-in-Residence & Director, 

Armstrong Center for Energy &. the Environment, Texas Public Policy Foundation 

Mr. Richard Trzupek, Principal Consultant, Trinity Consulting 

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of 

Public Health 
3 

Pnrpose 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Environment 

HEARING CHARTER 

The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities 

Thursday, February 14,2013 

10:00 'LID. - 11:30 a.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Thursday. February 14, 2013, the Subcommittee on Environment will hold a hearing to 

assess broad environmental trends and indicators, including an examination of factors such as air and 

water quality, chemical exposure, environmental and human health, and climate change. Witnesses are 

asked to provide their perspective on progress and challenges on these environmental trends as they 

relate to research and development, reb'Ulation, technological innovation, energy use and Americans' 

changing standard of living. 

Witnesses 

The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White, Distinguished Fellow-in-Residence & Director, 

Annstrong Center for Energy & the Environment, Texas Public Policy Foundation 

Mr. Richard Trzupek, Principal Consultant, Trinity Consulting 

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School 

of Public Health 

Overview 

Since many environmental statutes were enacted in the 1970s and 1980s, there have been 

significant improvements in virtually all major environmental indicators in the United States. For 

example, the aggregate emissions for the six criteria air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act 

have dropped 63 percent since 1980. Over the same period, America's Gross Domestic Product 

increased 128 percent, energy consumption increased 26 percent, population grew by 37 percent, and 

vehicle miles traveled increased 94 percent. l See Chart 1 for a Comparison of Growth Areas and 

Emissions, 1980-2011. 

These trends are also reflected in other metrics, including enhanced water quality, reduction of 

toxic chemical exposure, decreased carbon intensity, energy intensity, forest size, land use, and 

biodiversity. For many of the traditional pollutants regulated under statutes such as the Clean Air Act 

and Clean Water Act, virtually all of the less-expensive environmental improvements have been 

achieved. One of the questions to be discussed at this hearing will be the estimated costs for additional, 

proposed EPA reductions and how much incremental benefit might be attained. 

A systematic process for evaluating the state of the environment, environmental priorities at 

EPA, or conducting comprehensive retrospective analyses on environmental progress has yet to be 

1 hHp://\lml.cpa.goy/airtrcndsiagtrcnds.hlml 
4 

developed. The last "Report on the EnvironmenC2 by the EPA's National Center for Environmental 

Assessment was completed in 2008. The EPA has not conducted a comprehensive assessment of the 

highest-priority environmental issues, especially where limited research and regulatory resources should 

be directed, since the early 1990s. 

Further hampering the assessment of general environmental health is the lack of data available to 

make such evaluations. For example, the EPA abandoned a two-decade long National Water Quality 

Inventory due to inconsistent and low quality data collection in 2004. Tn its place, the EPA implemented 

the Wadeable Streams Assessment (WSA), measuring 20 categories of water conditions through a 

random sampling of 1,300 streams and small rivers across the U.S. However, questions have been 

raised about the utility of this assessment. 

This hearing will examine these trends and indicators, explore what progress is still needed in 

order to protect human health and the environment, and consider how best such advances may be 

accomplished. 

Additional Reading 

EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment 

American Enterprise Institute 20 J 1 Almanac of Env'ironmental Indicators 

Chart 1. Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions, 1980-20 11 3 
5 

Chairman HARRIS. The Subcommittee on Environment will come 

to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘The State of 

the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities.’’ In front of 

you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies and 

Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witness panels. I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning. Welcome to the first hearing of the Environment 

Subcommittee in 2013. It is not only the first hearing in 2013, it 

is the first hearing of the Environment Subcommittee. As you 

know, the Committee reorganization separated Energy and Environment Subcommittee into two, and this is the Environment Subcommittee. 

Our hearing today is entitled ‘‘The State of the Environment: 

Evaluating Progress and Priorities.’’ I first want to recognize and 

welcome our new ranking member, Representative Suzanne 

Bonamici from Oregon, as well as our new Vice Chairman, Chris 

Stewart from Utah. Of course, we all welcome the gentleman from 

Texas, the Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Lamar Smith. I look forward to working with all the 

Members on the Subcommittee on a myriad of environmental 

issues in the 113th Congress. 

Today we are going to talk about the greatest story never told. 

In the last four decades, Americans have witnessed dramatic improvements in the environmental health of this country. This is 

characterized by the improvement in air and water quality, less exposure to toxic chemicals, and growing forest areas, to name a few. 

All the while, the United States has experienced significant growth 

in GDP and per capita income. This progress is due to a number 

of factors including technological innovations, state and local efforts, and to some degree, the rational implementation of federal 

regulations. 

Just 2 days ago would have been the 82nd birthday of Julian 

Simon, renowned economist from the University of Maryland. His 

most important insights were that the world is getting better all 

the time and that energy serves as the ‘‘master resource’’ for those 

improvements. I couldn’t agree more. My children are growing in 

a much healthier world than the one where I grew up. However, 

despite the substantial progress made in environmental health and 

quality of life, Americans are constantly bombarded by the media 

and this Administration with doomsday predictions. For instance, 

we have been told that extreme storms and increased childhood 

asthma are indicators that the environment is worse off than ever. 

These allegations fly in the face of the hard facts, that severe 

weather has always been a threat and that our air quality has improved dramatically. These invented crises and the mentality 

around it prove what another fellow Marylander and columnist for 

the Baltimore Sun, H.L. Mencken wrote, and I quote, ‘‘The whole 

aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence 

clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series 

of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’’ 

So what is the solution to this disconnect between reality and 

what we are being told? How do we work together on continuous 
6 

to enhance environmental health without needlessly scaring our 

constituents or stifling our floundering economy? 

First, I believe we must recognize and educate people about the 

incredible progress made so far. Since 1980, aggregate emissions of 

the six criteria air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act 

have dropped 63 percent. Over a similar period, there has been a 

65 percent reduction in toxic release of chemicals tracked by the 

EPA. Other indicators demonstrate a similar trend of reduced environmental risk. 

Second, we must acknowledge that most of the gains made in environmental health thus far were changes that were affordable, or 

if they had high costs, the associated benefits were clear, significant, and cost-effective. Future progress will not likely be so easily 

identified, will be extremely costly and benefits may be 

unquantifiable. For example, the latest round of increasingly burdensome regulations may result in the closing of power plants, reducing manufacturing production and sending American jobs overseas. We are already seeing employers react to proposed EPA regulations in this manner. What is not included in the government’s 

analysis is the added cost of regulations to consumers resulting in 

higher energy and food bills or the inevitable hardships that occur 

when companies are forced to reduce their workforce. Once these 

two tenets are accepted, that the environment is getting better and 

that even well-intended actions may harm the economy, we can 

begin to prioritize the research and development and regulatory 

agenda that actually protects human health and the environment 

without crippling the economy. 

In light of the President’s pledge in this week’s State of the 

Union that he will ‘‘direct my Cabinet to come up with executive 

actions we can take now and in the future to reduce pollution,’’ it 

is critical that any such actions be based on good, transparent 

science and not on imaginary hobgoblins. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how to balance 

quality science and need for regulation with true economic costs 

and benefits. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN ANDY HARRIS

Good morning. Welcome to the first hearing of the Environment Subcommittee in 

2013: The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities. I want to 

recognize and welcome our new Ranking Member, Representative Suzanne 

Bonamici from Oregon, as well as our new Vice-Chairman Chris Stewart from Utah. 

Of course, we all welcome the gentleman from Texas, Chairman of the Science, 

Space, and Technology Committee Lamar Smith. I look forward to working all the 

members of the subcommittee on a myriad of environmental issues in the 113th 

Congress. 

Today we are going to talk about the greatest story never told. In the last four 

decades, Americans have witnessed dramatic improvements in the environmental 

health of this country. This is characterized by the improvement in air and water 

quality, less exposure to toxic chemicals, and growing forest areas, to name a few. 

All the while, U.S. has experienced significant growth in GDP and per capita income. This progress is due to a number of factors, including technological innovations, State and local efforts, and to some degree, the rational implementation of 

Federal regulations. Just two days ago would have been the 82nd birthday of Julian 

Simon, renowned economist from the University of Maryland. His most important 

insights were that the world is getting better all the time and that energy serves 
7 

as the ‘‘master resource’’ for those improvements. I could not agree more. My children are growing up in a much healthier world than the one where I grew up. 

However, despite the substantial progress made in environmental health and 

quality of life, Americans are constantly bombarded by the media and this Administration with doomsday predictions. For instance, we have been told that extreme 

storms and increased childhood asthma are indicators that the environment is worse 

off than ever. These allegations fly in the face of the hard facts that severe weather 

has always been a threat and that our air quality has improved dramatically.. This 

invented crisis mentality prove what another fellow Marylander and columnist for 

the Baltimore Sun, H.L. Mencken wrote, ‘‘The whole aim of practical politics is to 

keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing 

it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’’ 

So what is the solution to this disconnect between reality and what we are being 

told? How do we work together on continuing to enhance environmental health 

without needlessly scaring our constituents or stifling our economy? First, I believe 

we must recognize and educate people about the incredible progress made so far. 

Since 1980, aggregate emissions of the six criteria air pollutants regulated under 

the Clean Air Act have dropped 63 percent. Over a similar period, there has been 

a 65 percent reduction in toxic releases of chemicals tracked by EPA. Other indicators demonstrate a similar trend of reduced environmental risk. 

Second, we must also acknowledge that most of the gains made in environmental 

health thus far were changes that were affordable, or if they had high costs, the 

associated benefits were clear, significant, and cost effective. Future progress will 

not likely be so easily identified, will be extremely costly, and benefits may be 

unquantifiable. For example, the latest round of increasingly burdensome regulations may result in the closing of power plants, reducing manufacturing production 

and sending jobs overseas. We are already seeing employers react to proposed EPA 

regulations in this manner. What is not included in the government’s analysis is the 

added cost of regulations to consumers, resulting in higher energy and food bills, 

or the inevitable hardships that occur when companies are forced to reduce the 

workforce. 

Once these two tenets are accepted—that the environment is getting better and 

that even well intended actions may harm the economy—we can begin to prioritize 

a research and development and regulatory agenda that actually protects human 

health and the environment without crippling the economy. In light of the President’s pledge in the State of the Union that he will ‘‘direct my Cabinet to come up 

with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution,’’ it 

is critical that any such actions be based on good, transparent science and not on 

imaginary hobgoblins. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how to balance quality science 

and need for regulation with true economic costs and benefits. 

Chairman HARRIS. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for an opening statement. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Chairman Harris, for holding the 

Subcommittee’s first hearing on the state of our environment. This 

hearing marks an important opportunity to plan for the future, to 

set the tone for the new Congress in what I hope will be a collaborative effort to ensure our long-term economic vitality and to protect human health and our natural resources. 

It is a matter of common sense that we must coordinate research 

and technological innovation to enhance air and water quality to 

protect the health of our children and future generations. The 1st 

District of Oregon, which I represent, is a leader in this area, as 

it is in many fields. In fact, in June of last year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors gave Beaverton, Oregon, the Mayors’ Climate 

Protection Award, and later that city received EPA’s 2012 Leadership Award. The State of Oregon has additionally shown that it is 

committed to protecting human health by reducing harmful emissions, with a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

to ten percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 75 percent below 

1990 levels by 2050. 
8 

I have read the testimony of the witnesses and their biographies, 

and I am glad you have come to this Committee. Both the majority 

witnesses have enjoyed long careers in the regulatory sector, and 

I understand from talking to environmental regulators at both the 

state and federal level that the process of implementing regulations 

can be both challenging and daunting work. With that said, this 

Subcommittee, and this hearing in particular, should focus on the 

science that has led to the successful EPA regulations that are acknowledged by all three witnesses, and those discoveries that are 

still unknown that may tell us more about how the pollution in our 

air and water is affecting our health. 

As technology changes and as our research methodology becomes 

more accurate, as industries change and new industries are created, as populations grow, new problems will continue to emerge. 

We will not have all the answers immediately, but as public servants it is our responsibility to continue to investigate. 

More than 40 years ago, Congress passed several pieces of landmark legislation to protect our environment: the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. All 

of these laws passed with bipartisan support. In 1970, it was President Richard M. Nixon who is credited with creating the Environmental Protection Agency, and the EPA became the lead federal 

agency with responsibility for implementing these laws and today 

works in collaboration with other federal and state agencies to protect human health and our environment. 

Today, we will hear from our panelists and Subcommittee Members on the costs and benefits of environmental protection. Although there are serious questions on which we may disagree, we 

can all agree that our air and water is cleaner than it was 40 years 

ago, before the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law. But 

our work is not done. 

As we look ahead to future EPA action, including the issuance 

of new and updated regulations, it is worth reminding ourselves of 

the source of such regulation and the benefit to society. In that regard, the Clean Air Act’s history of protecting public health speaks 

for itself. In the four decades since it was signed, the Clean Air Act 

has prevented hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, not to 

mention saving trillions of dollars in health care costs. These benefits to the public will continue to grow. Especially in tough economic times, Americans understand the real economic impact. With 

fewer cases of chronic asthma attacks or bronchitis, fewer children 

and adults have to visit hospitals or doctors’ offices. With the cost 

of health care widely agreed to be one of the central drivers of our 

Nation’s fiscal challenges, we as policymakers would consider this 

a good result. 

The economic impacts of climate change are among the many 

challenges we face in these times of budget uncertainty. One of the 

most important issues to address will be how these changes will 

draw on our resources. If we do not have reliable, scientific information about the impact of climate change, our industries, our 

farmers, our states and our municipalities will be unable to plan 

for the future. I know that all of my colleagues agree that certainty 

is good for business. 
9 

The environmental laws that we are discussing in this hearing 

have hardly been the drag on the economy that some predicted 

when they were passed in the 1960s and 1970s. When Congress rewrote the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in what became the 

Clean Water Act, one of the biggest threats to our water quality 

was municipal wastewater. A bipartisan Congress took a very important step by including funding provisions for states and cities to 

help them build wastewater treatment facilities. It is widely accepted among environmental experts across the country, and noted by 

all of our witnesses, that cleaning up our Nation’s waterways has 

been one of the great successes of the Clean Water Act. In fact, 

both majority witnesses make mention of economic growth in the 

face of environmental regulation in their testimony, using data provided by the EPA. Over the last 20 years, while emissions of the 

six principal air pollutants were reduced by an additional 41 percent, the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product has increased by more 

than 64 percent. Additionally, GDP has risen by more than 200 

percent since the Clean Air Act was signed more than 40 years ago. 

We not only got cleaner air, but also entirely new technology sectors. 

Investment in environmental science, research, education and assessment efforts have been key to promulgating smart, effective 

regulation, and good science has been critical to protecting the environment as well as human health since the 1970s. Air and water 

pollution continue to threaten our public and economic health, and 

we need strong science and research programs, both at NOAA and 

EPA, to help us understand the problems and respond. 

I am interested in hearing how Congress and this Subcommittee 

can best develop programs that suit the needs of our federal agencies, academic institutions and other research and development institutions, while continuing to provide the necessary information to 

make informed policy decisions. President Richard Nixon, who 

signed the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1970, said, ‘‘I think that 

1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really 

began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and 

open spaces for the future generations of America.’’ 

Significant progress has been made, and it is now our job now 

to build upon this legacy and ensure that we will continue to improve our environmental quality while bolstering our economy. 

This is not science fiction; it is our history. In the United States, 

a healthy environment and a strong economy are not mutually exclusive. Stricter pollutions limits drive us to push the envelope of 

scientific innovation and create new technologies, and it has been 

proven many times over, that it can simultaneously improve worker productivity, increase agricultural yield, reduce mortality and illness, and achieve other economic and public health benefits that 

far outweigh the costs of compliance. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER SUZANNE BONAMICI

I want to thank Chairman Harris for holding the subcommittee’s first hearing on 

the state of our environment. This hearing marks an important opportunity to plan 

for the future, to set the tone for the new Congress in what I hope will be a collabo-
10 

rative effort to ensure our long-term economic vitality and protect human health 

and our natural resources. 

It’s a matter of common sense that we must coordinate research and technological 

innovation to enhance air and water quality to protect the health of our children 

and future generations. The First Congressional District of Oregon, which I represent, is a leader in this area, as it is in many fields. In June of 2012 the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors gave Beaverton, Oregon the Mayors’ Climate Protection 

Award, and later that year the city received EPA’s 2012 Leadership Award. The 

State of Oregon has additionally shown that it is committed to protecting human 

health by reducing harmful emissions, with a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 75 percent below 1990 

levels by 2050. 

I have read the testimony of the witnesses and their biographies, and I am glad 

they have come before the committee. They have both enjoyed long careers in the 

regulatory sector, and I understand from talking to environmental regulators at 

both the state and federal level that the process of implementing regulations can 

be both challenging and daunting work. With that said, this Subcommittee, and this 

hearing in particular, should focus on the science that has led to the successful EPA 

regulations that are acknowledged by all three witnesses, and those discoveries that 

are still unknown that may tell us more about how the pollution in our air and 

water is affecting our health. As technology changes, as our research methodology 

becomes more accurate, as industries change and new industries are created, as 

populations grow, new problems will continue to emerge. We will not have all the 

answers immediately, but as public servants it is our responsibility to continue to 

investigate. 

More than 40 years ago, Congress passed several pieces of landmark legislation 

to protect our environment: the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air 

Act and the Clean Water Act. All of these laws passed with bipartisan support. In 

1970, it was President Richard M. Nixon who is credited with creating the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA became the lead federal agency with responsibility for implementing these laws and today works in collaboration with other federal and state agencies to protect human health and our environment. 

Today, we will hear from our panelists and Subcommittee members on the costs 

and benefits of environmental protection. Although there are serious questions on 

which we may disagree, we can all agree that our air and water is cleaner than it 

was 40 years ago, before the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law. But our 

work is not done. 

As we look ahead to future EPA action, including the issuance of new and updated regulations, it is worth reminding ourselves of the source of such regulation 

and the benefit to society. In that regard, the Clean Air Act’s history of protecting 

public health speaks for itself. 

In the four decades since it was signed, the Clean Air Act has prevented hundreds 

of thousands of premature deaths, not to mention saving trillions of dollars in 

health care costs. These benefits to the public will continue to grow. Especially in 

tough economic times, Americans understand the real economic impact. With fewer 

cases of chronic asthma attacks or bronchitis, fewer children and adults have to 

visit hospitals and doctors’ offices . With the cost of health care widely agreed to 

be one of the central drivers of our nation’s fiscal challenges, we as policymakers 

would consider this a good result. 

The economic impacts of climate change are among the many challenges we face 

in these times of budget uncertainty. One of the most important issues to address 

will be how these changes will draw on our resources. If we do not have reliable, 

scientific information about the impact of climate change, our industries, our farmers, our states and municipalities will be unable to plan for the future. I know that 

all of my colleagues agree that certainty is good for business. 

The environmental laws that we are discussing in this hearing have hardly been 

the drag on the economy that some predicted when they were passed in the late 

60s and early 70s. When Congress rewrote the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

into what became the Clean Water Act, one of the biggest threats to our water quality was municipal wastewater. A bipartisan Congress took a very important step by 

including funding provisions for states and cities to help them build wastewater 

treatment facilities. It is widely accepted among environmental experts across the 

country—and noted by both the witnesses for the majority—that cleaning up our nation’s waterways has been one of the great successes of the Clean Water Act. 

In fact, both majority witnesses make mention of economic growth in the face of 

environmental regulation in their testimony, using data provided by the EPA. Over 

the last 20 years, while emissions of the six principal air pollutants were reduced 

by an additional 41 percent, the nation’s Gross Domestic Product has increased by 
11 

more than 64 percent. Additionally, GDP has risen by more than 200 percent since 

the Clean Air Act was signed more than 40 years ago. And we not only got cleaner 

air, but also entirely new technology sectors. 

Investment in environmental science, research, education and assessment efforts 

have been key to promulgating smart, effective regulations, and good science has 

been critical to protecting the environment as well as human health since the 1970s. 

Air and water pollution continue to threaten our public and economic health, and 

we need strong science and research programs at both NOAA and EPA to help us 

understand the problems and respond. I am interested in hearing how Congress and 

this subcommittee can best develop programs that suit the needs of our federal 

agencies, academic institutions and other research and development institutions, 

while continuing to provide the necessary information to make informed policy decisions. 

Quoting Republican President Nixon, who signed the Clean Air Act Amendments 

into law in 1970: ‘‘I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, 

in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and 

open spaces for the future generations of America.’’ 

Significant progress has been made in the past 40 years, and it is our job now 

to build upon this legacy and ensure that we continue to improve our environmental 

quality while bolstering our economy. This is not science fiction; it is our history. 

In the U.S., a healthy environment and a strong economy are not mutually exclusive. Stricter pollutions limits drive us to push the envelope of scientific innovation 

and create new technologies. And, as it has been proven many times over, they can 

simultaneously improve worker productivity, increase agricultural yield, reduce 

mortality and illness, and achieve other economic and public health benefits that 

far outweigh the costs of compliance. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first 

witness is the Hon. Kathleen Hartnett White, Distinguished Fellow-in-Residence and Director for the Armstrong Center for Energy 

and the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Prior 

to joining the foundation, Ms. White served a six-year term as 

Chairman and Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the second largest environmental regulatory agency in the world after the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. Prior to joining that commission, she served on the Texas 

Water Development Board. She also served on the Texas Economic 

Development Commission and the Environmental Flow Study Commission. 

Our next witness will be Mr. Richard Trzupek, Principal Consultant and Chemist at Trinity Consultants. Mr. Trzupek has worked 

in the environmental industry for 30 years, first as a Stack Tester 

measuring the amounts of air pollutants emitted from industrial 

smokestacks and then as an Environmental Consultant to small 

and midsized businesses. Mr. Trzupek is the author of numerous 

articles and books on environmental issues and air quality. 

The final witness today is Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and 

Dean Emeritus at the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh. He is a physician board certified in internal 

medicine, hematology and toxicology. He has also served as Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

from 1983 to 1985. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each after which the Members of the Committee will 

have five minutes each to ask questions. 
12 

I now recognize Ms. White to present her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE 

KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE, 

DISTINGUISHED FELLOW-IN-RESIDENCE & DIRECTOR, 

ARMSTRONG CENTER FOR ENERGY & THE ENVIRONMENT, 

TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION 

Ms. WHITE. Thank you, Chairman Harris, for the opportunity to 

testify on this I think extremely important but often-neglected topic 

on the state of our environment at this point in time and the remarkable record. I also thank Chairman Smith, a fellow Texan, 

and Congressman Weber. I am very proud to call you Congressman. We miss you in Texas right now but I am very proud to call 

you Congressman Weber. 

I also appreciate being called to testify as a former state regulator who for six years main job was implementing federal regulations that bind the state. When you are in the state, you are close 

to the people, the businesses and the real lives that these regulations affect and where the proverbial rubber meets the road. 

Whenever I look at it, I am again really taken by the magnitude 

of the environmental improvement in this country over the last 40 

years, particularly over the last 20. I have a slide up from, I think, 

an excellent and rare book called the Almanac of Environmental 

Trends. This is from the 2011 edition by Steven Hayward that I 

recommend highly to you as a broad assessment of environmental 

conditions and trends across environmental media. This is a slide 

from that book just comparing there major social policies: the extent of the population on welfare, the crime rate and the amount 

of reductions in aggregate emissions, the lower green line. You see 

the incredible trend there. I would say also this has data from federal sources until 2007 that you would see a sharper decline in the 

last, really last five years. There has been very significant decline. 

You would see a very slight uptake in the crime rate and you 

would see, unfortunately, a measurable increase in the welfare 

rolls. 

I am not going to repeat what the Chairman has already said in 

terms of the quantity of reduction in the criteria pollutants, EPA’s 

main job implementing National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

but a look at some of these numbers is really, really amazing. If 

you notice, ambient levels are what are important because that is 

the level of emissions that actually impact people: 76 percent in 

sulfur dioxide, 82 percent in carbon monoxide, 90 percent reduction 

of lead, some amazing numbers. 

I guess I am repeating what you previously said but the fact that 

this amount of air quality improvement went on during periods of 

very robust economic growth I think is very noteworthy. I would 

add to the achievement with the criteria pollutants that emissions 

from our tailpipes have been reduced by about 90 percent while vehicle miles traveled increased 165 percent as a result of better engine design and fuel formulations. 

Right now, virtually the entire country attains at least four of 

the six criteria pollutants federal standard. Some urban areas still 

wrestle with ozone and fine particulate manner but the trends are 

all positive. But as an example of improvement, in 1997 EPA list-
13 

ed, I believe it was 113 metropolitan areas that were nonattainment for one of the criteria pollutants. That number has now fallen 

to 30. I also cannot resist a Texas example. Houston, Texas, home 

of now the world’s largest petrochemical industrial complex with 

Gulf Coast meteorology that is the perfect recipe for high ozone formation did something nobody said it could do, and we resisted 

many controls EPA wanted us to put on. We used cutting-edge 

science to figure out what is exactly our problem in Houston, how 

does ozone form. We did very creative, targeted controls, very aggressive regulation, but that slide shows you that what happened, 

which no one thought, was under the then-current standard 85 

part per billion, Houston attained that standard in 2009 and 2010. 

In 2011, historic heat, historic drought, ozone levels went up again. 

They are already coming back down but I think there is a wonderful story about how the state with a really broad team effort—legislature, universities, industries, communities—figured out how to do 

that. 

I want to give just a few examples, although there is not time 

in this oral testimony—my written testimony goes in more detail— 

but again, the magnitude of improvement. Lead is an amazing 

thing—almost eliminated. But consider the health benefit. In the 

1970s, the CDC found that 88 percent of children between one and 

five years had lead blood levels that exceeded the CDC’s risk limit. 

In 2006, that is now 1.2 percent. Lead as a risk to health has been 

virtually eliminated. Dioxins, a big family of chemical compounds, 

which if exposure is right and concentration is right, can be very 

damaging to human health, according to EPA’s data, down 92 percent. Mercury: mercury emissions in this country have been already reduced, and this is before EPA’s new mercury rules in effect, by 60 to 70 percent, and the CDC now finds, and this is the 

next slide—whoops, I am a little out of order. There we go. This 

is based on CDC’s, again, a blood survey of mercury levels in the 

blood of women of childbearing years. Those levels from the most 

recent survey that goes to 2008 are well below EPA’s new standard 

that is two to three times stricter than the mercury standard by 

the World Health Organization or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Benzene, which is the most prevalent of the hazardous 

pollutants and is a known carcinogen, has been—as a national average, those are down by over 64 percent. In Texas—and this is the 

next slide—it was a big issue in our petrochemical areas. The 

upper line, dotted line, was a previous level and also that is the 

level the state sets for when you really need to consider the health 

effects. Again, through an intensely monitored air quality monitored system in that area, the Houston-Galveston area, we have 

taken—those are all the black lines are individual monitors, and 

not only is it a positive trend for the area overall, you see how far 

below. That probably amounts to an average of 87 percent reduction of ambient benzene emissions. I could go on and on. 

I might say that of course EPA regulation played a major role 

in this, but were it not for the prosperity in our country, I think 

it would be impossible for this achievement. The creative technologies, the operational efficiencies that are hallmarks of the private enterprise in the free market were absolutely necessary for 

this, and if you compare environmental progress in developing 
14 

countries, the difference is unbelievable. My testimony notes in a 

World Bank list of the world’s worst polluted cities, in which there 

are about 100 cities on each list. I will give you just one example, 

it was a list for sulfur dioxide. The highest level was in Guiyang, 

China, assigned a level, according to that methodology, of something like 424, and Los Angeles was the last one on the list with 

a level of 9, 50 times difference. We are very, very fortunate to 

have the prosperity that enables our businesses and our consumers 

to absorb the costs of environmental regulation. 

So where are we and what would I recommend as a path going 

forward? More robust science. I think we have reached a point at 

which what I call the harder sciences that can demonstrate actual 

cause like toxicology, medical science, clinical trials are necessary 

to support the path going forward. EPA has recently—— 

Chairman HARRIS. If you could wrap it up? 

Ms. WHITE. I have submitted also with my testimony a paper I 

did on what I consider a troubling, scientifically unjustified inflation of risks that EPA now used to justify new regulation and to 

implausibly calculate monetized benefits. I think it is time for 

harder science, for more intense monitoring, physical measurements and not models. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:] 
15 

Texas Pu.bli Po Ii C} 

FOUNDATION 

The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities 

Testimony 

Before the 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on the Environment 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

February 14, 2013 

By 

Kathleen Hartnett White 

Distinguished Senior Fellow and Director 

Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 

Austin, Texas 
16 

Introduction 

Thank you Chairman Harris and fellow members ofthe Environment Subcommittee forthe opportunity 

to testify on the critically important but far too neglected topic of this hearing: The State of the 

Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities. As a former chief state environmental regulator in 

Texas, whose job for six years was to implement federal environmental regulations, I thank you forthe 

opportunity to share a perspective developed in the arena where the regulatory rubber meets the road 

in towns, businesses, homes, and real individual lives across Texas. 

Although rarely heard, the environmental record of the U.S. is one of dramatically improving air and 

water quality. The U.S. environment has now achieved a state in which the most dangerous risks from 

polluted air and contaminated water are largely eliminated. Of course, there are exceptions in specific 

locations and days when air pollution may temporarily rise in a specific place. And of course the 

regulatory effort to reduce environmental risks to human health should continue, but the record should 

give us environmental optimism. The consistently positive trend began in the early 1960s even before 

the enactment ofthe majorfederal environmental laws in the early 1970s. 

Assessment ofthe actual conditions of our physical environment today and measurement of the 

effectiveness ofthe massive web of regulations imposed under the main federal environmental laws 

enacted over forty years ago is, regrettably, a neglected topic in the policymaking debates of the day. 

The current leadership of the EPA apparently thinks that our environment is so severely polluted that 

risk of death abou nds. Over the last four years, during which EPA has promulgated regulations 

unprecedented in number, infeasible stringency, and cost, the former Administrator repeatedly told the 

public that air quality was so bad that aggressive new regulation was necessary to prevent the deaths of 

thousands people. 

In October 2011 on the Bill Maher show, the former Administrator noted, "We are actually at the point 

in many areas ofthis country where on a hot summer day, the best advice is don't go outside. Don't 

breathe the air. It might kill you.'" In a similarly hyperbolic vein, she told this subcommittee, "If we could 

reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy, it would have identical impacts to finding a cure for 

cancer." The American public needs an exhaustive explanation of this assertion. In recent years, cancer 

has caused the death of approximately 600,000 real people per year. 

In fact, the state of our environment is remarkably improved as is public health. There is far more 

empirical scientific data supporting the claim of huge strides in environmental health than EPA's chilling 

assertions about "early deaths." Data available on EPA's own website and in abundant toxicological 

studies document a radically different story than EPA's alarming assertions of acute environmental peril. 

Whether we consider air pollutants, water contaminants, or release of hazardous chemicals, the 

environmental trend is vigorously positive. 
17 

State of the Environment: Air, Water and Toxins 

Over the last four decades and particularly over the last two decades, environmental conditions and 

public health (with few exceptions) have dramatically improved. Regardless ofthe EPA's exaggerated 

statements about mortal risks, it is EPA's own data available on the Agency's own website (See "Our 

Nation's Air-Status and Trends") that documents the improvements.' 

Meaningful, timely, and comprehensive assessments of environmental conditions over time are rare. 

The one exception is Stephen Hayward's "2011 Almanac of Environmental Trends." This peer-reviewed 

compendium provides current data from official federal sources on a broad range of environmental 

issues with useful historical background. I understand Dr. Hayward is working on a 2012 edition ofthe 

Almanac. 

The dramatic improvement in air quality across the U.S. is a major public policy success although one to 

which the EPA or the media give less than lip service. And while the EPA's regulation under the Clean Air 

Act played a key role, the main engines driving this transformation were technological advances in 

emission control and efficiencies-innovations spurred and made possible by economic growth within 

the dynamics of the free market. 

The U.S. now produces much more with less inputs and waste. The prosperity made possible by 

economic growth has allowed businesses and consumers to absorb the steep cost of elaborate emission 

controls. Objective science, creative technology, entrepreneurial investments of capital and rapid 

information exchange-these hallmarks of the free market have-and if allowed to function-will fuel 

continual environmental enhancements and improved human health. Studies such as the Environmental 

Performance Index, the Index of Economic Freedom, and the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom ofthe 

World demonstrate that countries which structurally enshrine economic freedom under the rule of 

clear, limited laws and private property right also achieve environmental quality.' 

A Comparison of Crime Rate, Welfare, and Air Pollution, 1970·2007 
18 

Environmental progress remains an elusive goal for most of the developing countries and heavily 

centralized governments. In the World Bank's list of the 78 cities with the highest particulate matter 

pollution (PM), only two U.s. cities appear: Los Angeles (as the 64th highest) and Chicago (as the 78th 

highest). In this study, Los Angeles has a PM level of 34 micrograms per cubic meter level, while Cairo, as 

the first city on list, has a PM level at the extremely high level of 169 micrograms per cubic meter. 4 

In the list of cities most polluted by sulfur dioxide (502), Guiyang, China ranks first with a daily mean 

level of 424 micrograms per cubic meter, while Los Angeles, last on the list of 89 cities, has a level of 9. 

These values are calculated according to the World Health Organization's standard for 502 of 20 

micrograms per cubic meter-a standard much higher than EPA's typically far more stringent air quality 

standards.' I might add that new coal-fired power plants in the u.s. achieve 502 levels approximately 95 

percent lower than in the early years of the 20th century. 

Of course, efforts to maintain and improve air quality should continue. But regulation must be 

proportionate to current, meaningful risk. And EPA should recognize the remarkable trends in our 

state's and our nation's air quality, return to sound scientific assessment of remaining health risks, and 

inform the American people about wholly positive trends in our environmental quality. 

Air Quality Improvement 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

EPA data show that since 1970, aggregate emissions ofthe six criteria pollutants for which the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requires National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have decreased by over 60 percent 

and these emissions are still falling. These air quality achievements occurred while the u.s. Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP) increased 200 percent. Over the last several decades, tailpipe emissions have 

been reduced by 90 percent while vehicle miles traveled have increased 165 percent. Improvement will 

continue with the turn-over vehicles and new equipment. 

Virtually the entire country attains four of the six NAAQS. Some urban areas still struggle with 

attainment ofthe NAAQS for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)' but the levels and frequencies 

of exceeding the NAAQS are sharply falling. In the Houston region of Texas, the number of days in the 

year of exceeding the ozone NAAQS has fallen from a high of 73 days in 1995 to 14 days in 2012. In 

1997, the EPA classified 113 metropolitan areas across the country as ozone non-attainment areas. That 

number has fallen to below 30 metropolitan areas. My analysis is confined to NAAQS in legal effect 

before current administration's changes. The new NAAQS are not yet in full effect. 
19 

Air Quality Improvement 1980-201 0 

~,!iI;'l'I~~~~~ 

- -- - l~~ ]~ml" - -- ]~ ~ 

'~ll --

Ozone (03) 

Nitrogen Dioxide N02 

Fine Particulates (PM2.5)·· 

*1990-2010 

:~~1P6Q:20J()<' 

-25% 

-46% 

-21% 

-28% -49% NCO 

-52% -40% -52% 

-27% -36% -55% 

The table above notes the percentage of reduction as a national average from 1980-2010. In some 

states, like Texas, the reductions are significantly greater. The condition, or trend, of air quality is 

measured in terms of ambient levels in the air and emission volumes. Emissions are an estimate 

(typically made by models) of the volume of pollutants released into the air by human activities. The 

ambient levels are the key measure of health risk because they are a physical measurement of the 

actual concentration of pollutants in the air to which humans are exposed. Monitors measure ambient 

levels while models estimate emissions. 

The ambient levels overstate environmental risk because they do not incorporate representative 

exposure. Most-although not all-pollutants decline by as much as 90 percent indoors. And most 

people spend 90 percent of their lives indoors. EPA's risk assessments and the ambient standards 

calculated on the basis of the risk assessments assume exposure to the highest monitored levels 24/7, 

an indication of how highly protective are the NAAQS. 

The big improvement over the two years from 2008 and 2010 is great news but unusual because 

reductions ofthis magnitude typically occur gradually. A combination of variables likely accounts for the 

reductions between 2008-2010. The decrease in economic activity during the recession is likely the 

greatest cause. Installation of additional emission controls and greater use of renewable energy sources 

and natural gas also likely contributed. 

With the second largest population, six of the 20 largest U.S. cities, economic growth far outpacing the 

national average, and the largest industrial sector, Texas has reduced ozone levels across the state since 

2000 by 23 percent compared to a national average of 13 percent. The Houston region has reduced 

ozone precursor emissions by at least 85 percent (nitrogen oxides) and 70 percent (volatile organic 
20 

compounds). Once vying with Los Angeles as the most ozone polluted city in the country, Houston, 

Texas-home of the largest petrochemical complex in the world with an optimal climate for ozone 

formation-attained the 85 parts per billion ozone standard in 2009 and 2010. And Texas is likely to 

attain the new annual fine particulate matter NAAQS. 

Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) Area 

100 

i90 

! • I so ~~w.A2,s.!!P~ _____________ _ 

Proposed NMQS' 70 ppb 

50 

1009 2000 20m 2002: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2.009 

Many regard this air quality success in Houston an evanescent anomaly, but it was the result of an 

elaborately orchestrated team effort by the state. Our legislature, state agencies, local governments, 

industry, and mUltiple universities worked collaboratively to design and implement creative technology, 

market incentives, state-of-the-art science, and targeted regulatory controls. We resisted EPA's onesize-fits-all, over-reaching blueprint to develop a State Implementation Plan addressing the distinctive 

state/local parameters of our ozone problem and without shackling economic growth. It worked! 

The historically record-breaking heat in 2011 sent Texas ozone levels higher, but with more normal 

weather returning in 2012, ozone levels in every region of the state regained their downward trajectory. 

And Houston remains only a hair's breadth from the highly questionable 2008 eight-hour ozone 

standard of 75 ppb. The Dallas area also has seen dramatic reduction and is approaching attainment of 

the ozone NAAQS. 

Increasingly effective emission detection and control technology and huge gains in operational 

efficiency-driven by the dynamics of the private market place-facilitate this major emission reduction 

in Texas. With all these controls, heavy industry no longer is the predominant source of smog and soot. 

Now think tailpipe, not smokestack. Tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks, and construction equipment 

are the main source of ozone, particulate matter, and some key toxins such as benzene. 
21 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) and Toxins 

The rarely told story of major air quality improvements also includes hazardous or toxic pollutants. EPA's 

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) tracks the "releases" of more than 600 chemical compounds from more 

than 20,000 businesses and industrial facilities across the U.S. EPA's TRI reports that 225 "core" chemical 

compounds have declined by 65 percent since 1988. Note that the TRI provides no information about 

whether the public is exposed to hazardous chemicals in a manner potentially harmful to human health. 

The TRI merely indicates the sharply declining use of hazardous chemicals as a positive trend. Much of 

the reduction shown by the TRI is a result of efficiencies gained in the petrochemical industries. 

Texas has developed a state-specific program to intensely monitor and reduce ambient levels of HAPS. 

Like most environmental issues, programs designed and implemented by states which have far more 

detailed and site-specific information are more effective and cost efficient. 

Lead 

When lead was eliminated from transportation fuels in the late 1970s, ambient concentrations of lead 

decreased 97 percent. In the 1970s, 88 percent of children ages one through five years had lead levels 

in their blood above the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) threshold of risk to cognitive 

development. In 2006, only 1.2 percent of children in this age group had lead levels above the 

threshold. EPA could declare victory on lead and maintain the current NAAQS but instead chose to lower 

the standard below naturally occurring background levels in most areas. 

Dioxin 

A family of naturally occurring and man-made chemical compounds of widely varying degrees of toxicity, 

dioxin levels in the air, water, and human tissue have sharply fallen. According to EPA's measure of 

"toxic equivalents" (TEQ), dioxin declined 92 percent over the last twenty years. Two international 

studies have found that the level of dioxin in human tissue has fallen 90 percent since 1970. 6 

Mercury 

Airborne emissions of mercury in the U.S. also have declined by approximately 60-70 percent and 

account for less than two percent of a global deposition affecting ambient levels in the U.S. Empirical 

data shows a strong positive trend. Control measures to reduce the criteria pollutants also work to 

reduce mercury. As such, it remains debatable whether stringent regulation of mercury per se is 

justified. 

The graph below shows that the CDC's most recent survey finds the blood levels of young women are 

well below the level at which EPA has set the risk to mercury exposure-an extremely conservative level 

that is two-three times stricter than that set by the World Health Organization and the Food and Drug 

Administration. 
22 

Comparison of Blood Mercury Concentrations in Women to 

Levels Associated with Health Effects and the EPA RfD 

{US Women Aged 16-49} 

BMD~, seychelles sturly =85 ppb 

BMO~, Faroestudy~Adjt.'5tedfo(PCBs.=71 ppb 

r1 =-1709 n "" 1928 n =-1728 11 "" 1.880 

Years and Number of Participants (n) 

fl.'" 158.5 

~SOth 

percent!l~ 

i);\ 75th 

percentHe 

C!510th 

pen::entHe-

,,'95th 

percentile 

Nonetheless the EPA has adopted a rule (Utility MACT) mandating massive reduction of mercury 

emissions from power plants. The rule imposes limits so aggressive that they are infeasible for many 

plants, many of which have already announced closure. And while EPA admits that the cost ofthis 

regulation-at the EPA estimate of $10 billion per year-is perhaps the most expensive air regulation to 

date, EPA also admits that the benefits from mercury reduction are so minute to be immeasurable. 

Benzene 

A well-known carcinogen and the most wide-spread HAP, benzene levels have significantly declined by 

more than 64 percent as a national average. As the graph below shows, benzene levels in the 

petrochemical center of the U.S.-the Houston region-have declined as much as 80 percent. Through a 

partnership with industry and the state environmental agency, Texas has implemented perhaps the 

most concentrated monitoring system for air toxics anywhere in the world. EPA's few monitoring sites, 

on the other hand, limit the reliability of estimating national average ambient emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants and preclude identification of hot spots-localized areas with higher ambient levels of HAPs. 
23 

2011 Average Benzene Concentrations at Air Monitoring Sites in Texas {VPJIX'$ J;00wn an: MItl.t1Tietk meam. of f1Umly J>m:oGC lIlei'l'il.lnnnenn wl1ere iW.!J!ab~·'}<7tflerw1se il.ritbmel:it 1M:1IoflS t.anlstN S<!ffipk'sl 

• Texas Monitors 

III (1lllllillllllumillllllU IUIil II 11111 III II IIi III 

Water Quality 

Drinking Water 

The quality of drinking water is of the utmost importance to human health. The u.s. now provides highly 

safe drinking water. EPA regulates public water systems under highly strict limits for hundreds of 

contaminants. In 2008, 94 percent of the water systems that provide drinking water met all of EPA's 

highly protective standards. In 1993, only 79 percent of water system met all EPA standards. In 2001, 

EPA adopted highly controversial standards to mandate reduction of minute levels of naturally occurring 

arsenic and radio-nucleides. Approximately 2 percent of the nation's water systems cannot yet attain 

these standards which often necessitate securing an entirely different water source, sometimes at a 

prohibitive cost. 

Public Health 

Life expectancy-the most important measure of public health-has increased by at least 40 percent 

over the last century. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDc), average life expectancy in 1900 

was 49.2 years and in 2010, life expectancy increased to 78.7 years.? Medical science and disease 
24 

prevention have dramatically reduced disabling and fatal diseases. As the table below shows over the 

period 1960-2009, the trends in leading causes of chronic disease and death show tremendous progress, 

with 69 percent decline in heart disease and 78 percent decline in stroke. 

Trends in the leading Causes of Deaths - United States, 1960 and 2009 

The 14 percent uptake in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (noted in footnote to the Table above) 

is exceptional and often used to blame air pollution is the cause. But could this occur while air pollution 

was on the sharp decline? There many confounding factors in the studies. While the incidence of asthma 

has increased, this occu rred over the period of the most dramatic reduction of the criteria pollutants in 

the forty year history of the CAA. And some studies show a higher incidence of asthma and other 

chronic respiratory disease in the winter months when ozone and PM is far, far below the levels of 

summer months. 

Over the last five years, EPA's regulatory initiatives have been pre-occupied with PM 2.5 as if it was a 

source of major risk of premature mortality. Yet, the weak epidemiological studies on which EPA 

typically relies are incapable of evaluating whether and to what extent outdoor concentrations of PM 

2.5 may causally impact cardiopulmonary function. The majority of toxicological studies on the matter 

strongly suggest that current ambient PM 2.5 is too low to cause major disease or death. According to 

leading statistician Dr. Ton Cox, "The expectation that lives will be saved by reducing ambient PM 2.5 is 

not supported by the weight of evidence, although other bases for regulating PM may be justifiable. 
25 

Health Effects of Poverty and Unemployment 

8.00ClO 

7.80ClO .. " : . .. ~~t 

s ~ ... Hl 7.6000 *." ~~ 

mo ...... .. ." t~ "". 7.40ClO .. .. .. " !!. .+ "S ~ 

~~ ... .~"E 7.2000 ~ ...... •• l~ .... ",m • COg 7.0000 .. ... ....... 6.80ClO ......... adj. R'=0.954 

6.60ClO 

8.00ClO 8.5000 9.0000 9.50ClO i0.00ClO 10.5000 

rea I GOP per capita 

(logarithmic 1990 "intemational" Gea ry-Khamis dollars per capita) 

Far more studies find far stronger correlation between unemployment/low income and premature 

mortality than the minute correlations EPA identifies in cherry-picked epidemiological studies to assume 

that current ambient air quality "causes" "early deaths." 

Evaluating Progress 

Other than the partial data in EPA's "Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends," the limited Toxic Release 

Inventory, the similarly limited and now dated National Water Quality Inventory (NWQI), the new 

Wadeable Streams Assessment (WSA), and anecdotal data, the EPA lacks a reliable, consistent, 

systematic, scientifically meaningful, and publically accessible means of measuring environmental 

conditions over time. 

Regulatory Effectiveness 

Equally important, EPA, like most federal regulatory agencies, lacks a methodology for credibly assessing 

regulatory effectiveness. Agencies continually add to the regulatory edifice but they rarely try to 

determine whether a regulation achieved its regulatory objective (e.g. reduction of X pollutant by X 

degrees) and policy objective (e.g. reduction of X degree in risk of adverse health effect). 

Federal agencies like EPA are awash in data points, but they overwhelmingly relate to administrative 

outputs (number of fines, permits, rules, etc.) and not to measurable outcomes. Programs to measure 

and track regulatory outcomes at EPA were initiated several years ago, but not long after they were 
26 

shelved. Various methodologies to measure and track regulatory effectiveness exist and could be 

legislatively required. 

Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Regulatory impact analysis, such as cost-benefit analyses (conducted at the stage of rule promulgation) 

should provide a rubric to assess the importance of the policy objective of a regulation. EPA's current 

method of cost-benefit analysis is so manipulated, however, that it lacks credibility and grossly misleads 

the public. 

I submit with my written testimony my paper on EPA's 2011 study titled "Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act, 1990-2020." My study is entitled "EPA's Pretense of Science: Regulating Phantom Risks.'" The 

EPA study should provide critical information about air quality progress. Built on implausible 

assumptions, weak and selective science, statistical manipulation, and pure policy choice, however, this 

study is worse than meaningless. Concluding that CAA regulation will provide $30 dollars in health 

benefits for every $1 in cost and will "save" 230,000 lives, this "Benefits Study" deceives the public 

about health risks and regulatory costs. 

Monitors Trump Models 

After forty years of continually increasing regulation, meaningful indicators of environmental trends, 

conditions, and relative risks must be rooted in empirical data and thus the more robust sciences such as 

toxicology and medicine. Models used to characterize current or future conditions are useful in many 

areas, but as a basis of regulatory decision: monitors trump models. Physical measurement of 

environmental condition in real-time and over-time is a critical tool. The technology now exists to 

measure the conditions. Ambient air quality monitors, continuous emission monitors (CEMS), 

representative air sampling, infrared cameras, auto gas chronometers, and many other technologies 

enable far more precise measurement than EPA's excessive use of models driven by assumptions of 

unrealistic worst case scenarios. 

One ofthe two grounds for the rare, complete vacature ofthe Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) by 

the DC Circuit Court of Appeals indirectly involved EPA's speculative models about interstate transport 

of emissions. EPA formulated these models to calculate the amount of emission reduction in an upwind 

state necessary to avoid impact on a downwind state-usually already in attainment of the NMQS in 

question! The court found that CSAPR as adopted mandated emission reductions in upwind states of a 

magnitude far disproportionate to their impact on air quality in the downwind state. EPA had relied on 

its flawed, worst-case modeling of future conditions to justify the amount of reductions imposed on the 

upwind state. 

A major reason for the air quality success enjoyed in Texas is the state's investment in what is likely the 

most intensive and extensive ambient air quality monitoring system, especially in the Houston region. 

Precise, localized data is essential to effective, targeted, location-specific air and water quality 

management. 
27 

With the rapid expansion of natural gas production in the Barnet Shale area surrounding the highly 

populous Dallas-Forth area, many residents were concerned about environmental impacts. The state's 

initial models of the impact showed considerable impact. But after developing elaborate monitoring 

protocols and deploying monitors, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) found that 

the drilling had no adverse impact on air quality. 

More Vigorous Science of Health Effects 

Any measurement of environmental condition and trend is intertwined with EPA's risk assessments or 

Integrated Science Assessments (ISA). Over the forty years of implementation of federal environmental 

laws enacted to protect human health, a wide body of diverse environmental science exists. Some 

scientific disciplines provide more robust, empirical findings. For example, ecological epidemiological 

studies can only detect correlations or concurrences between pollutant levels and health effects. They 

cannot establish causation-that pollutant level X caused health effect y. 

Toxicology, medical science, and clinical trials can establish causation and incorporate critical 

information such as dose, representative exposure, and plausible biological mechanism. After the 

magnitude of environmental improvement, particularly in air quality, EPA must now ground its risk 

assessment for health effects (Integrated Science Assessment) in the more vigorous empirical sciences. 

Epidemiological studies may be useful but alone are no longer sufficient to support regulation of the 

remaining environmental risks to human health. 

Priorities 

Abandon the No Safe Threshold Methodology 

The single most important priority for effective, cost-efficient, beneficial EPA regulation is reform of the 

methodologies that EPA is now using to conduct risk assessment of human health effects-the 

foundation of EPA's regulatory decision. Numerous scientific bodies including the National Academy of 

Science have called attention to this problem. 

After the great gains in air quality and ever-stricter air quality standards now approaching natural 

background levels in some areas, EPA has devised a methodology to create a vast reservoir of new 

health risks-and thus a supposedly scientific justification for more stringent new regulation. In the last 

four years, EPA has used these newly created health risks to justify its unprecedented regulatory 

agenda. Since 2009, EPA has been using the pure assumption (by data-free extrapolation) that there is 

no safe threshold of pollution-however low-"below which health risk reductions are not achieved by 

[regulation-caused] reduced exposure.'" This is Assistant Administrator for Air Gina McCarthy's 

response to Chairman Upton's letter questioning the credibility of no safe threshold methodology. 

Apparently beginning in 2009, EPA's use of this NST methodology increased health risks which EPA 

identified by four-fold. This increased the number of alleged "deaths" attributable to PM2.5 from 88,000 

to 320,000. By using NST methodology, EPA found that over two-thirds of the public's health risk from 
28 

PM 2.5 comes from ambient levels not only far below the protective NAAQS but even well below the 

lowest modeled levels in the studies.'O 

EPA claims that scientific studies "have not observed a level below which premature mortality effects do 

not occur." But this is not a scientific conclusion; it is a policy choice. The EPA's defense of this absurdly 

precautionary assumption is another way of saying the point at which all risk is zero cannot be proven. 

If this NST assumption was expunged from EPA's cost-benefit analyses of regulation promulgated over 

the last four years, the estimated costs of EPA's many new rules would dwarf the estimated benefits. 

Focus on the HAPS and Toxies 

For forty years, EPA has spent most of its resources on the six criteria pollutants and not the many 

hazardous pollutants listed in the 1990 amendments of the CAA. Now that most of the country attains 

even the continually stricter NAAQS, it is time to focus more study on potential risks from HAPS. These 

are typically far more localized issues best identified and addressed by state and local authorities. 

1 "Jackson Gets Real," Politico Morning Energy (Oct. 24, 2011). 

2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Our Nation's Air - Status and Trends Through 2010" (Feb 2012). 

3 Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, "Environmental Performance Index" (Feb. 2012); Terry Miller, Kim R. 

Holmes, and Edwin J. Feulner, 2012 Index of Economic Freedom (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation and 

Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 2012), p. 155. 

4 Stephen F. Hayward, 2011 Almanac of Environmental Trends (San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute, 2011), 

p.65. 

5 Ibid. at p. 68-69. 

6 Ibid. at p. 264. 

7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Life Expectancy" (Jan. 2013). 

8 Kathleen Hartnett White, "EPA's Pretense of Science: Regulating Phantom Risk," Texas Public Policy Foundation 

(May 2012). 

9 Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Rep. Fred Upton (3 Feb, 2012). 

10 Anne Smith, Ph.D., "An Evaluation of the PM 2.5 Health Benefits Estimates for Regulatory Impact Analysis of 

Recent Air Regulations," NERA (Dec. 2011); Louis Anthony Cox, Jr., "Reassessing the Human Health Benefits from 

Clean Air," Risk Analysis (Nov. 2011). 
29 

KATHLEEN HARTNETI WHITE 

Kathleen Hartnett White is the Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and 

the Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment (CEE) at 

the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Kathleen directs the CEE's research and 

policy development on a range of issues including energy, climate change, air 

quality, water quality 8: water rights and waste. 

In August 2007, Kathleen White completed her six-year term as Chairman and 

Commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). With 

regulatory jurisdiction over air quality, water quality, water rights 8: water 

utilities and waste, TCEQ is the second largest environmental agency in the 

world after U.S. EPA. As the final state decision maker, she presided over 

complex and controversial permitting issues such as coal-fired power plants, 

ozone controls for Houston's petrochemical complex, climate change, water 

right permits and radioactive waste disposal. 

Prior to Governor Rick Perry's appointment of Kathleen Hartnett White to TCEQ 

in 2001, she served on the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas 

Economic Development Commission and the Environmental Flows Study 

Commission. Kathleen now is an officer and a director of the Lower Colorado 

River Authority - her fifth gubernatorial appointment. 

She has received the Texas Water Conservation Association's President's 

Award, the Colorado River Foundation's Friend of the River Award and the 

Texas Chemical Council's Leadership Award. Her writing has been published in 

the National Review, Investors' Business Daily, Washington Examiner, Daily 

Caller, Weekly Standard and many state newspapers. 

A writer and consultant on environmental laws, natural resource policy, private 

property rights and ranching history, White received her bachelor cum laude 

and master degrees from Stanford University where she held the E. W. Lyman 

Academic Scholarship. Her many academic awards include a national Danforth 

National Fellowship for doctoral work at Princeton University, Princeton's 

Jonathan Edwards Award for Academic Excellence, and a Lineberry Foundation 

Fellowship at Texas Tech University School of law. 

White is also a partner with her husband in a 125 year-old ranching operation in 

Jeff Davis and Presidio counties, Texas. 
30 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

We will now hear from Mr. Trzupek. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD TRZUPEK, 

PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT, TRINITY CONSULTING 

Mr. TRZUPEK. Thank you, Chairman Harris, Ranking Member 

Bonamici, Chairman Smith and other Members of the Committee 

for the opportunity to testify here today. I would also like to thank 

you on behalf of two other groups. One is, as Chairman Harris 

noted, the small to mid-sized businesses that I represent. They 

were very excited to hear that you were having me back. They feel 

like they have been given a voice through me and hopefully I will 

be worthy of that voice. The other person I am thanking you on behalf of is my wife, who will benefit from a very nice dinner this 

weekend because I am missing Valentine’s Day, so thank you for 

her. 

I would like to begin by sharing a personal recollection of the 

state of the environment in the United States over 40 years ago. 

I grew up in the 1960s in the far southeast side of Chicago in the 

midst of the booming steel industry that provided my father with 

employment. The term ‘‘pollution control’’ in those days was not yet 

part of the lexicon. The skies on the south side glowed a bright orange at night and a fine layer of dust that collected on my father’s 

car each morning offered new testimony to the tons of pollutants 

being expelled into the air. The water was little better. As children, 

we were warned the dire, potentially deadly consequences of swimming in the foul waters of the Calumet River that effectively served 

as an industrial sewer. 

Those days are long behind us, and, like those of you who remember them, I am pleased to say good riddance. Thanks to a lot 

of hard work and the expenditure of a lot of wealth, we have done 

what some back in those bad old days assured us could not be 

done. We have restored the air, water and soil of America to a condition of which we can all be proud. 

If the America of the 1960s was analogous to the worst messy 

teenager’s room imaginable, in the America we live in today, we 

find that the old pizza boxes have been tossed, the floor scrubbed, 

the bathroom scoured and the furniture disinfected, and there is 

even a little hit of lemon wafting through the air. In the America 

we live in today, it would take a stereotypical severe English butler 

carefully tracing the tops of dresser drawers with fingers clad in 

white cotton gloves to find a problem. 

And to the extent that we choose to address environmental 

issues, we should recognize that the EPA, according to EPA’s own 

data, industry, in most cases, is a minor contributor these days to 

emissions of pollutants of concern. We thus have a choice today: either to recognize and maintain the progress that we have made 

while recognizing that doing so means we can scale back our efforts 

to a more reasonable, appropriate level commensurate with today’s 

reality or to spend increasing amounts of wealth and effort for 

ever-diminishing returns in search of an unachievable, utopian environmental purity instead of practicing reasonable environmental 

stewardship in the tradition of John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt. 
31 

EPA’s own data chronicles the remarkable progress we have 

made. I have shared some of this in my written testimony. Any 

sober, scientific examination of the data clearly demonstrates that 

contrary to popular misconception, America has and will continue 

to make massive reduction in the amount of pollutants that we release into the air, water and soil. I would like to point out that 

those reductions include reductions in nationwide greenhouse gas 

emissions. We are now down to 1997 levels of greenhouse gas emissions according to the last complete EPA inventory. 

The implementation of renewable portfolio standards in over 30 

states, coal fleet retirements, the increased use of natural gas to 

generate power, and new CAFE standards will ensure that this 

trend continues. However one feels about global warming, the fact 

is that America is and will continue to do exactly what those concerned about AGW want us to do. 

When I say we are at a crossroads, I believe that many of those 

that are invested in the idea that today’s environmental crisis is 

as bad as it was 40 years would agree but they view the available 

path somewhat differently. They would have us believe that we can 

only choose between two extremes: if you don’t support every new 

environmental initiative and every EPA program, then, according 

to the prophets of doom, you therefore support a return to the bad 

old days of unlimited, unrestrained ecological damage, or to put in 

terms of Neil Simon’s famous play, the Odd Couple, they would 

have us believe that choosing not to be Felix Unger requires one 

to be Oscar Madison. There can be no middle ground. 

For my part, I believe there is a desirable center that lies somewhere between polluter and puritan. Having accomplished so 

much, we should not abandon those hard-fought gains but we owe 

it to the men and women across America who have got us to this 

point to determine how much more we will require of them and toward what end: for as the working men and women across America, the people I have had the privilege to serve for the last 30 

years who have got us here, they are the engineers, the plant managers, the HS professionals who are told they must keep their facilities in compliance while keeping them profitable as well. For 

many American industries, doing both has been quite the trick and 

a lot of sweat and toil has been expended accomplishing these two 

ends. If we are going to ask them to do even more with less and 

less to show for those efforts, we owe it to them as we owe it to 

ourselves to demonstrate that these efforts are necessary, not narcissism. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Trzupek follows:] 
32 

Committee on Science, Space, & Technology 

Environment Subcommittee 

United States House of Representatives 

"The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities" 

Testimony of Richard Trzupek 

Introduction 

Principal Consultant 

Trinity Consultants, Inc. 

Thursday, February 14th, 2013 

WRITTEN 

Thank you Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Bonamici and other members of the 

Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. I am Richard Trzupek, a 

chemist and environmental consultant, currently employed as a Principal Consultant with Trinity 

Consultants, Inc. I have been employed in the environmental industry for thirty years, initially as 

a stack tester (measuring air pollution emitted by industrial processes) and then as a consultant to 

industry. The vast majority of my clients are now, and always have been, small to mid-sized 

companies that do not have full-time environmental professionals on staff. 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on this important topic, one that is - I believevital to the continuing health, welfare and prosperity of our nation. Having made enormous 

strides in restoring our environment, we have arrived at a crossroads. [f we follow one path, the 

obsessive-compulsive flight toward environmental puritanism (as opposed to prudent 

conservation) that characterizes today's environmental movement will affect more and more of 

the nation. Activists will continue to search for new and necessarily increasingly insignificant 

risks to protect the populace from, and we will spend increasing amounts of time and energy to 

mitigate these tiny risks, for less and less return. If we choose the other path, we can balance the 

need to maintain a healthy, vibrant environment with our equally important obligation to 

eliminate unfounded fear, fight poverty and to spread prosperity. 

Many of those invested in the environmental industry agree that we are at a crossroads, but they 

view the available paths somewhat differently. They would have us believe that we can only 

choose between two extremes. [fyou don't support new environmental initiatives and every EPA 

program, then according to these prophets of doom you therefore support a return to the bad 

old days of unlimited, unrestrained ecological damage. Or, to put in terms of the Neil Simon's 

famous play "The Odd Couple", they would have us believe that choosing not to be Felix Unger 

requires one to be Oscar Madison. There is no middle ground. 

This message emanates from all parts oftoday's massive environmental industry. This includes 

not only well-funded, hyper-active environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and National 

Resources Defense Council, but a host of people in academia and industry who have a vested 

Page I 
33 

interest in maintaining what the late Michael Crichton so accurately described as our national 

"State of Fear". It includes academic types whose research funding and relevance depends on 

them discovering, quantifying and publicizing sources of risk. In the blinkered world of 

academia, the relative magnitude of these risks rarely matters and the idea that risk analysis 

should necessarily encompasses rewards, penalties and unintended consequences that go well 

beyond the limits of their research seems to be an alien concept. 

There is a significant portion of the commercial sector whose profits depend on perpetuating this 

climate of fear as well. For example, the tap water in the vast majority of American homes is 

among the cleanest in the world. Our drinking water standards are very stringent, monitoring 

extremely diligent and the technology that is employed to remove contaminants and to test for 

them is, with few exceptions, state of the art. None the less, water-purification products have 

become ubiquitous in the marketplace, taking advantage of the perception - however false that 

tap water is dangerous to our health. Claims that this product or that removes 99% of harmful 

contaminants mayor may not be true, but it hardly matters when the concentration of 

contaminants one starts with are so tiny as to be barely measurable. 99% of nothing is still 

nothing. 

Other companies sell indoor air purifiers in order to prey on the mistaken, but all too common, 

misconception that America's air is getting more and more polluted every year. Some of these air 

purifiers generate ozone, which they promise will remove all sorts of air pollutants. To be sure, 

ozone does react with a variety of compounds that mayor may not be present in the air. The 

irony of such products however, is that billions upon billions of dollars have been spend over the 

last forty years in an effort to reduce ozone concentrations in the ambient air of our large cities, 

only to find that - in the name of "clean air" - we have developed devices that introduce the 

compound directly into peoples' homes instead. 

The chasm between environmental perception and environmental reality, in other words, is huge 

and it's growing larger every day. My testimony primarily focuses on two aspects of 

environmental policy: 1) the progress America has made in improving and protecting our 

environment, and 2) an analysis of selected, current environmental issues and initiatives, 

focusing on societal and economic costs, and ever-diminishing returns for increasingly 

puritanical and intrusive policies. 

Because my career has primarily involved air quality issues, I will examine that portion of the 

environmental picture in the most depth, in terms of both conventional air pollutants, toxic air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. In addition, I will also discuss water quality, wetlands 

preservation and hydraulic fracturing of shale gas formations as well. 

Page 2 
34 

Conventional Air Pollutants 

The progress we have made in reducing emissions of the six most common "criteria" air 

pollutants is both remarkable and undeniable. The following graphic, published by USEPA, 

illustrates that progress: 

A more detailed examination of the underlying data, also published by USEP A, shows that this 

reduction trend has been consistent in terms of both emissions of the individual air pollutants 

reduced and the time frame in which the reductions took place. The latter point is important, 

because a popular misconception is that America has had "pro-environment" and "antienvironment" administrations in power over the last forty years. Clearly, in terms of air pollution 

at least, this is not the case. Every administration since 1970 has been pro-active in protecting the 

environment. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

ead (Pb) 

Nitrogen Oxides (NO) 

~olatUe Organic Compounds (VOC) 

DirecIPM10 

rirectPM25 

Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 

Notes 

i ~- Treml date nDt aV81iabie 

Percent Change In Emlssions 

1980vs 2010 

-71 

-97 

-52 

-63 

-.3 

-.9 

2 DirectPM10 emlSSIOflS for 1980 are based on data since 1985 

3 Negallve numbers Indicate reductwnsm emlSs)ons 

Page 3 

1990 \IS 2010 2000vs 2010 

-60 -44 

-60 -33 

-48 -41 

-52 -35 

-.7 -50 

-55 -55 

-.5 -50 
35 

These emissions reductions have primarily been accomplished by the industrial sector in two 

ways: 1) by reducing the amount of air pollutants emitted in the industrial sector through the use 

of add-on controls, changes in work practices, raw material substitutions and other measures, and 

2) by designing and producing increasingly cleaner engines and fuels used in the transportation 

sector of our economy. 

These reductions are reflected in the steady improvement in ambient air quality across the nation, 

as recorded by America's extensive air quality monitoring network: 

Icarbon Moooxid. (CO) 

t

zon. (03) (S-hr) 

Lead (Pb) 

Hrogen Dioxide (NO:;» (annual) 

PM 1D (24*hr) 

FM25 (annual) 

PM25 (24-hr) 

~ulfur Dioxide (SO~ (24-hr) 

Holes 

1 ~- Trend data not aV6,iabie 

Perc:ent Change in Air Quality 

1980 'IS 2010 

·82 

·28 

·90 

·52 

·76 

2 Ne\J3IiV>;l numbers Indll:::atB Improvements In i:Jlfquillity 

1990vs 2010 2000 \IS 2010 

·73 ·54 

·17 ·11 

·63 ·62 

-45 ·38 

·3. ·29 

·27 

·29 

·68 -48 

Given this spectacular record of success, I am constantly amazed by the number of Americans 

who are unaware of the progress we have made in cleaning up the air. As I have interacted with 

everyday citizens in the course of public hearings for new projects and during speaking 

engagements, a surprising number of people - a large majority in fact - seem genuinely surprised 

to learn of these facts. In some cases, more stubborn individuals flatly refuse to believe them. 

Clearly, no one expects the average American to be an expert in finding and evaluating air 

quality data. This ail-tao-common impression that the United States is a dangerously polluted 

nation and is becoming more so must, therefore, be attributable to some other source or 

source(s). It is my impression that these false-impressions are primarily created by what I think 

of as America's large and ever-growing risk industry, and these messages are then further 

perpetuated by individuals in the media and bloggers who have only the vaguest understanding 

of the underlying principals and issues. Unfortunately, the USEPA has become part of this 

disinformation machine, especially in the course of the last four years. 

By way of example, consider USEPA's recently finalized "Boiler MACT" rule. This regulation 

primarily affects larger industrial (as opposed to utility) boilers that bum solid and/or liquid 

fuels. One of the positive aspects of this rule trumpeted by the Agency, environmental groups 

and media outlets is a reduction in "fine particulate" emissions (also known as PM-2.5 

Page 4 
36 

emissions) of 18,000 tons per year. Fine particulate matter has been linked to respiratory 

illnesses such as asthma. 

If research data shows that fine particulate matter contributes to respiratory illnesses, it follows 

that that a reduction in fine particulate matter emissions will result in a decrease in respiratory 

illnesses. Taking this another step further, the EPA then puts a price tag on avoided respiratory 

illnesses (and other illnesses) that will result from Boiler MACT implementation, claiming that 

while achieving these emissions reductions will cost industry $2.2 to $2.4 billion, the net 

national monetary benefit will come in somewhere around $13 to $29 per dollar invested. 

We'll touch on this rather dubious accounting in a moment, but let's first focus on the real 

magnitude of this emissions reduction. To the untutored, a reduction of 18,000 tons of anything 

per year seems significant, but what does that number really mean in terms of the real world? To 

find the answer, we again tum to EPA data, which summarizes the amount of tine particulate 

emissions from various types of sources. 

Emissions Percentage of 

Source Tvpe (tons/vear) All Emissions 

Elcctric Utility Fuel Combustion. 308.738 5.04% 

Industrial Fuel Combustion 147,494 241% 

Othcr Fuel Combustion 369,590 6.04% 

Chcmical & allied product mfg 20,678 0.34% 

Metals processil1g 63.484 1.04% 

Petroleum & related industrics 23.126 0.38% 

Othcr industrial processes 350.472 5.72% 

Solvent utilization 3,551 0.06% 

Storage & transport 22.067 0.36% 

Waste disposal & recycling 205,004 3.35% 

Highwav vehicles 295.373 4.82% 

Off-highwav 301.179 4.92% 

Miscellaneous 4,012,455 65.53% 

TOTAL: 6,123,211 100.00% 

Looking at this table, it's clear that today's industrial sources are relatively small contributors to 

fine particulate emissions. Miscellaneous a catch-all for all non-industrial, non-transportation 

sources (e.g.: consumer products, natural sources, etc). is the largest contributor by far. This is 

largely due to the fact that industrial and transportation sources have - as we have seen - made 

such massive reductions in emissions over the past four decades. 

The 18,000 ton per year reduction in fine particulate emissions from industrial boilers represents 

a 0.3% reduction in overall national fine particulate emissions of over 6 million tons per year. Is 

this a significant reduction? In my view it's not, but whether or not one agrees, doesn't a 

supposedly disinterested agency in the public service like the USEPA have an obligation to 

Page 5 
37 

present this part of the picture as well, rather than steering us toward numbers with lots of zeros 

that mean nothing in a vacuum from a scientific point-of-view? Should not the Agency help put 

to rest the tired, old myth that it is industry - and industry alone that is responsible for 

whatever contaminants find their way into the environment? 

Let's return to those monetary benefit claims. Using the low end of the numbers presented by 

USEPA, a $2.2 billion investment will result in a $28.6 billion return. What a terrific result. But 

why stop there? If controlling a mere 18,000 tons per year of fine particulate matter can result in 

the generation of $26.4 billion in net income, what would happen if we controlled all 6.1 million 

tons per year of fine particulate matter? Using USEPA's minimum cost effectiveness approach, 

we find that applying the same rate of return would generate $8.9 trillion per year in net revenue. 

We have thus solved America's debt crisis. All we need to do is build a dome over the nation to 

keep every bit of fine particulate out and we'll clear the national debt in two years. 

USEPA also claims that Boiler MACT implementation will result in the avoidance of 8, 100 

premature deaths per year. If we extend that peculiar logic, we find that control of all 6.1 million 

tons of fine particulate will avoid over 27 million premature deaths per year. The road to 

immortality apparently awaits. 

Obviously, these absurd conclusions cannot hold up to any scientific scrutiny. They are 

presented as one way to illustrate the way in which EPA's regulatory analyses and justifications 

don't make sense in any real world context. Absurd assumptions must necessarily result in 

absurd conclusions. 

The fact is that industrial sources of air pollution have been so successful in cleaning up their act 

that they represent less than half - and in some cases much less than half - of United States 

emissions of all of the criteria air pollutants, except for sulfur dioxide. Sources of criteria air 

pollutant sources, based on the latest US EPA National Emissions Inventory, are summarized in 

Appendix A, attached. 

The same themes hold true with respect to emissions of so-called "toxic air pollutants" (also 

known as "Hazardous Air Pollutants" or "HAPs". The industrial contribution to the very, very 

small concentrations of HAPs present in the nation's ambient air is not very significant in most 

cases, yet industrial sources are those most often vilified and targeted when toxic air pollutants 

are mentioned. Consider, for example, USEPA data identifying the sources of two readily 

recognizable air toxics: formaldehyde and benzene, both of which are on the USEPA's list of 

regulated HAPs. 

The following two pie charts, showing the sources that contribute to ambient concentrations of 

formaldehyde and HAPs are taken from USEPA's 2005 National Air Toxics Assessment. 

Released in 20 II, this is the most recent National Air Toxic Assessment available. The data 

shows that the vast majority of emissions of these two pollutants emanates from natural sources 

(fires) and from transportation sources. 

Page 6 
38 

2005 NATA Benzene Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

2% Iii Mobile Onroad 

I!i Mobile Nonnroad 

Fires (Wildfires and Prescribed 

Bums) 

iii Residential Energy and 

Combnstion 

," Waste Operations 

<' Petroleum Prodnct Distribution 

Oil and Gas Prodnction and 

Distribution 

\c Solvent Use and Cleaning 

Other 

2005 NATA Formaldehyde Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Page 7 

111 Fires (Wildfires and Prescribed 

Burns) 

Iii Mobile Onroad 

Mobile Nonnroad 

ill Residential Energy and 

Combustion 

J,lntemal Combnstion Engines 

;< Forest Products Manufacturing 

Boilers & Process Heaters 
39 

America has spent a great deal of money and effort to reduce air toxics emissions, even though 

the average American is not exposed to dangerous concentrations of these compounds. The two 

examples referenced above are representative of the relative contributions of different sources for 

a great many air toxics. We simply do not have an air toxics problem in the United States today 

and, to the extent that anyone is unduly concerned by the small amounts of air toxics that exist in 

the atmosphere, industry should not continue to be the primary target of USEP A and 

environmental advocacy groups. 

Greenhouse Gases 

I would describe myself as a "global wanning skeptic", although I find those three words a gross 

oversimplification of a complex position. Like many other scientists, I believe that planet Earth 

has been going through a moderate wanning cycle over the past few decades, one that appears to 

be leveling off. I also believe that human activities have made a contribution to that wanning 

cycle, but I do not believe that the magnitude of that contribution is especially significant nor 

does it justify the imposition of expensive mitigation measures that would certainly have the 

most negative effects on the poorest segments of our global society. 

Having said that, I must admit that those who believe that both the recent warming trend and 

mankind's contribution to it - sometimes designated "global wanning alarmists" have won the 

day, in the United States at least. We have made and will continue to make massive reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions rates in the United States. I marvel that nobody in the EPA or in the 

employ of the big environmental advocacy groups will acknowledge - much lest celebrate - that 

simple truth. Instead prominent alannists like fonner Vice President Al Gore continue to call for 

action as if completely unaware of all of the changes that have taken place and will continue to 

take place. 

According to USEPA data, emissions ofGHG's in 20]0 (the last year for which a complete 

GHG inventory has been published) were down to levels that have not been seen since 1997. 

While America's recent economic woes are surely in part responsible for this decrease, so has 

the continued implementation of Renewabl e Portfolio Standards (RPS) programs in over thirty 

individual states. When RPS implementation is combined with mass retirement of older, lessefficient coal-fired power plants and their replacement by less-carbon intensive natural gas fired 

power plants, it is clear that GHG emission rates in the United States will continue to drop. 

Water Quality 

Assessing the magnitude of the improvements in water quality that have been realized over the 

last forty years is a more difficult task than quantifying improvements in air quality. This is 

primarily because there are so many metrics for assessing water quality and the way that a 

particular water resource is used will factor into the evaluation as well. "Stream A", used for 

recreational purposes, may be deemed to be healthy even though it contains the same amount of 

the same contaminants as "Stream B", which supplies drinking water to neighboring 

communities. 

Page 8 
40 

I do not mean to criticize this aspect of EPA's water quality assessment effort. It seems 

reasonable and proper to factor in type(s) of usage when applying water quality standards. Doing 

so, however, makes it very difficult to clearly define the magnitude of improvement in United 

States water quality since the passage of the Clean Water Act. This is further complicated by the 

fact that water quality standards - just like air quality standards - have been repeatedly tightened 

over the years. 

However, there is little doubt that America has made great strides in improving the nation's 

water quality. Rivers no longer catch on fire. Lakes once thought dead are sportsman's paradises. 

The water quality "problems" we worry about today are issues that Americans in 1970 would 

have traded a limb to have, instead of dealing with the real ecological disasters of the time. 

Wetlands Preservation 

Since 1988, when the policy was first introduced by President George HW. Bush, every 

administration has followed a "no net loss of wetlands" policy. This policy has been a huge 

success. With the exception of Gulf Coast tidal wetlands (as special case) wetlands in the United 

States have increased in acreage and improved in terms of quality. 

Many people, including myself, believe that wetlands program could stand with some 

improvements. At times, those who administer the program at the Army Corps of Engineers and 

in the EPA make petty determinations that are almost laughable. I have seen a pair of tires 

declared a wetland, for example and it several months of effort to get that ruling reversed. 

Arbitrary wetlands determinations have come into conflict with individual property rights as 

well. 

Yet, for all its flaws, the wetland policy articulated by the first President Bush remains another 

American, environmental success story. 

Hydraulic Fracturing 

Hydraulic fracturing of deep shale formations in order to collect natural gas, natural gas liquids 

and crude oil is not, as critics would have it, new, poorly understood technology. Hydraulic 

fracturing, also known by its slang name of "fracking", has been around for over fifty years. The 

increased use offracking in recent years is the result of two technological advances: 1) 

development of horizontal drilling techniques that allow for the economical recover of 

hydrocarbons in relatively shallow deep shale formations, and 2) new sensing techniques that 

allow energy companies to vastly improve their success rates when searching for energy 

deposits. Critics of the technique claim that the chemicals used in fracking are dangerous and 

could lead to contamination of aquifers. These are false, scientifically unsound conclusions. 

When a hole is drilled deep underground, for!!!!y purpose, it necessarily must pass through 

shallow aquifers, if such aquifers are present. The depth of aquifers used for drinking water vary, 

but 50 to 200 feet is typical in the United States. When the hole passes through the aquifer, an 

impermeable casing must be used to ensure that the materials used in drilling do not contaminate 

Page 9 
41 

the aquifer. Again, this is the case whenever one drills deep, for any purpose. This would be the 

case, for example, if Carbon Storage and Sequestration ever becomes a viable way of controlling 

carbon dioxide emissions. 

Drilling also requires the use of very small concentrations of certain chemicals, such as corrosion 

inhibitors (to prevent metal oxidation) and anti-bacterials (to prevent biological growth and 

fouling). This has and will continue to be the case of any kind of deep well drilling. So, if a 

casing is poorly constructed, there is a chance that a small amount of certain, well-understood 

chemicals could seep out into an aquifer. That risk tiny as it may be will always exist as long 

as man uses drills to explore the earth and extract its resources. However, if the casing is 

properly installed, there is no way for any material used to extract shale gas lying a mile below 

the surface to seep into aquifers lying a couple of hundred feet down. 

The shale gas revolution is an American success story. A decade ago we were listening to dire 

predictions of natural gas shortages and the need to build LNG import terminals. Today, natural 

gas is abundant and cheap. Rather than talking about imports, American energy companies are 

preparing to export this valuable commodity overseas. This revolution has taken place safely and 

responsibly. It's a revolution of which we should all be proud. 

Summary 

In my opinion, we have reached a point of diminishing returns such that we need to reassess the 

wisdom of continuing investment in environmental programs and regulation at the same rate that 

we have over the last forty-some years. In addition to the fact that America is now effectively 

controlling, minimizing and otherwise reducing the majority of pollutant emissions into the air, 

water and soil that had been largely uncontrolled in the run-up to modem environmental 

reb'Ulatory activity, the cost to further control, minimize and otherwise reduce the residual 

emissions that remain is disproportionately high. 

For example, all large industrial sources of particulate emissions in the United States are 

controlled. The days of smokestacks belching black soot are well behind us (which leads media 

outlets and environmental groups to publish pictures of smokestacks emitting steam as a way of 

visualizing "air pollution"). The vast majority of these large industrial sources use one of two 

well-established, reliable technologies to control particulate emissions: fabric filters (aka: 

baghouses) and electrostatic precipitators (ESP). Each of these technologies typically removes 

99% + of particulate matter introduced into it. Controlling more than we control now would 

require either adding more ESPs and/or baghouses, or replacing these units with more exotic and 

expensive technologies. However, by definition, that additional expenditure would be much less 

cost effective. Generally speaking, if controlling the first 99% costs "X dollars/ton", then 

controlling 99% of the remaining I % will cost lOX dollars/ton, and controlling 99% of that 

residual will cost lOOX dollars/ton, etc. 

If the EPA is going to remain relevant and most importantly from its point of view - fullyfunded, then it has felt the need to continually redefine its mission as environmental progress has 

Page 10 
42 

accumulated. In the past, under administrations of both parties, this redefinition has consisted 

primarily of adopting increasingly more stringent standards for the air and the water. As long as 

the EPA has the ability and the authority to decide what the word "clean" means, it can ensure 

that the air and our waterways are eternally, officially "dirty", no matter how much pollution is 

removed from each. 

A portion ofthe public and our elected representatives have caught on to the continual rolling 

back of the goal posts that is so central to current environmental policy-making. While it's 

unlikely that enough people have become aware of this practice so as to endanger EPA funding, 

or that of the big environmental groups, any type of increased scrutiny is troubling to those 

invested in the risk industry. A new tactic was needed to justify ever more environmental purity 

in a pristine nation. 

The answer - the coming trend - is the equivalent of searching for needles in the midst of 

otherwise inoffensive haystacks. The EPA is moving from looking at the environment in the 

macroscopic sense to a new paradigm in which they put every single bit of the environment 

under a microscope. Doing so will accomplish a couple of things that will make both the Agency 

and environmental groups quite happy. It will certainly create a bevy of work in its own right. 

When you move from a model where the EPA uses representative sampling to assess 

environmental quality to one in which you search for individual hot spots, you create a massive 

amount of work. It's the difference between conducting an opinion poll utilizing a statistically 

significant portion of the population and soliciting the opinion of every single citizen. 

In addition to the work that the search itself creates, it's inevitable that this kind of intensive 

examination will yield fruitful results. When one puts anything under a microscope, one 

necessarily will find something ugly to gawk at. A magnifying device not only makes things look 

bigger, it also makes them seem more important than they really are. 

How will this new mission play out in practical terms over the next four years? Let's consider 

one example. At a recent meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association, the new 

Director for Air and Radiation in EPA Region V, George Czerniak, proudly announced some 

new initiatives that would begin in 2013. One of these involve a new term: occult emissions. It's 

an apt name, since finding them will involve many a witch hunt. 

According to the EPA, occult emissions are air pollution emissions that may (or may not) leak 

out of building from something other than the traditional smokestack. Let's say that you operate 

a printing plant, for example. The solvents in the printing ink will be collected in a dryer, 

directed to a control device and destroyed very efficiently, thus preventing the solvents from 

contributing to smog formation. All of this happens according to applicable regulations and will 

be documented in the plant's permit. 

Page II 
43 

But, even though well over 99 per cent of the solvents will be collected and destroyed, might 

there be a little bit that escapes? Perhaps through a window? Perhaps through a vent on a wall? 

It's surely possible, even if that kind of tiny, incidental emission isn't going to endanger 

anyone's health or hurt mother earth in any way. But that's exactly the sort of "occult emissions" 

that EPA will start searching for in 2013. 

Czerniak said that EPA inspectors would be looking for occult emissions with the aid of infrared 

cameras. These cameras identify sources of heat, not actual air pollution, and it will be easy to 

find heat escaping here and there is practically any building. No matter. These points will be 

viewed as potential sources of undocumented emissions and will therefore prompt further 

investigation. 

When the EPA identifies occult emissions that it perceives to be a problem, it will use its Clean 

Air Act enforcement authority and its general power to prevent "endangerment" of any sort to go 

after offenders. This too has become a bigger part of the EPA's playbook in recent years. The 

threat of enforcement is enough to force action Gustified or not), particularly when small to midsized companies that don't have the resources to conduct protracted fights are involved. If that 

sounds an awful lot like environmental racketeering to you, well let's just say that you wouldn't 

be the first one to make that particular observation. 

There is, in summary, a big difference between solving problems and searching for problems to 

solve. As a nation, we have largely solved the environmental crisis that we faced half a century 

ago. It is time that we acknowledged that remarkable accomplishment and set ourselves upon a 

new course: one which will prevent us from ever returning to those dirty old days, but which also 

reflects the simple fact that any slight residual environmental and health risks to be addressed do 

not deserve the same level of time, attention or treasure as the big problems of yesteryear. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the committee. 

Richard Trzupek 

Page 12 
44 

Appendix A 

Sources of United States Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions 
FUEL COMB, INDUSTRIAL 978,076 1.10%1 Total Industrial

FUEL COMB, OTHER 2,705,352 3,03%1 Total Non Industrial

CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRODUCT MFG 185,605 0,21% 

METALS PROCESSI NG 840,076 0,94% PETROLEUM & RELATED INDUSTRIES 265,226 0.30% 

OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 425,362 0.48% SOLVENT UTILIZATION 5,341 0,01% STORAGE & TRANSPORT 17,829 0,02% 

WASTE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING 1,377,598 1.54% 

HIGHWAY VEHICLES 36,049,690 40.43% 

OFF,HIGHWAY 18,127,567 20,33% 

MISCELLANEOUS 20,991,031 23.54% BIOGENICS 6,474,274 7,26% 

TOTAL: 89,169,808 100,00% 

Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory, 2008 
Total Industrial

FUEL COMB. OTHER 63,326 1.45% Total Non Industrial

CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRODUCT MFG 18,719 0.43% 

METALS PROCESSING 1,989 0.05% PETROLEUM & RELATED INDUSTRIES 1,422 0.03% 

OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 56,016 1.28% SOLVENT UTILIZATION 382 0.01% STORAGE & TRANSPORT 4,959 0.11% 

WASTE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING 67,896 1.55% 

HIGHWAY VEHICLES 138,684 3.18% 

OFF-HIGHWAY 4,040 0.09% 

MISCELLANEOUS 3,969,665 90.91% 

TOTAL: 4,366,751 100.00% 

Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory, 2008 
NATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY: NITROGEN OXIDES 

FUEL COMB. INDUSTRIAL 1,470,991 7.64%1 Totallndustr;al

FUEL COMB. OTHER 582,456 3.03%1 Total Non Industr;al

CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRODUCT MFG 54,597 0.28% 

METALS PROCESSING 79,209 0.41% PETROLEUM & RELATED INDUSTRIES 432,367 2.25% 

OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 412,044 2.14% SOLVENT UTILIZATION 5,354 0.03% STORAGE & TRANSPORT 8,661 0.05% 

WASTE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING 96,833 0.50% 

HIGHWAY VEHICLES 7,134,479 37.07% 

OFF-HIGHWAY 4,516,766 23.47% 

MISCELLANEOUS 261,640 1.36% BIOGENICS 1,077,859 5.60% 

TOTAL: 19,246,094 100.00% 

Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory, 2008 
Total Industria

Total Non Industria

Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory, 2008 
Total Industrial

FUEL COMB. OTHER 369,590 6.04% Total Non Industrial

CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRODUCT MFG 20,678 0.34% 

METALS PROCESSING 63,484 1.04% PETROLEUM & RELATED INDUSTRIES 23,126 0.38% 

OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 350,472 5.72% SOLVENT UTILIZATION 3,551 0.06% STORAGE & TRANSPORT 22,067 0.36% 

WASTE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING 205,004 3.35% 

HIGHWAY VEHICLES 295,373 4.82% 

OFF-HIGHWAY 301,179 4.92% 

MISCELLANEOUS 4,012,455 65.53% 

TOTAL: 6,123,211 100.00% 

Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory, 2008 
FUEL COMB. INDUSTRIAL 1,056,343 9.76%1 Total IndustrialFUEL COMB. OTHER 283,706 2.62%1 Total Non Industrial

CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRODUCT MFG 184,667 1.71% 

METALS PROCESSING 177,173 1.64% PETROLEUM & RELATED INDUSTRIES 147,499 1.36% 

OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 252,925 2.34% SOLVENT UTILIZATION 473 0.00% STORAGE & TRANSPORT 5,559 0.05% 

WASTE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING 21,031 0.19% 

HIGHWAY VEHICLES 117,639 1.09% 

OFF·HIGHWAY 664,642 6.14% 

MISCELLANEOUS 138,980 1.28% 

TOTAL: 10,827,311 100.00% 

Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory, 2008 
109,166 0.22%1 Totallndustr;al

FUEL COMB. OTHER 380,990 0.77%1 Total Non Industr;al

CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRODUCT MFG 87,208 0.18% 

METALS PROCESSING 37,657 0.08% PETROLEUM & RELATED INDUSTRIES 1,801,334 3.63% 

OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 364,148 0.73% 

SOLVENT UTILIZATION 3,298,405 6.65% 

STORAGE & TRANSPORT 1,193,084 2.40% 

WA5TE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING 185,099 0.37% 

HIGHWAY VEHICLES 3,055,362 6.16% 

OFF·HIGHWAY 2,618,719 5.28% 

MISCELLANEOUS 4,696,390 9.47% 

BIOGENICS 31,743,796 63.98% 

TOTAL: 49,614,587 100.00% 

Source: USEPA National Emissions Inventory, 2008 
52 

Appendix B 

Sources of United States Toxic Air Pollutants 
2005 NATA l,l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 

landfill Municipal Waste Trea

Disposal Dry Cleaning 

Incineration 

Other 
2005 NATA 1/3-Butadiene Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 

Fires (Wildfires and Prescribe

m Mobile Onroad 

Mobile Nonnroad 

Residential Energy and Comb

y;;; Organic Chemical Production 

Other 
55 

I/) 

c: 

o .-

I/) 

I/) 

.-

E 

LU ... QJ 0 

c: t:; QJ Qj c.1I) 

e~ c.1: 

o ,2 ~ .... O.E 

'': ..c: .... u I: ._ 0 C U I .... 

M ~ 'l""'t'" ~ 

~~ 

« 

z 

In 

o 

o 

N 
2005 NATA 2,4-Toluene Diisocyanate Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Printing and Publishing 

Solvent Use and Cleaning 

Fiber Production 

Plastic and Metal Parts ManuPolymers and Resins Producti

Organic Chemical Production 

Furniture Manufacturing 

Consumer and Commercial P

Manufacturing, Other 

Other 
2005 NATA Acetaldehyde Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Mobile Onroad 

Fires (Wildfires and Prescribe

Mobile Nonnroad Residential Energy and Comb

Forest Products ManufacturiFood Products Manufacturin

Internal Combustion Engines 

Other 
2005 NATA Acrolein Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 

Fires (Wildfires and Prescrib

Mobile Nonnroad 

Mobile Onroad 

Waste Operations 

Residential Energy and Com

Internal Combustion Engine

Boilers & Process Heaters 

Other 
2005 NATA Acrylonitrile Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

landfill Municipal Waste Trea

Disposal 

gu Organic Chemical Production 

Polymers and Resins Productio

ffl POTW Municipal Waste Treat

Disposal 

Fiber Production 

Incineration 

Other 
2005 NATA Arsenic Compounds Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Electric Utilities 

Boilers & Process Heat

Mobile Nonnroad 

Mineral Processing, OtMobile Onroad 

Non-Ferrous Metals Pr

Incineration 

Glass Manufacturing 

Clay Products ManufacOther 
2005 NATA Benzene Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Mobile Onroad Mobile Nonnroad 

Fires (Wildfires and Prescribe

Residential Energy and Comb

23 Waste Operations 

Petroleum Product Distributi

Oil and Gas Production and D

Solvent Use and Cleaning 

Other 
2005 NATA Beryllium Compounds Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Electric Utilities 

Boilers & Process Heaters 

Residential Energy and Co

Internal Combustion Eng

Forest Products Manufac

Incineration 

Cement Manufacturing 

Mobile Nonnroad 

Non-Ferrous Metals Prod

Other 
2005 NATA Cadmium Compounds Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Electric Utilities Boilers & Process Heate

Non-Ferrous Metals Pro

Residential Energy and C

Incineration 

Inorganic Chemical Prod

?¥! Waste Operations 

Forest Products Manufa

Internal Combustion En

Mobile Nonnroad 

Iron and Steel Productio

Mining and Quarrying 

Turbines 

Mineral Processing, Oth

Other 
2005 NATA Carbon Tetrachloride Emissio

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Forest Products Manufacturing POTW Municipal Waste Treatment Polymers and Resins Production 

Organic Chemical Production 

?"5lnorganic Chemical Production 

Plastic and Metal Parts Manufactur

Boilers & Process Heaters 

Other 
2005 NATA Chlorine Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Metal Fabrication 

m Land Management 

Incineration 

Operations 

Residential Energy and Combustion 

10 Organic Chemical Production 

Iron and Steel Production 

POTW Municipal Waste Treatment 

Boilers & Process Heaters 

Inorganic Chemical Production 

Non-Ferrous Metals Production 

Electric Utilities 

Generic Chemical Production Rules Other 
2005 NATA Chromium Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Electric Utilities 

Iron and Steel Production 

Boilers & Process Heaters 

Metal Fabrication 

Mobile Onroad 

Iron and Steel Foundries 

Incineration 

Consumer and Commercial Produc

Manufacturing, Other 

"Transportation Equipment Aerospa

Mineral Processing, Other 

Transportation Equipment Auto anTruck Manufacturing 

Non-Ferrous Metals Production 

Plastic and Metal Parts Manufactur

Other 
67 

III L. 

C 0 

o 'tj "iii OJ III "e ~ Wal 

C C 

OJ 0 

> "-

o '5 

OJ:e 

~ L. 

o +-I 

U S 

j:!;u 

« +-I 

z ~ Ln ~ o OJ 

00. 

N 
2005 NATA Ethylene Oxide Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 

'i1ii Sterilization 

Solvent Use and Cleaning 

Organic Chemical Production 

m Consumer and Commercial Pro

Manufacturing, Other POTW Municipal Waste Treatm

Disposal 

Food Products Manufacturing 

Other 
2005 NATA Formaldehyde Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 1% 

Fires (Wildfires and Prescribe

Mobile On road 

/ Mobile Nonnroad 

f;0: Residential Energy and Comb

Internal Combustion Engines 

Forest Products Manufacturi

Boilers & Process Heaters 

Other 
2005 NATA Hexamethylene Diisocyanate 

Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Plastic and Metal Parts Manufacturing 

Metal Fabrication 

"Solvent Use and Cleaning 

Consumer and Commercial Products 

Manufacturing, Other 

Organic Chemical Production 

"<' Transportation Equipment Aerospace 

Electronics Manufacturing 

Transportation Equipment Manufactu

Autobody Refinishing 

, Other 
2005 NATA Hydrazine Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1!l.! Forest Products Manufac

llW Inorganic Chemical Prod

:;" Organic Chemical Produ

Metal Fabrication 

Petroleum Refining Engine Test Cells 

Other 
2005 NATA Hydrochloric Acid Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 

Electric Utilities 

Boilers & Process Heaters 

Incineration 

:rJil Waste Operations 

Forest Products Manufact

;"> Cement Manufacturing 

Iron and Steel Production 

" Other 
2005 NATA Manganese Compounds Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

YJ11ron and Steel Production 

lw. Electric Utilities 

Boilers & Process Heaters 

lit Inorganic Chemical Production 

Iron and Steel Foundries 

Consumer and Commercial Produ

Manufacturing, Other 

% Clay Products Manufacturing 

Metal Fabrication 

Transportation Equipment Manuf

Non-Ferrous Metals Production 

Forest Products Manufacturing Mineral Processing, Other 

Transportation Equipment Auto a

Duty Truck Manufacturing 

/ Organic Chemical Production 

Other 
2005 NATA Methylene Chloride Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 

i!£ Solvent Use and Cleaning 

g@Fiber Production 

Inorganic Chemical Production 

Landfill Municipal Waste Treatme

Disposal 

;0; Organic Chemical Production 

Plastic and Metal Parts ManufactuPOTW Municipal Waste Treatmen

Disposal 

Residential Energy and Combustio

Pharmaceuticals Production 

Other 
2005 NATA Naphthalene Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 

Mobile Onroad 

!I& Solvent Use and Cleaning 

Mobile Nonnroad 

Residential Energy and Com

Boilers & Process Heaters 

if; Asphalt Products Manufactu

Petroleum Product Distribut

Autobody Refinishing 

Forest Products Manufactur

IJj Waste Operations 

<; Organic Chemical Productio

"" Other 
2005 NATA Nickel Compounds Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Boilers & Process Heaters 

Electric Utilities 

Mobile Nonnroad 

Petroleum Refining 

Metal Fabrication 

Iron and Steel Production 

!Q$ Solvent Use and Cleaning 

Non-Ferrous Metals Producti

Iron and Steel Foundries 

Asphalt Products Manufactur

Mobile Onroad 

Turbines 

Consumer and Commercial P

Manufacturing, Other 

Other 
2005 NATA Tetrachloroethylene 

(Perchloroethylene) Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 1% 

:;;P; Dry Cleaning 

Use and Cleaning 

Landfill Municipal Waste Treatmen

Disposal 

:iJ'jl POTW Municipal Waste Treatmen

Disposal 

0,'{ Metal Fabrication 

,;Other 
2005 NATA Polycyclic Organic Matter 

Emissions 

1% 1% 

1% 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

Fires (Wildfires and Prescribed Bur

Residential Energy and Combustion Mobile Nonnroad 

Mobile Onroad Boilers & Process Heaters 

g::, Waste Operations 

Food Products Manufacturing 

10> Other Sectors 

Metals Production 

i2f Asphalt Products Manufacturing 

Forest Products Manufacturing 

other 
2005 NATA l,4-Dichlorobenzene Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1% 

@Solvent Use and Cleaning 

Landfill Municipal Waste Trea

Disposal 

Other 
80 

In 

£: 

o 

.-

In 

In .-

E 

w 

OJ ... 

£: .s ._ u 

o ~ ..s:::~ c. 

ii- c: 

o .S! 

E ~ o:! 

In l:; o c: ii- 0 ..,u z"C I Qj 

Z ~ 

!c:t~ 

!;:( 

Z 

Ln 

o 

o 

N 
2005 NATA Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether Emissions 

Percent Contribution By Sector 

1%0% 

0% 

Petroleum Product DistribuMobile Nonnroad Mobile Onroad Petroleum Refining 

;:;% Organic Products Distributio

;cOther 
82 

Richard Trzupek - Biography 

Richard Trzupek is a chemist, BA Loyola University of Chicago (1989). He has worked in the 

environmental industry for thirty years, first as a stack tester (measuring the amounts of air 

pollutants emitted from industrial smoke stacks) and then as an environmental consultant to 

industry. Mr. Trzupek is the author of numerous articles focusing on environmental topics and 

several books, including McGraw-Hill's Ail' Quality Permitting and Compliance Manual, and, 

most recently, Regulators Gone Wild: How the EPA is Ruining American Industry (Encounter 

Books). 
83 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, and we will move on 

to Dr. Goldstein. Welcome back. 

STATEMENT OF DR. BERNARD GOLDSTEIN, 

PROFESSOR AND DEAN EMERITUS, 

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH 

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Chairman Harris and Ranking Member Bonamici and Members of the Subcommittee. 

I certainly agree with my fellow witnesses that we have come a 

long way in almost a half a century of environmental protection, 

and I routinely teach that to my students. I know of no one who 

teaches otherwise. But it does remind me of the personal experience of being at the end of a really productive day when I should 

take satisfaction in all I have accomplished but I find that I actually have more to do than when I started. Like EPA, I am further 

behind for two reasons. There are unforeseen challenges and some 

of the tasks are even more complex than I thought they were, and 

I will enlarge on that just briefly. 

New scientific tools have allowed us to identify hazards affecting 

our health and our well-being that we cannot see or smell, but despite our progress, we have new challenges to meet. When EPA 

was formed, the term ‘‘nanotechnology’’ had not been invented and 

the term ‘‘cellular telephone’’ would not have been understood. In 

my estimations, concerns about GMO food and cancer due to cell 

phones are largely unfounded, but I can say that only because of 

the science that has been developed to explore the issues. European 

leaders would like to have our measured response to concerns 

about cell phones and frankenfoods. On the other hand, nanotechnology and other emerging technologies present real issues that 

must be addressed in order to maximize their promise of bettering 

our lives and of economic benefits while minimizing risk. 

Improvement in many aspects of air pollution is evident but 

science shows that some of the threats, notably from ozone and 

from particulates, are worse than we thought and more challenging 

to control. For both pollutants, there is ample evidence of significant adverse health effects at even lower pollutant levels and affecting more people than previously appreciated, and not just in 

the United States but from studies all over the world. Just one is 

a recent study of a large national cohort showing a statistically significant mortality increase down to levels of fine particulates that 

are well below our current standard. 

For ozone, the change in standard from 1 hour to an 8-hour averaging period reflects the regulation that American society was 

changing in a way that put more people and particularly children 

at risk. We once had geographically well-defined cities with limited 

rush hours leading to a late morning ozone peak, but traffic now 

extends throughout the day. Urban sprawl is a fact of our life and 

daylong ozone problems do exist. More recently, studies have suggested an independent association of daily ozone levels with mortality so that ozone is affecting not just our children but our adults 

as well. 

Secondly, both fine particulates and ozone are not simple end-ofpipe products but rather are transformed in the air from multiple 
84 

precursors coming from multiple sources. It is not surprising that 

each source points to another as being the major cause. We need 

to control decisions to be made on the best science, not on the best 

lobbying skills. 

Both pollutants also exemplify the challenge of significant contributions coming from multiple, small point sources, which is also 

a major problem in relation to clean water issues, which I do not 

have time to go into. An example is the rapid increase in shale gas 

drilling in local areas that are already near or above ozone or fine 

particulate standards. 

The Clean Air Act requirement that EPA review the scientific 

basis for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards every five 

years has been highly instrumental in leading to more effective 

regulation. Contrary to the repeated, and I emphasize, erroneous 

statement that the air pollution standards are routinely tightened 

by these reviews, most times the scientific review has led to no 

change in the existing standard and at times has even lead to relaxation or elimination of the standards. Revisiting standards 

should be the norm for all environmental regulation. 

Global climate change is clearly a major challenge. It is occurring. The EPA received its first funding to look at this issue from 

President Reagan in 1984 when I was at EPA as President Reagan’s appointee in charge of research and development. It was 

clearly predicted then by the National Academy of Sciences that a 

rise in global carbon dioxide would make the earth warmer and set 

in motion a variety of planetary climate changes of potentially 

major consequences to us. This prediction has been more than 

amply borne out by the temperature records, and there is no need 

to go through the fact that last year was the hottest year on record. 

Nine out of the last ten years have been the top 10 in U.S. temperature. 

Among the overall scientific community, only a relatively tiny 

handful of climate change deniers exist, and those few as well as 

those who give them undeserved credence, need to at least wonder 

as they compulsively quibble about the extent to which they bear 

responsibility for the consequences for the American public of our 

delay. The threshold for action should not be the overwhelming evidence that is already in place. The threshold should be sufficient 

evidence to take out an insurance policy to protect the American 

public. We passed that threshold a long time ago. 

Finally, I would like to talk about sustainability. I chaired a National Academy of Science-National Research Council committee. 

We began by recognizing that the increasingly complex challenges 

of today require us to make effective tradeoffs among the environment, economic and with health, and social issues. We learned 

much about the actions that are already taking place, and we have 

developed a framework, which I have here and I would be willing 

to hand out, and it is part of my written testimony, that we believe 

will lead to improving our ability to meet these increasingly complex challenges across all of the environmental areas. 

The goal asked for by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

by today’s Environmental Protection Agency, is to be able to maximize benefit while minimizing risk. We have to be able to give the 
85 

tools to EPA to cut across all these various things working with 

other agencies to make this happen. 

Finally, we can today either be optimistic about how far we have 

gone or pessimistic about the challenges of the future. Optimism or 

pessimism is classically defined in terms of whether we see the 

glass as half full or half empty. For a sustainable future, where we 

are now requires us that we must consider the glass to be twice 

the size it needs to be. We must be able to give EPA and other of 

our federal agencies the ability to right-size that glass so that we 

can move forward in the future and be able to respond to all the 

challenges we are addressing now and will meet in the future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Goldstein follows:] 
86 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Environment 

State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and 

Priorities 

February 14,2013 

Testimony 

Bernard D. Goldstein, MD 

University of Pittsburgh 

Graduate School of Public Health 

Pittsburgh, PA 15213 

bdgold@pitt.edu 

1 
87 

In thinking over the challenge of testifying about the past, present and future of environmental 

protection and public health, it seems to be reminiscent of the many times when at the end of a really 

productive day, when I should take satisfaction in all I've accomplished, I find that I actually have more 

to do than when I started the day 

I'm usually further behind for two reasons: unforeseen challenges have been added to my work load, 

and at least some of the tasks that I have worked on are even more complex than I thought they were. 

Our almost 50 years of environmental control is similar in that we can be proud about how much we 

have accomplished, but new challenges keep coming in, and we have learned so much more about how 

the environment affects our health and our social and economic well-being, that we know that there is 

much more that we can and should do. 

The evidence that our environment is improving is plain to see, and I mean that literally. Bill 

Ruckelshaus, the first head of the EPA, appointed originally by President Nixon, and then by President 

Reagan, has joked that the reason that EPA was formed was that the people in Denver wanted to see 

their mountains - and the people in Los Angeles wanted to see each other. Mountains and people can 

now be seen. Our rivers are not on fire, pesticides are being controlled to better protect our natural 

environment and our health, and we no longer are allowing hazardous waste to despoil our water and 

our local environment. The tools provided by risk analysis and by advances in the sciences of toxicology, 

exposure assessment, epidemiology and economics have allowed us to identify environmental hazards 

affecting our health and our well-being that we cannot see or smell. But, despite our progress, for air 

and water and wastes we have new challenges to meet, both because of improvements in our science in 

detecting these challenges to our health and well being; and because our world has changed in so many 

ways, including how and where we live, the technologies that we use, and our connections to the rest of 

the world. We have also recognized how closely environmental concerns and environmental controls 

are related to much broader economic and social issues. In the next few minutes I will briefly describe 

some of the progress but will focus on the lessons learned and the challenges ahead which require a 

vibrant EPA supported by a strong scientific base to ensure our future. In view ofthe limitations of time 

and space, I will focus my discussion of the past and present on clean air issues; and of the future on 

sustainability as a way to meet the challenges of the day by incorporating economic and social 

considerations into environmental control. 

Improvement in many aspects of air pollution is evident. For the six primary air quality pollutants there 

have all been significant decrements in ambient levels, reflecting the actions of states in responding to 

failure to attain standards, as well in many cases to other environmental efforts that have had the cobenefit of reducing emissions of primary air quality pollutants. But despite improvements, new science 

shows that some of the threats, notably from ozone and from particulates, are worse than we thought 

and are more challenging to control. Both of these pollutants exemplify my theme of how far we have 

come but yet how much further we need to go. 

2 
88 

For both pollutants, advancing scientific information has led to evidence of significant adverse health 

effects at even lower pollutant levels and affecting more people than previously appreciated. Some of 

these effects are of obvious clinical importance, such as acute mortality, others are more subtle yet still 

significant. 

The original 1970 outdoor air standard for particulates was based on total weight. This was the wrong 

target. Control measures, which predictably aimed at the heavier particles, did little to address fine 

particulates which are able to penetrate deeply into the lung and are responsible for the bulk of the 

adverse effects. The PM10 standard partially addressed this issue, but newer pollution measurement 

technology was needed to develop the PM 2.5 standard which more closely approximates particle sizes 

responsible for health effects. These advances in exposure science and toxicology, coupled with 

advances in the science of epidemiology, now clearly demonstrate the toll taken by fine particulates in 

the nation's health. To the evidence that daily variations in fine particulates are associated with a 

significant increase in mortality and morbidity has been added further evidence of the long term impact 

of breathing these particulates for many years. A recent study of a large Canadian national cohort 

followed for 20 years showed a statistically significant mortality increase down to levels of fine 

particulates that are well below our current standard (Crouse et ai, 2012). Their overall findings on the 

impact of an increase in lOug/m3 of fine particulates (PM2.5)on all non-accidental causes of death in 

Canada was 15%, and for deaths from ischemic heart disease was 31%. This is even larger than the 12-

14%/per 10ug/m3 increased risk of cardiovascular mortality from long term exposure estimated by Chen 

(2008) from a systematic review of US and international studies, but is similar to the findings of the large 

American Cancer Society cohort study which estimated a 1.29 relative risk for a lOug/m3 change in 

ambient PM 2.5 concentration (Krewski et ai, 2009). Notably, a more recent study by Correia et al 

(2013) reported that a decrease in 10ug/m3 in fine particulates was associated with an increase in 

overall US life expectancy of 0.35 years. 

For ozone, the change in standard from a one hour to an eight hour averaging period reflects the 

recognition that American society was changing in a way that put more people, and particularly children, 

at risk (Rombout et ai, 1986). The one hour ozone standard initially reflected the action of sunlight on 

ozone precursors that accumulated in the air during the short well-defined morning rush hour in 

geographically well-defined cities. Such limited rush hours, unfortunately, are a thing of the past as 

traffic extends throughout the day, and urban sprawl is a fact of our life. We now recognize that ozone 

levels are usually highest downwind from cities in suburban areas. We also recognize that children are 

particularly vulnerable to the effects of ozone, and that children are likely to be outdoors exercising 

throughout the warm summer days which meteorologically promote ozone accumulation. The resultant 

change to an eight hour standard also was economically more appropriate as it led to avoiding control 

strategies that lessened the one hour peak merely by spreading the ozone exposure throughout the day. 

More recently, studies strongly suggesting an independent association of daily ozone levels with 

mortality have put further pressure on reducing the ozone standard to protect public health (CASAC, 

2012). 

Secondly, both fine particulates and ozone are not simple end of pipe products but rather are 

transformed in air from multiple precursors coming from multiple sources. A broad range of industries 

3 
89 

and personal activities serve as the sources for these two pollutants. It is not surprising that each source 

points to another as being the major source. To most cost-effectively control both pollutants we need 

additional research focused on refining our ability to attribute sources. For fine particulates we have the 

added challenge of further determining the chemical and physical constituents that have the greater 

effect so we can more effectively direct control strategies. However, let me emphasize that based on 

present knowledge all sources of these two pollutants contribute to their formation and to their toxicity. 

Both pollutants also exemplify the challenge of significant contributions coming from multiple small 

point sources. As just one example, the recent rapid increase in shale gas drilling in local areas that are 

already near or above ozone or fine particulate standards presents multiple small sources that may 

impact on attaining the area-wide health-based standard. While in the aggregate their emission levels 

would be subject to usual air pollution control considerations, the activities related to any single well 

may not exceed the allowable emission thresholds. 

Estimates of the impacts of 

One additional point in regards to the control of air pollution is worth noting. The Congressional 

requirement in the Clean Air Act that EPA review the scientific basis for the standard every five years has 

been highly instrumental in leading to more effective regulation. Contrary to the repeated erroneous 

statement that the NAAQS standards are routinely tightened, in the large majority of times the scientific 

review has led to no change in the existing standard, and at times has even led to relaxation or 

elimination of standards. Revisiting standards should be the norm for all environmental regulation. 

Other Direct Sources of Environmental Pollution 

Achieving clean water also exemplifies the issue of much progress but much more to be done. Spewing 

of wastes directly into water bodies is largely a thing of the past, due in large part to command and 

control regulatory approaches that make it far more efficient to develop processes that avoid waste as 

well as to better end-of-pipe control technologies. Through experience, industry has learned that it is 

usually far more cost-effective to design to avoid waste streams. But yet the dead zones in the 

Chesapeake and the Gulf of Mexico are stubborn problems because of non-point sources. EPA has 

shifted gears to develop guidelines for nutrient runoff which need to move forward using the best 

science. Similarly, while there has been great progress in decreasing the use of land as a place to dump 

wastes, new challenges continue to appear - electronic wastes just being one example. 

Global Change 

There is no question that Global Climate Change is occurring. George Bush, in his 2007 State ofthe 

Union address noted the "serious challenge of global climate change". EPA received its first funding to 

look at this issue from President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It was well understood then that the extent to 

which sunlight radiated off of our planet into space affected surface temperature, and that carbon 

4 
90 

dioxide was a major factor in absorbing this radiation thereby keeping its warmth on the Earth. It was 

clearly predicted then that a rise in global carbon dioxide would make the earth warmer and set in 

motion a variety of planetary climate changes of potentially major consequences to human well being. 

This prediction has been more than amply borne out by the temperature records. As I am sure we are 

all well aware, 2012 was by far the hottest year ever recorded in the United States - one cou nt has us 

setting over 5 times more daily record highs than record lows. Among the overall scientific community 

only a relatively tiny handful of climate change deniers exist, and those few, as well as those who give 

them undeserved credence, need to at least wonder, as they compulsively quibble, the extent to which 

they bear responsibility for the consequences to the American public of our delay in addressing this 

important issue. But the threshold for action should not be the overwhelming evidence that is already 

in place. The threshold should be sufficient evidence to take out an insurance policy to protect the 

American public - a threshold level that we passed a long time ago. We need actions across our 

government, but particularly from congress and from EPA. These actions should fall under the heading 

of primary and secondary prevention. Primary prevention requires us to cut back on those factors 

which cause greenhouse gas emissions; and secondary prevention requires preparation to mitigate the 

consequences when they do occur. We want to avoid tertiary prevention, such as providing temporary 

homes for those affected by Superstorm Sandy, and the $70-100 billion economic consequences of such 

extreme storms. The choices are difficult and require careful evaluation of the inevitable tradeoffs. But 

it is a challenge that we must meet and we can only meet this challenge with a vibrant EPA and by a 

congress able to make tough decisions. 

let me provide an example of a contentious scientific issue which was largely resolved by the 

accumulating scientific evidence and, most importantly, by congressional action which had significant 

co-benefits. We do not hear much about acid rain any more, but in the 1970s and 1980s it was a major 

issue. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, a cooperative effort among federal 

agencies, was successful in narrowing differences among scientists such that only the occasional 

scientist would still claim either that there was acid rain was no problem at all or, on the other side, that 

we faced imminent destruction of Northeastern forests and lake systems. Congressional action, most 

notably through a cap and trade program, has been eminently successful in removing sulfur oxides and 

nitrogen oxides emissions with a resulting partial response of acid-sensitive ecosystems, as well as the 

co-benefit of significant human health benefit as it was only later that we fully recognized the 

implications of these emissions to fine particle formation (Burns et ai, 2011) 

Global climate change is just one of the major challenges to effective protection of public health and the 

environment. There will be issues that now exist but have not been adequately recognized, some real, 

some alarmist. looking backwards, household radon, a potent public health threat estimated to cause 

21,000 deaths per year, only belatedly was recognized as a health concern. This recognition has led to 

mitigation of the risk. Similarly, I was at EPA when the realization of potentially high levels of asbestos in 

schools led Congress to pass the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act. Inevitably, there will be new 

technology that will require careful consideration of potential benefits and costs. When EPA was 

formed in 1970 the term nanotechnology had not been invented and the term cellular telephone would 

not have been understood. Nor was the public concerned about "frankenfoods". In my estimation, 

5 
91 

concern about GMO foods and cancer due to cell phones is largely misplaced, but I can say that only 

because ofthe science that has been developed to explore the issue and EPA and other federal 

agencies such as NIEHS and FDA have been central to developing this science. On the other hand, 

nanotechnology and other emerging technologies present real issues that must be addressed in order to 

maximize economic benefits while minimizing risks 

What will be the new challenges? Many will come from the same driving forces of today. New 

technologies will emerge that will need to be controlled. With expansion of the global economy some of 

these new technologies will come from countries that have far less rigorous command and control of 

potential adverse consequences than are now an integral part of environmental control in the United 

States and other developed countries. We already have seen that global pollution increasing with the 

rapid growth of the Chinese economy; and we know that the world's bulk chemical industry is shifting 

toward developing countries. Population growth continues to put additional pressures on the world's 

resources in ways that are no longer limited to a single country or region, and the changing interface 

between people and the environment, along with global climate change, may well lead to new 

challenges such as emerging infections that know no geographical boundaries. Nor are geographical 

boundaries as relevant to American business, meaning that for good or bad our economic well-being is 

more tied to world forces, including the environment, than in the past. 

I have focused on EPA, but other agencies have been heavily involved in protecting human health and 

ecosystems. Scientific studies and assessments led by NIEHS and by CDC have been central to EPA's cost 

benefit analysis that finally removed lead from gasoline under President Reagan. Based on their 

knowledge, HUD and state and local agencies have begun the long overdue work needed to remove 

leaded paint from homes. HUD believes that lead abatement provides a major overall economic 

benefit. They estimated that in the first five years of operation of the Federal Residential Lead-Based 

Hazard Reduction Act the expenditure of $582 million would lead to $2.65 billion in total benefits (add 

HUD ref). But it remains shameful how little has been done to rid our society of this menace which, in 

2002, was estimated as costing the United States $43.4 billion dollars each year (Landrigan et ai, 2002). 

(This group did a similar analysis of other childhood impacts of environmental agents on asthma, 

pediatric cancer and neurobehavioral disorders which led to a total cost estimate of 2.8% of US health 

care costs). EPA's recent strategic plan to address children's environmental issues contains many 

valuable approaches to this central issue in environmental health and in sustainability (EPA, 2013) 

Economic Growth 

Evidence of the overall economic value of environmental regulation is not hard to find. Some of the 

analyses are related to putting a cost to the adverse effects of environmental agents on human health, 

such as in the examples I have described above or in a recent study by the Rand Corporation reporting 

that the costs of air pollution from shale gas drilling activities in my home area of Southwest 

Pennsylvania in 2011 were estimated as $7.2 to $32 million. Other analyses, including early studies by 

Carpenter et al (1979) relating air pollution to hospitalizations, and more recent studies by Nordhaus 

6 
92 

and his colleagues at Yale, have shown that air pollution damages exceed value added for numerous 

industrial sectors, most notably for coal-fired electric power generation. The EPA has recently released 

an SAB-reviewed report on this concluding that the overall benefits of the 1990 CAA far exceed costs 

(EPA, 2011). 

There are of course arguments among economists as to how to estimate costs and benefits associated 

with environmental regulation - or any other type of regulation. I want to emphasize one aspect of 

regulatory command and control which has major benefits to our economy that cannot be readily 

measured. Our economic growth is heavily dependent upon venture capital investment in new 

technologies. Regulation lessens the uncertainty that is a hindrance to investment. As is clear from a 

perusal of its web sites, EPA is also very much involved in helping businesses meet regulatory 

requirements and in economic savings 

Example Related to Anesthesiology 

In considering how best to present to this committee why these newer global problems are so much 

more challenging than the older ones, I remembered a study my colleagues and I performed that was 

directly related to the field of anesthesiology. This, of course, is the medical specialty of the 

distinguished chair of this subcommittee, Congressman Harris. In the 1960s and 1970s a number of 

reports in the medical literature suggested that women who worked in operating rooms were more 

likely to have spontaneous abortions and to give birth to malformed fetuses. We published, in Lancet 

(ref), evidence that energy devices used in the operating room, such as electric cauteries, X-rays and 

lasers, were causing chemical reactions with the anesthestic agents that had accumulated in operating 

room air. We hypothesized that the resulting derivatives might be responsible for developmental 

abnormalities. We did not get to follow up on these findings for a very good reason. The rules for 

hospitals changed to increase ventilation such that it is no longer possible for anesthetic gases to 

accumulate within the room, an approach which has the co-benefit of removing airborne infectious 

agents - the good news is that further studies have not shown reproductive and developmental risks in 

females working in operating rooms. This very good example of command and control simply will not 

work for global issues like climate change. One can open operating rooms to the outside, thereby 

protecting the inhabitants. There is no outside for our earth. If our hypothesis about anesthetic gases 

was correct, and the operating room was a fully closed system like our earth, the only protections would 

be within the operating room, such as preventing the release of anesthetic gases, or scavenging the 

agents within the room, or having operating room personnel wear gas masks. For global climate 

change, we must do our best to prevent the release of gases which underlay these changes, and work to 

lessen and to mitigate the effects. Ironically, the anesthetic study I described was performed in the 

operating rooms of Bellevue and University Hospitals, two of the five New York area hospitals shut down 

for more than a month by Superstorm Sandy - with an estimated $3.1 billion dollar cost to get them 

open again, as well as uncalculated consequences to the health of those dependent on the care 

provided by these hospitals. 

7 
93 

Sustain ability 

Let me start my discussion of sustainability by thanking Chairman Harris and the Committee members 

for the charge to the witnesses at today's hearing to provide testimony related to the trade-offs that are 

necessary to achieve protection of human health and the environment. Beginning in November 2011, 

chaired the National Research Council's Committee on Sustainability and the US Environmental 

Protection Agency. Our report focuses on just how to achieve these necessary tradeoffs. (NRC, 2012). 

have attached some of the power point slides developed to describe the framework developed to 

promote sustainability at the US Environmental Protection Agency. 

We began by recognizing that the challenges of today increasingly require working across the usual 

stovepipes that limit efficient response to wide-ranging multi-causal problems. We also recognized that 

there were many good examples of sustainable actions that provided social, economic and 

environmental benefits. Our approach to define sustainability was to point out that all of the 

constituent parts of sustainability are present in America's founding environmental law, NEPA, which 

was signed by President Nixon in 1969 although the word sustainability had not yet been used in an 

environmental context. We learned much from the actions of major US and global industries in 

approaching sustainability as an economically viable and even necessary component of competition in 

the 21" century (see, for example, ICCA 2012). The resultant framework, shown in the attached figures, 

has a major emphasis on metrics without which we cannot understand whether we have made 

progress, and without which we cannot make the difficult choices among the many competing 

possibilities implicit in tradeoffs among competing interests. We also emphasize the need to develop 

tools that are capable of informing decisions made by Congress and regulatory agencies. With the 

development of these tools we anticipate that the questions raised by the Subcommittee can be 

answered in a way that benefits the American environment as well as providing health and economic 

benefits 

Conclusion 

When I prepare my course lectures I often imagine how the classes I teach now will be taught decades 

from now. My guess is that the first slide on the history of environmental policy will start with 

Command and Control beginning in 1970; Risk Assessment and Risk Management beginning in 1990; 

and Sustainability beginning in 2015. In each case the process actually was gathering steam before the 

date. As we describe in our NRC report on Sustainability at EPA, there are many examples in which 

sustainability practices are already under way, in which EPA and other agencies have learned to 

maximize benefits while minimizing risks by taking into account economic, social and environmental 

issues. It is also clear that the policy tools based on Command and Control and on Risk Assessment and 

Management will inevitably need to continue into the distant future. As we look back and see how 

these tools developed, it is apparent that the dates they began could have been earlier or later, 

depending upon the willingness of the American people and of Congress to accept and utilize these 

valuable tools. But we now have no choice. If we are to prosper as a nation, if we are to protect the 

health and well-being of Americans from the broad range of environmental hazards, we must move 

quickly to develop and adopt the thinking and tools of sustainability. 

8 
94 

Finally, we today either can be optimistic about how far we have gone; or pessimistic about the 

challenges of the future. Classically, optimism and pessimism is defined in terms of whether we see the 

glass as half full or half empty. For a sustainable future, we must consider the glass to be twice the size 

it needs to be. EPA must be given a robust role if we are to right size this glass for the benefit of our 

health, our well-being and our ability as a nation to respond to future challenges 

Thank you 

9 
95 

American Lung Association. 2012. American Lung Association Applauds EPA Decision to Protect Public 

from Soot. http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/new-soot-standard-2013.html 

Burns, D.A., Lynch, J.A., Cosby, B.J., Fenn, M.E., Baron, J.S., 2011, National Acid Precipitation Assessment 

Program Report to Congress 2011: An Integrated Assessment, National Science and Technology Council, 

Washington, DC, 114 p. 

Carpenter, B. H., Bach, W. D., LeSourd,D. A., Gillette, D. G. 1979. Health costs of air pollution: a study of 

hospitalization costs. American Journal of Public Health 69(12): 1232-1241. 

Chen, H., et al. 2008. A systematic review of the relation between long-term exposure to ambient air 

pollution and chronic diseases. Rev Environ Health 23(4): 243-297. 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, CASAC Review ofthe EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for 

Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Letter to Usa P. Jackson, Administrator of the US EPA), 

2012 

Correia, A. F., Pope, C. A., 3rd, et al. Effect of air pollution control on life expectancy in the United States: 

an analysis of 545 U.S. counties for the period from 2000 to 2007. (1531-5487). 

Crouse, D. L., et al. 2012. Risk of nonaccidental and cardiovascular mortality in relation to long-term 

exposure to low concentrations of fine particulate matter: a Canadian national-level cohort study. 

Environ Health Perspect 120(5): 708-714. 

Goldstein, B. D., Paz, J., Giuffrida, J. G., Palmes, E. D., Ferrand, E. F. 1976. Atmospheric derivatives of 

anesthetic gases as a possible hazard to operating-room personnel. The Lancet. P.235-237 

International Council of Chemical Associations. The global chemical industry's contributions to 

sustainable Development and the green economy. ICCA & Sustainability. 2012. 

Utovitz, A., et al. 2013. Estimation of regional air-quality damages from Marcellus Shale natural gas 

extraction in Pennsylvania. Environmental Research Letters 8(1): 014017. 

Muller,N. Z., Mendelsohn, R., and Nordhaus, W. 2011. Environmental accounting for pollution in the 

united states economy. American Economic Review 101: 1649-1675. 

National Research Council. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. The National Academies Press. Washington, 

D.C. 2011. 

Rombout, P.J.A., Lioy, P.J., Goldstein, B.D. Rationale for an eight-hour ozone standard. J Air Pollut 

Control Assoc. 1986;36(8):913-7. 

US EPA. America's Children and the Environment. 2013. 

http://www .epa.gov /ace/ pu blications/ ACE3 jO 13 .pdf 

US EPA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Air and Radiation, 2012. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html 

10 
96 

US EPA Science Advisory Board. The Benefits and costs of the clean air act from 1990 to 2020. Air and 

Radiation. 2011. http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf 

11 
97 

12 
98 

13 
99 

14 
100 

BERNARD D. GOLDSTEIN, M.D. 

Dr. Goldstein is Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Health and 

Dean Emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. He is a 

physician, board certified in Internal Medicine, Hematology and in Toxicology. Dr 

Goldstein is author of over 150 publications in the peer-reviewed literature, as well as 

numerous reviews related to environmental health. He is an elected member of the 

National Academies of Science Institute of Medicine and of the American Society for 

Clinical Investigation. His experience includes appointment as Assistant Administrator 

for Research and Development of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983-

1985. Before coming to the University of Pittsburgh in 2001 he had been the founding 

director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, a joint 

program of Rutgers University and Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. He has 

chaired more than a dozen National Research Council (NRC) and 10M committees 

primarily related to environmental health issues.. He has been president of the Society 

for Risk Analysis, Chair of the National Board of Public Health Examiners, and has 

served as a member or chairperson of numerous -national and international scientific 

committees, including chairperson of the NIH Toxicology Study Section, _ EPA's Clean 

Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Research Committee of the Health Effects 

Institute. His recent work is primarily on health issues related to unconventional gas 

drilling, and on sustainability. 
101 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, and I want to thank 

all the witnesses for testifying. We are going to start the questioning, and I will start the round of questioning with myself. I recognize myself for five minutes for questions. 

And again, thank you all because I think you all addressed exactly what we need to address, which is look, where have we gone 

and what it is going to cost us to go further. A recent EPA report 

entitled ‘‘America’s Children and the Environment’’ found that a 

number of health hazards affecting children have declined including lead concentration, tobacco smoke exposure, children living in 

places that don’t meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

but the report also noted, concurrent with this decline, you have an 

increase in the rates of childhood asthma, and I know asthma was 

mentioned as one of the maybe chronic asthma may have gone 

down but childhood asthma has gone up despite these improvements. ADHD, autism, these have gone up. I am not sure these 

have environmental causes. We have new information all the time, 

because they are complex. 

But does the EPA have a credible scientific basis to claim that 

further regulations, and again, as we go on further with regulations, they are going to be more expensive as we go on, we have 

kind of done all the things that don’t cost very much to claim that 

further regulations will reduce asthma, which has been claimed all 

along for all the regulations that were put in place, so despite the 

regulations that we put in place, asthma has increased, when the 

record shows that again childhood asthma is increasing despite 

what we have done. Do we really have the data, the scientific data, 

and I will ask you first, Dr. Goldstein, as you suggest we need rigorous scientific data. We may know associations, but as you know 

and I know, associations are not causes. They are associations. Do 

we have the data on childhood asthma? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I think we do. Let me go back to a study that 

we did in New Jersey—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Let me just ask you then, if you think we 

have it, why has it gone up despite improvement in air quality? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, again, the study we did in New Jersey, we 

were able to clearly identify that ozone was associated with emergency room admissions for asthma and explained eight percent of 

the variability. So if you are dealing with eight percent of the variability, 92 percent is due to other things. You can cut that in half, 

and so many other things are happening with asthma including 

changes in our diagnostic criteria and whatnot, you are not going 

to see that in these big, broader trends but you will have, as we 

have, clear evidence that ozone is associated with childhood asthma, particularly during the summertime months when it is increased. So eight percent of total asthma is important and is a public health hazard that should be dealt with. 

Chairman HARRIS. But as we have improved ozone, why hasn’t 

childhood asthma gotten better? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, again, sir, if you went from eight percent 

to four percent, you change from 100 percent to 96 percent in something that isn’t very stable, that is going up and down because of 

physicians’ change in diagnosis, change in pattern. I don’t think 

that is a fair comparison. 
102 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. Ms. White? 

Ms. WHITE. I am not a scientist but I have learned that there 

are a number of studies—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Can you put your microphone on, please? 

Ms. WHITE. There are a number of studies which confound the 

association that Dr. Goldstein speaks about in terms—indeed, that 

show higher emergency room visits for asthma in the winter than 

the summer when ozone levels are drastically lower. 

Chairman HARRIS. Sure. And again, it is clearly a very complicated thing, and the problem is, is that we have testimony coming in that says we are going to save these hundreds of billions of 

dollars on childhood asthma when in fact I don’t think there is very 

good evidence that we know what the real causes are, the complex 

interactions, and it seems we are going to spend a lot of money 

when we don’t have hard evidence. 

Now, Dr. Goldstein, you previously served as the head of EPA’s 

Office of Research and Development, served for a number of years 

on the Independent Science Advisory Board, and your testimony 

even mentioned the American Cancer Society cohort studies that 

have provided the basis for nearly all the Clean Air Act regulations 

in the last few years. Do you agree with the principle that the EPA 

should not be basing major regulatory decisions on science or data 

that is not publicly available, or phrased another way, shouldn’t 

the EPA be making all this data publicly available if they are going 

to base major regulatory actions? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. It depends what you mean by publicly available. 

Certainly the peer-reviewed literature should be available and 

should be shown. If you are talking about the raw data—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, we have had issues about peer review 

here in front of the Committee so, you know, peer review is the 

eyes of the beholder who appear. As I know, I have been a peer 

reviewer, as you have been. Do you think it is not unreasonable to 

say if a major regulatory action is promulgated, that we should 

have access to the raw data? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Sir, I would—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Most of these studies are federally funded so 

I am not sure what the reticence would be. 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I would strongly oppose having the requirement 

that raw data on something that is peer-reviewed be—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you. My time is limited. 

Ms. White? 

Ms. WHITE. I think of course it should because of all kinds of reasons to look at it because of the extent to which the EPA’s use of 

that data in the study to found regulatory decision of national consequence and they rely very heavily on those two main cohorts, 

Pope and Laden, and actually dismiss toxicological studies that 

show a very different outcome. 

Chairman HARRIS. Sure. I imagine just as the FDA requires seeing the actual data. 

Mr. Trzupek, should the EPA release the data or make it publicly available? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. From my perspective, yes, of course, especially 

since my clients are required to be as transparent as humanly possible. I think at a minimum, the EPA should be required to—— 
103 

Chairman HARRIS. And most of your clients, I take it, aren’t federally funded? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. That is correct. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay, whereas the studies are. Thank you. 

Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for five minutes for questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

all for your testimony. 

Dr. Goldstein, in your testimony you mentioned, and I quote, 

‘‘the consequences to the American public of our delay in addressing the important issue of climate change,’’ and you stated ‘‘but the 

threshold for action should not be the overwhelming evidence that 

is already in place; the threshold should be sufficient evidence to 

take out an insurance policy to protect the American public, a 

threshold level that we passed a long time ago.’’ And you go on to 

discuss the three levels of prevention: primary, to cut back on the 

causes of greenhouse gas emissions, secondary, to prepare to mitigate the consequences when they occur, and then you added that 

we want to avoid the tertiary prevention such as paying billions of 

dollars to help clean up after extreme storms. So we have heard 

a lot about cost-benefit analysis in this hearing, so will you please 

discuss and expand on why it is important to consider the costs of 

all three levels of prevention you mentioned in your testimony 

when weighing the costs and benefits of environmental regulation? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you. What I have said about an insurance 

policy is basically what Mayor Bloomberg said after Hurricane 

Sandy and what the insurance industry has been saying for quite 

some time. The insurance industry is now requiring people to consider, as they give out insurance, to consider potential issues related to greenhouse gas. There is no question that it is occurring 

and there is no question that we need to look at it. 

Primary prevention is always the best. We have lots of economic 

figures. I have always been amused by the fact that they usually 

come out with a 16 to 1 ratio, which is equivalent to an ounce of 

prevention is worth a pound of cure. We need to be able to prevent 

and we need to prevent by basically cutting down on greenhouse 

gas emissions in a way that is cost-effective. We can do it, we 

should be doing it but we need to really push hard to make it happen, and Congress needs to be involved. 

Secondly, we need to improve the resilience of our communities. 

We need to be able to be responsive to these issues. I chair a piece 

of the BP settlement, which at the request of the BP lawyers and 

the plaintiffs’ lawyers that is providing—it is the Gulf Region 

Health Outreach Program, which is aimed at improving resilience 

on the assumption that there is going to be another major disaster 

in there and the community and the physicians and everyone else 

should know better to be able to deal with this. These are the kind 

of efforts that we need, but we shouldn’t have to wait for a major 

disaster to cause litigation to fund it. We need to be able to build 

resilience now so that people can respond. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Trzupek and Mrs. White, you both have been on the regulatory side of environmental issues for a long time and you both 

suggest in your testimony that the regulations that EPA is currently pursuing are onerous, not shown to yield many benefits, and 
104 

both of you assert in one form or another that the EPA may be exaggerating some of the health benefits and basically incorrectly 

evaluating the value of statistical life and health benefits. So I 

wonder if you could consider the high cost of health care in this 

country and the impact that that has on our deficit. Won’t the cost 

of reducing air and water pollution yield savings to the health care 

sector and save this country money? 

Ms. WHITE. I would be happy to respond. If you conclude, as I 

do, after an attempt to really scour how EPA builds their cost-benefit analyses, if you believe that they are imputing health risks at 

levels so low, way below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, that there are probably not any measurable health benefits. 

Then the cost is not justified. And I give you an example. From the 

mercury rule, Utility MACT, as it is often known, EPA has acknowledged that it is probably the most expensive rule, single rule, 

that they have adopted to date, something like that I believe at 

adoption—at proposal they said it would be $11 billion in compliance costs, and adoption, I think they took that down to 10.6 or 

something like that. When you look in the Federal Register, not interpretation, but you look at the numbers where they get very technical, EPA acknowledges that .004 percent of what they calculate 

as benefit come from reduction of mercury and the others, all the 

other, which is, what, 99 plus plus plus, come from coincidental 

benefits from reducing fine particulate matter. Then I don’t see 

how—what EPA calls the most expensive rule to date, which the 

National Electric Reliability Commission and others have said has 

most risk of electric reliability across the country because of the 

rule may lead to a rapid closure of a significant part of the older 

coal-fired power plants, then to me, the costs far outweigh the benefits. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I am afraid my time has expired, so if I could 

ask Mr. Trzupek to respond perhaps in writing? 

Chairman HARRIS. We will probably have a second round of 

questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, the Vice 

Chairman. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for taking the time to be with us today, Mr. Trzupek. 

I am envious that you will get off your Valentine’s with only a simple dinner. I am afraid mine will be much more expensive than 

that. 

I am a former Air Force pilot. I would like to come at this at a 

30,000-foot level, if we could. I actually would love to talk to you 

about the relationship between state and federal regulators. That 

was my original intent here. But I would like to follow up on Ms. 

Bonamici’s question and re-attack this, if we could, again from a 

very broad perspective. 

I think most of us recognize that in a perfect world, we would 

be able to live without any environmental impacts at all, that we 

wouldn’t contribute to those, that we wouldn’t have any negative 

impacts, but of course, the real world, that is not the case. There 

is a tradeoff between our economic vitality between our way of life 
105 

that we have come to expect and the great benefits of that and the 

environmental impacts of that. So the question I have, and of 

course, the great challenge that we have is balancing these tradeoffs between the economic and the environmental impacts, and I 

would like to ask you again in a big-picture sort of way, do you 

think we do a very good job at that, measuring the true economic 

impacts? Dr. Goldstein, you talked about the insurance. Well, if you 

have a $100,000 house, but it costs you $150,000 to insure that 

house, what is the true benefit of doing that? So do you think we 

do a good job of looking at the economic impacts? Has it become 

overly politicized, and ultimately, how can we do better at that? 

And Ms. White, could we start with you then? 

Ms. WHITE. I don’t think we do a very good job of that, and it 

is difficult to do. I think specifically in estimating costs, there 

should be a broader number of variables other than just compliance 

costs. But even more, I think we do a poor job of evaluating the 

benefits because ultimately when EPA promulgates a regulation, 

they are making a decision about unacceptable risk, which has so 

many different parts of it. Science, of course, is primary but science 

cannot give you a transparent point at which risk is acceptable. 

That to me is really a policy decision, and I think when Congress 

made those decisions—there is parts of the Clean Air Act that are 

very specific, and that is, I think, how we got lead virtually eliminated, the incredible success of the acid-rain program. That was 

when there were more prescriptive terms in the statute that bound 

EPA, that was the result of very heated debates by our elected representatives but they set implicitly or explicitly that risk level, and 

I think that is very, very important as in my judgment, the regulations that EPA is promulgating over the last four years have a 

measurably higher cost. 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Trzupek? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I think there are two things. One, all of the costs, 

benefits that the EPA claims are spreadsheet costs. They are theoretical costs. Nobody can put a witness in front of you who says my 

life was saved because I had one less microgram per meter of fine 

particulate ingested in my body. It is all on paper. The other thing 

is, it does not—none of these cost-benefit analysis factors in lost opportunity costs. There are great swaths of our industrial sector that 

have virtually disappeared from this country, not solely because of 

the EPA regulations but in large part because of them. We sell, for 

example, state-of-the-art, cleanest, most efficient coal boilers in the 

world to China but we don’t build them here, we don’t install them 

here. We don’t have that industry burgeoning here, which makes 

no sense for the environment or the economy, and there is many, 

many examples of that. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, looking at it as a non-economist, I look at 

this from the point of view of what kind of numbers are coming 

that are believable and not believable. So what we have got is a 

number of 230,000 over 30 years as pointed out by Ms. White as 

being something that she doesn’t believe. She feels it is an overestimate of what the fine particulates is responsible for deaths, 

230,000 over 30 years. Ms. White has told you that benzene is a 

major problem. I have published over 100 papers on benzene. Yes, 
106 

I like to hear that. But Ms. White, using the same methodology, 

EPA has looked under section whatever of the Clean Air Act as required to do cost-benefit, did the same methodology for cost-benefit 

on benzene, looked specifically at the Houston area because of all 

the great things that have been done there of how many lives have 

been saved over that 30-year period. We have heard from Mr. 

Trzupek that EPA likes to exaggerate, so what number did they 

come up with? They came up with three: three lives over 30 years 

using the same methodology, going through the same science advisory board that basically beats the hell out of them each time about 

are you doing this right, and they came up with three. So frankly, 

they are not exaggerating. They can’t possibly have come up with 

three for them and for Houston and for 230,000 probably work out 

to 3,000 lives would be their estimate for there. You have got 

1,000-fold difference and yet you are saying that we ought to focus 

on benzene, which I would like to see, but also we want to focus 

on benzene rather than on fine particles? Makes no sense at all. 

Mr. STEWART. Doctor, if I could, just very quickly in 5 seconds, 

I am assuming from your answer that you believe that they do do 

a good job of evaluating those economic impacts? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I do believe—I don’t believe the number 230,000. 

I don’t know whether to believe it or not, but I do believe that it 

is a lot bigger than the benzene number, and I do believe that one 

cannot accuse EPA of routinely overestimating if it says that for a 

30-year period or equivalent to a 30-year period for the entire 

Houston-Galveston area three lives were saved from its benzene actions when that is using exactly the same methodology that it has 

used for fine particles. 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize my colleague from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking 

Member, and also thank you to our witnesses. 

You know, I said I read all of your testimony, and I will just say 

for the record, I am a proud member of the Sierra Club. I was on 

the board of the League of Conservation Voters, both in Maryland 

and nationally. I love the work of the National Resources Defense 

Council. I worked with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I care 

deeply and passionately about my environment, and not because of 

a prophet of doom, not because I am a socialist, not because I am 

an alarmist or an extremist, not because I shriek, not because I am 

ecoradical or a hysterical enviro type, and not because I am part 

of a green tyranny, and so I would hope that we could actually 

have a conversation about the environment and the importance of 

the government’s role in regulating our environment for our clean 

air and our clean water because people like me who have been advocates for our environment come from it because we are concerned 

citizens in our community. 

I look at the work that I have done over the years living in the 

metropolitan Washington area that is not anywhere near my colleague’s district on the Eastern Shore and yet I care deeply about 

protecting our Chesapeake Bay from stormwater runoff that is created here in the metropolitan area because we have such huge impacts. Now, that doesn’t impact my community but it does impact 
107 

my state where hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk, where 

our bay could have been dead had it not been for the great work 

of the Environmental Protection Agency and our state in making 

sure that we preserve and protect our bay, and where billions of 

dollars of commercial interests are at stake if we don’t protect that 

bay for jobs and our overall economy. And so I hope we can get way 

from the name calling and really focus truly on what it is going to 

take from all of us in business, industry, in the private sector, in 

our federal and state governments and our local communities to 

preserve and protect our environment, to clean our air and our 

water. 

When I was a young working mother, I caught a bus on the side 

of a road, a highway, and every day I would stand there with my 

son in a stroller while the emissions were pouring out of every single vehicle going across the highway, so do I think it is a great idea 

that those emissions are now regulated, that our air is getting 

cleaner? It is not quite there yet. Do I think it is a good idea that 

we have made investments in clean fuel transportation so that people like me, young moms standing on the side of the road to catch 

a bus, are they and their children breathing in that air? Absolutely 

I do, and the role of the Federal Government is to make sure that 

it protects citizens like me. 

And so with that, I want to ask Mr. Trzupek a couple of questions. In your testimony, you stated that the environmental industry agree that we are at a crossroads but solutions operate at two 

extremes. You state further that if you don’t support new environmental initiatives and every new EPA program, then you therefore 

support a return to the bad old days of unlimited, unrestrained ecological damage. What exactly is the other extreme of that argument 

that you posit, and have you heard such an argument ever presented in this Committee or this Congress? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. By this Committee and this Congress, no, and I believe I qualified that statement, that there are certain environmental extremists who are invested in this kind of culture of doom 

and that that is the message that we hear, I hear from that end 

of the spectrum. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so who are those people exactly? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. Who are those people? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I hear that from environmental activist groups. I 

have heard that from Sierra Club members. I have had that debate 

with the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club. I have heard that from 

NRDC and others. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, as I said, I mean, I am a member of one of 

those groups and I am neither an extremist or an alarmist but I 

am concerned about our environment. 

Also in your testimony, as you said, you have provided a fair 

amount of criticism to the Sierra Club, the NRDC, researchers, 

academia and industry. You said that, ‘‘the relevance depends on 

them discovering, quantifying and publicizing sources of risk.’’ Do 

you think that they are making it up? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I think they are vastly exaggerating it. We live in 

a world of risk. There is risk associated with the emissions from 

our own breath. You can find a few parts per billion the pollutants 
108 

that people would say that is a carcinogen in your own breath. I 

think it is the magnitude of risk that is routinely exaggerated. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I mean, what you have just described is actually way more extreme than I have ever heard in any of my Sierra Club meetings. You have also stated that it is the advantage 

of some commercial sectors to create a climate of fear. What do you 

mean by that? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I mean that there are people, and you will see the 

commercials like for example, an indoor air purifier that uses ozone 

to purify the indoor air, the very pollutant that Dr. Goldstein and 

others have said we need to protect ourselves from, and—but people sell those kind of products, taking advantage of that kind of climate of fear, that your air is bad inside so you need this protect. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I know my time has expired. Can you just tell me 

your scientific background and your scientific research background 

that qualifies you to make those statements? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I am a chemist. I don’t have a scientific research 

background, and my experience has wholly been in the field of air 

quality for the past 30 years. I have participated in EPA committees. I have taught a number of classes at different universities 

and for different organizations. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And for the record, you have also challenged climate science as pseudoscience but you haven’t done any climate 

science research, right? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I haven’t done any climate science research. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kathleen, good to see 

you. 

A quick question for each three of you. Is it possible to have too 

much clean air or clean water? 

Ms. WHITE. That is often said, why do we worry about regulation 

because you can’t be clean enough. In a perfect world, if we were 

not constrained by space, time and resources, that would be true, 

but I find human life is—and my father used to say nobody gets 

out of this alive—is fraught with dangers and all kinds of risks 

that we make all kinds of decisions about. I think when—again, 

what I call the most robust sciences that can really demonstrate 

causation, the impact of a certain pollutant level on the way the 

lungs and heart work. When that is absent from the manner in 

which EPA sets regulatory limits or calculates benefits, and I will 

give you an example, and we have talked on and off and we have 

been answering questions about fine particulate matter. EPA gets 

to this number of 230,000, if that was the number, Dr. Goldstein, 

lives at risk of early deaths, the phrase they use, by going way 

below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards by law the 

Clean Air Act requires those are set to protect public health with 

a margin of safety regardless of benefit, very conservative standards as they are stipulated in federal law. EPA finds risks way 

below that in these epidemiological studies that show a correlation 

between a change in death rate and a fine particulate matter level 

way below that lowest measure of the study down to zero, and 

when they did that, what statisticians call extrapolation, you go 
109 

from where you have data, you assume, well, if I have it here, I 

bet that goes to the unknown, that increased the number of socalled early deaths from 88,000 fourfold to 320,000. That I do not 

think justifies regulation that impacts the whole economy. 

Mr. WEBER. So Mr. Trzupek, I will get you to weigh in on it. Let 

me ask the question this way. It is probably not possible to have 

too much clean air and too much clean water but it is possible to 

have too much or too many regulations which negatively impact 

our productivity in such a way that the benefits are far outweighed 

by the costs. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I would. At some point you hit a point of diminishing returns. Since we are talking fine particulate, I will highlight the recent boiler MACT regs that were finalized by EPA, 

which affect industrial boilers. Fine particulate reduction attributable to boiler MACT is 0.3 percent of all the fine particulate yet 

we hear what a massive benefit this would be. Well, if that is true, 

the majority of fine particulate in the air, according to EPA’s own 

data, the vast majority comes from what they call miscellaneous 

sources. Those are non-transportation, non-industrial sources. 

Those are natural sources and consumer products and everything 

else. Well, if that .3 percent reduction is really as incredibly worth 

it as EPA says, we should go after that 96-plus percent from natural and other sources, and obviously we are not going to do that. 

That makes no sense. We have gotten all the low-hanging fruit, 

and there is very little point for going for those things that have 

such a monumentally small benefit. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, and I will ask you the same, Dr. Goldstein. 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I think Ms. White basically has given the answer. Eighty-eight thousand deaths above the threshold is a very 

major public health problem. We have to meet that problem. But 

of course, sir, there is certainly no need to get the very last molecule of benzene out of the air. We can have one molecule. 

Mr. WEBER. So you can have overregulation? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Of course. 

Mr. WEBER. The best way to have a perfect clean air and water 

in the world, you talked about, Kathleen, was maybe to move to 

the Pacific Ocean on an island. Now, your quality of life may be 

really reduced but you will have perfect clean air and clean water. 

You know, in Texas, we have got 1,300 people a day moving 

there. I think they are voting with their feet. We have done a good 

job of cleaning up our air and water, and Kathleen White would 

know that firsthand. We believe that the TCEQ, our environmental 

regulatory agency, the second largest one in the world, who was 

proactive—actually, it was train wreck, or TNR—— 

Ms. WHITE. TNRCC. 

Mr. WEBER. TNRCC, we called it, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and then the Texas Water Quality Board 

before that back in the 1960s, was it, Kathleen, 1970s? 

Ms. WHITE. Sixties—well, and this is a state issue, but the legislature combined our health and human services agency with the 

water agency. 

Mr. WEBER. So we were environmentally friendly. What is that 

old country and western song? ‘‘I Was Country before Country Was 
110 

Cool’’? Texas was actually environmentally friendly before it was 

fashionable, before being green was fashionable. 

Ms. WHITE. We had a state clean air act before the federal clean 

air act. 

Mr. WEBER. And our economy shows that. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber, and we 

have time, I think, for a second round of questions, and I will open 

that second round and recognize myself for five minutes for that. 

Ms. White and Mr. Trzupek, an important check or important 

checks on EPA science are independent scientific advisory panels 

like the agency’s Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. In your view, are these bodies independent and objective? Because obviously we want to have independent, objective bodies, panels reviewing data before we come up 

with costly regulations. Are they? 

Ms. WHITE. It is very difficult for anyone to be 100 percent objective, but from what I have learned on many of these panels, unfortunately, the majority, if not all of them, sometimes derive a significant portion of their income or almost all of their income or the 

institute at which they work from EPA studies, and so it seems to 

be—in fact I think on some of those panels, people from a state like 

me would love to see like state regulators and a much broader 

group from that and also people from more diverse scientific disciplines, which has also been recommended by the National Academy of Science. 

Chairman HARRIS. Mr. Trzupek? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I would agree. From my perspective, everybody has 

their own particular blinkers on, and I would include myself. We 

all do. But in my opinion, CASAC especially is very heavily weighted on the academic, environmental advocate side with very little 

checks in CASAC on that particular perspective, and I would like 

to see them particularly reformed. 

Chairman HARRIS. Dr. Goldstein, you have helped to appoint and 

serve on these scientific advisory bodies, and my observation in 

medicine is not every good doctor is in an academic institute. Some 

actually are in private fields and they bring something to the table 

there and they add to the subject, so would you object to the inclusion of qualified scientists or more qualified scientists from the private sector serving on these panels addressing Ms. White’s complaint that it appears there is a little inbreeding going on? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, as long as I can qualify it by saying that 

Ms. White is, I think absolutely wrong by saying that the EPA is 

funding most of these scientists if the majority of the funding 

comes from EPA. I think the head of Research and Development 

at EPA would love to have the kind of funding hat would allow 

them to give the majority to CASAC members. In fact, CASAC’s 

members are folks who are funded to a large extent by the—to the 

extent that they are academic, by the National Institutes of Health 

and others. 

I will tell you that CASAC, at least when I chaired it, had a requirement from Congress that it have at least one of its seven 

members be a state official involved with air pollution and another 

be a physician. 
111 

Chairman HARRIS. What about particularly private sector? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I don’t think there is a requirement for private 

sector—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Do you think that there ought to be? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I don’t know if there should be a requirement 

but we always had someone from the private sector on there, and 

I would strongly support that. 

Chairman HARRIS. Let me ask you two follow-up questions, 

something we have heard before, because the question was, well, 

are they radical environmentalists who propose some of things. 

Well, look, we had Josh Fox in his hearing room, who published 

Gasland. Dr. Goldstein, you are laughing. I am going to ask you, 

have you reviewed the EPA findings on Pavillion and Parker County and Dimock and all the rest? I mean, they come back and say 

basically there is no scientific basis for saying what we have said, 

walking it back. Do you think there is a sound scientific basis for 

their initial findings at Pavillion? I don’t know, you may not have 

read the report and it may not be a fair question. Have you read 

the report? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Not the final report. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay, because it has a lot of benzene mentioned in it actually. But, when we talk about the huge costs of 

going to the next step in some of the Clean Air Act requirements 

and regulations, the $10 billion cost mentioned for the mercury 

rule, you know, the opportunity costs that Mr. Trzupek mentions 

are true because if we take those $10 billion instead of investing 

it in that, we invest it in research to address why childhood asthma, you know, what are those other 96 percent or 94 percent, I 

mean, what is the real cause, it is very complicated. I mean, we 

could boost the NIH research budget 20-fold probably for asthma 

or maybe 40-fold. I don’t know. There is an opportunity cost loss 

when we decide that we are going to go down one pathway to regulate and spend and not use that money to perhaps more carefully 

define a complex scientific basis for solving our air and water quality. What do you think, Dr. Goldstein? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, I agree with you up to the point of saying 

that first of all from the 1960s since I have been involved in it, I 

have heard over and over again these same arguments and then 

industry retreats from them, as it turns out that in fact they can 

do it at far less cost. And second of all, I have yet to see an example where Congress has moved money from one separate branch 

that is controlled by one committee to another branch. I have yet 

to see that kind of thing happen that you described. 

Chairman HARRIS. That is a valid argument, very valid. 

I recognize Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We had a lot of discussion about the role of industry in developing innovative technologies to reduce emissions, and I know, Ms. 

White, in your testimony you talked about prosperity and the importance of prosperity and how Los Angeles did a better job than 

China. I just wanted to suggest that perhaps that is because we do 

have strong environmental laws and regulations that motivate that 

innovation. 
112 

I wanted to ask Dr. Goldstein to follow up a little bit about lead 

because Ms. White said a couple of times that lead has been virtually eliminated, and I wanted you to discuss the studies about 

that and also isn’t there still work to be done? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, yeah, ‘‘virtually eliminated’’ is simply too 

strong a term, I think, for what happens still in communities that 

have a lot of lead burden in their homes. Again, as a teacher, when 

I teach about environmental justice, I usually make the point that 

if something that was affecting the IQ of America’s children was 

built into, say, suburban housing post war, say, the Formica tops, 

the tables, we would have gotten all that out by now. We haven’t 

done that with the lead yet, and we still have homes with lots of 

lead. We still have kids who are affected. We have—I put in my 

testimony HUD’s cost-benefit analysis of the tremendous value of 

taking the lead out of childhood homes. We simply haven’t done it 

yet. So to say it is virtually eliminated, that is true for me, but it 

is not true for important segments of our population. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And just to follow up, how much certainty was 

there in the science about reducing lead in the 1970s when the 

studies began? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, in the 1970s and the 1980s, people have 

forgotten that the Reagan Administration took the last lead out 

and was based on a cost-benefit analysis that OMB bought and 

that it was costing more to have lead in than before, and that is 

at a time that CDC did not have as stringent a requirement as it 

has now based upon the new data. So that the lead issue, we were 

late on that as we have been late on a lot of these issues that we 

recognize now were causing significant adverse effects as I think I 

have testified that we are late on the global climate issues as well. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, when you gave your opening statement, I like 

your turn of phrase, ‘‘the greatest story never told,’’ and of course, 

you were referring to a number of ways in which the United States 

environmental metrics have been going the right direction. We still 

need to do better in a lot of areas but there is a lot of good news 

out there and sometimes that good news is ignored. 

Ms. White, I guess I can say Director White or Commissioner 

White, I wanted to address my first question to you, and you went 

into more detail in your written statement and I think you mentioned water qualify briefly in your oral statement, but I would like 

to go back and ask you if you feel that our water quality is important and how you can quantify that? 

Ms. WHITE. And that is a difficult question. I think there is far 

better federal data on trends in air quality than there is in water 

quality, and for somewhat understandable reasons, I don’t know 

what the extent of—how many hundreds of thousands of miles of 

every stream, small stream and then big river but there are a couple markers which I think again underlines a positive trend, a job 

not over, a regulatory job not over but very positive trends. We regulate public drinking water systems for, I think it is over 100 different contaminants, which is a good thing. We have very, very 
113 

safe, and I believe as far as the last data I saw from EPA, 94 percent of all the public water systems in this country have perfect 

compliance with all the standards. 

Chairman SMITH. How does that compare to, say, five years ago 

or ten years ago? 

Ms. WHITE. Ten years ago, I think it was something like 70 some 

were full compliant so there has been a 20 percent—— 

Chairman SMITH. Can you get me the data on that—— 

Ms. WHITE. I would be happy to. 

Chairman SMITH. —compared to today’s 94 percent compliance 

with, say, five years ago, ten years ago, whatever it might be? 

Again, I like the trend, which is encouraging. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Trzupek, I wanted to ask you about air quality. You mentioned that that has been improved. The EPA actually says there 

has been great progress, although they say almost half the American people live in counties where there is an unacceptable level of 

air pollution. I wonder if this is a situation where both statements 

are accurate or if you challenge the data that the EPA is using. 

Mr. TRZUPEK. Well, that statement is possible only because of redefinition of the term ‘‘clean air.’’ Over the last 40 years, there has 

been 18 instances where the EPA has looked at National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. In 10 of those, they have either reduced the 

standard or added additional standards that effectively did the 

same thing. So when you say you have all of these counties where 

people are living with unhealthy air, it requires that continual redefinition to make that happen. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

And Mr. Goldstein, you mentioned, and we have heard about it 

many times recently including in the State of the Union address 

by the President, that several of the last few years are the warmest 

on record. Also, of course, if you look at the last 15 years or so, you 

see that the temperature has flatlined and has not gone up during 

that time despite predictions that it was going to do so. But my 

question to you is this, and I don’t know the answer myself—I have 

asked it to a number of people and gotten a number of different 

answers. This goes to global warming, and to what factors do you 

attribute global warming? And if you can break it down as a percentage, that would be great too. You have human activity. You 

may have the influence of solar activity. You may have the influence or the historical cycles of temperatures going up and down, 

and of course, when we say it is the warmest on record, it depends 

on how far back you are going in the record too because it has been 

warmer before as well. But to what do you attribute global warming? Can you break it down and quantify it, or not break it down 

but give me what percentages is attributable to human, maybe to 

solar, it may be cyclical, or is it even possible to get to an answer? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Everything I read gives the overwhelming 

amount to humans. We have had, I think in the last—if you look 

at the temperature records in the United States from, I guess, we 

are well over 150 years now, we have got the 10 highest of those 

150, nine of them are in the past decade and the other one was in 

the 1990s. Something is happening. 
114 

Chairman SMITH. Well, that is true but as Mr. Trzupek just 

pointed out, if you change the standards or the methodology, you 

might end up with different results than you would have otherwise. 

But let me go back to my question again. Can you break down— 

I mean, you feel that most of it is attributable to human activity. 

Is it 51 percent, is it 91 percent? Does anybody know? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Sir, I am not sure. I do know that to the extent 

that it is due—if it is due at all to a natural cycle involving the 

sun, we can’t do anything about that. To the extent that it is due 

to human activity, and it is a very large extent, then we can do 

something about that part, and so whether it is 83 percent or 72 

percent or—— 

Chairman SMITH. Well, is the human contribution from the 

United States—everything I read is that it is below one percent, it 

may even below a half a percent. Is that generally accurate? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. No, I don’t think so at all, sir. 

Chairman SMITH. What part of it would—— 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I would say I would not—I am not an expert on 

that, but the—— 

Chairman SMITH. So we don’t know how much people in the 

United States contribute to global warming? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, by ‘‘we’’, if you are asking me individually 

if I can tell you right now, the answer is I can’t, but if I could go 

and look at the literature and look at what the various groups that 

have looked at this from, as I say, during President Reagan’s day, 

the National Academy of Sciences in 1984. We can give you what 

is the range of—— 

Chairman SMITH. Like I said, I have read it is below one percent, 

but I will wait to see if you feel differently. 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I would be happy to send—— 

Chairman SMITH. Your answer is you don’t know right now? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I am willing to bet it is not one percent. I would 

be happy to review it and send you the materials, sir. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I recognize Mr. Stewart from Utah. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, I would like to maybe shift gears just a little bit, a 

little bit of focus, and bring in some examples and then maybe a 

question from that. I have worked for many years in the energy 

sector in environmental consulting. Energy development, I think 

most of us would agree it is a wonderful thing for us on many levels. It has the potential to revolutionize our world both economically and from a national security perspective as well. In recent 

years, the EPA has taken a fairly aggressive approach to some of 

the technologies that have allowed us to take advantage of some 

of our resources and has initiated lawsuits that were quite troubling to many people and some of these accusations made in their 

environmental impacts, and then of course, in virtually all these 

cases with fracking, the courts have not sided with the EPA and 

have decided that the science that they had based that on was not 

reliable. 
115 

Another example of the point of my question is, Ms. Jackson has 

been quoted, and of course, this has created a lot of emotion for 

people, talking about some of the pollutants and the best advice— 

she said the best advice I can give you is don’t go outside, don’t 

breathe the air, it might kill you. These types of actions or public 

statements, again, people look to these people as leaders. They look 

to them as affecting public policy and they take seriously what they 

say. And I would ask you, do you think it harms public policy? Do 

you think it harms our confidence in these leaders, these environmental leadership when they take actions or when they make 

statements like this that create fear and concern in the public and 

yet prove not to be true? 

Ms. WHITE. I say this from the perspective as a former chief of 

the state’s large environmental agency. I think a fundamental responsibility in that job is to meaningfully, accurately communicate 

to the public and not to use a kind of rhetoric that invokes nothing 

but fear and people may credibly disagree about the degree of pollution and its impact on health and all of that, but you never, I 

don’t think—to say it more appropriately, you rarely ever hear senior EPA officials try to communicate to the public the extent of the 

progress we have made, and again, not that we are finished with 

it, not that regulation does not play a role, but I think it is—I give 

you the example of mercury, which, as I think is a great concern 

to women who are having children or have young children because 

they are the most vulnerable, and when you have—again, it doesn’t 

mean caution. It is an area where I would use the precautionary 

principle of course but when you have now like the Center for Disease Control study that shows in a national blood survey—again, 

they are never perfect but a national blood survey that the average 

levels are way below what is even the EPA’s extremely strict standard. Those kind of things should be communicated to the public. 

Mr. STEWART. Dr. Goldstein, understanding that there is some 

disagreement among the witnesses, and we respect that, perhaps 

some of us here. When you hear these types of statements or when 

you see these types of actions initiated through the courts, which 

are not borne out, does that make you cringe a little bit? Do you 

think it hurts the advocacy, or what is your reaction to that? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. No question, we need to be based upon the best 

science and there is no question that there are bureaucratic things 

that are inappropriate. I can sit down over a drink and we can 

compare the U.S. EPA with my university as to which have the 

most bureaucratic inefficiencies built into it. So I don’t doubt that 

you can reason by anecdote—— 

Mr. STEWART. You are going to have to buy a lot of drinks. 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I have been to a lot of universities. 

But, the issue of the EPA’s aggressive approach on fracking, from 

where I sit in southwestern Pennsylvania, I don’t see any slowdown whatsoever based on anything that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency has done. So in terms of getting things right, I 

do not see the slightest bit of impact of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency on how people are going about fracking except 

their concern that if they do it wrong, they are going to cause regulation to occur. 
116 

Mr. STEWART. Yeah, exactly, and I agree with you, and the concern wasn’t the impacts because it turned out there wasn’t reason 

to slow that. My biggest concern was the public perception and the 

public concern and fear that was created by some of their statements and some of the accusations that they had made. 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Sir, we recently have a paper accepted for publication where we looked at what people were complaining of who believe that they have been adversely affected, and that is not an unbiased sample, but what are they complaining of and what is 

stressing them the most and 5, 10, 20 percent are saying they are 

being stressed by the noise, by seeing the trucks and whatnot. 

About 60, 80 percent, I don’t remember the exact number, are saying they are being stressed by the fact that they think industry is 

lying to them. They think that things are being kept secret from 

them by industry. So we have got a situation in which—and I can 

tell you that the chemical industry folks that I speak to say that 

they think that the drilling industry and how they have gone about 

this, they are aghast at how poorly they have handled this. So 

what I see are people who believe that there is a problem because 

of what industry and state government is telling them, not because 

of what the federal government is saying. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I recognize Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. I want to follow up on what Mr. Stewart said, Dr. 

Goldstein, and I know that Kathleen Hartnett White will remember this, and you may too. There was a Region 6 EPA administrator who made the statement that in dealing with industry, you 

do like the Romans do when they invaded a country, you crucify 

the first five and then the rest of them will fall in line. Do you 

think that hurts the credibility? Do you think that adds to the 

public’s perception that something is very, very bad wrong in this 

country? Do you think that furthers EPA’s, if you will, mandate? 

I hate to use that word. 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. All right. Well, I am glad to get you on record 

as saying that. 

Let me go back to my earlier comments about it is not possible 

to have too much clean air and clean water but we can overregulate and we can negatively impact our quality of life. You know, we 

have got a study, for example, that shows in China it is no news 

to anybody that they are growing leaps and bounds and they are 

manufacturing coal plant, coal facilities. I think it was Mr. Trzupek 

that said we manufacture that clean-air technology over here but 

then we export it to China. And China has on the drawing board 

over 500,000 megawatts of coal generation in the coming years, and 

of course, you can take it over to India which also has over 500,000 

megawatts. You drop back to the United States, which has only 

20,000. Do you really believe, Dr. Goldstein, that if we negatively 

impact our industry and we put stringent requirements on them 

that those countries abroad are going to follow suit? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. I really don’t know how to answer. I don’t know 

what is going to happen. I do know that all of the studies that have 

been done in countries that have gone through rapid development, 
117 

for instance, in Korea, show that in retrospect, they would have 

preferred to have more environmental controls. It costs them more 

money. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me—— 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Forget the health. It costs them more money. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me help you. You can answer it yes or no. Do 

you believe they are going to follow suit? I think we would have 

to agree no, they are not going to follow suit. We are going to negatively impact our industry over in this country. Mexico is not going 

to follow suit. If you believe that those emissions waft over here 

from Mexico—I was on the environmental reg committee in the 

State of Texas and was aghast to hear some of the rules that the 

EPA was promulgating. 

And Mr. Trzupek, I will direct this question to you. In the Texas 

legislature, we passed a bill that said before the TCEQ could promulgate rules on the industry, that they had to do what we would 

call an industry impact analysis to take into account. Would you 

think that would be good legislation on the federal level? 

Mr. TRZUPEK. I think that would be excellent legislation on the 

federal level, and I think Texas’s success and their remarkable economic growth and while protecting the environment, it is one of the 

best states for people in my business to do business in. 

Mr. WEBER. You bet. 

Mr. TRZUPEK. And I think that would be great to take to the federal level. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

And I will direct my last question to Ms. White. The EPA took 

over our flex permitting. Was that last year or the year before last? 

About two years ago. 

Ms. WHITE. About two years ago. 

Mr. WEBER. Can you explain that to our panel here, Ms. White? 

Ms. WHITE. Okay, and I will try to do this very briefly, and this 

has to do with—in my testimony, what I think as far as priorities 

for moving forward is the importance of, as I said, more vigorous 

science but targeted regulation that does not go too far. 

Texas developed a permitting program for major air emissions 

sources called the flexible permits, which gave the facility an emission cap for the whole facility instead of a cap on every emission 

point, which is EPA’s traditional way of doing their major air quality permits called prevention of significant deterioration permits, 

and it was stricter as one standard but it enabled the operator to 

figure out how he was going to run that where maybe there were 

days he needed to ramp up—— 

Mr. WEBER. Some fluctuation? 

Ms. WHITE. Yes, ramp up production, but monitors showed most 

of those big industries in Houston that reduced emissions were 

under flexible permits. After 15 years EPA had never formally approved it but they had never—— 

Mr. WEBER. And they were required bylaw to do that, were they 

not? 

Ms. WHITE. And they were required by law. And in about 2009 

or 2010, I think, they decided to disapprove it, and long story short, 

we legally challenged that decision and Texas prevailed. But here 

is the sad part of that. Many of those industries—because when 
118 

EPA disapproved it, it also sent a letter to 120 of our major industries that said you are out of compliance with the law being in compliance with the law, if you are out of compliance, you can’t even 

operate. So most of those facilities deflexed. They went back and 

got a version which is actually the traditional, more shackling EPA 

permit, and we will see how that works out. 

Just one last point that I think is a very interesting one. In reading all that I do about these issues, someone noted that EPA regulation, as it gets more and more complex and layers and layers, 

makes business operate like a bureaucracy. You’re certifying your 

certification of your certification instead of really trying to run your 

business tight and efficient so you reduce emissions becomes what 

you have to do, and that might sound like just a general statement, 

but I think that is really—— 

Mr. WEBER. Scary. 

Ms. WHITE. —scary, and how you design regulation, how you target, how you draw upon the creativity and motivation of the business owner to get the job done has, I think, greater environmental 

results. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you, and I am going to recognize the 

Chairman of the Full Committee for a brief question. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congressman Weber’s questions remind me of a couple questions 

I would like to direct to Dr. Goldstein, and this goes to EPA regulations as well. Would you favor, Dr. Goldstein, the public release of 

the cost of regulations before they are actually implemented so the 

American people would know what the economic impact would be 

before they are actually put into effect? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, very much so. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Good. And secondly, if there were a 

number of ways to implement a regulation, would you favor implementing it in the least costly way possible if the same goal was 

achieved? 

Dr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, of course. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Good. The Judiciary Committee in the 

House of Representatives last year passed two reg relief bills to do 

just what I described, and they were opposed by the Administration, and they seem to be commonsense approaches to regulations, 

and so I thank you for your support of them. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. I thank you very much. 

Before we close, I am going to recognize the Ranking Member for 

a request. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It has been 

an interesting discussion. I am not certain that the testimony presents to the full extent of what I believe we were here to discuss, 

the state of the environment, especially the impacts on public 

health of certain environmental laws, so I will be reviewing the testimony and where appropriate may be noting for the record where 

I believe clarification or additional explanation should be made. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 
119 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you, and I will reserve the right to object to inclusion of the material until my staff and I have had the 

time and opportunity to review it. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and 

the Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for you, and we will ask 

you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for 

two weeks for additional comments and written questions from 

Members. 

The witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(121) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
122 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Response to Hearing Questions on the Record 

Questions from The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

Response from The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White 

Hearing on The State of the Environment: Evaluation Progress and Priorities, 2/14/2013 

Question 1. Do you agree that it would he inappropriate and unlawful for EPA to ignore advances 

in scientific llnderstanding that wOllld jllstify revising the lead standard or other air qllality 

standard to protect Pllblic health with an adequate margin of safety? 

Of course, the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA review the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for the six criteria pollutants every fivc ycars to determine if any advances in science warrant 

changing the standard. Thus, EPA would be violating the CAA ifthcy did not conduct the review. 

Advances in science or in environmental condition, however could lead to strengthening, lowering or 

maintaining a current standard. While the exact lead standard that is "protective with an adequate margin 

of safery," is debatable as the risks are inhercntly uncertain, the public health record of improvcment 

related to lead is not. Clearly, blood lead measurements in children have shown dramatic decreases in the 

last 40 years, which would presumably have resulted in dramatic increases in children's health and IQs 

during that same time. 

Blood lead measurements in children have declined drastically since the 1970s, as shown in Figure 1 

(Jones et ai, 2009) which is the reason I mentioned that EPA could have "declared victory on lead" and 

left the current NAAQS for lead in place rather than lowering the NAAQS. My choice of words about 

declaring victory were clumsy and perhaps misleading. I in no way intended to imply that EPA should 

eliminatc thc Icad NAAQS. But their review of scientific data about reduction of lead levels in the blood 

should have been a consideration. As noted below, these data document that the public health efforts to 

reduce the number of children with elcvated blood lead lcvels in thc general population continuc to be 

successful. Of course, there still are children living in homes containing lead-based paint or leadcontaminated dust continue to have higher rates of elevatcd blood lead levcls and remain a major public 

health concern (CDC, 2009). The declining blood lead levels in children in the U.S. is a result of banning 

lead from gasoline, residential paint, the solder used in food cans and water pipes, reduced emissions 

from industrial point sources, and other public health efforts to increasc awareness relatcd to the issue that 

have been initiated sincc the 1970s (A TSDR, 2007). 
123 

Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lowered the "safe" threshold for lead 

exposure from 10 flg/dl to 5 flg/dl based on the beliefthat thcre is no safe level oflead in young children 

because of an apparent lack of a toxicity threshold in neurobehavioral studies. Note that this justification 

rests on risk assessment using a "no safe threshold" analytical methodology which rests on extrapolationabsence of evidence on the threshold when risk ceases- not on positive empirical evidence. The new 

"safe" level is based on the U.S. population of children ages 1-5 years old who are in the top 2.5% of 

children when tested (CDC, 20I2a). This shift in policy places greater importance on primary public 

health prevention and is reflective ofthe decreasing "background" concentrations of blood lead in the 

general population. It should be noted that actual lead poisoning as defined by the CDC has not changed, 

such that clinical intervention is necessary for blood levels at or ahove 45 flg/dl. The CDC and other 

public health agencies recommend additional screening, awareness education, and home/environmental 

evaluations when a child's blood lead mcasuremcnt is between the "safe" level and 45 flg/dl. 

And recall that comments made in my testimony concerned the lead NAAQS and perforce the relation 

between ambient concentrations of lead and health effects. In the CDC's report "Low Level Lead 

Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call for Primary Prevention" (CDC, 20 12b), there is only one 

mention of air pathways being of concern or a risk factor for elevated blood lead levels. The entire report 

discusses ways to prevent exposure; none of which address air exposure. If the agency that is responsible 

for protecting public health is not concerned with air as an exposure source, why does EPA continue to 

put resources into studying thc "problem"? To look at blood lead levels measured in children in the 

Denton/Collin County area of Texas, which is the only non-attainment area for lead in Texas, blood lead 

levels for children in that area on average are better than the rest of the State. This is true for blood lead 

levels prior to the 2008 revision to the NAAQS and after. 

So while your question about protecting public health with an adequate margin of safety is valid and I 

would agree that when new data walTant, a revision should occur. The disconnect occurs between the 

public health reality reflected in WHO's and the CDC's risk assessment and EPA's theoretical no safe 

threshold assessments of health risk. 
124 

References: 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2007. Toxicological Profile for Lead. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Scrvice, Atlanta, Georgia. August. 

Center for Disease Control (CDC), 2009. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure 10 Environmental 

Chemicals. Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport!. 

Center for Disease Control (CDC), 20 12a. New Blood Lead Level In/ormation - What Do Parents Need 

to Know to Protect Their Children. www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/bloodleadlevels.htm . 

Center for Disease Control (CDC). 20 12b. Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call 

jor Primary Prevention. Report of the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention of 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. January 4, 2012. 

Jones RL, Homa OM, Meyer PA, Brody OJ, Caldwell KL, Pirkle JL, Brown MJ (2009).Trends in blood 

lead levels and blood lead testing among US. children aged J to 5 years, 1988-2004. Pediatrics 2009; 

123(3):e376-e385. 

Please describe some of the contributing factors to the sharp decline in lead in the 1990s and carly 

2000s. How significant was the removal of lead from gasoline? How significant were the reductions 

made by the mctals industry? Based on your understanding, why where the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for lead tightened in 2008? Please describe the adverse health impacts caused by 

lead exposure. 

Many factors contributed to the dramatic decline in blood lead levels and the phase out of leaded gasoline 

in the 1970's was a major contributor. And I respectfully disagree with a prefatory comment in your 

questions. Your statement that "the wide-scale use of the catalytic convcrtcr is responsible for the removal 

of lead from gasoline" conflicts with my undcrstanding of the history and facts. The catalytic converter 

could not be used until gasoline without tctraethyllead was available because the lead in gasoline would 

corrupt the catalytic converter. Emission reductions of multiple pollutants- and importantly from carbon 

monoxide (CO) - were made possible tram wide-spread use of the catalytic converter. 

Active efforts to reduce lead began after World War II when paint manufacturers steadily reduced the use 

of lead. The federal government banned the use of lead in household exterior and interior paints in 1978. 

Lead in old drinking water pipes and in the solder in the manufacture of food eans was an important 

source oflead. Lead solder was largely phased out in the 1980's. 

Thus, I'm not sure I would call the declines in the 1990s and 2000s as "sharp" as your question implies. 

The reductions in the 1990s and the early 2000s (and what may be most effective in the future) were most 

likely a result of continued pUblic health initiatives to raise awareness and educate the publie, and the 

removal of the historic lead in old paint and pipes. 

Lead continues to be used in some industrial processcs and consumer good and is naturally occurring .. 

The lion's share of lead reductions evidently occurred before the 1990s and 2000s. Totall US lead 

emissions in air was only reduced by about 10% in the 1990's and early 2000's (ATSDR, 2009). 

It is my understanding that the NAAQS for lead was reduced because of the EPA's greater reliance on 

the no safe threshold methodology in assessment of health risks. EPA also intended to heighten the 
125 

protectiveness for the population that has sutfered adverse health effects from lead cxposures. Lowering 

the lead NAAQS is not thc most effective way to addrcss toxicity attributable to lead that now exists to to 

rcducc cxposurc to the at risk populations. Specific and targeted programs to remove historical 

contamination are likely a more effective strategy. 

Lead can cause a variety of adverse health impacts depending on chemical fonn, exposure, dose, and 

reccptor-spccific factors. Children under the age of 6 years (including unborn children) have higher risk to 

lead because thcir brains and nervous systems are still developing. Lead toxicity can include impaired 

mental functioning (Lower IQ), impaired hearing and motor control, decreascd growth rate, impaired 

vitamin D metabolism. At higher dose and exposure levels, lead can cause kidney damagc, anemia, severe 

brain damage, coma and death. 

I would add that the EPA should document what public health benefits have been realized as a result of 

the significantly reduced blood lead levcls since 1970's. Has this lead to higher IQ scores as predicted? If 

despite the huge reductions since the 1970's, the outcomes are impossible to quantify, how will the more 

subtle changes li'Dln post-2000 blood levels be confinned? 

References: 

World Health Organization (WHO), 2006. Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments: towards 

an estimate "If the environmental burden of disease. A. Pruss-Ustun and C. Corvalan. ISBN 92 4 159382 

2. WHO Library Cataloguing. 2006. 

Question 2. In your characterization of the costs and benefits of EPA's MATS, you did not appear 

to account for the co-benefits of reducing fine particulate pollution from power plants. Please 

explain why, in light of the information accompanying this question. 

My response to all of the questions concerning EPA's cost-benetit analysis of the MATS rule can be fully 

articulated through three studies. 

Kathleen Hartnett White "EPA's Pretense of Science: Regulating Phantom Risks," Texas Public 

Policy Foundation (May 2012). 

Anne Smith, Ph.D., "An Evaluation ofthe PM2.5 Health Benefits Estimates for RegulatDlY 

Impact Analysis of Recent Air Regulations," NERA, (December, 20 II). 

Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., "Reassessing the Human Health Benefits ti'om Clean Air," Risk 

Analysis, (November, 2011) 

Please explain how EPA or power plant operators could achieve reduction in mercury and all 

hazardous air pollutants emitted by power plants, in the amounts projected by EPA, without also 

reducing PM2.S in the amount projected by the EPA 

Of course, they could not avoid reducing PM 2.5. The emission controls that reduce mercUlY and HAPS 

coincidentally reduce PM2.5 and other pollutants. And emission controls to reduce criteria pollutants such 

as S02 and Ozone also coincidentally reduce mercury and HAPs. That is why emission of mercury and 

HAPS have significantly declined and will continue to do so. My point is that the use of co-benefitsespecially when used as more than 99% of the estimated benefits- subverts the purpose of cost-benefit 
126 

analyses. EPA calculates over 2/3 of the co-benefits from PM2.S in the MATS rule from ambient 

concentrations of PM2.S far below the current NAAQs ... to levels approaching background levels. If 

EPA thinks that health risks from PM2.S persist at those trace levels far below the conservatively 

protective NAAQS, then EPA is legaJJy obligated under the CAA to set the NAAQS for PM2.S at the 

level. 

Risk Attributed to Ambient PM 2.5 

100% ~" _______ Deaths " _______ "_" due __ "__ Deaths due to "unsafe" to "safe" PM 2.5Iev''''~ls' ______ 1_7 __ -+.III1I1tl-

'" at (2006) study 1 S~+---"------'-""-"-"--------'-----------"-I----------"------"f"I~--------------!--"--'"------'--

l7a% +-------"--------------------"-----"--1- ." -3 60% + _______ " _____________ _ 

~ 

, 'Q 50% ,--------------------------

u 4~ +-------------------------I-----~-----"""-"-"Ie-----------------~"---... ------"------- i 

~ 3~ r---------------~---------------~~-----~--------L------------­

]i 

PM 2.5 levels 

~ ,~ f-----------------"-------- --f~--t--------4_-------'r~~'~~"'-rK~< 

10% 

6 1 7.5 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

Suellne annual mean PM,t.5 level (~l/m3) 

Oldie total PM-relateddeaths iIIIoldad: 

13% occuramonlPopulatlon exposed to PM levels at or above the LML ofthe Pope et aI.stUdy. 

I 1% occuramonlPopulatlon exposed to PM lewls:u:: or move the LML of the lad<en(lt at mJdy. 

Source: Table 5~15, EPAs RIA in final Utility MAG (mercury) Rule. 

[n the many rules in which co-benefits [rom PM2.S comprise SO-99plus% of the alleged benefits, EPA is 

double-counting the health benefits from reduction ofPM2.S. This double-counting falsely inflates the 

dollar value ofthe health benefits. EPA has claimed the same volume of reduction in PM2.S in other 

rules. Since PM2.S has already been removed through these rules, it cannot be removed again in the 

MATs rule. For a step by step detailed analysis of the double-counting, see the paper by Anne Smith 

noted above. 

Do you believe it is cousistent with Executive Order 12866, first issued by President Reagan, to 

quantify just the economic benefits from reducing mercury under EPA's MATS, without also 

quantifying the full range of benefits from reducing all air pollutants under MATS? If so please 

identify the language in the executive order that would justify or compel that approach. 

No. EPA's method of quantifying PM2.S co-benefits, however, is implausible (see papers above) and it 

allows EPA to evade making a substantive justification for direct regulation of mercury under the MATS 

rule. As Anne Smith notes: "The situation is completely at odds with the purpose of RlA's, which is to 
127 

provide a consistent, credible, and thoughtful analysis of the societal value gained with the increased 

regulatory burden that new rulemakings create. 

In all, EPA's use of co-benefits should end for scveral reasons. It scares the public into believing large 

number of people would die prematurely were it not for implementation of new rules on pollutants for 

which EPA has not actually identified any current public health risk." 

Please describe any obstacles to quantifying the benefits from redncing mercury pollution. Did EPA 

quantify all the possible benefits from the MATS standards, or were there categories of benefits 

that EPA said they could not quantify? How should we consider these benefits. 

One of the reasons EPA could only attribute 0.004 % ofthe MATs benefits to direct reduction of mercury 

is because mercury in the ambient air already has been significantly reduced. Also EPA set the risk limit 

(also known as the reference dose) far lower than that set by the World Health Organization, the U.S. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

EPA bases its exceptionally low risk limit on a single study in the Faroe Islands. The small island 

population eats almost entirely pilot whale meat and blubber that contains mercury and other toxic 

chemicals. Recall that whale blubber contains far less selenium than most fish- a natural anti-toxin to bioaccumulation ofmcrcury. This diet is irrelevant to the U.S. population as a measure of exposure risks. 

EPA, nonetheless, set a mercury limit or reference dose that is ten times lower than the subtle health 

effects found in the Faroe Island study. Yet recent blood surveys show that average blood levels are even 

well below the EPA's extremely conservative risk limit. 

The Center for Disease Control's (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey monitors 

evidence of mercury exposures. TIle CDC's recent study shows that blood mercmy levels have steadily 

decreased to an average level well below the EPA's conservative limit. 
128 

U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMIITEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

Questions from The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher 

Response by The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White 

Hearing on The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities, 2/14/2013 

Question 1. Regarding Politicized Science and Potential Measures to Restore Scientific Integrity. 

The politicization of science is a critical issue of our time as also is the appropriate relation between 

science and public policy. The typically determinative importance given to science under environmental 

statutes also can undermine our democratic constitutional structure in which elected representatives in 

the U.S. Congress- and not federal employees- are to make the policy decisions of national 

consequence. EPA typically justifies its regulatory actions on what it construes as scientific edicts. Yet, 

scientific findings, inherently incomplete and uncertain, are incapable of weighing the complex policy 

considerations that inform and shape the law in a democracy. 

I agree with your comment that EPA under the administrations of both parties may have manipulated 

science to support pre-determined policy objectives. As a former, final decision-maker for a large 

environmental regulatory agency, however, I conclude that EPA under the current administration has 

abused science far more acutely than any other administration I have observed for the last thirty years. 

And the stakes for our nation are now of a magnitude never encountered. 

As an example of the abuse of "science," I offer my analysis in "EPA's Pretense of Science: Regulating 

Phantom Risk." 

To restore rigor and integrity to regulatory science, I am generally supportive of proposals to separate 

the scientific process and the regulatory process. But I question how effective this would be. A 

government institution devoted to the development of the science behind EPA's risk-based regulatory 

limits could well be subject to the same dynamics- and thus bias- as EPA. Science which concludes 

existing standards are adequate to protect public health might attenuate mission and budget. 

Governmental bureaucracies big or little- have an inherent drive to grow and so inflate their 

importance. If environmental problems recede, so would EPA's job. 

Using existing federal entities such as the National Academy of Science, National Research Service or 

perhaps even the Congressional Research Service might provide the distance from EPA to foster more 

objectivity. EPA's existing advisory groups and peer-review panels could be invigorated to minimize 
129 

institutional bias. Selection of the members of these panels should be made by parties outside the EPA 

and should include participation by states. 

In the long run, I think reform of regulatory science will require amendments to the relevant statutes. 

Forty years ago when the major federal environmental statutes were enacted, Congress granted broad 

discretionary authority to EPA as the technical expert. Over these four decades, environmental 

conditions have substantially improved but the EPA continually devises stricter regulation under weaker 

science for smaller return while failing to identify the largely localized genuine environmental problems. 

See my "The Clean Air Act: The Case for Reform" and "The Clean Air Act: Reform Proposals." The need 

for statutory reform is an opinion increasingly shared across the political spectrum - but outside the 

environmental activist organizations. A four-year project enlisting the input from 40 environmental 

experts across the ideological spectrum concludes that the federal Clean Air Act has statutory 

arteriosclerosis. 

To reform EPA's use of science, the Clean Air Act needs to stipulate minimal criteria for scientific risk 

assessment of health effects sufficiently robust to guide decisions on air quality standards. Such minimal 

criteria would include the following: 

EPA's risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses must be peer-reviewed by an independent 

body-not, as now, within EPA. 

Toxicological studies and clinical trials demonstrating causal connections between ambient 

levels of a pollutant and adverse health effects trump epidemiological studies indicating 

statistical correlations. 

Ecological epidemiological studies may be useful tools but after substantial reduction of 

pollutants, epidemiological studies are not rigorous enough to set national ambient air quality 

standards. 

Instead of relying on a few cherry-picked studies, EPA should weigh the evidence from a range 

of studies conducted under diverse scientific methodologies and disciplines. Toxicological 

science which utilizes empirical data to demonstrate causal connections should be weighted 

heavier than correlational studies and unvalidated models. 

Abandon the use of no threshold linear regression modeling assumptions in setting ambient 

standard or regulatory emission limits. 

Health-based air quality standards must incorporate representative estimates of actual 

exposure and not the implausible assumption of exposure to the highest monitored outdoor 

level. The majority of the population spends over 90 percent of a day indoors where most 

pollutants are far lower than outside. 
130 

Physical measurement through monitored readings trumps models. 

Health-effects findings must include a plausible biological mechanism. 

Require comprehensive, cumulative cost-benefit analysis of all rules according to methodology 

and scope stipulated in law. 

Science is the appropriately stipulated driver under federal environmental laws. Unquestionably, science 

is a critical tool for, but not the equivalent of, reasoned policy decisions about inherently uncertain 

environmental risks to human health. Environmental regulatory standards reflect a judgment about 

what is acceptable or unacceptable societal risk. EPA misleads elected law makers and the public by 

promoting its scientific conclusions as if they were regulatory dictates. Legislation such as the REINS Act 

is needed to restore the constitutional authority of Congress to make policy decisions of national 

consequence. 
131 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Environment 

Response to Hearing Questions for the Record 

from The Honorable Chris Stewart 

By The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White 

Hearing on The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities, 2/14/2013 

1. Regarding the Clean Water Act's goal to make all U.S. waters "fishable and swimmable" by 

1985. 

Although EPA still wrestles with how to design and implement a reliable, representative program to 

measure water quality across the country, major improvements in water quality have occurred. The 

dramatic, ongoing improvements in specific water bodies such as the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and 

Long Island Sound illustrate the effectiveness of locale-specific monitoring and remedial efforts. 

Without consistent methods to monitor and assess, EPA cannot meaningfully identify trends in our 

nation's water quality over time. As EPA typically says, "While information exists for many individual 

water bodies, consistent national indicators for recreational water bodies [i.e. fishable and swimmable] 

are not yet available." But many state-driven programs have meaningful indicators for these 

recreational water bodies intended to be fishable and swimmable and achieve continual improvements. 

Programs to assess and improve water quality are more appropriately developed on the state, local, and 

watershed levels. Many states and localities have robust programs to assess water quality over time and 

to actively improve conditions. The complexity, diversity, and inherent variability of the thousands of 

rivers and streams in the U.s. may preclude a consistent nationwide program to assess water quality. 

The scale of the diverse types and uses of specific water bodies makes the "fishable and swimmable" 

goal for all water bodies unrealistic. An ephemeral stream in the arid western portions of Texas may 

only have scant pools of water a few days of the year. Fishing and swimming cannot occur in such water 

bodies. 

EPA's programs should more actively facilitate creative state and watershed based programs rather than 

dictate the parameters and procedure of those programs. 

2. Regarding recommendations for restoring objective, rigorous, and transparent science at the 

EPA including establishing minimal criteria for scientific risk assessment of health effects. 

For further discussion of the points addressed below, please see my "EPA's Pretense of Science: 

Regulating Phantom Risks," "The Clean Air Act: The Case for Reform," and "The Clean Air Act: Reform 

Proposals." 
132 

After major reduction in the ambient levels of the criteria pollutants and many toxins over the last 

twenty to forty years, EPA is now using increasingly weak-to-implausible science in order to justify 

aggressive regulatory reduction of these pollutants. Current EPA science reveals a pattern. The agency 

relies on one or two cherry-picked studies which indicate the most adverse health effects at the lowest 

concentration of the pollutant in question. EPA either ignores or gives lip service to sometimes hundreds 

of equally reputable studies that contradict EPA's selected studies. 

EPA's favored studies are invariably ecological epidemiological studies that may show intricately 

manipulated statistical associations rather than data-driven toxicologically causal connections between 

pollutant levels and adverse health effects. And instead of characterizing the relative uncertainties in the 

scientific studies on which EPA relies and weighing the evidence from diverse studies, EPA publically 

declares complete certainty and approval by peer review. EPA's so-called uncertainty analysis is a model 

which assumes 100% probability! Upon a closer look, the peer-reviewers regularly are either EPA 

employees, scientists who wrote the relevant studies, or were employed by the same institution which 

EPA paid to conduct the study. 

Many reputable scientific bodies have severely criticized the weakness of science that the EPA now 

relies upon to justify new rules. Dr. Thomas Burke, chairman of a recent National Academy of Science 

(NAS) review panel on EPA's chemical risk assessment told EPA officials that "EPA science is on the rocks 

... if you fail, you become irrelevant, and that is kind ofa crisis.'" EPA's chemical risk assessment for 

formaldehyde set the level for adverse health effects- and thus regulation- several times lower than the 

average natural level offormaldehyde in human exhalation." EPA characterizes these risk assessmentsalso known as Integrated Science Assessment (ISA)-as the scientific foundation of its regulatory 

decision. 

The Clean Air Act needs to stipulate minimal criteria for scientific risk assessment of health effects 

sufficiently robust to guide decisions on air quality standards. Such minimal criteria would include the 

following: 

EPA's risk assessments must be peer-reviewed by an independent body-not, as now, within 

EPA. 

Toxicological studies and clinical trials demonstrating causal connections between ambient 

levels of a pollutant and adverse health effects trump epidemiological studies indicating 

statistical correlations. 

• Ecological epidemiological studies may be useful tools but after substantial reduction of 

pollutants, epidemiological studies are not rigorous enough to set national ambient or emission 

standards. Instead of relying on a few cherry-picked studies, EPA should weigh the evidence 

from a range of studies conducted under diverse scientific methodologies and disciplines. 

Methodologies which utilize empirical data which demonstrate causal connections should be 

weighted heavier than correlational studies and unvalidated models. 
133 

Abandon the use of no threshold linear regression modeling assumptions in setting ambient 

standard or regulatory emission limits. 

Health-based air quality standards must incorporate representative estimates of actual 

exposure and not the implausible assumption of exposure to the highest monitored outdoor 

level. The majority of the population spends over 90 percent of a day indoors where most 

pollutants are far lower than outside. 

Physical measurement through monitored readings trumps models. 

Health-effects findings must include a plausible biological mechanism. 

Require comprehensive, cumulative cost-benefit analysis of all rules according to methodology 

and scope stipulated in law. 

Science is the appropriately stipulated driver under federal environmental laws. Unquestionably, science 

is a critical tool for, but not the equivalent of, reasoned policy decisions about inherently uncertain 

environmental risks to human health. Environmental regulatory standards reflect a judgment about 

what is acceptable or unacceptable societal risk. EPA misleads elected law makers and the public by 

promoting its scientific conclusions as if they were regulatory dictates. Legislation such as the REINS Act 

is needed to restore the constitutional authority of Congress to make policy decisions of national 

consequence. 

i "Key Advisor Wams EPA to Improve Agency Science or Face a 'Crisis,''' InsideEPA.com (8 July 

2011 ). 

ii Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D., Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, "Comments Regarding the 

Use of Science in, and Implications of, EPA's Chemical Risk Assessments." (4 Oct 2011). 
134 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on the Environment 

Response to Hearing Questions for the Record 

Questions from The Honorable Randy Neugebauer 

Response from The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White 

Hearing on The State of the Environment: Evaluating Progress and Priorities, 2/4/2013 

Question 1. Regarding Drought Impacts in Texas. 

I have been privileged to make many decisions affecting water supply as former member ofthe Texas 

Water Development Board, a former Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) and now as an Officer and Director of the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA). 

The extraordinarily intense droughts during three of the last four years have awakened Texas to the 

urgency of increasing the state's available water supply. The record breaking drought of the single year 

of 2011 created water shortages, in some local areas, perhaps more severe than Texas' historical 

drought of record in the 1950's. For decades, Texas has determined water availability and has managed 

water supply on the basis of the average hydrological conditions during the decade of the 1950's-the 

historical drought of record. Yet, 2011 created conditions in some areas never experienced within a 

twelve month period. 

As a single example of unprecedented drought impacts, farmers in the lower Colorado River basin were 

denied irrigation water for the first time in 75 years in 2012. Because the storage levels in the reservoirs 

in question fell so low in 2011, irrigators have again been denied water in 2013 for the second year in a 

row. Current or near term water shortages now face many areas in Texas. 

Texas has developed state of the art regional water plans, compiled into a State Water Plan, that 

project increased water demands in 16 different regions of the state through 2060 when the state's 

population is expected to have doubled. Until recently, water shortages were not projected until the 

outlying years. The plans identify thousands of specific water supply projects to increase supply to meet 

future demand. With few exceptions, the projects have not been completed or even begun in most 

cases. 

The drought of the last few years, however, has made water shortage a current condition and no longer 

a future projection. River authorities like LCRA, water supply districts, and cities announce bold projects 

to increase supply but timely implementation still remains elusive. 

Inadequate financing and regulatory impediments are the chief obstacles to increasing water availability 

in Texas. The Texas Legislature is poised to use $2 billion of the state's Rainy Day Fund to provide low 

interest loans for water supply projects. The authorizing legislation for this State Water Infrastructure 
135 

Fund for Texas (SWIFT) would invest significant portions of this fund to eventually generate the $27 

billion needed. 

In my judgment, regulatory impediments flowing from state and federal law are an equal, and perhaps 

more formidable, barrier to Texas' increasingly urgent need to increase water supply. After the 

landmark legislation in 1997 that created the framework for the states' regional water planning process 

intended to expedite water projects, Texas passed water law that did not facilitate, but indeed 

complicated, water projects. One new law required development of regulatory environmental flow 

standards in every river basin of the state. Other recently enacted law gave local groundwater districts 

the authority to limit pumping and transfer of groundwater and for the first time gave the state the 

authority to determine the future conditions of aquifer. 

Other issues surrounding the inter-basin transfer of water and amendments to existing water rights 

have stymied private water markets, previously envisioned to be the most efficient means of meeting 

water demand in this rapidly growing state. Legislative efforts and legal challenges have made little 

headway. 

The federal impediments, especially through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Corps of 

Engineer's/EPA's authority, increasingly challenge Texas. Last week, a federal judge ruled that TCEQ's 

allocation of the water in the Guadalupe River violated the Endangered Species Act, and the court 

enjoined the state from any future allocations until USFWS approves a plan to protect the endangered 

whooping cranes in Aransas Bay. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the state's request to stay 

the district court's order pending complete appellate review. This is the first, and may be the most 

damaging, federal interference in the state's authority over water since the federal court rulings under 

the ESA to limit withdrawals from the Edwards Aquifer on which San Antonio is wholly dependent to 

provide municipal water. 

Texas is blessed with prodigious water resources but the state has entered a new era when aging and 

outdated water infrastructure must be expanded and replaced. This is a story across many states. With 

less regulatory impediment, most effectively achieved through strategic reform of the federal laws at 

issue, private financing and private actors could proceed with dispatch. 

Question 2. Regarding the Status of Cooperative Federalism under the Clean Air Act 

The EPA may occasionally acknowledge the original Clean Air Act's federalist structure but in practice 

either undermines or flatly denies the states' authority under the statute. (See my "EPA Process and 

Texas Results: Understanding the Dispute Between the Two Largest Environmental Agencies" and "The 

Clean Air Act: The Case for Reform.") 

If the EPA actually deferred to the cooperative federalism articulated in the original Clean Air Act, states 

could more efficiently, effectively, and rapidly improve air and water quality. As stated in 1977, 

"Congress carefully balanced State and national interests by providing for a fair and open process in 
136 

which States and local governments, and the people they represent, will be free to carry out the 

reasoned weighing of environmental and economic goals and needs." Or in the words of the 1970 CAA, 

the "prevention and control of air pollution is the primary responsibility of the States and local 

government" because those closest to the resource are best able to effectively manage them. In a 

nutshell, the CAA provides that EPA will set the national standards but the states will choose how to 

attain those standards. 

How far EPA has strayed from this statutory framework, a path made easier by the 1990 amendments to 

the Act which substantially expanded EPA's oversight authority. EPA increasingly treats state agencies as 

instruments of the federal government rather than as partners, much less equal sovereigns. EPA acts, 

perhaps, most intrusively under the federal authority to approve State Implementation Plans (SIP) for 

the criteria pollutants. EPA uses SIP authority to threaten disapproval of all state regulation vaguely 

related to air quality including procedural rules. A study by the National Research Council in 2005 

agreed that EPA's procedural mieromanagement of state agencies impedes efficient environmental 

improvements. 

Of note is EPA's disapproval of the Texas Flexible Permit Program. This program, in place for over 16 

years before EPA decided to disapprove, was a major success in redUCing emissions of criteria pollutants 

and toxies. EPA legally nixed the program (very similar to the EPA's permitting program utilizing Plantwide Applicable Limits -PALS) on the basis of hair-splitting differences in terminology. A recent D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals decisions upheld the Texas program and sharply rebuked EPA for denial of the 

state authority under the CAA. But damage to the Texas environment and economy was already done. 

Question 3. Regarding Current EPA Science and the "No Safe Threshold" (NST) Statistical Methodology 

in Risk Assessment. 

See my "EPA's Pretense of Science: Regulating Phantom Risks." My paper draws upon two excellent 

studies noted below that are related to EPA's use of NST methodology. 

Anne Smith, Ph.D., "An Evaluation of the PM2.S Health Benefits Estimates for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of Recent Air Regulations," NERA, (December, 2011). 

Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr.,"Reassessing the Human Health Benefits from Clean Air," Risk Analysis, 

(November, 2011). 

In my view as a former regulator, EPA's current science lacks credibility, is not an adequate justification 

for the many new air quality rules, and misleads policymakers and the general public. As one example of 

the problem with EPA's regulatory science, I confine my response to EPA's increasing reliance on the No 

Safe Threshold (NST) statistical methodology. 
137 

In 2009, EPA made a methodological change with huge ramifications. EPA now calculates mortality risks 

from PM2.5 not only below the health protective level of the NAAQS, recently changed from 15 to 12 

ug/m3 (annual), but also below the lowest measured level (LML) in the original studies and even below 

natural background levels approaching zero. Remarkably, EPA now assumes that there is no level of 

PM2.5 below which risks to premature death cease. Statisticians call this a "no threshold linear 

regression to zero analytic mode!." In laymen's terms, no risk is too low. 

Prior to 2009, the EPA did not estimate risks below the lowest ambient level measured in the 

epidemiological studies. If the PM level in a given location was already below the LML (typically-lO 

ug/m3), the EPA did not assume additional reductions in PM2.5 would generate additional health 

benefits. "However, starting in 2009, EPA decided that it would calculate risks to the lowest level 

projected by its air quality models, even though no observed or empirical evidence exists ... in that low 

concentration zone."l 

The statistical associations between premature mortality and PM2.5 identified in the epidemiological 

studies cease below the lowest measured level in the study. But EPA now imputes, by extrapolation, the 

same risks (and at the same rate) for PM2.5 levels for which no statistical evidence exists. "Extrapolation 

is the use of quantitative relationships outside the range of evidence on which it was based."" 

EPA's adoption of this no-threshold approach to assessing risk increased EPA's estimate of total U.S. 

deaths attributable to PM 2.5 pollution by almost four-fold-from a previous estimate of 88,000 to 

320,000! This approach means that over two-thirds of the public's health risk from exposure to PM2.5 

come from ambient levels not only far below the protective national standards known as the NAAQS but 

even below the lowest modeled levels in the relevant studies.'" 

In short, EPA incredulously finds that mortal risks increase in proportion to the extent that a location's 

ambient concentration of PM2.5 exceeds natural background levels, which EPA now estimates to be an 

extremely low level of 1 ug/m3. "This created a major change in the level of national mortality 

estimated to be due to PM2.5 because the majority of the U.S. population resides in locations where the 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations are below lOug/m3."" 

After probing questions from members of Congress, senior EPA leadership recently defended adoption 

of the no-threshold approach. "Studies demonstrate an association between premature mortality and 

fine particle pollution at the lowest levels measured in the relevant studies, levels that are significantly 

below the NAAQS for fine particles. These studies have not observed a level below which premature 

mortality effects do not occur. The best scientific evidence, ... is that there is no threshold level of fine 

particle pollution below which health risk reductions are not achieved by reduced exposure." This is 

another way of saying: No risk is too low, improbable, or uncertain that it is not worth regulating.' 

EPA claims that the two studies in question show no evidence of a threshold, but many studies ignored 

by EPA do show a threshold. EPA's Benefit Study admits that the "no-threshold" assumption is a "key 
138 

uncertainty" but as usual assigns a "high" confidence to the model that incorporates this assumption. 

The single study that EPA cites to support this questionable "no-threshold" assumption is an EPA's 

Health-Effects Institute funded study. 

And importantly, the "no-threshold" assumption violates the foundational principle of toxicology. It is 

the dose that makes the poison. EPA's defense of this absurdly precautionary assumption is another way 

of saying that the point at which all risk is zero cannot be proven. This is not surprising. How can any 

negative proposition be proven with complete certainty? 

EPA also maintains that its adoption of a "no-threshold" assumption in 2009 was endorsed by EPA's 

various scientific advisory panels. The growing evidence of financial conflicts of interest among the 

members of EPA's technical review panels casts doubts on the objectivity of these review panels. Six of 

the seven members of the EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) have received EPA 

grants to conduct research for the Agency.Vi CASAC Chairman Jonathan Samet was the principal 

researcher for grants of $9.5 million dollars. 

And in addition to questionable peer review, the EPA did not give any public notice of the regulatory 

implications of this sea-change in risk assessment of current air quality conditions-now at extremely low 

concentrations of PM2.5 in most parts of this country. Public health scientists may have long debated 

the relative merits of no-threshold linear regression analyses, but these were scientific debates without 

the economic and societal implications at stake in EPA's regulatory agenda, unprecedented in its 

cumulative impacts. 

i Ann E. Smith, Ph.D "An Evaluation of the PM2.S Health Benefits Estimates in Regulatory Impact 

Analyses for Recent Air Regulations," p. 23 NERA Economic Consulting (Dec. 2011). 

" Ibid. 

,Ii Ibid., p. 24. 

iv Ibid. 

v Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to Rep. Fred Upton, 

February 3, 2012. 

vi Steve Milloy, "Clearing the Air on the EPA." Washington Times (7 Mar. 2012). 
139 

Responses by Mr. Richard Trzupek 

SUZAIXNf: BON AMICI 

1ST DISTRICT, OREGO~ 

I/Congress of tbe Wniteb ~tllteli 

J!.jousc ot lL\cllresentntibes 

fflagj1il1~t.n, ilK 20515-3701 

March 20, 2013 

The Honorable Chris Stcwmi, Chainmm 

Environment Subcommittee 

House Science, Space, and Technology Conunittce 

2321 Rayh',.1rn HOGs!! Offtc:~ Ht:ilding 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chailman Stewart: 

COMMfrrEE ON EDUCATION 

A~D THE WORKFORCE 

::OMMJTTF.GO~ 

SCIENC~, SPAC", AN[),fCHNOl OGY 

Thank you for your letter regarding my concerns over :naceuracies in lhe testimony ofMr, 

Richard Trzupek and Ms. Kathleen Hartr.eH-White at the Environment Subcommittee's February 

14th hcming all The State a/the Environment; Evaluating Progress and Priorities. Both off10se 

witness testimonies assert, essenlially, that because (he Unit0d States has been so successful at 

reducing air pollution, the U,S, EPA hus resOl- ~d to e~elllling up insignificant pollution in an 

attempt to stay relevant. 

Thot:E:.h it is linques:.ionably tme that we have made great progress since the Clean Ai:' Act was 

signed into law in 1970, we are far from done, As we have acfiieved many imp0l1ant milesto'ncs 

in reducing dangerous air pollution, so too have we continued to h:atn about the dangers of 

breathing polluted tlir. More than 100 11lilliOIl Americans slililive in areas experiencing 

unhealthy levels of air pollution, According to daw from as recently as 2010, EPA research 

shows that approximately 124 million people live in counties that exceeded one or more naLicJ1!11 

ambient air quality standard, This pollution puts ouI" most sensitive populations, our children, and 

the elderly, at risk, AmI the risks can be deadly, Rather than patting ourselves on +l1e back for a 

job well done, we must' recognize the sJgniEcant challe:1ges that still rem~in. 

Thank YOll for including my \1areh 7th letter Ilnd memorandum in the hearing record, and also 

for your willingness to keep the record open so that I may address questions to the witnesses 

directly. Attached you wil11ind oy questions for Mr. Trzupelc and Ms. J-brtnett.-White. T look 

forward to their responses, and to working with you throllgh the 113th Congress to ensure that 

cur witnesses provide 6c COlntnittcc rElil' and balanced testimony regarding the most imp0l1ant 

el1virol1mcnlai issues we face, 

Re csentative Suzanne 13onm:1ici 

I~ king Member 

Environment Subcommittee 

I-louse Cornn~ittee on Science, gpnce, flnd Technology Committee 
140 

Questions for :\1r. Richard Trzupek: 

1) On Page 4 of your testimony you usc EPA's toxic air pollution standards for industrial bollers 

~Uld incinerators as an example to claim that the U,S, EPA inaccurately represents the costs and 

benefits of its regulations, You highlight only the 18,000 tons per year ofPM2.5 emissions 

directly reduced by recent industrial boiler air toxies standards, and tben go on to claim that this 

is an insignificant reduction because it is a smal1 percenta.ge (.3%) of overall natio:1al emissions 

of' fine palticulate matter. Your testimony fails to mention that the standards also will reduce 

hrumful sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions by 580,000 tOIlS per year - which is equivalent to 

roughly 17% orthe S02 emissions from t1:e electric power sector, far and away the biggest 

source ofS02 in thc country (with SOl emissions of3J285,164 tons per yem'in 2012). Moreover, 

EPA notes that these 580,000 tons of SOz emissions avoided each year are a pre-cursor to PM25 

emissior.s thul will be reduced separate and apart }rom the 18,000 to~s per year of direct PM2.5 

emissions that the standards will reduce, 

.. How would you characterize the level of indirect PM2.5 emissions reductions that these 

slClradnrds aTe achieving, including by accounting for the standards' projected reduction of 

5~m,OOO tons per Ye<:lr of S~? 

• What was the ::;ttl.tutory de<1dline established by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments for promulgation ofthese standard~'? 

\Vlat has been the approximate impuGt ofthis delay, in tenns of Americans' exposure to 

millions of additional tons of air pollution, compared to what Congress intended when it 

required standards_for .the largest sources of industrial :'1azardous air pollulion noJmcr 

than 2000? Please estimate the impact using the same health endpoints llsed by EPA in its 

industrial boiler and ir.cincrator standanls. 

2) On page 6, your testimony charactedzes the cost-benefit analysis numbefs offered by EPA in 

its Regulatory Tmpact Analysis accompanying the toxic air pollution standards for bdusttial 

boilers as "peculim·logie." Your testimony nltther appears to Hille public health improv-ement<; t.o 

Ule nalional debt, going on to claim that EPA's benefits numbers nre intlated accordingly. EPA's 

$26.4 hillion benefits figure represents avoided healt11 hazards that Americans will no longer 

suffer every year (from prem<1ture deaths, beart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks, for example). 

This figure £lIsa ir:.cludes lower costs attributable to purely economic considerations (like missed 

work and school days). This substantial benefit outweighs compliance costs by a factor ofaL least 

13. 

Is it appropriate to correlate public health benefits to Ibe national debt? Can you point to 

govcmmmt, economic 01' academic literatl1:e where this con-elation is 11sed as <1n 

appropriate indicator of the value of public or private programs? 

3) _Rega.rdWg poinls made on p_ages 4-6 OfYOPf testimony, tbejtld1!st:ifLl boiJel~Maximu!Jl __ 

Achievable Control Te-chnology (MACT) standards are technology~based standards under § 112 

of the Clem Air Act that essentially require air pollution recl',lctions to the degree achievsble by 

modern technology. Congress, ·'c.oncemeu. abouL the :o>IO\\' pace of EPA's regulation of HAPs., 

altered section 112/' and abandoned the earlier law's risk-based npproach after it proved to be 

lIDwoTkahle. New]ersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 578 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The 1990 amendments 
141 

extensivelywvised §112 of the Clean Air Act to include criteria for <lspeciflC, strict pollution 

conlrol requirement." on both new and existing sources" of hazardous air pollutants, ld, Your 

testimony apperu:s to evaluate the benefits of a tecfujology-based mle that requires Imge 

reductions from individual pollution sources as fl percentage of "reductions in overall national" 

emissions. However, people do not breathe pollution "on average" or "natiOlially," 'l1wy breathe 

air pollution where they live and work and attend school. 

• \\ras the Clean Air Aet - with its focus on individual major and area sources - nut meant 

to achieve reductions in dangerous air pollution from polluting facilities in individual 

American communities? 

• Do you dispute that industrial boilers and coal-fired power plants are two oft11e largest 

emitters ofhazard01.lS air pollution in the nation? Uo you believe bey should they be 

exenpted iTom regulation or given more lax treatrnellt lmder section 112 of the Clean Air 

Act, when over 150 other indu~Lrial sectors have shruply cut their hClzard011s air pol1ution 

l.mderthe 1990 amendments? 

4) On page 8 ofy01.1f testimony you assert that "[wJc simply do not have an air taxies problem in 

the United State!'; today." However, the most recem National Air Taxies Assessment (whose pie 

charts you use in Appendix B of your testimony), found that "all 285 rnUlion people in the US 

have an in-;:;reased cancer risk of greater than 10 ill one milllon" attributable to breathing toxic air 

pollution fro111 outside sources, The Assessment went on to note that: 

13.8 million people Oess than 5 percent of the total U.S, population based on the 2000 

census) have an increased cancer ris~i. of greater t21an 100 in a million. TIle average, 

national, cancer 11Sk for 2005 is 50 in a million. This means that, on average, 

approximately 1 in every 20,000 people have an increased likelihoocL of contracting 

cancer as a Termlt of breathing air toxies from outdoor sources if th~y were exposed to 

2005 emission levels (JVer the course nfthcir lifetime, 1 

TIle Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, passed by overwhelming bipartisfUl majurities, 

established the Congressional goel to reduce cancol' risks for all Americru1s below 1 in 1 million. 

The cancer risks associated with air toxies are real, mld yet the three largest :ndustrlC1l sources of 

many of these toxic pollutants (electric generating facilities, cement plants. EU1d industrial 

boilers) remained lillcontrolled <It the federalleve1 until as late as 2012. 

• 1n your opinion, and based on the most recent National Air Toxies Assessment and olher 

info1l1wtion that we invite you to identify, how dose aTe we to reaching the goal of 

reducing cancer risks to less than 1 in i m~llion established hy Congress in the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990'1 

1 U.s. EPA, Summary oj Resultsfor the 2005 NalioMI·Sca.lc Assessment, avallable at 

btto://v...'ww.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005l0SoQftium result~ 
142 

Questions for the Hon. Kathleen Hartnett White: 

1) You claim victory over lead pollution in citing the elimination of lead from file1s in the 

19708, and you assert on page 7 that "EPA could declare victory on lead and n1mntain the 

current NAAQS but instead chose to lower the standard below naturally occurring 

background levels in most areas." It is impOJiant to note that the widc--scale use of the 

catalytic converter is responsible for the removal of lead from gasoline. This technology was 

adopted ill 1975 model-year cars due to the U.S. EPA's adoption of strict st~ndards for lead. 

This example speaks to the overwhelming impD1ianee of environmental standards as drivers 

ofimpravements in the industrial sector. Moreover, it is a misrepresentation of both the law 

and the science to state that "EPA could declare victory on lead." The ~ational Ambient Air 

Quality Standards ofthe Clc<Ul Air Act require regular review ofthe state of the science on 

dangerous air pollution and req'Jire the agency to update s':a..'1dards b<lsed on the hest and 

most current science available. 

• Do YOll agree that it wU1..1ld be inappropriate alld unlawful for EPA to ignore r.dvances in 

scientific understanding that would justify revising the lead standard or other air qualily 

stacldard to protect public health -with an adequate margin of .safety? 

• Please describe some of the contributing faciors to the sharp decline in lead in the 1990s 

and early 2000s. How significam was the removal oflead from gasoline? How significailt 

were the red'Jctions made by the metals industry? 

Based on ym.rr tmderstandbg, why were the National Ambicnt Air Quality Standards for 

lead tightcne~ in ~008? ~l~asc ~~~erib_c the adverse healtb impacts caused by lead _ 

exposure. 

2) ]n your testimony you criticize EPA's Mercl.:ry and Air Taxies Standards for power plants, 

,md claim that "EPA admits that the cost o[this regulation~at tbe EPA estimate of$lO billion 

per year-is perhaps the most expensive air regulation to dute. EPA also admits that the benefits 

from l11LTCUl), reduction (Ire so minute to be immeasurable." This disiorts tnc cost-benefit 

analysis accompanying the slalldard~ and the full range of benefits identified hy EPA. Power 

plants cmit toxic air pollution that can also be c~assified as PM2.5 pollution due to its size and 

chemical makeup. In addition, the sam~ small number of pollution control devices that re:novc 

toxic air pollution from power plant emissions also necess((ri~y remove PM2.

5 pollution. In light 

of this. EPA includes PM2.5 co-henefi1s in its bencfit calculations for the Mercury and Air Taxies 

Standards, a practice EPA also followed under the two previous administrations [or oilier air 

taxies standards. Redl.lcing PM2.SpolIuiioll from power plants can prevent thousands of 

premature deaths, heart attacks, and :18thma attDcks e8ch yem. 

In your characterization of the costs find henefits (lfEPA's MAT::!, yml did not appemto 

aCCOllnt [or the co-benefits of rcdt:cing fine particulate pollution from power plants. 

Please explain why, in lig1:t oftb~ information accompanying this q1.1estion. 

- Please explain how EPA or power plant operators could achieve reduetLons in mercury 

and all hazardous air pollutants emitted by power plants, in the amounts required by 

EPA's MATS, without also reducing PM2.S in the aillOU11tS projected by EPA? 

• Do you believe it is cOll~istcnt with Executive Order 12866, first issued by Presidellt 

Reagan, to quantify just the economic henefit~ from reducing mercury undur EPA's 
143 

MATS, without also quantifying the fnll nmge of benefits from reducing all air POllUtrultS 

under MATS? If so, please identify the language in the executive order that would justify 

or compel that approac~. 

• Please descl;be any obstacles to quantifying the benefits from reducing mercury 

pollution. Die EPA quantify all the possible benefits from the MATS standards) or were 

there categories of ben Guts that EPA said they could not quantify? How should we 

consider these benefits? 
144 

RICHARD J. TRZUPEK 

May 1,2013 

The Honorable Chris Stewart, Chainnan 

Environment Subcommittee 

House Science, Space and Technology Committee 

2321 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chainnan Stewart 

I am pleased to respond to Ranking Member Bonamici's questions regarding my testimony of 

February 14 and I apologize for my tardiness in sending you this response. 

Question 1 

Representative Bonamici notes that US EPA says that the Boiler MACT regulations will result in 

a reduction of580,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide (SOz) emissions nationwide and that S02 

contributes to fonnation of fine particulate matter (PM-2.5). The questions then posed are as 

follows: 

How would you characterize the level of indirect PM-2.5 emissions reduction that these 

standards are achieving, including by accountingfor the standards' projected reduction of 

580,000 tons per year ofS01? 

First of all, it should be noted that the standards in question are part of a National Emissions 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, or NESHAP (emphasis added). Neither SOz nor PM-2.5 

are classified as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). Both are rather classified as criteria 

pollutants. There are other regulations and programs in place and in development that address 

S02 and PM-2.5 emissions and concentrations in ambient air. The Acid Rain program, the Cross 

State Air Pollutant Rule, numerous state-level regulations that are incorporated in State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) and USEPA's continuing development of PM-2.5 rules and 

attainment designations are examples of these. The purpose of a NESHAP, as I understand the 

Clean Air Act, is to ensure that HAP emissions are properly controlled, not to add another 

regulatory layer for the control of criteria pollutant emissions. It is curious to find the EPA, in the 

eternal search for "big numbers" to tout, highlighting emissions reductions of criteria pollutants 

as part of the promulgation of a rule that doesn't actually target or isn't supposed to target 

criteria pollutants. 
145 

The Honorable Chris Stewart - May I, 2013 

Page 2 

If the United States needs to reduce S02 emissions by an additional 580,000 tons per year (on top 

of the millions of tons ofreductions that have alrcady been achieved) why wouldn't USEPA use 

the regulatory mechanisms already in place and in dcvelopment to do so? I believe that there are 

two possible answers to this question. Either the regulatory mechanisms already in place and in 

development are inadequate to achieve this reduction, or the reduction itself cannot be justified 

on the grounds of achieving compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

for S02 and PM-2.5. 

USEPA's Green Book currently lists a total of nine non-attainmcnt areas for S02: East Helena, 

Montana; Salt Lake County, Utah; Tooele County, Utah; Warren County, New Jersey; 

Armstrong County, Pennsylvania; Pinal County, Arizona; Yellowstone County, Montana; Piti, 

Guam; and Tanquisson, Guam. (Map appended). With possible exceptions of Warren County 

and Armstrong County, I don't believe that anyonc could claim that 580,000 tons per year ofS02 

emission reductions from industrial boilers arc going to result in any measurable reduction of 

S02 concentrations in the ambient air in any ofthcse locations. If USEPA proposed reducing 

S02 emissions by 580,000 tons per ycar in order to bring nine isolated non-attainment areas 

(which are already moving toward attainment, by the way) into attainment the Agency wouldn't 

be able to do so on any reasonable technical, environmental or economic basis. 

Having recently introduced a new short-term S02 standard, USEPA and the states are in the 

process of evaluating attainment status with respect to the new (effectively even more stringent) 

standard. After attainment designations are complete, State Implementation Plans (SIPs) will be 

duly modified and another set of regulations put in place in order to address any non-attainment 

areas. 

The USEPA has designated thirty-two PM-2.5 non-attainment areas under the current (2006) 

standard and thirty-five PM-2.5 non-attainment areas under the previous (1997) standard. (Maps 

appended). As is the case with all other criteria pollutants, the proccss of modifying SIPs and 

implementing new regulations to address these non-attainment areas continues to grind along. As 

USEPA implements yet another (and yet again more stringent) PM-2.5 standard, the Agency 

itself says that "Most of the U.S already meets the (new) annual fine particulate health standard" 

(map appended). 

The point of all this being that it's disingenuous to justify a boiler NESHAP on the basis of 

criteria pollutant reductions, especially when: a) the EPA already regulates criteria pollutants 

under other, existing programs, and b) areas in which concentrations of those criteria pollutants 

exceed ambient air quality standards are limited in number and those are already on the road to 

attai nment. 
146 

The Honorable Chris Stewart- May 1,2013 

Page 4 

I don't agree with the underlying premise of the question: that Congrcss intended to use Title 1II 

of the Clean Air Act to reduce millions of tons of air pollutants rcgulated under Title I and Title 

IV. According to USEPA Boiler MACT will result in the reduction of2 to 3 tons per year of 

Mercury, 2, I 00 hundred tons per year of non-mercury metals and 40,500 tons of hydrogen 

chloridc. I doubt that any of these reductions represent a significant reduction when compared to 

all sources (including natural sources) of these pollutants. This is particularly so in the case of 

mercury, which USEPA has identified as a "global pollutant" that all nations playa role in 

contributing to concentrations in the air we all share, with China and India accounting for the 

vast majority of mercury emissions worldwide. The two to three ton reduction associated with 

Boiler MACT is basically baseline noise in this context. 

The Committee should also note that thc EPA identifies priority toxic pollutants that it monitors 

though its network of National Air Toxies Trends Stations. Industrial boilers are not a significant 

source ofthe two priority toxics that USEPA says are of greatest concern, accounting for 

approximately 60% of individual cancer risk in the US: benzene and formaldehyde. Nor are 

industrial boilers a significant source of the other priority organic toxics (carbon tetrachloride, 

chloromethane, dichloromcthane, 1,3 butadienc, 2,2,4 trimethylpentane, ethyl benzene, n-hexane, 

o-xylene, styrene, tolucnc, acetaldehyde and propianaldehydc). Industrial boilers do contribute, 

albeit much less than utility boilers, to concentrations of the four priority toxic metals (arsenic, 

lead, manganese and nickel) although concentrations of these metals in the ambient air have been 

steadily declining as well. 

I believe that USEPA's own prioritization of air toxics underscores the relative unimportance of 

HAP emissions from industrial boilers and that this more honestly speaks to the lack of any 

significant health risk associated with these emissions than EPA-commissioned studies that are 

necessarily self-serving and have the unique advantage of being unverifiable in the real world. 

Question 2 

This question concems this portion of my written testimony: 

"Let's return to those monetary benefit claims. Using the low end of the numbers presented by 

USEPA, a $2.2 billion investment will result in a $28.6 billion retum. What a terrific result. But 

why stop there? If controlling a mere 18,000 tons per year of fine particulate matter can result in 

the generation of $26.4 billion in net income, what would happen if we controlled all 6.1 million 

tons per year offine particulate matter? Using USEP A's minimum cost cffectivencss approach, 

we find that applying the same rate of return would gcnerate $8.9 trillion per year in net revenue. 

We have thus solved America's debt crisis. All we need to do is build a dome over the nation to 

keep every bit of fine particulate out and wc'lI clear the national debt in two years. 
147 

The Honorable Chris Stewart May I, 2013 

Page 3 

lfwe are to evaluate the need for Boiler MACT, we should do so solely on the basis of the 

reductions in HAP emissions it is supposed to address. Here it is more ditlicult to justify the rule, 

because the reductions of HAPs are relatively insignificant in terms of being protective of human 

health and the environment and there is little evidence that any of the HAPs emitted in 

significant quantities by industrial boilers are present in the ambient air in concentrations that 

presents a significant risk to human health or the environment. 

What was the statutory deadline established by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 

jor promulgation of these standards? 

From Section 112( e) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: 

(I) IN GENERAL- The Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing emission 

standards for categories and subcategories of sources initially listed for regulation pursuant (0 

subsection (c)(l) as expeditiously as practicable, assuring that--

(A) emission standards for not less than 40 categories and subcategories (not counting coke oven 

batteries) shall be promulgated not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990; 

(B) emission standards for coke oven batteries shall be promulgated not later (han December 31, 

1992; 

(C) emission standards for 25 per centum of the listed categories and subcategories shall be 

promulgated not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990; 

(D) emission standards for an additional 25 per centum of the listed categories and subcategories 

shall be promulgated not later than 7 years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990; and 

(E) emission standards for all categories and subcategories shall be promulgated not later than 10 

years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

What has been the approximate impact of this delay, in terms of Americans , exposure to millions 

of additional tons of air pollution, compared to what Congress intended when it required 

standards for the largest sources of industrial hazardous air pollution no later than 2000? 

Please estimate the impact using the same health endpoints used by EPA in its industrial boiler 

and incinerator standards. 
148 

The Honorable Chris Stewart -- May 1,2013 

Page 5 

USEPA also claims that Boiler MACT implementation will result in the avoidance of 8, 1 00 

premature deaths per year. If we extend that peculiar logic, we find that control of all 6.1 million 

tons offine palticulate will avoid over 27 million premature deaths per year. The road to 

immortality apparently awaits. 

Obviously, these absurd conclusions cannot hold up to any scientific scrutiny. They are 

presented as one way to illustrate the way in which EPA's regulatory analyses and justifications 

don't make sense in any real world context. Absurd assumptions must necessarily result in 

absurd conclusions." 

The question posed with regard to this portion of my written testimony is: 

L~ it appropriate to correlate public health benefits to the national debt? Can you point to 

government, economic or academic literature where this correlation is used as an appropriate 

indicator of the value of public or private programs? 

I would have thought my use of the work "absurd" would make it clear that [was employing a 

bit of flip hyperbole to make a point, but it is perhaps dangerous to resort to humor within the 

beltway. [n any case, linking theoretical, unverifiable public health improvements to economic 

benefits is a USEPA concept, not mine. 

And perhaps I am alone in wondering how all of the public health benefits that have supposedly 

resulted from increasingly stringent environmental regulation have manifested themselves in the 

real world? According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, the number of hours worked per week 

by the average American worker has been trending steadily down for the last forty years, but 

we're assured that environmental regulation results in people taking otf less sick days. (As 

though the average American worker is going to let a sick day to which he or she is entitled go 

unused!) We continue to debate the ever-increasing cost of health care. but we're told that 

USEPA regulations are saving us billions upon billions in health benefits. 

Question 3 

There are several questions regarding toxic air pollutants here, which [ will answer in turn, 

Was the Clean Air Act - with its focus on individual major and area sources -- not meant to 

achieve reductions in dangerous air pollutionfrom pollutingfacilities in individual American 

communities? 

First and foremost, I believe the Clean Air Act was meant to provide for the establishment of 

ambient air standards that are protective of human health and the environment and then to 
149 

The Honorable Chris Stewart ~ May 1,2013 

Page 6 

provide for the creation of appropriate regulatory mechanisms to achieve to meet those 

standards, If a particular community is exposed to concentrations of a particular pollutant that is 

deemed to create an unacceptable level of risk, then the ways to best mitigate that exposure 

should be (and are) examined, Such measures often include emission reductions among celtain 

kinds of sources, This measure, technically sound approach to air pollution regulation is 

scientifically defensible. Demanding "across the board", continuing reductions ad infinitum 

based solely on the type of source and its location is neither sound science nor good policy. 

It is also technically incorrect to imply, as this question does, that sources like industrial boilers 

have a significant effect on the air quality in the communities in which they exist. As USEPA 

recognizes, "tall stack" emissions units have a relatively minor impact on surrounding host 

communities, because of atmospheric dispersion. [n a practical sense, the average American is 

exposed to a far greater concentration of toxic air pollutants when walking past their local dry 

cleaner (with its relatively low stack) or when cooking on the backyard barbecue (which 

generates a smorgasbord of organic IIAPs). 

Neither of the above statements should be construed as advice to cease using dry-cleaners, which 

I find to be indispensable, to stop barbecuing, which [ find to be delicious. 

Do you dispute that industrial boilers and coal:ftred power plants are two of the largest emitters 

of hazardous air pollution in the nation? 

As I noted in my testimony, that depends on the HAP. The relevant question however should be: 

do industrial boiler and coal-fired power plants make a significant contribution to exposures to 

HAPs in concentrations sufficient to constitute a significant threat to human health or the 

environment? 

Do you dispute that they should be exemptedfrom regulation or givenli10re lax treatment under 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act, when over 150 other industrial sectors have sharp(v cut their 

hazardous air pol/ution under the 1990 amendments? 

I do not believe that industrial or utility boilers should be exempted from regulation or given 

more lax treatment than any other sector regulated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. I also 

do not believe that industrial or utility boilers should be treated more severely than the other 150 

industrial sectors subject to NESI-IAPs. 

That is the crux of the matter. NESHAPs developed under the Clinton and Bush administrations 

were tough, but ultimately achievable. This industrial and coal boiler NESHAPs are much more 

onerous and in many cases practically unachievable than any other NESHAP. Standards for 

new sources are so ridiculously stringcnt that thesc rules amount to a ban, in everything but 
150 

The llonorable Chris Stewart May 1,2013 

Page 7 

name, on the construction of any new coal fired generation assets in this country. Not only is that 

bad economic policy, it's bad environmental policy, assuring that aged coal-fired assets will not 

be replaced by more modem, efficient and cleaner units. 

There is ample testimony in the docket that speaks to the ways that Boiler MACT is different, 

and more onerous, than other NESHAPs. I would urge the committee to review the docket and to 

talk to the hard-working Americans in our industrial sector whose lives will be affected by this 

rule. 

Question 4 

Addressing industrial sources of air toxic emissions, it is stated that ""The cancer risks 

associated with air toxics are real, and yet the three largest industrial sources of many of these 

toxic pollutants (electric generating facilities, cement plants, and industrial boilers) remain 

uncontrolled at the federal level until as late as 2012". The following question is then posed: 

In your opinion. and based on the most recent National Air Toxics Assessment and other 

information that we invite you to identify, how close are we to reaching the goal of reducing 

cancer risks to less than I in I million established by Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990? 

It will come as something of a shock to the owners and operators of electric generation facilities, 

cement plants and industrial boilers that were required to install add-on controls under federally 

enforceable Prevention of Signiticant Deterioration (PSD) construction permits and that arc 

rcquired to operate, monitor and regularly test those devices under federally enforceable Title V 

permits that their facilities are "uncontrolled at the federal level". Based on my experience, the 

billions that those industries have invested in baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, scrubbers, 

selective catalytic reduction units and other such devices would qualify as "control" and the 

nature of their permits would qualify as "federally-controlled control". 

It is accurate to say that the controls installed have been primarily been installed to address 

criteria pollutant emissions. However, the majority of these devices will also control emissions 

of toxic air pollutants as a happy side benefit. For example, the particulate control devices that 

are currently installed on electric generating facilities, cement plants and industrial boilers - and 

I don't know of any of solid fuel-fired electric generating facility, solid-fuel fired industrial 

boiler, or cement kiln that doesn't control particulate emissions - remove the vast majority of 

toxic metals from the gas stream before the gas stream enters the atmosphere. It is thus incorrect 

to describe these sources as "uncontrolled" or to imply that rules like Boiler MACT will cause 

such sources to control emissions for the first time. 
151 

The Honorable Chris Stewart May 1,2013 

Page 8 

What these rules actually do is to force certain existing facilities to install new, more expensive 

controls in order to achievc an incremental reduction in ce11ain air toxics and to help President 

Obama fulfill his pledge to make it impossible to construct a modern coal boiler in the United 

States. 

I am not qualified to address the question of how close we are to achieving the I in I million 

cancer risk goal, or whether we have in fact achieved it already. In my experience people who 

perfonn risk assessments laycr on so many margins of safety in the interest ofperfonning 

conservative assessments that any objective analysis oflhe "real risk" differs from published 

data by an order of magnitude or more. In the case oflhe USEPA, I would note that it is never 

wise to allow an organization that has an interest in the outcome to act as one's own gatekeeper 

when it comes to vetting studies of this sort. [have faith is EPA's ability to develop objective 

data with regards to emission rates and ambient air concentrations of air pollutants. However, I 

do not trust the Agency to evaluate risks associated with this data, or to develop unbiased and 

complete risk/benefit analyses. 

Whatever the real (as opposed to reported) risk that air toxies represent, the extent to which 

industrial boilers, utility boilers and cement plants contribute to that risk should not be measured 

by the raw amount of air toxics emissions associated with those industries, but by their 

proportionate contribution of the specific compounds deemed to represent a risk in those areas 

where an unacceptable risk associated with a particular compound is found to exist. 

I hope these answers are useful to the Committee. As always, I will be happy to help the 

Committee in the future in any way I can. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Rich Trzupek 
152 

Appendix 

Non-Attainment Area Maps 
153 

Pili (Prlm...,.)ond 

~' 

.. ~ 

Counties Designated Nonattainment for 502 

Classification 

_ Primary, Secondary 

o Primary 

~ I'IIirrenCo.,NJ 

(prim...,. oM Secoo<lory) 

1212010 

ClassWication colors are shown for whole counties and 

denote the highest area dassification that the county is in 
154 

PM-2.5 NonattainmentAreas (1997 Standard) 

Nonattalnmen! areas ara indicated by color. 

When only a portion of a county is shown in color, 

l indicates thaI only that pari of the county is within 

a nonaltalnment area bounmllY. 
155 

PM-2.5 NonatiainmentAreas (2006 Standard) 

Nonatlainment areas are indicaled by color .. 

VIlhan only a portion of a county is sllown in color, 

~ indicates that only thai part of the county is within a nQnallainmenl area boundary. 
156 

Most of the U.S. Already Meets the Annual Fine Particle Health standard of 12 "g/m' 

~QU"c9 ~OOO.'OH lM,q,,;.klytXtMlI~!' .. 91 AI~ 15, 101;2 

k-I~,nIomJ~boII .... ", ....... wq?v/;;.m 
157 

Richard J. Trzupek 

May 30, 2013 

The Honorable Chris Stewart. Chairman 

Environment Subcommittee 

House Sciul1c(;'. Space and Technology Committee 

2321 Raybum House Office lluilding 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chainnan Stewatt, 

I am pleased to respond to your and Congressman Rohrabacher's questions regarding my 

testimony ofPcbruary 14 and I apologize for my tardiness in sending you this response. 

Question 1: 

A National Academy of Sciences panel convened by EPA made recommendatiun on how the 

Agency could incorporate "sustainllbilily" into all a/its decisions. The resulting report has 

become known as "the Green Book" Since then, the l:.'PA has pledged tofollmf these 

recommendations and "incorporate sustainability principles into our poliCies. regulation5 and 

actions. ,. Do you have an)' concerns about this new EPA policy? 

I have read the document in question and I am very concerned about this EPA policy for a 

number of reasons. Among those reasons is that NAS recommends that EPA should expand its 

regulatory efforts so as to include economic and social considerations in its decision-making 

process. To quote from the report: 

''The agency should develop a tiered fonnalized process, with guidelines_ fol' undertaking the 

Sustainability Assessment and Management approach to maximize benefits across the three 

pillars and to ensure further intergenerational sociaL environmental, and economic benefits that 

address enviromnentaljustice." 

I do not believe that the EPA is capable of, nor has the expertise to, address social and economic 

issues. In a free society excessive meddling in social and economic spheres is to be avoided 

except when absolutely' necessary, and expecting an agency whose personal and mission have 

little or nothing to do with sociBl and economic issues seems to me a sure recipe for failure. 

In addition. I find the decision-making "framework" proposed by NAS ludicrously complex, 

such d1at it practically invites bureaucratic abuse and crony capitalism. As recent events have 

amply demonstrated, complex bureaucratic frameworks are more easily abused by officials prone 

to push their own agenda. I would ask the Committee to review the following flow charts 

included in the Ni\S report that outline the proposed EPA decision-making process: 
158 

Level 1 

I Level 2 

1~~td=m:~; l:§1'qo bli,! I ,_. I i ~-!- -~.~ I,:::.H ::::;~ II :;:; H·=~ Ii':::': 

Lr LJ ;~:.~ C~~ L-J ~ I I 

I L ____________________________ J I 

To mc. this ty'pe of process does not appear to be designed to protect the environment, but rather 

to justify micro-management aspects of society that have heretofore never been the subject of 

regulatory interference. 

I would like to close my answer with a quotation from the late Julian Simon of which I am 

particularly fond: "More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce 

in the short run. Heightened scarcit~y causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity. 

and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to 

themselves. But in a frce society, solutions are eventually fOlmd. And in the long nm the new 
159 

developments leave liS better of It han if the problems had not arisen. Tbat is, prices eventually 

become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred." 

I believe that history has proven Simon correct time and time again, and I think it would be the 

beight or folly to abandon the free-market principles Simon espoused in favor of misguided, 

ineffective and ultimately counter-productive efforts to impose further bureaucratic 

mieromanagement under the guise of "sustainability". 

Question 2: 

One qfthe things we have increasingly heard. over the pas! decade or so, is that the science is 

being pohtici;ed by the EPA: we have heard accusations that rresident Bush manipulated the 

science and irresponsibly undermine the case/or more regulations, and more restrictive 

regulations. and now we hear accusations that President Obama manipulates the science to 

maximize the expecred impacts and irresponsib~v the case for more regulations, and morc 

restrictive regulacions 

The sCientific integrity guidelines. the boards. the review process and other chech don 't seem up 

to the cask ~f preventing these problems and concerns. And. although less puhlicized, the EPA's 

economic analyses are also open to these manipulations. 

Is there a }j!a)' we could betler sepm'ate the sCienr!jlc process/rom the regulatory process to 

minimize the opportunities jar politicization and manipulation? And. is there a way to separate 

the economic GllaZvsis as well? 

I think the basic problem goes deeper than \\.'hat happens at the EPA. By time the EPA gets its 

hands on an issue and begins to develop its own technical rationalization for whatever it would 

like to do (or not like to do), the science has oftcn been hopelessly corrupted. The manner in 

which rcscarch grants are awarded, the nature of groups awarding many of these grants and the 

involvement of special~interest groups in focusing rescarch goals often combine to corrupt 

science at a ba~ic level when public policy issues are involved, 

I don't mean to say that scientists at the university· or think tank level are deliberate(r falsifying 

data, but rather that research involving public policy issues is often so narrowly-focused or so 

speculative as to be of little value in real-world tenns. A scientist can produce a paper on the 

potential effects of increasing global temperatures on the life-cycle of the monarch butterfly, for 

example. This paper will then be added to the pile of research that supposedly supports 

anthropogenic global wanning IAGW) theory. even though it the data didn't actually speak to the 

veracity of the climatic conditions that AGW theory predicts. 

Political agendas have unfortunately - corrupted science at all levels \vhenever the science in 

question has intersected with public policy, This is not just an EPA problem, it's a modem 

society problem and I don't see it getting any better. As ollr society becomes more technicall) 
160 

complex - as it inevitably does - the potential for abuse of this type necessarily increases. 

because the public, the media and most of our representatives have less and less personal 

understanding of the scientific nuances. In absence of personal understanding. everyone relies on 

the "experts" and in a world wherc an "expert" can be found to validate any policy·objective one 

happens to have. real science falls b) the wayside. 

Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix the system. I only know that it's badly broken. And, ifI 

were to suggest an)1hing at all, J would suggest that the Committee begin to look at how basic 

data is developed at the grass roots level when public policy issues arc involved and work up 

from lhere. 

Thank: you again for the opportunity to contribute to the Committee's important work. Please 

contact me again in the future if I may be of further assistance. 

Respectfully Submitted. 

Rich 

Trzupek 

Richard Trzupek 
161 

Responses by Dr. Bernard Goldstein 

Response to the Questions of the Honorable Chris Steward and the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher 

Bernard D. Goldstein, MD 

March 20,2013 

I thank Congressman Stewart and Congressman Rohrabacher for the opportunity to respond to their 

important questions. Many of my responses concerning the nature of environmental health science are 

pertinent to both of their questions, but for brevity's sake I will not repeat myself. 

Response to Congressman Stewart 

Congressman Stewart specifically asks me to expand on why I strongly expose access to raw data sets 

used in regulatory actions by EPA. In my view this is an extraordinary bad idea that is based on 

misunderstanding of how scientific judgments are made, and particularly on how science contributes to 

the regulatory process. It will sew doubt that will further slow down our regulatory process and will 

contribute to the uncertainty that industry dislikes and that hurts our competitiveness. Further, it will 

lead to a marked diminution of the strength of our nation's environmental health science programs and 

lead to American regulation being driven by science from other countries. 

At your hearing the majority members and witnesses repetitively cited the many improvements in our 

nation's environment. What was not acknowledged was that these improvements were driven by the 

scientific findings that led to action. In every single case, industry fought these scientific findings. In 

every single case industry was able to find hired guns to reanalyze the findings so as to claim that they 

were erroneous. In every single case the doubt sewed by these industry-funded erroneous claims led to 

slowing down the needed action - action which the majority now approves of. In retrospect, these 

actions should have been taken earlier to maximize the benefits to the American public - and to 

minimize the costs to our industry. We often hear about the importance to industry of clarity in our 

laws and regulations so that they can confidently plan and operate in the United States. There are many 

causes of this lack of clarity. One is the propensity of all sides to throw doubt on the underlying science. 

Allowing every scrap of raw data to be reanalyzed by any potentially affected party will increase this 

doubt, cause further delay, and increase the likelihood that new industry will develop in countries that 

are more able to rapidly assimilate new science. It will lead to American industry continuing to 

squander money on reanalyses and on legal maneuvering rather than getting on with the job of leading 

the world in developing the replacement and control technologies that is to everyone's benefit 

The argument for release of all raw data is based on a common misconception about the scientific 

process. Peer review leading to publication in the scientific literature is far less important as a basis for 

action than is replication by other peer-reviewed science. For the process of setting National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which was a major focus of the hearing, the Congressionally-mandated 

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) has a long history of carefully reviewing all of the 

published literature on the specific air pollutant under consideration. I am unaware of any instance in 

which a single unreplicated study was the sale basis for a CASAC recommendation. In my testimony I 

intentionally chose to highlight a recent Canadian study using a different data base and different 
162 

methodology that corroborated US studies of the adverse effects of fine particulates. I could have 

chosen many other international studies, as well as a plethora of US studies, that reinforce these 

findings. It is most unfortunate that us industry has chosen to spend its money fighting these studies 

rather than responding by taking the lead in developing the control technology that is now being 

adopted throughout the world, including the United States. Providing industry with the opportunity to 

squander more funding in this manner neither advances our scientific understanding of how to protect 

the public, nor improves our economic competitiveness 

Let me emphasize that not all published scientific findings of potential regulatory impact are replicated. 

I had the honor of being the principal investigator of the very first grant funded by the Health Effects 

Institute. It was successful in refuting the published data suggesting that African-Americans with a 

deficiency in red blood cell glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) were particularly susceptible to 

the air pollutant ozone. As this genetic variation is present in one out of seven black males in the United 

States, G6PD deficient individuals would qualify as a sensitive population as defined by Congress in the 

Clean Air Act, and replication of the finding of increased sensitivity could have had a substantial impact 

on the ozone standard. Instead, we were able to convincingly refute these findings and one no longer 

hears about this issue. Further, contrary to the nonsense we hear about some cabal among scientists to 

only support scientists who are anti-industry, neither this finding, nor my service as a political appointee 

of President Reagan as EPA Asst Administrator for Research and Development, have hurt my career. In 

fact, being able to refute bad science is an advantage to any scientific career. This refutation of the 

inaccurate attribution of sensitivity to ozone of G6PD deficient individuals is just one example of the 

many occasions in which a published finding suggesting the need for more stringent regulation has been 

refuted by further scientific study. As I pointed out in my written testimony: 

"Contrary to the repeated erroneous statement that the NAAQS standards are routinely 

tightened, in the large majority of times the scientific review has led to no change in the existing 

standard/ and at times has even led to relaxation or elimination of standards" 

As just one example, the ozone standard was relaxed during the Carter administration. 

Another major reason to oppose the promiscuous release of raw data is the adverse impact it will have 

on the environmental health science programs that have been so valuable in achieving the 

understanding necessary for the clean air and clean water accomplishments that you and your 

colleagues have so appropriately emphasized. First, let me point out that inherently any single 

epidemiologic or ecologic research study can not be perfectly controlled. Neither humans nor 

grasshoppers can be totally ruled by experimental design. And this is as true for medical epidemiology 

as it is for environmental epidemiology. Statisticians evaluating such research have learned to 

distinguish between blemishes and scars; between those minor glitches that are not likely to impact on 

the interpretation of the study, and those which can seriously confound understanding the findings. 

However, it is the role of advocates to magnify the minor blemishes. This will inevitably occur, and will 

just as inevitably mean that scientists who publish such a study will need to spend all of their time 

refuting the ballyhooed blemishes which are being used to impugn their scientific skills. Under such 
163 

circumstances it would be foolish of any scientist to get involved in doing research that might have 

regulatory impact. Just the time spent on reanalyzing the reanalysis would cripple an academic career. 

To put it bluntly, if all raw data were required to be made available, it would be inappropriate for senior 

academic scientists such as myself to continue to guide young academic scientists into environmental 

health science as a career. These young scientists would never have the time to develop their academic 

program because defending just one paper so attacked for blemishes would severely impact on their 

ability to develop other research projects necessary for them to move forward in their field. And, as I 

pointed out above, it is replication that is needed. The failure of other scientists to replicate the 

scientific findings of a scientist should impact on his or her career- but not the overblown analyses of 

those hired to falsely convert the inevitable blemishes into unsightly scars 

Note that the result of requiring the provision of all raw data will be to drive such research out of the 

United States. As! point out above, the Canadian study cited in my testimony is only one of many such 

studies globally. There is nothing in the Clean Air Act that requires CASAC to only look at published 

papers from the United States, and it would be both anti-scientific and exceptionally parochial to do so. 

I can assure you that, just as it is true for medicine, there is an increasing volume of environmental 

health research pertinent to the United States being performed all over the world, with many of the 

researchers being trained in excellent US institutions. In recent decades European nations, Canada and 

Japan have all dramatically increased their funding of environmental health research. We are 

increasingly seeing peer-reviewed environmental health research coming from rapidly developing 

countries such as India, China, South Africa, and Brazil. I personally have been involved in the past 

decade in helping a new program develop in Malaysia and seeing it grow to the point that one of my 

young colleagues, Dr Jamal Hisham Hashim of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, was recently invited to 

speak at a meeting of the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health. 

So what would Congress do to obtain the raw data of researchers from around the world funded by 

their own countries? Require that EPA could only consider the findings of such published studies if the 

researchers would be willing to keep all of their raw data and turn them over to any American who 

wanted it - and only because at some subsequent date CASAC would cite their paper? I most certainly 

would not turn over my raw data to another country because they wanted to use it in a regulatory 

decision. Nor would I expect anyone else from another country to do the same. This could only 

happen if there were reciprocal agreements with other countries - and I do not believe that Congress 

wants to require US scientists to give their raw data to any other country. But that is where the 

thoughtless approach some are advocating would take us. Further, after subjecting them to this abuse, 

how would we develop the American scientists needed to review the world's literature for regulatory 

purposes? 

The choice facing Congress is stark. Our nation can obtain the information necessary to maximize the 

benefits and minimize the risk of our technological prowess through supporting a strong independent 

research enterprise; or we can destroy this research enterprise by subjecting it to the harassment of 

those beltway nitpickers who do the bidding of whatever financial interest has hired them. Congress M 

'" Dl) 

'" 0.. 
164 

can insure that the best possible science is used for regulation by providing the funding to replicate the 

findings, using different investigators and different data sets. 

Response to Congressman Dana Rohrabacher 

Congress Rohrabacher has asked the important question of how best to minimize the opportunities for 

politicization and manipulation of the scientific process and the economic analyses that impact on 

regulation. To answer that question we must first recognize the inherent difference between how 

scientific process seeks to come to judgment about what science is telling us, and the legal process seeks 

to obtain and use scientific information. We scientists are much more comfortable with consensus 

processes that balance the judgments of different scientists from different disciplines who are reviewing 

a body of scientific opinion pertinent to a regulatory or other decision. (Note that the process is similar 

for an NIH consensus panel looking at the appropriate age to recommend mammography, or an FDA 

panel giving advice about a new pharmaceutical agent). In contrast, an ethical well-trained lawyer has 

the duty of looking for individual scientists at one end of the opinion spectrum knowing full well that the 

lawyer on the opposing side will be doing the same at the other end of the spectrum. These contrasting 

approaches are a fact of life, but once understood the situation is manageable. In my view it has been 

managed reasonably well by EPA, although it inevitably leads to the criticisms described in Congressman 

Rohrabacher's question. 

My contention that there is an inevitable conflict between the legal and the scientific cultures that are 

both at play at EPA, does not lessen the importance of Congressional oversight to be sure that the 

scientific process continues to managed fairly and objectively. However, I respectfully suggest that 

those who think that the process is broken need to do more than wave their hands about. They need to 

provide an analysis of those regulatory decisions that have turned out to be based on bad science that 

made its way through EPA's extensive peer review process, and that led to some economic or 

environmental health cost that could have been avoided if the process was corrected. What I have 

heard so far is anecdotal, and reminds me of an adage we teach to our public health students. It goes as 

follows: 

I know that Boy Scouts always march single file. I know this because I saw one once. 

I am not claiming that EPA's processes of scientific review are infallible. But I do know that they are 

sufficiently admired that they have been adopted in many international settings. In my view, the critics 

bear the burden of proof that EPA's processes for incorporating science into regulation need correction, 

including a thorough analysis of the potential problems and the potential solutions. 

One proposed solution to the alleged problem is to administratively separate science and technology 

from EPA, in essence to remove the Office of Research and Development to another agency with no 

direct oversight by the regulatory side of the agency. The evidence that this is a very bad idea comes 

from an experiment devised unintentionally by Congress over 40 years ago when it almost 

simultaneously formed EPA with its own R&D program and OSHA with a separate R&D program in a 
165 

completely separate federal agency (NIOSH in HHS). The proponents of separating science from EPA 

would first need to explain why over these many decades EPA has done so much better than OSHA in 

developing science-based regulations. 

Finally, my view on economics is that it is a science and its review should be treated similarly to that of 

other scientific disciplines that underlie EPA's regulatory decisions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of the Committee and to respond to these questions 

(167) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
168 

EPA’S PRETENSE OF SCIENCE: REGULATING PHANTOM RISKS

SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE
169 

May 2012 

Public Policy ~oundation 

Table of Contents 

SIDEBAR: Whalls Pa,ticuiate 

About the 
170 

Preface 

The EPA's Pretense of Science: 

Regulating Phantom Risks 

by Kathleen Hartnett White 

I write this paper on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) misuse of science from my six-year 

former experience as a [mal regulatory decision-maker f(K the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ), the world's second largest environmental regulatory agency after the EPA itself. I was a commissioner 

and chairman, ofTCEQ from 2001-2007. My responsihility for making final decisions on regulations, permits, 

and enforcement actions necessarily involved my judgments ahout the rigor, accuracy, and relative uncertainties in diverse sdcntifk studies, statistics, modeling protocols, and technical analyses. I viC\vcd this "science" as 

a critical too1lo inrorm~but not to dictate-what were ullimatcly legal and policy decisions. 

Various memhers of the scientirtc community claim that non-scientists, like me, cannot challenge the credibility of the EPA's use of science. 'Ihis view maintains that only credentialed scientists can L-Titique the work 

of other credentialed scientists. If that is the case, so much the worse for repI"Csentative democracy.l Government by popularly elected representatives on the one hand and government by federal administrators swearing by the authority of science, on the other hand, arc contradictory notions. I would call the laHer, moreover, 

an acutely dangerous notion. Regrettably, in the modern United States these two incompatible policy-making 

models clash often, ,md ,'lith dire results. Elected oflicials trying to carry out their puhlic duties-e.g. maximizing access to clean, afl<xdable energy-meet stubborn opposition from federal mandarins brandishing their 

scientific credentials, The magnitude or the EPA's current regulatory agenda has elevated the importance of 

these issues. 

In my efforts to understand the science on which the EPA grounds its regulatory decision, I am indehted to two 

notable scientists who have patiently (~ducated me over many years: Dr, Michael IIoneycutt, chief toxicologist 

at TCEQ, and David Schanbacher, P.E., f<mner chief engineer at TCEQ, now director of natural resources I()r 

the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. I am also grateful for two recent papers which astutely unwind the 

tangled scientific web now supporting the EPA's historically "unprecedented regulatory spree:'2 My analysis 

draws heavily on these papers written, respectively, hy Dr. Anne Smith of National Economic Research Associates and Dr. Tony Cox, president of Cox Associates. 

Anne Smith, Ph.D., "An Evaluation of the PM 2.5 Health Benefits Estimates f(lf Regulatory Impact Analysis of Recent Air Regulations;' NERA (Dec. 2(11). 

Louis Anthony Cfony) Cox, Jr., "Reassessing the IIuman Health Benefits from Clean Air;' Risk Analysis 

(Nov.20ll). 

\/'i\I/Vv.texaspolicY.cOrl 
171 

Phantom Risks 

Introduction 

As my late father frequently pointed out (and in a poignant 

sense proved), "no OIle gels out of this alive:' IIuman life is 

certain to end and is fraught with dangers, Yet lite in the 21st 

century United States is far safer than ever hef()fe. Medical 

science and disease prevention have dramatically reduced, if 

not eliminated, many disabling and fatal diseases. Life expectancy steadily increases. In highly developed countries like 

the United States, the most dangerous environmental risks 

to human life from contaminated water and air have heen 

virtually eliminated. 

The US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), nevertheless, would have Americans helieve that hundreds of 

thousands ,viII die unless its new and unparalleled regulatory agenda is enacted. ]he EPA undertakes to "protect" us 

through rules costing many billions of dollars and with cumulative impacts jeopardizing the nation's electric power 

supply and millions of johs. 'lhc agency confidently justifies 

these costs on the value of "preventing deaths" from exposures to a single pollutant rarely considered hy physicians to 

be a killer! 'lhe pollutant is known as fine Particulate Matter 

2.5 (PM 2.5). See Sidebar: What is Particulate Matter' 

Sidebar: What is Parti.culate Matter (PM)? 

After dramatic improvement in air quality and ever-stricter 

federal air quality standards now approaching natural hackground levels (see Figure 1), the EPA, in order to justify more 

stringent regulation, recently devised a method to create a 

vast reservoir of new health risks. Under the cloak of selective, highly uncertain science driven by implausihle assumptions, the EPA now declares that additional regulations arc 

necessary to save thousands of lives. 'lhe EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's inflammatory claims regularly deceive the 

puhlic. On "Real Time with BiIIlvlahcr;' she grimly warned 

thal "We arc actually at the point in many areas of the country ... the best advice is don't go outside. Don't hreathe the 

air. It might kill you;'> In similarly hyperholic vein, she told 

a congressional committee: "If we could reduce particulate 

matter [pollutionl to levels that arc healthy, it would have 

idenlical impacts to finding a cure for cancer:") 'Ihis astounding assertion hy the head of the EPA demands meaningful 

explanation. In recent years, cancer has caused the deaths of 

approximately 600,O()O people pcr year. 

'1 his paper aims to demonstrate how several highly questionahle assumptions have enabled the EPA to assign health risks 

at extremely low concentrations of PM 2.5-lcvcls now well 

Partic\jlate matter (PM) is a fancy word for natural pust and for the mkroscopic particles released from man-made activitie$, 

especially combustion. PM is everywhere present on the crustal planet earth from natura! and man-made so~rces. To the 

EPA, particulate matter (PM) is one of the six criteria pollutants regulated under the federal Clean Air Act through National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the EPA at a level adequate to protect public health. 

PM includes both small solid particles and liquid droplets in the airwe breathe, The fine particles in question are minute and 

measure:lin microns (micrometers). The width of an average human hair'is 70 microns. J1Because particles are the byproduct 

of everything we do in an industrial society as well as natura! processes Ii,ke wind, erosion, for~st an,d brush fires, they are everywhere."51ndustrlaJ processes like rock crushing, commOn domestic ~ctivities like cooking, sewing, grilling, wood-burning, 

combustion of transportation fuels, and farming continually generate PM. Living on a ptanet composted of dirt, stone, and 

plants makes PM a ubiquitous component of human life. 

The EPA does not distinguish between PM from natural sources such as dIrt roads and tilling croplands and PM from orban 

and industria! ~ources. Urban PM is likely to be enriched with pollutantS with a chemical content potentially more hazardous 

~han natural dust. In spite of many scientific studies streSSing this distinction, the EPA still a.ssumE?s all PM carries the same 

health risks and regulates accordingly. 

The EPA has established .. NAAQS for two different sizes of PM: a standard for coarse PM measuring between 2.5 and 10 micronsanda standard forftne PM 2:5 microns and lower. Thecurrent24~hour standard for coarse PM 10 is 150 micrograms per 

cubic meter (ug/m3). The 24-hour standard for PM 2.5 Is 35 U9/m3 and the annual standard for PM 25 is 1S ug/m3. Although 

many health-effects studies do not find adverse effects at current levels of PM I the EPA concludes the fine particles (PM 2.5) 

still pose health risk by irrita-tingor damaging the minutea-ir sacs in the lungs called alveoli. Many toxicQlogica~ studies, howe:ver, find that the natural cleaning system in the lungs removes the minute solids. 

lexas Public PO!I,:V Foundation 
172 

Figure 1: Air Quality Improvement 1980·2010 

-_ - - _~= ~_~_c~ ___ 

Ozone (03) 

---~-

Lead (Pb) 

Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) 

Particufates (PM 1 0)* 

Fine Particulates (pj\j125)*"'" 

*1990-2010 

*'*2000-2010 

,'n:,:,;; 

-25% 

-92% 

-46% 

-31% 

-21q{) 

below the already precautionary federal standard for PM 2.5. 

'lhese key assumptions include: 1) Ambient PM 2.5 causes 

premature death; 2) 'lhere is no threshold concentration of 

amhient PM 2.5 below which risk of premature death ccases; 

3) Aggregation of statistical risks is a meaningful surrogate 

for a human life; and 4) Coincidental reduction of PM 2.5 offers legitimate justification for regulatory initiatives targeting 

other pollutants. 

'{he EPA is relying almost exclusively on coincidental reduction of PM 25 to justify the many new regulations collectively known as the EPA "train-wreck" rulcs.~ For example, 

99.996 percent of the health benefits supporting the mercury 

rule derive from coincidental reduction of PM 2.5. Direct 

reduction of mercury accounts fix only 0.004 percent of the 

rule's benefits. vVithout using the inadvertent reduction of 

PM 2.5 as a hoist the costs of these new regulations would 

far surpass their direct benefits. 'Ihis practice shields Lhc 

EPA's rules with few measurable henellts fnlm scrutiny. Further, it suhverts the purpose of cost -benefit analysis. 

Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 

1990-2020: The Benefits Study 

Most of the country already achieves the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) fc)r PM 2.5. 

Under the lederal Clean Air Act, the NAAQS fe)r PM 2.5 and 

the five other "criteria pollutants" must be set at a level reqv./wwtexaspolicy.com 

-28% ~49% NCD 

-90% -96% ~97% 

-52% -40% -52% 

-38% ~46% -83% 

-27% -36% -55% 

uisite to protect human health with an extra margin of safety 

and regardless of cost, 'lhus, the NAAQS arc extremely conservative, precautionary standards. "It can he argued that the 

1970 Clean Air Act effectively opcrationalized the absolutist version of the precauti(mary principle:'7 Although variously defined, the precantionary principle generally means 

that with risk of grave, however improbable, harm, and re~ 

gardlcss of uncertainty or cost, regulatory intervention is 

justified. 

Since 2009, the EPA has applied a far more precautionary 

approach than is articulated in the CAA for lhe health-protective NAAQS. In risk assessments and analyses of the cost 

and benefits of regulation, the agency no longer regards the 

ambient pollutant levels set by the NAAQS to be fully protective. The EPA is now attributing risk of premalUre mortalHy at PM concentrations approaching and below natural 

(and thus unprevcntablc) background levels. Similarly, the 

EPA is now justifying almost all of its many new air quality 

regulations on the basis or coincidental reduction of PM 2.5 

in rules not intended to address PM 2.5. 

This EPA is {)bsesscd with Pt-..'I 25-a criteria pollutant many 

scientists and regulators helieve has already been reduced to 

healthy levels. To the EPA, however, existing levels of PM 2.5 

pose risks to death on a par \vith cancer! A closer look at an 

EPA study issued in 2011 reveals tbe questionable methodology and assumptions behind the EPA's pre-occupation ,\\11h 
173 

Tn>:' Phantom Risks 

ambient PM 2.5. 1 his study, "Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act: Second Prospective Study, 1990-2020;' projects the 

benefits and the costs of the 1990 amendments to the CAA.1< 

'Ihe executive summary reveals the EPA's new methodology, 

1 lere the EPA attributes 85 percent of the health benefits projected over the study period (1990-2020) to reduction of amhient levels of PM 2.5. 'fhis "Beneuts" study unds that CAA 

regulation will "save" 230,000 lives in 2020." The EPA monetizes the value of those saved lives at nearly $2 trillion but 

estimates the direct compliance costs at a comparatively paltry $65 billion. 'lhe EPA implies that the public pays only $1 

dollar for every $30 dollars in health benefits as a result of 

additional reduction of ambient PM 2.5. Over 90 percent of 

the $2 trillion derives from alleged prevention of "premature 

mortality"--roughly equivalent to shortened life expectancy. 

'lhe EPA further imputes the equivalent of 100 percent certainty to the nearly $2 trillion valuation of the benefits supposed to result from preventing over 230,000 early deaths. 

"The "ride margins by which benefits exceed costs combined 

with extensive uncertainty analysis suggest it is vcry unlikely 

this result would be reversed using any reasonable alternative assumptions of mcthods:'lll (Emphasis added) It's a great 

Sidebar: Cost-Benefit Analysis 

return on investmcnt-$30 l()r every $1 put in, Moreover, it's 

a sure thing, 

If the EPA's clahns about saving lives and gaining trillions of 

dollars in benefils were factually true, the case for its aggressive regulatory agenda would be compelling, How can society worry about higher electric rates or losing American jobs 

and businesses to foreign shores when thousands of human 

lives are al stake? 'Ihe numbers, however, are so high-such 

an inflation from previous analyses of PM 2,5 impacts-and 

so lacking in credihle explanation from the EPA that theyexceed the bounds of Q·edibility. 

Peeling back the layers of assumption on which the EPA's 

massive benefits depend, one finds that the EPA's claims arc 

misleading at best, deceptive at worst vVhat the Benefits 

study calls an "extensive uncertainty analysis" amounts to 

an assumplion in a cherry-picked model that precludes any 

other conclusion than a 100 percent probability, 11 Dr, 'Hmy 

Cox paraphrases the EPJ\'s claim stating: "Assuming that I 

am right, it is extremely unlikely that any reasonahle combination of alternative assumptions would show that I am 

wrong:'12 'I his is what in logic is called begging the question. 

Cost-benefit analysis, a basic component of Regulatory Impact AnalYSis (RIA), has 16ng been used to assess the relative advantages or benefits of proposed regulation in comparison to the relative burdens and monetary costs of complying with 

the regulation. Under an Executive Order issued by Pr~sident Ronald Reagan in 1981, federal agencies mL!st sU,bmit to the 

White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a cost-benefit analysis for. all proposed "economically significant" 

f,uJes. A regulation carrying annual compliance costs of $100 million or more is subject to this requirement. 

If objectively and comprehensively conducted, cost-benefit analysis should provide key information to: regulatory decision 

makers, elected policymakers, and the public. And while a full RIA should contain a variety of data and analyses, the costbenefit analysis is a key conclusion. OMBJs current guidance highlights the essential role pf cost~beneftt analysis in a democracy where regulatory coercion should be the exception and not the rule. 

"Regulatory analysis is a too! regulatory agencies use to anticipate and evaluate the likely consequences ofru!es.lt provides 

a formal way of organizing the evidence on the key eifects, good and bad, of the various,altematives that should be considered in dev~loping regUlations, The motivation is to:, 1) learn if the benefits of an action are likely to justify thecostsr or 2) 

discover w,hich of various possible alternatives, would be the most cost-effective:'13 

Under Pdst and present admin!stra~i6ns, the EPA has monetized b<?th sides of the cost-oenefit equation. The costs are an estimate ofthe direct costs of compliance incurred by the regulated ~ntity. The benefits typically are an estimate of a dollar-value 

oftheavoidance of morbidity (illness) or premature mortality (shortened life spanj,The EPA has used diverse methodologies 

to monetize "work days not lost" or "living I~mger" but the numbers have become so speculative and inflated as to have no 

meaningful predictive value. 

lexas Public Policy F"oundation 
174 

Assumption I: PM 2.5 Causes Premature Mortality, 

a/kJa Early Death 

rrhe main premise behind the EPA's promise of massive 

health benefits from additional regulation 1S that PM 25 

causes premature mortality or reduced Hfcsp'Ul. But the selective ecological epidemiological studies upon which the 

EPA relics to make this claim arc incapable of establishing 

a causal link between death and ambient concentrations of 

PM 2S 'lhe two studies on which the EPA relics indicate 

statistical associations between mortality rates and PM 2.5 

concentrations in specific citicsY "Ihesc chronic exposure 

studies exclude accidental death and somewhat "adjust" for 

other Llctors such as smoking or obesity but otherwise attribute all non-accidental deaths to PM 2.5. 

'lhc EPA then intricately manipulates the statistical associations through models. The studies can show only an association or a concurrence between slightly elevated mortality 

rates and PM 2.5Ievcls. They cannot estahlish causation. As 

an example, the statistical correlation between higher rales 

of swimming and heart attacks in summer months in no 

way "proves" that swimming causes hearl attacks. 'lhe corrdation between higher incidence ofhyvothermia and purchase of heavy coats during ",,'inter months docs not mean 

heavy coats cause hypothermia, 

1he EPA:S "Benefits Study" admits that the question of causation is a crucial uncertainty that could lead to "potentially 

major" overestimation of benefits. "The analysis assumes 

a causal relationship between P2vI exposure and premature 

mortality hased on strong epidemiological evidence of a 

PM/mortality association. However, epidemiological evidence alone cannot establish this causallink:'ls (Emphasis 

added,) After acknowledging this uncertainty, the EPA proceeds to the assumption that PM 2.5 causes early death, an 

assumption made without analYling the statistical correlations within a causal framework. 

Such analytical rrameworks exist. Nine analytical criteria, 

known as the Bradford Hill causal criteria, are ·widdy used 

by public health scientists to assess whether an observed 

correlation is or is not likely to be a factual cause. tG Factors 

such as hiological plausjhilit~· and experimental evidence 

arc critical in weighing the health risks from air pollutants, 

'Ihe EPA, on the other hand, imputes complete causal certainty for liale reason offered other than the assumption 

ww\vtexaspolicy com 

PhJntoni Risks 

of causation is consistent with current practice. 'I he EPA's 

cherry-picked, unvalidated model f()r the "uncertainty 

analysis" assigns a probability of 100 percent to the causal 

connection between PM 2.5 and premature mortality. Such 

compicte certainly is unwarranted by available data and 

knowledge, as discussed next. 17 

'lhe EPA's allribution o[ the equivalent of 100 percent certainty to the assumption that PM 2.5 causes premature 

mortality also ignores a huge body o[ credible scientific 

studies and unanswered questions about \vhich the EPA is 

certainly aware, 'lhe National Academy of Sciences, toxicologists, statisticians and medical doctors have long challenged the findings of epidemiological studies which claim 

strong evidence of correlations \vhere no causality in fact 

existsY As Dr.lvlichael Honeycutt, the chief toxicologist fl)r 

TCEQ, pointed out in congressional testimony, "Ecological epidemiological studies are not scientifically rigorous to 

draw conclusions about the cause of health effects identiflCd 

in the studies .. and arc not suitable [or policy decisions:'l'! 

Many confounding variahles left unaddressed in the EPA's 

selected studies weaken the credibility of even the statistical 

association, much less the assumption of a causal link he~ 

t\vcen PM 25 and premature mortality. Typical confounders include the presence of multiple pollutants co-mingled 

·with PM 25 in the amhient air, thc diverse composition of 

PM 2.5 ([rom natural dust to chemically enriched, and perhaps more hazardous, fIne particles) across locations, and 

the question of whether earlier exposurcs to PM 25 at IcvcIs 

far higher than current levels account f()r cumulative mortalityrisks later in lite. 'lhe current amhient levels of PM 2.5 

are far lower than thc earlier periods to which subjects of 

the studies were exposed. 

'lhe question of exposure is a major confounder in many 

of the EPAs risk assessments. Yet the EPA typically assumes an unrealistic worst~case scenario of maximum exposure 24 hours a day. 'Ihc EPA's assumption that all study 

subjects are equally expos(~d to the monitored levels of 

outdoor PM 2.5 is simply not a representative measure of 

average, actual exposure. Research shows tbat PM 2.5 conccntralions indoors arc much higher than outdoor levels. 

Yet cleaning the closet, vaclluming, cooking or cruising 

through a department store can hardly he regarded mortal 

risks.,2() 
175 

Pkmtom Risks 

'Ihe EPA's estimate of the benefits from reducing PM 2.5-

caused morbidity (sickness) also ignores key research data 

to the contrary. 'Ihe EPA:s "Benefits" study projects 2.4 million fewer cases of a~rravated asthma in 2020. Medical 

scientists, however, recognize that respiratory infections, 

mildew, miles, and pel dander more directly exacerhate 

asthma than amhient air. And incidence of asthma has increased over the past several decades while concentrations 

of all CAA-reguIated pollutants have declined by over 50 

percentY 

rlhe EPA also disregards studies that show no or even negative correlations. Some studies indicate reduced mortality 

risks at higher levels of PM 2.5. A recent analysis of mortalily risks from PM 2.5 in 27 U.S. communities f()lmd a 

decrease in mortality rates at increased levels of PM 2.5 fix 

one-third of US. cities, including Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas and Riverside, CaHfornia.n 

Most importantly, the EPA ignores toxicological and clinical studies, 'which arc alone capable of evaluating 'whether, 

and to what extent, outdoor concentrations of PM 25 may 

causally impact cardiopulmonary function. Most toxicologists studies contradict the EPA's PM 25 risk assessments, 

"'l'oxicological data on typical forms of pollution-derived 

PM strongly suggest that current ambient concentrations in 

the US. arc too small to cause significant disease or death, 

... The expectation that lives will be saved hy reducing amhient PM 25 in the US, is not supported by the weight of 

evidence, although other bases for regulating PM may he 

justiftable:'n 

Assumption II: Going to Zero: No PoliutantThreshold 

BelowWhich Air is Healthy 

In 2009. the EPA made a methodological change with 

huge ramifications, '[he agency now calculates mortality 

risks from PM 2.5 helow the health protective level of the 

NAAQS (presently set at an annual IS uglm3), It also caleulates them below the lowest measured ambient level (LML) 

in the original studies and even below natural background 

levels approaching zero, Remarkably, the EPA nm\' assumes 

that there is no level of PM 2.5 below which risks to premature death ccase. Statisticians call this a "no threshold 

linear regression to zero analytic model:' In laymen's terms, 

no risk is too low. 

Prior to 2009, the EPA did not estimate risks below the lowest amhient level measured in the epidemiological studies. 

If the Pl:\'1 level in a given location was already below the 

LML (typically to ug/m3). the agency did not assume additional reductions in prvl 2.5 would generate additional 

health benefits, "However. starting in 2009, the EPA decided that it would calculate risks to the lowest level projected 

by its air quality models, even though no ohserved or empirical evidence exists ... in that low cnncentration zone:'21 

lhe statistical associations between premature mortality 

and PM 25 identified in the epidemiological studies cease 

below the lowest measured level in the study, But the EPA 

now imputes, by extrapolation, the same risks (and at the 

same ratc) for PM 2.5levcls for which no statistical evidence 

exists, "Extrapolation is the use of quantitative relationships 

outside the range of evidence on which it was bascd~'2s 

The EPA's adoption of this no-threshold approach to assessing risk increased by almost four-fold. 'lhe EPt\s estimate 

of total US, deaths attributable to PM 2.5 pollution-from 

88,000 to 321l.000! 'This approach means, according to the 

EPA at least, that over two-thirds or the public's health risk 

from exposure to PM 2.5 comes from ambient levels not 

only far below the protective national standards known as 

the NAAQS but even helow the lowest modeled levels in the 

relevant studies. 26 

In short, the EPA's incredihle finding is that mortal risks increase in proportion to the extent that a location's amhient 

concentration or PM 2.5 exceeds natural background levels-now estimated hy the EPA at the extremely low figure 

of 1 ugim:i. "'Ihis created a major change in the level of national mortality estimated to he due to PM 2.5 because the 

majority of the US, population resides in locations where 

the ambient PM 2.5 concentrations are below lOugim3:'27 

(See Figure 2), 

Despite critical questions from memhers of Congress, senior EPA leadership recently defended adoption of the nothreshold approach. Says Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator of the l~PA: "Studies demonstrate an association 

betv.'een premature mortality and fine particle pollution at 

the lowest levels measured in the relevant studies, levels that 

arc signifICantly below the NAAQS for fine particles, 'These 

studies have not observed a level below which premature 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
176 

Figure 2: Risk Attributed to Ambient PM 2.5 

Deaths due to "safe" PM 2.5 levels 

90~~ 

j 

i 

~ 

~ 

'~ 

'l; 

~ 

~ ~ 

~ 

~ B 

D% 

10 12 

Baseline annual mean PM u level (lJ.gjm1

) 

Of the total PM-related deaths avoided: 

73%occuramongpopu!attonexposedto PM level$ at or-above the LML of the Pope eta!. study. 

11% occuramongpopu!at!on exposed to PM levels at or above the LML of the L"l-t;"n \'\' ,"iL study. 

mortality eHects do not occur. "lhe best scientific evidence 

... is that there is no threshold level of fine particle pollution below which health risk reductions arc not achieved 

by reduced exposurc~' 'this is another way o[ saying: No 

risk is too low, improbablc, or uncertain [hat it is not worth 

regulating. 26 

rthe EPA claims that the two studies in question show no 

evidence of a threshold, but many studics ignored by the 

EPA do show a threshold. The agcl1C)?s Benefit Study admits that the "no-threshold" assumption is a "key uncertainty" but as usual assigns a "high" confidence to the model that incorporates this assumption. 'lhe single study that 

the EPA cites to support this questionable "no-threshold" 

assumption is one funded by its oyvn Health Effects Institute. And importantly, the "no-threshold" assumption violates the foundational principle of toxicology. It is the dose 

that makes the poison, 'lhe I~PA's defense of this absurdly 

precautionary assumption is another way of saying: that the 

point at which all risk is zero cannot he proven, 'Ihis is not 

surprising. How can any negative proposition be proven 

with complete certainty? 

"lhc EPA also maintains that its adoption of a "no-threshold" assumption in 2009 was endorsed by the agency's variOllS scientific advisory panels, 'lhe growing evidence of 

financial conf1icts of interest among the members of the 

EPA's technical review panels casts doubts on the objectivity of these revic\v panels. Six of the seven members of the 

EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) 

have received EPA grants to conduct research [or the' agency,lO! CASAC Chairman Jonathan Samel was the principal 

researcher for grants of $9.5 million dollars, 'I he EPA's inspector general has begun an investigation of these alleged 

conflicts of inlerest l!l 
177 

lives saved, deaths prevented or 

avoided, and premature mortality: 

the EPA's terms are misleadingly 

imprecise. "Avoided deaths" do not 

occur since dean air does not confer 

immortality. 

Nor, despite extremely low concentrations of PM 2.5 in 

most arcas of the country, did the EPA give any public notice of the regulatory implications of this sea-change in risk 

assessment of current air quality conditions. Public health 

scientists may have long debated the relative merits of nothreshold linear regression analysis, but these were scientific ddxllcs without the economic and societal implications 

al stake in the EPA's regulatory agenda, unprecedented in its 

cumulative impacts. 

A growing number of policy makers, stale agencies, scientists, physicians and concerned voters arc bafllcd by 

the EPil:s inflated claims about low levels of PM 2.5. Pub· 

lic disclosure of the data behind the EPA's claim has not 

been f{)rlhcoming even ancr repealed congressional requests. U.S. Rep. Andy Harris (R·MD), a medical doctor 

who chairs the Energy and Environmenl subcommittee 

of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, 

typifies grmving frustration Vllith the lack of transparency in 

the EPA's science. "If our current air;' he has said, "is such a 

threat to human health that it is killing hundreds of thousands of people each year, I am very interested to review 

the information the agency relics on in establishing this relationship ... Because the EPA is not transparent with the 

sources of their data ... EPA seems to rdy on making statistical hay ()ut of minor associations between pollutants and 

premature mortalitY:'.l1 

Assumption III: Statistical Constructs = "Lives Saved" 

rlhe EPA's public pronouncements trumpet the dire need 

[or additional regulation to save thousands of lives. Such 

unequivocal, e1l1otioual pronouncements grossly mislead 

the public and can intimidate even the bardened skeptic. A 

headline on the summary for the EPA's "Benefits" study is 

typical: "In 2020, the CAA Amendments will prevent over 

10 

230,000 early deaths~'32 Administrator Jackson regularly 

tells the media the Clean Air Act has saved "literally hundreds of thousands ofhveS:',3 or "public health protectious 

will mean the dificreuce between ... life and death for hundreds of thousands of citizens:'3.! 

These "saved lives" arc nothing more than statistical constructs; they do not retcr to real people. When not speaking for public consumption, the I;PA calls them "statistical 

1ives~' l~or the thousands oflives that the EPA claims air pollution has ended or that CAA regulation will save, there is 

not one identified individual. Nor arc there specific medical 

conditions or causes of death attribllled to Plvl 2.5 exposures. 'lhe EPA's typical approach is to assume any non-acddcntal death from cardiopulmonary conditions is caused 

by air quality. 

Lives saved, deaths prevented or avoided, and premature 

mortality: the EPA's terms arc misleadingly imprecise. 

"Avoided deaths" do not occur since clean air does not confer immortality. 'lhe health benefits the EPA projects from 

regulatory reduction of PM 25 is more accurately described 

as reduction in the relative risk of mortality. Extended lifeexpectancy or lifc~ycars gained more accurately describe 

the health benefit at issue. 

'lhc EPA constructs a "statislicallifc" (St) by measuring the 

reduction in statistical risks assumed tn result from reduction of ambient PM 2.5. '}\ 'stalisticallil8' has traditionally 

referred to the aggregation of small risk reductions to man)' 

individuals until that aggregate reflects a total of one statistical Hfe:"IS Quite obviously, "statistical lives saved" bear 

no relationship to actual individual human lives. 'lhe nearly 

$2 trillion monetary value of "preventing 230,000 deaths" 

in the Benefits Study derives [rom a simple calculation. 

'lhe EPA monetizes the value of one slatisticallitc at $8.9 

million. 

Thus: 230,000 "prevented deaths" x $8.9 million per statisti· 

rallife saved ~ $1.8 trillion. 

1hc EPA's valuation of one statistical life at $8.9 million is 

dubious. 'lhc EPA's favored studies fInd that the median age 

of people who gain additional life expectancy is gO years. 

And the increased life expectancy is estimated in several 

months, not years. But when aggregated into one statisticallifc, the EPA sets a value of $8.9 million per statistical 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
178 

PhJntoni Risks 

Figure 3: Health Benefits from PM 2.5 Reduction 

with Alternative Assumptions 

- - -- - - - -

- - - - - - -

- -- - - -

50% probability (instead of 10%) that assumption of true assoclation: PM2.S and premature death 

5P% probability {instead of 100/0) thatassol:iation is causal 

1ifc~year gained. 1hat figure is more commonly used as a 

monetized value for a healthy 25-year old adult.36 ~Ihe monetized value of additional life expectancy for an SO-year old 

is typically estimated at about one-sixth the value of an individual 25 years old. ']hus, if a more regularly used value 

for the octogenarian is used, the benefits decline by six-f()ld. 

Titus: 230,000 "prevented deaths" x 1/6 or $8.9 million = 

$300 billion (instead of$2 trillion). 

And if the factual accuracy of the EPA's three key assumptions is assigned a probability of 50 percent rather 

than J 00 percent, the costs of regulatory reduction of 

PM 2.5 dwarfs the projected health henefIts with a ratio 

of $05 billion (costs) to $19 billion (henefits). With the 

more plausible assumption of 50 percent probability, the 

estimated health benefits fall from almost $2 trillion lo 

$19 billion. (See Figure 3). 'Ihe EPA's dramatic claims arc 

highly sensitive to the unjustified certainty ascribed to 

the assumptions. '''lhc EPA~s evaluation of health benefits 

is unrealistically high, by a factor that could well exceed 

LOOn and that it is therefore very likely that the costs of 

the 1990 CAA exceed its benefits, plausibly oy more that 

50-fold:'" 

VIf\VIN.texaspollcy.com 

Assumption IV: Co-Benefits of PM 2.5 Reduction Can 

Justify Any Rule Under the CAA. 

'lhe EPA is now supporting new air quality regulations 

imposing multi-billion dollar costs on the basis of alleged 

mortality risks from tracc levels of PM 2.5 created by the 

"no-threshold" approach. 'Ihc EPA increasingly uses these 

"coincidental reductions" or PM 2.5 10 justify the beneGts 

of regulations intended to control not PM 2.5 but different 

pollutants such as mercury, ozone, and sulfur dioxide. The 

EPA's cost-benciit analysis calls these coincidentally occurring reductions "co-henefits:' 

'Ihis practice of relying on "co-benefits" from PM 2.5, 

evidently slarted in 1997 when the EPA issued the first 

NAAQS t(lf PM 2.5. Since 21109, however, the EPA has increasingly used PM 2.5 co-henefits as the primary, if not 

exclusive, source of health benefits 1n rulcmakings under 

the Clean Air Act (lirectcd to other p{)llutanls. As examples, 

the EPi\s mercury rule, industrial boiler rules, and lhe new 

S02 NAAQS rely on co-benefits from PM 2.5 reduction for 

over 99 percent of estimated health henefits. \Vithout these 

co-benefits, the EPA's regulatory analysis of direct costs of 

these rules would far exceed any measurable benefils. 

11 
179 

The Phantom 

The EPA's "no-threshold" assumption 

in 2009 vastly increased the benefits 

that the EPA could ascribe to 

coincidental reduction of PM 2.5 

in regulations not targeting this 

pollutant. 

CIhe EPA admits that the direct health benefits from reduction of mercury account for only 0.004 percent (or $6 million) of the health benefits. And the PM 25 co-benefits account f(lr 99.996 percent of what the EPA values as $140 

billion in health benefits. 'lhc EPA estimates the direct costs 

of the rule at $11 billion. The agency's press releases and 

congressional testimony do not acknowledge this huge gap 

hchvccn direct merenry hcncrtls and indirect PM 25 henefits, but the federal Register notice for tbis rule explicitly 

reveals the glaring gap. "il 

Dr. Anne Smith of National Economic Research Associates 

(NERA) has completed a thoroughly researched analysis of 

the EPA's usc of co~benefits in "An Evaluation of the PM 2.5 

Ilcalth Benefits Estimates in Regulatory Impact Analyses 

for Recent Air;' a work from which this present paper draws 

beavily.'" Dr. Smith analyzed the Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA) f(lf ovcr SO CAA-related rules promulgated since 

1997. (See Sidebar: Cost Bellefit Allalysis). 

As shov·lD. in Figure 4 (next page), Dr. Smith found a growing reliance on co~beneflts from Plvl 2.5 reductions. In 13 

RIA's for rules not targeting P1'I 2.5, suhmitted het\veen 

2009-2011, co~henefits from PM 2.5 accounted for more 

than ball' of all estimated health benefits. In six of the coslbenefit analyses, co-benefits from PM 2.5 accounted for 100 

percent of the benefits. 

'Ihe EPA's "no-tbreshold" assumption in 2009 vastly increased the benefits tbat the EPA could ascrihe to coincidental reduction of PM 2.5 in regulations not targeting this 

pollutant. As depicted in Figure 2, 94 percent of the 11,000 

(statistical) lives purportedly "saved" by the mercury rule 

derive from PM 2.5 co-benefits in geograpbical areas that 

already attain the current PM 2.5 NAAQS of 15 ug/m3. Rocall that NAAQS are conservative lederal standards below 

12 

which human health should be fully protected. The EI'II:s 

increasing reliance on co~bencflts garnered from PM concentrations approaching background levels is an evasion 

of the EPil:s fundamental responsibility under the CAA to 

directly regulate the criteria pollutants, of which PM 2.5 is 

one. 

By relying on co-benefits from PM 2.5, the EPA also evades 

its obligation to justify the need for stricter regulations. 

\Vithout th(' 99.9 percent plus co-heneflts ii'om PM 2.5, 

the EPA's case i()f the health benefits supposedly obtained 

under the recently issued National Emission Standards [or 

IIa7,ardous Air Pollutants (NESIIAP) would evaporate. 

(:onsider als() the mercury rule, acknowledged by the EPA 

to be the most expensive CAA regulation to date, and -widely viewed as a threat to electric reliability. '1he rule is based 

on PM 2.5 co-benefits in areas now attaining the NAAQs. 

Il becomes on these grounds a disservice to the puhlic, to 

policy makers and not least 10 the many employees whose 

job may end as a result of this regulation. 

If the EPA is convinced tbat ambient PM 2.5 now presents dire bealtb risks, the agency should make its case {()r 

strengthening the PM 2.5 NAAQS. lhe EPA is now reviewing the current 15 ug/m3 NAAQS PM 2.5 and apparently 

may reduce tbat standard to a level witbin a range of 1 () 

to 1.1 ug/m3 or lower. Co-benefits [rom another pollutant 

should not be used in a cosl-henefJt analysis to justify regulation of another pollutant. 

"Clearly, EPA's PM 2.5 co-henefits habit is allowing I:PA to 

avoid grappling with the important task of making a case 

that all of these other pollutants really require tighter controls .... but a high degree of complacency and analytical 

laziness has instead taken root .. "lhe situation is completely at odds with tbe purpose of RIAs, which is to provide a 

consistent. credible and tboughtful evaluation of tbe sodetal valuc gained with increased rcgulatory burden that new 

rulemakings create:>·V) 

"In all, EPA's use of co-benefits should end for several reasons. It scares the public into believing that large numbers 

of people [wouldl die prematurely "\TeTe it not for implementation of new rules on polJutants forwbicb EPA bas not 

actually identified any current public bealth risk:''')] 

Texas Public Polic\! Foundation 
180 

May 2012 The EPNs Pretense of SClencC" Regu!Jt:ng ~'hcllltom Risks 

Figure 4: Degree of Reliance on 

PM 2.5-Related Co-Benefits in RIAs 

1997 Ozone NAAQS (.12 1 hr::;;;;> 08 8hr) 

1997 Pulp & Paper NESHflP 

1998 NOx SIP Ca!l & Section 126 Petitions 

1999 Regional Haze Rule 

1 qqg F!nal Section 126 Petition Ruie 

2004 Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine NESHAP 

2004 Industrial Boilers & Process Heaters NESHAP 

2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule 

2005 Clean AirVisibility PJile/G;.\RT Guidelines 

2006 

2007 Control of HAP from Mobile Sources 

2008 Ozone NAAQS (.08 Bhr""-> .075 8hr) 

2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS 

2009 New Marine Compression Ignition Engines> 30 I. per,Cylinder 

2010 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines NESHAP -Compression Ignition 

2010 EPNNHTSA Joint Light-Duty GHG & CAFES 

2010 

2010 

502 NMQS (I-hI', 75 ppb) 

Existing Stati?f1al)' Compression Ignitfon Engines NESHAP 

2011 Industrial. CommerCial, and Institutional Boilers NESHAP 

2011 Industrial, Commercial, and,lnstitutional Boilers & Process Heat€r.s NESHAP 

2011 Commercial lSi Industrial Solid Waste Incin. Units NSPS & Emission Guidelines 

2011 Control of GHG from Medtum & Hea'vy-DutYVehicies 

2011 Ozone Reconsideration NAAQS 

2011 Utility Boiler MAG NESHAP !Finol Rules RIJ, 

2011 Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali Plant IVlercury Emissions NESHAP 

2011 Sewage Sludge: Incineration Units NSPS & Emission Guidedines 

\8'r\!\M.tcxaspolicy.com 

'. 

x 

x 

x 

X 

x 

x 

x 

x 

> 99.9% 

x 

x 

2'.99% 

x 

13 
181 

14 

Pkmtom Risks 

figure 5: Business Impacts 

P"""'''Dge Cka_ .. ill> C"' .... Air A<;! 

-11) .. 0'l0 ·RO'lO .fl.tl'!> 4.tl'!> .:ttl'!> 0.0% :ttl'!> 

C""" 

C~Oil 

e:k;elri~ 

GM 

P<!!~l.Im 

AgM..tt_ 

~i'>I""'l 

O:>r6m.etioo 

~ 

TexJs F'ublic Polky Foundation 
182 

Regulating PhJntoni Risks 

Figure 6: Health Effects of Poverty and Unemployment 

8,0000,--------------------------, 

7,8000 .~: 

.. t.:,+ 6' ...... .0 7,6000 .. ~ . ,$8 • •• m 0 ...... ~~ .. , .l: ~ 16 ~ 7.4000 • • a. • .+ 

:g~ ~ 

1ii ,~ " 7.2000 ~ .......... ,2. E iI.,; •• .... ~ '~ ",m • 7.0000 " (Qg ... 6.8000 ~-~ .... ad;' R'=O,9S4 

6,6000 

8.0000 8.5000 9.0000 9.5000 10.0000 10.5000 

real GOP per capita 

(logarithmic 1990 "international" GearywKhamis dollars per capita) 

Conclusion 

Many reputahle sdentific hodies have severely criticized the 

weakness of the science the EPA now relies upon to justify new rules. Among these critics: the National Academy 

of Science and the National Research Service, along with 

the EPA's 0"\\'11 Scientific Advisory Board, Board of Scientific (:ounsdors, and Clean Air Act Advisory Council. lk 

'lhomas Burke, chairman of a recent National Academy 

of Science (NAS) review panel on the EPA's chemical risk 

assessment, told EPA officials that "EPA science is on the 

rocks,., i[ you fail, you hecome irrelevant, and that is kind 

of a crisis:'-12 'Ihe EPA's chemical risk assessment for formaldehyde set the level ror adverse health eflects-and thus 

rcguIations~several times lower lhan the average natural 

level offormaldchyde in hUlmm cxhalation.4

' 

Current EPA science has a pattern, 'lhe agency relics on 

one or two cherry-picked studies which indicate the most 

adverse health eiIccts at the lowest concentration of the 

pollutant in question, 'l he EPA either ignores or gives lip 

service to sometimes hundreds of equally reputable studies 

w\vw.texclspolicv com 

that contradict these studies. lhe EPA's favored studies arc 

usually ecological epidemiological studies that show intricately manipulated statistical associations rather than data-driven causal connections hetween pollutant levels and 

adverse health cJTects. And instead of characterizing lhe 

relative uncertainties in the scientific studies on which the 

EPA relics, and weighing the evidence from diverse studies, 

the EPA puhlicly declares complete certainty and approval 

hy peer review, Upon a closer look, the peer-reviewers regularlyare either EPA employees, scientists who v.,rrote the 

relevant studies or were employed hy the same institution 

which the EPA paid to conduct the study." , 

'lhe EPA would have the public believe that "pure sdence" 

shows that a fossH-fucl supplanting agenda is necessary to 

save the lives or hundreds of thousands, Note in Figure 5, 

the EPA:s Benefits Study projects the decline of tc\Ssi! ruel 

hased industry as well as the energy inknsive manufacturing and chemical industries dependent on al1()rdablc, eQident fossil fuek 

15 
183 

The 

Sound science and objective 

scientists abound. Science in the 

hands of government, however, is 

easily compromised in order to reach 

predetermined policy outcomes. 

Environmental regulatory standards rcflcct a judgment 

about what is acceptable or unacceptable societal risk. As 

such, the EPA's final regulatory decisions arc ultimately 

policy decisions that no scientific findings can dictate. rlhc 

I:PA's manipulation of cost-benefit analyses to project massive benefits at comparatively modest cost denies policymakers (md tbe public the infixmation needed to weigh 

the many trade-otis involved in complex societal decisions 

about unacceptable risks. Economic impact does matter, 

and it matters to health. Many studies show that income 

and employment strongly correlate with health and life 

span. (See Figure 6) 

Sound science and objective scientists abound. Science in 

the hands of government, however, is easily compromised 

in order to reach predetermined policy outcomes. If the 

current EPA's policy objective is to supplant fossil fuels, PM 

2.5 is a useful tooL PM 2.5 is an ever-present byproduct of 

combustion of coal, natural gas, and oiL Emissions [rom 

cars and trucks, however, have been reduced by over 90 

percent, at the same time vehicle miles traveled increased 

by 165 pcrcenL4

; Natural processes will always release fine 

particles into the ambient atmosphere of this planet 

'lhe EPA's science is, indeed, on the rocks, as the chairman 

of the NAS review conduded. 1he Clean Air Act under 

which the EPA conducts risk assessment and sets national 

standards needs to slipulate minimal criteria fix scientific 

risk assessment of health eHects, suHiciently robust to guide 

decisions on air quality standards. Such minimal criteria 

would include the following: 

MJy2012 

'lhc EPA's risk assessments must be peer-reviewed by 

an independent body~not. as now, within tbe agency 

itseH~ 

Toxicological studies and clinical trials demonstrating 

causal connections between ambient levels of a pollutant and adverse health etlects trump epidemiological 

studies indicating statistical correlations. Ecological epidemiological studies, alone, are not rigorous enough 

to set national ambient or emission standards. 

Abandonment of no lhreshold linear regression modeling assumptions in setting ambient standard or regu~ 

lalory emission limits. 

Health-based air quality standards that incorporate 

representative estimates of actual exposure and not 

the implausible assumption of 24-hour exposure to the 

highest monitored level. 

Physical measurement through monitored readings 

trump rnodels. 

A plausible biological mechanism as predicate [or 

health-ellects findings. 

Comprehensive, cumulative cost-beneftt analysis of all 

rules according to methodology and scope stipulated 

in law. 

'Ihe EPA's regulatory sway is at a tipping point. Existing 

technologies cannot meet the EPAs new emission limits 

unless this country overnight can replace 85 percent of the 

energy on which our current way of life relics. Short of a 

miraculous breakthrough in technology, the EPAs regulatory agenda is a perilous pipc~dream precluded by the la\\-'s 

of math and physics. '* 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
184 

PhJntom RISks 

Endnotes 

l\nqi.\k, ivt (ocli-\vilid,"')UC'rlttl)( Pr('ll:[bl) V\ 

'Poih H.oom I)dilk <' ilk' 111(1)/1 "free! ioumoi (S tV\z)1 2(11) 

)011) 

Lnerqy:md Cnrnmcrn'(22 Sept 20l1) 

O~V\B )(\)3. (irulbr At1, f\('(jUI0~()IY /\nalysi';, quoted 11\ !\nn l Smith, 1)\1.0 ·'.I\n f'/aludtion ofthf' IWI)j! k'<1111\ G(~ndlt'i I <;1irl\11('~ in f\('911bttllylmpact 

Iln/-1l/l] 

, Blddfurd I jiii A,"Th(\ i-nVlrOIlIT)(\[1r dlKi PI\(\]",> /\,,",(lUclIIOrl or 

l(}l.llMUW1:K()()p,(,.clfl(lT()it-',1 

(!, S()ff\\lOfC(JOO(l) )l(l)):1(J«.J. 1()/:\ 

<"u~dn f Iild\-·brdnd, PL, ([1I(A Lnqinr-2H, tl/~ichlell 

" Peter A \'dlb"'lq, Ph D., 

dool) !\H;'(tlScpl 2(11) 

([)('c.)()ll))3 

')011 AlmdflJC of i'nvirnnrm'nlal flClld, (7011) 

\eX) 

1 ilUflH<', IX el ell, UHay()"idfl Mud,'1 Averaqinq in I imr> Sn 1('\ )[1.1di("> uf /\ir Pollution and J'0.or ldlily: kl(lllliJ/ 0' ",,;, njno"""d ,'nv"nmn,'nlofi"'nifl, 

70(3!\} 311-31:> 

(,r(Ovll I ( . /\trr),lronq)f\, 'f\lrlicuidlZ' iVhlt('i in 

Ann t Smith, Ph t) ,"fIn f-vJiU,ltion nf UK' Ptvl) 

(orNlllinq (Dc',- 2(11) 

Ibid 

ibid,74 

Ihid 

I j';" idCk,(l[1,"[(X) Dirty 10 fallY' iJ)s/lnqeie, Fl:res ()1 ()(t lOll) 

1') 

!bld,3J 

f<}((';\ '( li~h,"In\id(+Pf\(orn (.:1 luly)011) 

f'ho,'fno,'oiiih )(X13) 3I«J)"J) 

nt Ail fbjul(ili<lI'l\'NlYAL()f1omic 

1c%-1" ( ornrnh,loll on [nviIOnr11('ntdi C)UJlltY, "Cornrn;:-'ntc, fiH]z)rdml) lhp I )(~ of S( j(>ncr' in, Ind imriintinm oCt pi'.,', (IiNni 

c_al nhk!\'N'''~rn('nt<'(1j ()( t )011) 

\'1!''JVw.tex3spoiicy.com 17 
185 

18 

About the Author 

Kathleen HartnettWhitejoined the Texas Public Policy Foundation Hl January 2008 She IS a Distinguished Senior reliow~inResidence Jnd Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment 

Prior to jOining the Foundation, White served a six-year term as Chairman and Commissioner of the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quaiity (TCEQ). With reguLJtory jUrisdiction over air quality, water quality, water rights & utilities, storage and 

disposal ofvJaste. TCEQ's staff of 3,000, annual budget of more than $600 mililon, and 16 regional offices make it the second 

IJrgest envirJnmental regulatory agency in the worid after the u.s. EnVironmental Protection Agency 

Prior to Governor Rick Perry's appointment of White to the TCEQ in 2001, she served as then Governor George Bush appointee 

to the Texas Water Development Board where she sat until appointed to TCEQ She also served on the Texas Economic 

Development Commission and the Environmental Hows Study (ommiSSion_ She IS now serving in her flfth gubernatOrial 

appointment as an officer and director of the Lower Colorado River Authority. 

White is also co-owner of White Herefords and a in a 125 year-old ranching operation in Jeff Davis 

and Presidi'J celunl:!es. Sh,eal'lo !';Vice-Chairm2In of the TS"JsWaterFoundiltlon Jrld sits on the board of the Texas Natural 

Resource FOJndation. She recently received the 2007 Texas Water Conservation Assoclatlor)'s President's award, the Colorado 

River Foundation's Friend of the River Award and the Texas Chemical Council's Leadership Award 

A writer and consultant on environmental iaws, free market natural resource policy, private property rights, and ranching 

history, White f0ceived her bachelor cum laude and master degrees from Stanford University where for three years she held the 

ElizZlbeth Wheeler LymJn SchoiJrship for ~m Outstonding Womcm in the Hum;:,nities. She WJ5 Zliso ZlINJrdcd J DZlnforth NJtionCli 

Fellowship for doctmal work at Princeton University In (omp31·ative Religion and there won the Jonathan Ed\l\Iards Award for 

AcademiC Excellence She also studied law under a Lineberry Foundation Fellowship at Tech University 

Texas Public Pollicy Fo,undat:ion ThE' Te:<asPct,lic I'oli,:y Four:dalllon is a 501 (ci3 non-profit, non-partisan research institute, The Foundation's mission is to 

promote and defend liberty, personal responSibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting 

pollcYl'nJkers and the Texas public poliCY debate vvith acadenilcally sound research and outreJch 

Funded by thousands of indiViduals, foundations, and corporations, the Foundation does not accept government funds or 

contributions to Influence the outcomes of Its research 

The public is demanding a different direction for their government, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation is proViding the 

ideJs that enable policymakers to chart that new course 

Texas Public Policy Foundation 
186 

MEMO, RE: QUESTIONABLE CLAIMS IN TESTIMONY FROM

FEBRUARY 14, 2013 ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING, 

SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE SUZANNE BONAMICI
187 

MEMO 

To! Ranking Member Suz.'mne Bonamici 

From: House Science, Space and Technology Committee Democratic Stuff 

Re: Questionable Claims in Testimony from February 14111 ,2013 Environment 

Subcommittee Hearing 

Date: March 7, 2013 

Responding to concerns regarding the factual accuracy of certain statements made by witnesses 

in the February 14) 2013, Environment Subcommittee hearing, we consulted with outside 

scientific and legal experts in reviewing testimony and compiling this memo, Several instances 

of questionahle claims were found, but the following comprises a list of notable factual errors 

made by Mr. Trzupek and Ms. Hartnett While Please contacl Andrea' Jones or elu'is King with 

illl} questions. We can he- reached at (202) 225-6375. 

Testimony of Mr. Richard Trzupck 

First, Mr. Trzupek uses EPA's toxic air pollution standards for industrial hoilers and 

incinerators as an example of the U.S. EPA inaccurately repre.-'·;enthlg the costs and benefits of its 

regulatior:.s, I Mr, Trzupek highlights only the 18,000 tons per year olPM2 'i emissions directly 

reduced by recent indll'llrial boiler air taxies standards, and then goes on to claim thut in his vicw 

this is an insignificant reduction hecause it is a small percentage (.3%) of overall national 

emissions of fine particulate matter. 

Of critical importculce is what :\1r. Trzupek fails to mention: thnt the standards Elisa will 

reduce hmmful sulfur dioxide (S02} emissions hy 580,DOO tons per yea? -- whioh is equivalent to 

roughly 17% orthe S~ emissions from the electric power sector, ffiT and away the biggest 

source of SOl in the country (with S02 emissions of3,285,164 tons per year in 20123

), 

Moreove::-, EPA notes that these 580,000 tons of S(h emissions avoided each ycar are a precursor to PM2.5 emissions that will be reduced separate and apartjrom the 18,000 tons per year 

of direct P..'v'-2.5 emissions that the slancinrds \-vill rcducc.~ Mr, Trzupek is misrepresenting the 

leyel of indirect PA/v emissions reductions that these standards are achieving hy ignoring the 

standards' projected reduction of580,000 tons per year of SO),. 

1 The State a/the Errvi,.onmen{; Evuiu'iting p,.0Fress and Priorities: Hewing Befilre the Subcomm. ofl.8nvironment 

oj the H. Comm On Scie1'lce, Space, and Technology, 113~' Cong, (2013) (statement of Richard Trzupclc) at 4. 

:< See, e.g., U S. EPA, Fact Sheet Ad.TU~1.menlt; for Major and Area Source Boilers and Certain (ncilJerators 

Summary Overview, at 2 CNatlabie at 

~~~~~Irnp:1!www:epa;-gov/friJ'q-lla1ilY1comDrrstton/(]ocs/20121221-':-Siifll_overvICwJiOfler_ciSWi -:pcrf(TIiSfViSlfecfPe0.7."",----

2013) (,'BOIlers Fact Sheet") 

3 Data laken from EPA'~ Clean Air MUl'ketfi Pro6ram dalR, availnble here: hHp:llampd.epn.gov/umpdi . 

.) S~, e.g., EPA's Regulatory Impact Amllysis for these 11Jles: 

http://www.epa.gov!airqua;ily!combustion/docs/bOllerrecoIlflnaJria121220.pdf(p.7-2) ("Because S02 is also a 

.Cl1'CCurSOr to PM~ j,rcducing SOz emissions wlll also reduce PMlS formation, human exposurc, and therefore reduce 

estimated incidence of PM2 5-re1ated health effects," 
188 

:Mr. Trzupek also fails to mention these standards arc overdue, implemented 1 J years 

af.:er the statutory deadline established by Congress ill the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 

(under which all air toxies standards were to be issued no later than 20005

). As such, Americans 

have been exposed to millions more tons of 802 emissions than Congress intended when it 

required standards for the largest sources of industrial hazardous air pollution. Contrary to Mr. 

Trzupek's assertions, the benefits from these standards are far from insignificant, and represent n 

major victory for public healtll in t1'.is countl'Y.c 

Second, Mr. Trzupek characterizes the cosi-benefit analysis numbers offered by EPA in 

its Regulatory Impact Analysis accompanying the loxic air pollution standards for industlial 

boilers as "peculiar logic." EPA's $26.4 billion benefits figure represents avoided health hazards 

that Americans will no longer suffer every year (ftom premature deaths, hemi attacks, strokes 

and asthma attacks). This fib'ure also includes lower costs attributable to purely economic 

considerations (like missed work and school days).7 This subsHL."ltial benefit figure - which 

outweighs compliance costs by a factor of at leas!. 13 - do~s not correiElte to th(~ national debt and 

it is inappropriate to even draw this comparison. 

Third, concerning Mr. Trzupek's points on pages four through six of his written 

testimony, the industrial 'Joiler Maximtun Achievable Control Technology standards are 

techno:ogy-based sLandards wlder § 112 of the Clearl Air Act that require reductions to the 

degree achiev9-b1e ~Y modem tecllilolo~y.s Congress, "coneemed a~out the slow pace or EPA's 

regulation of HAPs, altered section 112," abandoning the earlier law's risk-based approach after 

it proved 10 be a profound failure, and cxtGfi<Jively revised § 112 of the Clean Air Act to include 

"specific, strict pollution control requirements on buth new and existing sources" of hazardous 

pollutants. 9 Evaluating the benefits of a tcchnology-ba.';;ed rule that require~ huge reductions from 

individual pollution sources as a percentage of "reduetions in overall national" emissions, as Mr. 

Trzupek presents his case, makes no sense for one simple reason: people do not brcathe pollution 

"on avemge" or "nationally." They breathe air pollution w~'l.ere they live and work and attend 

scbool. Reducing dnngcrous pollution from polluting facilities in individual American 

communities is what the Clean Air Act was meant to achieve. 

Fourth, and perhaps most egregiously, Mr. Trzupek asserts that "[w]e simply do n01h8.\'e 

an air taxies problem in the Uni1ed States today.,,10 This is demonstrably false. 

j Clean Air Act §112(e), 42 U.S.c. §7412(e) (20:3). ;; Along the same lines, Mr. Trzupek's ollart at on pag": similorly distolis the percent..'1ge contl'ibution ofthe utility 

-----see-t::l1' ... il.s-a-wh01e-with-respecl ... to-emi~'_iollsoffincpllrt-ieulate-ma!te1~e-1:friho/-sectol~ts-far-a11d-away--th-e-singlC"'" 

ill.rges~ poilu lion source of SOl emiSSions, their. selves preellrsors 1.0 PMv emissions, and with 3,285,164 lOllS pcr 

year of SOz emissions, this represents the largest source uf manmade emissions of So,. 

7 Boile~s Fact Sheet. at 3. 

'42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(4) 

~oSee New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574, 57S (D.C. eif: 200g) . 

... Trzupck, supra note 1, <It 8. 
189 

The most recent National Air Taxies Assessment (whose pie charts Trzupek uses in his 

written tt:stimony in Appendix B), fOlmd that "all 285 million people in the Us. have an 

increased cancer risk of greater than 10 i.n one million" attributable to breathing toxic. air 

pollution from outside sources,: I The Assessment goes on to note that: 

13.8 million people (less than 5 percent of the total U.S. popul<1tion based on the 2000 

census) have an increased cancer risk of greater than 100 in a million. The average, 

nutional, cancer risk for 2005 is 50 in a million. This means that, on average, 

approxim.atc1y 1 in cv~ry 20,000 people have an increasecllikelihood of contracting 

cancer as a result of breathing air toxici from outdoor sources if they were exposed to 

2005 emission levels over the course of their lifetime. 12 

'TI1e Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, 

established the Congressiol1oj goal to reduce cancer risks for all Ame1'icans to below 1 in 1 

million. 13 We arc a long way fTOm reaching that goal for all Americans. The cancer risks 

associated with air toxics aTC real, and yet the tlu:ee largest indt:srrial sources o[nul11Y of these 

toxic lJollutants--eiectric g.enerating facilities, cement plants, and industrial boilers) -~remained 

uncontrolled at the federallcvcllmtil as late as 2012. III light of these sobering realities, 

pretending we do not have an air toxics problem in 1his country is simply untrue. 

Testimony of the Hon. Kathleen Hartnett White 

Ms. Hartnett White makes a number of observations in her testimony that are incon-ect. 

With respect to lead, Ms. Hartnett White claims victory ove: lead pollution in citing to 

the elimination oflead fTom fuels in the 1970s. She further claims that "EPA could declare 

II U.S. SPA, Summary ofR~'ultsJor'(j,e 200S Na/iDnal-Scale Assessment, available at 

http://www.epa.gov!tblfatwfnata200S/0Spdflsum_results.pdf(last visitl:lo Feb. 25, 2()13). 

It Id at 4·5. 

I) See Clean Ai.· Act §1 12(f)(2)(a), 42 U.S.C. F412(f)(?)(a) (2013): 

If Cong~ess does not act on any recommendation submitted under p<tragraph (I), the Administrator shall, 

within 8 years after rromulgatlon ofstandords for eoch category or subcategory of sources pursuant to 

subsection (d) of this section, prolTIuigatr.! standards fol' such cfltegory 0:' subcategory ifrromulgatio:l of 

such stanctal'ds is requIted in order to provide an ample margin ofsflfety to protect puhlic bcalth in 

flC(;orctancc WitIl this section (as in cffect before November 15, 1990) or to prevent, taking inlo 

COllsideration costs, en orgy, safety, and other relevant factors, an advel'se environmental effect. Emis~ion 

stondaTds promulgated under thIS subsection slHlIl provide an ample mElrgin of SElfct}' to protect public 

health in ficcot'dancc wlth this ,ection (as in effect b~lore November 1,\ 1990), unless the Administrator 

_______ 'dclermincs_thaLa_Jnore stri~lgc:nt-'1tanQard is neeessary·tu-rR.'-V~lt;-tflk-ing-tn((3-eelOg-idcratiCin-eo~ls;-energy-, --- - -- ---, 

~af~[y, and other relevant fae.tors, at lldvcrse environmenLai effect. If standards promulgated pursuant to 

subsection (d) of tlJi!> seelion lind sppllcabll! to 11 eMl!gory or SUbcategory of sources emitting a 

polhllo.nt (or polluhmts) dassilicd o.s a known, probable Ol' possible human carcinogen uo nnt reduct, 

lifetime ex.cess cancer rislcs to tlle individual mnst exposed to emissions from H source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one In one million, the Administrator shall promuignte standal'ds under 

ihi~ subsection for slIch source clltegor}·. 
190 

victory on lead and rnaint~in the current NAA '2S but instead ehose 10 lower the standard below 

naturally occurring background levels in most areas.,,14 

First, the wide-scale use of the catalytic. converter is responsible :or the removal oflead 

from gasoline. This technology wa<: adopted in 1975 madel-year cars due to the U.S. EPA's 

adoption of strict standards for lead. As Sl1ch, rather than supporting Ms. White's claims, this 

example speaks to the overwhelming importance of enviromnental standards as drivers of 

improvements in the industrial sector. :Moreover, it is a misrepresentation of both the law and the 

science to state that "EPA could declart:: victory on lead." The National Ambient Air Ql1ality 

Standards of U1¢ Clean Air Act require regt:lal' review of the state of the science on dangerous. air 

pollution and require the agency to move forward in setting standards based on the best and most 

current science nvailable. 

Ms. Hartnett Vv'hite then criticizes EPA's Mercury and Air Taxies for power plants, and 

c1aimfl that "EPA admits that the cost of tlus regulation-at t.he EPA estimate of $10 billion per 

year-is perhaps the most expensive air regulation to date, EPA also admits that the benefits 

from mercury reduction are so minute to be. ill1 ... '1lcasurable," (Hrutnett White testimony, at pg. 8). 

These claims are factually untmc. 

Ms. Hartnett White is repeating an industry talking point thut distorl:> the cost-benefit 

analysis accompanying the standards. In making this claim, Ms. Hartnett White is ignoring the 

co"bencfits of reducing fine' particle pollution from power plants (so-called·PM25). Power plants 

emit toxic air pollution that can also be classified as PM2.5 pollution due to its s:ze and chemical 

makeup. Due to this fact, pollution control devices t.hat remove toxic air pollution from power 

plant emissions also remove PM2,s pollution. :n light of this, EPA properly includes PML5 co~ 

benefits in its benefit calculations for the Mercury and Air Taxies standards. Ms. Ham1ett Wnitc 

ignores these total benefits, which wi~l reduce the PM2.S pollution responsible for thousands of 

premature deaths, .heart attacks and asthma attacks. 

Finally, Ms. Hartnett White would have us believe that "Since 2009, EPA has been lIsing 

the pure assumption (by data-free extrapolation) Ulat there is no we threshold of pull uti onhowever low-'below whieh health risk reductions are no: achieved by [l'cgulatioi1-cau~ed I 

reduced expos-me.''']S 

Tn actual fact, Ms. Hartnett Whitc is attempting to distort what is merely a principle of 

how PO:JutiOll works on the humar. bod). Ms. Hartnett V/hitc is referring to "110 threshold" 

14 'Fhe-.St.1lf1Lf{£tbe...Em'ir.ol!nte.f.lt:..Ev.aluatrng-f!wgr..ess_and-Er-iwitia.<,';.Bsar-/ng-BlJjor-e £IJe-Subeomm. Of! El1viNmmenl-' ----+ afthe Fl. Comm. On Science, Space. and Technology, 1" 3110 Cong. (2013) (statement ofHoll. Kathleell Hartnett 

Whitc)at7. 

15 The Stale of/he EnWfrmment. Evaluating Progress and Priorities: Hearing Before the S>lbcomm, 011 Environment 

of the fI. Comm. OnSclf.!nce, Space, and Technology, J 13th Congo (2013) (statemenlofHon. Kathleen Hartnett 

v,.1lite)ntJ3. 
191 

Æ