Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0922-0323
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-09-08T04:00Z

Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Public Hearing

August 3, 2009

Testimony of

Howard J. Feldman

American Petroleum Institute

Good morning. I am Howard J. Feldman, director of Regulatory and
Scientific Affairs at API. API is the primary trade association for the
oil and gas industry, with more than 400 members, and as you all know,
we've been very active in the NAAQS process through the years.

I want to make two points today: First, the oil and gas industry is
helping the air get cleaner today and in the future; and, second,
there's no need for a short-term NO2 standard in the range which EPA has
proposed.

So API wants to thank all of us as a society for improving the air
quality. Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has invested more than
$175 billion -- that's billion, with a "B," -- towards improving the
environmental performance of its products, facilities, and operations.
Approximately 57 percent of the industry’s $14 billion environmental
expenditures in 2007 targeted air pollution abatement, meeting or
surpassing the requirements of the Clean Air Act.  We've put in place
cleaner gasoline and cleaner diesel, and these fuels, along with cleaner
equipment, cleaner cars, trucks, and buses are really leading to and
will continue to lead to cleaner air quality. We've also worked with
local and state governments to reduce the emissions from our facilities.

EPA’s trends data (my Figure 1) show that the emissions from six
criteria air pollutants dropped by 60 percent between 1970 and 2008,
while vehicle miles traveled (VMT) went up 163 percent. So we're seeing
real progress and real growth, so that's very good.  According to
EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), since 1988 releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals from the petroleum industry have decreased
by 65 percent. All this progress is going to continue. EPA is reworking
programs that will lead to power plant reduction in the eastern US of 60
percent in the reduction in emissions. Cleaner gasoline in cars and
trucks will lead to 77 to 95 percent cleaner products, including lower
emissions going forward. And reductions will come into place as the
engines turn to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel; that will effectively be a 90
percent reduction due to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel. So we see progress
will continue.  

Let’s focus on nitrogen dioxide, the issue before us today.

According to EPA (my Figure 2), from 1990 to 2006, there has been a 29%
decrease in emissions of nitrogen oxides. And given the control programs
already mentioned, this will continue for years to come.  Has this made
a difference in air quality?  The answer is an unqualified YES. Figure 3
shows that the last time there was an exceedance of the current NO2
standard (annual) was 1991, and from 1980 to 2008 there has been a 46%
decrease in the National average NO2 levels! So NO2 levels have gone
downward and will continue to decline over the next decade.

The question we come to now is whether we need a new, short-term NO2
standard in the range which EPA has proposed.  If it is intended to
simply reduce concentrations, we clearly have been doing that without
the standard.  So the question is whether it is needed to address a
particular health effect.  

Apparently, EPA is relying on an unpublished “meta-analysis” to
support the need for the short term NO2 standard.  As we will hear from
Dr. Seeley of Gradient, Gradient has conducted more rigorous
meta-analyses and meta-regressions than EPA, including 10 additional
studies, and found that there is no evidence to suggest that NO2 leads
to a significant adverse effect on the response to an airway challenge
at any of the exposures tested in the range of the proposed standard.
Therefore, there is no need for a new, short-term NO2 standard in the
range proposed by the Administrator is needed to protect the public
health.

Also, we ask EPA to respond to the points raised in the June 2, 2009
Request for Corrections on the NO2 ISA submitted by the National
Association of Manufacturers (NAM).  NAM’s petition includes eight
items questioning the accuracy, objectivity, consistency and
transparency of the process conducted by EPA.  Specifically, one item
NAM requests is that EPA prepare and release a report that includes a
detailed description and justification of the methodology for the
unpublished "meta-analysis" of short-term NO2 exposure included in the
Final ISA.  This EPA meta-analysis is central to the science used by the
Agency in the proposal and without documentation and peer review the
results are less than robust.  We would certainly expect to see this
released by an Administration which has highlighted the need for
increased transparency in its actions.

One technical point I’d like to raise is the issue of the design of
the monitoring network.  With only one or two exceptions the current
monitors are located in the community, not along major roadways.  EPA
has suggested that many more monitors are needed near roadways.  Careful
planning to gather data in the first generation of monitor locations
will be needed to fine tune the network to properly capture exposures
both in and near roadways.  Therefore the January 1, 2013 deadline for
the monitor locations may be too aggressive to identify, implement and
adjust a defensible monitoring network.  So we suggest that EPA build
some additional time into that deadline.  

In closing, API wishes to once again acknowledge the efforts of EPA, the
states and local communities in providing cleaner air. Looking forward,
further improvements will come through current regulations designed to
meet the existing standards, such as cleaner fuels described above. Of
course, we all know that the Clean Air Act mandates that the NO2 NAAQS
be established based solely on science. Nevertheless, given the dramatic
nitrogen dioxide reductions already accomplished and which will
continue, the potential impacts of tightening this standard on control
programs and industry should highlight the importance of getting the
science right, and not establishing a new standard in the range
proposed.  Therefore we encourage EPA to reassess the proposed rule and
base it on a complete, scientific analysis and to ensure that the public
is provided a reasonable opportunity to review that analysis.

Thank you.



Figure 1. Comparison of Growth Areas and Emissions, 1970-2008 

 

Figure 2. 

Figure 3.

Figure 4. 

 

Page |   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  3                 		Feldman testimony

		August 3, 2009