By Brett Rosenberg and Janet Yoon, USCM Intern
July 24, 2006

The Senate Environment and Public Works Clean Air and Climate Change Subcommittee held a hearing July 13 to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed regulations on soot pollution, know as particulate matter.

Included in the proposed changes to the soot standard:

• Lowering the 24-hour fine particle standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter

• Retaining the current level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter for the annual fine particle standard

• Setting a new indicator of PM10-2.5 for inhalable coarse particles while exempting agricultural sources, mining sources and other similar sources of crustal materials.

The panel consisted of Senators George Voinovich (Ohio), James Inhofe (OK) Christopher Bond (MO), Jim DeMint (SC) and Isakson (GA), who were against the proposed soot standards; and Senators Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Tom Carper (DE), who supported the proposed changes. Witnesses included local government representatives from Ohio, Michigan and Georgia, as well as representatives from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Alcoa and the Clean Air Task Force.

No one disputed that clearing the air of harmful pollution is an important issue. While the panel agreed that there has been much progress in reducing air pollution through the past few decades despite increases in the economy, gross domestic product, energy consumption, highways and population, senators disagreed on whether or not EPA should follow through with the proposed changes to the soot standard.

Senators against the changes cited the possible economic repercussions – ranging from losing business to increasing energy costs – of such changes on counties. Other issues mentioned were healthcare costs, as well as the cost on counties of reaching attainment status. They stressed that the costs must be counted when considering changes.

Voinovich, chairman of the air pollution subcommittee, and EPW Committee Chairman Inhofe expressed their concern that EPA is selectively choosing studies that suit their purpose, leading to skewed results. He also cited statistics from a study funded by the American Petroleum Institute, estimating that the number of non-attainment counties could increase to 631 counties from the current 208 counties, if the proposed changes are enacted.

At the same time, Senators against EPA’s proposed changes referred to President Bush’s Clear Skies proposal, claiming that this plan would help combat air pollution.

On the other hand, Lautenberg discussed the consequences of air pollution on well-being and health, citing studies by Harvard, the American Lung Association and EPA, which maintain that four percent of deaths can be attributed to air pollution, and that particulate matter is the most dangerous form of air pollution. He also stated that he opposed any effort to weaken or undermine regulations. Lautenberg cautioned that EPA is not allowed to consider any costs, referencing a unanimous 2001 Supreme Court opinion.

William Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, confirmed that EPA has not and cannot consider a cost-benefit analysis. In response to questions, Wehrum stated that EPA is still in the deliberative process and is looking over responses to the proposed changes in regulation. Wehrum also stated that the final decision is at the discretion and judgment of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

In a follow-up hearing July 19, the full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee met for a discussion of the scientific implications of changing the soot pollution standards.

While much of the witnesses’ testimony was scientific and technical in nature, much of the Committee’s input was politicized and argumentative. For the most part, Republican Senators claimed that new studies since the particulate standards last changed, in 1997, do no warrant more stringent changes. Further, as Inhofe reiterated, the EPA “cherry picked” studies that serve the purposes of tightening the standard. DeMint added that, “I’m afraid we’re going to do something to look like we’re doing something,” without a scientifically based rationale.

Conversely, Democrats assailed the EPA for ignoring the advice of its own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC, which recommended tightening both the annual and daily soot standards. The CASAC recommended that the EPA opt for both a tighter daily standard and annual standard. The EPA chose only to tighten the daily standard somewhat, while retaining the annual standard.

Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) reinforced the CASAC’s recommendations and suggested that the EPA and Republicans were responsible for ignoring science while politicizing the issue. She noted that that all the studies since 1997, when the standards were last altered, “have not been partisan ...These have not been ideological studies.”

The hearing consisted of two panels. On the first, EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development George Gray used his testimony to try to convey how the agency prioritizes science as it sets policy. John Stephenson, Director of Natural Resources and the Environment at the Government Accountability Office, followed explaining that the EPA does not have all the information it needs to set new soot standards. EPA’s shortcomings, he said, include a need for more exposure data, how particulates affect different populations, how people inhale soot and a better diagram of the pollutant’s components.

The second panel consisted of scientists with expertise in toxicology, epidemiology and risk analysis. While they all agreed that much progress has been made in improving air quality over the last 30 years, they disagreed as to whether the new soot standard is protective of human health or not stringent enough. The questions Committee members asked reflected the disparity of opinion among the experts.

In an aside during a comment from a witness that indoor air pollution is more problematic than outdoors, Lautenberg suggested that the Subcommittee move its proceedings outside.

EPA reviews soot standards every five years; however, it is not required that it make any changes. Under a court-order, EPA must finalize any changes by September 27.