|
Quality Science for Quality Air 4 October 2011
The House Science subcommittee on Energy and Environment met Tuesday 4 October 2011 to discuss the role of quality science on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) clear air rulings. The hearing focused on the role of science in EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards rulings on particulate matter, ozone, and mercury. Six witnesses participated in the hearing, Dr. McClellan (Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis, Albuquerque, NM), Dr. Thurston (Prof. NY U School of Medicine), Dr. Honeycut (Chief Toxicologist, Texas Commission on Environ. Quality), Dr. Phalen (Prof. of Medicine and Co-Director, Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory, UC Irvine), Dr. Smith (Senior VP, NERA Economic Consulting), and Mr. Cichanowitz, an engineering consultant.
Dr. Harris (R-GA), the subcommittee chair, began the meeting by saying that the debate is often framed as “two ships passing in the night,” jobs versus children's health. Unfortunately, the analogy could easily have been applied to the somewhat contentious hearing. While acknowledging the EPA's role in the past 30 years of healthy air, Dr. Harris accused the EPA of basing their “job destroying regulations” on “shaky and secret science,” and said that some claims were “patently ridiculous,” and that the EPA produced “not quality science, [but] press release science.” In contrast the ranking democrat, Mr. Miller (D-NC), pointed out that the EPA has the authority and the obligation to regulate pollutants. He pointed out that the clean air rules that had prevented over 100,000 deaths in 20 years had not occurred due to the “benevolence of industry.” Mr. Miller countered Dr. Harris' claim that “EPA destroys jobs” by pointing out that those claims are made without any good numbers, and that premature deaths and bronchitis also cost our economy.
In regards to the science contained in EPA's rulings, it seemed the medical doctors (McClellan, Thurston, Honeycut, and Phalen) were more than willing to engage in discussion. The main issues raised were “how low is low enough” in regards to allowable pollution, the methodology of studies counting deaths due to pollution, whether the EPA should take a closer look at the constituent parts of particulate matter, and at what point do differences in allowable pollutants get lost in the noise.
Arguments over the effects on jobs were somewhat heated. Dr. Phalen and Dr. Smith maintained that the effect of regulation on jobs is not included in the EPA's calculations. Since socio-economic status has such a strong effect on health, the effect of regulations that cause job losses or prevent job growth needs to be considered in the final calculus. Dr. Phalen further stated that not including such adverse effects leads to the American people not being “fully informed.”
The debate on costs versus benefits of regulation focused on job loss and creation. Some members of the committee who were present staunchly maintained that EPA regulations hurt the economy and job growth. Dr. Thurston pointed out that after the EPA makes its ruling, the ruling is also reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget who analyzes the regulation's economic effect. Other committee members repeatedly pointed out that since regulations began, the United States has grown its economy and cleaned up its air. Congress member McNerney (D-CA) asked Mr. Cichanowitz if installing more environmental controls in response to regulation would create jobs in engineering, construction, etc., to which Mr. Cichanowitz responded in the affirmative. Some committee members also argued that stricture regulation encouraged innovation that could then be sold overseas.