April 13, 1976
Page 10712
SULFATES
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Los Angeles Times recently published a series of articles on Environmental Protection Agency's research programs. One of these articles focused on the validity of the conclusions of that aspect of EPA's sulfur oxides effects research which relates to "sulfates," a byproduct of sulfur oxides emissions generally produced as a result of chemical transformation in the atmosphere.
Specifically the article charges that data from the community health environmental surveillance system — CHESS — were deliberately distorted by EPA scientists to support the conclusion that sulfates present a serious threat to public health.
I would ordinarily not comment on these kinds of allegations. However, as a result of these unsubstantiated allegations there have been inferences in the media and in statements by Members of Congress that EPA's entire sulfur oxide regulatory program is predicated on faulty research; and that emission controls for this pollutant bear no relationship to the reductions actually needed to protect public health and welfare; and that there is no basis for the current EPA policy to prevent significant deterioration of clean air. None of this it true.
Concurrently some special interests have grasped the CHESS controversy as a means of discrediting the pending clean air amendments which the Senate will consider after the Easter recess. None of the provisions of the pending Clean Air Act amendments is in any way based on the CHESS studies.
I think it is important to clarify the exact relationship between EPA's current sulfur oxides regulatory effort and the CHESS studies.
CHESS is a national program of standardized epidemiological studies designed to measure simultaneously ambient air quality and possible effects on health in communities which have different air quality levels. The purpose of the CHESS program is to evaluate, on a continuing basis, existing air quality standards, to obtain health data for new standards that might be required, and to document any direct health benefits resulting from a reduction in air pollutants.
The CHESS studies have been characterized as the best of their kind in the world and the most reliable epidemiological studies ever carried out.
Administrator Russell Train has provided the Congress with such a clarification in his statement to the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Science and Technology Committee on April 9, 1976. I recommend it to all of my colleagues, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Good afternoon, Chairman Rogers and Chairman Brown and Members of both Committees, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the relationship of the Community Health and Environmental Surveillance System (CHESS) to the air pollution control program conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.
I am aware that a distinguished group of witnesses, both within and outside of EPA, have preceded my appearance before your Committees today to discuss the procedure and findings of the CHESS study. I would like to briefly state at the outset that I believe the CHESS study represents a reasonable approach to understanding the relationships between ambient pollutant concentrations and adverse health effects. Moreover, I deplore the recent attacks upon the scientific integrity of Dr. John F. Pinkies, one of the directors of the CHESS study, who has been the target of attack in recent newspaper articles published in the Los Angeles Times. It must be remembered that the CHESS data and results have been made available to over 100 expert reviewers.
Other studies and reviews have confirmed the concern over sulfates raised by the CHESS studies. For instance, Dr. David P. Rail, the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and a witness here today, stated that his scientific study group found after reviewing the professional literature and holding extensive discussions "that there was no basis for relaxing sulfur oxide primary ambient air quality standards." Similar confirmatory statements are found in the March 13, 1975, report of the EPA Science Advisory Board chaired by Dr. Norton Nelson.
I view this entire matter with great concern. An allegation of scientific dishonesty or bias is a serious charge which must be quickly investigated since it not only damages the reputation of the challenged study, but it also impugns the integrity of the entire EPA research program and regulatory actions. Last week Dr. John Buckley, a retired senior EPA official who is presently an EPA consultant, Dr. Roger McClellan of the Lovelace Foundation, and Dr. David Jackson of Case Western University, visited the EPA research facility in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina to interview those EPA scientists who were directly involved in the CHESS study and in the preparation of the report "Health Consequences of Sulfur Oxides." These discussions focused on the allegations made in the published newspaper articles and the quoted statements attributed to EPA employees. Dr. Buckley will discuss the findings of his group in detail following my testimony. In addition, we are exploring with the National Academy of Sciences and others, the possibility of selecting a qualified, neutral group of scientists who will become familiar with the basic CHESS data. The group may then serve as independent reviewers of past and future analyses of the CHESS data.
At this point I want to address another concern raised by the charges made against the CHESS program; that is the relationship between the CHESS study and EPA's Sulfur Oxide Regulatory Program. The recent Los Angeles Times articles have alleged that EPA's current regulatory program for sulfur oxides relied heavily upon the results of our CHESS studies. These accounts suggest that EPA has used these studies as the major basis for imposing a multibillion dollar emissions control strategy upon the nation's utility industry. Both of these assertions are untrue.
They misinterpret the role of the CHESS studies in the EPA sulfur oxides regulatory program. The truth is that the direction of this important program was determined by scientific information in existence before the CHESS studies were initiated. Thus, even if one were to assume the worst about CHESS, which I do not, this would in no way call into question the Agency's sulfur oxides regulatory program.
EPA's current regulatory program for sulfur oxides utilizes two of the major options available under the Clean Air Act: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). NAAQS may be established for any air pollutant which, in the judgment of the EPA Administrator, "has an adverse effect on public health and welfare," and results from emissions from "numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources." Primary standards are set to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Secondary standards are designed to prevent known or anticipated adverse welfare effects.
On the question of the establishment of the national ambient standard for sulfur dioxide, it must be noted that a substantial amount of information on the health and welfare effects of sulfur oxides was reviewed in the 1969 document, Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides. This data, from as far back as 1939, suggested that a wide range of adverse health effects were related to atmospheric sulfur oxides. Even in 1969 the accumulated data indicated that fine particulate sulfuric acid, certain sulfates, and combinations of sulfur dioxide and particulates had potent effects. Based upon this information compiled in the criteria document, the primary national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide were established. These health-related standards, and also the welfare-related or secondary standards, were set before the CHESS studies were even commenced. In conformity with the structure of the Clean Air Act, States submitted implementation plans which included measures designed to ensure attainment of the primary and secondary standards. It is evident that the emission limits contained in currently applicable State implementation plans are based upon the national standards and not the findings of CHESS.
Next, New Source Performance Standards, the second major component of EPA's sulfur oxide regulatory program, are established for new or modified sources that may "contribute significantly to air pollution which causes or contributes to the endangerment of public health or welfare." The emission standard must reflect the best degree of available control technology, considering cost, that the Administrator believes has been adequately demonstrated.
As a NAAQS pollutant, sulfur dioxide meets the NSPS criteria. To date, NSPS for sulfur dioxide emitters exist for large steam generating plants and sulfuric acid plants, both established in 1971. The current sulfur dioxide NSPS affecting power plants can be met by obtaining suitable low sulfur fuels where available or by stack gas scrubbing. The sulfur dioxide criteria document provides the health basis for these standards, and existing technology determines the actual emission limit. Again, the existence of CHESS does not affect this program. From the preceding discussion it should be apparent that the two major components of EPA's sulfur oxide control strategy do not gain their impetus from the findings of the CHESS studies. At this point, it is important to examine several of EPA's air pollution control policies to determine whether the CHESS program has affected their direction.
The Clean Air Act was amended by the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 (ESECA). Under new section 119(d), a federally ordered conversion of a fuel burning stationary source from gas or oil to coal may be suspended if resultant emissions of a nonregulated pollutant "will result in an increase which causes (or materially contributes to) a significant risk to health ..." This provision could apply to sulfates since they constitute a noncriteria pollutant. The Agency prepared a proposal to implement the "significant risk" provision concerning sulfates based on the Agency's 1975 Position Paper on Regulation of Atmospheric Sulfates (which I offer for the record) which included a discussion of the CHESS results as well as results and recommendations of a number of other studies on sulfates. Among these were a March 1975 National Academy of Sciences report and a concurrent report of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) , which expressed concerns over the risks from increased emissions of sulfur dioxide and particulates. At this time the significant risk proposal is still in draft form. It is clear that in this area of EPA policy, the CHESS results have supported, but not determined, Agency actions.
Related to all of the preceding standards and proposals is the EPA policy against the use, in most situations, of atmospheric dispersion techniques as a permissible control strategy. These techniques include the use of tall stacks and intermittent or supplementary control strategies. The Agency position on the use of these methods is based upon the language of the Clean Air Act, as interpreted by the Federal courts. In addition to a number of studies, the Agency has cited the preliminary CHESS results to support its concern about the use of dispersion techniques of tall stacks and intermittent or supplemental control systems in place of permanent or continuous controls. Although reinforced by the CHESS results, EPA's positions on tall stacks and ICS are founded upon a preexisting and longstanding opposition to an increase of the total atmospheric burden of sulfur oxides. Prior to EPA's creation, Federal officials had argued that dispersion methods of air pollution control would not guarantee that air quality goals would be met at the ground level. The former National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) consistently opposed the use of tall stacks as the primary means of sulfur dioxide control because of their effects on the formation and dispersion of fine particulate acid sulfates, visibility conditions, the health of exposed populations, and the acidity of rainfall. Information collected since 1970 has reaffirmed these NAPCA assessments. Thus, even without the CHESS studies, ample evidence exists to support concerns over total atmospheric sulfur loading and the use of tall stacks.
In the area of ICS, we have determined that such methods are inherently unreliable and difficult to enforce. EPA's view has been supported by the Department of Commerce Technical Advisory Board which has found in its 1975 Report on Sulfur Oxide Control Technology that intermittent control systems create administrative and financial difficulties which could prevent effective enforcement. The report also states that under certain circumstances the costs of such a system would approach that of continuous emission control measures. The National Academy of Sciences has also supported the EPA position. It is apparent that EPA's policy concerning ICS is based upon preexisting factors unrelated to the CHESS studies. Furthermore, our approach has received extensive favorable review from a number of independent scientific groups, in addition to legal approval in the Federal courts.
Finally, the EPA regulatory program for the prevention of significant deterioration of clean air, based upon judicial interpretation of the Clean Air Act, relates solely to existing national air quality standards and is not premised upon the CHESS studies.
In summary, EPA's sulfur oxide regulatory program is based on a number of factors. EPA's Position Paper on the Regulation of Atmospheric Sulfates emphasizes the fact that the overall Agency concern over atmospheric sulfates is founded upon a variety of studies and study critiques, of which CHESS is only one among many. The need for controlling sulfur oxides has been reaffirmed by recent independent scientific reviews. We believe that an adequate range of control techniques are presently available to achieve the goals for the control of sulfur oxides without excessive costs or undue delay. Our current program is both scientifically valid and technologically and economically achievable.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will now be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may have.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on the question of the relationship of these studies or any conclusions drawn from them to the amendments to the Clean Air Act I call my colleagues' attention to the report on that bill. The Senate proposal is intended to provide protection of air quality in areas with clean air to assure that air quality in clean air areas does not deteriorate to levels found in most of America's major urban centers; and to regulate new major sources of pollution effectively in clean air areas in order to maintain a margin of safety — an air quality reserve — for future growth and development.
Mr. President. there may be a health basis for prevention of significant deterioration. There may be data in the CHESS studies to support such a conclusion. And the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution will examine that information on an ongoing basis. However, these data and these studies were not before the committee during consideration of the pending amendments. To my knowledge members of the committee were unaware of the studies or any conclusions associated therewith.
Our purpose in these amendments is to provide legislative guidance to the basic purpose of the Clean Air Act — the purpose of protecting and enhancing air quality. I would hope my colleagues would study the committee proposal in this perspective and not be diverted by phony and irrelevant issues.