My name is Felice Stadler, and I coordinate the National Wildlife Federation's national Clean the Rain Campaign. The campaign seeks to raise public awareness about how toxic air pollution contaminates our lakes and streams and advocate for national and local policies to phase out the emissions of mercury and other persistent bioaccumulative toxics. In my testimony this morning I will explain why emissions of toxic air pollutants must be reduced by residual risk standards. While we recognize that EPA needs to refine its methodology for performing residual risk assessments, we firmly believe that the program must be preserved and adequate resources be provided to allow the agency to do the critical assessments needed to protect humans and wildlife from actual harm.
This is a timely subject. As you know, mercury is a highly potent neurotoxin. Just two weeks ago, the National Wildlife Federation released a report showing that mercury levels in New England's rain are up to four times as high as EPA's standard for aquatic life in surface waters. One year ago, the National Wildlife Federation released a similar report showing even higher mercury concentrations in rain falling on Great Lakes states. When mercury-laden rain falls into lakes, it contaminates the water, the fish and other aquatic life living in the water, and the people and wildlife who eat the fish. This example illustrates the importance of reducing the emissions of toxic air pollutants that are daily contaminating our rain, our lakes, our fish and our children.
As you are aware, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 to establish a more effective program to reduce toxic air pollution. Congress required major sources that emit any of 188 listed toxic air pollutants to meet performance standards based on the best industry practices to minimize toxic releases.
Over the past decade, we have witnessed a significant reduction in toxic air pollution emitted by large and small industry throughout the United States. Over 20 technology-based rules have been finalized, affecting over 48 categories of major industrial sources. Each year these rules will remove approximately one million tons of over 100 different air toxics almost 10 times greater than the reductions achieved between 1970-1990. (U.S. EPA, 1998, Taking Toxics out of the Air: Progress in Setting Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards Under the Clean Air Act, EPA/451/K-98-001)
Have those reductions solved the air toxics problem in communities and ecosystems throughout the U.S.? Certainly not. People and wildlife continue to be exposed to toxic air pollution which harms their well-being.
I have already alluded to the contamination of our waters by mercury. Mercury emitted into the air is the leading cause of mercury pollution in the Nation's lakes and streams. The National Academy of Sciences recently reported that over 60,000 children a year may be adversely affected by exposure to mercury in the womb. Forty one states and territories have issued formal advisories warning people to restrict or avoid eating the fish they catch because of mercury contamination. Scientists have documented harmful changes in reproductive patterns in loons exposed to mercury.
Dioxin is another persistent bioaccumulative toxic air pollutant. It is the most potent carcinogen and reproductive toxin EPA has ever evaluated. Dioxin levels measured in food are above those that scientists believe are harmful to people and wildlife.
Clearly, only part of the problem has been addressed, and it is vitally important that EPA move to the next phase of its national air toxics strategy, the residual risk program. If EPA is prevented from implementing the risk-based element of its air toxics strategy, significant air toxics problems will remain. There are three main reasons to move forward with the residual risk program.
First, without a residual risk program, EPA will not be able to address the harm from the most toxic air pollutants, those that, like mercury and dioxins, persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. This special class of pollutants is harmful at extremely low levels, and uniquely harmful to people and wildlife because they become increasingly toxic as they move up the food chain. For example, mercury is one million times more toxic in fish than in surrounding water, so when we eat fish we are consuming concentrated mercury. Those most vulnerable to the effects of these toxic compounds include unborn children, women, low-income communities, and communities of color. EPA is not required to address the full extent of the harm posed by these most toxic compounds through technology standards. Therefore, the residual risk program is critical to ensure these unique risks are appropriately addressed.
Second, EPA's technology standards do not take into account the cumulative risk that occurs when industrial sources are concentrated in an area. There are hundreds of communities throughout the country that face a disproportionate risk from exposure to toxic air pollution because of heavy concentrations of industrial sources. In Memphis, Tennessee, you can see sources of toxic air pollution in every direction a petroleum fueling station, a six-lane highway, a refinery, a lead smelter, and a factory. Less than a block away from these sources, there is low-income housing and a playground. Unfortunately, this picture is not unique. Risk-based programs enable EPA to evaluate these real life scenarios that are all too common for countless citizens.
Third, Congress and EPA never intended the technology-based program to address entirely all toxic emissions from all listed sources. Technology-based standards provide the best industry can offer at the time they are imposed, but this does not necessarily translate into being the most stringent or comprehensive approach. In fact, when EPA issued the proposed Portland cement kiln rule two years ago, EPA announced it would evaluate the need to make the standard more stringent to address mercury emissions as part of the residual risk phase.
It is EPA's tentative conclusion, however, that concerns as to health risks from mercury emissions from these sources may be appropriately addressed pursuant to the timetable set out in the Act, namely through the residual risk determination process set out in section 112(f) of the Act. 63 Fed. Reg. 14202
The residual risk program allows the agency to revisit a regulatory decision once more information has been collected and the effect of the initial rule has been evaluated. Without the residual risk program, this category of sources, and others like it, would likely never be adequately regulated under the Clean Air Act.
In conclusion, I want to raise the issue of uncertainties relating to the residual risk program. Every risk assessment must contend with uncertainties who is exposed, how much they are exposed to, the health effects of pollutants. Requiring every uncertainty to be addressed before taking action would effectively mean no action will be taken. EPA is refining its tools to carry out the residual risk program, and should be given the opportunity to go forward and implement the program. But policy paralysis will be the result if EPA is required to address every uncertainty before acting; our children will be the most directly affected by delay. Finally, I would like to close with two recommendations to improve how we regulate sources of air toxics. First, the risks to people and wildlife from the most toxic pollutants those like mercury and dioxins that bioaccumulate and persist are well established: any release of these pollutants causes harm. For that reason, in international agreements the U.S. has committed to "virtual elimination" of these pollutants. To properly address the unique risks posed by these pollutants, EPA need not engage in complicated risk analysis; instead, it simply needs to set a schedule for phasing out the emissions of these chemicals from all sources, and then apply progressively lower emissions standards to meet that goal. Second, rather than merely relying on pollution controls to solve the nation's air toxics problem, we urge Congress and the agency to look at solutions that encompass pollution prevention. This applies to both the technology-based program and the residual risk program. EPA has the tendency to assume that all pollution is unavoidable and that bolting on technology will solve the problem. Instead, it is time for EPA to begin to assess what pollution could be avoided altogether and develop policies that reflect a commitment to more sustainable and less toxic solutions.
I thank the committee for inviting me to testify and welcome the opportunity to answer any questions.