Presented by Erin Bowser, Director
As the new home of Ohio PIRG's environmental work, Environment Ohio can be contacted regarding this testimony
Thank
you Chairman Niehaus, and members of the committee for the opportunity
to testify before you today as an opponent to Senate Bill 265.
My
name is Erin Bowser and I am the Director of Ohio Public Interest
Research Group, Ohio PIRG. Ohio PIRG is a non profit, non partisan,
public interest advocacy organization.
Ohio
ranks in the top three nationwide for air pollution. Currently 32
counties in our state are not in attainment. Attainment standards are
health standards set by the U.S. EPA. Not being in attainment means
that the air is oftentimes unsafe to breathe because it is laden with
toxic chemicals that can lodge deep into our lungs causing everything
from respiratory illness to cancer.
Ohio
counties that are not in attainment include: Stark, Butler, Clermont,
Hamilton, Warren, Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage,
Summit, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Clark,
Greene, Montgomery, Adams, Gallia, Lawrence, Scioto, Washington,
Jefferson, Lucas, Wood, Belmont, Columbiana, Mahoning and Trumbull. The
population of these counties totals over eight million or 76% of our
state’s population (please see attached chart with counties and
population figures for non attainment counties).
SB265
avoids this problem, and instead attempts to legislate the Ohio EPA’s
priorities through an industry-crafted bill and in effect restricts the
Ohio EPA’s ability to protect public health as they deem appropriate.
SB265 will force the agency to decide how to divide their time between
solving our non attainment problem and attempting to implement the
various complicated matters presented in SB265.
In
Director Koncelik’s testimony last week, he commented that tough
decisions would have to be made about the agency’s priorities. What he
didn’t communicate was whether or not the agency would be capable of
following through on producing pollution reduction plans for Ohio’s 32
counties that currently aren’t in attainment while at the same time
adjusting to and directing time and attention towards the sweeping
changes that would result from SB265 becoming law. Ohioans deserve to
know that the Ohio EPA can carry out their mission, which as stated on
their website is to:
Protect
the environment and public health by ensuring compliance with
environmental laws and demonstrating leadership in environmental
stewardship.
Today,
I will cover five components of this legislation in particular that we
oppose because it is our analysis that these significant changes will
negatively impact Ohio’s air pollution problems thereby posing
potential threats to public health and the environment.
First,
page 2 line (b) lines 22-30 states: This chapter, all rules adopted
under it, and all permits, variances, and orders issued under it shall
be construed, to the extent reasonably possible, to be consistent with
the federal Clean Air Act and to promote the purposes of this chapter.
If ambiguity exists as to whether a rule, permit, variance, or order
adopted or issued under this chapter is more stringent than required by
the federal Clean Air Act, the rule, permit, variance, or order shall
be construed to be no more stringent than the federal Clean Air Act.
The
Clean Air Act was established so that a minimum environmental standard
would be in place. It is intended to be a floor, certainly not a
ceiling and states across the country have adopted standards that
reflect the needs of their state. The Clean Air Act cannot be a
one-size-fits-all solution to Ohio’s air pollution problems, especially
given our extreme air pollution problem. We should not tie our own
hands behind our back when it comes to protecting Ohioans health and
the environment. Director Koncelik said it best last week, “Ohio should
refrain from engaging in a race to the bottom of environmental
protection for its citizens…”
Therefore, Section 3704.02, lines 26-30 should be struck from this bill.
Second,
SB265 rolls back permit requirements for new sources of pollution.
Currently, when a facility wants to install a new source for pollution
they must apply and receive a permit before they move forward. Permits
exist because they establish rules that will ensure the protection of
public health. When a facility applies for a permit the Ohio EPA
reviews it and corresponds with the applicant about what if anything
needs to be corrected. This process is a critical component of the Ohio
EPA’s job.
SB265 would allow facilities to begin construction for their new pollution source before their permit is issued.
In
addition, SB265 places a new burden on the agency in that it reduces
the number and type of air contaminants that trigger certain permitting
requirements and creates additional time intensive hurdles for the
agency to jump through in order to reinstate those air contaminate
sources to the rules. This is re-creating the wheel at the taxpayers
expense and is another unnecessary distraction to the agency’s most
important environmental task of drafting pollution reduction plans for
our non attainment counties.
Industry
representatives who have testified before you complained about the
cumbersome task of applying for and receiving permits. I want to
reinforce that permits exist because they establish the rules that
facilities must follow in order to be in compliance. The process for
establishing the rules occurs during the application process so that on
a case-by-case basis the Ohio EPA can ensure the protection of public
health. Therefore, we should not disregard this important process.
The
provisions in SB265 that automatically reduces the number and type of
air contaminants the Ohio EPA may require permits for as well as the
rollbacks to the permit to install process should be struck from this
legislation.
Third,
page 15, lines 451-470, attempts to legislate how and when the Ohio EPA
may require pollution monitors. Monitoring pollution is the best, most
scientific way to evaluate what is actually in the air we breathe. It
is inappropriate to legislate restrictions on one of the most important
tools the Ohio EPA has to monitor our air quality and protect
communities from local air pollution threats. This language should be
struck from SB265.
Fourth,
pages 19 and 20, lines 574-611 offers sweeping changes for how the Ohio
EPA shall require best available control technology for pollution
sources. Best available pollution control technology is developing at a
rapid pace and thorough use of these technologies is one of the best
ways we can reduce toxic air pollution, help bring our 32 counties into
attainment and protect public health.
Currently,
the Ohio EPA takes the time to consider on a case-by-case basis, using
information provided by the applicant including a cost-benefit
analysis, what type of best available technology the facility must use
in order to limit its toxic emissions.
SB265
takes away the Ohio EPA’s ability to evaluate on a case-by-case basis
and instead attempts to legislate a one-size-fits-all approach that
will force the Ohio EPA to embark on a time and resource-intensive rule
making process for every source category that would trigger the need
for best available technology.
Last
week, the Director noted, “The legislative requirement to develop rules
defining BAT comes at the same time we are developing plans to comply
with federal ozone and soot standards. As a result, Ohio EPA may not be
able to develop rules by the deadline for all source categories for
which it currently requires BAT.”
If
the Ohio EPA is under-confident that they can draft new rules now, how
will they choose between using available technology to reduce lead vs.
fine particle pollution, or sulfur dioxide vs. carbon monoxide all of
which contribute to a host of health problems including cardiovascular
defects, respiratory illnesses and cancer.
In
addition to the alarming question about whether or not the Ohio EPA
will even be capable of developing new rules is how they will be able
to keep up with changes in technology – especially when you consider
that technology changes at an extremely rapid pace. How realistic is it
to expect that the Ohio EPA will be able to keep up with new technology
on the market if it is required to adopt new rules each time technology
becomes available that would help us reduce our air pollution problems.
Not to mention the burden placed on taxpayers to pay over and over
again for the labor necessary to go through a rulemaking process.
Furthermore,
just as you or I wouldn’t likely purchase a computer from the 1990’s
let alone the 1980’s. SB265 also limits the number of pollutants that
best available technology shall be used to reduce, and is another
demonstration of how this bill attempts to legislate the Ohio EPA’s
priorities.
These
limitations on our use of common sense technology to reduce pollution
will certainly encourage the “race to the bottom” mentality that will
keep Ohio ranked as one of the worst pollution plagued states in our
nation.
Fifth,
page 21, lines 641-648 would restrict a private civil action against
any facility so long as the facility is in compliance with its permit.
This is like the high school principal letting kids off the hook for
burning their school down so as long as they are a straight A student.
Accidents do happen and Ohioans deserve better treatment and more
protection from unforeseen accidents in their community that harm the
health of their families.
In
conclusion, I hope that you will take all of the concerns presented
before you today into consideration as you move forward with this bill.
Ultimately, I hope that you will reject SB265 because it does nothing
to make the air safer to breathe in Ohio’s 32 non attainment counties
and in fact could pull resources away from that important obligation,
sets too low of a bar and too big of a hurdle for reducing pollution
using common sense technology and goes too far in reducing the control
the Ohio EPA has to set priorities as it sees fit to protect public
health.
Thank
you Chairman Niehaus and Members of the committee for proving me the
opportunity to testify and I will take any questions that you may have.
.
