1

1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

2 

3

4 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS 

5 TO THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

6 

7

8

9 Thursday, January 29, 2015 

10 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

11 Washington, D.C. 

12 

13

14

15

16

17

18 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. 

COURT REPORTERS 

19 (800) 288-3376 

www.depo.com 

20 

REPORTED BY: Delores M. Green 

21 FILE NO.: A900CF7 
2

1 HEARING BOARD MEMBERS: 

2 

ERIKA SASSER, CHAIR 

3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Office of Air and Radiation 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

5 STEVE SILVERMAN 

Office of General Counsel 

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

7 ROBIN LANGDON 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

8 Office of Air and Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

9 

MELINA WILLIAMS 

10 Office of General Counsel 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

11 

ALSO PRESENT: JIM KETCHAN-COLWILL 

12 ALAN RUSH 

13 

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
3

1 I N D E X 

2 

3 PRESENTATIONS: PAGE 

4 1. Henry Bouleau (phonetic)............. 11 

 2. Douglas Fratz ....................... 14 

5 3. Julie Goodman ....................... 18 

 4. Sonja Sax ........................... 22 

6 5. Howard Feldman ...................... 29 

 6. Robert Proudman ..................... 34 

7 7. Mark Kresowik ....................... 39 

 8. Deborah Shprentz .................... 43 

8 9. Wilfred Candler ..................... 48 

10. James McCormick ..................... 50 

9 11. Terry McGuire ....................... 56 

12. Isabelle Riu ........................ 60 

10 13. Greg Bertelsen ...................... 66 

14. Giedrius Ambrozaitis ................ 71 

11 15. Paul Miller ......................... 75 

16. David Friedman ...................... 81 

12 17. Adam Beitman ........................ 87 

18. Kristin Cook ........................ 90 

13 19. Samantha Ahdoot ..................... 92 

20. Brian Urbaszewski ................... 99 

14 21. Noel Martin .........................103 

22. Julie Hantman .......................107 

15 23. Jeffrey Levi ........................111 

24. Peggy Rommen ........................116 

16 25. Liz Perera ..........................117 

26. Kirk Smith ..........................121 

17 27. Dawud Muhammad ......................122 

28. Kendyl Crawford .....................124 

18 29. Jon Baker ...........................128 

30. Anne Smith ..........................133 

19 31. Jackie Ostfeld ......................137 

32. Dnell Nicholson .....................140 

20 33. Devawn Oberlender ...................143 

34. George Alderson .....................151 

21 35. Mary Martin .........................154 
4

1 36. Dan Greifenberger ...................161 

37. Kathleen Addleson ...................165 

2 38. Susan Polan .........................170 

39. Kathleen Durkin .....................175 

3 40. Elizabeth Agbetsiafa-Awuah ..........188 

41. Karen Melton ........................191 

4 42. Elizabeth Versteeg ..................195 

43. Allen Schaeffer .....................198 

5 44. William Penniman ....................205 

45. Mollie Simon ........................209 

6 46. Sarah Fraser ........................215 

47. Jennifer McIntyre ...................219 

7 48. Lorraine Gershman ...................224 

49. Matthew Gravatt .....................229 

8 50. John Noel ...........................235 

51. Joshua Berman .......................238 

9 52. Ronnie Citron-Fink ..................242 

53. Richard Reis ........................246 

10 54. Chris Yeager ........................250 

55. Stephanie Madden ....................253 

11 56. John Powell .........................258 

57. Earle Mitchell ......................262 

12 58. Lee Fuller ..........................266 

59. Susan Stillman ......................271 

13 60. Melynda Britt .......................275 

61. Nicholas Yoon .......................279 

14 62. Ameeka Badia ........................282 

63. Barbara Gottlieb ....................284 

15 64. Teja Sathi ..........................289 

65. Steve Spacek ........................291 

16 66. Ivy Main ............................295 

67. Donna McDowell ......................298 

17 68. Chris Millar ........................303 

69. Sara Chieffo ........................305 

18 70. Hayden Higgins ......................311 

71. Stewart Holm ........................313 

19 72. Mary Feeherry .......................318 

73. Collin Rees .........................320 

20 74. Erica Mitrano .......................325 

75. Donna Smith .........................328 

21 76. Nicola Hayes-Allen ..................331 
5

1 77. Gwen DuBois .........................337 

78. Mark Magana (read by Sergio Payan)...341 

2 79. Joshua Low ..........................344 

80. Daren Bakst .........................346 

3 81. Greer McBeth ........................350 

82. Raymond Keating .....................354 

4 83. James Tsai ..........................358 

84. Richard Nunno .......................360 

5 85. Carol LeBlanc .......................364 

86. Karissa Gerhke ......................366 

6 87. Dana McCartney (phonetic) ...........368 

88. Anastasia Schemkes ..................371 

7 89. John Bloom ..........................373 

90. Blake Lynch .........................377 

8 91. Amanda Hurowitz .....................380 

92. Malin Moench ........................383 

9 93. Phillip Collins .....................391 

94. Joseph Manning ......................395 

10 95. Laura Kate Bender ...................399 

96. Deepak Jonnalagedda .................404 

11 97. Kelsey Crane ........................407 

98. Jory Lerback ........................408 

12 99. Tim Harlin Marks ....................410 

100. Alan Bederka ........................412 

13 101. Nina Sherburne (read by Collin Rees).415 

102. Charles Rories ......................417 

14 103. Mark Barna ..........................423 

104. Travis Thompson (read by Seth Long)..425 

15 105. Christopher Wilson ..................429 

106. Alex Hirtle .........................435 

16 107. Brenna Mueller ......................438 

17 

18

19

20

21
6

1 Washington, D.C., Thursday, January 29, 2015 

2 9:10 a.m. 

3 -- -- -- 

4 MS. SASSER: Good morning. My name is Erika 

5 Sasser, and I am the chair of this session of today's 

6 public hearing. I want to thank everyone for coming 

7 today. Joining me on the panel this morning are Steve 

8 Silverman and Robin Langdon. And we are here today to 

9 listen to your comments on the proposed revisions to 

10 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. 

11 EPA announced this proposed rule on 

12 November 25, 2014, and published the proposal in the 

13 Federal Register on December 17, 2014. EPA's proposal 

14 is based on extensive scientific evidence about 

15 ozone's effects on public health and welfare. 

16 The proposed updates will improve public 

17 health and protection, particularly for children, the 

18 elderly, and people of all ages who have lung diseases 

19 such as asthma, as well as improve public welfare 

20 protection, particularly related to ozone-sensitive 

21 trees and other plants in protected forested 
7

1 ecosystems, such as national wilderness areas. 

2 We have proposed to strengthen both the 

3 primary ozone standard to protect public health and 

4 the secondary standard to protect public welfare. 

5 We are proposing to set the levels of the 

6 primary and secondary standards in a range from 65 to 

7 70 parts per billion. These standards would be met 

8 when the three-year average of the annual 

9 fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

10 concentration is at or below the new level. 

11 The proposal would also extend the ozone 

12 monitoring season for many states and update the Air 

13 Quality Index to ensure people are informed about 

14 their air quality. 

15 These proposed standards do not establish 

16 emission control requirements for any particular 

17 industry. Each state, as needed, will determine how 

18 best to meet the standards in a way that makes the 

19 most sense for that area. 

20 States will have time to develop and 

21 implement plans to meet revised standards. The 
8

1 existing and proposed federal rules will help the vast 

2 majority of areas meet the proposed standards by 2025. 

3 I'd like to thank you for taking time out of 

4 your day to join us here today and share your 

5 comments. We will accept comments on all aspects of 

6 the proposal, including on retaining the existing 

7 standards. 

8 Before we get started, I'd like to go 

9 through a few housekeeping items and ground rules that 

10 will help make today's hearing run smoothly. 

11 First, please be sure you have checked in at 

12 the registration desk, even if you are not planning to 

13 speak today. And if you signed up to speak on line or 

14 by phone and haven't told us that you're here in 

15 person, please step out at the registration desk and 

16 let the EPA staff there know that you have arrived. 

17 All right. Here's how today's hearing will 

18 work. I will call speakers up in pairs to this table 

19 in front of us here. When your name is called, please 

20 come to this table in front of the room and remain at 

21 the table until both speakers have completed their 
9

1 comments. 

2 When I call on you to speak, please state 

3 your name and spell it for the court reporter. Your 

4 comments will be transcribed and included in the 

5 official record of comments, which is known as the 

6 docket for this rule making. Each speaker will have 

7 five minutes to give comments. And we have a timer at 

8 the end of the table here with a light to let you know 

9 how much time you have left to speak. 

10 The light will begin green. After four 

11 minutes, it will turn to yellow. When it turns to 

12 yellow, that means you have one minute remaining. And 

13 when it turns to red, that's a signal that it's time 

14 to wrap up your testimony. The light will flash red 

15 and beep when you have spoken for five minutes, and 

16 then it's time to stop. 

17 When you are finished speaking, please 

18 remain at the table until the person next to you has 

19 also completed his or her testimony. 

20 We are here today to listen to you. In some 

21 cases, however, a panel member may ask a clarifying 
10

1 question. 

2 After each pair of speakers is finished, I 

3 will then call up the next pair of speakers and so on. 

4 And we do also want to warn you that some of the floor 

5 tiles in the room are loose, so please be careful as 

6 you walk in the room and up to the table. 

7 If you have a written copy of your 

8 testimony, we ask that you please give it to the staff 

9 at the registration desk before you leave. We will 

10 put any written comments that are submitted today into 

11 the docket for the proposed ruling. And if you have 

12 any additional comments that you would like to make, 

13 you may submit them in writing until the 17th of March 

14 2015. Instructions for submitting written materials 

15 are available at the materials table, which is right 

16 near the registration desk. 

17 The hearing will continue until 7:30 p.m. 

18 tonight. We will take a lunch break from 1 to 2:30 

19 and then we'll continue straight through until 7:30. 

20 In addition, we may take occasional short breaks 

21 throughout the day, as needed, and we will keep you 
11

1 posted as the day goes on. 

2 If you have any questions at all during the 

3 day today, please see the staff at the registration 

4 desk and someone there will try to help you. 

5 Finally, I want to ask each of you to please 

6 be respectful for everyone who speaks today. We have 

7 people with a wide variety of views in the audience 

8 and we want to hear from each of you. 

9 So that we can do that and be fair to 

10 everyone, we ask that you please listen quietly. Even 

11 applauses can slow things down, and we want to be sure 

12 that we have time to hear from everyone who signed up 

13 to speak. 

14 Thank you again for taking the time today to 

15 come to this public hearing and share your comments on 

16 our proposed rule. 

17 Let's get started. I'd like to call, 

18 please, first Mr. Henry Bouleau (phonetic) and 

19 Mr. Douglas Fratz. 

20 Mr. Bouleau. 

21 Mr. BOULEAU: Good morning. My name is 
12

1 Henry Bouleau, and it's French. And I am representing 

2 the South Central Industrial Association, which is the 

3 multi-parish investor organization based in Houma, 

4 Louisiana, composed of over 200 member companies 

5 representing over 40,000 employees committed to the 

6 communities we serve. 

7 We appreciate this opportunity to comment in 

8 person on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

9 for ground-level ozone proposed by the EPA. We also 

10 will submit a more detailed letter on our comments and 

11 concerns through the proper channels. 

12 We are deeply concerned the proposed changes 

13 amount to an unfunded mandate which will place much of 

14 the country out of compliance, forcing hundreds of 

15 millions of dollars in compliance costs and/or forcing 

16 industries to shut down facilities across the country 

17 and creating devastating impacts to the flourishing 

18 economy, South Louisiana, and the nation. 

19 Our Virginia region we're seeing in use, 

20 economic growth, as unachievable permanent 

21 requirements would prevent businesses from expanding 
13

1 publicly in new operations. All federally-funded 

2 projects in the area will be subject to conformity 

3 reviews which may limit highway infrastructure 

4 investment, including the new completion of an 

5 elevated Louisiana Highway 1, the main corridor to 

6 access Port Fourchon, which services 90 percent of the 

7 deep water oil and gas industry. 

8 Currently not accounted for are the negative 

9 health impact costs of unemployment and 

10 underemployment which will result from the proposed 

11 rule. Other costs of non-attainments include emission 

12 controls and penalties for complicated permitting and 

13 increased fuel and electricity costs. 

14 The Louisiana Department of Environmental 

15 Quality estimates the reduction costs in the greater 

16 New Orleans area alone of 246 million to meet the 

17 70 parts per billion standard. 

18 Locally in the Bayou region, we have signed 

19 on to the EPA's Advantage Program for Louisiana 

20 compliance. And most importantly, our ozone levels 

21 have been decreasing even in the midst of an 
14

1 unprecedented all-gas servicing in our region. 

2 Not only does this demonstrate the Bayou 

3 region's commitment to lowering the emissions 

4 voluntarily, but it also calls into question the model 

5 the EPA relies on which would squarely blame oil and 

6 gas support industries, particularly knowing vessels 

7 associated with vessel intratraffic for increasing 

8 emissions. 

9 Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

10 present our comments today and we'll be forwarding a 

11 more detailed comment letter through the proper 

12 channels. Thank you. 

13 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Fratz. 

14 MR. FRATZ: Good morning. I'm D. Douglas 

15 Fratz, F-R-A-T-Z, Senior Science Fellow, Consumer 

16 Specialty Products Association. 

17 CSPA is a national trade association 

18 representing more than 250 companies that manufacture 

19 and market consumer specialty products. These 

20 products include formulated products for household and 

21 automotive care as well as home and garden care. 
15

1 They're used by household consumers as well as 

2 institutional and commercial industrial users. 

3 The safe and effective use of these products 

4 provides numerous health, safety and environmental 

5 benefits. CSPA member companies have spent very 

6 significant amounts of time and resources over the 

7 past 25 years to reduce smog-related compounds in our 

8 products. We're proud of our success to date in 

9 reducing VOCs by more than 50 percent. We're 

10 compliant with the regulations adopted by California 

11 and various other states. 

12 The cost of these formulations, however, 

13 have been very common with billions of dollars spent 

14 to date. Due to the low photochemical activity in our 

15 emissions, studies show that our emission result in 

16 the most, nevertheless we know that our industry will 

17 continue to reach high on it, by regulations under -- 

18 until the ozone standards are met. 

19 While CSPA and its members remain committed 

20 to the goal of improved air quality, the cost of 

21 obtaining these goals are substantial and time is 
16

1 needed to develop new attainment strategies. Since 

2 EPA believes it is appropriate to -- it's 

3 inappropriate to lower the ozone standard further at 

4 this time. 

5 In 2008, EPA lowered the primary ozone 

6 standard from 84 to 75 parts per billion. But 

7 implementation of that standard is still in progress. 

8 California will be developing this year's submission 

9 to the EPA next year and we'll be planning further 

10 regulations in the years ahead of that. 

11 Consumer products play a very vulnerable 

12 measure in emission. Nevertheless, we realize that 

13 our products will likely continue to be targeted by 

14 California and other states. Premature imposition of 

15 a lower ozone standard, whether it's 70 or 65, would 

16 force states to seek reduction from consumer products 

17 that may not be feasible. 

18 Implementation of the current ozone standard 

19 may result in significant new incidents regarding what 

20 measures are cost effective than in lowering the visit 

21 to California and others want to attain theirs. 
17

1 We urge EPA to allow time to restate the 

2 regional implementation of the existing standard and 

3 for necessary re-technologies and various sundries to 

4 be developed and commercialized. 

5 CSPA appreciates the opportunity to comment 

6 on this proposal to lower the ozone standard. We all 

7 want clean and healthy air. But we should not focus 

8 the target in two minutes. CSPA urges the EPA to 

9 retain the current ozone standards until states have 

10 completed their implementation plans. Thank you once 

11 again. 

12 MS. SASSER: Thank you. We're going to take 

13 just a momentary break to attempt to fix the timer 

14 which is only allowing three minutes before anyone 

15 gets to see. Well, speakers, I apologize. We have a 

16 technical solution or -- let's just take a momentary 

17 break and try to fix that so that remaining speakers 

18 have their whole five minutes. 

19 Meanwhile I do ask that Ms. Julie Goodman 

20 and Ms. Sonja Sax to please come to the table. 

21 (Break.) 
18

1 MS. SASSER: We will resume with 

2 Ms. Goodman. Thank you. 

3 MS. GOODMAN: Thank you for the opportunity 

4 to speak on behalf of the American Lung Council. 

5 EPA Administrator included new evidence 

6 increasing ozone NAAQS between .065 and .070 ppm. 

7 However, new health NAAQS evidence cite the proposed 

8 rule is no stronger than evidence cited in previous 

9 reviews and doesn't support lowering the regular NAAQS 

10 below .075. This is true for all levels of evidence, 

11 including that control exposure to epidemiology, in 

12 noted action cities. And today I am focusing on to be 

13 able to reduce those. 

14 The proposed rule included two new control 

15 exposure studies by Keenan, et al. (phonetic), 2011 

16 and Gillite, et al. (phonetic), 2007, support lowering 

17 the ozone standard. Keenan, et al., observed 

18 statistically significant lung function decrements in 

19 the airway of which a .06 parts per billion. However, 

20 the new decrements that are reported across the 

21 population was so small that they indicate more 
19

1 variability than not. 

2 Also, the scenario symptoms for ozone 

3 exposed subjects was similar to adult subjects 

4 indicated that ozone exposure do not cause personal 

5 effects. These clinically insignificant data do not 

6 comprise the instance for lowering the standard. 

7 In the second study, Gillite, et al., 

8 reporting lung function decrements in respiratory 

9 symptoms at .072 PM of lung function as historic to 

10 baseline condition between one and four hours at the 

11 exposed range. Because ozone has an active odor, the 

12 participants most likely knew when they were being 

13 exposed to ozone, and therefore may be more likely to 

14 report symptoms after ozone exposure. Despite this, 

15 in an independent analysis, my colleagues and I found 

16 no correlation between symptoms and the magnitude of 

17 all those decrements in individuals. 

18 Also, slight ozone levels are decrements 

19 greater than 10 percent. And while EPA considers the 

20 10 percent part reasonable or moderate in lung 

21 function decrements, in healthy populations the 
20

1 10 percent cut off -- or 10 percent decrement and 

2 possibly even a 15 percent decrement would not be 

3 ozone. 

4 Moreover, studies have shown that acute lung 

5 function decrements even after a high ozone exposure 

6 such as .2 PM are not indicative of or causally 

7 associated with ozone -- (inaudible) 

8 It's also notable in Slate (phonetic) Lab 

9 Study, the time period between the .072 PM exposure 

10 and the control exposure is 55 days on average ranging 

11 from 13 to 3, under two days. Coal exposure -- see no 

12 changes in lung function in the physical condition of 

13 subjects couldn't change over this time, making it 

14 difficult to enter results. In addition, slight up 

15 that aisle leads to Chart A or exposure profile, where 

16 exposure is increased step-wise and decreased 

17 step-wise to achieve target average ozone 

18 concentration. 

19 While a chamber exposure deprived is more 

20 reflective of gaining ozone fluctuations compared to a 

21 constant exposure pattern. The specific pattern shows 
21

1 much to think about -- does not reflect a current 

2 pattern to those cities. Taken together, all of these 

3 issues with the Slate Lab Study indicate there's not a 

4 prior case for lowering the standards. 

5 The proposed rule suggests several 

6 populations, such as asthmatics, to be more responsive 

7 to key ozone exposure in healthy adults. But there's 

8 no evidence to support this. Moreover, the exercise 

9 level maintained in these other ozone exposure studies 

10 is slightly more speculative in the longer duration 

11 than most the general population experience with the 

12 exception of workers. 

13 These scenarios are especially unknown for 

14 certain populations, in addition would likely prevent 

15 them from performing exercise in duration, preventing 

16 them should make it required to produce these slow 

17 decrements. 

18 Finally, results of these and other control 

19 exposure studies cannot direct extrapolate to the U.S. 

20 population. These studies only evaluated a small 

21 number of people and only three subjects for ozone 
22

1 exposure, both are responders, for that decrement over 

2 10 percent of these studies. 

3 So taken together, the Administrator is most 

4 relying on these two new studies saying they support 

5 lowering the standards because there are effects at 

6 exposures below 75. But as I've discussed, these 

7 kinds of implementations and the people experiencing 

8 these changes are exercising at very high intensity 

9 and for a long period of time than people with 

10 conditions like asthma would be more susceptible and 

11 would never be able to achieve. 

12 Another important factor is that compliance 

13 with the NAAQS is based on the highest one being in 

14 the area, meaning that actual exposures in that area 

15 are much lower. So the current NAAQS protects public 

16 health against exposures to 60 parts per billion and 

17 above. So taken together with new evidence, including 

18 these exposures studies, do not support lowering the 

19 NAAQS. Thank you. 

20 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Sax. 

21 MS. SAX: Thank you for the opportunity to 
23

1 speak today. I'm Sonja Sax for Gradient. 

2 And in the proposed rule, the EPA 

3 Administrator concludes that new evidence repeats that 

4 ozone NAAQS should be lower. And the Administrator 

5 remind, in part, on the results from the Health Risk 

6 and Exposure Assessment and based on these studies 

7 concludes that the exposure risk estimates indicate 

8 that lowering the ozone NAAQS would significantly 

9 reduce exposures and prevent significant lung function 

10 impairments. 

11 As I will discuss today, EPA did not specify 

12 the conservative nature of these assessments or 

13 quantify what the models would be, which makes the 

14 exposure to risk estimates appear higher and more 

15 certain than they actually are. 

16 When accounting these factors, there appear 

17 to be marginal, if any, benefits from a lower ozone 

18 standard. The Exposure and Lung Function Risk 

19 Assessments rely on the apex model. And this model 

20 simulates exposures and related health risks for 

21 different population groups. The model results are a 
24

1 function of the eclipses and the assumption's use, and 

2 alternative assumptions can impact results 

3 significantly. 

4 Our independent evaluation of the apex 

5 modeling that EPA conducted indicates that EPA applied 

6 conservative assumptions at every level for the 

7 Exposure and Lung Function Risk Assessment, and 

8 therefore presented unrealistic exposures and 

9 associated risks. 

10 For example, if EPA focused on what it 

11 considers to be high risk individuals and children, in 

12 addition assume that all children spend more time 

13 outdoors and have "moderate or regular exertion levels 

14 at the time of exposure" -- although this is likely 

15 uncertain if this accurately reflects today's 

16 children. 

17 In fact, one of the limitations of the apex 

18 model is that it realized on time activity provision 

19 and for children that it's quite dated and it's not 

20 necessarily supportive by your more recent studies 

21 that, for example, report significant declines and the 
25

1 physical activity from childhood to adolescence. 

2 Further, active children have higher 

3 recreation rates than non-active children and EPA 

4 acknowledges in that HRA that the ventilation base 

5 used in the apex modeling are greater than recently 

6 published known notes. 

7 Another feature of the apex analysis that 

8 likely overestimated the risks is that the 

9 individual's lung function decrement is calculated 

10 over 1 to 60-minute periods. This approach deals a 

11 higher estimated number of individuals experiencing 

12 short-term lung function decrements compared to the 

13 first that considers the 8-hour average exposure, 

14 which is the current form of the NAAQS. 

15 And this issue is highlighted by the claims 

16 from the Exposure and Lung Function Risk Assessment, 

17 which suggest a much higher percentage in lung 

18 function decrements than would be expected based on 

19 the results from the exposure assessment and to the 

20 findings and controls of exposure studies. 

21 It is also inconsistent with the EPA's 
26

1 conclusion that "the issued individual variability and 

2 responsiveness following exposures of concern means 

3 that only a subset of individuals were exposed at or 

4 above the conventional concentration would actually be 

5 expected to experience lesser included." 

6 All of the factors that I discuss here would 

7 individually yield conservative estimates which is 

8 usually the goal of a risk assessment, one being 

9 conservative and one technically. But taken together 

10 it compound to the other's results. 

11 And although some of the sensitivity 

12 analysis that were done by EPA to address many of 

13 these assumptions, they seem to be unnecessarily 

14 conducted. The results are presented in the proposed 

15 rule are for those highly conservative findings. 

16 In addition to the overestimated exposure of 

17 lung function risks, there's also considerable 

18 uncertainty in these estimates that's not quantified 

19 in the proposed rule. And given the time constraints, 

20 I will only mention one of them. 

21 EPA assumes that children are as responsive 
27

1 as the most responsive adult in chamber studies. It 

2 justifies its assumption by citing results from the 

3 summer camp studies and a single chamber study of 

4 children eight to eleven years old. 

5 These studies, however, suggest that 

6 children are no more responsive to the effects of 

7 ozone than adults and that they may even be less 

8 affected. Therefore, based on these studies, the 

9 Agency assume the children are as responsive as an 

10 average adult, rather than the most responsive adult. 

11 Despite being overly conservative, the 

12 exposure and risk results suggest that only a small 

13 percentage of the most highly exposed in the average 

14 population would have exposure to lung risk considered 

15 to the adverse. In a more realistic scenario, you 

16 would have even less people affected. 

17 Overall, the evaluation of the exposure risk 

18 assessment should indicate that lowering the ozone 

19 NAAQS would result in significantly -- I'm sorry. 

20 Overall, our evaluation of the exposure to 

21 risk assessments indicates that lowering the ozone 
28

1 NAAQS will not result in significant reduction in lung 

2 function risks. Thank you. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you. 

4 MS. SAX: Yes. 

5 MR. SILVERMAN: One question. You mentioned 

6 our statement that either individual with variability 

7 make the exposure -- meets exposure but not 

8 necessarily effects. But remember also -- and I don't 

9 know if you address this in your comments with respect 

10 to lung function decrements. They're being offered 

11 and presented actual in bona fide respects. And then 

12 based on the predicted models by the book, those 

13 issues are bigger than our thoughts. 

14 MS. SAX: Yes. 

15 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Next I'd like to 

16 call Mr. Howard Feldman and Mr. Robert Proudman. 

17 I remind the speakers please spell your name 

18 for the court reporter, and also please speak directly 

19 into the microphone as you're giving your comments. 

20 Thank you. 

21 Mr. Feldman. 
29

1 MR. FELDMAN: Good morning. My name is 

2 Howard J. Feldman, F-E-L-D-M-A-N, Senior Director of 

3 Regulatory and Scientific Affairs in the American 

4 Petroleum Institute. 

5 API represents over 625 oil and natural gas 

6 companies, leaders of a technology-driven industry 

7 that supplies most of America's energy, supports 

8 9.8 million U.S. jobs, and 8 percent of the U.S. 

9 economy and, since 2000, has invested nearly 

10 $2 trillion of U.S. capital projects with -- to 

11 advance all forms of energy, including alternatives. 

12 API's members engage in aspects of the oil 

13 and gas industry and operate facilities and produce 

14 products impacted by regulations adopted to meet the 

15 National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean 

16 Air Act. The oil and gas industry makes significant 

17 contributions to cleaner air. 

18 Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has 

19 invested more than $284 billion in improving its 

20 products and processes. America's abundant supply of 

21 natural gas has contributed to lower criteria and 
30

1 greenhouse gas emissions. A combination of cleaner 

2 gas and diesel fuels, modernized equipment and 

3 facilities, and more fuel-efficient vehicles have 

4 helped reduce emissions of air pollutants by 

5 62 percent between 1980 to 2013, even as vehicle miles 

6 traveled went up over 95 percent. Progress is clear. 

7 Ozone concentrations under the current rules have 

8 dropped by 18 percent since 2000. 

9 These improvements are impressive, and will 

10 continue. In 2008, the ozone standards were set to 

11 the most stringent levels ever, and these standards 

12 are only now being implemented by states and 

13 businesses. Ironically, some of the guidance to meet 

14 these 2008 standards is still under review by the 

15 Obama Administration's Office of Management and Budget 

16 and has not yet been released to help the states meet 

17 the current standards. 

18 Nonetheless, EPA has now proposed to further 

19 tighten the standards, with the potential for 

20 far-ranging negative impacts. If the EPA chooses to 

21 unnecessarily lower the ozone standards, hundreds of 
31

1 billions of dollars in annual U.S. economic output and 

2 millions of American jobs will be lost. 

3 The degree and range of potential impacts 

4 from any change in these standards highlight the need 

5 for a robust debate about the science EPA is using to 

6 justify its regulations. 

7 Regarding this proposal, API offers four 

8 points we believe should guide the EPA Administrator's 

9 decision -- decision making process on the ozone 

10 standards. 

11 First, new ozone standards are simply not 

12 needed. Careful analysis of the health studies 

13 indicates that current standards of 75 parts per 

14 billion are working to protect air quality and public 

15 health. We urge the Agency to carefully review our 

16 forthcoming written comments to understand the 

17 limitations and lack of significance in the health 

18 studies. 

19 Second, the 2008 standards have not been met 

20 across vast portions of the country. From a public 

21 policy perspective, it makes no sense to impose more 
32

1 requirements on states and businesses until further 

2 progress is made toward achieving compliance with the 

3 present standards. 

4 Third, the negative economic effects of 

5 lower ozone standards could have a catastrophic effect 

6 on businesses and families that the EPA -- that the 

7 EPA would do more harm than good by adopting that. 

8 Depending on the level selected, decreasing the ozone 

9 standards could put almost the entire country out of 

10 compliance. Specifically, a standard of 65 ppb could 

11 lead to non-attainment areas in 45 of the 48 lower -- 

12 lower 48 states. Furthermore, tighter standards could 

13 cause our economy to nose-dive and people to lose 

14 their jobs. More stringent standards would require 

15 EPA and states to impose additional requirements to 

16 reduce emissions across the country that would trickle 

17 down to even small businesses. 

18 A recent report by NERA Economic Consulting 

19 reveals that these standards could cost $270 billion 

20 per year and could place millions of jobs at risk. 

21 Fourth, such standards would be virtually 
33

1 unattainable given the very high levels of peak 

2 background levels of ozone -- peak background levels 

3 of ozones (sic), which promote 70 parts per billion. 

4 As proposed, the new standards would impose 

5 unachievable emission reduction requirements on 

6 virtually every part of the nation, including rural 

7 and undeveloped areas. Even pristine areas with no 

8 industrial activity such as national parks would be 

9 out of attainment. Unattainable standards are not 

10 smart public policy or good government. 

11 Together we've made great progress in 

12 cleaning up our air and we can continue to do so with 

13 the existing ozone standards. Any option to tighten 

14 the standards and impose additional burdens on the 

15 states, localities and businesses should be rejected. 

16 The EPA Administrator has the discretion to affirm the 

17 current ozone standards. We strongly urge her to do 

18 so. We need policies that make sense. And we need to 

19 let them work before adding more unnecessary burdens 

20 on states, businesses -- large and small, and 

21 citizens. Thank you. 
34

1 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Proudman. 

2 MR. PROUDMAN: Good morning. I'm Robert 

3 Proudman, P-R-O-U-D-M-A-N. I'm Director of 

4 Conservation Operations for the Appalachian Trail 

5 Conservancy. 

6 I'm here today in support of the EPA's 

7 proposal to strengthen the nation's air quality 

8 standards for ground-level ozone to improve public 

9 health and environmental protection. 

10 The proposed federal rules will help states 

11 meet the proposed standards by making significant 

12 strides towards reducing ozone pollution. 

13 My organization, the ATC, was founded a few 

14 blocks from here and we're seeing our 90th year this 

15 March. We've worked for generations to establish, 

16 promote, protect and manage the Appalachian Trail. It 

17 is now nearly 2200 miles long, a foot path within a 

18 safe greenway of the Appalachian Mountains between 

19 Springer Mountain and, of course, Georgia and 

20 Katahdin, Maine's central area. 

21 We're on the ridge and so we see firsthand 
35

1 as hikers and pedestrians, the effects of the 

2 pollution on the environment. Our mission from ATC is 

3 to preserve and manage the Appalachian Trail, ensuring 

4 there's vast natural beauty and priceless cultural 

5 heritage can be shared and enjoyed today, tomorrow and 

6 for centuries to come. 

7 During our most recent 50 years, we've been 

8 working with Congress, the 14 eastern states, and 

9 thousands of volunteers, and U.S. citizens in our 

10 trail maintaining clubs to protect the natural 

11 environment of the trail. More than a quarter million 

12 acres now protect the various hidden rhythm along this 

13 Appalachian spine on, connecting local state and 

14 federal conservation units. 

15 Since 1978 when we were formed into a 

16 national park, we're proud to say we're America's 

17 longest and skinniest national park. 

18 Today incredibly the trail is walked by 

19 upwards of 750 people a year. When it was first done 

20 in 1948, it was considered stump. But now it's become 

21 a pilgrimage, in many cases for young people, but 
36

1 we've had people as old as -- over 80s, and please be 

2 fair. More than 2 million people visited the trail 

3 this year. 

4 Due to our big investments, Appalachian 

5 benefacting in the wilderness, walking for pleasure, 

6 venture and health, the ATC has been a strong 

7 component and supporter of the Clean Air Act and its 

8 amendments. Since about 2001, we have also become 

9 more aware what's on its -- the effects of ozone on 

10 people and the environment. 

11 The conservancy working with the others and 

12 Mountain Club Boston, the American Hiking Society 

13 located here in Washington, D.C., and other 

14 organizations, we founded an organization called 

15 Bikers and Clean Air about 15 years ago. We 

16 consistently urge EPA to improve air quality and 

17 mitigate ground-level ozone pollution. We have 

18 strongly supported the vast efforts and are here today 

19 to encourage you to go forward. 

20 We have heard many complaints about bad-air 

21 days in Great Smoky Mountains or the White Mountains, 
37

1 both which are about 6,000 feet, that's the highest 

2 point. Those that recreate and work outdoors are at 

3 greater risks among ozone pollution. Therefore, we 

4 support the most protective recommendations being 

5 made, I guess, by your Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

6 Committee, regarding both the primary standard and the 

7 secondary standard. 

8 We welcome EPA's initiative to move forward 

9 with new clean air protections under the secondary 

10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards designed for 

11 the benefit of public welfare from pollution. There's 

12 nowhere more important than our national forest, 

13 parks, and public lands, those places set aside to 

14 protect American's national cultural resources and to 

15 provide healthful outdoor recreation for millions of 

16 Americans. 

17 We urge you to adopt the 7 (sic) parts per 

18 billion, hours, equal out the standard, the 

19 scientifically appropriate measure, in our opinion, 

20 for protecting plants and trees, which reduce smog and 

21 haze in our national parks. 
38

1 ATC will be submitting written testimony 

2 along these lines in support of the most protective 

3 recommendations and regarding both the primary 

4 standard focusing on health and the secondary standard 

5 regarding ecosystem services. Thank you. 

6 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much, both of 

7 you. 

8 MR. SILVERMAN: One comment to Mr. Feldman. 

9 It's something I work on, and I know the 

10 standards. So we are particularly grateful for ideas 

11 we hear from each organization. And Paul Miller, 

12 appreciate you -- (Inaudible) 

13 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Our next two 

14 speakers today are -- and I do apologize if I don't 

15 pronounce your name correctly -- Mr. Mark Kresowik and 

16 Ms. Debbie Shprentz. 

17 MR. KRESOWIK: Thank you very much, and that 

18 was exactly correct. 

19 My name is Mark Kresowik, and I want to 

20 start by thanking -- 

21 MS. SASSER: Spell it for the court 
39

1 reporter, your name. 

2 MR. KRESOWIK: Okay. Sorry. Mark, M-A-R-K. 

3 Kresowik, K-R-E-S-O-W-I-K. I just want to thank you 

4 all for taking the time to listen to all this 

5 commentary -- and important commentary, I scribbled. 

6 I am a relatively healthy 30-year-old male. 

7 This proposed rule is not about me. It's not about a 

8 lot of the people you're going to hear from today. 

9 It's not about other middle-age men who are healthy, 

10 who are paid by the very people who put out pollution 

11 to tell you not to do something. It's not about 

12 discrediting the report that's funded by the National 

13 Association of Manufacturers. It's not about power 

14 plants, cars, or factories. It's not even about 

15 statistical models or secret science. 

16 This proposed rule is about nearly 7 million 

17 children living in the United States of America today 

18 who have asthma. This proposed rule is about tens of 

19 millions of children who haven't even been born yet, 

20 who will live in the country, who will breathe this 

21 air. It's about those children living with the 
40

1 disease that has no cure, only prevention and 

2 treatment of the symptoms they experience. 

3 This proposed rule is about their right to 

4 breathe air, to breathe safe air, their right not to 

5 gasp for every breath they take. 

6 I was frankly appalled by an earlier comment 

7 who suggested that because children with asthma don't 

8 play outside very often, that we shouldn't afford them 

9 those protections. This proposed rule is about 

10 ensuring they don't play outside because they might 

11 die. Because if the air is polluted, they might not 

12 be able to take another breath again for the rest of 

13 their lives. 

14 To say that we shouldn't afford this 

15 protection or you shouldn't tighten the rule, the 

16 reason for this is so they can play outside, so they 

17 can play with their friends, so they can exercise, so 

18 they can hike the Appalachian Trail. That's why this 

19 is necessary. 

20 It's not just about those children. It's 

21 also about the parents of those children. It's about 
41

1 those parents waking up every day wondering whether or 

2 not it's safe for their children to play outside, 

3 whether or not it's safe for them to go to school. 

4 It's about those parents who have to pay for treatment 

5 of their symptoms; or worse yet, a trip to the 

6 hospital when they can't -- their son or daughter 

7 can't breathe. It's about those parents, and heaven 

8 forbid, may have to choose the funeral arrangements 

9 for their son or daughter, missed their child's 

10 graduation, never get to experience the joy of their 

11 first job, their wedding, never get to experience 

12 their grandchildren. 

13 According to the EPA's own analysis and the 

14 analysis of dozens of scientific experts, thousands of 

15 those deaths are preventable, so are the trips to the 

16 hospital, the millions of missed school and work days. 

17 They're preventable when we reduce pollution and clean 

18 up the air in our communities. They're preventable 

19 when parents know whether or not the air outside is 

20 safe for their child to breathe. They're preventable 

21 for many parents. 
42

1 The only information they get is from the 

2 EPA and from the dedicated folks who work here. They 

3 rely on this Agency for updates on the air quality in 

4 their community to ensure that companies follow the 

5 law and are quality in the air. 

6 They have to trust EPA to provide the most 

7 up-to-date information about what levels of pollution 

8 are safe for their children to breathe, to avoid 

9 asthma attacks, and even death. Because you're the 

10 ones who have to analyze the science and make this 

11 decision. 

12 This Agency has the responsibility, and you 

13 are required to provide those parents with the best 

14 science on what constitutes a level of protection with 

15 an adequate margin of safety. 

16 That science is clear that children with 

17 respiratory illnesses can experience traumatic health 

18 effects at smog levels as low as 60 parts per billion, 

19 or even lower. 

20 You and only you have been entrusted with 

21 this great responsibility. Please don't let those 
43

1 parents and their children suffer needlessly. Please 

2 set the standard at 60 parts per billion. Thank you 

3 very much. 

4 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Shprentz. 

5 MS. SHPRENTZ: Good morning. My name is 

6 Deborah Shprentz. It's S-H-P-R-E-N-T-Z. And I follow 

7 through with you with the ozone NAAQS for the American 

8 Lung Association. 

9 My message to you today is very simple. The 

10 current air quality standard for ozone fails to 

11 protect public health. To follow the science and the 

12 law, EPA must set a standard of 60 parts per billion 

13 to protect the health of the public, including the 

14 health of sensitive populations, within an adequate 

15 margin of safety. 

16 The Clean Air Act requires to validate 

17 reviews of the air quality standards to ensure that 

18 they reflect the latest scientific evidence. And this 

19 review began evaluating more than 2000 studies, 

20 including a thousand new publications. 

21 After undergoing three rounds of peer review 
44

1 by clean air scientific advice from the committee, the 

2 Integrated Science Assessment, from ISA reaches a new 

3 stronger conclusion about the causal relationship 

4 between ozone and a broader way of health influence. 

5 As a prior review, the ISA concludes that 

6 ozone causes adverse respiratory effects. For most 

7 every other health that point knows the scientific 

8 evidence showing harm from ozone is stronger in this 

9 review than in 2008. 

10 The new evidence strengthens findings to 

11 determine that ozone likely causes cardiovascular 

12 effects and total mortality for short-term exposures, 

13 as well as respiratory deaths from long-term 

14 exposures. The stronger group evidence necessitates 

15 greater public health protection. EPA must revise the 

16 NAAQS and the Air Quality Index. 

17 Today I'd like to focus on respiratory 

18 health effects. And the requirement of the Clean Air 

19 Act with the NAAQS protect the health of those that 

20 are specially sensitive to ozone, such as children, 

21 the elderly, people who work or play outdoors, and 
45

1 those with lung disease, with an adequate margin of 

2 safety. 

3 How does ozone firm on health? 

4 First, ozone exposure diminishes lung 

5 function. That is the ability to inhale and exhale a 

6 full breath. This is especially a concern with kids 

7 with asthma who already have limited respiratory 

8 reserve. 

9 New evidence from chamber studies confirms 

10 that lung function declines in healthy young adults 

11 with 6.6 hour exposure to 60 parts per billion ozone. 

12 At these concentrations of 60 parts per billion, ozone 

13 also induces inflammation in the airways making the 

14 air passages more sensitive to irritants, along 

15 distributors of asthma. The inflammation narrows the 

16 airways making it difficult to breathe. 

17 Secondly, ozone increases airway in 

18 hyperreactivity, leading to constriction or a narrow 

19 way to the airways. Ozone tightens the chest making 

20 breathing more difficult. And we know from toxicology 

21 studies in lab animals that airway have a 
46

1 responsiveness that's been documented in also 50 parts 

2 per billion ozone. 

3 Third, exposure to ozone causes children 

4 with asthmas to cough, wheeze, and become short of 

5 breath. These symptoms mean that parents must 

6 increase the medication they give to their children 

7 and restrict their children's activities until the air 

8 clears and it gets re-code. 

9 Fourth, ozone diminishes the body's defense 

10 mechanisms increasing the likelihood of developing 

11 respiratory infections, such as colds and influenza. 

12 Fifth, ozone exposure makes people with 

13 asthma respond more aggressively to allergens. 

14 Sixth, community health studies consistently 

15 report increased risk of respiratory hospital 

16 admissions and emergency department visits when being 

17 8-hour massive concentrations of ozone are below 60 

18 parts per billion. 

19 And finally, death rates for respiratory 

20 causes rise in days with increased ozone air 

21 pollution. And this increased mortality rate is 
47

1 evident on days with ozone concentrations less than 60 

2 parts per billion. 

3 Studies show that people with asthmas find 

4 their symptoms worsen further along by exposure to 

5 ozone. As it increases, the airway get to leave and 

6 inflames the airways. And the inflammatory response 

7 to the asthmatic lung to ozone can be more intense, 

8 indicating the need for tighter standards than 

9 proposed in order to protect the health of kids and 

10 adults with asthma. 

11 While I focused on respiratory disease, 

12 there are a great many other health effects of 

13 concern, ranging from likely cardiovascular effects to 

14 possible neurological and reproductive health effects. 

15 These new findings demand that EPA recognize 

16 that billions more people may be at risk of harm from 

17 ozone, including people with heart disease, people 

18 with compromised immunity, the obese, and pregnant 

19 women. 

20 To protect those at risk, EPA must adopt a 

21 truly protective ozone standard, 75 to 60 parts per 
48

1 billion. Thank you. 

2 MS. SASSER: Thank you both. The next two 

3 speakers are Mr. Wilfred Candler and Mr. James 

4 McCormick. 

5 State your name. 

6 MR. CANDLER: Wilfred Candler. 

7 W-I-L-F-R-E-D C-A-N-D-L-E-R. I'm just a private 

8 citizen. And I apologize to the reference in my notes 

9 to "NOx," whereas I understand this is about ozone. 

10 However, no way changes my argument. No way changes 

11 my argument. 

12 I wish to address the substantial argument 

13 which I heard, in fact, from the first speaker to 

14 be -- which I believe to be entirely false "Be aware 

15 of making the regulations too aggressive, lest they 

16 force the closure of one or more fossil-fired plants." 

17 Please note: I'm not urging you to increase 

18 the strictness of the past regulations, nor to shut 

19 down fossil plants. Merely, to not hold back on 

20 account of possible closures, my argument is not to 

21 hold back on account of possible closures. 
49

1 And that brings us back to the whole issue 

2 of global warming. And the graph at the bottom shows 

3 that in the last 400,000 years, we've had maximum 5 

4 per million carbon dioxide, with 300 parts by huge, 

5 huge geo-engineering protected from the last 150 

6 years. We raised it to 400 parts per million. We 

7 have absolutely no basis for knowing what's going to 

8 happen as a result of having raised the amount. So 

9 raising it is not a very sensible thing to be doing. 

10 So I -- the decision which EPA is making 

11 here should be in the context of global warming and 

12 the emergency that that represents. 

13 So you should not hold back on your 

14 regulations if there is one or more fossil plants. 

15 The plant is not a bad thing. Closing plants is not a 

16 bad thing. 

17 Also, employment -- you've been warned that 

18 you might cause people to be unemployed. If they are 

19 doing jobs which cause real damage, then those jobs 

20 need not to be done. 

21 Well, NOx is going to be the lax regulation 
50

1 because of many hospital jobs that will be created, 

2 lax regulation more to create jobs. Hospital jobs 

3 will be created for people who got asthma. 

4 I realize this is outside of -- I'm done. 

5 Thank you. 

6 MS. SASSER: Thank you. And this might be a 

7 good time to clarify two things. First of all, that 

8 the admissions of NOx are quite relevant to ozone 

9 standards because NOx is a principal precurser for 

10 ozone. 

11 And second of all, that EPA in formulating 

12 decisions on the National Ambient Air Quality 

13 Standards is expressly prohibited from considering 

14 costs or implementation issues in setting standards. 

15 We're strictly judging standards based on public 

16 health and welfare. 

17 MR. CANDLER: Thank you. And without taking 

18 into account of those things, please be assured it's 

19 the correct thing to do. 

20 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. McCormick. 

21 MR. McCORMICK: For the record, I am James 
51

1 McCormick, M-C-C-O-R-M-I-C-K. I'm a retired U.S. Army 

2 Captain. I'm a father, a farmer, and a native West 

3 Virginian. I served 22 years in the United States 

4 Army. I received three Purple Hearts, the Silver 

5 Star, and two Bronze Star Medals with a bow. 

6 I feel that my service to my country allowed 

7 me the opportunity to return home to be able to live a 

8 life working land. I have eight children of which I 

9 support with my farm and my activities. 

10 As the father of my children, I am as 

11 concerned as everyone here is today about the health 

12 of our children. I'm actually passionate about it. 

13 And I'm also concerned about the environment that we 

14 leave for our children in the future. 

15 I was born and raised in West Virginia, a 

16 state which has learned to balance economic 

17 development and the beauty of our environment for 

18 working very hard, very hard. 

19 But I appreciate the need to carefully 

20 consider federal regulations that impact Americans 

21 across the nation, as well as our position, one 
52

1 permitted. 

2 Having served in Iraq, I've seen firsthand 

3 and witnessed the physical and mental that combat 

4 inflicts on our men and women who serve. Returning to 

5 the United States, I gained a very good appreciation 

6 for the freedoms that we have, which is why we're all 

7 here today. We can express our freedoms without being 

8 angry at each other and our feelings. 

9 We fight for our freedoms. But we also must 

10 have a keen perspective on what I see is important, 

11 including the role the federal government can play to 

12 implement sound, fact-based policies, which help all 

13 Americans. One such policy is being discussed here 

14 today is the ozone regulation. 

15 Now, nobody here disputes the fact that 

16 clean air does protect health. However, federal 

17 regulators in this case are attempting to implement a 

18 new lower ozone standard without taking into account 

19 the practical impact the proposal or the standards can 

20 have on the American economy and small businessmen and 

21 veterans like me. 
53

1 Let me give you a number. Twenty-two 

2 veterans a day commit suicide. That's 8,030 a year. 

3 Out of that 8,030 a year, many of them "spot sight" 

4 their inability to make a decent income. They can't 

5 find jobs. It's difficult. 

6 Our farming communities across America are 

7 dying a deliberate way. And we stand here today 

8 looking at the potential of increasing standards that 

9 will most definitely hurt the American farmer. 

10 I use a tractor that runs on diesel fuel, 

11 and I promise you that I can barely afford to keep my 

12 lights on sometimes, let alone going out and buying a 

13 device that's going to reduce the emissions on this 

14 tractor. Some of these regulations could essentially 

15 put us out of business. 

16 As a veteran, I don't want to reverse our 

17 course that will take as far as making a cleaner and 

18 healthier environment. But I say that we need to be 

19 able to maintain the standards that we have, as a 

20 farmer of eight. And I set standards for my children. 

21 As a commanding officer, I set standards for 
54

1 my unit. I didn't set standards and they almost get 

2 there and then say, well, I'm going to make it a 

3 little bit more difficult. As a matter of fact, I'm 

4 going to make it nearly impossible for some of you to 

5 meet. That would not make me a very good person. 

6 That would not make me a very good father. That would 

7 not make me a very good leader. 

8 The National Association of Manufacturers 

9 says that this can be the costliest regulation in U.S. 

10 history. It can hurt every sector of our economy, 

11 cost millions of jobs across the nation, hurt the 

12 pocketbooks of Americans. No one including the 

13 American farmer will be spared. It's very difficult 

14 to find low cost food as it is. 

15 We start shutting down more farms, I want 

16 you to understand what we're doing when we increase 

17 these standards, exactly who you're hurting. There 

18 are people like me. It's not just gas and oil and 

19 factories. It's American orchards. Because it's very 

20 hard to plow a field that's a hundred acres without a 

21 tractor, without vehicles, without the workforce. 
55

1 As President Obama stated recently and cited 

2 in the State of the Union Address and I quote, "Our 

3 economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest 

4 pace since 1999. And we are as free from the grip of 

5 foreign oil as we've been almost 30 years." 

6 Let's not reverse that direction. Lowering 

7 those ozone standards will hurt job opportunities for 

8 thousands of veterans returning from active duty. 

9 There's no doubt. Because we don't hardly have the 

10 jobs now as it is. 

11 And secondly and even more importantly, it 

12 could put our nation security at risk. 

13 MS. LANGDON: Mr. McCormick, we appreciate 

14 your testimony. We do have a full schedule here. 

15 MR. MCCORMICK: Okay. Additionally, the new 

16 founded domestic -- domestic energy production is 

17 buying our nation a level of insulation from the 

18 insanity, which is in the millions. Turn on the 

19 television; it's there every day. 

20 So what I'm saying is if you increase the 

21 standards and force companies and farmers to shut 
56

1 down, you will essentially force us to be more 

2 dependent on foreign oil sources and on foreign food 

3 sources, the most detriment will not care about the 

4 pollution that they put in the air. 

5 Thank you very much. 

6 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. And if 

7 you will give us your full written testimony, we'd be 

8 glad to put that in the docket. 

9 MR. McCORMICK: Thank you. 

10 MR. SILVERMAN: Thank you both for coming 

11 this evening. And thank you for your service. 

12 MS. SASSER: Our next two speakers are Terry 

13 McGuire and Isabelle Riu. 

14 Is Terry McGuire in the room? 

15 MS. LANGDON: There he is. 

16 MR. McGUIRE: Sorry. 

17 MS. SASSER: Mr. McGuire, begin. 

18 MR. McGUIRE: Hi. My name is Terry McGuire, 

19 M-C-G-U-I-R-E. I'm a Washington representative with 

20 the Sierra Club. Thank you for the opportunity to 

21 speak today on EPA's -- sorry. I was running -- 
57

1 proposed revision to the ozone standard. 

2 Sierra Club's 2.4 million members and 

3 supporters are spread across all 50 states, Puerto 

4 Rico, and the District of Columbia. We come from all 

5 walks of life and represent many different ages, 

6 races, ethnicities, incomes, interests, and beliefs. 

7 And we're drawn to the Sierra Club for many different 

8 reasons and causes, from holding big polluters 

9 accountable to protecting wild and special places. 

10 But we all share one commonality. We all breathe. 

11 We, like you and everyone else in this room, 

12 city, country, and world, depend on clean air to 

13 survive. At the Sierra Club, we consider equal access 

14 to clean, fresh air, a fundamental American right. 

15 And so on behalf of our 2.4 million members 

16 and supporters, I'm here today to applaud your move to 

17 update the ozone standard and urge you to put public 

18 health first by setting the standard no higher than 60 

19 parts per billion. 

20 I have learned a lot of things from working 

21 in politics and public interest advocacy for the last 
58

1 seven years. Chief among these lessons is that you 

2 cannot always categorize people as either good guys or 

3 bad guys. Even friends are not always going to agree 

4 on every issue. Things are not always black and 

5 white. But with the ozone standard, I do not see that 

6 this lesson applies. The situation appears pretty 

7 straightforward, pretty black and white to me. 

8 What I see, if we put politics aside, is an 

9 overwhelming body of peer-reviewed scientific 

10 literature telling us that the current, Bush-era 

11 standard is insufficient to protect public health. I 

12 see a sizable and well-respected group of health 

13 organizations, including the American Lung 

14 Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the 

15 American Thoracic Society, telling us that if we are 

16 serious about protecting the public health, 

17 particularly the vulnerable populations like kids, the 

18 elderly and asthmatics, that the standard must be set 

19 at 60 parts per billion. I see the letter of the law 

20 in the Clean Air Act clearly spelling out that EPA 

21 must set the NAAQS at a level protective of public 
59

1 health, including health of sensitive populations, 

2 with an adequate margin of safety. 

3 To be sure, I also see industry spreading 

4 misinformation and encouraging EPA to break the law 

5 and factor costs in setting the standard. As 

6 stakeholders, these folks deserve a seat at the table, 

7 fair enough. But polluters should not be driving 

8 decision-making and setting a health-based standard. 

9 You have heard their sky-is-falling rhetoric 

10 time and time again, that the costs will be 

11 astronomical, that the technology hurdles are 

12 insurmountable, even that the air is just fine and no 

13 action is needed. 

14 We urge you to reject these fabrications. 

15 Because we know better. We know that the Clean Air 

16 Act has been one of the most successful laws ever 

17 implemented and in its 40-plus year history it has 

18 been responsible for significantly improving our air 

19 quality and driving technological innovation. We 

20 reject their false choice that we cannot 

21 simultaneously have clean air and a prosperous economy 
60

1 because it is not moored in fact or experience. 

2 In closing, I would like to dedicate my 

3 testimony today to my younger brother, Tim. Many 

4 years ago he almost died from an asthma attack and 

5 seeing him gasp for air remains one of the most 

6 terrifying experiences in my life. We should be doing 

7 whatever we can to make sure as few families as 

8 possible have to endure that kind of horror. A good 

9 place to start would be establishing the strongest 

10 possible ozone standard. 

11 Sierra Club's motto is simple -- to explore, 

12 enjoy and protect the planet. 

13 Thank you for your work that helps make 

14 living out that motto possible, and thank you again 

15 for the chance to speak today. 

16 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Riu. 

17 MS. RIU: My name is Isabelle Riu. That's 

18 I-S-A-B-E-L-L-E and R-I-U. And I work for the Sierra 

19 Club in D.C. as well. And I would like to express my 

20 support and gratitude to EPA for proposing a new ozone 

21 NAAQS, but I urge EPA to set the standard at the 
61

1 lowest end of the range, at 60 ppb. 

2 The ozone NAAQS has needed a long, overdue 

3 update and we now have a lot of science on the 

4 detrimental effects of ozone on human health, and it 

5 all points to not setting the ozone NAAQS any higher 

6 than 60 ppb. Cost is not allowed to be taken into 

7 account when setting the standard, and I urge EPA to 

8 not be influenced by politics. Please follow what 

9 science clearly says and do what is best for public 

10 health by setting a stringent and protective standard. 

11 In terms of health effects, ozone is well 

12 known to cause a number of illnesses, including 

13 asthma, pulmonary inflammation, respiratory illnesses, 

14 low birth weight, and premature death. These effects 

15 are disproportionately felt by the elderly, 

16 minorities, and children. 

17 Racial minorities bear a disproportionate 

18 asthma burden in the U.S. In many states, such as 

19 Connecticut, Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, and 

20 Wisconsin, to name just a few, minorities are two to 

21 three times more likely than white non-Hispanics to 
62

1 have asthma, go to the hospital for asthma, visit the 

2 emergency room for asthma, and to die from asthma. It 

3 is undisputed that ozone is a trigger for asthma 

4 attacks, and I urge EPA to set a 60 ppb standard to 

5 address this environmental justice issue. 

6 Low income communities also 

7 disproportionately suffer from asthma in the U.S. 

8 According to the CDC, current asthma prevalence is the 

9 highest, 11.2 percent, at lower end of family incomes, 

10 and decreases as family income increases, with the 

11 lowest current asthma prevalence, at 6.7 percent, for 

12 the highest end of family income. This 

13 disproportionate burden is echoed in a number of 

14 states, including Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, 

15 and New York. 

16 Children are also at a particularly high 

17 health risk because they often spend more time outside 

18 and their lungs are still developing, meaning they are 

19 not just mini adults -- they're an especially 

20 vulnerable population to ozone. Asthma strikes nearly 

21 one out of every 10 school children in the U.S. It is 
63

1 the number one health issue that causes kids to miss 

2 school and on "bad-air days" they are forced to stay 

3 indoors. 

4 According to the EPA, a 60 standard would 

5 prevent roughly 1.8 million asthma attacks, 1.9 missed 

6 school days, 6,400 premature deaths. It would be 

7 absurd to set a weaker standard and give up all of 

8 these monumental benefits. 

9 In speaking on a more personal level, I grew 

10 up in LA, which is home to the worst smog pollution in 

11 the country. Smog often blankets my hometown, 

12 obscuring the view of the beautiful nearby San Gabriel 

13 Mountains, a new national monument, and causing 

14 flagrant respiratory illness throughout my community. 

15 Some of the scariest moments of my life have been 

16 seeing my little brother have an asthma attack 

17 triggered by poor air quality, gasping for air and 

18 struggling to breathe. And this air pollution is 

19 preventable, and the first step is setting a 

20 protective ozone standard at 60, which is a readily 

21 achievable standard. 
64

1 Coal plants are a major source of NOx, an 

2 ozone precursor, in the U.S. NOx emissions can be 

3 easily reduced by installing a modern pollution 

4 control called "SCR" on the coal unit. Roughly half 

5 of the coal plants in the U.S. lack these modern NOx 

6 controls so this is a readily available method of 

7 compliance. 

8 I have also done an extensive amount of 

9 analysis using EPA's data to show that over half of 

10 the units with these controls are actually not even 

11 operating them at full capacity and not achieving the 

12 lowest demonstrated NOx emission rate. So a 

13 significant amount of ozone can be reduced if these 

14 units simply operated the controls that have already 

15 been installed and financed by us, the ratepayers. 

16 Electric vehicles can and should also be 

17 used as a major tool to attain the NAAQS, and a 

18 stringent standard will spur innovation, just as other 

19 protective regulations have done in the past. 

20 Industry has, of course, already launched lies about 

21 how the sky is falling and it will also be impossible 
65

1 to comply, as they always do. And this all sounds 

2 familiar. Just think back to when auto executives 

3 predicted that having to install seat belts would 

4 bring the downfall of their industry as one example. 

5 If you look at the number of studies published on this 

6 topic, there's a clear pattern of industry and 

7 government agencies overestimating the costs of 

8 complying with these new rules. 

9 And a 60 standard is also especially 

10 necessary given the weak form of ozone design values, 

11 which are created by averaging the fourth-highest 

12 8-hour ozone exposures over the past three years. 

13 This form naively ignores the top three ozone 

14 exposures each year by pretending they go away, but 

15 people are still being subjected to very high 

16 exposures of ozone. Areas that would attain a 65 

17 NAAQS would have several exposures over 70 and even 

18 80, even though the EPA claims a 65 standard would 

19 eliminate almost all "exposures of concern." These 

20 areas include large areas with millions of people 

21 ranging from Miami to Minneapolis to Seattle to 
66

1 Jacksonville. 

2 In conclusion, I urge you to set a new, 

3 stronger standard of 60 to clean up our air and reduce 

4 pollution related illnesses so millions of Americans 

5 with asthma and other respiratory ailments will 

6 breathe easier. It is the right thing to do and it is 

7 readily achievable. Thank you. 

8 MS. SASSER: Thank you all. All right. 

9 Our next two speakers are Greg Bertelsen and 

10 Devawn Oberlender. Do we have Devawn Oberlender here 

11 in the audience? 

12 The next speaker then will be Ambrozaitis. 

13 I apologize for the poor pronunciation. 

14 All right. Mr. Bertelsen. 

15 MR. BERTELSEN: Good morning. My name is 

16 Greg Bertelsen, B-E-R-T-E-L-S-E-N, and on behalf of 

17 the National Association of Manufacturers, I suppose 

18 on behalf of members, at least I offer the following 

19 words, the Environmental Protection Agency proposals 

20 to secondary quality standard for ground-level ozone. 

21 The NAM is the nation's largest industrial 
67

1 trade association representing small, medium, and 

2 large manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 

3 50 states. The NAM urges the Agency to keep the ozone 

4 standard at its current level of 75 parts per billion. 

5 Manufacturers are committed to protecting 

6 the environment, the rate of stability, increasing 

7 energy efficiency, and reducing the emission 

8 standards, already doing the incredible progress in 

9 reducing ozone levels. 

10 In fact, ozone levels are down 25 percent 

11 since 1990 and our economy is growing by 40 percent 

12 during the same time period. Manufacturers are being 

13 whack for ability to clean up more efficient 

14 automobiles. Since 1990, highway NOx emissions are 

15 down 48 percent. VOC emissions went down 30 percent, 

16 while an additional 60 million vehicles have an as 

17 real road risk. 

18 We're operating cleaner and more efficient 

19 factories. Since 1990, manufacturers' NOx emissions 

20 are down by 52 percent and our VOC emissions have been 

21 reduced by 70 percent, while the value add to the 
68

1 economy is moving up. 

2 The right policies amount to being 

3 environmentally efficient and technologic feasibility, 

4 getting out door with a clean environment and 

5 prosperous value. However, when regulations push 

6 beyond the limits of technology, critical balance have 

7 been environmentally proven that money growth is lost 

8 and manufacturers and the economy suffer. 

9 Increasingly, we're losing our battles. 

10 More and more manufacturers are presented with 

11 regulations that are beyond the bounds of information. 

12 Manufacturers and other industries in position are the 

13 only available compliant strategy, unless policies are 

14 modified is closing up shop. 

15 When EPA first issued the rule on NAAQS 

16 regulation, the standard was so unrealistic at no 

17 single point in all of the rules requirements. In 

18 2012, 99.14, the EPA proposed new short performance 

19 standards for new coal-fired power plants at levels 

20 that would never be achieved in practice, nor which 

21 would be issued by any commercial developed economy. 
69

1 Now the EPA has proposed an ozone standard 

2 which only identified 55 percent of necessary 

3 technologies to achieve a 65 parts per billion 

4 standard, all reliance of all unknown controls. The 

5 45 percent is at compliance. 

6 Reliance on this new technology that do not 

7 exist, in part, helps explain why it's nowhere near 

8 that kind of consulting. Last July found a 60 parts 

9 per billion standard will cost the economy an 

10 astronomically $270 billion and millions of jobs per 

11 year. EPA's undefined math compliance also in part 

12 which explains why the Agency's own estimates 

13 consistently show most a stricter ozone standard would 

14 be the most expensive regulation in U.S. history. 

15 This is not a choice between improving air 

16 quality or not. The incredible progress that had been 

17 made lowering emissions and ozone levels will maintain 

18 with or without a stricter ozone standard. The same 

19 cannot be said for manufacturers' ability to invest, 

20 expand in anew. 

21 Today manufacturers struggle to get their 
70

1 necessary air permits to expand outward, even in areas 

2 of the country that are in attainment with federal air 

3 quality standards, because it didn't bargain between 

4 federal standards and background air quality levels. 

5 The picture is much deeper, manufacturers operating a 

6 multitude of vast in non-attainment areas. And the 

7 picturesque will get still worse if EPA issues an 

8 ozone standard. 

9 Manufacturers are committed to investing in 

10 more efficient and state-of-the-factory products so we 

11 can produce more while ever reducing our environment 

12 corporate. Manufacturers also remain committed to 

13 complying with all exiting regulations, including the 

14 current ozone standard justifies 2008 which still has 

15 not been fully implemented. Progress will continue 

16 and manufacturers will continue to be there. 

17 We need regulations that are realistic and 

18 achievable. The NA NAAQS the staff would submit 

19 levels being postured by the Agency as approachable 

20 are neither, and ask the Agency to allow us to work 

21 with the existing requirements before resetting 
71

1 requirements. 

2 Thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

3 you today. We balance a heck of a lot of reachable 

4 policies. Manufacturers in the United States will 

5 continue to try with a stable solution but through job 

6 creation and drive at NAM. Thank you. 

7 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Giedrius 

8 Ambrozaitis. 

9 MR. AMBROZAITIS: Yes. Ambrozaitis, 

10 A-M-B-R-O-Z-A-I-T-I-S. Thank you for this opportunity 

11 to speak. Good morning. My name is Giedrius 

12 Ambrozaitis, and I represent the Alliance of 

13 Automobile Manufacturers. 

14 The Alliance is an association of 12 vehicle 

15 manufacturers will account for roughly three out of 

16 four new vehicles sold in the United States each year. 

17 Auto manufacturing is a cornerstone of the U.S. 

18 economy, supporting over 7 million jobs, nearly over 

19 7 -- primary secondary employment. 

20 The Alliance members share the concern of 

21 our customers and the American public about this 
72

1 nation's air quality and recognize the importance of 

2 assuring clean air that protects public health. 

3 Today's vehicles are 99 percent cleaner than vehicles 

4 of the 1970s, thanks to the dramatic reductions in 

5 smog-forming emissions. 

6 Our nation's air is getting cleaner even as 

7 our economy grows. According to EPA's most recent air 

8 trends analysis, between 1980 and 2013, when gross 

9 domestic product increased 145 percent, vehicle miles 

10 traveled increased 95 percent, and energy consumption 

11 increased 25 percent, and total emissions of the six 

12 principal air pollutants dropped by 62 percent. 

13 Nationally, peak ozone levels declined by 33 percent. 

14 Investments and improvements in vehicle 

15 technology and manufacturing processes are a major 

16 part of this success story. This is as a result of 

17 natural technical progress in the vehicle industry, 

18 the turnover of old vehicles to newer ones, and 

19 emissions regulations already promulgated for 

20 automobile sources, including the Tier 2, Tier 3, 

21 emissions regulations, Mobile Source Air Toxics, On 
73

1 Board Diagnostics, Renewable Fuels Standard, and the 

2 Green House Gas Rules. Looking forward to 2017, under 

3 the Tier 3 rules, NMOG+NOX standards for the fleet of 

4 new automobiles will be 80 percent lower than today's 

5 fleet average. EPA models and inventories showed on 

6 the contribution of the entire on-road light-duty car 

7 and truck fleet emissions to the observed ozone will 

8 be less than 3 percent in 2017. In 2030, the 

9 contribution is projected to be less than 1 percent. 

10 These reductions will reduce ozone concentrations 

11 across the country, regardless of whether the existing 

12 ozone standard is revised. 

13 Given that dramatic reductions in ozone and 

14 improvements to air quality will continue to occur due 

15 to a recent more wide legislation resource 

16 regulations, EPA has reassured they had to change the 

17 current ozone standard. Since all measures to achieve 

18 some type of ppb ozone have not yet been implemented, 

19 their benefits and efficacy have not yet been 

20 determined. In fact, the current ozone levels are so 

21 low that a substantial portion of the ozone 
74

1 concentration in urban and rural areas are now coming 

2 from either naturally occurring ozone or from ozone 

3 that has been transported from international sources. 

4 The ability of states to implement additional measures 

5 to counteract the contributions from the 

6 non-controllable sources has yet to be demonstrated. 

7 In addition, the Alliance has concerns with 

8 EPA's assumptions regarding background ozone levels 

9 and EPA's interpretations of human and clinical 

10 studies. 

11 These concerns are due to incorrect 

12 assumptions about levels of background ozone, 

13 discrepancy between demonstrated thresholds in 

14 clinical studies and EPA's assumption of no threshold, 

15 lack of consistency and biological plausibility in 

16 epidemiology studies, and the fact the controlled 

17 human studies show current standard is protective. 

18 Our comments on the NPR (phonetic) will 

19 elaborate on each of these. Our concerns lead us to 

20 two conclusions; the current standard is protective of 

21 public health and welfare and many of the additional 
75

1 health benefits cited by EPA are unlikely to occur 

2 given the proposed new standard. 

3 The Alliance appreciates this opportunity to 

4 comment and will be happy to answer any question you 

5 may have about our testimony. We will be submitting 

6 written comments. 

7 MS. SASSER: Great. Thank you both very 

8 much. 

9 All right. I'd like to call again 

10 Mr. Devawn Oberlender if he's present. Okay. If not, 

11 Mr. Seth Long and Mr. Paul Miller. 

12 MR. RUSH: Mr. Long is on the way. Mr. Long 

13 is coming. 

14 MS. SASSER: Okay. Why don't we move 

15 forward with Paul Miller and Derrick Dureses 

16 (phonetic). 

17 All right. It appears we are missing both 

18 of them. Why don't we just proceed with Paul Miller. 

19 MR. MILLER: Good morning. My name is Paul 

20 Miller, M-I-L-L-E-R. I'm Chief Scientist with the 

21 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, 
76

1 or NESCAUM. And NESCAUM is an association of eight 

2 state air quality agencies in the Northeast, which 

3 includes the six New England States, New Jersey, and 

4 New York. 

5 I'm speaking today on behalf of NESCAUM's 

6 member states. My testimony today reflects the 

7 majority views of NESCAUM as a state membership 

8 organization. Individual NESCAUM member states may 

9 hold views different from the NESCAUM states' majority 

10 consensus and may submit separate comments to the 

11 docket reflecting those differing views. 

12 Today marks the third time since 2007 that 

13 NESCAUM has appeared at an EPA hearing concerning a 

14 proposed change to the ozone NAAQS. And for the third 

15 time, NESCAUM calls for EPA to establish a primary 

16 ozone NAASQ within the range of .060 to .070 parts per 

17 million (sic) to better protect the public's health. 

18 This range is supported by the sciences, required by 

19 the Clean Air Act, and consistently recommended by 

20 EPA's independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

21 Committee, or CASAC. 
77

1 Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant 

2 that adversely affects both people with respiratory 

3 disease and healthy children and adults. It can cause 

4 premature death. The science was sufficiently strong 

5 in 2007 to justify a more protective ozone health 

6 standard, but the standard set by EPA at that time 

7 fell short of what was needed. The science remained 

8 sufficiently strong in 2010 when EPA tried to 

9 reconsider its earlier revision, but ultimately it 

10 could not do so. 

11 It is now 2015, and the science has only 

12 become stronger. It is now long past time for EPA to 

13 do what is needed -- to adopt an ozone health standard 

14 consistent with the science, consistent with the 

15 requirements of the Clean Air Act, and consistent with 

16 the CASAC's recommendation. 

17 We are also cognizant of CASAC's June 26, 

18 2014 letter where it advised EPA "that based on the 

19 scientific evidence, a level of 70 ppb provides little 

20 margin of safety for the protection of public health, 

21 particularly for sensitive subpopulations." Lung 
78

1 function changes in healthy adults have been 

2 demonstrated to occur in controlled chamber studies at 

3 ozone levels relevant to the 70 ppb upper range. 

4 These data do not account for increased sensitivities 

5 due to age or pre-existing respiratory conditions such 

6 as asthma. They also do not account for exposures 

7 that can occur for longer than 6.6 hours. All of 

8 these factors mitigate against the 70 ppb level being 

9 protective with an adequate margin of safety. 

10 By extension, the current ozone NAAQS of 

11 .075 ppm remains inadequate. Retaining this as a 

12 standard should not be an option. 

13 For the ozone secondary NAAQS, designed to 

14 protect the public welfare, NESCAUM supports a 

15 cumulative, seasonal standard in the form referred to 

16 as "W126." We continue to question the view that many 

17 of the benefits of a secondary NAAQS would be achieved 

18 by attaining an 8-hour NAAQS. In 2010, EPA stated 

19 that "an 8-hour form and averaging time is an indirect 

20 way to measure biologically relevant exposure 

21 patterns, is poorly correlated with such exposure 
79

1 patterns, and therefore is less likely to identify and 

2 protect against the kind of cumulative, seasonal 

3 exposure patterns that have been determined to be 

4 harmful." The latest proposal to continue using an 

5 8-hour form for the secondary NAAQS is a retreat from 

6 EPA's previous stance, and does not reflect a 

7 science-based metric for biologically relevant 

8 exposures. 

9 Furthermore, EPA's proposed W126 range of 13 

10 to 17 ppm-hours as the starting basis for setting an 

11 8-hour standard is at and above the upper end of 

12 CASAC's recommended range of 7 to 15 ppm-hours, and is 

13 above levels that cause vegetation damage in the 

14 NESCAUM region. NESCAUM continues to support a 

15 secondary NAAQS of W126 form towards the lower end of 

16 the CASAC-recommended range. 

17 In attaining the ozone NAAQS, we note that 

18 NESCAUM states are subject to significant ozone 

19 contributions from pollution sources in upwind states 

20 in addition to pollution emitted within the NESCAUM 

21 region. As a result, the NESCAUM states, whether 
80

1 individually or collectively, cannot on their own meet 

2 a more protective ozone standard called for by the 

3 existing body of science unless EPA and the upwind 

4 states adequately address the long-range interstate 

5 transport of ozone pollution and its precursors in a 

6 timely manner. There is no rule currently in place or 

7 proposed that addresses ozone transport for the 

8 current .075 ppm ozone NAAQS, much less what will be 

9 needed to achieve a more protective ozone standard. 

10 With that, I will conclude my remarks, and 

11 NESCAUM will submit a more detailed written comments 

12 to the docket. And we thank you for your attention to 

13 our testimony today. 

14 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

15 MR. MILLER: Yes. 

16 MR. SILVERMAN: One clarification on 

17 secondary standard. You suggested that we are 

18 adopting a different form for the standard, that being 

19 156 standard. In fact, we are using the W156 metric 

20 to indicate what would be referenced among the 

21 protection and then seeing if the primary standard 
81

1 would warrant that level of protection. 

2 MR. MILLER: That's, I think, the way I 

3 understood it. I guess my testimony is not clear. My 

4 point was that the form -- the W126 Form were starting 

5 that, to find out its correct percentage. Converted 

6 to the A Act (phonetic), it's still above the 

7 CASAC-recommended range and is at levels that we've 

8 seen vegetation damage in the past month, so we're 

9 recommending the lower in that range. 

10 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

11 Mr. Seth Long or Hunter Dureses (phonetic) 

12 present? 

13 We're ready to move on then to David 

14 Friedman and Adam Beitman. 

15 Okay. Mr. Friedman. 

16 MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning. 

17 F-R-I-E-D-M-A-N. I'm David Friedman, Vice President, 

18 Regulatory Affairs for the American Fuel & 

19 Petrochemical Manufacturers. AFPM is a national trade 

20 association representing more than 400 companies that 

21 encompass virtually all U.S. refining and 
82

1 petrochemical manufacturing capacity. 

2 The proposed NAAQS for ozone will have a 

3 great impact on our members, and I thank EPA for the 

4 opportunity to present our views on the Agency's 

5 review of the current ozone NAAQS standard. 

6 Our members have significantly reinvested in 

7 efforts to improve air quality in the U.S. over the 

8 past two decades. This has helped, as I mentioned 

9 before, reduce total emissions of the six principal 

10 air pollutants by 62 percent since 1980 and 

11 contributed to a two decade-long drop in ozone levels 

12 across the country. The petrochemical and refining 

13 industries have invested billions of dollars to reduce 

14 emissions from their facilities. Since 1990, the 

15 refining industry has invested more than $137 billion 

16 to reduce emissions from our plants and make cleaner 

17 fuels. By the end of this decade, we will have 

18 removed virtually all sulfur from gasoline and diesel 

19 fuel and continue to provide reformulated gasoline 

20 that has contributed to national air quality benefits. 

21 The cleaner fuels brought to market and 
83

1 continuing in the future will result in cleaner air 

2 for decades to come as cleaner engines are put in 

3 place. This progress will continue as the existing 

4 fleet turns over. We soon will see cars and trucks 

5 producing significant lower emissions due to new CAFE 

6 standards and costly Tier 3 gasoline requirements. In 

7 addition, emissions from power plants have been 

8 reduced and that trend is expected to continue well 

9 into the future. The current ozone NAAQS is working 

10 and it will continue to protect public health in the 

11 future, without any further tightening of the 

12 standard. 

13 There is insufficient scientific 

14 justification for lowering the standard beyond the 

15 level EPA began implementing in 2004. Neither the 

16 2008 review nor the more recent ozone studies justify 

17 lowering the standard based on the health effects of 

18 exposure. The science behind lowering the standard 

19 was uncertain and variable during the 2008 review and 

20 the latest studies have not changed that earlier 

21 conclusion. 
84

1 Given these facts, there is certainly no 

2 basis for EPA to propose changing the ozone standards 

3 promulgated by the EPA Administrator in 2008. 

4 EPA should also consider the multi-pollutant 

5 effects of lowering the ozone standard, such as using 

6 SCR, selective catalytic reduction technology, that 

7 while it reduces NOx potentially increases particulate 

8 matter concentrations in the air shed. It is also 

9 important to note that the Agency's efforts to further 

10 reduce ozone levels will likely conflict with its 

11 increased emphasis on regulating greenhouse gases. 

12 Efforts to reduce NOx and VOCs could result in 

13 significant energy penalties through the installation 

14 of new control equipment. Requiring refineries to 

15 produce essentially sulfur free gasoline also exacts 

16 an energy penalty thereby increasing the carbon 

17 footprint. Promulgating a tighter ozone standard at 

18 this point in time is like asking a person to reduce 

19 their daily caloric intake to 800 calories per day and 

20 then not understanding why they don't have the energy 

21 the partake in extended strenuous physical activity. 
85

1 Providing sufficient time for affected areas 

2 to attain the standard is almost as important as the 

3 actual level of the standard. Unfortunately, EPA has 

4 not completed the implementation for the 2008 standard 

5 and in some cases aspects of the 1997 standard 

6 implementation, so these areas will be faced with 

7 multiple schedules. This level of uncertainty makes 

8 it extremely difficult to plan and execute ozone 

9 reductions in order to reach attainment. Moreover, as 

10 EPA's own RIA indicates, the Agency has not been able 

11 to identify how the proposed standards can be met. 

12 Despite intensive review of available control 

13 technologies, EPA was forced to heavily rely on 

14 controls it could not identify or predict -- literally 

15 "unknown" controls. Within California, EPA could not 

16 predict how the proposed standards would be met by 

17 2025, even using all "unknown" controls. 

18 If there is no demonstrable benefit from 

19 this proposal, then moving forward could mean 

20 unnecessary energy cost increases, job losses and 

21 reduced domestic energy development and energy 
86

1 security. This will negatively affect consumers in 

2 the midst of an economic recovery, in these very 

3 communities where we need to be increasing jobs. 

4 These rules will hinder or threaten the economic 

5 recovery, and will lead to further loss of American 

6 manufacturing jobs and increased reliance on imported 

7 gasoline and diesel fuel. 

8 For the reasons stated above, AFPM does not 

9 support the proposed tightening of the ozone NAAQS. 

10 Results from emissions reduction regulations 

11 that are already on the books must be allowed to come 

12 into effect before a new standard is considered. As 

13 we have said before, EPA should not move the goal 

14 posts in the middle of the game. 

15 New non-attainment area designations and 

16 multiple implementation schedules will hurt both large 

17 and small businesses and prevent expansion and growth 

18 in many urban, suburban, and rural counties. Hurting 

19 local economies without a clear scientific basis for 

20 selecting a different standard makes little sense. 

21 Again, we are grateful for the opportunity 
87

1 to present our views and will be providing written 

2 comments further outlining our positions in March. 

3 I will be happy to answer any questions you 

4 may have about our testimony. Thank you. 

5 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much, 

6 Mr. Friedman. Mr. Beitman. 

7 MR. BEITMAN: Hi. My name is Adam Beitman, 

8 and I don't have written testimony with me. I'm just 

9 going to speak based on my experience. 

10 As a child in South Jersey, I had asthma 

11 quite bad. It was a bunch of different ailments. And 

12 it was only many years later that I realized that when 

13 I moved from Marmora, which is very close to the end 

14 and quite there. It's a coal plant. Actually it's 

15 right on the bay near a wildlife refuge. And so it 

16 was kind of hard for me and it never occurred to me 

17 until many years later that when I moved about a half 

18 an hour North, the asthma went away, almost as if it 

19 was miraculously. And looking back on it, I think, 

20 well, you know, what possibly could have been the 

21 different factors at work there, you know. 
88

1 At the time, doctors said there's a 

2 different pollen in the trees. But you're not even 

3 talking about a small area in South Jersey. The only 

4 real change was that I was no longer living and 

5 breathing within a mile of a coal plant, and I don't 

6 know particularly what the controls were at that time. 

7 I assume they were whatever they might have been more 

8 recently because the standards are involved, and we're 

9 talking about 30 years ago. 

10 So that's the fundamental thing that I come 

11 to this commentary with is that, you know, we're 

12 talking about children with asthma across this country 

13 who would be impacted and have paid lobbyists from the 

14 fossil fuel industry and from the manufacturing 

15 industries telling us, well, the science isn't there. 

16 And on the other hand, you have the American 

17 Lung Association whose job is to care for the lungs of 

18 Americans and be medical representatives on this topic 

19 saying, yes, the science is there, and thoracic study, 

20 and a variety of public health and medical groups are 

21 all saying the science is there. But paid industry 
89

1 lobbyists are saying that it's not, so you're going to 

2 believe me or you're going on the comments? 

3 These are things we want to consider. So 

4 the EPA has proposed setting the standard between 70 

5 and 65, and then fortunately is also taking comment on 

6 a standard that is 60 level and that's great because 

7 the 60 level is the level that these medical 

8 associations and these doctors and scientists and the 

9 scientist of NESCAUM who spoke before me are saying is 

10 the appropriate one, the one that's most protective of 

11 public health, the one that's most protective of 

12 children with asthma, the vulnerable communities in 

13 places like Baltimore with coal plants, in urban areas 

14 where attaining -- we're just not there. 

15 So, you know, I hear people saying things 

16 like, well, we're not yet fully in attainment with the 

17 current standards so how could we possibly consider 

18 lowering it? Well, that's like saying, well, I 

19 haven't yet walked to 15th Street. How can you tell 

20 me I have to walk to 17th Street? I'm not even at 

21 15th yet. It just doesn't really make any sense. 
90

1 So, you know, I don't think it's any reason 

2 to say we're plotting to lower the standards to the 

3 level of science in cases is what's appropriate for 

4 the public health, which my understanding is the only 

5 criteria that EPA has to consider when it's making 

6 these determinations -- is what's best for public 

7 health. So I just wanted to say that. 

8 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Any questions? 

9 Thank you all. 

10 Okay. I'd like to call Ms. Kristin Cook and 

11 Brian Urbaszewski. 

12 Okay. Is Samantha Ahdoot here? 

13 MS. AHDOOT: Samantha Ahdoot. 

14 MS. SASSER: Won't you come on up, and we'll 

15 have the two of you go. 

16 You're Ms. Cook? 

17 MS. COOK: Hi. My name is Kristin Cook, and 

18 I'm here representing your average Joe citizen. 

19 Hence, I won't bore you with all those pesky facts 

20 about how smog affects the air quality. Asthma -- a 

21 disproportionate amount, harm 20 more kids in 
91

1 vulnerable communities, all that stuff. Blah, blah, 

2 blah, right? You know already. They're facts, 

3 unqualified facts. But do facts dictate policy? 

4 Rhetorical question, I know that. 

5 I don't like smog. In fact, I resent smog. 

6 Why? Because it's avoidable. At least you could 

7 avoid having so much smog, air pollution, as we 

8 currently do. We had a chance back in 2008 when the 

9 Bush Administration rejected direct communications of 

10 experts, scientists, mental health professionals who 

11 warned that the now part of 75 parts per million 

12 (sic), the standard was insufficient to protect our 

13 health. 

14 What is the point of having these scientific 

15 professionals testify if we're just going to ignore 

16 their advice? Rhetorical question number two. 

17 I don't appreciate how power plants and 

18 fossil fuel industries spend so much time and money 

19 fighting standards that would make the air and 

20 everything else more healthy. If they don't use all 

21 that coal and upgrading their plants just to pay 
92

1 lawyers and lobbyists and TV ads and radio ads, it 

2 just might be a better off connection, or maybe it 

3 will be a wash. Well, if that added one once of 

4 feeling proud of themselves if they did all they could 

5 for the health of their fellow Americans, fellow 

6 humans, after all we have nothing if we don't have our 

7 health. 

8 And I'm not just referring to personal 

9 health. But don't get me started on the planet's 

10 health. It's a sad state of affairs when we put 

11 profits over people. But that's unfortunately all too 

12 often what we have in today's world. 

13 So in closing, please set the ozone standard 

14 to 60 parts per million (sic). Seize this opportunity 

15 to serve the people for ordinary Joes. Thank you. 

16 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

17 MS. AHDOOT: Good morning. 

18 MS. SASSER: Please spell your name for the 

19 court reporter. 

20 MS. AHDOOT: My name is Samantha Ahdoot, 

21 A-H-D-O-O-T. I thank you for the opportunity to 
93

1 provide comments at today's public hearing on the 

2 Agency's proposed ozone pollution standards. 

3 My name is Samantha Ahdoot. I'm here 

4 representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, or 

5 AAP, a nonprofit professional organization of 62,000 

6 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical 

7 subspecialists, and pediatric surgeon specialists, 

8 dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of 

9 infants, children, adolescence, and young adults. And 

10 also I currently serve on the AAP's Council on 

11 Environmental Health. 

12 In addition to representing the AAP, I'm 

13 also a private pediatrician in Alexandria, Virginia. 

14 As part of my daily practice, I see children who 

15 experience health consequences of ozone pollution, and 

16 that helps in forming my testimony here today. 

17 The AAP supports the EPA's proposed ozone 

18 pollution limit of 65 to 70 parts per billion as a 

19 critical and overdue first step. While there's clear 

20 and compelling scientific evidence supporting a 

21 stricter standard of 60 parts per billion or less, the 
94

1 proposed strengthening of the current standard of 75 

2 parts per billion is a major step forward so to 

3 protect the child's health. 

4 Ozone pollution disproportionately harms 

5 children. Simply put, children are different. They 

6 breathe faster. They spend more time outside playing 

7 and being physically active. This accounts for 

8 respiratory rate, increased time outdoors means at a 

9 given dose of a particulate and a given concentration 

10 of air pollution, children experience a higher dose. 

11 This and time combined with the immaturity of their 

12 lungs makes children to be most at risk from air 

13 pollution. 

14 Higher levels of ozone in the air, including 

15 levels above 60 parts per billion can cause healthy 

16 children to experience decreased lung function, 

17 coughing, burning, and shortness of breath, as well as 

18 inflammation and swelling of airways. For children 

19 with asthma, exposure to ozone pollution can 

20 precipitate asthma attacks. They require treatment in 

21 their doctor's offices, in the emergency room, or in 
95

1 the intensive care unit. In fact, that children miss 

2 school, sports, and their parents miss work, putting 

3 significant economic strain on parents. 

4 In my region of Northern Virginia, which 

5 ranks 9th for the worst ozone pollution in United 

6 States, more that 200,000 children are diagnosed with 

7 asthma. As a pediatrician, I prescribe inhalers and 

8 treat asthma attacks. But I cannot protect my 

9 patients from dangerous air. 

10 The EPA's proposed new lower standards is an 

11 important step towards enabling children to be outside 

12 and safe, whether in their walk to the school bus, 

13 whether recess in the playground, or their after 

14 school soccer practice. Solution to the air pollution 

15 is not to keep our children indoors. The solution is 

16 to clean the air. 

17 In 2007, 2010, and now again in 2015, the 

18 medical community has consistently recommended that 

19 the EPA adopt an 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

20 Quality Standard of 60 parts per billion in order to 

21 adequately protect public health. 
96

1 Since 2007 scientific evidence has only 

2 grown stronger. We have even more evidence that ozone 

3 exposures in the range of 60 to 75 parts per billion, 

4 a significant adverse physiological effects in the 

5 entire age sector from infants to older adults. 

6 Some highlights of this new body of evidence 

7 include a study of emergency department visits among 

8 children zero to four years in Atlanta, which found 

9 that in each 50 parts per billion increase in the 

10 three-day average of ozone was associated with 

11 8 percent higher risk of pneumonia and a 4 percent 

12 higher risk for respiratory infection. Several 

13 studies have then demonstrated dose response 

14 relationships between ozone exposure and child asthma 

15 admissions at exposure levels between 60 and 80 parts 

16 per billion. 

17 EPA's own analysis demonstrates how children 

18 are protected by a stronger ozone standard. At 70 

19 parts per billion in the worst year, the worst ozone 

20 year, 21 percent of children will experience decreased 

21 lung function, 10 percent or more. At 65 parts per 
97

1 billion, this number increased to 18 percent for 

2 children. And at 60 parts per billion, this decrease 

3 is to 14 percent of children. 14 percent of children 

4 is still too many children with compromised breathing. 

5 But the EPA's proposal is a step in the right 

6 direction, though it's not as low as children need, to 

7 be able to play safely outdoors. 

8 EPA has the authority and obligation to set 

9 a standard that protects children from the adverse 

10 health effects of ozone. The APP applauds the EPA's 

11 proposed ozone standard as a welcome and needed step 

12 forward in protecting our children with air that is 

13 safe and clean. Pediatricians will continue 

14 advocating for clean air until we achieve that goal 

15 for our vulnerable patients. 

16 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

17 today. 

18 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

19 And, Doctor, you mentioned several studies 

20 in your testimony, and those are things that you have 

21 available or the American Academy of Pediatrics has 
98

1 available to submit to the docket before they do that 

2 will be very helpful. 

3 MS. AHDOOT: Yes. We'll also be submitting, 

4 as the record, testimony which has all of the 

5 references attached as part of the docket. 

6 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Thank 

7 you. 

8 MR. SILVERMAN: You have a copy of it? 

9 We stated that risk assessments for children 

10 were based on the assumption -- I'm just reading from 

11 the register -- lung function response following ozone 

12 exposures would be the same for healthy 18-year-olds. 

13 Doctor, it would have been earlier to 

14 question the basis for that. Could you speak to that 

15 issue briefly or after, while you're submitting your 

16 comments if you would do that? 

17 MS. AHDOOT: Well, there's hardly no -- I 

18 don't believe there's exposures -- those exposure 

19 studies in a test environment. Most of the studies 

20 based on ozone exposure by those responses that EPA 

21 used were based on healthy young adults at 18, not 
99

1 using the children. But there's now significant data 

2 based on everything out or typically logical data 

3 showing those responsive relationships at the lower 

4 less patients, they had to study children as well. 

5 But I think the EPA studies do use the young adults as 

6 their preferred. So whether the math is a little bit 

7 more accurate on whether the children were 

8 experiencing greater devious function is a question 

9 that we don't know, according to the studies that are 

10 used with EPA. 

11 MR. SILVERMAN: Thank you. 

12 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. I would 

13 like to call Brian Urbaszewski and Noel Martin. 

14 MR. URBASZEWSKI: Thank you. My name is 

15 Brian Urbaszewski. I'm Director of the Department of 

16 Health Program for Respiratory Health Association 

17 which I -- 

18 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on 

19 the proposal. Respiratory Health Association has been 

20 a leading lung health advocate in Illinois since 1906. 

21 The organization provides lung health educational 
100

1 services, supports medical research, and advocates for 

2 cleaner air to preserve lung health and improve the 

3 lives of people living with lung disease. 

4 While air quality has improved, the science 

5 shows that Illinois residents still face health risks 

6 from air pollution. As CASAC's recommendation, EPA's 

7 monitoring data and the range for the ozone standard 

8 under consideration today indicate, Illinois residents 

9 are not being served by the current ozone standard. 

10 It certainly is not adequately protecting people with 

11 asthma and other lung diseases. 

12 Reams of published peer-reviewed research 

13 examined by the Agency have convincingly demonstrated 

14 that there are significant negative health outcomes 

15 when people are exposed to ozone levels that are well 

16 below the current federal standard. Research 

17 published prior to 2007 found that children with 

18 asthma, newborns, the elderly and workers breathing 

19 ozone at levels well below the current federal health 

20 standard still suffer adverse health effects. Those 

21 with lung disease bear the brunt of ozone exposure; 
101

1 ozone increases the number of asthma attacks, 

2 respiratory hospitalizations, and emergency room 

3 visits, as well as premature deaths. The most recent 

4 review by the Agency not only reinforces but deepens 

5 these findings. 

6 1.2 million Illinois residents have asthma. 

7 Over a quarter of them are children. Asthma is the 

8 most common chronic disease among children and within 

9 Illinois as many as a third of all school-age children 

10 in some neighborhoods live with asthma. The asthma 

11 hospitalization rate in Chicago nearly doubled 

12 national average. 

13 Air quality standards should be set at 

14 levels that protect everyone's health. The ozone 

15 standard must be tightened in order to protect 

16 sensitive groups with a reasonable margin of safety as 

17 required by the statutory language of the Clean Air 

18 Act. We urge the EPA to listen to its own advisors 

19 such as the Agency's Children's Health Protection 

20 Advisory Committee as they repeat recommendations they 

21 made over seven years ago, as well as independent 
102

1 medical and health organizations, such as Respiratory 

2 Health Association, who all endorsed the primary 

3 standard of no higher than 60 parts per billion. 60 

4 parts per billion is the most protective option and 

5 the only option that would certainly provide an 

6 adequate margin of safety. 

7 People also have a right to know when the 

8 air they are breathing can put their health at risk. 

9 EPA should not hide this information from them. 

10 Parents of children with asthma and others living with 

11 lung disease follow air quality announcements based on 

12 the AQI through AIRnow and the media; it gives people 

13 real-time information that can be used in deciding to 

14 modify or avoid outdoor activities. It also allows 

15 parents of children with asthma to be extra vigilant 

16 about children carrying rescue medication. Having a 

17 protective ozone standard will ensure that these 

18 useful warnings are made more accurate in the 

19 portrayal of risk. 

20 We both know where the health dangers lie, 

21 that those dangers are real and affect millions of 
103

1 Americans. Over the last several years, we have 

2 submitted letters to the Agency from doctors and 

3 nurses and respiratory therapists, pastors, elected 

4 officials, and business and community leaders who have 

5 urged the Administrator to set the ozone standards at 

6 this level, 60 parts per billion. We know that only 

7 the tightest level for the standard on which the 

8 Agency has asked for comment provides the required 

9 protections for the most vulnerable. 

10 Ultimately the decision on providing an 

11 adequate margin of safety is a policy choice left 

12 specifically to the Administrator's judgment; we 

13 strongly urge it be set at the 60 parts per billion. 

14 Families across America are depending on this decision 

15 to protect their health and the health of their loved 

16 ones. Thank you. 

17 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Martin. 

18 MS. MARTIN: Hi. I'm Noel Martin. N-O-E-L 

19 M-A-R-T-I-N. I'm going to first thank you for your 

20 efforts and initiative to protect public health and 

21 for this initiative that we're here testifying for 
104

1 today. I appreciate all the testimony with the 

2 rigorous staff points. I don't have any of that. My 

3 story is personal. 

4 I particularly appreciate the testimony of 

5 the pediatrician because I was one of those kids, 

6 those asthmatic kids. I'm still asthmatic. I'm an 

7 asthmatic adult. I watched, you know, myself through 

8 high school growing up and high school on through 

9 college and even today, you know, in and out of the 

10 emergency room. 

11 My parents had to, you know, take time off 

12 from work to deal with my health. I had a report 

13 saying too many days missed from school because of 

14 illness. To this day, even this last year, year 

15 before, I missed -- staying home from work because of 

16 when the air quality, you know -- the air gets bad, 

17 I'm predisposed to a lung function and I just walk 

18 outside, I couldn't even walk down the block before 

19 the constriction and inflammation starts. 

20 And just last year on a trip to the 

21 emergency room, and I can't count the number of times 
105

1 I've been to the emergency room, I almost died. And 

2 it's twice. I remember another time that I almost 

3 died from a severe asthma attack. I take medication 

4 preferably daily. When air quality gets particularly 

5 bad, I have -- you know, the weather advisory issuing 

6 that news to health -- to get out of town, I have to 

7 go through all of this. It's an enormous -- well, 

8 it's expensive, you know. It causes loss of 

9 productivity for people like me and children, you 

10 know, losing their days in school. And you know, the 

11 insurance companies don't keep up with the rigorous 

12 guide, you know, to support -- cover these 

13 medications. 

14 So my point is even when it's not a work 

15 day, when it's not a Code Orange day, my baseline is 

16 barely tolerant, you know. I'm a candidate for a new 

17 procedure, but unfortunately the insurance companies 

18 are denying this because even though it's been 

19 approved by the FDA, it's just -- it's all a matter of 

20 economics. 

21 And I just want to be able to breathe. I 
106

1 want the kids today if they want to to play outside 

2 and not have to play inside and their efforts afoot. 

3 You know, these days to have kids play more outside, 

4 to have them eating healthier food. Well, our food is 

5 being toxic, you know, oxygen to grow to produce 

6 healthy foods. So it's a multi-dimensional issue that 

7 we face with regard to our environment and our 

8 personal health. 

9 In closing, I just want to say that with 

10 respect to, you know -- and I hope that -- my hope is 

11 that we can effect this change to 60 parts per billion 

12 and my hope is that, you know, I do respect that this 

13 may mean an economic infractional cost to some 

14 industries. But how does that, you know, compare to 

15 the cost of health of our children and people, you 

16 know, middle-age people like myself and the elderly? 

17 My mother recently died from lung function 

18 contra. So what is the costs associated with that, to 

19 help preserve the quality of life so that we can 

20 breathe easier, so that we can be productive citizens 

21 and not the desire to constant medication and losing 
107

1 productivity and work. So thank you. 

2 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

3 If anyone is in the room and believes that 

4 their name should already have been called, you were 

5 expecting to have testified already, please make a 

6 trip to the registration desk or see Alan Rush here; 

7 he'd be glad to talk to you. We're running two rooms 

8 simultaneously. We want to be sure everyone is in the 

9 right room and that we hear from everyone. 

10 Next, I'd like to call Julie Hantman and 

11 Jeff Levi -- Jeffrey Levi. 

12 Thank you. You guys just come right up. 

13 MS. HANTMAN: Thank you. Good morning. My 

14 name is Julie Hantman, and I'm with Moms Clean Air 

15 Force, a community of parents fighting for clean air. 

16 I'm grateful to speak to you today to urge EPA to 

17 strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

18 for Ozone. 

19 I am wearing many hats, I do, many reasons 

20 why I need to testify. I am born with asthma; it's 

21 worse in the summer. I'm a resident of Washington, 
108

1 D.C. and a mother to a toddler who loves the outdoors, 

2 yet live a hundred steps away from heavy traffic, 

3 Massachusetts Avenue, and a region that gets an F 

4 grade from among the experts for respiratory health. 

5 I must fight or clean up the air in order to breathe. 

6 And I'm a D.C. field worker with Moms Clean 

7 Air Force. In that role, I have come to know moms 

8 here and around the country whose family suffer from 

9 dirty air. Many state they have multiple respiratory 

10 threats in their regions. This makes each and every 

11 clean air battle ground especially important, 

12 extremely important. And smog is one of the biggest 

13 problems. 

14 Therefore, we respectfully urge you to set 

15 the smog standard at 60 parts per billion. The 

16 scientific record demonstrates that this level would 

17 provide the strongest public health protections for 

18 Americans, and most importantly for our children. It 

19 is based on the recommendation of the independent 

20 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Panel which rests on a 

21 thorough and expert review of the science. 
109

1 You will hear vigorous pushback, 

2 particularly from foolish industries that this cannot 

3 or should not be done. But an account for over 1200 

4 moms and dads in my DC Chapter and over 400,000 

5 vigorous Moms Clean Air Force nationally, I urge you 

6 to hold on and dig below the line, down to that 60 

7 parts per billion level. Pushback at sound public 

8 health initiatives, of course, is the norm. 

9 I wear another hat today, that of a public 

10 health professional, who in the last 20 years has 

11 scratched my head many times at the prevailing 

12 tendency to ignore or minimize public health crises. 

13 It's entered our resistance and more. And here's what 

14 I've learned. The more a public health problem 

15 affects certain groups of people, most and not 

16 everyone, or the problem has lasted long enough and 

17 broadly enough, that it seems in a sense normal or 

18 requires preventive solutions that are from class 

19 hotel changes to establish practices or extensive 

20 retrofit, that the more some people drive down on that 

21 left front price tag. Yet the more insufficiently you 
110

1 address, the problem builds and builds. 

2 So this is a terrific opportunity to invoke 

3 power. The science is clear. EPA has an opportunity 

4 to protect millions of Americans from dirty air and 

5 unnecessary illness. 

6 According to the EPA's analysis, 

7 strengthening this NAAQS standard to a more stringent 

8 60 parts per billion would confer profound health 

9 benefits to Americans. At this level of protection, 

10 EPA estimates 7900 fewer deaths, 1.8 million fewer 

11 asthma attacks in children, 9.2 million fewer 

12 restricted activity days or lost school days each 

13 year. The monetized benefits at this level of 

14 protection in 2025 in the upwards of 37 billion 

15 profound savings as well. 

16 And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 

17 care. EPA should follow the science setting the 

18 invaluable level strong at 60 parts per billion and 

19 provide the strongest public health protections for 

20 American families. New stronger standards for smog 

21 pollution will help millions of Americans with asthma 
111

1 and other respiratory ailments breathe easier. 

2 I thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Mr. Levi. 

4 MR. LEVI: Good morning. I'm Jeffrey Levi, 

5 the Executive Director of Trust for Americas Health, 

6 non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to 

7 saving lives of everyone to make disease prevention a 

8 national priority. 

9 TFAH is pleased that the Environmental 

10 Protection Agency is moving forward with the proposal 

11 to update the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

12 for ground-level ozone. We have known for nearly a 

13 decade the current standard of 75 parts per billion is 

14 not adequate to protect the public's health, 

15 especially our nation's most vulnerable -- young 

16 children, the elderly, and those who are already 

17 suffering from certain chronic diseases. 

18 Today we are urging EPA to adopt the 

19 standard of 60 parts per billion in support of public 

20 health. Our nation is majored and ascribes for 

21 improving health in recent years. Before the draft 
112

1 range insurance coverage for the first 5 millions of 

2 Americans spend in excess to percent level and the 

3 services will make historic investments in the 

4 venture. 

5 Their insurance coverage alone cannot 

6 protect Americans from environmental threats to their 

7 health. We're serious about improving health and 

8 lowering the costs. We must also continue to clean up 

9 the air we breathe. We felt like we haven't gotten 

10 anywhere near the root of the problem, and certainly 

11 will behoove the health and welfare of the country. 

12 Even at the lowest end of the range proposed 

13 today, ozone pollution is dangerous to human health. 

14 Even healthy adults are susceptible to the hazards, 

15 VOC, pollution, even where most are concerned about 

16 those among us or particulate in all the respiratory, 

17 cardiovascular and other sickness, VOC, ozone. 

18 Additional research explained examined by 

19 the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 

20 would suggest ozone may also lead to low birth weight 

21 babies, negative neurological effects, and many other 
113

1 health hazards. 

2 For this reason, lowering the standard to 

3 the 65 parts per billion that the EPA is proposing 

4 would go a long way in terms of improving the health 

5 of millions of Americans. But we are also glad EPA is 

6 soliciting comment on a 60 parts per billion option. 

7 We believe the standard of 60 parts per 

8 billion would be most effective of the current 

9 evidence base and the recommendations of the many 

10 independent scientists in the health and medical 

11 societies. Most importantly, the standard of 60 parts 

12 per billion would provide the most public health 

13 protection invested by all the lettered losses 

14 contained in the Clean Air Act. 

15 In addition to the standard, we are strongly 

16 urging EPA to finalize this proposal without any 

17 further delay. Every day delayed is another day 

18 Americans risk their health by breathing unclean air. 

19 Currently, air quality is based on the old outdated 

20 standard. We are now so many years behind the 

21 statutory requirements for review of the standard 
114

1 every five years. This is not a lack of scientific 

2 evidence about the danger posed by the current 

3 standard. I hope EPA will act decisively and exhume 

4 in strong support for public health. 

5 We have all the evidence we need in support 

6 of the 60 parts per billion ozone standard. We have 

7 decades of evidence that proves of the amount that 

8 pictures into unhealthy air and an unhealthy 

9 environment. Most importantly, we get a stronghold on 

10 health for all vulnerables employing with the Clean 

11 Air Act. It says the public health is what EPA must 

12 focus on in coming to their decision. 

13 Thank you again for the opportunity to 

14 provide this testimony. I'd be happy to provide any 

15 further information needed. 

16 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

17 At this time, I think we're going to check 

18 and see if a short break will be in order. 

19 All right. I'm going to call a short break 

20 until twenty after eleven and twenty after eleven, we 

21 will begin again with Anne Smith and Peggy Rommen if 
115

1 they could be ready to go at twenty after eleven. 

2 (Break.) 

3 MS. SASSER: At this time, we are ready to 

4 resume the public hearing for the National Ambient Air 

5 Quality Standards for Ozone proposed rule. 

6 The next two speakers that I have on the 

7 list here were Anne Smith and Peggy Rommen. Either of 

8 those individuals are present, they could please come 

9 forward and sit at the table here. 

10 We'll call the speakers up in twos. And if 

11 I give a name and the individual is not in the room at 

12 that time, I will skip over the individual and come 

13 back to that name. 

14 We're asking folks to be a little flexible 

15 with our time. We may call you up at a slightly 

16 different time than you probably signed up for. And 

17 we're working to get as many speakers in as possible 

18 and as quickly as possible so that people can continue 

19 with their day if they need to do that. 

20 So since Anne Smith is not present in the 

21 room, we're going to call Elizabeth Perera. Thank you 
116

1 very much. 

2 And as a reminder, please spell your name 

3 for the court reporter as you begin, and also pay 

4 attention to the timer sitting up here. It will turn 

5 yellow after four minutes and turn red after five 

6 minutes. And after five minutes, we would ask that 

7 you bring your comments to a close if you're not yet 

8 finished. So with that, Ms. Rommen, please. 

9 MS. ROMMEN: Yes. My name is Peggy Rommen, 

10 R-O-M-M-E-N, and I'm from Virginia Beach, Virginia. 

11 And I just want say the EPA was established in 1970 to 

12 set and control air pollution standards. 

13 Please continue to do your job for the 

14 American people. Most industries do not care how much 

15 they pollute or deny our right. So it's up to you to 

16 protect the public from pollution and hold industry to 

17 clean air standards. 

18 The numerous medical associations, public 

19 health organizations that endorse 60 ppb as the 

20 standard for smog pollution that is consistent with 

21 protecting public health. If the EPA follows their 
117

1 advice, the new standard will go a long way to clean 

2 up the air. And I am finished. Thank you very much. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you. 

4 MS. PERERA: My name is Elizabeth Martin 

5 Perera, P-E-R-E-R-A, and I'm Climate Policy Director 

6 for the Sierra Club here in Washington, D.C. and I'm 

7 also a volunteer chair for the American Public Health 

8 Association's Climate and Health Topic Committee. 

9 And I want to speak today about why I and 

10 the Sierra Club, with our 2.4 million members, support 

11 the EPA's stronger standards for smog pollution. 

12 Strong smog standards will clean up our air 

13 and reduce pollution-related illness and this will 

14 help millions of Americans with asthma and respiratory 

15 ailments breathe easier. 

16 I have two children, four and six, and 

17 children are at the greatest health risk from air 

18 pollution because they are more likely to be active 

19 outdoors and their lungs are still developing. We 

20 live in Bethesda, Maryland, and the Washington area 

21 continues to be at the top 10 for the most air 
118

1 pollution, according to the American Lung 

2 Association's Sate of the Air Report. 

3 Asthma strikes nearly one out of every ten 

4 school children in the U.S. and is the number one 

5 health issue that causes kids to miss school. On 

6 "bad-air days" or "air alert days," particularly 

7 during the warmer months, kids with asthma are forced 

8 to stay indoors to avoid aggravating their condition. 

9 As the planet continues to warm because of dangerous 

10 climate disruption, there will be more bad-air days 

11 and that is why strengthening the standards now is 

12 critical. 

13 Ozone pollution is going to get worse as 

14 warmer temperatures increase. That's why we hear 

15 warnings of more bad-air days due to ozone pollution 

16 often during the summer on cloud-free days. 

17 In 2011, I wrote a report with the Union of 

18 Concerned Scientists called "Climate Change and Your 

19 Health: Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone 

20 Pollution." This report combined projections of 

21 future climate-induced temperature increases with 
119

1 findings on the relationship between ozone 

2 concentrations and temperature to explore the 

3 potential "climate penalty on ozone pollution." 

4 The key findings include: That just in five 

5 years from now, in 2020, we estimate that the 

6 continental U.S. could pay an average of $5.4 billion 

7 in health impact costs associated with just that 

8 increment of increased ozone pollution from the 

9 attacks of climate destruction. 

10 Higher ground-level ozone concentrations due 

11 to rising temperatures could also lead to an average 

12 of 2.8 million more occurrences of acute respiratory 

13 symptoms, such as asthma attacks, shortness of breath, 

14 coughing, wheezing, and chest tightness. In 2050, 

15 that could rise to an average of 11.8 million 

16 additional occurrences. Also in 2020, the climate 

17 penalty could lead to an average of 944,000 more 

18 missed school days in 2020; and when kids miss school, 

19 their parents have to sit out as well and that 

20 increased the costs with that one there. In 2050, 

21 that could rise to an average of 4.1 additional missed 
120

1 school days. 

2 In addition, this could lead to an average 

3 of 3,700 more seniors and 1,400 more infants 

4 hospitalized for respiratory-related problems also in 

5 2020. And in 2050, that could rise to 24,000 more 

6 seniors and 5,700 more infants hospitalized, and 

7 that's just from the increasing for the climate 

8 destruction. 

9 California and states in the Midwest and the 

10 Mid-Atlantic could be hit especially hard by the 

11 climate penalty on ozone. California may experience 

12 the greatest health impacts, with an estimated average 

13 of $729 million in 2020 alone. 

14 These costs will just continue to rise, and 

15 that is why strengthening these ozone protections now 

16 is so critical. Again, we strongly support the EPA 

17 strengthening smog standards to 60 parts per billion, 

18 and we urge you to do this as soon as possible so that 

19 we can start reducing ozone pollution before climate 

20 destruction grows out of control. Thank you. 

21 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Anne 
121

1 Smith join us? All right. Let me call then Kirk 

2 Smith and Dawud Muhammad. 

3 Thank you. Mr. Smith. 

4 MR. SMITH: My name is Kirk Smith, K-I-R-K, 

5 Smith. Hi. I'm here from the County of Virginia. 

6 I've lived there all my life. I had the privilege to 

7 fresh air, clean water, and a healthy life. 

8 During my childhood, I remember playing in 

9 parts of the suburban area where I lived, as well as 

10 visiting and hiking the nearby Appalachian mountains. 

11 I never really saw the smog or any obvious 

12 life-threatening air pollution when I was there. That 

13 all changed one year when I went to visit Baton Rouge, 

14 Louisiana. 

15 During archery days, I visited Baton Rouge, 

16 Louisiana, and there it hit me. I got all this 

17 expansion of smog and pollution bursting in my 

18 nostrils, smelling like a combination of boiled eggs, 

19 burning rubber with sewage. There's across where the 

20 slow moving Mississippi River, I looked over a city 

21 that was barely visible with a thick cloud of smoggy 
122

1 base. 

2 As we became older, I don't drive anymore. 

3 I recognize the universal presence of smog, from 

4 Seattle to New York City, the smell and slight of 

5 smog -- the smell and sight of smog and air pollution 

6 rid my eyes and nose with a discomforting frequency. 

7 I recognize this problem is complex and not well 

8 moving through the challenges. 

9 But let's work together to strive for 

10 emissions and provide these standards that are 

11 healthier to also make a better society. Let's make 

12 60 parts per billion the new standard for smog, 

13 emissions, and providing a better world for those that 

14 are behind us. Thank you. 

15 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Muhammad. 

16 MR. MUHAMMAD: Yes. Thank you. And I 

17 support the smog polluter, but we got to limit that. 

18 But let me start. We fully reference the stats for 

19 the environmental public health problems. 

20 I'm from Newport News, Virginia. And the 

21 historical -- legacy of the industry relation akin to 
123

1 being poor. There's three out of seven citizens that 

2 have been operating in our community since 1890, 1892 

3 that contribute to the overall bad health and quality 

4 of the people in the Southeast community. And 

5 according to the historical on the City of Newport 

6 News rates one of the top 10 dirtiest worse counties 

7 in the United States in terms of the average 

8 individual with cancerous or hazardous air pollutants 

9 and the top 10 percent of all counties in terms of 

10 known casualties from hazardous air pollution. 

11 Now, according to the public health records 

12 from Virginia to Newport News is considered a stroke 

13 death, mean residents suffer from stroke, 

14 cardiovascular disease, cancer, asthma, bronchitis, 

15 vision perception, learning disability, and performing 

16 with other complex tasks; respiratory effects and the 

17 chemical that also provide event systems against 

18 foreign material that damage your lungs, tissue and 

19 also contributes to cancer and premature death. 

20 And so the reason why we must make this 

21 because when we look at communities of colors, which 
124

1 is hardly hit by environmental issues, we are being 

2 marginalized and when it comes to those who do sit 

3 down to re-write, they do not allow us to come to the 

4 table and testify on the issue. 

5 So I support this for EPA, that we reduce 

6 the smog pollution. But I also understand that our 

7 communities are poor; white, Latinos, and black 

8 communities further affected if the EPA is not funded 

9 and y'all cut -- they cut -- about $60 billion they're 

10 trying to cut. So I'm telling you listen. We got to 

11 do something. We got to get it said, and we need to 

12 take it now. Thank you. 

13 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Next two 

14 speakers will be Kendyl Crawford and Jon Baker. 

15 Ms. Crawford. 

16 MS. CRAWFORD: Hi. My name is Kendyl 

17 Crawford, and that's spelled K-E-N-D-Y-L; Crawford, 

18 C-R-A-W-F-O-R-D. Well, I suffered with asthma for 

19 almost as long as I can remember. Thus far the best 

20 description I've come across of having an asthma 

21 attack is feeling like a fish outside of water. 
125

1 Throughout the majority of my life, I've 

2 been tethered to expensive asthma treatments and 

3 inhalers. The worst part of the year for me to be 

4 able to breathe is the summer. The summer is my 

5 favorite season of the year, but each year it is met 

6 with apprehension because I need to make sure that I 

7 am carrying around with me my rescue inhaler, 

8 especially on days when I will be outside for extended 

9 periods of time. But I always make sure that I'm 

10 checking the Air Quality Index forecast as well 

11 because this helps me to plan to not put myself in 

12 harm's way because my asthma is not the best 

13 controlled and it has been known to flare up. 

14 If the EPA fails to remedy the gap between 

15 its ozone standard and what the expert medical 

16 community says is needed, the EPA is failing in its 

17 duty to ensure that all Americans are protected from 

18 significant risks to human health and the environment 

19 where they live, learn, and work. Not only is EPA 

20 failing in its duty, but it is also essentially 

21 misleading the one in 12 people, or around 25 million 
126

1 and increasing, who suffer from asthma. By having a 

2 loose standard, you're telling us that the air outside 

3 is safe to breathe when the research clearly says 

4 otherwise. 

5 The EPA should not be playing fast and loose 

6 with this rule putting at risk people like myself who 

7 just want to be able to breathe. I'm sure you can 

8 imagine my horror when I initially found out the smog 

9 rule was not already set at a level recommended by our 

10 nation's health professionals. 

11 As a person of color, I am acutely aware 

12 that black children have, as the EPA's own data has 

13 found, nearly two times the rates of asthma as white 

14 children, are two times as likely to be hospitalized, 

15 and are four times likely to die from asthma as white 

16 children. 

17 According to the National Medical 

18 Association, our nation's only organization 

19 representing black physicians, "minority children and 

20 adults who live in inner cities or urban areas are the 

21 most affected and are those who are least likely to 
127

1 receive help." The socioeconomic and environmental 

2 factors that drive the trend of higher asthma rates in 

3 people of color need to be urgently addressed because 

4 people are suffering and people are dying. 

5 I live in Richmond, Virginia, a city that's 

6 been repeatedly ranked as the number one Asthma 

7 Capitol of the United States by the Asthma and Allergy 

8 Foundation of America. 

9 Strengthening the smog rule is an 

10 opportunity for our country to protect vulnerable 

11 populations and to move towards extending to every 

12 American the courtesy of having clean air to breathe. 

13 Being frank, having clean air should not be a 

14 courtesy; it should be an amiable right for every 

15 American no matter race, young, old, rich, poor, 

16 asthmatic or not. 

17 By strengthening the current, weak standard, 

18 60 parts per billion, the EPA can better protect our 

19 communities from deadly air pollution. According to 

20 the EPA, a 60 parts per billion standard would prevent 

21 roughly 1.8 million asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed 
128

1 school days, and 6,400 premature deaths. 

2 Isn't that worth protecting? 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

4 Mr. Baker. 

5 MR. BAKER: Yes. My name is Jon; it's J-O-N 

6 Baker, B-A-K-E-R. Good morning. Thank you for this 

7 opportunity to speak on this good topic. 

8 I'm an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at 

9 Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, 

10 Virginia. For the past 15 years, I've taught General, 

11 Organic, and Analytical Chemistry to over 10,000 

12 undergraduate students. 

13 As some others have said, though, I'm a 

14 scientist. Additionally although I know a good bit 

15 about chemistry and the reactions that occur in the 

16 gas phase that perform ozone, I'm not an atmospheric 

17 chemist. However, as someone else said recently, I am 

18 able to listen to and understand what the very smart 

19 people who do study these areas have to say. 

20 I recently attended a number of hearings 

21 held at the General Assembly in Richmond pertaining to 
129

1 the EPA's Clean Power Plan. I'm aware that this is a 

2 different proposal than the Smog Rules, but most 

3 strategies that lower carbon dioxide emissions also 

4 help with pollution. 

5 The general tone of the hearings has been 

6 one of "We can't." Even though Virginia is over 

7 70 percent of the way to its target, our 

8 representatives seem to be stuck with the attitude of, 

9 "It's too hard. It will cost too much. We can't." 

10 Well, maybe. Maybe the technology to impact 

11 any improvement in our environment to make it 

12 healthier for our families doesn't exist, or it's just 

13 too expensive to implement. Or not. 

14 In fact, there are countless changes, large 

15 and small, that we can make, both in behavior and 

16 technology, to positively impact the health of our 

17 environment: better mass transit, shorter commutes, 

18 insulation, renewable energies. It's a very long 

19 list. 

20 I'd like to spend the remainder of my time 

21 on just going over these technologies that I have some 
130

1 familiarity with as a user and may be able to help. 

2 I'm the very happy owner -- surveys 

3 consistently show that we have the highest owner 

4 satisfaction of any vehicle -- of a 2012 Chevrolet 

5 Volt. The Volt is an electric vehicle, or EV, which 

6 also has a gasoline range extender to go in the 

7 battery -- its charge. 

8 When EV's are operating on battery power, 

9 which mine has done for over 70 percent of 44,000 

10 miles, and pure electrics such as the Tesla, Nissan 

11 Leaf and others, they produce no exhaust, no 

12 pollution, no cloud of toxins for the group of kids 

13 waiting on the corner for the bus to breathe in to 

14 start their day. Also, not a penny leaving the 

15 country for a foreign oil producer. 

16 There are now over 20 models of plug-in EV's 

17 sold in America. For over three years, every month 

18 set a new record for cars sold, electric vehicles sold 

19 on a year-to-year basis. People are becoming more 

20 familiar with the capabilities of these vehicles and 

21 they like them. I personally will never buy an 
131

1 all-gasoline car again. 

2 But wait, don't these cars just have a 

3 really long tail pipe? Aren't we really just driving 

4 on burning coal from a power plant? 

5 Well, let's think about that. What if that 

6 was all that they did? They just move pollution from 

7 one place to another. Isn't that good? Cars are 

8 inherently where people are. People are in the cities 

9 and suburbs where the cars are being driven. Moving 

10 smog away from population centers would be good in and 

11 of itself. 

12 But EV's do more, far more than that. They 

13 are incredibly efficient users of energy. Converted 

14 to miles per gallon, EV's all lie around 100 miles per 

15 gallon, more or less. It works in the grid instead of 

16 gas in the tank. It notes, electricity is being 

17 supplied by the electrical grid. And the grid is 

18 getting cleaner by the day. 

19 We're only five years into the introduction 

20 of these products. Still the first generation. The 

21 second generation of my particular car was introduced 
132

1 two weeks ago and has improved tremendously, about 

2 30 percent greater electric range, 10 percent higher 

3 energy and operating on gasoline, more power and a 

4 gift receipt in the package. Both Telsa and General 

5 Motors plan to introduce 200 mile electric range 

6 vehicles, the cost near $30,000, a price that makes 

7 them accessible to a large number of Americans. And 

8 there will be a used car market developing soon. 

9 Time doesn't permit me to discuss the 

10 advances in renewable energy that can power these 

11 electric vehicles and our other activities cleanly, 

12 but suffice it to say that the "We can't" chorus is 

13 simply in a word wrong. We have the tools now, and 

14 more are emerging daily, to allow for the improvements 

15 in our environment. 

16 The lower standard of ozone level is 

17 achievable and we owe it to ourselves and our children 

18 to achieve it. Thank you very much for your time. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you. The next two 

20 speakers this morning are Anne Smith and Jackie 

21 Ostfeld. 
133

1 Ms. Smith. 

2 MS. SMITH: Thank you for the opportunity to 

3 speak today. I'm Dr. Anne Smith, A-N-N-E S-M-I-T-H. 

4 I'm the Senior Vice President at NERA Economic 

5 Consulting, where our co-head is Environmental Group; 

6 my colleague, Dr. Dave Harrison. 

7 I'm here to comment today on the potential 

8 economic impacts on, I suppose, tightening the ozone 

9 NAAQS. Although EPA in this NAAQS did not consider 

10 the second NAAQS, those costs are not irrelevant to 

11 the public. 

12 Scientific evidence for setting the ozone 

13 NAAQS is subject to many sources of uncertainly and 

14 very independent on the other states, some of the 

15 health effects are in question. Reliance on highly 

16 speculative assumptions about health risks to set the 

17 NAAQS can create wanting more of this, some other 

18 adverse impacts. And those impacts, I think we 

19 understood. 

20 In this case the ozone NAAQS, which EPA's 

21 own analyses find that they're very costly, and indeed 
134

1 EPA has not even identified the attainment to be 

2 achieved. 

3 In advance of this, the recent proposed 

4 rule, in July of last year, Dr. Harrison and I 

5 released a major study demonstrating how, 

6 interestingly, potential costs and our impacts for 

7 tightening ozone NAAQS. 

8 Our analysis considered 60 ppb NAAQS and it 

9 spoke to some illustrated data, and that was to create 

10 a more evidence base. The credit was set at NAAQS 

11 assessments, then EPA developed in its prior ozone 

12 NAAQS review. The key objective of the study was to 

13 recommend additional information and analyses that EPA 

14 could incorporate into and send a forthcoming 

15 regulatory impact analysis with this rule. 

16 EPA's prior cost estimates were dominated by 

17 when you get false unknown controls. Such control 

18 methods are not unnotable, however. They were simply 

19 not a depth-binding case analysis. 

20 Using data on a feature emissions test, we 

21 determined that it meets many tons of reductions that 
135

1 would have come from things such as closures of 

2 domestic one-third of the U.S. coal-fired termination 

3 passing and for possibly early turnover on both 

4 sources, both on and off for ozone, and not just 

5 further demands on manufacturing facilities, however, 

6 we determine in the future it will be a small fraction 

7 of emissions that we could use. 

8 Like EPA, we estimated these actions would 

9 cost tens of billions of dollars per year. But our 

10 more in-depth analysis sound we can greatly 

11 underestimate it just on many type abilities. So 

12 using our estimates, potential buyers costs that are 

13 model of the energy target in U.S., we determined that 

14 a 60 ppb standard could reduce U.S. gross domestic 

15 product by an average of $270 million a year. Other 

16 new pattern measures were comparably large, such as 

17 reduction in an annual employment due to NAAQS, 

18 equivalent to 3 million jobs. 

19 A title or express standard may also result 

20 in various sustained energy reduction in the U.S. of 

21 potential additional sources and what it impacts. In 
136

1 our study down with this outcome, we substantially add 

2 to the negative impacts that we estimated into the 

3 standard into the reduction loss. We also found that 

4 this sort of outcome would dramatically alter the 

5 distribution of cost impacts across markets, another 

6 flow sheet to understand those. 

7 So while our study examined the 60 ppb 

8 standard, our research analysis indicates any lower of 

9 the ozone NAAQS to another standard will impact them, 

10 maybe therefore impacts and they need to be further 

11 assessed. 

12 With the potential costs, why is all this 

13 uncertain, or why the source of action is to just try 

14 to release that uncertainty, and thus we recommended 

15 that EPA perform one thorough and realistic analysis 

16 of the actions needed to achieve -- achieve below the 

17 alternative ozone NAAQS, including determining the 

18 extent to which such actions would have to involve 

19 earlier determinants, rather to valuable reduction 

20 equipment, not just more in reduction equipment 

21 purchases. 
137

1 EPA has now released its new estimates of 

2 the costs of this proposed rule. EPA has not adopted 

3 more evidence base techniques that are certainly 

4 described impacts. EPA has retreated to an even less 

5 informed, a less -- a more simplistic method for 

6 assessing that large per action meeting controls, that 

7 it still calls "unknown." 

8 This analytic setback has greatly reduced 

9 its cost assessments, both in dollar amounts and in 

10 credibility. And moreover, the RA -- this RA provides 

11 no economy. Well, why expect it on the impact 

12 analysis at all? EPA owes the public a more complete 

13 credible assessment with lax challenges and potential 

14 economic impacts would tighten the ozone NAAQS. 

15 Because those costs are a great relevance to our 

16 society. Thank you very much. 

17 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Ostfeld. 

18 MS. OSTFELD: Hi. My name is Jackie 

19 Ostfeld. It's J-A-C-K-I-E O-S-T-F-E-L-D. And I'm the 

20 Director of Sierra Club's Nearby Nature Initiative to 

21 connect people with opportunities to explore, enjoy 
138

1 and protect urban parks and waters. 

2 For the past 10 years, I have advocated for 

3 children, youth and families to get outdoors and 

4 improve their health. Today's children spend less 

5 time outdoors than any generation in history. This 

6 indoor and increasingly sedentary lifestyle is 

7 contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic in 

8 America. While it's recommended that kids engage in 

9 60 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical 

10 activity, most children in America are not able to 

11 safely walk to a park or a playground, limiting their 

12 ability to spend time playing and being active. 

13 Children have enough barriers to getting outdoors. 

14 Air pollution should not be one of them. 

15 One in every 10 children has asthma. My 

16 3 1/2 year old nephew is one of them. He lives in 

17 Allentown, Pennsylvania, the town where I grew up, a 

18 town that last year received an F for its ozone 

19 pollution, according to the American Lung 

20 Association's State of the Air Report. My nephew's 

21 father, my brother, also has asthma. As a kid, I 
139

1 remember several times playing outside with my little 

2 brother and having to run in the house to get one of 

3 my parents because he was having an asthma attack. 

4 As I got older, I was taught how to give my 

5 brother his asthma medication myself when my parents 

6 were away. It nearly broke my heart a few years ago 

7 when I learned that my nephew was also starting to 

8 have asthma attacks. 

9 Asthma is so prevalent among children today 

10 that my nephew's nebulizer has a colorful dinosaur on 

11 it, to help make the times he has to see this medicine 

12 just a bit more fun. I have a picture of him right 

13 here (indicating). 

14 The smog pollution standard hasn't been 

15 updated since 2008. Scientists, medical associations, 

16 and public health organizations recommend a standard 

17 of 60 parts per billion to protect public health. 

18 With the final smog pollution standards set to be 

19 announced in October of this year, the EPA has the 

20 opportunity to protect kids and families across 

21 America from dirty air and unnecessary illness by 
140

1 setting the standard at 60 parts per billion. 

2 This standard will prevent approximately 

3 1.8 million asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed school 

4 days, and 6,400 premature deaths. New, stronger 

5 standards for smog pollution will clean up our air and 

6 reduce pollution-related illness. Millions of 

7 Americans like my nephew and brother with asthma and 

8 other respiratory ailments will breathe easier. 

9 Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

10 MS. SASSER: Thank you. The next two 

11 speakers are Dnell Nicholson and Devawn Oberlender. 

12 MR. NICHOLS: Good morning. My name is 

13 Dnell Nicholson, D-N-E-L-L Nicholson, 

14 N-I-C-H-O-L-S-O-N, and I'm going to speak on becoming 

15 a product of my environment, now knowing that the 

16 things that was coincidental to, sitting there being a 

17 product of my environment for real. 

18 I'm from Virginia Beach, Virginia. And even 

19 as an adult, you know, as an upcoming kid, I played a 

20 lot outside, outdoors, not knowing what the effects of 

21 a lot of the things that was constantly eating at me. 
141

1 And it amazed me that when I took -- when I was 

2 diagnosed with, you know, asthma at an older age, and 

3 I was wondering, well, why, you know, I never heard of 

4 anyone being diagnosed with asthma at such a mature 

5 adult age. Come to find out the area in which I was 

6 living was causing so much toxicity to my respiratory 

7 system that, you know, it was unknown to me. 

8 And so I started taking those and started 

9 following certain active groups and trying to find out 

10 what was being the cause of my breathing problems, and 

11 different things that I couldn't do no more and I was 

12 doing all my life and found out that becoming a 

13 product of your environment, it's not willing. It's 

14 not willing. 

15 But to have so many things around you that's 

16 not being taken care of -- I seem to categorize it as 

17 you're being humor news -- it's a "do or die" 

18 situation. It's like everybody can take the do and 

19 the die and put it in any category they want to put 

20 it. And after becoming a product I'm going to die, I 

21 decided to change that, just change one to have it say 
142

1 "do and die." Because everything was being done, 

2 that's it; it's killing people around there. You 

3 know, the numbers of the people and the children that 

4 I came up with are older, if I can speak clearly for 

5 old ones in here; married no one, they had all the 

6 things that we was up against. 

7 So my interest basically, you know, for 

8 following Sierra and the different people that's 

9 active in the environments, hazards, is that looking 

10 out for the younger children. Because I don't think 

11 my mother knew -- actually knew the harm they was up 

12 against. They was told. But we have to inform a lot 

13 of other people because there are people out here who 

14 has a health conscience. I can say that embarrassing 

15 now, myself, because I was a health fanatic. But my 

16 environment made it not possible. Things are going to 

17 still happen regardless of what you do or what you 

18 say. 

19 So I learned how to live with things and I 

20 learned how to start, people knowing what they're up 

21 against. Because people are more educated through 
143

1 programs, the different auxiliaries and a lot of 

2 non-func -- you know, functional programs. It's not 

3 getting off "The Real." Because people are not 

4 educating other people that's out here that are 

5 citizens, that are retired; like myself, retired, 

6 taxpaying, home-owning citizens, who was actually 

7 doing things to me that, quote-unquote, that dirt 

8 life. Then all of a sudden their health fails. Not 

9 because something you have done, but it's something 

10 that people aren't doing. 

11 I can really eradicate what the doctor 

12 prescribed, but it's a "do or die." I'm not trying to 

13 medicate what the environment has in store for me, 

14 very harmful. The summer is dangerous, and they say 

15 it's not. Look at the numbers on the killings that 

16 they have killed. Yet to say the environment is 

17 America, we need to get the other side. Thinking that 

18 where can we turn, well I beg to differ. Thank you 

19 for listening. 

20 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

21 Ms. Oberlender. 
144

1 MS. OBERLENDER: Hi. My name is Devawn 

2 Oberlender. That's D-E-V-A-W-N. Oberlender is 

3 O-B-E-R-L-E-N-D-E-R. 

4 I'm here as a member of the 400,000 plus 

5 strong Moms Clean Air Force, and I'm representing the 

6 Environmental Patriots of the New River Valley in 

7 Southwestern Virginia, where we have no ambient air 

8 quality monitoring. There is no awareness of whether 

9 or not the green or brown or bad day to go out and 

10 play because no one monitors our air. 

11 I want clean air and I have concerns about 

12 pollution in my home place because of the open burning 

13 of waste explosives at the Radford Army Ammunition 

14 Plant. This toxic assault exposes my family and my 

15 community to particle pollution and other dangerous 

16 air toxins. The children in the New River Valley and 

17 all over America are being made victims of smog 

18 created by open burning of military waste. 

19 We know that smog is created when industrial 

20 emissions from power plants and cars and factories 

21 react with heat and sunlight in the atmosphere. And 
145

1 although it may be hard to believe, munitions 

2 classified as hazardous waste are being burned to the 

3 open air without any pollution controls or air quality 

4 monitoring in my Appalachian home. 

5 At the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, they 

6 have been open burning toxic waste for decades in 

7 spite of repeated permit violations since 2001. As a 

8 matter of fact, tens of thousands of pounds of 

9 Volatile Organic Compounds were released at the 

10 facility last year alone. But that permit violation 

11 only resulted in a consent order and a small fine from 

12 the State DEQ and nothing from the EPA. EPA oversight 

13 seems to have been suspended at federal facilities 

14 where toxic smog from open burning waste goes 

15 unchecked. 

16 And it's a cost that we are paying that our 

17 children are paying. It's may not be so quantifiable 

18 as a balance sheet, but believe you me, the children 

19 live around these Army bases where they are burning 

20 munitions waste down there. We're paying a very high 

21 price. 
146

1 Last month, EPA magically proposed open tray 

2 burning an almost incomprehensible quantity of 

3 explosives waste at Camp Minden in Louisiana. 

4 18 million pounds proposed to be burned at a rate of 

5 80,000 pounds per day, lasting over a period of 200 

6 days. 

7 Please consider these pictures of the people 

8 from Camp Minden. There's a mom and her child, 

9 Daisey. These two kids, it was unfortunately I was 

10 unable to get their name. The babies here, this is 

11 actually a photograph of General Honore, has put on 

12 his Facebook page for the Green Army, because General 

13 Honore this month has gotten me the accountant who did 

14 ether. 

15 So in fact, when General Honore got wind of 

16 the plans to open burn explosives at Camp Minden, he 

17 contacted an organic chemistry professor at the LSU to 

18 try to understand how the EPA could claim that this 

19 was safe. So after Louisiana lawmakers wrote to Gina 

20 McCarthy to question this process of open burning the 

21 M6 propellant, it was put on hold for 90 days. But my 
147

1 understanding is the EPA only solicited bids from 

2 companies that were -- agreed to open burn out waste, 

3 rather that pursuing time testing two alternatives, 

4 they made possible money on a bottom line of your 

5 balance sheet and saved a lot of lives. 

6 Concerned communities nationwide are asking 

7 EPA to give due diligence to the military's ongoing 

8 subversion of federal statutes by using the cheapest 

9 disposal method to be rid of hazardous munitions 

10 waste -- open burning and open detonation creating 

11 smog bombs. 

12 It's simply not acceptable, free to ask our 

13 children to sacrifice their health for the sake of 

14 making money on waste disposal. No child should be on 

15 the receiving end of this toxic assault waged by our 

16 own military. The callous disregard for public health 

17 and safety inherent in open burning munitions waste 

18 must stop now. Failure to address this practice under 

19 your new smog guidelines would be foolhardy. 

20 I think that the EPA should regulate a 

21 standard lower than the one you're proposing. You 
148

1 need to go to 60 parts per billion in order to protect 

2 families in Virginia with an adequate margin of 

3 safety. You need to look at this practice of open 

4 burning, open detonation of toxic military waste the 

5 Army bases nationwide because it flies in the face of 

6 EPA regulations and common sense. The smog created by 

7 this process triggers episodes of asthma, respiratory 

8 ailments, heart attacks. Today local communities are 

9 paying the price for this industrial smog created by 

10 our military. 

11 And we don't just need better regulations. 

12 We need conscientious enforcement by EPA to uphold the 

13 laws that are there to protect the air that we all 

14 breathe. And this is especially true for the little 

15 kids at Belview Elementary School which is just a mile 

16 and a half downwind of the open burning ground at 

17 Radford Army Ammunition Plant. 

18 We're not exposed to just one pollutant. Of 

19 course we live in a world where we're exposed to many 

20 toxins on an ongoing basis. But this is a 

21 particularly egregious lack of oversight. And I hope 
149

1 that you'll consider the practice of the military open 

2 burning, open detonating, waste munitions all around 

3 this country, in Appalachia, and the Holston Burning 

4 Ammunition Plant, the Tennessee, at the Radford 

5 Ammunition Plant. The proposal is due at Camp Minden, 

6 Louisiana. It's not a surprise where the places are, 

7 that these proposals are made and where the burning 

8 actually happens. 

9 MS. LANGDON: Thank you for your comments. 

10 We've got a full schedule this morning. 

11 MS. OBERLENDER: Thank you for listening. 

12 MS. SASSER: Yes. Thank you very much. 

13 That particular issue is not noticed, 

14 covered by the proposal that we are discussing today. 

15 But we'll be glad to take your comments back. 

16 MS. OBERLENDER: Yeah. That would be great. 

17 You're going to ask them to get us some air 

18 quality monitors. We've never had air quality 

19 monitoring in Montgomery, Pulaski, or Radford Counties 

20 ever and the DEQ says they don't have a Ninth Ward, 

21 and EPSs (phonetic) now have new Ward and the private 
150

1 contractor who's running this Army Base, the BAE 

2 Systems, who does have a lot of money, they said they 

3 don't have money for air plug monitoring. 

4 So on one occasion they burned too much 

5 chromium. They got a warning letter from the DEQ for 

6 burning too much chromium and no one told the parents. 

7 No one told the teachers. No one said anything to 

8 anyone at Belview Elementary School. And the EPA 

9 doesn't even list that excessive chromium on their 

10 violations. 

11 They spent 40, this other during a 

12 multi-media inspection in 2011. They took pictures of 

13 the open burning ground. They showed these huge toxic 

14 cannals (phonetic). This is what comes off the open 

15 burning ground, and mind you you have upwind of 

16 Belview Elementary school. They're dumping in all 

17 kinds of vibrations. 

18 When our group, Environmental Patriots of 

19 the New River Valley, when we got this inspection 

20 report by FOIA, it came with a letter telling us that 

21 the Department of Defense had redacted information 
151

1 from the inspection report and, yes, that included 

2 pictures of environmental additions. I'm not sure I 

3 see the national security time there. But what I do 

4 see is everything that President Eisenhower warned us 

5 about. What I do see is the EPA who has primacy in 

6 these matters is giving over control to the military 

7 for what seems to be a cost motive, and this is too 

8 important. This is too important to keep letting go. 

9 So I hope when you're writing these smog regulations 

10 and thinking about what you do and don't do effects 

11 people, that you'll think about the kids living around 

12 Radford Army Ammunition Plant. Thank you. You can 

13 have the photos. 

14 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Our next 

15 two speakers are George Alderson and Mary Martin. 

16 Mr. Alderson. 

17 MR. ALDERSON: Thank you. Do you want the 

18 copies, correct? 

19 MS. SASSER: I'll be happy to take those 

20 from you. Thank you. 

21 MR. ALDERSON: I am George Alderson of 
152

1 Catonsville, Maryland. And these comments are on 

2 behalf of my wife, Frances Alderson, and myself. We 

3 heartily support EPA's proposal to set more strict 

4 standards for ozone. 

5 We second the primary standard. We favor a 

6 primary standard of 60 parts per billion as 

7 recommended by medical associations. Two members of 

8 our family are physicians who have treated patients 

9 suffering from asthma and bronchitis. But one is just 

10 to check things; former, Medical of the Chief. I 

11 usually state that before I walk down here. 

12 I had asthma attacks when I was a child. I 

13 remember struggling to breathe for long minutes until 

14 the doctor arrived to give me an adrenaline shot. 

15 This is what I knew before people had inhalers and 

16 things. Because of asthma, I was not allowed to 

17 participate in strenuous exercise at school, so I 

18 missed out on some valuable parts of the physical 

19 education program. 

20 We are cheered by EPA's estimate that even a 

21 65 ppb standard will avert up to 960,000 childhood 
153

1 asthma attacks every year. It will also liberate many 

2 of those children from restrictions on aerobic 

3 exercises. That will help them all their lives by 

4 getting involved in any ways to maintain physical 

5 fitness and keep their hearts and lungs in good 

6 condition. If EPA has not considered these lifecycle 

7 benefits of the stricter ozone standard, we urge you 

8 to add them to the analysis. 

9 EPA should also include the benefits of 

10 reducing childhood obesity, which is another huge 

11 problem. Exercise helps. Kids with asthma can't 

12 exercise outside when the air is polluted. Now that I 

13 know these things are related, so this too needs to be 

14 included among the dockets. 

15 With respect to the secondary standard, that 

16 we also favor a stricter standard as proposed by EPA, 

17 to protect public welfare by improving the protection 

18 of trees, plants, and ecosystems. But this is 

19 relevant to my professional field, biology and land 

20 management. 

21 We live in Maryland, which is forested 
154

1 especially in the western part of the state, the head 

2 waters, the rivers. The healthy native because 

3 it's -- Maryland forests is essential to maintain the 

4 watershed functions of the Potomac River and our 

5 rivers which originated in those forests. Residents 

6 of the Washington-Baltimore region are dependent on 

7 these rivers for clean drinking water. 

8 And our state is one of the great expanse 

9 over the last hundred years to restore these forests 

10 after they've gotten bacteria out of that dirty base 

11 of the charcoal and oil, that kind of thing. The 

12 water service is in terrible condition. And now they 

13 have plenty of plans brought up for states parks and 

14 state forests, and they certainly got some -- I think 

15 ecosystem plans. 

16 And we thank US EPA for this excellent 

17 proposal, and thank you for considering our comments. 

18 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

19 Ms. Martin. 

20 MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon. My name is 

21 Mary Martin. I'm here on behalf the U.S. Chamber of 
155

1 Commerce, which is the world's largest business 

2 federation representing the interests of more than 

3 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and 

4 regions, as well as state and local chambers and 

5 industry associations. 

6 The Chamber is very concerned about the 

7 EPA's proposal regarding the National Ambient Air 

8 Quality Standards for Ozone because of the potentially 

9 devastating economic employment and past result, as 

10 well as augmentation burden on states. 

11 One thing that is particularly troubling is 

12 EPA's continued failure to absolutely consider the 

13 impact of international water pollution on prime and 

14 feature ozone levels in the United States. 

15 In recent years, scientists have measured 

16 increasing amounts of air pollution coming to the 

17 United States from overseas to Rhodesia. Pollutants 

18 such as ozone and particulate matter are carried 

19 across the oceans at high altitude and deposit a 

20 clustered United States. Other pollutants coming from 

21 Mexico, Canada, and Africa affect air quality in the 
156

1 Northeast, Southeast and Southwest areas of the U.S. 

2 A recent study found on a daily basis the 

3 transport of emissions, a body, and escort-related 

4 Chinese solution contributed at a maximum of 2 to 

5 5 percent of ozone over the Western United States. 

6 That also contributed up to 8 percent of daily mean 

7 ozone on parts of the freight bank's region. 

8 And downwardly as the world economy expands 

9 its numbers, like these apply to the impact of 

10 overseas pollution on U.S. upcoming growth. 

11 The Chamber has long before the EPA to 

12 consider international emissions in its regulation of 

13 air pollutants. In fact, in 2006 the Chamber 

14 petitioned EPA for a rule implementing Clean Air Act 

15 Section 179(b), which requires the Agency to protect 

16 U.S. states and regulating entities from suffering 

17 regulatory and economic burdens due to foreign 

18 emissions. 

19 Specifically, Section 179(b) eases an 

20 opportune net penalties on states able to share the 

21 neighboring attainment by poor emissions that may be 
157

1 outside the U.S. 

2 Despite these efforts the impacts of 

3 international emissions on ozone levels in the U.S. 

4 continue essentially to be a nonfactor in the 

5 imposition of ozone standards. This is a critical 

6 blah in the review setting and limitation under ozone 

7 NAAQS, because international emissions and the 

8 aptitude increasingly will add to domestic ozone 

9 levels, cause areas in the U.S. to be in 

10 noncompliance. 

11 As we are all aware, failure to comply with 

12 an existing ozone standard can lead to non-attainment 

13 designations, which are often viewed as a death now 

14 for economic and business development in an area. 

15 Indeed, severe repercussions result almost immediately 

16 for non-attainment designations, such as increased 

17 cost to industry, permanent delays, restrictions on 

18 expansion, as well as impasse to transportation 

19 planning. 

20 There are significant added responsibilities 

21 to being designated a non-attainment area, making it 
158

1 substantially harder for a community to attract new 

2 business or expand existing facilities. Furthermore, 

3 in non-attainment areas, EPA's order rises to air 

4 permits, which can cost tremendous uncertainty, 

5 delays, and increased costs in the permitting process 

6 for businesses. 

7 Another potentially harmful impact in 

8 lowering the ozone standard is the increased 

9 implementation burden on the states. States implement 

10 approximately 96.5 percent of federal environmental 

11 programs. This is a tremendous burden on states, 

12 particularly putting time, money and resources, 

13 respective. To add to the difficulties that states 

14 face, according to the environmental harms on states 

15 (EHOS), states have seen a trend in declining funds 

16 from the federal government to implement these 

17 programs. 

18 Federal budget documents confirm that EPA's 

19 state antrillises (phonetic), DIPS, grants, budget has 

20 decreased significantly in recent years. While a 

21 larger source of funding were stated on the Agency's 
159

1 permit lease, federal funding is the second largest 

2 source. EHOS reports that, quote, Decreasing funds 

3 from the federal government jeopardize states' 

4 abilities to implement federally-delegated programs 

5 and policies. We, the regulated community, recognize 

6 and appreciate the fact that states are carrying such 

7 a huge burden, and doing so straining resources. 

8 Indeed, that burden is only going to grow in the 

9 future, as EPA issues more complex and costly 

10 regulations, such as the ozone proposal at issue here 

11 today. 

12 All of this amounts to a sovereign 

13 conclusion. States are being asked to do more and 

14 more, with less and less, when it comes to 

15 implementing federal environmental programs and 

16 policies. 

17 And worse yet, I think EPA's new rule 

18 imposes on states spiral rising air quality standards, 

19 like the ozone NAAQS, before the current standard has 

20 been implemented fully. 

21 Consequently, the Chamber urges the EPA to 
160

1 retain the current ozone standard and fully implement 

2 it before taking any further action. Moreover, any 

3 tightening of the ozone standard would be premature. 

4 We think the impact of international emissions must be 

5 fully considered by EPA. Otherwise, even stricter 

6 regulatory measures will be imposed. States and 

7 regulated stakeholders could well be burdened with 

8 even costlier responsibilities but still find 

9 themselves in noncompliance because of overseas 

10 pollution impacts. 

11 As the nation's leading business regulator, 

12 the Chamber impresses upon the Agency to backup likely 

13 economic fallout on such noncompliance, especially as 

14 to critical time and confused economic recovery to be 

15 particularly harmful for states, local communities, 

16 and the business community. 

17 Thank you for your time and consideration 

18 today. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. The next 

20 two speakers are Dan Greifenberger and Kate Addleson. 

21 And if you'd please spell your name for the 
161

1 court reporter. 

2 MR. GREIFENBERGER: Yes. My name is Dan 

3 Greifenberger. It's 13 letters long. Start with a 

4 G-R-E-I-F-E-N-B-E-R-G-E-R. 

5 First, I'd like to thank you for giving me 

6 this opportunity to speak. We heard from lots of 

7 people. You're human beings. You must deal with a 

8 lot of stress, coming natural it must be to listen to 

9 this hour after hours. My hat is off to you. 

10 I was diagnosed with bronchial asthma at the 

11 age of 1 1/2. I've literally been dealing with 

12 allergies and asthma my entire life to one degree or 

13 another. Now my family curse has spread to the next 

14 generation and yesterday I was told my two-year-old 

15 niece was diagnosed with asthma. 

16 Twenty years ago, I went to Baltimore from 

17 Connecticut as an AmeriCorps Volunteer. Since moving 

18 to Baltimore, my asthma has gotten worse. I never 

19 experienced feeling a 20-pound weight on my chest 

20 simply from taking a walk at night during the summer 

21 months. And anyone in this room who does 
162

1 weight-lifting, I would ask you to lay on the floor 

2 and put a 20-pound weight on your chest, jab it in 

3 your chest, and then you will know what it's like. 

4 Whenever the weather gets very hot, I become 

5 a prisoner to the air conditioning. I should not have 

6 to feel anxiety. I should not, should not, take a 

7 walk with my friends at night because of high smog 

8 levels. 

9 I also suffer from atypical type of asthma, 

10 I may go without a single attack for many months and 

11 then a perfect storm of events occur and then I 

12 experience a potentially life-threatening asthma 

13 attack, like I did on Christmas Eve. Yeah, mostly 

14 convenient. I'm getting desensitization shots for the 

15 third time during my life. I want to explain what 

16 that is. That means the commitment of getting shots 

17 for years on a weekly basis. My allergies are so 

18 severe I now have to receive three shots, entirely 

19 mature, every week. But all the desensitization shots 

20 in the world will not protect me against smog. 

21 My brother's mother-in-law died in the arms 
163

1 of her sister from an asthma attack. She was a nurse 

2 with obvious medical training. An asthma attack can 

3 kill a person rather quickly. Now is the time to pass 

4 stringent rules protecting our breathing from dirty 

5 air -- not later. 

6 I would also like to remind EPA and other 

7 people in this audience that asthma kills not only 

8 ordinary, everyday folks, like my brother's 

9 mother-in-law, but also the famous. This can all be 

10 verified. Look it up for yourself. Celebrities 

11 ranging from the legendary South African heart 

12 surgeon, Christiaan Barnard, if you remember back in 

13 the 1960s did the first heart transplant, died of an 

14 asthma attack; Jarvis Eric Williams, Sr., okay, a 

15 defensive back for the Miami Dolphins and the New York 

16 Giants, also died from an asthma attack, a physically 

17 fit man, obviously; to super model Kristy -- I'm 

18 sorry -- Kristen Erin "Krissy" Taylor, who was at the 

19 height of her career; she was only 17 years old. She 

20 died from an asthma attack. 

21 For those of you have never experienced an 
164

1 asthma attack that could cost you your life, you have 

2 no idea how genuinely fortunate you are. 

3 With the time remaining, I just want to 

4 bring up another point. We hear a lot about finance, 

5 money. It's going to cost money. Also, people care 

6 about it. That's fine. That's what they're paid to 

7 care about. 

8 I want you to know that my family has a very 

9 hard-nose business memoir, very prominent in their 

10 fields. And they also support the EPA regulations. 

11 They're all in order. 

12 Okay. I want to make it clear, this is not 

13 a partisan issue. My niece's father is a prominent 

14 Republican. His father -- I won't mention who he 

15 is -- is an official in the Cabinet of Governors. 

16 These people are Republicans. Their grandmother dies, 

17 asthma. Do you think they wanted to see her go 

18 through what I went through? I don't think so. 

19 My death as a former lay person, or any 

20 other asthmatic, cross jobs. By the job I die, that's 

21 a job that's lost. Okay. So people talking about 
165

1 costing jobs. My death, other deaths of other 

2 asthmatics who were employed have also lost jobs. 

3 I see my time is up, and I thank you very 

4 much for the great opportunity to share this 

5 experience with you. 

6 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. And I 

7 want to assure you and all the speakers today that we 

8 are very anxious to hear your comments and it is our 

9 pleasure to be here to hear the various view points 

10 that you bring to us today. 

11 Ms. Addleson. 

12 MS. ADDLESON: Thank you. My name is 

13 Kathleen Addleson, K-A-T-H-L-E-E-N. Last name 

14 A-D-D-L-E-S-O-N. 

15 I'm a Conservation Director for the Virginia 

16 Chapter of the Sierra Club and native Virginian and 

17 grew up in Centreville, Virginia, just outside of 

18 Washington, D.C., near Dulles Airport, in the suburbs. 

19 And as a child, I fell in love with the 

20 forest and wilderness of Appalachia through camping, 

21 hiking and other outdoor trips with my family, as well 
166

1 as with the Girl Scouts. Being outdoors was, and 

2 still is, what I like most to do with my free time, 

3 and I learned many tough life lessons that may have 

4 eluded me had I remained indoors. 

5 I was very fortunate not to have serious 

6 health problems that kept me from enjoying outdoor 

7 activities, but some of my friends were no so lucky. 

8 One of my very close friends, and the daughter of our 

9 troop leader, suffered from asthma, which required her 

10 to carry her inhaler to our PE classes at school, and 

11 out to all of our outings; keeping it very close at 

12 hand on particularly hot days, or when she was doing 

13 strenuous activities, as many others have described 

14 before me. 

15 On several occasions, I was with her when 

16 she suffered an asthma attack, and listening to her 

17 pain as she tried, unsuccessfully, to breath, was 

18 truly upsetting. What was worst was the helplessness 

19 that I felt as I looked on, with nothing to do but 

20 reassure her that it would pass and just, you know, 

21 help to support her as she were getting her inhaler 
167

1 routine in that time to regain her breathing. This 

2 happened far more frequently at school, in the 

3 suburbs, than it did on our camping and hiking trips 

4 in the wilderness. And I didn't fully understand why 

5 at the time. I just knew that it had something to do 

6 with the fresh air. 

7 At the time, I simply felt that it was 

8 unfair for her to suffer so much while other kids like 

9 me were able to take normal breathing for granted. 

10 Now, years later, understanding much more about the 

11 cause of her condition, I realize that the greatest 

12 unfairness lies in the extraordinary power wielded by 

13 corporate polluters over our popular right to clean 

14 air. 

15 I brought with me today two sets of photos 

16 that are courtesy of the National Park Service. These 

17 are both photographs from Shenandoah National Park 

18 (indicating). And you can see, pretty clearly, that 

19 these are side-by-side comparisons of a view from up 

20 at Blue Ridge Mountains looking down onto the valley 

21 below. One has been taken on a clear day and one has 
168

1 been taken on a high ozone day. There is no question 

2 which is which. 

3 This is the view of a valley from one of our 

4 nation's most treasured places. We frequently see 

5 images of pollution in major cities. But I will be 

6 willing to bet few people, and particularly Americans 

7 across the country who enjoy our national parks and 

8 wild places, are aware of how much smog is now present 

9 in some of these special wilderness spots. 

10 Today, most people like myself are living in 

11 urban and suburban areas where we cannot escape the 

12 day-to-day air quality, and more and more people and 

13 children in particular are suffering. As I'm sure 

14 others have stated, children tend to deal with asthma 

15 much more because of the fact that they breath more 

16 frequently than adults do. And we are seeing a loss 

17 of clean air in more and more suburban areas as well 

18 as in the rural areas that previously did not suffer 

19 from such low quality air, lower quality conditions. 

20 Now, the loss of clean air in such pristine 

21 places as our national parks and forests, there is no 
169

1 more really left to escape to to get away from 

2 oppressive, dirty air that used to be just -- excuse 

3 me -- just unless you're in large cities. The places 

4 that I always thought we would be able to go to revive 

5 ourselves, both mentally and physically, are being 

6 lost to this invasive pollution. And it's both unfair 

7 and completely unnecessary. 

8 With the increasing advances of science and 

9 technology, there is no doubt that we can improve our 

10 air quality across the country, and reduce harmful 

11 pollution that is now stretching into the wilderness. 

12 It's imperative that we do so for the health of our 

13 communities and families, those living in urban and 

14 rural areas. And the pollution, which is touching 

15 more people now than ever, must be addresses. 

16 So I implore the EPA to set a smog standard 

17 at 60 parts per billion, to adequately reflect the 

18 best scientific and medical knowledge we have, in 

19 order to fully protect our health today and for years 

20 to come. 

21 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Our next 
170

1 two speakers this morning, Susan Polan and Kathleen 

2 Durkin. 

3 Ms. Polan. 

4 MS. POLAN: Good afternoon. My name is 

5 Susan Polan, the Associate Executive Director for 

6 Public Affairs and Advocacy at the American Public 

7 Health Association. 

8 APHA represents the health of all people in 

9 all communities with respect to professional public 

10 health, share the latest usage information, promote 

11 the best practices, and advocate for public health 

12 issues, credibly from science and research. 

13 We are the only organization on its 140-plus 

14 year perspective, a broad base community division, and 

15 the ability to improve federal policy to improve the 

16 public's health. 

17 We're pleased to have this opportunity to be 

18 here today representing the APHA to count down EPA's 

19 proposal to strengthen the National Ambient Air 

20 Quality Standard for ozone to a standard in the range 

21 of no more than 65 to 70 parts per billion. 
171

1 This proposed range of the health-based 

2 standard would provide greater protection to millions 

3 of Americans than the current standard, which fails to 

4 protect public health and is not meeting the 

5 requirements of the law, taking a step too long 

6 overdue. 

7 We're also pleased we can speak on the 60 

8 parts per billion, the clear affirmation of the Clean 

9 Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a view from the 

10 scientists, APHA would welcome a view of medical 

11 health organizations. 

12 The health-based standard protects the 

13 public from conditions from high exposure ozone. The 

14 standard sets the goal for cleaning up the pollution 

15 that can trigger asthma attacks when people are sick, 

16 send people to the emergency room, even causing 

17 premature death. And we've known since at least 2008 

18 that the current ozone standard is not strong enough 

19 to protect the public's health from harm of ozone 

20 pollution. 

21 Air quality orders designed to protect those 
172

1 at greatest risk of ozone pollution, a basically old 

2 outdated standard, this means the public does not know 

3 when ozone issues develops. That represent a bad 

4 sound. So for too long the American people have been 

5 getting no solution and that's frankly 15 years coming 

6 up, of being told that those levels were safe. This 

7 must stop. 

8 So people know ozone pollution is dangerous. 

9 There are groups of people called "special ozones," 

10 affects of previous ozone in children and teens, 

11 anyone 65 and older, people with existing lung disease 

12 such as asthma and COPD, people with cardiovascular 

13 disease and people even in healthy adults who work or 

14 exercise vicariously. 

15 Someone in every family faces risk for 

16 breathing ozone. As a person with asthma, whose 

17 mother wasn't active, nothing either way, this is 

18 actually a prayer for me. 

19 The evidence shows that ozone pollution is 

20 dangerous to even healthy levels below the lowest 

21 standard being proposed today, a recommended 65 to 70 
173

1 parts per billion. There's only one way to protecting 

2 public health. This is still underlying, just a 

3 little part of. 

4 The scientific record clearly shows that a 

5 standard of 60 parts per billion will provide the most 

6 health and protection. 

7 Post Pollutis (phonetic) and Ellen should 

8 have gone to court to tell the truth about ozone 

9 pollution. They denied the common effects of ozone. 

10 They've attempted to threaten decision makers with the 

11 saturated process of this, but their predictions never 

12 come true and the science does not support their 

13 claims. 

14 The Supreme Court in Meddis (phonetic) was 

15 decided in 2001 that the Clean Air Act said that you 

16 can't base the standards solely on a technicality, 

17 period. 

18 It comes as diffusional that costs should be 

19 full content when I say it's okay with power plants 

20 and dilution and control strategy to the protective 

21 standards. That comes from well over 40 years. That 
174

1 he, fellow, should have never had to choose between 

2 healthy air and healthy family, Eugene Pope. 

3 The medical science is clear. Americans 

4 need to know the truth about the danger of ozone 

5 pollution to family and community, and with this 

6 change they will. Even more importantly, Americans 

7 get protection from the dangers from the air they 

8 breathe, protection that they're given under the Clean 

9 Air Act. 

10 EPA must and should finalize those 

11 standards, offer the most protection to your people, 

12 especially the most vulnerable are children and those 

13 with asthmas. These new standards must not be 

14 delayed. The vulnerable has suffered too long 

15 already. 

16 I urge you to revise the National Ambient 

17 Air Quality Standards for ozone to the most protective 

18 possible for your health. We understand that 65 to 70 

19 is an improvement, but the scientist shows that 60 

20 parts per billion will be the most protective and best 

21 for the health of American people. Thank you. 
175

1 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Durkin. 

2 MS. DURKIN: All right. I'll try to keep 

3 this brief. 

4 My name is Kathleen Durkin, D-U-R-K-I-N. I 

5 was born and raised in a small town right on the 

6 outskirts of Baltimore City; Arbutus, Maryland. It's 

7 uphill, three miles away from the closest industrial 

8 points for pollution, a burn center near downtown, 

9 near Pigtown, in Baltimore City. 

10 So growing up, I think really no one noticed 

11 things that I was questioning the normal, that I 

12 myself and all of my neighbors living in Baltimore 

13 County and Baltimore City, always have. 

14 Growing up I assume my attacks were an 

15 emergency, betting, then it was dirty. In 2000, I was 

16 in a rush and walked to other points towards pollution 

17 along, and then learning about in third grade 

18 ground-level ozone and acid rain, learning about celta 

19 (phonetic) in plant matter, learning about the way it 

20 was in asthma. 

21 I've been lucky. I have never until this 
176

1 year started experiencing side effects, breathing 

2 problems. I have doctors who still try and diagnose 

3 me. When my sister was a teenager, in the mid 90s, 

4 she developed severe asthma and suffered multiple 

5 episodes of one of her lungs collapsing. It was a 

6 lack of lung function, one of her lungs on multiple 

7 occasions and passing out in public. 

8 My mother in her thirties, also in the 90s, 

9 she discovered -- she developed asthma also. And they 

10 both started to develop severe allergies at the same 

11 time in the 90s. All of this, I think, for many of us 

12 growing up in the Mid-Atlantic feel this to be a 

13 normal way of life. 

14 It wasn't until I joined the National Park 

15 Service when I was 24, and I moved up in Tennessee and 

16 I taught for two years. I taught Spanish for two 

17 years, living in Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

18 where you can see firsthand, alongside the scientist 

19 working on this research on ground-level ozone, the 

20 extremes of a clean environment and a damaged 

21 environment. 
177

1 Though Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

2 has no direct point source pollution in its 

3 boundaries, its watersheds are complete from within 

4 the mountain range and precipitation. Ground-level 

5 ozone was extremely high on these southern grades of 

6 slopes. And you can see it in the plants. We were 

7 actually monitoring celta in leaves. 

8 Now, I know leaves are small and very 

9 different from human lungs. But in a sense, leaves 

10 are the lungs of plants. Any form of foliage is the 

11 respiration part of the plant. 

12 And what we saw in small fragile plants that 

13 are in these exposed areas of the mountain basically, 

14 anything that wasn't on the north face that didn't go 

15 through really, really good soil cleansing and 

16 brown-like foliage cleansing, they -- small plants 

17 died. And what we saw was the loss by adversity or 

18 cheating (phonetic) mild adversity, moving a foreign 

19 species or just drastic changing in the environment. 

20 Again, celta in plants is very different 

21 from celta in human lung tissue because we don't wear 
178

1 our lungs outside of our bodies but plants do. But it 

2 still goes direct into the air as to what's happening 

3 on the ground four feet and below, for anything 

4 weeping in my hair. So that's the first point I want 

5 to make. 

6 And what we also saw was the loss of -- when 

7 you have ground-level ozone, obviously you guys know 

8 this, you have over migration soil. You have acid 

9 deposition when it's not dry and it's in VOCs. You 

10 get acid deposition in the latter form as an acid 

11 rain. So you start to see nutrients in the soil that 

12 would need to be present in the root belly (phonetic), 

13 including calcium. 

14 And the way I think you see this when you're 

15 in the National Park Service and not running food is 

16 the loss of all the insects that depend on calcium, 

17 and it would be alive like snails. So that's 

18 research, say, leaves apply. 

19 So therefore, if the plant don't come 

20 looking as the new -- the normal that I saw, like in 

21 the clean slides of the national park where you didn't 
179

1 have plantae on the north facing actually that clean 

2 running water, that's not the normal that any child is 

3 going to know in Baltimore City. 

4 That's not a normal that most kids living in 

5 Baltimore County are going to know. So I question the 

6 standard of normal, like the bugs I've been living 

7 with for the pass thirty years, living in the 

8 neighborhood I'd say. And so I do support that the 

9 limit moved up to -- I mean, set down to 60 parts per 

10 billion. 

11 And the one point that I want to make is I 

12 have heard the normal again, fear rhetoric, of this 

13 coming down as being a burden on state and also a 

14 burden on small business within the state. I've 

15 actually worked with and monitored a number of the 

16 Castler (phonetic) stations taking place in Maryland. 

17 That's undoubtedly yet. 

18 And yes, sometimes it's difficult depending 

19 on which county they're putting this in. That's a 

20 problem that we saw at state level. I've seeing 

21 counties like Howard County and Wilmer and things like 
180

1 the stormwater bile fees, brilliantly. And I've seen 

2 other counties not do it. 

3 So I'd have to say I'm very disinterested as 

4 a citizen, as a working artist, and a person who comes 

5 from families that own small businesses or are public 

6 civil servants, like public school teachers that don't 

7 make a lot of money. And I'm very disinterested in 

8 that fear rhetoric because I've seen how we can 

9 implement it properly at the state level. So thank 

10 you. 

11 MS. SASSER: Thank you both very much. 

12 All right. I want to ask at this time if 

13 there are any speakers in the room who are registered 

14 to speak before lunch and we have not called? I want 

15 to make sure we haven't missed anyone from the morning 

16 session. 

17 We're a little early for our planned lunch 

18 break. But I think in the absence of there's no one 

19 registered to comment at this time, we will call for 

20 lunch break until 2:30. 

21 MR. SILVERMAN: Two o'clock. 
181

1 MS. SASSER: Two o'clock. All right. We 

2 will call a lunch break until two o'clock. We will 

3 resume at two o'clock, with a slightly different 

4 panel. But we will reopen the hearing nationally. So 

5 for now, we will begin back at two o'clock. Thank 

6 you. 

7 (At 11:45 a.m. luncheon break.) 

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
182

1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 

2 (Time Noted: 2:15 p.m.) 

3 MS. SASSER: Good afternoon. My name is 

4 Erika Sasser, and I am chair of the session of today's 

5 public hearing. I want to thank everyone for coming 

6 today. Joining me on the panel this afternoon are 

7 Steve Silverman and Jim Ketchan-Colwill. 

8 We are here today to listen to your comments 

9 on proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air 

10 Quality Standards for Ozone. EPA announced this 

11 proposed rule on November 25, 2014, and the proposed 

12 rule was published in the Federal Register on 

13 December 17, 2014. 

14 EPA's proposal is based on extensive 

15 scientific evidence about ozone's effects on public 

16 health and welfare. The proposed updates will improve 

17 public health protection, particularly for children, 

18 the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung 

19 diseases such as asthma, as well as improve the public 

20 welfare, particularly as related to ozone-sensitive 

21 trees and other plants in protected forested 
183

1 ecosystems, such as national wilderness areas. 

2 We have proposed to strengthen both the 

3 primary ozone standard for public health, and the 

4 secondary ozone standard to protect public welfare. 

5 We are proposing to set the levels of the 

6 primary and secondary standards in a range from 65 to 

7 70 parts per billion. These standards would be met 

8 when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest 

9 daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is at 

10 or below the new level. 

11 The proposal would also extend the ozone 

12 monitoring season for many states, and update the Air 

13 Quality Index to ensure people are informed about 

14 their air quality. 

15 These proposed standards do not establish 

16 emission control requirements for any particular 

17 industry. Each state, as needed, will determine how 

18 best to meet the standards in a way that makes the 

19 most sense for that area. 

20 States will have time to develop and 

21 implement plans to meet revised standards. And 
184

1 existing and proposed federal rules will help the vast 

2 majority of areas meet the proposed standards by year 

3 2025. 

4 I'd like to thank you for taking time out of 

5 your day to join us and to share your thoughts with us 

6 today and your comments. We will accept comments on 

7 all aspects of the proposal, including on retaining 

8 the existing standards. 

9 Before we get started, I'd like to go 

10 through a few housekeeping items and ground rules that 

11 will help make this run a little more smoothly today. 

12 First, please be sure you have checked in at 

13 the registration desk. Even if you're not planning to 

14 speak today, we ask that you check in there. And if 

15 you signed up to speak on line or by phone, but you 

16 haven't told us you're actually here in person, please 

17 step out to the registration desk and let us know that 

18 you have arrived today in person. 

19 All right. So here's how today's hearing 

20 will work. I will call speakers up in pairs to this 

21 table in front of the panel here. When your name is 
185

1 called, please come to the table at the front of the 

2 room and remain seated at the table until both 

3 speakers have completed their comments. 

4 When I call on you to speak, please state 

5 your name and then spell it for the court reporter. 

6 Your comments will be transcribed and included in the 

7 official record of comments, which is known as the 

8 docket for this proposed rule. Each speaker will have 

9 five minutes to give comments. And we have a timer 

10 system here on the end of the table with a light to 

11 help you know how much time you have left to speak. 

12 And how it works is that it starts out 

13 green. The first four minutes, it will warn in green. 

14 When the light turns from green to yellow, that means 

15 you have one more minute. And when it turns red, 

16 that's a signal that you need to wrap up your 

17 testimony. The light will flash red and beep when you 

18 have spoken for five minutes, and then it's time to 

19 stop. 

20 When you are finished speaking, please 

21 remain seated at the table here until the person next 
186

1 to you has also completed his or her testimony. 

2 We are here to listen to you as for your 

3 comments today. In some cases a panel member may ask 

4 you a clarifying question. And when you're -- you 

5 have your additional comments, we will then call the 

6 next pair of speakers and so on. 

7 And I will just remind you that the floor in 

8 this room is uneven. You will see places that are 

9 unlevel. Please be careful as you walk to the table 

10 not to trip. 

11 If you have a written copy of your 

12 testimony, we ask that you give us here on the panel. 

13 You can provide it out at the registration desk after 

14 you finish your testimony today. We will put any 

15 written comments we receive into the official docket 

16 for this proposed ruling. 

17 If you have any additional comments that you 

18 would like to make, you can submit those comments in 

19 writing until March 17, 2015. And instructions for 

20 submitting those official written comments are 

21 available at the materials table near the registration 
187

1 desk. 

2 The hearing will continue until 7:30 p.m. 

3 this evening. In addition, we're going to take 

4 occasional short breaks starting in the afternoon as 

5 needed, and we will keep you posted as the day goes 

6 on. 

7 Also, I want you to know that in some cases, 

8 we will be changing out members of the panel during 

9 the afternoon, so please don't be surprised by that. 

10 As we change panel members, I will introduce the new 

11 addition to the panel. 

12 If you have any questions at all today 

13 during the day, you are welcome to step out to the 

14 registration desk and someone there will assist you. 

15 And finally, I would like to ask each of you 

16 to please be respectful of everyone who speaks today. 

17 People have a wide variety of views and we want to 

18 hear from everyone. And to ensure that we can do 

19 that, we ask that you listen quietly. You know, 

20 applause can be disruptive to the speakers and slow 

21 things down. We want to be sure that we have time to 
188

1 hear everyone's comments. 

2 So thank you again for taking your time to 

3 come here today to talk with us, and we look forward 

4 to hearing your comments on the proposed rule. 

5 So let's get started. The first two 

6 speakers this afternoon -- I apologize in advance if I 

7 mispronounce your name -- Elizabeth Agbetsiafa-Awuah 

8 and Karen Melton. If you would all please come to the 

9 table here. 

10 I'll just remind you to please state your 

11 name and spell your name for the court reporter. 

12 MS. AGBETSIAFA-AWUAH: Good afternoon. My 

13 name is Elizabeth Agbetsiafa-Awuah, 

14 A-G-B-E-T-S-I-A-F-A hyphen A-W-U-A-H. 

15 Thank you for having me. It's an honor to 

16 speak before you this afternoon. 

17 Smog pollution is a serious public health 

18 problem. As a frontline beside nurse, I witness every 

19 day the fear and anxiety patients who suffer from 

20 respiratory illnesses like asthma, emphysema, COPD, 

21 among others, show when they have exacerbation and 
189

1 they are admitted to the hospital. It is a 

2 frightening experience to look into the eyes of a 

3 patient having air hunger and difficulty breathing. 

4 It feels like learned helplessness because sometimes 

5 all the oxygen support and Nebulizer treatment doesn't 

6 always help, even in a controlled hospital 

7 environment. 

8 Can anyone imagine how air hunger will look 

9 and feel like when the air becomes so polluted with 

10 smog that even people with healthy lungs in the 

11 community could have trouble breathing especially on 

12 hot and humid summer days? Children and the elderly 

13 are almost always vulnerable when it comes to 

14 respiratory illnesses. According to the American Lung 

15 Association, long-term exposure to smog can be harmful 

16 to human health in countless ways and has 

17 life-threatening and lasting consequences. 

18 Smog pollution is the major asthma trigger, 

19 and asthma is the number one health-related reason for 

20 school absenteeism, and why a child in America ends up 

21 in the ER, especially in minority communities. This 
190

1 puts an enormous economic drain on communities, 

2 results in lost productivity and drives up healthcare 

3 cost. 

4 A 2011 analysis of U.S. populations and air 

5 quality found that African Americans and Hispanics 

6 were more likely to live in counties that have worse 

7 ambient air pollution. In addition, African Americans 

8 were more likely to live in counties with worse ozone 

9 pollution, and their children have twice the rate of 

10 asthma compared to white children and are four times 

11 more likely to die from the condition. 

12 In 2013, researchers from MIT's Aviation and 

13 the Environment mapped local emissions in 5695 U.S. 

14 cities and found that Baltimore -- which is where I'm 

15 from. I'm originally from Silver Spring, but that's 

16 where I live in Baltimore -- that Baltimore has the 

17 highest emissions-related mortality rate in America, 

18 where 130 out of every 100,000 residents are likely to 

19 die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air 

20 pollution. The evidence linking air pollution 

21 exposure to the risk of early death has solidified and 
191

1 gained momentum in the past five to 10 years, 

2 according to the MIT researchers. 

3 It is therefore imperative that the EPA put 

4 tough measures in place against smog pollution to save 

5 our air and the environment for now and for future 

6 generations, to help prevent premature deaths. Thank 

7 you. 

8 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

9 Ms. Melton. 

10 MS. MELTON: Good afternoon. I appreciate 

11 the opportunity to provide feedback on the EPA 

12 proposal to strengthen National Ambient Air Quality 

13 Standards for ground-level ozone. I'm speaking today 

14 as a citizen, as board member of the Chester County 

15 Citizens for Climate Protection, and as volunteer with 

16 the Sierra Club, an organization that's very concerned 

17 about the health impacts of smog, particularly in 

18 environmental Chester communities. 

19 We know a great deal about the damage and 

20 cost of smog, and I don't want to repeat the data that 

21 many have presented today. But this hearing, like so 
192

1 many others, ultimately comes down to how much loss of 

2 life and productivity is an acceptable cost with 

3 business. At what point are the people getting sick 

4 or dying prematurely if you would require an industry 

5 to do something or to do something more? 

6 There are about 14,000 coal industry jobs in 

7 Pennsylvania. And coal is about the only industry 

8 responsible for making it off the site in the public 

9 submissions. But it is the largest in our state. On 

10 the other hand, we have more than 8 million 

11 Pennsylvanians, when EPA raised the "Do not meet 

12 federal air quality standards." So we're exposed to 

13 the many ethnic health risks, with asthma affecting 

14 about 750,000. Philadelphia is one of those 

15 non-attainment areas, it used to be where I live, 

16 where one out of 4 children has asthma. 

17 That sounds to me like it's time for the 

18 industry to do something more. People testifying 

19 today that the standard should not be lowered are 

20 effectively arguing that those numbers are a 

21 reasonable trade off. 
193

1 The coal industry also argues that they 

2 should not have to take out any more pollution control 

3 because the economy realized on the cheap energy that 

4 they provide, but we don't get cheap energy from coal. 

5 We get energy from where the public gets general 

6 energy cost, such as due to the public, the 

7 environment. The coal is not on our doctor bills; 

8 it's on our doctor notes, and ambulance bills. 

9 Industry is correct in saying air quality in 

10 Pennsylvania has improved over time. We have come a 

11 long way from the gates when Pittsburgh looked like 

12 they shamed us today. I don't think anyone will 

13 disagree that these improvements are a result of EPA 

14 air quality standards. Nor do I think anyone would 

15 argue that these improvements would come about on 

16 their own. Every EPA has come to regulating 

17 industrial pollution has got the same predictions, so 

18 you can only comment then. But throughout the years 

19 of the Clean Air Act the economy passed for knowing. 

20 I do a lot of advocacy around the climate 

21 change. So now whenever I hear industry saying the 
194

1 science is unsettled, I have to assume this is a 

2 tactic. The health experts are saying that science 

3 supports 60 parts per billion. So I would urge you to 

4 adopt that as the new target. 

5 In Pennsylvania, many of us are trying to 

6 get our state government to come up with a serious 

7 compliance plan for the existing standard. The latest 

8 draft still will not bring Pennsylvania into 

9 compliance. For example, SCR is not defined in the 

10 plan as reasonable available truck technology, even 

11 though it's installed and I was told as. The 

12 allowable proposed emissions, whatever, plans with SCR 

13 are much higher than can be attained with good 

14 operating procedures. And the draft proposes allowing 

15 for 30-day averaging. 

16 Unfortunately people do not disagree on 

17 average. In fact, their days are exactly the ones we 

18 need to eliminate rather than waste a high limited 

19 data. So that's our challenge in Pennsylvania, and I 

20 hope when the plan finally does get to you, you will 

21 evaluate it with the children in Philadelphia in mind. 
195

1 And finally, this argument that you 

2 shouldn't update a standard that not every state has 

3 attained yet doesn't make any sense. It's an argument 

4 to reward the states like Pennsylvania who haven't 

5 complied and punish the states that did and would send 

6 a message that the standards can be ignored. 

7 EPA has a really tough job and there are new 

8 organizations and people like me doing what we can to 

9 support your efforts when we have the clean air and 

10 water. Please continue to evaluate the science in 

11 each and every standard, and thank you for listening. 

12 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. The next 

13 speakers this afternoon are Elizabeth Versteeg and 

14 Allen Schaeffer. 

15 MS. VERSTEEG: Hello. My name is Elizabeth 

16 Versteeg. Elizabeth, E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H 

17 V-E-R-S-T-E-E-G. And I'm with the China Sierra Club's 

18 The Honorable Campaign here in Washington, D.C. 

19 I'm a strong supporter of lowering the 

20 standards to 60 parts per billion, because research 

21 has shown that the standard would save four to five 
196

1 times more lives than 70 parts per billion standard. 

2 One major called this a Self-Dialysis 

3 Magnes -- Davers (phonetic) instruct-yourself test. 

4 It arose some while I'm in D.C., and now it's fastway 

5 up to New York. Helping valuable tissue is such about 

6 childress (phonetic) in us, two-sided forcefulness. 

7 A few weeks ago, I left my hometown in New 

8 York, and I said bye to a number of children at the 

9 day care center where I work. One of those children 

10 is name Mina. Since I've been there for 

11 2 1/2 years -- I have known her and got to know her 

12 family. But a couple weeks after I started, about a 

13 quarter percent of our -- she was diagnosed with 

14 asthma. And she's one of the happiest and most 

15 active, you know, one of the most active children that 

16 I ever met. But her breathing problems are very 

17 obvious, especially when it comes to playing with 

18 other children. 

19 When she's running around outside with her 

20 friends, we have to sit her down occasionally to ask 

21 her, Do you want to play something else? You look 
197

1 tired, while we're encouraging all the other kids keep 

2 moving, keep active. When she wakes up from a nap 

3 from a nightmare, her crying turns into wheezing and 

4 we have to give her Nebulizer treatments. It's 

5 becoming more and more common for her to have attacks 

6 and it's getting worse and worse as she's getting 

7 older. 

8 She like all of the other kids at our 

9 center, our center is also in a good city, and there's 

10 an outdoor playground that is fenced in. We're 

11 required every day to keep children out for at least 

12 15 minutes as long as it's not snowing or raining or 

13 it hasn't been like warm weather. You can see traffic 

14 from the playground and you can see pollution going 

15 off from the cars. 

16 And I understand how the rules, we have 

17 some, so that they exercise and get fresh air. But 

18 I'm not sure that's what they're getting, especially 

19 the children in these areas which are enduring more -- 

20 which we got are very poor and minority children who 

21 already have enough trouble in their life. 
198

1 Smog doesn't just impacts the children in 

2 the cities, all the dust, unseen portion of it. I 

3 would freshen whenever I should, breath the air that 

4 scientists say are as safe -- are safe now for them, 

5 which 70 parts per billion to 65 is progress and made 

6 simple that one day it. Could reach to 60 parts per 

7 billion. But I believe that's even better because 

8 these children are growing up now. Their lungs are 

9 developing now, not healthy. By 10 or 15 years down 

10 the road, one might -- they might be more political by 

11 all this. 

12 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

13 Mr. Schaeffer. 

14 MR. SCHAEFFER: Thanks. Good afternoon. 

15 I'm Allen Schaeffer, Executive Director of 

16 the Diesel Technology Forum. We represent leaders in 

17 clean diesel technology including engine, vehicle and 

18 equipment manufacturers, and various affiliated 

19 organizations. 

20 As the EPA considers its rule making on the 

21 ozone standard, we would like to outline a perspective 
199

1 about our industry's work to reduce an important 

2 precursor, that's nitrogen oxide emissions; and 

3 highlight clean air benefits of new technology clean 

4 diesel engines, and the importance of efforts to 

5 modernize and upgrade existing vehicles and equipment, 

6 and why both these strategies will be important in 

7 meeting any future clean air standards. 

8 First off, diesel vehicles and equipment 

9 play a key role in 15 sectors of the U.S. Economy, 

10 from Agriculture where diesels power more than 

11 two-thirds of all farm machines and equipment to goods 

12 movement and warehousing where diesel engines power 

13 over 90 percent of all partial trucks. Increasingly 

14 clean diesel cars, SUVs, and light trucks are also 

15 favored choice for consumers seeking proven fuel 

16 efficient technology vehicles that do not compromise 

17 size or performance. 

18 Emissions from diesel engines are a 

19 declining contributor to the national emissions 

20 inventory for nitrogen oxide. 

21 Thanks to investments in these new 
200

1 technologies and cleaner diesel fuels, today's 

2 standards are a more declining contributor, according 

3 to the National Emissions Inventory for 2011, NOx 

4 emissions from diesel sources fell 12 percent since 

5 2005, today account for 29 percent of all NOx 

6 emissions. 

7 Secondly, new clean diesel technology is 

8 contributing substantially to clean air progress. 

9 Since 2000, the leaders in clean diesel technology and 

10 the EPA worked together establishing a regulatory 

11 pathway that brought about the introduction of a new 

12 generation of clean diesel engines for both on- and 

13 off-road applications. Manufacturers were challenged 

14 then to virtually eliminate both NOx and particulate 

15 emissions from diesel engines, reducing emissions by 

16 as much as 98 percent from previous levels. 

17 Today, I'm happy to report that 

18 manufacturers have met that challenge, first in 

19 heavy-duty highway trucks and increasing just in the 

20 last year being phased in for off road machines and 

21 engine equipment. 
201

1 Exhibit A (indicating), my earmarks by some 

2 trucks for table showing the risk of combining 

3 emission standards that we submitted is our purpose. 

4 These new technology engines are 

5 increasingly making their ways in populations. It's 

6 very important to join that clean air benefits issue. 

7 According to the state vehicle registration 

8 data for 2014, of the roughly 8.8 million Class 3-8 

9 heavy-duty vehicles on the road nationwide, about 

10 one-third or 2.8 million are deployed for the national 

11 base 2007 standards while about 14 percent -- 14.7 or 

12 roughly 1.3 million vehicles on the road meet the 2007 

13 (sic) emissions milestone which requires near zero 

14 levels of both NOx ambient. 

15 As of 2013, we estimate these clean 

16 heavy-duty vehicles were new stocks by Mayton 

17 (phonetic) Edition. More of these will hit the road. 

18 Last year was a down year, truck sales for annual 

19 report. Over 186,000 new medium duty trucks sold, all 

20 for over 230,000 heavy-duty Class 8 trucks. 

21 In addition to having met these NOx and PM 
202

1 standards, there's an additive benefit that will 

2 accrue resulting from the nitrous oxide emissions 

3 reductions yet to be fully realized from the 2014-2018 

4 Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-duty 

5 vehicles. By 2018, the EPA standards will represent 

6 an average per-vehicle reduction in Greenhouse Gate 

7 emissions [of which N2O is a component] of 17 percent 

8 diesel vehicles. 

9 In fact, the penetration of new clean diesel 

10 technology is so impressive that the American Lung 

11 Association in its 2014 State of the Air Report 

12 recognized that diesel premium fleets contributed to 

13 success where more than half of people today in 

14 America meets the clean air standards. 

15 To achieve today's very low levels NOx 

16 emissions, engine manufacturers and emissions control 

17 suppliers have invested billions for strategies to 

18 produce a better understanding and control the 

19 combustion process as well as use of advanced 

20 emissions control technology like SCR. So I can 

21 channel reproduction. 
203

1 And according to the Advanced Collaborative 

2 Emissions Study (ACES) research co-sponsored by EPA 

3 and released just this week by the Health Effects 

4 Institute, new technology diesel engines are near-zero 

5 emissions performance was confirmed, as was the 

6 finding of no significant health effects in laboratory 

7 animals over lifetime exposure. 

8 Third, EPA must remain invested in and help 

9 ensure a viable future for the National Clean Diesel 

10 Campaign. While new technologies are at a stance of 

11 your -- are things we can do addressing older engines, 

12 and those done through the use of Diesel Emissions 

13 Reduction Act, which the Agency is the one who wants 

14 the concession. 

15 In 2005, we're part of a very successful 

16 enduring stakeholder coalition that represents the 

17 Environmental Defense Fund. We are tasked with the 

18 American Lung Association, and we strongly urge you to 

19 renew its commitment to the DERA program, despite the 

20 fact in the last year when these emissions were both 

21 eliminated, we never got annual budgets. I won't go 
204

1 into events that grew from using -- upgrading diesel 

2 engines, which are slight reports. Fifteen days by 

3 the events over the past years. 

4 In conclusion, the increasing new 

5 utilization of new technology diesel engines that are 

6 at or near zero levels of NOx emissions play the most 

7 important role in assuring continued progress towards 

8 clean air and climate objectives. 

9 As we looked at this discussion, my members 

10 raised a lot of interesting questions. With all these 

11 major improvements NOx reduction in the mobile and 

12 stationary source sectors, is it premature to 

13 establish a new Ozone target before we get a better 

14 understanding of those impacts? 

15 And finally, are there unintended 

16 consequences -- negative consequences that could occur 

17 by emissions? 

18 We learned by NOx that making it lesser and 

19 the answer isn't always guaranteed. There are ups and 

20 downs to pass the law. 

21 These are very difficult questions. The 
205

1 diesel industry has been a partner in clean air 

2 progress and looks forward to working with EPA and all 

3 stakeholders in the consideration of these and any of 

4 the future clean air standards. Thank you. 

5 Questions. 

6 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

7 MR. SILVERMAN: Thank you. Your comments 

8 really got standards are big. I'm not sure of the 

9 current operation, but that's just me blockhead. 

10 MR. SCHAEFFER: Thank you very much. 

11 MS. SASSER: Our next two speakers are Sarah 

12 Fraser and William Penniman. 

13 I guess Sarah didn't show up. I call Mollie 

14 Simon. Is Mollie Simon in the room? 

15 Okay. Mr. Penniman, we'll begin with you. 

16 Please spell your name. 

17 MR. PENNIMAN: My name is Penniman. I'm a 

18 resident of Virginia. I'm active in Virginia, the 

19 environmental issues in a number of respects and here 

20 speaking for myself. 

21 Did you get the spelling of my name? 
206

1 MS. SASSER: Please go ahead and spell your 

2 name. 

3 MR. PENNIMAN: Okay. It's William Penniman, 

4 P-E-N-N-I-M-A-N. 

5 I want to begin by thanking the EPA for 

6 finally coming out with those rules to reduce the 

7 level -- the ground-level ozone, or smog, around the 

8 United States. I understand since 2008 it's -- it's 

9 appreciated, the plain proposal. 

10 Your proposal, and I understand it is to 

11 reduce the level of smog to a range of 60 to 70 parts 

12 per billion -- 65 to 70 parts per billion with an 

13 invitation on comments of whether to take part of the 

14 60 ppb. And I am here to take you up on your 

15 invitation and urge EPA to adopt 60 parts per billion 

16 or at least close to that. 

17 The issue of healthy NAAQS from ground-level 

18 ozone are well documented both in the record that EPA 

19 has compiled up to date and minutes for these which 

20 are reflected in submissions by the American Lung 

21 Association and others. We keep all of them. But 
207

1 it's clear that smog has severe health consequences 

2 for a broad spectrum of the public, particularly 

3 including asthma sufferers, but not only them. Asthma 

4 sufferers -- 

5 Well, first, it's something like 140 million 

6 people who live in an area that have unhealthy smog 

7 levels currently. And within the United States, 

8 asthma is only quite by stress, 25-plus million 

9 people, including 7 million children suffer from 

10 asthma and the impacts of their condition is severe. 

11 The CDC had put out a number of statistics 

12 on that quantifies the impacts of asthma alone at 

13 $56 billion a year with a -- average a cost of health 

14 care for children effected by asthma in excess of a 

15 thousand dollars per child. 

16 There are millions of lost work days and 

17 school days. And it's close to 3400 people die each 

18 year from asthma. If for no other reason than that, 

19 it would be grounds enough to tighten the ozone 

20 standards. 

21 If you look at your own record, which had 
208

1 been quite nicely compiled, the costs and benefits are 

2 documented. And the benefits clearly great above 

3 that, the cost, that the cost -- and the benefits from 

4 going to 60 parts per billion are substantially in 

5 excess for those for 65 or 70 ppb. 

6 In fact, just from the standard of the 

7 health cost documented from the Nation (ex California) 

8 for 2025, the health benefits, in dollar terms, are 

9 five times greater for the 60 ppb standard than they 

10 are for the 70 ppb standard, and nearly two times as 

11 great for the 60 ppb standard compared to 65. Those 

12 are very substantial benefits and quite a great distal 

13 better than -- well, there seem a similar range for 

14 California. Okay. 

15 From a cost standpoint, every one of those 

16 cases, particularly the second part, within 

17 substantial dollar standings relative to the 70 

18 standard or certainly the 75 standard. 

19 Now, I know you hear an earful from 

20 businesses who say that this -- we discussed in the 

21 hall. You adopt these standards. But I hope you will 
209

1 get signed a credibility discount factor based on the 

2 fact that those standards come in every time for every 

3 proposed rule and claim the sky will fall under a plan 

4 of costs for energy exaggerated. In fact, there are 

5 health costs that's left to children and -- other 

6 people is also very significant. 

7 So again, I want to thank you for 

8 undertaking this and urge you to adopt this latest 

9 standard. I have a written version of this, obviously 

10 that I didn't read. 

11 Do you want me to give that to you or to the 

12 folks out front or submit it on line and hope for the 

13 best? 

14 MS. SASSER: Any way you prefer, sir. 

15 MR. PENNIMAN: Okay. As long as it gets in 

16 the record, I'm fine. Thank you very much. 

17 MS. SASSER: I'm sorry. Ms. Fraser. 

18 MS. SIMON: I'm Mollie Simon. 

19 MS. SASSER: Ms. Simon. I'm sorry. 

20 MS. SIMON: My name is Mollie Simon. That's 

21 M-O-L-L-I-E. Simon, S-I-M-O-N. And I am the Outreach 
210

1 Coordinator for the Clean Air Council. Clean Air 

2 Council is a non-profit environmental health 

3 organization in the Port of Philadelphia, and Council 

4 members throughout the states in Pennsylvania and 

5 Delaware and the Squadtoon for Air Quality for over 

6 four years. 

7 The Clean Air Council supports the 

8 environmental agencies' efforts to propose a stronger 

9 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. I 

10 thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

11 Everyone has a right to breathe clean air. 

12 But too often I meet people across Pennsylvania who 

13 are unable to take in a clean deep breath. 

14 Ground-level ozone pollution which we find is in major 

15 urban areas, causing high levels of asthma, cancer, 

16 respiratory illnesses, and cardio complications. 

17 While Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are in the 

18 top 25 most polluted in the U.S. of at least ozone and 

19 smog, nine out of 10 of these communities most 

20 populated counties are designated non-attainment for 

21 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. If 
211

1 you live in Pennsylvania, there's a 60 percent chance 

2 that you are living in those non-attainment areas. 

3 While the Clean Air Council is in support of 

4 the EPA's efforts to reduce ozone pollution, the 

5 Council believes that strong limits are necessary. 

6 Peer-review studies have concluded that the present 

7 ozone standard is not protective of public health. 

8 The Clean Air Council joins with other 

9 public health advocates in asking the EPA to adopt the 

10 primary standard of ozone as 60 parts per billion. 

11 These new levels are needed to actively protect public 

12 health and limit ozone related health instances. 

13 The revisions to the ozone quality standards 

14 are long over due. The American Lung Association 

15 calls ozone, quote, the most pervasive and widespread 

16 pollutant in the country. 

17 The exposures tell me that also ozone can 

18 cause aggravation of an existing respiratory in 

19 current condition; lung tissue damage and premature 

20 death. Furthermore, these negative impacts are found 

21 more damaging in the most vulnerable other community. 
212

1 Children, the elderly, and those like myself are 

2 predisposition to persons and lung complications. 

3 By adopting the National Ambient Air Quality 

4 Standard as 60 parts per billion, EPA estimates up to 

5 12,000 premature deaths and billions of dollars in 

6 community health benefits could be saved by year 2020. 

7 Outside of Pittsburgh, the grew concerned 

8 citizens formed Paula Allegheny County Clean Air 

9 Network to share the story of how the difficulties 

10 living in an area with heavily polluted air. 

11 Tonya, an otherwise healthy boy (sic), and 

12 pace during marathons, she acknowledges the difficulty 

13 making it up the stairs due to her lung asthma. 

14 Lea, a young mother of two toddlers, who 

15 doesn't allow her children to play outside in fear 

16 that a cancer or asthma diagnosis is in their future. 

17 Many of these members share similar 

18 experiences. Amelia Dovers (phonetic), respiratory 

19 illnesses, loved ones had heart attacks before the age 

20 58. Sadly their stories and many experiences of 

21 millions of people across Pennsylvania and the 
213

1 country. 

2 On a personal note, my grandmother suffered 

3 from paralyzing asthma, where it's hard to link, and 

4 possible since she was a teenager. The doctor begged 

5 her to move away from Philadelphia and to a part of 

6 the country where air pollution and illness truncated. 

7 She stayed in Philadelphia and passed away at the age 

8 of 70. It's very possible that she could have lived a 

9 much longer life if she wasn't anyway exposed to poor 

10 air quality. 

11 Critical asthmatics like my grandmother 

12 shouldn't be forced to sacrifice her life in order to 

13 remain close to home and loves ones. 

14 The people of Pennsylvania ought to be able 

15 to breathe clean air. Pennsylvanians don't want to 

16 struggle and be disreactive due to respiratory 

17 illness. They don't want to be forced to leave their 

18 shelter on a summer day. They don't want their 

19 children to be exposed to dangerous levels of 

20 pollutions simply because they're playing outside. 

21 The environment should be truly protective of public 
214

1 health. It's what's required under the Clean Air Act 

2 and it's the right thing to do in order to protect 

3 public health and welfare. 

4 The Clean Air Council supports EPA's efforts 

5 to raise ozone pollution, as doing so will have a 

6 direct impact on breathing clean air and public health 

7 in Pennsylvania and across the country. Thank you. 

8 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

9 MR. SILVERMAN: One clarification. In your 

10 comments, you might consider the analysis you put into 

11 the record indicating that it's in the ratio of this 

12 case, focus at 60 part per billion pieces. The 

13 statute will possibly coat the number. In fact, the 

14 standard -- I believe stand in the range of 65 or 70. 

15 That's not even the recent standards. In other words, 

16 at 60 part per billion, you should speak for the 

17 adults and show your number through any exposures, not 

18 at 60 part per billion. That would be a pretty good 

19 special discussion at 75, 308 and also the first 

20 column of 75, 310. 

21 MS. SIMON: Thank you. 
215

1 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

2 Next I'd like to call Sarah Fraser and 

3 Jennifer McIntyre. 

4 MS. FRASER: My name is Sarah Fraser. I am 

5 the mother to two young children who are with me 

6 today, and I am a resident of Washington, D.C. I'm 

7 and taxpayer. I am speaking to you today as a member 

8 of Moms Clean Air Force in unequivocal support of the 

9 EPA's proposed strengthening of the National Ambient 

10 Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone. 

11 Fifty years ago, President Kennedy talked of 

12 the human right to breathe air as nature provided it. 

13 Today's proposal supports this basic human right, 

14 expanding the ozone-monitoring season in many 

15 jurisdictions, and updating the Air Quality Index. 

16 The Air Quality alerts are an important 

17 national system that helps mothers like me make 

18 decisions about whether to let my two children, ages 

19 three and seven, play outside. The Air Quality alerts 

20 are tethered to EPA's standard. If the smog standard 

21 is too lax, as it currently stands, the Air Quality 
216

1 Alert System can tell me that it's safe to send my 

2 children outside to play, even when it's not. The 

3 smog standard needs to tell everyone if the air we 

4 breath is safe. 

5 I unequivocally support the new, lower 

6 standards, an 8-hour limit of 60 parts per billion, 

7 based on the extensive, irrefutable scientific 

8 evidence about ozone's effects on children and on the 

9 public welfare. 

10 Breathing ground-level ozone can trigger a 

11 variety of pulmonary problems, worsen existing 

12 pulmonary diseases, reduce lung function and 

13 permanently scar lung tissue. In my neighborhood, 

14 these fumes prevent my children from playing outside. 

15 These fumes prevent us from doing work in our yard to 

16 maintain and improve our property. These fumes 

17 prevent us from asking our friends and our children's 

18 friends over to enjoy our yard. These fumes prevent 

19 my parents and my husband's parents from seeing their 

20 grandchildren often, as both elderly couples have 

21 compromised lung and immune system dysfunction. 
217

1 In order to adequately protect children, 

2 scientists think that the national standard for smog 

3 should be set at 60 parts per billion. The American 

4 Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, 

5 among others, also support this standard. The EPA 

6 states that reducing levels of smog to 60 parts per 

7 billion would prevent 1.8 million asthma attacks, 

8 1.9 million missed school days, and 6,400 premature 

9 deaths each year. 

10 I support the new, lower standards as a 

11 mother in a global family, as a mother living in the 

12 mid-Atlantic region of the United States, and as a 

13 mother living here in Washington, D.C. 

14 D.C. is considered a non-industrial 

15 jurisdiction, and in 2009, Mayor Adrian Fenty 

16 requested that the District be designated a 

17 non-attainment area. We have, however, an industrial 

18 zone: Ward 5. My husband, two young children, and I 

19 live in the residential part of it. 

20 Ward 5 has some of the worst air quality in 

21 the District. Our Industries are: an 
218

1 asphalt-processing facility, light and heavy trucking, 

2 two city bus lots, and an auto-body paint industry, 

3 which uses high-VOC solvents and paints. All of these 

4 industries and processes contribute to ground-level 

5 ozone formation. 

6 The District Department of the Environment 

7 maintains a stationary Air Quality Monitor at 

8 McMillian Reservoir, the number on that is 

9 11-001-0043, which is nearly four miles from my ward. 

10 This monitor has been recording violations of both the 

11 primary and secondary 8-hour EPA ground-level ozone 

12 standards since 2006. 

13 Since 2008, D.C. has had only two summers in 

14 16 years without Code Red days for unhealthy air 

15 quality. And since 2008, we have had four years of 

16 summers where we exceeded the 75 parts per billion 

17 ozone standard for upwards of four weeks. In a family 

18 with no history of asthma, my children were diagnosed 

19 last year as pre-asthmatic by the pediatrician. 

20 Ward 5 contributes ozone to the environments 

21 of Maryland and Virginia, which in turn contributes 
219

1 ozone to the environment of the mid-Atlantic. The 

2 East Coast contributes all this ozone to the global 

3 environment, affecting my parents in Texas, my 

4 husband's parents in New Zealand, and our cousins in 

5 Australia. 

6 The strengthening of the NAAQS by the EPA is 

7 an essential first step in rule creation that will 

8 ultimately enable our District, and our country, to 

9 provide clean air for people everywhere. Please move 

10 forward with this rule. 

11 Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

12 testify today. 

13 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

14 Ms. McIntyre. 

15 MS. McINTYRE: My name is Jennifer McIntyre, 

16 and I'm with Moms Clean Air Force, a community of 

17 parents fighting for children's health and clean air. 

18 On behalf of our nearly 500,000 members across the 

19 United States, thank you for this opportunity to 

20 testify. 

21 I'm here today as an asthma sufferer who has 
220

1 a daughter that suffers from asthma to illustrate the 

2 health effects of smog, and to respectfully urge you 

3 to set the smog standard at 60 parts per billion -- a 

4 stronger standard than you proposed in November. A 

5 respected body of scientific research posits that this 

6 level would provide the strongest public health 

7 protections for my daughter, me, and all Americans. 

8 While there has been tremendous progress in 

9 the past few decades to clean the air, our nation has 

10 much more to do to protect public health from ozone 

11 pollution. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly 

12 demonstrates that the current 75 parts per billion 

13 standard for ground-level ozone is not enough to 

14 protect human health with an adequate margin of 

15 safety, as required by the Clean Air Act. 

16 Children, in particular, are the most 

17 vulnerable group because they breathe more air per 

18 unit of body weight, are more active outdoors, are 

19 more likely to have asthma than adults, and are still 

20 developing their lungs and other organs. In fact, 

21 EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory 
221

1 Committee -- a body of external experts that provide 

2 the Administrator with recommendations concerning 

3 children's health -- recommends that a revised ambient 

4 air quality standard of 60 parts per billion to 

5 protect the health of children. In fact, CHPAC states 

6 that "Children suffer a disproportionate burden of 

7 ozone-related health impacts due to critical 

8 developmental periods of lung growth in childhood and 

9 adolescence that can result in permanent disability." 

10 One glaring problem is that the Air Quality 

11 Index (AQI) is a function of the National Ambient Air 

12 Quality Standards. It represents the health 

13 determination implicit in the EPA standard. If the 

14 EPA standard is too weak, the AQI doesn't help 

15 parents. 

16 And parents need a NAAQS that tells us the 

17 truth. Through the AQI, we rely on this measure to 

18 make determinations about how to care for our 

19 children, our parents, and ourselves. We use it to 

20 keep our babies safe. If the smog standard is weak, 

21 as it currently stands, the air quality alert system 
222

1 can tell us that it's safe to send our kids outside to 

2 play when it's not. We deserve to know the truth 

3 about whether the air is safe to breathe. 

4 Smog levels at 65 parts per billion can harm 

5 some of the most vulnerable among us -- potentially 

6 people like me and my children. That's what the 

7 independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Panel said 

8 to your Agency, based on their thorough and expert 

9 review of the science. Our national standard needs to 

10 reflect that determination. 

11 We know that breathing smog triggers asthma 

12 attacks, interferes with lung development, increases 

13 lung infections, increases hospital visits, and is 

14 associated with premature death from cardiovascular 

15 and respiratory causes. Breathing smog gets in the 

16 way of the tiniest lungs developing properly, 

17 exacerbates the national childhood asthma epidemic, 

18 and causes the elderly pain, suffering, and even 

19 death. 

20 Right now, EPA has the opportunity to 

21 protect millions of Americans from dirty air and 
223

1 unnecessary illness. According to EPA's own analysis, 

2 strengthening the smog standard to 60 parts per 

3 billion would confer profound health benefits to 

4 Americans. At this level of protection, EPA estimates 

5 7,900 fewer deaths, 1.8 million fewer asthma attacks 

6 in children, and 9.2 million fewer restricted 

7 activities or lost school days each year. The 

8 monetized benefits of this level of protection in 2025 

9 would be upwards of $37 billion. 

10 The science is clear: research shows that 

11 setting the allowable level of smog at 60 parts per 

12 billion would provide the strongest public health 

13 protections for American families. New, stronger 

14 standards for smog pollution will help millions of 

15 Americans with asthma and other respiratory ailments, 

16 like myself and my daughter, breathe without fear. 

17 Thank you so much for the opportunity to 

18 testify. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Your next 

20 speakers are Ms. Lorraine Gershman and Matthew 

21 Gravatt. 
224

1 MS. GERSHMAN: Good afternoon. My name is 

2 Lorraine Gershman, and my statement is on behalf of 

3 the American Chemistry Council. ACC represents so 

4 many companies engaged in the business of chemistry. 

5 The applied science of chemistry create products and 

6 services that make people live better, healthier, and 

7 safer. 

8 The U.S. chemical industry is the key 

9 element in the economy, providing hundreds of 

10 thousands of skilled good paying jobs across the 

11 country, as a leader in exports, investments, and 

12 research and development. ACC member company being a 

13 wide range of solutions, such as plastics and 

14 installation bars which help save energy in vehicles, 

15 homes, and businesses. The energy savings that goes 

16 to lower emissions, greenhouse gases, and ozone 

17 vapors, such as NOx. 

18 We are here today to voice our opposition to 

19 EPA's proposal to lower the ozone NAAQS. ACC will be 

20 using appropriate NERA science. We do not believe 

21 scientific evidence towards lowering the standard. 
225

1 EPA's existing ozone standard at 75 parts per billion 

2 will be taken to provide adequate protection of the 

3 whole column. 

4 Moreover, there are numerous questions about 

5 the science being used to justify a lower standard. 

6 Some recent health sites are being inconsistent or in 

7 looking bias, while others reanalysis of previous 

8 letters are OI, outdated information. 

9 The nations air quality has significantly 

10 improved. According to EPA, total emissions of the 

11 air pollutants fell by 62 percent from 1988 to 2013. 

12 Voluntary regulatory emission reduction programs, 

13 including a cleaner fuel and utility regulations, will 

14 continue to yield benefits for decades to come. 

15 ACC members understand the value of the 

16 importance of clean air, and we support protecting the 

17 public health and the environment. Our committee is 

18 reflected in our significant and continued progress in 

19 reducing emissions. 

20 Since 1990, ACC member companies has a 

21 broader business of chemistry, have reduced nitrogen 
226

1 oxide by 70 percent, sulfur dioxide by 88 percent, 

2 volatile organic compound by 87 percent, and 

3 particulate matter at 65 percent. These results are 

4 due to a combination of voluntary regulatory company 

5 emissions, such as responsive air and regulatory 

6 requirements. 

7 American industry is undergoing a historic 

8 expansion, more than $137 million in new chemical 

9 emission investments, standard on the way. Thanks to 

10 Planecone (phonetic) herbal supplies and natural gas. 

11 These 220 products, new plants, expansions, and 

12 factory new trucks could create instant work, more 

13 than 700,000 jobs in the next 10 years, along with an 

14 increased GDP, tax revenue, and access to innovative 

15 new products, a lower ozone standard in key 

16 manufacture and growth in many areas of the country. 

17 EPA's proposal to lower the ozone standard will result 

18 in much of the U.S. being unable to meet the lower 

19 NAAQS. 

20 Currently, 222 counties around the 

21 population of over 120 million people are classified 
227

1 in IT metrics of 75 part per billion standard. If the 

2 EPA revises this standard to a lower at the proposed 

3 range, we estimate that more that 2,000 families, 

4 urban and rural, would be in non-attainment based on 

5 modeling and current marginal data. 

6 Communities designated non-attainment have a 

7 hard time of attracting a team industry and seeing 

8 economic activity and growth. Manufacture and growth 

9 would slow or stop and cease. They find themselves as 

10 non-attaining, as industry will gain a non-attaining 

11 area, face increased operating loss, permanent delays, 

12 and restriction on building or expanding facilities. 

13 New facilities and expansion in 

14 non-attaining areas cannot proceed until emissions are 

15 set. Options are not always readily available and 

16 increasing price has become scarce. For example, 

17 offset prices in peaks and gaps in Missouri, a 

18 non-attaining area, for more than $200,000 per time 

19 pronounced and $300,000 for time to be at cease. 

20 Offset prices in Southern California non-attaining 

21 area are approaching $125,000 for time amounts. Even 
228

1 facilities that are non-attained experience the 

2 burdens of operating in a non-attaining area. 

3 For example, in a Houston non-attaining 

4 area, it just seems looking at your subject 

5 conditional controls under the Highway Act of the FC 

6 rule. And Bashibian (phonetic) set the boiler 

7 exacting powers, plus this all caused the SCR to move 

8 out first. Non-attaining area may also include 

9 federal highway and transit funding as federal 

10 projects are super on the state implementation plans 

11 in order to proceed. Furthermore, the study is 

12 looking in how you designate it as a severe or true 

13 NOx-ide (phonetic) with a significant Section number 5 

14 we use for emissions in the area, even though there 

15 may be facilities that already spend many millions of 

16 dollars on emission reduction technologies. 

17 In conclusion, the prior ozone standard of 

18 75 parts per billion is the most stringent ever and 

19 has not yet implemented -- fully implemented across 

20 the United States. 

21 EPA and the states should focus on fully 
229

1 implementing and attain the existing standard before 

2 contemplating a lower standard. As the science 

3 further develops, EPA will have an opportunity to 

4 determine whether any additional action might be 

5 warranted. Thank you. 

6 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Gravatt. 

7 MR. GRAVATT: Good afternoon. I wanted to 

8 start by thanking the EPA and today's panel for 

9 allowing the public the opportunity to comment and 

10 testify on such a vitally important issue. 

11 My name is Matthew Gravatt, and I'm a 

12 graduate and communications strategist that lives here 

13 in beautiful Washington, D.C., and I'm here today on 

14 behalf of the DC Chapter of the Sierra Club for which 

15 I am the vice chair. 

16 I'm sure that the panel is aware that 

17 communities all across the United States, and 

18 including right here in Washington, D.C., are facing 

19 serious and detrimental human and environmental 

20 effects of smog pollution. 

21 We need a solution to make certain 
230

1 communities are protected by robust and common sense 

2 air quality standards that mitigate exposure to 

3 dangerous and unhealthy pollution and ensure that 

4 every American, young and old alike, might go outside 

5 without fear of jeopardizing their health and their 

6 ability to breathe. 

7 The EPA's proposed modifications to air 

8 quality standards concerning ground-level ozone, or 

9 smog, have the opportunity to do precisely that. I 

10 urge this panel, and the EPA to pursue strong 

11 standards that set smog limits at or below 60 parts 

12 per billion. 

13 I wanted to take a brief moment to address a 

14 few key points. 

15 First is the smog pollution has a severe 

16 effect on human health, particularly affecting young 

17 children and seniors. Children are at the greatest 

18 health risk from air pollution because they are more 

19 likely to be active outdoors and their lungs are still 

20 developing. 

21 Right now, asthma affects nearly one in 10 
231

1 school children in the United States and is the number 

2 one health issue that causes kids to miss school. On 

3 "bad-air" days or "air alert" days, particularly 

4 during the warmer months, kids with asthma are forced 

5 to stay indoors to avoid aggravating their condition. 

6 And smog pollution also disproportionately 

7 affects communities of color. A 2011 analysis of U.S. 

8 populations and air quality found that African 

9 Americans and Latinos were more likely to live in 

10 counties that had worse problems with particulate 

11 pollution. African Americans, particularly children, 

12 have asthma at a rate nearly two times that of white 

13 children, and are four times as likely to die from 

14 asthma. This is an unsettling and unacceptable 

15 statistic. 

16 According to the American Lung Association, 

17 ALA, inhaling smog pollution is like getting a sunburn 

18 on your lungs and often results in immediate breathing 

19 trouble. Long-term exposure to smog pollution is 

20 linked to chronic asthma and other respiratory and 

21 lung diseases, reproductive and developmental harm, 
232

1 and even premature death. Further research by the 

2 American Lung Association suggests that nearly half of 

3 all Americans live in areas where the air is unsafe to 

4 breathe. 

5 Research into smog and greenhouse gas 

6 emission reduction by the EPA and others has shown by 

7 reducing disruptive pollution, the U.S. could avoid up 

8 to 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 acute asthma 

9 attacks in children, 3,000 heart attacks, 2,800 

10 hospital admissions, and 490,000 missed days of school 

11 and work days -- all by 2030. 

12 In light of all this information about the 

13 negative externalities and destructive power of smog 

14 pollution, the single most important fact remains that 

15 reducing smog pollution can, and should, be a priority 

16 for the EPA, and for all Americans. 

17 Clearly, the nation is in desperate need of 

18 a common-sense solution to the public health concerns 

19 brought about by high ground-level ozone levels and 

20 the detrimental effects this pollution has on our 

21 economy and our community. 
233

1 This is why it is imperative the EPA 

2 exercise its authority to set smog limits at the 

3 lowest possible concentration. I add my voice to the 

4 numerous public health organizations and medical 

5 associations, as well as to the countless thousands of 

6 Americans who are struggling to breathe clean air. We 

7 deserve clean air quality standards that protect and 

8 preserve health. 

9 I urge the EPA to set ground-level ozone 

10 standards at 60 parts per billion. 

11 In conclusion: Members of the panel, 

12 concrete steps to improve air quality are long overdue 

13 and vitally important, and must be implemented 

14 nationwide and without further delay. 

15 This Agency, with its stated mission to 

16 "protect human health and the environment," has a 

17 moral obligation to address this public health issue, 

18 now and for future generations of Americans that live, 

19 work, and play here in Washington, D.C. and all across 

20 our nation. 

21 New standards to limit smog pollution are 
234

1 not only the right course of action, they are the only 

2 course of action. Strong standards will ensure every 

3 person has clean air to breathe, that children can 

4 play outside and go to school without fear of an 

5 asthma attack; that every community, regardless of 

6 race or socioeconomic status, must not live in the 

7 shadow of pollution and the ill-effects of smog and 

8 other noxious pollutants on environmental and public 

9 health. 

10 We can do something. And we must do 

11 something. And the time to act is now. 

12 I applaud and support the EPA's efforts and 

13 intent to establish strong national limits on smog 

14 pollution. And I thank you for your leadership and 

15 action on this important issue. 

16 MR. SILVERMAN: In the rear of your comments 

17 where you address the science, please make sure you 

18 address all the comments of the case back there on the 

19 data sciences. 

20 MS. SASSER: John Noel and Joshua Berman. 

21 Mr. Noel. 
235

1 MR. NOEL: Good afternoon. My name is John 

2 Noel. I'm the National Oil and Gas Campaigns 

3 Coordinator with Clean Water Action. Also, I used to 

4 work at the EPA. Clean Water Action is a one million 

5 organization of diverse people and groups joined 

6 together to protect our environment, health, economic 

7 well-being and community quality of life. 

8 First, I want to recognize EPA's courageous 

9 efforts to address the threat that smog pollution 

10 poses for all of us in this room and especially our 

11 nation's young. Tackling this crippling form of power 

12 plant pollution, in which the impacts are 

13 disproportionately felt in communities of color, 

14 deserves support by all stakeholders. 

15 Clean Water Action strongly supports EPA's 

16 pollution reduction plan and urges the Agency to set 

17 the smog protections at 60 parts per billion to 

18 provide the greatest protections for public health 

19 possible under federal law. Impacted communities and 

20 the most vulnerable of our populations, including the 

21 elderly and young children deserve nothing less. 
236

1 According to the American Lung Association, 

2 inhaling smog pollution is like getting a sunburn on 

3 your lungs and often results in immediate breathing 

4 trouble. Long-term exposure to smog pollution is 

5 linked to chronic asthma and other respiratory and 

6 lung diseases, reproductive and developmental harm, 

7 and even premature death. 

8 Children are at the greatest health risk 

9 from air pollution because they are more likely to be 

10 active outdoors and their lungs are still developing. 

11 Asthma strikes nearly one out of 10 school children in 

12 the United States and is the number one health issue 

13 that causes kids to miss school. 

14 Further, smog pollution from power plants 

15 disproportionately affects communities of color. A 

16 2011 analysis of U.S. populations and air quality 

17 found that African Americans and Latino were more 

18 likely to live in counties that had worse problems 

19 with particle pollution. African Americans were also 

20 more likely to live in counties with worse smog 

21 pollution, have nearly two times the rate of current 
237

1 asthma as white children, and are four times as likely 

2 to die from it. 

3 According to the EPA's own analysis, 60 

4 parts per billion standard would prevent roughly 

5 1.8 million asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed school 

6 days, 6,400 premature deaths. New, stronger standards 

7 for smog pollution will clean up our air and reduce 

8 pollution-related illness; millions of Americans with 

9 asthma and other respiratory ailments will breathe 

10 easier. A healthy and sustainable future is what we 

11 all deserve. 

12 The American Lung Association, American 

13 Public Health Association, and the American Thoracic 

14 Society have all joined the call for reforming the 

15 standards, while the other side has failed to produce 

16 any health studies or data contradicting the 

17 scientific consensus on the need for stronger smog 

18 standards. A small portion of power plant operators 

19 and trade associations, profiting off outdated health 

20 standards, should not get a pollution pass in 2015, 

21 especially with the mountain of evidence supporting 
238

1 the health benefits of these reforms. 

2 Let these opposition voices fade into 

3 irrelevance as the rest of America faces the challenge 

4 head on and continues to work for just transition 

5 towards a healthy future for everyone. 

6 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

7 Mr. Berman. 

8 MR. BERMAN: Thank you. Thank you for the 

9 opportunity to provide comments on EPA's proposed 

10 admission to the ozone standards. 

11 My name is Joshua Berman, and I'm the staff 

12 attorney for the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C. I 

13 have secondary similar points. 

14 The first national promise. The NAAQS must 

15 be set at a level that ensures that public health will 

16 be protected without looking for members of the public 

17 to remain indoors in order to protect their lungs. 

18 The Clean Air Act promises that where air quality is 

19 contained in the NAAQS, anyone can go outside whenever 

20 they want and the air will be safe for them to 

21 breathe. This promise applies to not only healthy 
239

1 adults, but also to sensitive populations such as 

2 children and asthmatics. 

3 EPA's proposed reliance on risk exposure 

4 assessments to include that if you set the NAAQS above 

5 the truly health protected level on the theory that 

6 many people spend the majority of their days indoors 

7 will become awful and deeply problematic. 

8 As an initial matter, the ability to be 

9 outdoors is not an option for all people, especially 

10 those whose work -- by working outdoors all day. The 

11 work adversity will enhance or effect the current 

12 behavior as a justification for setting a less 

13 protected NAAQS, discourages the very types of health 

14 of a perfect society that EPA should be encouraging 

15 that the Clean Air Act promises us and that our sense 

16 of critical jeopardy in this country today. 

17 The NAAQS should be set at a level that 

18 encourages rather than discourages our children to 

19 play outdoors. EPA must set the standard at a level 

20 that protect all the poor people, especially if they 

21 spend their time outdoors. The scientific evidence is 
240

1 unequivocal that it starts with 60 parts per billion. 

2 Second, EPA cannot set the level of the 

3 NAAQS with information from the form. This proposal 

4 EPA treats for some poor elements of the NAAQS 

5 performed at the line indicator level as distinct 

6 considerations so the obvious is dependent on. But in 

7 reality you at least recommended your plan. 

8 New team analysis requires to recognize a 

9 standard that is based on the fourth-highest daily 

10 maximum average over 10 years, allows for multiple 

11 exposure at a level allowable standard each year 

12 without considering any new year requirements for the 

13 Clean Air Act. 

14 The same thing EPA first came to acknowledge 

15 in the proposal that I quote, Even single occurrences 

16 seem problematic than something more particularly for 

17 the 70 to 80 ppb benchmarks, and that two or more lung 

18 function decrements, at least 10 percent next highest 

19 for people with lung disease. Decrements demonstrated 

20 to occur even in healthy individual from the chambers 

21 at 60 parts per billion represented adverse health 
241

1 impact. 

2 Given the current ozone NAAQS, a standard 

3 between 65 and 70 parts per billion will be wholly 

4 inadequate to prevent individual for even multiple 

5 exposures at 70 parts per billion requirement. Let 

6 alone at multiple exposures above 60 parts per 

7 billion. 

8 With all due respect, when you gave the 

9 analysis that you mentioned a moment ago, you gave 75 

10 fair game. Per review of the actual air monitor gauge 

11 that was set for the statistical areas presently 

12 attained a standard of 65 parts per billion on 

13 numerous days, as a single copier, with the elements 

14 on supposed concentrations above 70 part per billion, 

15 even above 80 parts per billion. These have no 

16 consequences -- there are consequences to clean up the 

17 air in these areas under EPA proposal level of 65. 

18 When you choose to change the performance, it's proven 

19 the standard must be set no higher than 60 parts per 

20 billion. 

21 Finally, I'd just like to close on a 
242

1 personal note. I recently became a father, and 

2 raising a child in the Brooklyn environment, there are 

3 too many areas -- air quality issues that are 

4 affecting my son's developing lungs. I'd like my 

5 child to be able to experience and enjoy the outdoors. 

6 It's the greatest out sport. But in order to do so 

7 safely, I submit a further to permit decent air 

8 quality is needed. 

9 With EPA's compliance to establish a truly 

10 healthier helpful NAAQS, and particularly if it gets 

11 set to the maximum level of 70 part per billion, there 

12 will be a need to pretend to clean up this city's air. 

13 I urge you to set the NAAQS for the common welfare of 

14 making a cleaner country for all Americans. 

15 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

16 Our next two speakers this afternoon will be 

17 Ronnie Citron-Fink and Richard Reis -- Reis. 

18 MR. REIS: Reis. 

19 MS. SASSER: Reis. Ms. Ronnie Citron-Fink. 

20 MS. CITRON-FINK: Good afternoon. My name 

21 is Ronnie Citron-Fink. I traveled from New York to 
243

1 speak as a mom, a teacher, and a representative for 

2 Moms Clean Air Force, a community of over 400,000 

3 parents who believe the children are the biggest 

4 stakeholders in the fight for clean air. 

5 I met many, many parents, and 

6 overwhelmingly, I hear a resounding, "Nobody wants 

7 sick kids who can't breathe." 

8 When we started Moms Clean Air Force almost 

9 four years ago, I felt similar -- I would do anything 

10 to keep my family healthy. Since then, I have delved 

11 deep into stacks and stacks of clean air reports, 

12 regulations, and cost analysis associated with 

13 childhood asthma, lung disease, cancer, infant 

14 mortality. And I've kept a close eye on the insane 

15 politics of those who seek to block clean air progress 

16 by putting powerful industry over people. 

17 It was almost enough to leave me paralyzed 

18 with parental fear. 

19 But knowing that our children are the 

20 human-toll of air pollution, I couldn't ignore the 

21 science. Paul Billings, a senior vice president of 
244

1 the American Lung Association says, "Ozone is the most 

2 pervasive and widespread pollutant in the country," 

3 and William Becker, Executive Director of the National 

4 Association of Clean Air Agencies add, "Ozone is not 

5 only killing people, but causing tens of millions of 

6 people to get sick every day." 

7 So what's a parent to do? 

8 We look to our leaders in Washington to do 

9 what's right because, well, frankly, nobody wants sick 

10 kids who can't breathe. And when nearly one and every 

11 10 school children in our country has asthma, we have 

12 a serious breathing problem. On the EPA website it 

13 states, "Children are at greatest risk from exposure 

14 to ozone because their lungs are still developing and 

15 they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone 

16 levels are high, which increases their exposure." 

17 Not only does smog contribute heavily to 

18 asthma and respiratory illnesses, hundreds of 

19 thousands of otherwise avoidable hospitalizations and 

20 emergency room visits could be eliminated with a 

21 stronger ozone regulation. This could save parents 
245

1 from taking time off from work, which in turn, saves 

2 money...and most importantly, peace of mind...because 

3 no parent wants to see their child gasping for 

4 life-sustaining clean air. 

5 The proposed new standard would reduce the 

6 level of allowable ozone in the atmosphere from the 

7 current 75 parts per billion -- a weak standard put in 

8 place since 2008 -- to a range of 65 to 70 parts per 

9 billion. It is critical that the EPA move forward and 

10 set the smog standard at 60 parts per billion -- which 

11 is more stringent than the proposed standard. 

12 Please take the burden of getting sick from 

13 smog pollution off our kids' backs and put it where it 

14 belongs -- on the industries that profit by polluting 

15 America's citizens. 

16 Let's set an example to the rest of the 

17 world that we value and protect what's most 

18 important -- our precious children. 

19 Why? Because nobody wants sick kids who 

20 can't breathe. 

21 Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 
246

1 MS. SASSER: Thank you. 

2 MR. REIS: Hello. My name is Richard Reis. 

3 In my testimony today, I don't represent the Sierra 

4 Club or many other environmental organizations, 

5 although these organizations count me as a supporter, 

6 activist, and member. I also work as a professional 

7 engineer on energy conservation and alternative 

8 energy. This background gives me some insight into 

9 both the technical feasibility and the environmental 

10 and public health benefits of reducing energy use, 

11 which in turn reduces pollution. 

12 Electrical energy generation still comes 

13 primarily from burning fossil fuels, especially coal 

14 and natural gas. Generating facilities that rely on 

15 these fuels are the principal sources of air pollution 

16 in our country, but especially in cities. During the 

17 summer months when the air conditioning load is the 

18 highest, these facilities work even harder emitting 

19 more nitrogen oxides that the sun's strong summer rays 

20 convert to ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary 

21 risk factor for asthma and other diseases. In fact, 
247

1 an August 2013 study from the Massachusetts Institute 

2 of Technology found that air pollution cause 200,000 

3 early deaths in the U.S. alone. 

4 My testimony focuses on the good news that 

5 we can greatly reduce this pollution and it will 

6 actually save us money. 

7 I'm going to summarize what I have here. 

8 We can curtail smog precursors by: 

9 Employing better technology on existing and future 

10 fossil fuel fired generating stations, such as 

11 selective catalytic reduction, although this would not 

12 address climate change; increasing the supply of 

13 alternative energy would address climate change; and 

14 employing more conservation and efficiency would 

15 decrease our need for any energy thereby lowering both 

16 costs and pollution. 

17 The EPA should use economic persuasion or 

18 regulations to reduce air pollution from power plants. 

19 If this affects electric rates, consumers would have 

20 more incentive to lower their bills by reducing energy 

21 use through LED lamps and other technologies. 
248

1 Businesses have an even wider array of energy-saving 

2 opportunities. And I'll just cite three: The Empire 

3 State Building reduced its energy use by 38 percent 

4 while actually increasing the population within the 

5 building. An auto shop reduced their energy use by 

6 40 percent. The Maryland Sierra Club reduced our 

7 energy use for light by 75 percent recently, and we 

8 improved our lighting quality. 

9 The other major sources of disease-causing 

10 pollution are from mobile sources, cars and trucks. 

11 And here, we need to think about other ways of 

12 transportation other than driving, such as walking, 

13 bicycling, and using transit. 

14 Reducing fossil fuel use, other benefits, 

15 which I won't go into in my statement. But I do want 

16 to say on a very personal note I recently became a 

17 grandfather, and I have a granddaughter in New York 

18 City and a grandson in Baltimore, and passionately we 

19 want to see them grow up healthy and grow up with 

20 clean air. 

21 I urge you to set smog standards as low as 
249

1 possible and consistent with the recommendations of 

2 public health experts at 60 parts per billion. Thanks 

3 for your attention. 

4 MS. SASSER: Thank you. 

5 MS. CITRON-FINK: Ms. Sasser, can I give you 

6 something that as humble leaders of Moms Clean Air 

7 Force, we put this together for parents? 

8 Thank you. 

9 MS. SASSER: And being consciously reminded 

10 many of you traveled great distances to be here with 

11 us today and we appreciate making the effort to come 

12 in and give us your comments. It's very, very helpful 

13 to us. 

14 Okay. Our next two speakers this 

15 afternoon -- 

16 All right. I do want to note we will be 

17 making a change in new panel members. Mr. Silverman 

18 will be leaving us shortly to replace Melina Williams. 

19 We will do that with the least disruption possible. I 

20 just wanted to let you know that. 

21 Our next two speakers are Chris Yeager -- 
250

1 I'm being distracted -- Mr. Yeager and Stephanie 

2 Madden. 

3 MR. YEAGER: Yeah. My name is Chris Yeager. 

4 I live just across the river in Arlington-Falls Church 

5 area. I might start by saying that my daughter when 

6 she was about two and had not been very healthy, after 

7 that point, we were not sure why. 

8 Well, I ended up suddenly spending four days 

9 in a roll at the hospital in Arlington, for me 

10 spending a lot of those 24 hours with her when she had 

11 a severe asthma attack. We had no idea why she wasn't 

12 in good shape until then. But thereafter for years, 

13 I'd grab the Nebulizer at night and sometimes before 

14 or after school, and so I'm acutely aware of the 

15 asthma problem. 

16 I might mention that 35 years ago, I was an 

17 activist against the construction of nuclear power 

18 because of the cost of nuclear power, which was so 

19 underwritten by the government that it wasn't easily 

20 noticed what the honest cost was. But we discovered 

21 that by simply weatherizing American homes and 
251

1 beginning to develop wind directives, because some of 

2 them was very expensive in those days, that we could 

3 make as much difference as building new power plants. 

4 Well, the power plants got built, a lot of 

5 America has not weatherized yet, and we are only 

6 really beginning to consider wind. And potential and 

7 on the Blue Ridge, so we don't need to use combustive 

8 materials especially coal. We know that here in 

9 Washington a lot of our electricity comes from out in 

10 West Virginia or Ohio and so maybe it's reasonable 

11 that there's smog limits over here because we got 

12 their electricity. We've got their pollutants as 

13 well. But we can eliminate that. We can move -- in 

14 Germany to move -- after the run. And then I need 70 

15 to 80 currently moving heavily through nuclear power. 

16 And after the machine levels are set by the minute, 

17 this is potential life -- and we're going to get rid 

18 of the thing -- shut most of it down, maybe all of it 

19 down and they focus -- even strictly on solar and wind 

20 mostly and they have some days they generate more than 

21 half of their nation's requirements, electricity just 
252

1 with their clean energy. 

2 So we can do this and we can shut down the 

3 coal plants west from here as quickly as we can build 

4 the facilities to generate it naturally. And we 

5 haven't even talked about the title in some areas, I 

6 guess it's near Maine. The title is actually theirs. 

7 The other thing is I wanted to say when I 

8 came up to my 25th reunion at my college, I joined 

9 with some other people, pretty much pulled it together 

10 myself to issue a challenge to the rest of the class 

11 to put pressure on the university. And early in the 

12 year, they started offering joint degree in 

13 environment and virtually any other subject for joint 

14 degree. And I will say that if America did the job in 

15 education that -- tiny bit as much as for mediation 

16 for our dirty power, we could move forward into a 

17 clean future. 

18 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

19 Just before you begin, Melina Williams is 

20 going to join our panel, then Mr. Silverman is going 

21 to start, as a general note. 
253

1 Ms. Madden. 

2 MS. MADDEN: Good afternoon. I'm so honored 

3 to be here, and I'm just thrilled we're all assembled. 

4 I'd just wanted to share some good news, some bad 

5 news, and then try to bring some more good news. So 

6 that's just an outlet. 

7 The good news -- just before I even get into 

8 that, my name is Stephanie Madden. I'm a real estate 

9 counsel for Earthjustice here in D.C., and I work 

10 exclusively on panel issues. But today I'm going to 

11 be here in my sole capacity sharing my testimony. 

12 And the good news is that you've heard from 

13 some of the other witnesses today. The trend would be 

14 like living your life and seeing reductions in the 

15 smog pollution, and that's something, of course, the 

16 Agency should be proud of. 

17 Another thing that's really good news is 

18 that, you know, we're all hyper on the clean air 

19 standards have been finalized in the recent year that 

20 will do great work to helping areas come to 

21 attainment. So in the future we had -- the record of 
254

1 the toxic standard, which is something that's a very 

2 big deal, of course they're crossing every pollution 

3 standard. And, of course, the chair bringing up the 

4 real standards. So they're all being set. We want to 

5 remind you. Great. It's done and it's -- and 

6 reducing smoke smog precursors. 

7 And another little piece of good and we're 

8 all going to hear is that you guys decided, proposed 

9 to lower the smog limits. So that's something that we 

10 can all agree on; going down, so we all may go, Just 

11 how low? Is it worth putting the insight in? 

12 So for me, some of the bad news that is 

13 hidden between the lines of some of the good news is 

14 that though they find out what really causes a trend 

15 in the reduction of smog pollution, it's going to be 

16 experienced even across the United States. I think 

17 that's something we can all say it's something we want 

18 to improve upon. 

19 So while some of the folks said I'm giving 

20 testimony today have said, Well, the trends look 

21 great; we don't need to do any more. One of the 
255

1 elements of the real assessment, it varied, Mr. Keith 

2 (phonetic) said and moaned, on today's efforts. We're 

3 also promoting all the efforts in the past that led 

4 themselves to government trends and they became 

5 responsive. So I think we have to acknowledge that 

6 there's always going to be oppositions to cleaning up 

7 the air, and so you contribute it to that's already a 

8 downward trend. But because this is nonemotionally 

9 the standard, the scientific case standard, we want to 

10 urge your team led by Suttelson (phonetic), team led 

11 by Dana (phonetic). 

12 Another piece of bad news is that even 

13 though we have a proposal between 65 and 70 parts per 

14 billion, there's also lower than the existing standard 

15 of 75, it still do not -- matching up with the group 

16 of full and compelling, and we're willing to have that 

17 same chair with the clean -- cleared chair, probably 

18 thinking of special advisory council with EPA. 

19 We're mostly saying that the range of 60 to 

20 70 parts per billion would be more, and then we should 

21 really insist on adopting a standard closer to 60. 
256

1 We've heard that many times today. But it's not too 

2 often that you got unanimous decisions that appear not 

3 once, not twice, not three, but four times. And you 

4 really need to listen to the recommendations from each 

5 side. 

6 And one of the last things I'm going to 

7 leave you with, and just so give you a little personal 

8 about me, I'm from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I live 

9 in Baltimore and I work in D.C. So I've worked and 

10 lived in non-attaining areas. And as I've lived and 

11 worked in these two areas, I realized that sometimes 

12 when -- to me it's considered -- well, obviously 

13 really a choice of life. I've always had to wonder if 

14 you can go outside for a weekend, entertain -- a 

15 certain activity. 

16 It's becoming normalized for certain parts 

17 of our population. There are people I can be sure to 

18 go to, seeing them acres away, but they're great. Gas 

19 seems so offensively, I don't mean to -- you, know, to 

20 breathe. And I think that's what's really driving me 

21 personally and beginning to become my professional 
257

1 capacity to -- certain things should be normal. It 

2 should be normal, sure, to breathe. 

3 And as we purpose of -- of what is this day? 

4 We see grandparents in the room and even parents. I'm 

5 a new parent of an eight-month-old son. I enjoy him, 

6 but I'm not use to, like -- and he's very cute. I 

7 didn't bring him today. I'm being smart here. 

8 But I want to thank the students for 

9 comments about how you do not have asthma -- we love 

10 where you're at now. Look up a ways farther, you'll 

11 find something that helping us will help the children 

12 and that's representing some stats. The reason why 

13 you're doing it is unclear. But that's something you 

14 wonder about when all that -- when you're living in an 

15 area that smog is in the air. I just soon forgot 

16 that. And that's certainly that -- though you might 

17 know what caused it and you know what causes triggers, 

18 you should endeavor that's an environment for 

19 protection inducing to develop and lower the standards 

20 that indeed protective of the general public and human 

21 health. So I commend you for the time that you shared 
258

1 with us today, to listen to our concerns today. 

2 I greatly urge you to adopt a standard at 60 

3 parts per billion. Thank you so much. 

4 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Next two speakers 

5 are John Powell and Earle Mitchell. 

6 Mr. Powell. 

7 MR. POWELL: Good afternoon. My name is 

8 John Powell. I'm a father, husband, son, and resident 

9 of South Carolina, and I'm representing citizens of 

10 the state. I'm here to speak about the new proposed 

11 air quality standard of 60 parts per billion. 

12 Twelve months ago, I received the 

13 unthinkable news from my doctor, a Stage 4 Lung Cancer 

14 diagnosis. All my life, I've been health-conscious, 

15 fit, and a nonsmoker. 

16 My doctors told me I had 9 to 12 months to 

17 live. He admitted me to the hospital and started 

18 systematic intravenous chemotherapy in hopes that my 

19 breathing would improve short term. After returning 

20 home, two days later I was bound to a wheelchair and 

21 lots of pain medication. We considered hospice. 
259

1 Four weeks later, my doctor called me to 

2 inform me of a potential drug that would help, a drug 

3 that could potentially prolong my life for a couple of 

4 years until new clinical trials arrive. 

5 I wanted to live, just having married the 

6 woman of my dreams and adopting her six-year-old son. 

7 Doctors informed me there was no cure for Stage 4 Lung 

8 Cancer and that there is a DNA mutation present in my 

9 damaged lung tissue. 

10 Lung disease has been with me all my life. 

11 I grew up with chronic asthma condition in my youth. 

12 It was difficult playing sports as my breathing was 

13 impaired. And in seventh grade, I did not make the 

14 school's soccer team. I just wanted to be a normal 

15 kid who could play ball with my friends. There was a 

16 lot of self-blame and a feeling of bad -- just luck -- 

17 bad luck in my adolescence and early adult life. As 

18 someone who loves the outdoors; camping, sports, 

19 asthma restricted these activities. 

20 Growing up in the Southern Appalachian 

21 Mountains, air pollution is a huge problem. In South 
260

1 Carolina one of them, there are over 85,000 adults 

2 living with asthma and over 27,500 children with 

3 chronic asthma. I pose the question what happens to 

4 those children when they grow up? 

5 There's not a cure for asthma, neither is 

6 there a cure for lung cancer. Researchers have found 

7 impaired ventilation lung function are positively 

8 associated with the occurrence of lung cancer. Once 

9 developing lungs in children are damaged, lung disease 

10 is present or at high risk throughout their life. 

11 Statistically, lung cancer has the highest 

12 mortality rate in people with breast, prostate, colon, 

13 liver, kidney, and melanoma cancers combined. The 

14 five-year survival rate for Stage 4 Lung Cancer is 

15 less than 5 percent. Over 224,000 people in the U.S. 

16 will be diagnosed with lung cancer in 2015. Nearly 

17 160,000 will die this year. Nearly 60 percent of lung 

18 cancers are diagnosed in people who never smoked or 

19 people that quit decades ago. 

20 In African Americans, it is 32 times higher 

21 to get lung cancer than Caucasians, even though 
261

1 smoking rates have dropped significantly in decades. 

2 Meanwhile many urban areas in the South air quality 

3 rates are high and above the level considered healthy, 

4 60 parts per billion for ozone air pollution. This 

5 year there will be twice as many women who die of lung 

6 cancer than breast cancer in the U.S. 

7 I want to point out anyone in this room can 

8 develop asthma at any time. Anyone in this room can 

9 get lung cancer. If you have lungs, you can get lung 

10 cancer. I think about this fact every time I tuck my 

11 son into bed at night. And here he is there 

12 (indicating). I want him to have a successful future 

13 who can breathe clean air one day. 

14 And I just want to point out that the drugs 

15 saved my life. It's right here. I take two of these 

16 a day and it blocks the mutation in my lungs, but it's 

17 only temporary. 

18 Ten thousand dollars and lot of hospital 

19 bills. I'm not working now. It's not my choice. But 

20 I do want to point out that the health concerns is 

21 real. I'm a real person. I have children. And I 
262

1 never have had a family history of lung cancer. Thank 

2 you. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

4 Mr. Mitchell. 

5 MR. MITCHELL: Good afternoon. My name is 

6 Earle Mitchell, and I live across the river also in 

7 Springfield, Virginia. 

8 You heard many arguments today from 

9 polluting industries that claim that new and tougher 

10 standards are not needed. They claim that the 

11 government is overreaching its authority and trampling 

12 on industry. During my lifetime, I have witnessed 

13 many examples of companies/industries that look first 

14 to the profit line and secondarily to human welfare; 

15 i.e., toxic waste dumped into the atmosphere, on the 

16 earth's surface into bodies of water. Cheap ways to 

17 get rid of unwanted byproducts. 

18 The standards which we are addressing today 

19 will be opposed by all portions of the fossil fuel 

20 community. The coal producers and electrical 

21 generating companies, that use fossil fuels, will 
263

1 scream "War on Coal." In all fairness, the population 

2 should counter that with cries of "War on Human 

3 Health." 

4 Let's look at some of the low points of the 

5 year 2010 and examine the havoc that the fossil fuel 

6 industry caused in the United States: 

7 San Bruno, California natural gas pipeline 

8 explosion, eight killed. 

9 BP oil drilling explosion and fire in Gulf 

10 of Mexico, 11 killed and millions of gallons of crude 

11 oil released into the water. 

12 West Virginia coal mine explosion, 29 

13 killed. 

14 All three of these could have been avoided 

15 had the corporations followed good safety practices 

16 and performed needed maintenance and not attempted to 

17 bypass sound safety rules. This is merely looking at 

18 three events in one year. 

19 In the first week of this year, 3 million 

20 gallons of toxic waste water, from oil drilling, was 

21 leaked from a North Dakota pipeline. Two creeks have 
264

1 been affected and the full environmental impact may 

2 not be known for months. Some previous spills have 

3 taken years to clean up. This is further proof that 

4 the fossils fuel industry will not adequately police 

5 itself; we need strong government oversight. 

6 It is estimated that 26 million Americans 

7 suffer with asthma. Cutting back on the amount of 

8 harmful ozone will ease their suffering and also 

9 reduce the chance of heart attacks for many. I have 

10 suffered from the bad effects of " Code Red" summer 

11 days which we experience here in the Metropolitan Area 

12 of D.C. Excessive ozone is also harmful to trees and 

13 other plant life. 

14 Ever since the start of the Industrial 

15 Revolution, we have heard cries of the government 

16 stepping in and being a "job killer." The textile 

17 industry thought nothing of working 10-year-old girls 

18 12 hours a day in New England. The coal miners used 

19 12-year-old boys to lead the mules pulling the coal 

20 cars from the mines in Pennsylvania. The government 

21 stepped in and imposed stiffer working conditions for 
265

1 industry. In addition, the government stopped the 

2 mills from dumping waste chemicals and dyes into the 

3 streams next to the cotton and woolen mills. Yes, 

4 these measures cost industry at the bottom line. But 

5 it freed children from near bondage and it cleared 

6 streams for fishing. 

7 If these standards cause some coal plants to 

8 close because they cannot meet the threshold, so be 

9 it. Ever since the start of the Industrial 

10 Revolution, we have seen companies fold and others 

11 take their place. The solar industry is now larger 

12 than coal in the United States and it also grows at a 

13 faster pace than most other industries in the USA. 

14 Solar is now at 143,000 jobs and growing coal. Coal 

15 is at 100,000 and declining. Solar does not emit any 

16 harmful byproducts into our world. 

17 Scientists generally believe that a 60 parts 

18 per billion standard would prevent roughly 1.8 million 

19 asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed school, and 64,000 

20 premature deaths annually. The institution of tougher 

21 ozone standards will be a blessing to mankind. 
266

1 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

2 Our next speakers are Lee Fuller and Susan 

3 Stillman. 

4 Mr. Fuller. 

5 MR. FULLER: Thank you very much. I'm Lee 

6 Fuller. I'm speaking today on behalf of the 

7 Independent Petroleum Association of America. IPAA 

8 represents the thousands of independent oil and 

9 natural gas explorers and producers, as well as the 

10 services and supply industries supporting their 

11 efforts, that will be significantly affected by the 

12 predictable consequences of this proposed regulatory 

13 action. 

14 EPA is proposing a reduction of the National 

15 Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone from its 

16 current level of 75 parts per billion to somewhere in 

17 the range of 65 to 70 ppb. IPAA believes that EPA 

18 should retain the current standard of 75. 

19 While EPA has a responsibility to set an 

20 ozone NAAQS at a level to protect public health, it 

21 should not act in a manner that imposes -- do not 
267

1 impose unnecessary costs on American citizens. EPA's 

2 materials associated with its proposed revision to the 

3 current standard demonstrate that a change is neither 

4 necessary nor appropriate. 

5 First, the quality of EPA's determination of 

6 potential health benefits from a lower standard is 

7 flawed. In 2011, when the EPA proposed a 70 ppb 

8 standard, its media "net benefits" estimate for a 65 

9 ppb standard was only $700 million, with a high 

10 possibility that the costs could outweigh any 

11 benefits. But in 2014, the EPA changed its mind, 

12 claiming net benefits of ozone standard are now as 

13 high as $23 billion -- a 3,100 percent increase in net 

14 benefits for the exact same standard. EPA is arguing 

15 that new scientific research justifies a lower 

16 standard But it says nothing of the 2011 Regulatory 

17 Impact Analysis, much less the scientific studies that 

18 were used to justify its previous claims about 

19 benefits and costs. 

20 Nearly 70 percent of the sources it uses 

21 were published prior to 2011, meaning they were part 
268

1 of the broader scientific understanding of ozone when 

2 EPA determined net benefits from a 65 ppb standard 

3 were essentially zero. However, IPAA believes that 

4 EPA's own materials demonstrate that even these 

5 projected health benefits will not result from the 

6 revised NAAQS proposals. 

7 Second, set against EPA's flawed benefit 

8 analysis is EPA's assessment of technologies that 

9 would be used to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. 

10 EPA has stated in its support documents for its 

11 proposed standard that: 

12 Existing and proposed federal rules...will 

13 help states meet the proposed standards by making 

14 significant strides toward reducing ozone-forming 

15 pollution. EPA projections show the vast majority of 

16 U.S. counties with monitors would meet the proposed 

17 standard by 2025 just with the rules and programs now 

18 in place or under way. 

19 Consequently, these national federal 

20 requirements will essentially protect the overwhelming 

21 number of areas which would be placed in ozone NAAQS 
269

1 non-attainment by a lower standard without any of the 

2 local actions that would be required from such 

3 categorization. 

4 Third, the areas that EPA has determined 

5 will not meet the proposed ambient standard by 2025 

6 are essentially the same areas that have failed to 

7 meet every ozone NAAQS that has been promulgated since 

8 the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. These areas are 

9 already subject to extensive regulations under Part D 

10 of the Act and would be subjected to the same 

11 stringent mobile source requirements and existing new 

12 stationary source regulations under the current 75 ppb 

13 NAAQS as they would be under the proposed standard by 

14 2025. 

15 Fourth, while EPA has not provided an 

16 assessment of the geographical distribution of health 

17 benefits from meeting the ozone NAAQS, it is logical 

18 to conclude that the greatest benefits would occur in 

19 the most populous areas. However, the most populous 

20 areas are the areas that remain in non-attainment 

21 after 2025 and, therefore, the health benefits 
270

1 calculated under the proposed NAAQS would not be 

2 achieved. 

3 Fifth, on the other hand, for the remaining 

4 areas that EPA projects would reach attainment using 

5 only national federal mandates regardless of the 

6 NAAQS, promulgating a lower NAAQS would compel them to 

7 be subject to the requirements of Part D of the Clean 

8 Air Act. These requirements would impose on those 

9 areas emissions controls on new sources, including 

10 offsets, which would be burdensome, cost ineffective 

11 and unnecessary. Similarly, the requirements could 

12 impose on numerous communities the implementation of 

13 costly, burdensome and unnecessary vehicle inspection 

14 and maintenance programs. 

15 Therefore, IPAA believes EPA should retain 

16 the current ozone NAAQS. EPA'S own materials 

17 demonstrate that lowering the existing ozone NAAQS 

18 would only result in excessive regulatory costs with 

19 no new health benefits. Instead, EPA should devote 

20 its attention to developing cost effective control 

21 strategies -- if any exist -- to achieve the current 
271

1 ozone NAAQS in the enduring non-attainment areas 

2 instead of misdirecting important national resources 

3 to other areas where EPA states they are unnecessary. 

4 Thank you. 

5 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Stillman. 

6 MS. STILLMAN: Thank you for having me to 

7 speak today. My name is Susan Stillman. I live in 

8 Vienna, Virginia. 

9 I'm here to speak in support of the 

10 strongest smog standards possible. I understand that 

11 the science says that 60 parts per billion is much 

12 more effective than 70 parts per billion and would 

13 save four to five times as many lives. One of those 

14 lives might be mine. 

15 I'm a cyclist that finds it difficult on hot 

16 summer days to ride in the Washington, D.C. area. I 

17 often have a hard time breathing and I have to stop to 

18 take a break. It's frightening when it happens if I 

19 can't get two lungs full of good air. You feel like 

20 you're going to just keel over. 

21 But I'm out there riding for recreation and 
272

1 exercise and I shouldn't have to curtail my activities 

2 because of pollution. That's not the biggest concern. 

3 The biggest concern is for children that develop 

4 asthma because the smog burns their lungs and people 

5 have no choice but to work outside, because that's how 

6 they earn their living. It's society's obligation to 

7 protect these at risk populations. 

8 I understand that in 2008 the smog pollution 

9 standard could have been made more stringent than the 

10 current 75 parts per billion, but a tighter standard 

11 was rejected. In November 2014, the EPA proposed 

12 lowering the ozone standard between 65 and 70 and 

13 would like comments on a variation of 60 parts per 

14 billion. I'm here to encourage you to adopt that 

15 stringent standard. 

16 I can't imagine how frightening it is for a 

17 child to experience an asthma attack and have to be 

18 rushed to the emergency room. On top of a very scary 

19 experience, there is the cost to the family of the 

20 medical care. I have talked to people who have moved 

21 to this area and developed asthma after relocating and 
273

1 they talk about the allocated funds and how hard it is 

2 for their personal budgets, and this a financial pain. 

3 They're provided with inhalers to mitigate the asthma. 

4 Where some businesses might be saving money by not 

5 having to reduce the smog in the air, others are 

6 paying dearly from their pockets and sometimes with 

7 their lives. 

8 We still have people in this country that 

9 don't have health care, the people who work as 

10 laborers, mowing lawns, construction, etc., are often 

11 in this situation. Their jobs are physically 

12 demanding. They are working outside in all kinds of 

13 weather and particularly in the hottest parts of the 

14 day. Here we have people that are at the greatest 

15 risk, who are the least likely to have the means to 

16 pay for health care. 

17 We as a society are obligated to protect 

18 those who can't protect themselves. By setting the 

19 strongest possible smog standards, we will improve the 

20 health and welfare of many Americans. Please adopt 

21 the 60 parts per billion standard. Thank you. 
274

1 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

2 At this time, I think we are going to take a 

3 break. Is there anyone here before I call a break -- 

4 is there anyone seated who expected to be home who's 

5 registered to speak and I have not called your name? 

6 Okay. Then we will take a break until at 

7 least to -- it's a 15-minute break till about five 

8 after four and we will reconvene at that time. 

9 (Break.) 

10 MS. SASSER: At this time, we're ready to 

11 reconvene the hearing on the National Ambient Air 

12 Quality Standards for Ozone. And I want to remind 

13 speakers about the grounds rules just briefly. 

14 Speakers are called out in pairs of twos to 

15 the table. We ask that you remain there until both 

16 people have had a chance to complete their comments. 

17 We use the timer system which is over here to my right 

18 on the corner. It will stay green the first four 

19 minutes and then turn yellow. When it turns red at 

20 the end of five minutes, then it's time to wrap up 

21 your testimony. 
275

1 And so let me begin by calling the first two 

2 speakers. Melynda Britt and Nicholas Yoon. 

3 I'd like to remind you to speak into the 

4 microphone, and please spell your name so the court 

5 reporter get an accurate spelling. It will be 

6 grateful. 

7 MS. BRITT: Melynda is M-E-L-Y-N-D-A 

8 B-R-I-T-T. 

9 Good afternoon. My name is Melynda Britt, 

10 and thank you for providing the time to allow me to 

11 testify regarding EPA's proposal to lower the 

12 70 standard. 

13 I have more than 20 years experience in 

14 business development and private sector, first in 

15 information technology and the past 10 years with the 

16 textile industry. 

17 Obviously left the corporate sector to 

18 fulfill a dream of owning a small business, and the 

19 business that I have is called the Brownie Shop. But 

20 that's in addition to providing the additional time to 

21 spend with our 4 1/2 year old daughter who is with us 
276

1 today. 

2 As a parent with a small business in 

3 America, it was enriched to hear the President's 

4 comments about our economy in the recent State of the 

5 Union Address, although we're still in a recession, 

6 Northern Virginia, I think, horizon is very helpful. 

7 However, I was dismayed when I heard about 

8 the new proposal to lower the ozone standards from the 

9 current level of 75 parts per billion. I was even 

10 more surprised to hear that Fairfax County, of which I 

11 am resident, is currently not meeting the ozone 

12 standard and however is seeking to lower the standard 

13 even further before we got the opportunity to achieve 

14 the current goal. 

15 I think that obviously with the goals it 

16 makes a great deal of sense. However, it makes sense 

17 only without exceeding -- without exceeding a good 

18 reason and the current situation regarding 

19 implications. I find this is not sound policy and 

20 that's why I appreciate the opportunity that you are 

21 providing the public to give you some input. 
277

1 But the overall purpose to be outdoors, I'm 

2 concerned about air quality. However, I understand 

3 the current 75 parts per billion standards is 

4 protective of health. I do appreciate that even a low 

5 standard to be protective for many individuals, but 

6 maybe you don't have to do so. 

7 What I understand is that it could have a 

8 widespread impact on major cost to power plants, 

9 manufacturers institutionally, they're assigning to 

10 our oil and natural gas industry in order to allow 

11 areas where they're operating to come into attainment. 

12 Having worked in the textile industry for 

13 more than a decade, I can appreciate the number of 

14 regulations, but the trend not to risk the supply and 

15 the cost of doing so. 

16 The most recent textile firm that I worked 

17 with by the name of Maharam -- it's a contract to 

18 install many things -- invested in a considerable 

19 amount on their own to implement progressive 

20 environmental standard and practices. In order to 

21 create essentially an environmental responsible 
278

1 operation. They took deliberate steps to be a nice 

2 little certified -- and I'm not sure -- but model 

3 facilities, reduce their usage of chemical oils and 

4 use the more sensitive environmentally friendly 

5 fibers, and it's a long governing situation with 

6 Maharam. 

7 However, it pains me to think what 

8 additional investments they, environmental 

9 manufacturers, will need to take to help to lower 

10 ozone standards. Because then costs and the economic 

11 burden will trickle down to small businesses and to 

12 consumers such as me, or worse job losses to 

13 thousands. 

14 In Northern Virginia, as I mentioned 

15 previously, we're still hurting and cannot afford any 

16 additional job losses, beyond when they're already 

17 facing the recent and ongoing federal budgets. The 

18 loss of income with the associated loss of health care 

19 benefits can be devastating. 

20 I think that the EPA could consider to leave 

21 the current 75 parts per billion standard in place and 
279

1 to allow areas which are not in compliance, such as 

2 Fairfax County, to meet the current standards or 

3 establish standards. 

4 Our air quality has suffered dramatically 

5 from the past decade. It will continue to do so with 

6 a myriad of other environmental regulations that are 

7 already in place. Please don't move to lower the 

8 ozone, not yet. I'd rather see us achieve the other 

9 goals and continuing to be a strong American economy. 

10 Thank you for allowing me to testify. 

11 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Mr. Yoon. 

12 MR. YOON: Hi. My name is Nicholas Yoon. 

13 N-I-C-H-O-L-A-S Y-O-O-N. I'm a sophomore at Thomas 

14 Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in 

15 Alexandria, Virginia. In college, I would like to 

16 major in either Environmental Education and 

17 Interpretation or in Environmental Studies. I live if 

18 Fairfax County with my parents, my grandparents, and 

19 my seven-year-old sister. 

20 So a lot of you are probably wondering why 

21 I'm here on the last day of the first semester, when 
280

1 schools let out early and my friends are probably 

2 already chilling. I'm here because the issues of smog 

3 and air pollution are important to me, and very 

4 recently a member of my family had a very bad 

5 experience with smog. 

6 Right before Christmas we went to 

7 Philadelphia. One day we were running some errands 

8 and spent most of the day along I-95 in the northern 

9 part of Philadelphia. If you have been to that area, 

10 you know that there are quite a few factories in that 

11 area that produce a lot of pollution. My grandma's 

12 lungs are a little bit weak and she had a hard time 

13 breathing that day. She started coughing a lot and 

14 had to stop frequently from walking. She then 

15 complained that she was getting light-headed. So we 

16 got into the car and left the area. It took her the 

17 rest of the day to finally start breathing normally 

18 and to stop coughing. 

19 I have been interested in environmental 

20 science and studies since the third grade and the 

21 recent incident with my grandmother underscored for me 
281

1 how important maintaining the environment is for 

2 everyone. 

3 In my school's Environmental Impact Club, we 

4 try to raise awareness of environmental issues through 

5 having "Power-Down Days" at TJ or educating elementary 

6 school students about the environment. Smog and air 

7 pollution in general are issues that need to be 

8 addressed now and strict ozone standards should be 

9 enforced as soon as possible. 

10 If the EPA does not take action on clean air 

11 now, my generation will be the first of many to suffer 

12 the consequences. And when my seven-year-old sister 

13 grows up, she won't be able to enjoy the air quality 

14 that we even have now. 

15 With these kind of changes, I feel that it 

16 would take time for it to truly progress and to make a 

17 difference. So I feel on a more personal note that it 

18 will better to make these changes as soon as possible. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Thank you 

20 you-all for coming. 

21 The next two speakers are Ameeka Badia and 
282

1 Barbara Gottlieb. 

2 And if you could spell your name for the 

3 court reporter that would be very helpful. 

4 MS. BADIA: My name is Ameeka Badia. 

5 A-M-E-E-K-A B-A-D-I-A. 

6 My name is Ameeka Badia, and I'm a sophomore 

7 at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and 

8 Technology in Alexandria, Virginia, as well. 

9 I'm interested in biology and environmental 

10 science and would like to pursue environmental 

11 engineering college. In my free time, I like to stay 

12 in and read and be actively involved in making 

13 environmental changes. When I was younger, I 

14 developed atopic dermatitis and started having severe 

15 reaction to dust and smog. Now, however, I started to 

16 have respiratory problems. What's interesting nobody 

17 has them. 

18 From my own interactions with air 

19 pollution are minimum when compared to others. 

20 That's really sad to see and some of my friends are 

21 unable to go outside for a long period of time to 
283

1 participate in activities with me because of the poor 

2 air quality. 

3 This is why I decided to join the school's 

4 Environmental Impact Club, an organization meant on -- 

5 bent on making legislative changes in and increasing 

6 environmental advocacy. We encourage elementary 

7 school students to take the initiative in their own 

8 families and move their own trend. 

9 We've also worked with the School Foundation 

10 staff to try to create a more equal friendly energy in 

11 the new building. Currently we're there working for 

12 the Grieverance (phonetic) Foundation, I'm proud 

13 working the campaign, to get all residents of Virginia 

14 to sponsor a weekend. Our generation deserves to grow 

15 up and live in a world where worries about air quality 

16 and smog pollution does not plague us. 

17 Now, America take action in their own 

18 communities to achieve this. However, there's only so 

19 much a few dedicated students can do. This is why we 

20 need your help to change the quality of air we breathe 

21 to the better, and the first step to doing this is by 
284

1 lowering the ozone standard to 60 parts per billion. 

2 As a doctor once said, Be a change if you 

3 want seeds to grow. Thank you. 

4 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

5 Ms. Gottlieb. 

6 MS. GOTTLIEB: Hello. B-A-R-B-A-R-A 

7 G-O-T-T-L-I-E-B. Thank you for this opportunity to 

8 comment on the proposed changes to the National 

9 Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. 

10 I'm Barbara Gottlieb. I'm the director for 

11 Environmental and Health at Physicians for Social 

12 Responsibility, or PSR, a 501(c)(3) scientific and 

13 educational organization with approximately 40,000 

14 members and supporters across the United States. 

15 You really don't need me to tell you how 

16 dangerous ozone is to health. Breathing ozone can 

17 trigger problems ranging from the relatively minor -- 

18 chest pain, coughing, throat irritation -- to 

19 aggravation of lung diseases like bronchitis, 

20 emphysema, and asthma; reduction of lung function, and 

21 permanent scarring of lung tissue. Research also 
285

1 indicates that ozone exposure may increase the risk of 

2 premature death from heart or lung disease. I know 

3 you know all that, because I'm quoting from the EPA 

4 website. 

5 You also know that ozone is not only one of 

6 the most dangerous air pollutants; it's one of the 

7 most widespread. The sheer number of U.S. counties -- 

8 and residents -- exposed to dangerous levels of ozone 

9 makes it urgent that we keep ground-level ozone at 

10 safe limits. PSR is pleased you are now considering 

11 lowering the ozone threshold. 

12 The Clean Air Act requires you to set a 

13 primary outdoor air quality standard that protects 

14 public health with an "adequate margin of safety" for 

15 sensitive populations, which include children and 

16 patients with respiratory diseases. PSR holds that 

17 the lower limit of 65 to 70 parts per billion 

18 encouraged in the proposed rule will not provide that 

19 mandated protection. We hold that concern for the 

20 following reasons: 

21 First, the data from which standards have 
286

1 been established in the past relied on studies 

2 conducted on non-representative populations. 

3 Typically, in those scientific studies, 

4 participants inhaled filtered air mixed with varied 

5 amounts of ozone. They then underwent standard tests 

6 of pulmonary function, such as forced expiratory 

7 volume test. 

8 What's interesting about these studies is 

9 that the research participants were all healthy adult 

10 males, generally in their 20s to 30s. Many were 

11 trained athletes; most of the others exercised 

12 regularly. These "super-healthy" young men are not 

13 representative of the general population, much less of 

14 vulnerable populations. Thus, the results of these 

15 studies are inadequate for developing a regulatory 

16 standard, because they fail to take into account the 

17 greater vulnerability of children and other sensitive 

18 populations. 

19 Second, peer-reviewed studies do indicate 

20 that harm occurs from ozone exposure at and below 

21 concentrations of 60 parts per billion. 
287

1 For example, a study directed by Kim, et 

2 al. -- Kim, et al., found a "significant" decrease in 

3 forced expiratory volume -- the most important 

4 measurement of lung function is used to diagnose 

5 obstructive lung diseases like asthma and COPD -- as 

6 well as an increase in airway inflammation in young 

7 adults exposed to 60 parts per billion of ozone for 

8 6.6 hours. Another very recent report, published this 

9 year by Chen, et al., measured pulmonary function in a 

10 group of almost 1,500 non-asthmatic school children. 

11 Researchers tested children's pulmonary function and 

12 then correlated those findings with ozone data from 

13 monitoring sites near their schools. They found that 

14 a day after an ozone peak, there was a reduction in 

15 mid-expiratory flow -- again, that key indicator of 

16 decreased lung function. Smaller children, six to 10 

17 years old, were more affected than older children by 

18 increases in exposure. 

19 What's particularly concerning is when you 

20 consider an appropriate standard for ozone 

21 concentrations in the U.S. is that mean ozone 
288

1 concentration during the monitoring period was 29 

2 parts per billion, and the maximum did not exceed 53 

3 parts per billion -- way below the threshold you are 

4 proposing. 

5 In other words, ozone inhalation has adverse 

6 effects on respiratory function even at what we would 

7 consider low concentrations. These effects pose an 

8 unacceptable risk. 

9 Your role is to protect human health, the 

10 environment, and vulnerable populations. Like the 

11 doctors, nurses and other health professionals I 

12 represent, you're called by your mission to be guided 

13 exclusively by scientific data. 

14 We urge you to examine the documentation 

15 that PSR will present in its full written comments, 

16 embrace the scientific evidence, stand fast on your 

17 mandate to protect the vulnerable, and establish a 

18 primary 8-hour standard that is no higher than 60 

19 parts per billion. Thank you. 

20 MS. SASSER: Thank you all very much. 

21 Our next two speakers are Teja Sathi and 
289

1 Steve Spacek. 

2 MS. SATHI: My name is Teja Sathi, spelled 

3 T-E-J-A and then the last name is S-A-T-H-I. 

4 My name is Teja Sathi, and I'm a senior at 

5 Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and 

6 Technology. I'm a Science and Technology graduate 

7 student, and as such I'm all for science of good 

8 behaviors to alleviate the effects of global warming. 

9 I intend to contribute to the field of anthropology, 

10 an engineering pathway to college and future career, 

11 including the best advice the field has to offer. You 

12 just can't combat your way out of college. It's like 

13 a junior leadership. 

14 I remember watching Captain McHale as a kid. 

15 In that world, Captain McHale was the leader, who had 

16 just got charged to Captain Cook, immediately thought 

17 he went from here. 

18 As I've grown up, I know unfortunately that 

19 there's no super hero going to save us. But just like 

20 Captain McHale's adversary, our mission should be 

21 that's not how it line the wheels. Hard to assume 
290

1 ozone exposure triggers to the atmosphere, and in turn 

2 really a slight chance of ozone under exerts smog. 

3 Smog is a threat to anyone who spends time 

4 outdoors -- pretty much everyone. I want to describe 

5 how the ozone aggravates asthma and COPD. But it also 

6 reacts something like in your heart airways, causing 

7 inflammation to even those who don't already suffer 

8 from respiratory illnesses. Clearly, smog is 

9 dangerous, and I point then 140 million people in the 

10 United States live in areas under two levels of it. 

11 EPA can help protect the people. Lowering 

12 the smog standards to the most and full and logical 

13 action to take from the scientific perspective. 

14 People need clear choices to decrease their tail pipe, 

15 power plants and industrial emissions by decreasing 

16 the allotted amount of ozone in the atmosphere to 60 

17 parts per billion. 

18 According to the Clean Air Act, the decision 

19 help strengthening ozone and pollution must be based 

20 solely on public health, not in other factors. Some 

21 factors are still important and should not be ignored. 
291

1 It should be taken into account by the individual's 

2 statement. 

3 EPA needs to hold down its responsibility to 

4 the American people and their health by enforcing the 

5 lowest ozone levels very possible. The EPA can help 

6 keep millions in our country safe by making the 

7 statute stronger under ozone regulations. 

8 Even though I don't have my entire base with 

9 me today, I care to speak for all the youth and all 

10 the interns that love this country. Thank you. 

11 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

12 Mr. Spacek. 

13 MR. SPACEK: Steve Spacek, S-P-A-C-E-K. 

14 Hello, I'm Steve Spacek, author of the 

15 American State Litter Scorecard and monthly website, 

16 litterscorecard.com, and I live here in the D.C. area. 

17 I want to thank the EPA's Eloise Shepherd for 

18 providing time for me to comment on the Primary and 

19 Secondary Standards for Ozone. 

20 I've come to uphold a calling for good, 

21 honest governance and support equitable rights to, and 
292

1 appropriate environmental justice for 315 million plus 

2 humans of our 50 states that comprise thousands of 

3 counties, communities, un-incorporated areas. 

4 I want to say a few words about the 

5 Scorecard. It holistically assesses states with tried 

6 and true objective and subjective measures, then deems 

7 regimes "Best" down to "Worst." Readers get a 

8 credible picture of what's going on within one or all 

9 states. The Scorecard focuses on illegal littering 

10 and dumping and related behaviors that lead to 

11 disease-breeding while hurting humans and animals. A 

12 consequence is deaths of over 800 Americans each year 

13 from vehicle crashes with un-removed litter and 

14 debris. 

15 Another consequence of un-reused, 

16 un-recycled solid wastes is their ability to make from 

17 homes and businesses, and with poor-to-no state or 

18 local oversight, into municipal and incinerators 

19 located along roadways or railroad tracks -- private 

20 and public transport routes where most human-engaged 

21 littering and dumping tends to take place. Waste 
293

1 incineration can generate sizable ash particles that 

2 may settle onto beneficial public spaces. A ton of 

3 incinerated solid waste roughly produces a ton carbon 

4 dioxide emissions, easily drifting into the air of 

5 "people spaces." Waste incineration discharges of 

6 Heavy Metals and Furan are by author Milton Beychok of 

7 Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion, he quotes and I 

8 read, "considered to be serious health hazards." 

9 The EPA web page, "State Energy CO2 

10 Emissions" states that "While emissions from 

11 Industrial Processes, Solvents, Agriculture, Waste, 

12 and Land-Use, and Forestry are important...often 

13 significant within a state, they're not included in 

14 the CO2 estimates due to a lack of availability, 

15 higher level of uncertainty in quantification methods, 

16 and smaller contribution to total emissions." 

17 Now, I understand the EPA's dilemma because 

18 measuring real world results is tough. So analysts, 

19 the public and private sector and I'm one of those 

20 people, they're forced to turn to data elements and 

21 "surrogates," and as you know the Scorecard can't read 
294

1 it; it functions to address public problems or it 

2 creates non-existent knowledge. 

3 The states of Louisiana, Kentucky, Nevada, 

4 Indiana, West Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, 

5 Texas, Illinois, and Michigan, they are former or 

6 current Scorecard "worst" regimes, which subdivisions 

7 that make the EPA-listed "Counties Violating" or 

8 "Projected to Violate Ground-Level Ozone Standards." 

9 Some of these same Counties have also been part of 

10 TRAVEL+LEISURE's "America's Dirtiest Cities," and 

11 FORBES "20 Dirtiest Cities," including counties that 

12 comprise New York City, Baton Rouge, Fresno, (just up 

13 the road) Baltimore, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, 

14 Milwaukee, Dallas, Miami. 

15 Now, I want to say that it's my views that 

16 are on the Scorecard that quite a few Legislatures and 

17 Assemblies, they had abundant budget revenues and 

18 conditions and they were capable to create effective 

19 environmental administrative practices and laws. But 

20 they chose to ignore a coming and spirit for good 

21 governance. They chose to carry out operations that 
295

1 lead to unpleasant, unhealthy ecological conditions, 

2 including harmful, lethal air pollution emissions. 

3 That's why the EPA, they must step in to and 

4 resolve the shenanigans allowed by states and 

5 localities that continually demonstrate, year after 

6 year, a lack for virtuous public sector and a lack for 

7 rightful environmental justice. I ask the EPA to 

8 please support 60 parts per billion as the standard 

9 for smog pollution, and to have stronger oversight 

10 over these mentioned localities and states. Thank 

11 you. 

12 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

13 The next two speakers are Ivy Main and Donna 

14 McDowell. 

15 MS. MAIN: My name is Ivy Main, I-V-Y 

16 M-A-I-N. This is the second time I've testified 

17 before the EPA on this air quality issue. The first 

18 time I told you about my personal experience as the 

19 mother of two daughters who grew up playing soccer in 

20 suburban Northern Virginia, both of them developed 

21 asthma in spite of our having no family history of it. 
296

1 I told you the time when I felt playing soccer on bad 

2 quality days was a significant contributor. I'm glad 

3 to say that now they seem to have outgrown it, though 

4 I don't know whether there are going to be long-term 

5 issues. 

6 Asthma is an expensive disease to treat, 

7 even if you have health insurance, and it places a 

8 burden on families that goes way beyond the cost of 

9 doctor visits and medicines. So a mere comparison of 

10 cost to industry of tighter regulations, versus a cost 

11 to human health of looser regulations, misses the full 

12 cost picture. There's a cost to families of children 

13 with asthma, and a cost to all people who have asthma, 

14 in time lost and suffering, the quality of life, in 

15 soccer games not played, in work that didn't get done, 

16 and worrying about the health of loved ones, or your 

17 own health. 

18 And the same is true of the other victims of 

19 smog -- people with heart disease and lung ailments 

20 and, you know, this could be all of us some day. It 

21 could be me some day. So I feel particularly 
297

1 conscious what's happening to my kids. It could be me 

2 or anybody else. 

3 And it's one thing to be a suburban soccer 

4 mom and worried about this, but I'm now the chair of 

5 the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, and so I 

6 represent our 15,000 members here in Virginia, and 

7 that includes a lot of people who live in areas that 

8 have even worse air quality and who happen to have 

9 fewer resources to deal with it. A lot of them live 

10 in Richmond, which use to have a dubious distinction 

11 of being the asthma capital of the U.S. for several 

12 years. 

13 And many of those most vulnerable to asthma 

14 and other smog-related illness are low-income and 

15 minorities. They often live in areas of higher air 

16 pollution like inner city and industrial 

17 neighborhoods. They have less access to health care, 

18 and they may not have the choice to stay indoors or 

19 take a day off from school or work. In some cases, 

20 they're recent immigrants and don't have access to 

21 health information or other resources. And everyone, 
298

1 though, has as much right to let their kids play 

2 soccer and to breathe clean air as I do. 

3 Our low-income residents and recent 

4 immigrants also are more likely to work outdoors, 

5 where exposure is highest. They work in construction, 

6 as day laborers, on landscape crews, sanitation 

7 workers, farm workers. So staying indoors on bad air 

8 quality days and when they're having trouble breathing 

9 or tightness in their chests, often is not an option. 

10 And it's going to get worse as climate 

11 change progresses. The southeast is likely to see 

12 prolonged summer heatwaves in the future that will 

13 exacerbate the effects of ozone. Children, the 

14 elderly, minorities, and low-income workers will 

15 suffer most. It's critical that EPA adopt the most 

16 protective standard, that is 60 part per billion 

17 level, so that we can protect our most vulnerable 

18 residents. Thank you. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. McDowell. 

20 MS. McDOWELL: Yes. Good afternoon. My 

21 name is Donna McDowell. I'm vice chair of the 
299

1 Conservation Committee for the Maryland Sierra Club, 

2 and the grandmother to two boys, ages 9 and 10. And 

3 I'm really here because of them today. I reside in a 

4 rural part of Montgomery County. But as you know, the 

5 entire state of Maryland receives Fs from the American 

6 Lung Association for ozone days, every county in the 

7 State of Maryland report. 

8 According to Dr. Gottlieb, who just spoke 

9 today, low levels of ozone can cause coughing, 

10 wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest pain. And 

11 higher concentrations breathing ozone can lead to more 

12 serious effects, including lung tissue damage, reduced 

13 lung capacity, asthma exacerbation, as well as the 

14 increased risk of hospitalization for asthma, 

15 bronchitis, and other chronic respiratory diseases. 

16 EPA's own policy assessment, based on data from major 

17 cities, concludes that the current ozone standard 

18 results in some 7,000 to 7,500 premature deaths per 

19 year. 

20 Ozone pollution, as it's just been stated, 

21 disproportionately affects the poor, the young, the 
300

1 elderly, group that make up large proportions of this 

2 area, the greater Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan 

3 area. Here are some figures which are kind of 

4 shocking. 

5 The American Lung Association estimates that 

6 in this metropolitan area, 214,000 children have 

7 asthma, 651,000 adults have asthma, and 884,000 people 

8 live in poverty. There are more than 1.1 million 

9 adults over 65 and more that 2.1 million children 

10 under 18. Children are prone to more risks from ozone 

11 pollution; their lungs are growing, they are outside 

12 and active during peak ozone periods in the summer, 

13 and they are more susceptible to respiratory 

14 infections. 

15 My grandsons, avid baseball players, play 

16 games -- they're on the track team. They play games 

17 several times a week and are exposed to more ozone 

18 than the average adult. Last summer was really 

19 scared, an incident where the older one, the 

20 10-year-old, on a very high ozone day was with me and 

21 I was taking him to baseball practice in Olney and he 
301

1 started wheezing and he was crying and wheezing and 

2 crying and wheezing, barely could make it to the 

3 field. I texted his parents; they arrived and they 

4 immediately took him to the hospital. He left with 

5 inhalers. Although most of us shield our children 

6 from smoking, we alone cannot shield them from ozone. 

7 Not only do present levels of ozone lead to 

8 7,000 unnecessary human deaths per year, they also 

9 wreak havoc on the environment. Nitrogen oxide settle 

10 in the Bay causing eutrophication, causing 

11 accelerating growth of allergy, which leads to oxygen 

12 depletion. Your own website notes that high levels of 

13 ozone in the mid-Atlantic area result in high or 

14 severe foliar damage to 12 percent of ozone sensitive 

15 plants. In addition to reduced growth and visible 

16 injury to leaves, continued ozone exposure over time 

17 can lead to sensitive plants, obtain serious diseases, 

18 damage from insects, effects of other pollutants, 

19 competition, and harm from severe weather. And this 

20 can also have adverse impact on the ecosystems, 

21 including loss of species diversity and changes to 
302

1 habitat quality and water and nutrient cycles. 

2 A stronger EPA standard of 60 parts per 

3 billion will help reduce ozone, improve the health of 

4 our citizens, and reduce damage to ecosystems. 

5 I was thinking about the Tragedy of the 

6 Commons and the truth heard about that today. But 

7 Garrett Hardin, even to the end, Garrett Hardin stated 

8 that in the case of pollution it is not a question of 

9 taking something out of the Commons, but of the 

10 putting something in -- sewage, chemical, radioactive, 

11 waste in this case, ozone. And it's rational for a 

12 person to find that his share of the cost of the waste 

13 he discharges is less than the cost of purifying his 

14 waste, therefore -- this is true for everyone -- we 

15 end up "fouling our own nests," and that's why it's 

16 crucial and imperative that the Environmental 

17 Protection Agency protect us; protect all of us, our 

18 children, adults, and recognize the unacceptable costs 

19 in ill health and habitat destruction that occur from 

20 ozone. Please use your authority to require 

21 significant reductions of ozone to the 60 parts per 
303

1 billion level. Thank you so much. 

2 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Thank you 

3 both. 

4 Our next two speakers are Christopher Millar 

5 and Sara Chieffo. 

6 Mr. Millar. 

7 MR. MILLAR: Good afternoon. Chris, 

8 C-H-R-I-S-T-O-P-H-E-R; Millar, M-I-L-L-A-R. 

9 Thank you for taking all the comments all 

10 day long. I'm Chris Millar, Executive Director of 

11 Advanced Engine Systems Institute. AESI is pleased to 

12 provide comments today regarding EPA's proposal to 

13 revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

14 Ozone. 

15 AESI represents several emissions 

16 manufacturers -- emissions control manufacturers in 

17 the industry, a qualified 65,000 people in the United 

18 States. Around the 40 years emissions control 

19 uncertain that they worked in the big plant factories, 

20 our primary customers and the regulators of all 

21 technologies who can stop pollution in those cars 
304

1 effected with fossil. 

2 The industry main innovation developed and 

3 deployed in the U.S. in response to science regulators 

4 and quality regulations from reduced pollution for 

5 cars running up to 175 percent since 1975. This is a 

6 very new idea for at least 300 percent, driving a Ford 

7 and its new convenient testing ability. 

8 AESI do not have the public health science 

9 expertise to comment on what exact position EPA should 

10 make to NAAQS ozone. But it is worth knowing any 

11 expert opinion and Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

12 Committee has stated that the current ozone NAAQS of 

13 75 parts per billion is not essentially protecting the 

14 health with an adequate margin of safety as 

15 recommended by the EPA select range including 

16 substantially lower values. 

17 There are well-documented substantial 

18 negative impacts and economic loss proposing to 

19 restore it at and above the APC standard. It's not a 

20 division of quality of life or economic growth, 

21 particularly since 40 percent of all Americans still 
305

1 live in areas that effect the APC standard. 

2 If the Agency determines the downward 

3 revision in the ozone standard is necessary, the 

4 industry will totally redouble its efforts to work 

5 with our customers, policymakers in developing for our 

6 customers the control technologies to ensure that the 

7 transportation sector can help monitor endurance. I 

8 think we'll have the progress that we use then. 

9 AESI members standing as free as a whole and 

10 are already at work conducting a massive research 

11 development testing, a new technology that will ensure 

12 tomorrow's vehicles are the cleanest and most 

13 efficient possible. 

14 We will continue to make and add emissions 

15 new for treatment on past reductions necessary to make 

16 progress in the United States and set the performance 

17 standards and work and to curtail smog from our 

18 communities. Thank you. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

20 Ms. Chieffo. 

21 MS. CHIEFFO: Good afternoon. My name is 
306

1 Sara Chieffo, S-A-R-A; last name C-H-I-E-F-F-O. 

2 Again, thank you for the long day. The 

3 public's testimony is a very important part of this 

4 process, and I thank the individuals for the time 

5 you've taken today to do this. 

6 First, I want to thank you for this 

7 opportunity. I speak in strong support of the 

8 Environmental Protection Agency strengthening the 

9 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone 

10 Pollution, as we all know at best, smog. 

11 I'm here today as a mom, as an asthma 

12 sufferer, and as an Associate Director for the League 

13 of Conservation Voters. 

14 Today unhealthy levels of smog pollution rob 

15 hundreds of thousands of Americans with asthma and 

16 other respiratory illnesses of the quality of life. 

17 It sends thousands of children to the emergency room 

18 each year, and cost Americans billions in healthcare 

19 costs, lost work days, and even premature death. 

20 Dangerous smog pollution spread emissions 

21 from burning fossil fuels and other chemical 
307

1 processes, mixed with the sunlight with heat. It is 

2 most found in areas wagering industrial facilities, 

3 power plants, and heavy iron builders. 

4 The American Lung Association compares that 

5 even smog pollution to getting a sunburn on your 

6 lungs, and as you can imagine often results in 

7 immediate breathing trouble. The long-term exposure 

8 to smog pollution is also very damaging. In fact, it 

9 is linked to some lasting health problems like chronic 

10 asthmas and other respiratory and lung diseases. 

11 Reproductive and developmental harm is also on the 

12 list, even premature death. 

13 Smog pollution also disproportionately 

14 affects communities of color. A 2011 analysis of the 

15 U.S. populations and their air quality found that 

16 African Americans and Latinos communities were more 

17 likely to live in counties that had worse problems 

18 with particulate pollution, also found that African 

19 Americans were more likely to live in counties where 

20 smog pollution is primarily two times the rate for 

21 current asthmas of white children and be four times as 
308

1 likely to die from asthma. 

2 Smog also lives on for me. I grew up in 

3 Southern California, and I traveled when I was 17, on 

4 several weekends, to play in tournaments across the 

5 Seattle basin. I remember playing many games with 

6 what now is the San Diego Mountains -- to now protect 

7 it makes it perfect. But it was so smoggy that you 

8 could barely see to the other side of the field. 

9 I was also asthmatic, and my attacks strike 

10 on my birthdays, when the smog pollution is at its 

11 worse. I often wonder if I would have developed 

12 asthma had I not spent all those hours with the kids 

13 sucking in crude air, and that's what's magical across 

14 the soccer field. 

15 People have a right to know if the air they 

16 breathe is safe or not. It's a pretty simple concept; 

17 that's Breathe 101. And that's precisely what 

18 updating ozone pollution standards is all about. 

19 EPA sets the NAAQS standards based on levels 

20 the experts tell us is safe, and then localities 

21 figure out the best, most cost-effective ways to meet 
309

1 these clean air safeguards. 

2 And I had a business for a while, and we 

3 know what you're up against -- strong opposition. We 

4 probably heard from well-found opportunists like the 

5 National Association for Union Manufacturers and the 

6 American Petroleum Institute, and even today, who 

7 quoted inflated costs, so then we simply can't afford 

8 to attain a smog pollution. But we know better. 

9 It's time again to issue a set of can-do 

10 standards, whether it be from padlock diverters, seat 

11 belts or acid rain. And time again issue and set 

12 those standards faster, and a far small loss. 

13 I'd like to close by sharing a few numbers 

14 that you won't hear from the polluters who are trying 

15 to undermine a stronger ozone standards. 1.8 million 

16 avoided asthma attacks; 1.9 million fewer missed 

17 school days; 6,400 premature deaths avoided. 

18 These are some of the new present health 

19 benefits that were delivered, the EPA test in ozone 

20 standards at 60 parts per billion. 

21 These numbers add to future health benefits. 
310

1 But behind these statistics are real people, real 

2 families whose lives stand to improve, be saved. 

3 And I feel very fortunate to advocate today, 

4 and on paper -- clean air, clean water, and action on 

5 climate change. 

6 And now I'm going to try to plug important 

7 my work, our work together. I do my best to protect 

8 the nurture of my almost two-year-old-daughter, and I 

9 thank you all for taking the time at EPA to help 

10 ensure the air she breathes is safe. 

11 On behalf of the League of Conservation 

12 Voters, on more than 1 million numbers, I encourage 

13 EPA to follow that science and finalize the ozone 

14 pollution standard of 60 parts per billion which will 

15 do the most for DEQ. Thank you. 

16 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

17 Our next two speakers are Claire Collins and 

18 Hunter Dureses (phonetic). 

19 How about Hayden Higgins and Stewart Holm? 

20 Okay. Mr. Higgins. 

21 MR. HIGGINS: Thank you. Would you like me 
311

1 to spell my name? 

2 MS. SASSER: Yes. 

3 MS. HIGGINS: It's H-A-Y-D-E-N and then 

4 Higgins, H-I-G-G-I-N-S. 

5 My name is Hayden Higgins. My mother is a 

6 school nurse in the San Ramon Valley High School 

7 District in Danville, California, where I grew up. 

8 She's a loving caregiver throughout the week to 

9 thousands of young children who are entrusted to her 

10 care throughout the day. And she has to deal with a 

11 lot of the usual bumps and bruises, try to -- 

12 Well, one thing that she has told me about 

13 time and time again is how many of her students suffer 

14 from asthma, childhood asthma. And she has told me 

15 about how unnecessary this all is. 

16 Ozone pollution is the hardest contributor 

17 to childhood asthma, which is the number one reason 

18 children miss school in America. Her time spent to 

19 deal with asthma means less time for other serious 

20 issues, like checking on diabetics. 

21 To my mother and to me, this suffering is 
312

1 not a necessary part of life. This is a deliberate 

2 choice to the lack of air quality in favor of the 

3 economic interests. It support best whose economic 

4 interests? 

5 Greater interstate examination goes on smog 

6 and reveals that polluters are causing undue stress, 

7 particularly for people who already have a tendency to 

8 gasp. 

9 Research by the Associated Press shows black 

10 Americans are 79 percent more likely than whites to 

11 live in neighborhoods where industrial pollution is a 

12 common health nature. By tolerating the ozone 

13 concentration level above the level of 60 parts per 

14 billion, which is the level your organization has 

15 determined is the safest for humans, we are saying 

16 that black dropouts are disregarded in the USA. 

17 I'd like to point out that there is weighed 

18 progress in this country right now with the death of 

19 Barry Gardner. And a lot of people have pointed to 

20 this encounter with the police as the reason he died. 

21 We need to remember that the reasons they 
313

1 killed Barry Gardner started a long time before he had 

2 that encounter with the police. It started as a black 

3 American he breathes air that was much, much, much 

4 worse than those -- than that air afforded to many of 

5 the people living in places with an acceptable level 

6 of air quality. Thank you. 

7 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Mr. Holm. 

8 MR. HOLM: Hi. Thank you for the 

9 opportunity to speak today. I'm Stewart Holm, 

10 S-T-E-W-A-R-T H-O-L-M, and I'm Chief Scientist at the 

11 American Forest and Paper Association. 

12 In 2006, EPA concluded that evidence for 

13 respiratory mortality form long-term ozone exposure 

14 was "suggestive" of causation, but in the proposed 

15 rule, the EPA Administrator concluded that the 

16 association with respiratory mortality was likely to 

17 be causal, whereas the evidence for all-cause and 

18 cardiovascular mortality were deemed to be suggestive 

19 of causation. However, the evidence for respiratory 

20 mortality is limited, not consistent across studies, 

21 and not consistent with the evidence for total 
314

1 mortality. Consequently, these data do not support 

2 lowering the primary NAAQS below the current standard 

3 of 75 parts per billion. 

4 Studies of long-term exposures and 

5 respiratory mortality are far too limited to make a 

6 causal determination for respiratory mortality. 

7 Compared to studies of short-term ozone exposures and 

8 mortality, there are few studies that have evaluated 

9 mortality associated with long-term ozone exposures. 

10 Most studies that assessed cause-specific mortality 

11 have focused on cardiopulmonary mortality; and I'm 

12 fully aware of three that have evaluated respiratory 

13 mortality on its own. One is Abbey and another 

14 Jerrett, and Lipsett. 

15 Only the studies by Abbey and Jerrett 

16 referenced in the ISA, and EPA appeared to base its 

17 likely causal conclusion for respiratory mortality 

18 only on the inconsistent results in Jerrett. 

19 Jerrett evaluated total, respiratory, and 

20 cardiovascular mortality risks associated with 

21 long-term ozone exposure in most single- and 
315

1 two-pollutant models with PM 2.5 in the American 

2 Cancer Society cohort. Jerrett reported small 

3 increases in mortality, particularly respiratory 

4 mortality, but the results were inconsistent across 

5 the mortality endpoints evaluated. For example, 

6 Jerrett did not observe an association between ozone 

7 exposure and all-cause mortality or other 

8 cause-specific mortality outcomes. Notably, in their 

9 two-pollutant models that controlled for PM 2.5, 

10 Jerrett found statistically significant decreased 

11 risks between long-term ozone exposure and all-cause 

12 and cardiovascular-related mortality. These findings 

13 raise questions regarding the respiratory mortality 

14 findings on which EPA relied in the proposed rule to 

15 calculate long-term risks. 

16 In addition, this study has several 

17 shortcomings in its design and implementation. For 

18 example, it did not fully consider meteorological 

19 factors, such as temperature, or lifestyle factors, 

20 such as smoking, that may be independently linked to 

21 mortality risk. There are also significant 
316

1 uncertainties associated with the use of a single 

2 ozone value, averaged over both space and time to, 

3 represent ozone exposures for the entire population 

4 within each metropolitan area. 

5 EPA acknowledged that environmental 

6 temperature and region of the country were significant 

7 modifiers of the reported ozone associations with 

8 respiratory mortality. Jerrett reported a lack of 

9 statistically significant associations between ozone 

10 and mortality in the Northeast and Industrial Midwest, 

11 which had the most respiratory deaths, and in Southern 

12 California, which had the highest ozone 

13 concentrations. This lack of correlation suggests 

14 that something other than ozone is affecting mortality 

15 risks and further highlights a lack of clear support 

16 for ozone-induced respiratory mortality. 

17 The findings by Jerrett were not supported 

18 by the other two epidemiology studies that 

19 specifically evaluated respiratory mortality and 

20 long-term ozone exposures. Abbey, et al., conducted a 

21 study of mortality in the Seventh-day Adventist cohort 
317

1 in California. The authors reported results for 

2 non-malignant respiratory, cardiopulmonary, and 

3 all-cause mortality that were not statistically 

4 significantly increased with long-term ozone 

5 exposures. Lipsett investigated the association 

6 between ozone and mortality, including respiratory 

7 mortality, in a cohort of female teachers in 

8 California. For respiratory mortality, the authors 

9 also reported results that were not statistically 

10 significant. 

11 Overall, EPA's conclusions in the proposed 

12 rule regarding long-term ozone exposure and 

13 respiratory mortality are not supported by the limited 

14 evidence or the lack of association with total 

15 mortality. Thus, respiratory mortality risks from 

16 long-term ozone exposure do not support lowering the 

17 standard below 75 ppb. Thank you very much. 

18 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

19 Okay. I guess we're going to switch panel 

20 members again to Mr. Silverman. 

21 Also, we'd like to make sure that 
318

1 individuals who came to this room from the other room 

2 across the hall are on the list. Joefa (phonetic) and 

3 Jessica did not sign, if those two names are here. 

4 Just to clarify, we changed panel members. 

5 I have along with me Steve Silverman. 

6 I have several names here. The names I have 

7 are Mary Feeherry and Collin Rees. 

8 MS. FEEHERRY: My name is Mary Feeherry. 

9 That's F-E-E-H-E-R-R-Y. I'm a long-time resident in 

10 the District of Columbia, retired educator, and a 

11 member of the Sierra Club. 

12 I'm here to support EPA's efforts to protect 

13 our people and our environment from the effects of 

14 pollution from smog. 

15 D.C. has some of the worst smog pollution 

16 and ozone levels in the nation. Like 147 million 

17 people in the country, we live in an environment where 

18 air can be so polluted that it's unhealthy to breathe, 

19 especially on our hazy hot summer days. 

20 Our children with asthma and other 

21 respiratory problems must stay indoors until summer is 
319

1 over and can play only winter sports. 

2 Ozone and particle pollution trigger attacks 

3 of asthma and acute bronchitis. Children and the 

4 elderly are especially susceptible. These attacks 

5 result in unnecessary and costly hospital emergency 

6 room visits and can cause premature deaths. They also 

7 result in missed days at work and at school. 

8 Coal burning power plants are the major 

9 source of this pollution. The well-being of our most 

10 vulnerable citizens is being held hostage to profit 

11 generated by these polluting plants. 

12 We need EPA to update its standards to 

13 reduce the allowable smog pollution limit to 65 parts 

14 per billion at the least, to bring smog pollution 

15 standards into line with current public health 

16 research. 

17 Selling and implementing EPA -- I'm sorry. 

18 Setting and implementing EPA standards for air quality 

19 has cut harmful pollution significantly since 1970. 

20 But now we need EPA to update its standards to protect 

21 our community from the unnecessary illness caused by 
320

1 filling our lungs with disgusting and filthy air. 

2 I support EPA's continued efforts to insist 

3 that producers reduce the smog pollution generated by 

4 their power plants and exported to our neighborhoods. 

5 Thank you very much for providing the 

6 opportunity to comment on this important issue. 

7 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much for your 

8 comments. Mr. Rees. 

9 MR. REES: Thank you. My name is Collin 

10 Rees, C-O-L-L-I-N R-E-E-S. 

11 My name is Collin Rees, and I'm here today 

12 to speak on the topic of lower the National Ambient 

13 Air Quality Ground-level Ozone Pollution Standards to 

14 save both money and lives. 

15 I work for the U.S. Youth Organization, 

16 called SustainUS. It goes to empower the youth to 

17 advance sustainable development in the U.S. and around 

18 the world. 

19 The frame of NAAQS ozone standard was worked 

20 on by environmental regulations with the public and 

21 private sectors and started to support the EPA's 
321

1 effort to lower the standard of smog pollution to 60 

2 parts per billion and a score below that standard 

3 further out in the future. 

4 The current smog standard at 75 parts per 

5 billion is totally inadequate and dangerous to the 

6 American public. This is true and it's not what the 

7 public needs, and it's still true today. The 

8 scientific community and public health professionals 

9 everywhere agree -- 60 parts per billion is the 

10 maximum standard allowable for safety, and it will 

11 save four to five times as many lives as the standard 

12 of 70 parts per billion, that's EPA's ozone standard, 

13 but also save millions of dollars in public health 

14 costs, making it a wise investment for American 

15 citizens, the government said that alone. 

16 Madison University has a varsity athlete, 

17 the growth of four years have reached. It was one of 

18 the best experiences of my college career. Madison 

19 has a sport that makes you sit down and expose to you 

20 before college. This would be the case of my best 

21 friend, Matt. 
322

1 Matt is a young black man, one of the 

2 demographics most impacted by dangerous smog 

3 pollution, one that stands to be further impacted if 

4 the EPA does not lower the smog pollution standards at 

5 appropriate levels. 

6 By refusing to lower the standard means a 

7 clear sign that the government is not willing to stand 

8 up a few more years and protect those Americans and 

9 people of color. 

10 Matt grew up in inner city LA. He suffered 

11 from dangerous smog pollution for many decades. On 

12 hot summer days in childhood, his mother wouldn't let 

13 him go outside because ground-level ozone was too 

14 severe. And at an early age, Matt developed asthma 

15 and has continued to suffer from the easily 

16 preventable disease throughout his life. 

17 Matt joined the broker team, my freshman 

18 year, looking for a healthy escape from asthma, make a 

19 name that says support the various high school. He 

20 excels in his work -- 55 perhaps put him in the top 

21 book, and every couple of weeks or so, he'd suffer a 
323

1 debilitating asthma attack. He'd start coming in tag 

2 team practicing, miss a day every week. 

3 Finding that 70 attacks in two months is too 

4 dangerous, and it's worse; it started around 13. And 

5 as the smog pollution says, my close friend would have 

6 had to give up a team that he loved so much. He 

7 wouldn't have had asthma and have to endure this. 

8 Instead, today he goes through life on "what ifs." 

9 This is an opportunity to still talk to him, 

10 a damaging disease he will have to live with and treat 

11 for the rest of this. 

12 We're here today to test the policy of the 

13 clear obvious sentiments, strict responsibility to set 

14 to save lives and protect public health. The 

15 regulation saves lives. That's a fact. 

16 Many of the companies affected by this 

17 pollution standard, models for industries and the 

18 industries of civilization. 

19 And for the NAAQS mandate, each state has to 

20 follow your regimes, and the people who profit, like 

21 while those, off the record, get to do this. And this 
324

1 has caused income -- believing our environment, 

2 perhaps, care because they're not liable for the 

3 extent of the nationality increase. They now have to 

4 reduce pollution on earth. Regulations like these 

5 are, like you said, are supposed to have the 

6 Constitution under them, where they can firmly report 

7 and protect our citizens. 

8 These industries and representatives are not 

9 safe with their TVs and what's on there. 

10 EPA should do what it needs to do to protect 

11 the American people from smoke, fog, smog, and take 

12 time without the TV. A healthier life depend on 

13 whether they are able to breathe easily and continue 

14 their daily lives. 

15 Regulating the ozone standards is proven to 

16 be one of the greatest successes in the history across 

17 governmental, environmental conditions. Saving 

18 millions of lives and billions, if not trillions of 

19 dollars. Let's not stop before your mission is done. 

20 Let's lower smog pollution standards to a 

21 scientifically safe standard, no more than 60 parts 
325

1 per billion and move forward with other initiatives -- 

2 clean power plants, and strict many rules that would 

3 save lives, prevent the intruders from trampling all 

4 over the health and wellness of the American public, 

5 that would allow us to live a cleaner, brighter future 

6 for all. 

7 If I have children, I don't want to be 

8 forced to choose whether they can go outside or not to 

9 play. Let's lower the smog pollution standards, 

10 strictly enforce the standards for regions still not 

11 in compliance with the current standards, and move 

12 forward to help get American down for NAAQS. 

13 Thank you for your time to listen to me, a 

14 long day with this. 

15 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Next two 

16 speakers are Monica Loswal (phonetic) and Erica 

17 Mitrano. 

18 Okay. Donna Smith. 

19 Ms. Mitrano. 

20 MS. MITRANO: Okay. My name is Erica 

21 Mitrano. I'm a nursing student in NY (phonetic) 
326

1 University in Arlington, and I'm here to urge you to 

2 lower the ozone NAAQS to 60 parts per billion. 

3 The important thing here today -- I took a 

4 quick look at some of the peer-review nursing 

5 literature and I found data -- or surprising and 

6 suggested, ozone disproportionately harms racial 

7 minorities, the unemployed, and the poor. But the 

8 actual people that it hurts the most are the elderly 

9 people. The elderly is a larger people in our 

10 population. 

11 In fact, there were a lot of recent articles 

12 that show statistics and significant results, 

13 including ozone contributed to the deaths of the 

14 elderly people. 

15 Among the health implications of high ozone 

16 levels are respiratory or tissue damage, including 

17 asthma attacks, as you know, and increase in 

18 vulnerability to infections like pneumonia, because 

19 they're already weak in their shin, and they even 

20 cause permanent scarring of the lungs. 

21 So I know that in listening today, I heard 
327

1 the comment that it cost too much to reduce emissions. 

2 But I'm learning it actually costs more not to than to 

3 reduce emissions. So you really can't afford not to. 

4 And there is a self-serving, I'm sure, in their 

5 attempt in reducing ozone is too expensive because -- 

6 proving that action save money. 

7 It only shifts the cost from people who 

8 might have controlled their emissions to other people, 

9 on to families who have to pay medical bills for 

10 people who have respiratory or asthma problems or on 

11 to workers who can't come to work and don't have leave 

12 or on to their employers whose workers aren't coming 

13 in because they're sick. 

14 And they also transfer responsibility to 

15 insurance companies who have to pay for people's 

16 illnesses or in hospitals who aren't being paid 

17 because somebody can't pay. And finally, it transfers 

18 the costs on the federal government because they can 

19 take care of it; disproportionately covers minorities, 

20 poor people, and older people who exactitudes are 

21 being hurt in this disproportionate environment 
328

1 initially. 

2 Finally in terms of economics, those records 

3 down to plants and specialists, soybean and rock 

4 literature, a couple of very important documents, and 

5 also perhaps in -- plants are in poor communities that 

6 suffer; they provide oxygen. They clean the air. And 

7 they -- really nobody else asked us, so there's a 

8 value to protecting plants and protecting the air too. 

9 We really need to quantify them. 

10 And so I really urge you to lower the ozone 

11 standard to protect the people directly, directly. 

12 The environment is still divided -- it's at their 

13 peak. Thank you. 

14 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Smith. 

15 MS. SMITH: My name is Donna Smith. I live 

16 in downtown D.C. I thank you for having this hearing. 

17 I was born in Los Angeles 77 years ago, and 

18 I remember the blue skies, being able to see the hills 

19 surrounding the basin, and running on the beach with 

20 white zinc oxide on my nose because the sun was so 

21 strong. Only 17 years later, I entered college and 
329

1 facing among the orange groves. We were advised to 

2 bring big plastic clothing bags to protect our 

3 "formals" from soot from the smudge pots to keep the 

4 orange groves from freezing. 

5 On many days, we couldn't see Mt. Baldy only 

6 a few miles away. But over the years, the air quality 

7 got much worse. First, back yard incinerators which 

8 people had to burn their trash were banned. Not many 

9 laws and rules. It's much faster to replace my wind 

10 machines. Most importantly, when California began to 

11 pass laws and rules to reduce car emissions to require 

12 increased fuel efficiency and power began to be 

13 generated by fossil fuels sources and pollution 

14 decreased. 

15 By late 90s when I moved back to LA, I was 

16 able to on my garage-top apartment see all across the 

17 basin and watch the airplanes parading into the 

18 airport, see the snows on top of San Bernardino 

19 mountains, enjoyed much better air in the decade we 

20 were living in. Visits to my cousin now give evidence 

21 of how that improved, but her house in the foothills, 
330

1 those you can see coming to my house across the basin. 

2 The air pollution was the sunset, unnaturally orange. 

3 When I worked -- and so we continued to be vigilant 

4 and increased standards living in California. That's 

5 my neighborhood. 

6 When I worked on the Hill, my office looked 

7 over the big power plant, coal-fired power plant 

8 belching its fumes on the nation's Capitol. It is 

9 scandalous that this is allowed in a city with 

10 increased air pollution problems. It must be changed 

11 for the health and safety of those of us who live 

12 here. 

13 When I visited Beijing 10 years ago, the 

14 smog made walking among the historic sites in Paris 

15 all day so unhealthy, and it exhausted me and I didn't 

16 want to go out because it's so much worse today. And 

17 I lived in New Delhi 50 years ago when winter was the 

18 best time to be there. Joining the crowds watching 

19 the Republic Day Parade was a thrill as we stood in 

20 the sun under clear skies. This week, Monday, 

21 President Obama was lucky to have rain because now 
331

1 with the weather in New Delhihas has the worse smog in 

2 the world for every season. 

3 Both of these countries must do a great deal 

4 to improve because their air problems too because 

5 their actions affect the global climate for all of us. 

6 But in this country, it is critical that the 

7 EPA set that lowest recommended level of ozone for 

8 America's air quality for the benefit of our people. 

9 But also we must not behave like this. We must be 

10 real leaders in the rest of the world. Thank you. 

11 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Thank you all. 

12 We see that Marlin Mosroff (phonetic) is 

13 here. Ms. Moore -- Ms. Hayes-Allen and Ms. DuBois. 

14 So please come sit at the table here and use 

15 the microphone. And I'll call you up by twos. 

16 You can go first. Okay. So you can start 

17 by spelling your name for the court reporter. 

18 MS. HAYES-ALLEN: My name is Nicola 

19 Hayes-Allen. 

20 MS. SASSER: Spell the last name. 

21 MS. HAYES-ALLEN: Okay. My last name is 
332

1 Hayes-Allen, so H-A-Y-E-S hyphen A-L-L-E-N. 

2 And I'm here actually -- a small girl, two 

3 children, brought up in the city, back to Washington, 

4 D.C. I just want to share a memory I had when I'm 

5 driving. 

6 We were driving up, a trip from Maryland to 

7 a site for weekend camping. As we drove the car down 

8 towards Washington, all of a sudden you see a city, 

9 the suburbs in the summer. And as I looked down to 

10 the city, there was actually a dome of yellow-brown 

11 vapor hanging, clinging to the city. It was 

12 absolutely -- it was very striking. And I still 

13 remember my feelings was I could not believe, I could 

14 not believe that I was driving my two little children 

15 into this, that what I was looking at was I didn't 

16 have all of this by the next day. 

17 So, of course, the color of the -- I mean, 

18 yellow-brown -- it's actually nitrogen oxide. But 

19 mixing them was a huge amount of ozone, hydrocarbons, 

20 all the chemicals we know are very harmful. I'm a 

21 biologist so I was very afraid that the ozone -- it's 
333

1 a tiny molecule. And it's so tiny nothing is going to 

2 stop that molecule, like any of us would. It's 

3 nothing to stop it from getting into every single air 

4 sac in the bodies. 

5 Faced with the membranes, our only defense 

6 of natural potential are cell membranes want to 

7 recharge. And some membranes cannot tell, it cannot 

8 tell oxygen from ozone. So ozone is there, it's going 

9 to go in. And from there, go into the bloodstream and 

10 every part of your body. 

11 So effectively, companies that produce or 

12 cause pollute, companies that pollute by burning 

13 fossil fuels, what they're actually doing is putting 

14 their toxic waste into the air. It's not just into 

15 the air. Not just this stuff is around, it's like 

16 into our bodies without us ever getting a response, 

17 nobody knows, without anyone's permission. It's 

18 there. 

19 I mostly know -- so basically the defense, 

20 the only defense we have, the only way to protect our 

21 children is just with this chemical -- these chemical 
334

1 ozone is not to be in the air with the damaging level 

2 in the first place. 

3 And the EPA, of course, has done this 

4 analysis where you've shown that with 60 parts per 

5 billion we actually limit it significantly. It would 

6 help lots of children. Because we only resonate with 

7 women who have cancer. 

8 Well, in fact, one of my children did 

9 develop asthma as she grew up in Washington, D.C. And 

10 I can't tell you how many visits we had to go to, how 

11 she was hooked up to a machine in the doctor's office 

12 because she couldn't breathe. But for several months, 

13 she found that she also had to have an inhaler. She's 

14 sort of free today. And she visited me last weekend, 

15 the inhaler was right there with her. 

16 So this is a disease that once a child has 

17 it, it take -- it goes with them throughout their 

18 lives. And of course, I see she was passionate about 

19 playing soccer. She was willing to run to the point 

20 of being extreme nausea, but she still couldn't make 

21 it to the team. 
335

1 So it was a real personal cost. The mere 

2 cost for many, many days work, we had to miss going to 

3 help my daughter. And she actually drives around this 

4 one family and one child. But today in America, 

5 roughly one child -- one family with children. One in 

6 five is dealing with childhood asthmas and many of 

7 those cases, many of them are linked to NAAQS of 

8 ozone. So NAAQS of ozone they don't need to be as 

9 high as they are today. 

10 And why did it happen? It happened because 

11 our country, this country decided, like times in the 

12 past, back then when my daughter was little, that her 

13 health and the health of other girls like her, little 

14 boys like her was not as important as allowing these 

15 businesses, not just to make good profits, but to make 

16 better profits. 

17 Now, actually it was a small cost for all of 

18 this, which is the financial cost, mostly be on 

19 ground, like the present overheads or some. But the 

20 financial cost to this country is huge. We're talking 

21 about an individual don't have a child, that it's one 
336

1 and 4 or 5,000 don't have to deal with this, everybody 

2 pays. These people got to go, as I say, with this 

3 disease throughout their lives. It's going to the 

4 cost for Medicare. It's going to the cost for 

5 Medicaid. It's a part -- a significant part of why 

6 insurance costs are going up by leaps and bounds, and 

7 this country can't afford that. We have to find a way 

8 to, in fact, slow this process. 

9 So it's a huge burden on everybody. And it 

10 just makes economic sense for us to decide then let's 

11 stop this process where it starts. Let's go to where 

12 this pollutant is made. It's much, much cheaper, far 

13 more cheaper to deal with pollution then as it's being 

14 made and the less it gets into everybody's bodies and 

15 then deal with the consequences afterwards over 

16 decades. 

17 So, in fact, at the same time, we're leaving 

18 progress out, because every time the EPA performs some 

19 stringent -- you try to have something developed and 

20 now that you're going to promote that particular 

21 business sector in our country. And this country 
337

1 instead of believing, perhaps, look forward to their 

2 leaders into developing our technologies; instead, you 

3 know, in my country they watch their own. So that's 

4 what I would like to say, comment. Okay? 

5 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

6 Ms. DuBois. 

7 MS. DuBOIS: My name is Dr. Gwen DuBois. 

8 I'm a physician, internist who has practiced in 

9 Baltimore since 1984. Baltimore has a big asthma 

10 problem. 

11 From 2009 data: Asthma led to 11,474 

12 hospitalizations, 40,000 ER visits, and 67 deaths and 

13 cost Maryland $99 million that year. 15 percent 

14 adults were actively asthmatic, that's about 

15 40 percent above national average. In some areas 

16 20 percent of children were asthmatic, 9.4 nationwide, 

17 and only has changed much more this year, 75, go a lot 

18 further. 

19 In Baltimore, pediatric hospitalization 

20 rates are among the highest in the nation. Not 

21 coincidentally, Baltimore has had a serious 
338

1 non-attainment problems with the 80 parts per billion 

2 standards in the past few years with the ozone 

3 standards. 

4 The relationship between respiratory disease 

5 and ozone pollution is solidly established. Long-term 

6 studies have shown that children who exercise in high 

7 ozone environments are more likely to develop asthma 

8 than children who exercise in low ozone environments. 

9 And that is stated in integrated study that it's much 

10 too basic a few years ago. And long-term exposure to 

11 higher ozone levels lead to higher relative risk to 

12 respiratory death (10 ppb increase in ozone levels 

13 leading to 1.04 relative risk of respiratory death), 

14 and that's Jerrett 2009. 

15 There is an environmental justice piece as 

16 well in low income neighborhoods like Baltimore's 

17 Curtis Bay with the highest level of emissions of air 

18 toxics in the state and is slated for the largest 

19 industrial incinerator licensed to spew ozone causing 

20 VOCs and nitrogen oxides, though our city is in 

21 non-attainment for ozone. 
339

1 These new regs will prevent some new cases 

2 of asthma in children, and reduce asthma related ER 

3 visits. There will be fewer deaths from respiratory 

4 illness; with nitrogen oxide still be fewer heart 

5 attacks, there will be heart attacks that won't 

6 happen; and lung cancers that don't develop because of 

7 these regulations. Health providers, patients and 

8 taxpayers can all rejoice. 

9 Asthmatics, people with COPD, the young and 

10 elderly, outdoor workers are more prone to the 

11 respiratory effects -- and many of you know this. It 

12 references hospitalization. 

13 As a primary care doctor taking care of 

14 people with chronic lung disease, as the mother of two 

15 asthmatics, and as someone who bicycles to work every 

16 day, I'm just constantly aware of fine particulate 

17 matter and ozone, and I wonder what it's doing to me, 

18 but I don't give up. 

19 The health savings of 8-hour ozone standard 

20 of 65 parts per billion -- which you heard this many 

21 times and I think it did come from EPA, the data -- 
340

1 whether it be $19-38 billion of cost saving and it 

2 cost $15 billion. The cost would be to industries 

3 that too many cases have been accepted or failed to 

4 pay for upgrades in pollution controls beyond what the 

5 EPA thwart. 

6 And then not mentioned but seen in the EPA 

7 data that climate forcing -- then decide where it bear 

8 the most significant climate increasing among chemical 

9 control. 

10 So you must call for the strictest ozone 

11 standards possible. You have the power to save lives 

12 and reduce suffering. As I said, I'm a doctor. I've 

13 practice for 35 years. I tinker at the edges in terms 

14 of saving lives. So, you the regulatory standards 

15 setters, you have the power to make a little 

16 difference. 

17 I thought I'd bring a little culture in 

18 here. I was blown away by Dickens hard times. So 

19 Dickens wrote this, and I think he's very positive. 

20 So this, the beginning, the second book. He says -- 

21 where he talks about the mortality. 
341

1 (Whereupon, a passage was read from a book.) 

2 Nothing has changed. Thank you. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you. 

4 Thank you all for your comments. Our next 

5 two speakers are Sergio Payan and Joshua Low. 

6 MR. PAYAN: My name is Sergio Payan. I live 

7 in Washington, D.C. I'll just read the "Statement for 

8 the Record from Mark Magana, President of 

9 GreenLatinos, on the Ground-Level Ozone Pollution 

10 Standard." 

11 Growing up in Los Angeles, we were exposed 

12 to many, many natural disasters; wildfires, 

13 earthquakes, floods, mudslides, severe storms. But 

14 the worst natural disasters for me were the days that 

15 we couldn't go out and play because of an unhealthy or 

16 harmful Air Quality Index warning. 

17 For a child to be told that they shouldn't 

18 go out and play because of dangerous air quality 

19 levels -- a high level of smog -- is a societal shame. 

20 But for me, it just became new normal. 

21 The days that we could go out and play, 
342

1 especially the days that I would go out and play 

2 soccer, I remember coming home and often crashing on 

3 the bed gasping for air through my nose. I remember 

4 vomiting in search of relief. This is a horrible 

5 consequence of a child going out to play, but for me 

6 it just became the new normal. 

7 My best friend and next door neighbor used 

8 to have to bring his asthma inhaler with him wherever 

9 he went out to play, and I remember hearing him wheeze 

10 and witnessing him having to pull his inhaler out to 

11 help him breathe. A child should not have to carry 

12 around an inhaler to be able to breathe, but to him 

13 this just became the new normal. 

14 Now, I have two children. My oldest 

15 daughter is two years old, and I feel a cold sweat 

16 when I hear her have a coughing fit, vomiting up what 

17 little she has in her stomach to relief. I purchase 

18 air purifiers for every room in the house and filters 

19 for every air vent. It may have nothing to do with 

20 the air quality, but it may, and my wife and I 

21 shouldn't live in fear reading about declining air 
343

1 quality and the rapid growth in asthma rates among 

2 children. I fear that for her and children of her 

3 generation, air pollution, asthma, and lung disease, 

4 could just become her new normal, but that is 

5 unacceptable when the Administration has an 

6 opportunity to do better, for many children like mine. 

7 That is why I write this statement today. 

8 I refuse to accept that smog pollution is 

9 just something that we must accept. I refuse to 

10 believe that this has to be my children's new normal. 

11 A 60 parts per billion standard would be a 

12 step forward, it would follow science and it would 

13 protect our children and their growing bodies and 

14 lungs even more susceptible to ozone pollution. This 

15 60 parts per billion standard would start us on the 

16 road to cleaner air so that our children would be able 

17 to go out and play without parents having to worry 

18 what breathing in outside air is doing to their bodies 

19 and health. With this new standard, we have the 

20 opportunity to make healthy, safe, clean air the new 

21 normal for our children and for generations to come. 
344

1 Thank you very much. 

2 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Low. 

3 MR. LOW: Yeah. My name is Joshua Low, 

4 J-O-S-H-U-A L-O-W, and I'm a resident of Washington, 

5 D.C. I come today to plead to you to reach a 60 parts 

6 per billion or a more effective standard. I do this 

7 because while I don't have asthma, I have been 

8 affected by bad air quality, bad-air days when I train 

9 for a triathlon near Washington, D.C. and Alexandria, 

10 near the incinerator. 

11 You could feel the pile bad air was 

12 inhibiting the performance that I had training for the 

13 triathlon. Not too long after that, I moved to 

14 Minnesota, which has much better air quality. And I 

15 got faster. 

16 And while certainly the EPA's authority is 

17 much more better used to protect people's health, it's 

18 also what the NAAQS do. And I think that is the 

19 important piece and the EPA can make it, not only 

20 to -- and structure this too, but it's mainly about 

21 the EPA to protect U.S. health of the 5 billion 
345

1 Americans. And that is something that we all get 

2 behind. I hope that you finalize the rule soon. It's 

3 a long overdue rule. And I thank you for your time. 

4 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

5 Our next two speakers are Daren Bakst -- 

6 MR. BAKST: Bakst. 

7 MS. SASSER: Bakst. -- and Marlin Mosroff 

8 here? Greer McBeth? 

9 That's Greer McBeth? 

10 MS. McBETH: Yes, I'm Greer McBeth. 

11 MS. SASSER: Okay. For those speakers that 

12 are just arriving, we are calling you in pairs. 

13 Please sit there and wait until the other speaker is 

14 finished. We have a time system up here with the 

15 timing of five minutes. After four minutes, the light 

16 will turn yellow to give you an additional one minute 

17 remaining. 

18 Mr. Bakst. 

19 MR. BAKST: Okay. you want me to spell it? 

20 MS. SASSER: Yes, please. Spell your name 

21 for the court reporter. 
346

1 MR. BAKST: First name is Daren, D-A-R-E-N. 

2 Last name is Bakst, B-A-K-S-T. And a hard copy should 

3 have been provided to you, right? 

4 My name is Daren Bakst, and I'm Research 

5 Fellow in Agricultural Policy at the Heritage. 

6 Foundation. The views I express in this statement are 

7 my own, and should not be construed as representing 

8 any official position of the Heritage Foundation. 

9 I really appreciate this opportunity to 

10 speak today and look forward to submitting written 

11 comments for the docket. 

12 States are just now starting to meet the 

13 current 75 parts per billion standard. According to 

14 the Congressional Research Service, 123 million people 

15 live in areas that have not attained the current 

16 standards. In fact, 105 million people live in areas 

17 that are still considered non-attainment for the less 

18 stringent ozone standard. 

19 When nearly 40 percent of the nation's 

20 population lives in areas that have not met the 

21 current standard, it's premature to adopt an even more 
347

1 stringent standard. 

2 EPA claims that the benefits of a new 70 

3 parts per billion or 65 parts per billion standard 

4 outweigh the costs. However, this is misleading. 

5 When focusing on ozone only benefits, the costs far 

6 exceed benefits for each of the more stringent 

7 standards. 

8 Based on EPA's own data, and taking the most 

9 generous estimate of ozone benefits, the costs exceed 

10 the benefits, ranging anywhere from half a billion 

11 dollars for a 70 parts per billion standard to 19 

12 billion for a 60 parts per billion standard. 

13 The benefits only outweigh costs if taking 

14 into account PM 2.5 co-benefits. PM 2.5 co-benefits, 

15 assuming the highest levels of benefits, account for 

16 anywhere between 70 to 75 percent of the total 

17 benefits, depending on the standard. In other words, 

18 for the proposed ozone standard, ozone benefits are 

19 only about a quarter of the total benefits. 

20 While the EPA has constantly used PM 2.5 

21 co-benefits to improperly justify a seemingly endless 
348

1 amount of regulations that have nothing to do with the 

2 reason for the regulations, using PM 2.5 co-benefits 

3 to make the case for an ozone standard is particularly 

4 egregious. 

5 EPA has a very clear and direct means to 

6 address PM 2.5 through the National Ambient Air 

7 Quality Standards process, and that, not surprisingly, 

8 is through the PM 2.5 standard. The ozone standard is 

9 a distinct standard that is supposed to be focused on 

10 ozone. 

11 To sell a more stringent ozone standard, the 

12 EPA lists a series of alleged facts in its "By the 

13 Numbers" document that will scare the public into 

14 thinking a more stringent standard is necessary. For 

15 example, according to the EPA, setting the ozone 

16 standard to 70 parts per billion or 65 parts per 

17 billion would avoid: 65,000 to 180,000 missed work 

18 days, and 790 to 2,300 cases of acute bronchitis among 

19 children. 

20 Here's the catch, though. Both of these 

21 alleged facts are based on reductions in PM 2.5 alone, 
349

1 and not ozone. The other facts listed in the 

2 document, except for one, actually account both PM 2.5 

3 and ozone. 

4 The public is being led to believe that 

5 reducing ozone achieves these health benefits. In 

6 reality, much of these alleged benefits have nothing 

7 to do with an actual reduction in ozone. 

8 These numbers, assuming the facts listed are 

9 reasonable assumptions, should also be put in 

10 perspective. For example, the EPA claims making the 

11 standard more stringent would avoid 1,400 to 4,300 

12 asthma-related emergency room visits. Given that 

13 there are about 1.8 million such visits in a year, the 

14 reduction amounts to eight-hundredths of 1 percent to 

15 two-tenths of 1 percent, a minuscule impact at best. 

16 Further, these numbers are based on both reductions in 

17 PM 2.5 and ozone, not just ozone. 

18 So I strongly urge the EPA to maintain the 

19 current 75 parts per billion standard. A more 

20 stringent standard is both premature and unjustified. 

21 As the EPA does move forward, the Agency should be 
350

1 very transparent regarding the ozone benefits and 

2 costs, and not sell a stricter standard -- a stricter 

3 ozone standard on PM 2.5 co-benefits. Thank you. 

4 MS. SASSER: Thank you for your comments. 

5 Ms. McBeth. 

6 MS. McBETH: Do you want me to spell my 

7 name? 

8 MS. SASSER: Yes, please. 

9 MS. McBETH: Hi. My name is Greer, 

10 G-R-E-E-R, McBeth, M-C-B-E-T-H. 

11 My name is Greer McBeth, and I'm a junior at 

12 Columbia University, currently a member of the Sierra 

13 Club. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you 

14 today regarding the ozone pollution standard. 

15 Smog pollution varies in our nation from 

16 burning fossil fuels next to something, its prevalent 

17 places, in major industrial facilities, among 

18 billions. I've been pretty fortunate to grow up in 

19 rural New Hampshire, no American major industrial 

20 facilities, and therefore largely without suffering 

21 from the effects of smog pollution. 
351

1 A real but small part of enduring the 

2 forest, I spent the majority of my free time walking 

3 my two dogs in the woods, helping two close friends of 

4 mine, hiking, biking, camping with my family. Winters 

5 consisted of equestrian team and several feet of snow 

6 we typically got, summers were often spent moving on 

7 the horizon little lakes. For as long as I can 

8 remember, enjoying the outdoors has been a staple of 

9 my life. 

10 It was my early love to be outdoors and 

11 planning to pursue a neuroscience major for now and 

12 to lead me to my career path as well. After learning 

13 of the effects of smog pollution, I know the damage 

14 smog can do, it seem to almost unregrettable. 

15 What the statute says is clean air is mixed 

16 with soot and smog is huge impact on our nation's 

17 health. As for scientists in global warming 

18 professionals warn that the current 75 parts per 

19 billion standard is insufficient to protect public 

20 health. Continuing on the standard is endangering and 

21 it will continue to impede our health, furnished in 
352

1 report. 

2 We can, all here, like, take the clean air 

3 for granted, or we move out the carbon-unhealthy 

4 country, and a country that robs children of the 

5 opportunity to grow up and live in an atmosphere where 

6 it's so bad. 

7 When I think of the environment, I think of 

8 my childhood, protecting my childhood and making it 

9 possible for others to experience is what brings me 

10 here today. 

11 It's becoming dangerous for kids to be 

12 outdoors some places in this country, making the 

13 enriching experience that I cherished as merely 

14 impossible for having. This fact alone saddens me, 

15 but it's simply unfair, as it strikes nearly one out 

16 of 10 -- every 10 school children in the United 

17 States, and it's the number one health issue that 

18 causes kids to miss school. 

19 I can't imagine having being forced to stay 

20 indoors on bad-air days or air alert days as kids with 

21 asthma are today, and virtually who will have to live 
353

1 in that condition. I feel that my generation already 

2 lived to see people on earth, people in scarce 

3 resource. And I don't know the generation will come 

4 to live to see clean air, the most scarce resources 

5 above. 

6 Lowering the smog pollution standards, as 

7 the scientists have said, is the best for the record 

8 million that humans can comfortably survive at, 

9 instead of being separated from school. 

10 Securing a standard is not only a matter of 

11 our nation's health, but taking care of one of the 

12 resources promised and that one cannot survive 

13 without. Thank you. 

14 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Thank you 

15 both for your comments. 

16 Raymond Keating. Please have a seat. 

17 All right. Thank you, Mr. Keating. You may 

18 go ahead. 

19 MR. KEATING: Sure. Do I need to spell my 

20 name? 

21 MS. SASSER: Yes, please. 
354

1 MR. KEATING: Raymond, R-A-Y-M-O-N-D, 

2 Keating, K-E-A-T-I-N-G. Thank you very much. 

3 My name is Raymond Keating. I serve as 

4 chief economist for the Small Business and 

5 Entrepreneurship Council, which is a nonpartisan, 

6 nonprofit advocacy, research and education 

7 organization that works to protect small business and 

8 promote entrepreneurship. In addition, the Center for 

9 Regulatory Solutions is a project of SBE Council. 

10 I confer with the EPA proposal to tighten 

11 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards pertaining 

12 to ozone. SBE Council is very concerned about the 

13 considerable costs involved with these new 

14 regulations, including the resulting ills for 

15 entrepreneurship, small business and the economy. 

16 Based on the full comments that I am 

17 submitting, I'd like to submit those; I am here. I'd 

18 like to highlight four areas of concern: uncertainty, 

19 scope, costs, and particular potential impact on small 

20 business. 

21 Regarding uncertainty, the process EPA is 
355

1 wrought with a lot of uncertainties and confusion in 

2 addition to the ways of costs. This uncertainty 

3 derails projects and means lost opportunity for job 

4 growth and economic opportunity. And I've seen that 

5 many times over the last several years. This 

6 unfortunately made matters worse. 

7 Regarding scope, as noted in July 2014 study 

8 by NERA Economic Consulting Group, they pointed out 

9 NERA regulations in target specific sectors, an ozone 

10 standard would directly affect virtually every sector 

11 of the economy, because ozone precursors are emitted 

12 by a wide range of stationary, mobile, and area 

13 sources. Much of the nation would be non-attainment 

14 areas under EPA's new regulatory standards, for 

15 example, by a Business Roundtable analysis. 

16 Regarding costs, in September 2014, SBE 

17 Council's Center for Regulatory Solutions Senior 

18 Fellow Kevin Nyland, who was the former Deputy 

19 Administrator of OIRA, was first to identify the ozone 

20 rule as possibly, in his words, "the most expensive in 

21 U.S. history." NERA study, for example, family costs 
356

1 reaching up to $4 trillion for 2017 to 2040 in present 

2 value terms, average annual loss of 4.3 million 

3 job-equivalents. 

4 Regarding small business, in the end, all 

5 sectors of the economy would be negatively affected by 

6 the EPA's new, stringent NAAQS ozone regulations. 

7 That means, of course, that small business will be hit 

8 hardest, as is the case with nearly all regulations. 

9 Consider the major role of small business plays in the 

10 overall economy and in some of the key industry 

11 sectors that will be affected by these regulations. 

12 Among all industries, we look at employer 

13 firms. 90 percent of them have less than 20 workers. 

14 When you look at manufacturing businesses 

15 which tend to take a whole margin on this with 

16 75 percent of those have less than 20 workers. 

17 When you look at energy use, you hear a lot 

18 about energy and oil, consider the share with clear 

19 firms that have fewer than 20 workers and just 

20 these -- here, I'll add it up here -- 91 percent, oil 

21 and gas extractions; 82 percent, businesses like 
357

1 support activity for oil and gas operations; 

2 61 percent, oil and gas and pipeline and related 

3 structures construction businesses; 59 percent rely on 

4 firms with less than 20 workers, and about two-thirds 

5 of businesses that provide support activities for coal 

6 mining have less than 20 workers. It's very much 

7 small institutions when you look the potential to 

8 most. 

9 The costs of the proposed EPA ozone 

10 regulations promise to be enormous for small 

11 businesses, and for the overall economy. Small 

12 businesses in non-attainment areas will have a 

13 difficult time expanding and competing for "offsets." 

14 Compliance will be complex and costly. Economic 

15 opportunity and job creation, however, has got to 

16 suffer. The expense and red tape will be a massive 

17 barrier to new startups and business formations. 

18 These regulations would hamper local efforts to spur 

19 new business creation, and could, in effect, serve as 

20 a cap on entrepreneurship and small business growth. 

21 I assume wherever it is, it's going to be out, I don't 
358

1 know the costs of small businesses. Those are your 

2 conditions. Thank you for your time. I appreciate 

3 it. 

4 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

5 Next we will call James Tsai and Rick Nunno. 

6 MR. TSAI: Hi. My name is James Tsai, 

7 T-S-A-I, Tsai. Good evening. It is an honor and 

8 privilege to testify today. 

9 Hi. My name is James Tsai. I'm a member of 

10 the Sierra Club. I'm a long-time resident of the D.C. 

11 area. I was born in Los Angeles. Among the reasons 

12 that my family decided to move here when I was eight 

13 was the presence of smog and air pollution that caused 

14 some early childhood asthma in myself and my brothers 

15 and sisters. 

16 Today, according to the American Lung 

17 Association, asthma is and continues to be one of the 

18 most common chronic disorders in childhood, currently 

19 affecting an estimated 7.1 million children under age 

20 18 years; of which 4.1 million suffered from an asthma 

21 attack or episode in 2011. The Sierra Club says that 
359

1 soot pollution, a contributor to unclean air and 

2 asthma, causes an estimated 9,700 hospitalizations and 

3 more than 20,000 heart attacks each year. 

4 The proposed updated air quality standards 

5 that are being submitted by yourselves today are 

6 critical in time where we are living in more densely 

7 populations with one another, lowering gas prices 

8 (recently cause more driving and more pollution) and a 

9 much more fragile ecosystem in the face of climate 

10 change. I fully support and believe that the proposed 

11 primary and secondary revisions of the ppm ozone 

12 levels, which were last set in 2008, are supported by 

13 science and grounded in fact. The lives saved, 

14 improvement in quality in life, are all worthy goals 

15 and rewards for setting such standards. 

16 Those opposed to these new standards (as 

17 some have previously testified) have brought out old 

18 arguments of costs for compliance, reduction of GDP by 

19 the billions, and the facts some small businesses end 

20 by you. I say to these doomsday-preachers that there 

21 is another doomsday coming if we don't adopt these 
360

1 standards -- the advancement of technology and the 

2 creation of new jobs around these technologies, as 

3 well as the reduced production and all costs in 

4 non-economic benefits of a healthy environment, are 

5 not only a business case for adopting these new 

6 standards, but also a moral case. Thank you. 

7 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Nunno. 

8 MR. NUNNO: Yes. My name is Rick Nunno, and 

9 I'm a member and a voter of DC Chapter of Sierra Club, 

10 also a resident of Washington, D.C. 

11 Ground-level ozone is produced when nitrogen 

12 oxides and volatile organic compounds react with 

13 oxygen in the presence of sunlight, a reaction is 

14 enhanced by the presence of hydrocarbons, which are 

15 produced by the burning of fossil fuels. This can be 

16 from coal fired or gas-fired power plants or motor 

17 vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, or chemical 

18 solvents. Because ozone is created from nitrogen 

19 oxides, the only way to reduce ozone levels is to 

20 reduce the nitrogen oxygen levels. 

21 Ozone causes eye irritation, nasal 
361

1 congestion, asthma, reduced lung functioning, damaged 

2 lung tissue, and reduced resistance to infection. It 

3 also harms vegetation by damaging plant tissue, 

4 inhibiting photosynthesis, and increasing plants' 

5 susceptibility to disease and drout. Even short-term 

6 exposure to ozone for more than three hours is 

7 directly linked to increased hospital admissions and 

8 emergency room visits for respiratory problems. 

9 According to EPA measurements, ozone levels 

10 in Washington, D.C., as well as most other U.S. 

11 cities, has been consistently above the EPA's maximum 

12 threshold or daily 8-hour average concentrations, the 

13 75 parts per billion, since it started being measured 

14 in 1993. 

15 According to the U.S. Census, 81 percent of 

16 American citizens live in urban areas, so the vast 

17 majority of Americans are exposed to these dangerous 

18 levels. EPA itself has found that combustion 

19 emissions in the United States account for about 

20 10,000 premature deaths per year as a result of ozone 

21 levels. It's probably a little information you've 
362

1 heard already, but there are some things you might not 

2 have heard. 

3 Other studies have assessed the impact of 

4 ozone and other pollutants on worker productivity. 

5 For example, the American Council for an Energy 

6 Efficient Economy has found that a 10 percent decrease 

7 in ozone levels below the federal standard increases 

8 worker productivity by 4.2 percent. So if ozone is 

9 elevated in the work environments for about one-third 

10 of the U.S. workforce, then about 60 million people 

11 might be 4 percent more productive if the ozone levels 

12 were reduced by 10 percent. This translates into an 

13 economic benefit of $185 billion per year. 

14 I'm concerned about how ozone pollution 

15 affects me when I walk down the street with cars 

16 driving by, or when I'm forced to breathe in the 

17 exhaust of a car standing behind a traffic light or 

18 idling on the street. These effects are even worse 

19 for children and elderly people or those who live near 

20 power plants or industrial operations. They're also 

21 worse in the summer when there's more sunlight, more 
363

1 UV radiation, when the air is more stagnant, and 

2 people happen to spend more time outdoors. 

3 The air is a public good -- we all have to 

4 share it -- rich, poor, all races, ethnicities, and 

5 religious groups. It is worth the extra expense to 

6 require polluters, who are mainly profitable 

7 corporations that can easily afford it, to install 

8 mitigation devices on their pollution generators or 

9 else stop polluting. 

10 Numerous medical associations and public 

11 health organizations have endorsed 60 parts per 

12 billion as the standard for ozone smog pollution to 

13 protect public health. The EPA now has the 

14 opportunity to protect millions of Americans from 

15 dirty air and unnecessary illness by lowering the 

16 ozone standard to that level, 60 parts per billion, 

17 and holding polluters accountable for their 

18 transgressions. Thank you. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Thank you 

20 both. 

21 Next speakers are Carol LeBlanc and Karissa 
364

1 Gerhke. 

2 Ms. LeBlanc. 

3 MS. LeBLANC: Do you need the spelling? 

4 MS. SASSER: Yes. Please spell your last 

5 name for the court reporter. 

6 MS. LEBLANC: L-E-B-L-A-N-C. 

7 Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I 

8 appreciate it. 

9 While preparing my comments for today, I 

10 tried to come up with one or two examples of 

11 individuals, whom I know who have been affected by 

12 unhealthy air, and I couldn't do it. Not that I 

13 didn't have examples, but I had too many, as we're 

14 limited to five minutes and I couldn't narrow down 

15 who's been affected. But I know there are dozens of 

16 friends, family members, colleagues, acquaintances 

17 with asthma, allergies, or other health conditions 

18 that affect their breathing, are all directly impacted 

19 by ozone pollution. 

20 Ozone which is the main component of smog 

21 can inflame and damage your lungs. It aggravates lung 
365

1 disease, including asthma, emphysema, and Bronchitis; 

2 increases the frequency and severity of asthma 

3 attacks. It reduces lung function, making it harder 

4 to breathe as deeply as normal. It causes coughing 

5 and sore throat, or burning sensation in airways. I 

6 have experienced that many times in the summer. I 

7 thought I was getting sick, but it was the air was bad 

8 and I think it was my throat was sore. 

9 The saddest part of this is that children 

10 are at the greatest health risk from pollution because 

11 they are more likely to be active outdoors when the 

12 air is bad and their lungs are still developing. 

13 Asthma strikes nearly one out of every 10 

14 school children in the U.S. and is the number one 

15 health issue that causes kids to miss school. 

16 We know that setting and implementing 

17 national air standards has reduced air pollution and 

18 made air cleaner. But we also know that further 

19 reductions in ozone will reduce pollution-related 

20 illness even further. Reducing ozone to 60 parts per 

21 billion will help millions of Americans breathe 
366

1 easier. This is a problem that we can fix. So let's 

2 fix it. Thank you. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Gerhke. 

4 MS. GERHKE: Gerhke. So it's G-E-R-H-K-E. 

5 I am sorry you all have been here a long 

6 time, so I'll keep my comments short. 

7 Again, my name is Karissa Gerhke. I'm the 

8 National Director of the Sierra Student Coalition 

9 which is the youth arm of the Sierra Club which is the 

10 United States full list -- environmental organization. 

11 But today I'm here speaking as a voter and a resident 

12 of Maryland, and a fortunate runner, mountain bike 

13 owner, who deeply values the ability to do both of 

14 those activities in a way that won't cause me to 

15 get -- have health effects in relation to respiratory 

16 illnesses that are caused by increased smog in the 

17 air. 

18 So today I'll tell you how my views are in 

19 support of the EPA passing a 60 parts per billion 

20 standard which would prevent roughly 1.8 million 

21 asthma attacks -- sorry, asthma attacks, 1.9 million 
367

1 missed school days, and 6400 premature deaths. 

2 The evidence I'd like to add to that is that 

3 I don't know if the EPA is considering somewhere 

4 around 65 to 70, but please you-all would consider the 

5 numbers that EPA consultants had come out with around 

6 60 parts per billion and really take the extra need 

7 for that. Thanks. 

8 MS. SASSER: Thank you both very much. 

9 And I want to assure everyone here that we 

10 are actually quite anxious to hear what you have to 

11 say and we're very happy to afford you a whole five 

12 minutes, and we want to hear from everyone. We know a 

13 lot of you traveled a long way and took the time out 

14 of your day to come here, and we really appreciate you 

15 doing that and we're very glad that you're here. So 

16 thank you all for coming. 

17 I will continue to call speakers up as they 

18 arrive and I'll share these rules so the various new 

19 arrivals will know the way today's hearing -- so I 

20 will repeat myself when going through this list here. 

21 As I call your name to speak, please come up 
368

1 in pairs to the table, remain at the table until both 

2 speakers have finished. 

3 We have a timer here on the end of the table 

4 that will change from green to yellow after four 

5 minutes. When it turns red, your five minutes are up 

6 so I would ask that you try to wrap up your testimony 

7 as quickly as possible. 

8 Also, as you begin to speak, please spell 

9 your name, first name and last name for the court 

10 reporter so she can accurately capture that 

11 information. 

12 Our next two speakers are Dana McCartney 

13 (phonetic) and Anastasia Schemkes. 

14 Okay. Ms. McCartney. 

15 MS. McCARTNEY: My name is Dana McCartney. 

16 I am the Washington Representative of the 

17 Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS is a leading 

18 science based nonprofit, hoping for a healthy 

19 environment as we go forth. 

20 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on 

21 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. 
369

1 As an advocate and as a mother, I urge the 

2 EPA to choose the strongest standards supported by 

3 scientific evidence. 

4 The EPA has the civil network charter to 

5 protection of the environment. In order to carry out 

6 this mission, I believe EPA must -- must make 

7 science-based policy decisions that protect the public 

8 with an adequate margin of safety. 

9 In the case of ozone standards, the Clean 

10 Air Act to make -- standard is set as to slow down 

11 ozone levels protective of the public health and with 

12 an adequate margin of safety. 

13 UCS urges the EPA to remember the depth on 

14 setting a standard and ignore any requests for legal 

15 factors, including what it might cost, into the 

16 determination of the air quality standard. 

17 The science on what standard protects public 

18 health is clear -- that hazard ozone can't where you 

19 can. 

20 Finally, the current NAAQS standard for 

21 ozone is not protective of human health. The panel 
370

1 concluded that a concentration of ozone meeting the 

2 current standard, there are still a causal 

3 relationship between even short-term ozone exposure 

4 and corroborating respiratory effects, including 

5 inflammation and possible admissions to the emergency 

6 department. 

7 This built on findings, previous NAAQS of 

8 ozone, which repeatedly concluded in the internal 

9 outcome 2014, the strongest scientific evidence 

10 demands a standard below 70 parts per billion with the 

11 greatest health benefits seen for making 60 parts per 

12 billion an effective ozone standard. 

13 The Union of Concerned Scientists applauds 

14 the EPA's decision to strengthen the ozone standard 

15 and encourages the Agency to set a standard that 

16 follows the recognition of its advisory committee. 

17 The standard provides an adequate margin of safety for 

18 normal populations and it protects Americans from 

19 preventable asthma attacks, and I ask that you return 

20 this. 

21 Thank you very much for your time. 
371

1 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Schemkes. 

2 MS. SCHEMKES: Yes, very good. That's 

3 Schemkes. That's the best I heard in a long time. 

4 Do you need a spelling or do you have it? 

5 MS. SASSER: Yes. 

6 MS. SCHEMKES: My name is Anastasia 

7 Schemkes, A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-A S-C-H-E-M-K-E-S. So I'm 

8 here, actually here in town from Oakland, California. 

9 I work also with the Sierra Student Coalition, the 

10 National Youth Branch of the Sierra Club. So every 

11 day I actually work with hundreds of gathered people 

12 across the country taking action for clean air in our 

13 communities. But I'm actually here because this issue 

14 is very personal for me, and so I just speak 

15 personally and not representing the SSC at this moment 

16 in time. 

17 As a kid, my older sister and I shared a 

18 room. And we'd, you know, fall asleep talking to each 

19 other and sharing stories or something. Sometimes I 

20 think she was unable to sleep. 

21 Now, let's forward about 20 years and my 
372

1 sister and I will go back home. We share a wall right 

2 now, rooms share a wall. And I can hear her coughing 

3 and wheezing as we go to bed at night. Even as I sit 

4 around the living room talking, my sister, her sleep 

5 pattern is interrupted with coughing, that's to the 

6 point of gasping, more like she can't catch her 

7 breath. My sister is also very damaged because of bad 

8 pollution. 

9 She lived in Southern California and since 

10 then she moved away from Southern California and has 

11 been away for several years. But her lungs are badly 

12 damaged to the point that she keeps an asthma inhaler 

13 with her in her drawer, in her nightstand. And you 

14 know this is -- it was a transformation that I saw, 

15 very startlely (phonetic). And someone who means a 

16 lot to me, that will touch her entire life. 

17 And to see the difference in her health so 

18 dramatically that, you know, to grow up and my sister 

19 not ever having trouble breathing and now experiencing 

20 coughing fits or trouble getting through sentences or 

21 falling asleep at night through coughing to now, I've 
373

1 seen the difference there. 

2 So as you look to reset this rule, I urge 

3 you to set the strongest standards possible, 60 parts 

4 per billion, because there are so many people we met 

5 and have it worse like my sister and that shouldn't be 

6 there. 

7 MS. SASSER: We thank you all for your 

8 testimony. We thank you very much. 

9 Our next two speakers are Carol -- pardon 

10 me, John Bloom and Blake Lynch. 

11 Begin just by spelling your name. I call 

12 Mr. Bloom. 

13 MR. BLOOM: Good evening. My name is John 

14 Bloom. That's J-O-H-N B-L-O-O-M. And I'm pleased to 

15 be here this evening, as a public health lawyer and a 

16 father. I'm speaking in support of strengthening 

17 EPA's ground-level ozone standards and urging EPA to 

18 follow clear and compelling science in this area and 

19 to set a new standard at 60 parts per billion. On 

20 this issue, the public health, environmental and 

21 medical communities are united. 
374

1 Of course, whatever EPA does, it will be 

2 challenged in court. We all know that. I believe EPA 

3 ultimately will be legally compelled to adopt a 

4 standard in the range of 60 parts per billion because 

5 the public health benefits of doing so are so dramatic 

6 and sharp. So why not get it right from the outset 

7 and avoid embarrassing litigation? 

8 As a matter of law, I think the most 

9 important point is that EPA is required by the Clean 

10 Air Act to protect public health, including the health 

11 of vulnerable populations, with an adequate margin of 

12 safety. And that phrase has been litigated all the 

13 way to the Supreme Court in Whitman v. American 

14 Trucking Associations. Justice Scalia, writing for 

15 the majority, found that the Clean Air Act requires 

16 that the standard be set on the basis of public health 

17 considerations alone. Costs of compliance really do 

18 not, and legally cannot, enter into the picture at 

19 this point. Of course, costs are hugely important as 

20 states and industries choose how to comply, but that 

21 comes later. 
375

1 EPA's Regulatory Assessment -- Regulatory 

2 Impact Assessment clearly shows major health benefits 

3 to an ozone standard of 60 parts per billion over and 

4 above 65 parts per billion. Table ES-7 shows that in 

5 every health impact category -- deaths, hospital 

6 admissions, heart attacks, bronchitis -- the benefits 

7 of 60 parts per billion standard are dramatically 

8 higher than they would be for a 65 parts per billion 

9 standard. 

10 To cite just one example, specifically, the 

11 data show that reducing the standard from 65 to 60 

12 parts would result in about 900,000 fewer missed days 

13 from school. These are not small numbers. Under any 

14 reasonable interpretation of the law, it's pretty 

15 clear that 60 parts per billion standard should be on 

16 the high side of the range of what EPA considers. 

17 Now, from what I've read, it sounds like the 

18 fossil fuel industry and its allies are trying to turn 

19 this "adequate margin of safety" standard on its head, 

20 presuming that any kernel of uncertainty should be 

21 resolved in favor of continued pollution. And that's 
376

1 all well, but that's a matter of rhetoric, that's just 

2 not what the Clean Air Act says. 

3 The opponents also say that a lower standard 

4 is impossible, or won't work. The problem there is 

5 that the rest of the world is way ahead of us here, 

6 and proving this can be done. The entire European 

7 Union, for one example, has already adopted a target 

8 of 60 parts per billion and is considering lower 

9 limits. Canada has set a standard of 62 parts per 

10 billion by 2020. And the World Health Organization 

11 recommends 50 parts per billion. 

12 So personally, I'm glad that this decision 

13 won't be reduced to economic numbers alone. Numbers 

14 don't capture the pain and suffering of the 7 million 

15 children and their families -- children with asthma 

16 and their families, or the long-term consequences of 

17 hundreds of thousands of school days missed by 

18 low-income children who are at risk in so many ways, 

19 or the cost to a family of a grandparent lost too 

20 soon. 

21 Americans deserve a stronger standard. 
377

1 Please help to protect them with a 60 parts per 

2 billion ground-level ozone standard. Thank you. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Lynch. 

4 MR. LYNCH: Hi. Blake Lynch. That's 

5 B-L-A-K-E L-Y-N-C-H. 

6 Good evening. My name is again Blake Lynch, 

7 and I'm testifying today in my capacity as a Climate 

8 Reality Leadership Corps presenter, as an 

9 Environmental and Energy Policy Consultant, and, most 

10 importantly, as a very concerned citizen. 

11 I know that we're at the end of a very long 

12 day and you've heard lots of testimony, so I'll keep 

13 my comments brief. 

14 And since you're also already aware of the 

15 vast public health benefits that reducing the smog 

16 standard to, at most, 60 parts per billion would 

17 bring, I want to just relay one personal anecdote 

18 about how reducing smog improves American lives and 

19 our quality of life. 

20 When my family moved from Utah to Southern 

21 California in 1987, I remember firsthand how smog 
378

1 choked the horizon on hot days and how many kids at my 

2 school developed asthma as we grew from fourth grade 

3 through high school together. 

4 Mostly though, I remember the almost daily 

5 spring and summertime air quality alerts that 

6 prevented me and my friends from just playing sports 

7 or even going outside to participate in physical 

8 education, all because of the unhealthy amounts of 

9 smog in the air. 

10 Luckily, though, the state of California 

11 recognized the profound and widespread impact that 

12 smog and air pollution was having on its citizens, and 

13 took aggressive pollution control measures to reduce 

14 that smog that clouded the horizon and filled both the 

15 inland valleys and lungs of its children 

16 Today, nearly 30 years later, thanks to 

17 those tough decisions made by regulators and 

18 policymakers at the state level, my nieces and nephews 

19 in Los Angeles are healthy, they are asthma-free, and 

20 much less likely to experience the daily impacts of 

21 smog pollution that kids from my generation did. 
379

1 In this era of unprecedented daily 

2 screen-time, child obesity rates, and other hurdles 

3 preventing our children from exercising properly, we 

4 must remember the role that air pollution also plays 

5 in putting not just our children's lungs, but their 

6 whole bodies, at risk. Without smog-free air, we are 

7 robbing them of their health and living and human 

8 potential. 

9 My nieces and nephews have benefited from 

10 strengthened smog air pollution regulations, but there 

11 are millions of children across this nation who 

12 deserve the same protection and foresight. 

13 So now is your chance, EPA, to do just that. 

14 I urge you to take action for the sake of today's 

15 generation of American children and for their children 

16 to come. Please reduce the smog standard to, at most, 

17 60 parts per billion. Thank you. 

18 MS. SASSER: Thank you. 

19 MR. SILVERMAN: And to Mr. Bloom, you got it 

20 exactly right on Whitman. You said that you got 

21 concerned costs, so you can stand on purposely and not 
380

1 just quote from majority. You wrote the unanimous 

2 court in that opinion so -- 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much for coming. 

4 Our next to speakers, Amanda Hurowitz and 

5 Malin Moench. 

6 MR. MOENCH: Moench. 

7 MS. SASSER: Moench. Please have a seat at 

8 the center. 

9 All right. Ms. Hurowitz. 

10 MS. HUROWITZ: Hi. My name is Amanda 

11 Hurowitz, and it's an easy first, A-M-A-N-D-A; 

12 Hurowitz, H-U-R-O-W-I-T-Z. And I'm a resident of D.C. 

13 I'm originally from New York. I'm a Social Studies 

14 teacher at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science 

15 and Technology. I think you've heard from three of my 

16 students earlier today. 

17 Anyway, I'm here today to urge the EPA to 

18 adopt a smog standard of, at most, 60 parts per 

19 billion. I'm just shy of five months pregnant. It's 

20 our first, so it's an exciting and scary time. And we 

21 just found out it will be a girl. And I want to bring 
381

1 my daughter into a world where she will have no 

2 trouble breathing. I've, you know, been concerned 

3 about the environment for a long time, and this is the 

4 first time I have someone else to think about, that I 

5 am responsible for. 

6 I feel that I've done everything concrete 

7 personally to create that environment of clean air. 

8 We recently installed solar columns on the roof of our 

9 house. We own one car for the two of us, a Prius. I 

10 try, in fact, if it's possible, I'll take the public 

11 transportation, walking. I have a bike. I just got a 

12 new air pump so I can actually ride it. If the tires 

13 are flat, I hope to do so with my plan conceived, you 

14 know how that goes. And a couple years ago, I helped 

15 in the Outreach (phonetic) Associates Capitol Power 

16 Plant and it holds natural gas. Back when there was a 

17 climate bill in Congress, I worked with my students to 

18 lobby the Representatives to help its passage. 

19 So I feel like I'm doing everything I can 

20 personally. But the air, it floats. The air we 

21 breathe in D.C. is not entirely a healthy part of 
382

1 breathing. Dirty coal-fired power plants and the bus 

2 contribute, unfortunately, to our poor air quality. 

3 Now, I can't personally do anything to stop that. In 

4 this case, personal action can't fix that bump. 

5 I want my daughter to be able to play 

6 outside every day in the spring and summer. I don't 

7 want to ever have to tell her that she can't go 

8 outside because the air quality is too poor. 

9 I need the EPA's help. One of the most 

10 important roles of the federal government is to 

11 protect its citizens. 

12 Being a U.S. History teacher, I tell my 

13 students sometimes that I got protection and sort of 

14 police power, but not with security, nor security 

15 prevention, guns, weapons. But other times that leads 

16 to helping the public out. That's just as important. 

17 And citizens should not have to bear the cost for 

18 dirty air. 

19 It's not probably then -- it's not something 

20 we can resolve ourselves. We need the EPA's help. 

21 Please listen to the scientists and set the standard 
383

1 at 60 parts per billion so all children, including my 

2 daughter one day, can play outside whenever they want. 

3 Thank you. 

4 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

5 Mr. Moench. 

6 MR. MOENCH: My name is Malin Moench. 

7 That's spelled M-A-L-I-N M-O-E-N-C-H. I advise a 

8 group called the Utah Physicians for a Healthy 

9 Environment. It's a group of nearly 300 professionals 

10 and that's including the major scientists. I advise 

11 them on economic regulatory matters. 

12 Many of the illnesses that our health 

13 professionals treat are merely caused by poor air 

14 condition by pollution. The UPHE offer our expertise 

15 informatively on how society should deal with these 

16 threats to human health. 

17 The American Lung Association estimates that 

18 nearly a million of Utah's 28 million people are 

19 especially vulnerable to the effects of ozone and 

20 basically are the children, the seniors, or have 

21 respiratory conditions, heart conditions, and 
384

1 metabolic symptoms. 

2 Our state legislature seems to assume that 

3 our air is bad and cleaned out. We're not destroying 

4 the economy. We haven't read the science with the air 

5 pollution's loss health and productivity. And they 

6 deny there's ill-related jobs. Smog so bad that it's 

7 not safe for anybody's children to go outdoors at 

8 least at the time, especially at times during the 

9 heat. 

10 The EPA cited their own standard -- ozone 

11 standards and relate it to which you would call, at 

12 the EPA, "the disadvantaged folks," to come to the aid 

13 of children. 

14 The primary ozone standard is based on the 

15 three-year average of the fourth-highest daily for the 

16 8-hour period. This emphasize avoiding short-term 

17 needs, so we would need to avoid long-term exposure. 

18 The short-term emphasis may be appropriate 

19 for these who have symptom for ozone concentrations, 

20 but typically only a problem in the sun as explained 

21 in months. But this standard doesn't address the 
385

1 problem with long-term exposure. 

2 Most of the universe of the United States 

3 has ozone concentrations year-round. They invoked 

4 World Health Organization to sort of put a standard 

5 thinking on the part of per billion. The other EPA 

6 assumes that we can resurrect and be protected, in 

7 short term at least, about on some short-term 

8 standard. I'd like to think it will be critical. 

9 This assumption is not ordered by science. Every day 

10 the logical study show with increases in long-term 

11 ozone exposure in 5 to 10 parts per billion are 

12 associated with increase in mortality. 

13 In the West have done great risk of harm, 

14 long-term, low-level exposure. And the EPA should 

15 develop primary ozone standards strict enough to 

16 protect us from the list of long-term exposures as 

17 well. 

18 Regarding the secondary standard, it wasn't 

19 about the West. Feedback was said, rising heat, drout 

20 dealt with ozone. Join our force to kindle and the 

21 resulting fires elevated. The length of the fire 
386

1 season in the mountain West has doubled since 1970 and 

2 the annual brook areas may affect altitude, mine 

3 forest as it creates minus 1 through 6, 150 percent. 

4 It's now a routine matter before the fire, 

5 smoke fill the skies of the mountain West at the root 

6 summer of Eden and fall. If the EPA takes all the 

7 Russian forest fires in our region, it's historic 

8 never against for the purposes of meeting ozone 

9 standards, that exception requires such a large share 

10 of it here, unless it modify benefits to the primary 

11 standard. 

12 And the EPA should adopt the secondary ozone 

13 standard, as long as it mitigates the source, the one 

14 below 13 parts per billion hours, and the W1 through 6 

15 of this, with nearly one exception -- for which he 

16 already didn't have a star. 

17 High concentrations of ground-level ozone do 

18 not address, they only appear beyond our state and 

19 beyond the sun. Thousands of oil and gas companies in 

20 the middle of the Southwest Wyoming and Northwest 

21 Colorado and Northeastern Utah, and the standard ozone 
387

1 levels are well beyond those. 

2 Experience in Los Angeles, even in the 

3 middle of winter, and there's a supply of ozone 

4 precursors that needs to be moderations as well. 

5 Ozone is spilling over into healthy -- heavily 

6 populated of alps of Utah and Colorado, including the 

7 air share of the iconic Ranti (phonetic) colon in the 

8 out stone parks. 

9 Ozone levels are merely as high in Southern 

10 Utah. The iconic 20-mile distance, there was once a 

11 hallmark companion with its arches, rocks, and Zion 

12 national parks, are now a dingy ground once in the 

13 summer. 

14 This domestic groundhogs of Salt Lake City 

15 can consider its own level of Las Vegas, Nevada -- 

16 (inaudible) 

17 The secondary ozone standard above is marked 

18 per billion hours. It should be adopted to help 

19 mitigate this major loss, this quality of life in the 

20 Southwest. 

21 My time is up. And I'll submit a written 
388

1 statement. 

2 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Malyn, you have a 

3 minute. We're on our probate -- 

4 MR. MOENCH: Oh. Two things -- two points I 

5 wanted to make in addition. One is about a 60 part 

6 per billion standard about the science, fully supports 

7 60 and even 40. It's a threshold for 60 or better 

8 respiratory profits. 

9 The second point I want to make is that the 

10 calculation of the external benefits of ozone and the 

11 stricter ozone standard is far too narrow. They focus 

12 on what we call "high visibility health impacts," 

13 which consists of things like deaths or visits to 

14 emergency rooms or missed work days. What they missed 

15 are what we call "internal effects" in the economics 

16 profession. These are things like -- (inaudible) 

17 Very elegant -- I found that new study was 

18 published in the American Economics Journal in 2012 

19 and analyzed the effect at variations of ozone levels 

20 on fire workers at Central Valley in California. And 

21 they concluded that an increase -- a decrease of 10 
389

1 parts per billion of ozone caused a VICOR of 5 percent 

2 and increase in productivity of these workers. 

3 You can check that nationwide by going to 

4 the Bureau of Vital Statistics. It's a breakdown of 

5 populations. It's very fine and very detailed. So 

6 you can pick it up at the professions staff of 

7 predominantly performed outdoors. Take the median 

8 salary of these professions, add them up, multiply a 

9 factor of productivity factor of 5.5 percent on the 

10 assumption that you were able to produce those on 

11 computations by 10 parts per billion. Factor in what 

12 the length of the ozone season across the country, and 

13 you can come up with an increase productivity in the 

14 neighborhood of $11 billion per year, if you're able 

15 to reduce ozone concentration by 10 parts per billion. 

16 So you can take 38 billion and estimate as associated 

17 with reducing the standard of 65 and you can add 

18 another billion to that 38 billion. 

19 MS. SASSER: All right. Thank you very 

20 much. 

21 I do also want to thank you for bringing up 
390

1 the issue of western ozone NAAQS. I also point out 

2 the only of our proposal that is not mentioned today 

3 in any of the comments, except for a couple of 

4 mentions that said the monitoring season for many 

5 states, including mid states in the West, which 

6 currently are required to monitor only a few months a 

7 year. We are proposing in many cases to require the 

8 round off right in many of those western states. 

9 So in my commentary about that, that would 

10 be a valuable input for EPA to receive on the rule. 

11 Thank you so very much. 

12 MR. SILVERMAN: You traveled from Utah here? 

13 MR. MOENCH: What's that? 

14 MR. SILVERMAN: Did you travel here from 

15 Utah today? 

16 MR. MOENCH: I actually have two homes; one 

17 in Virginia and one Salt Lake Valley. My home I have 

18 in Salt Lake Valley is right up on the mountain and it 

19 overlooks 70 miles to the North and 70 miles to the 

20 South and 20 miles to the West, and it's gorgeous, but 

21 only on a rare day, when the air is great. 
391

1 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

2 Our next speakers are Phillip Collins and 

3 Joseph Manning. 

4 Mr. Collins, please. 

5 MR. COLLINS: Thank you. I'm a D.C. 

6 resident and taxpayer, member of the Sierra Club. I'm 

7 an avid bicyclist. So I am a person that breathes in 

8 an area. And I'm also an attorney, a D.C. lawyer. 

9 And I'm here to talk about the purposes of 

10 the Constitution related to this proposed legislation. 

11 It starts off with "We the People," and 

12 people that time, I believe, was talking about real 

13 human-living-breathing people, rather than a 

14 corporation. 

15 The Constitution was established for "to 

16 form a more perfect Union," which was an indication 

17 for continual improvement, in order to establish 

18 justice and, I believe, have a balance. 

19 And "justice" is referring to the original 

20 three words of the Constitution "justice for people," 

21 rather than as living, breathing people up as a 
392

1 financial exponents like -- not only people such as 

2 corporations are. 

3 To "insure domestic Tranquility," obviously 

4 the standard having health and someone and life is a 

5 trick question, tranquility -- 

6 And "promote common defense," President 

7 Nixon, Wallace, or -- to protect the country from all, 

8 I guess, foreign and domestic. 

9 Through the circumstance, you look at smog 

10 as a domestic enemy, you know, protect your enemy. 

11 We're reasonable people. So we have to take that type 

12 into account. 

13 Also, "promote general Welfare," at least 

14 that's part of health and education, welfare, and so 

15 health is included. 

16 Welfare and the general Welfare on that, the 

17 general welfare is what includes individual's welfare. 

18 And what the "Blessings of Liberty" for 

19 ourselves and "Posterity," it's looking to the future 

20 for us and all generations. 

21 So that's the purpose of the Constitution. 
393

1 And set straight destruction, and the 

2 statute is read in accordance with the purposes that 

3 are set out. These are the purposes of the 

4 Constitution, not just to promote the gross domestic 

5 products. 

6 Gross domestic product is and two-play 

7 argument. It's dollars and a Forbes Magazine. In the 

8 October 20th issue an article called "Money Is Not 

9 Wealth," because wealth is actually something a lot 

10 of us -- people think is wealth -- our health is part 

11 of our wealth, not just the dollar sentiment, gross 

12 domestic product. 

13 Gross domestic product, I mean, I was 

14 looking on -- you look at, you know, the people talk 

15 about drawing the line. Well, not living, breathing 

16 people walk the line sometimes and includes his 

17 diaper, because, you know, so that the gross domestic 

18 product sometimes is the most domestic poop and you 

19 need to look, you know, at the fact that it's a lot 

20 more than dollars aren't here. 

21 So I would support the world out standard, 
394

1 the organization standard to keep our fortune a better 

2 with less, equal for equal, mention ground 40 part per 

3 billion. So that will be real in this, and isn't that 

4 honest to be able to come up with a dollar figure? 

5 So I'd like to say, in conclusion, that the 

6 idea that dollar -- and also look at the job. I mean, 

7 someone has jobs. I don't think you're going to have 

8 too many people come here -- get here today who say, I 

9 want a job that doesn't kill as many people with 

10 ozone. 

11 You know, just as a leader of a large 

12 country one time, he said the death of one person is a 

13 tragedy. But the death of a million people is a 

14 statistic. We talked about statistics here today. I 

15 mean, people like to talk about their business. 

16 You're probably not going to see the 

17 business mentioned here. But I don't think you got 

18 too many people coming in, So I want my job; I think 

19 it's only has few people, you know, Republicans as few 

20 as the -- or investor will come and say, I want a good 

21 investment that makes a good return on something that 
395

1 I don't care really, well, whether people die from it. 

2 I just want a good investment. I don't think there's 

3 any people coming in here saying that, unless usually 

4 it is a job with some other people. 

5 I see people are sick are not working. You 

6 can say, well, you know, these people are taking days 

7 off from school and from their jobs. Well, they have 

8 to be replaced and it beats our employment level. And 

9 still you have to come back to the purpose of the 

10 Constitution which is "We the People," not we the 

11 dollars or we the corporations. 

12 So, in conclusion, I'd say that the idea 

13 that dollars and jobs on the lives and health of human 

14 people is a sad, silly, sorry silhouette with which 

15 upward ways we must not put. Let's be human if we 

16 can. Thanks. 

17 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Manning. 

18 MR. MANNING: Good evening. My name is 

19 Joseph Manning. That's J-O-S-E-P-H M-A-N-N-I-N-G. 

20 I'm a graduate student at Columbia University, a 

21 former chair and current executive member of the CRC 
396

1 Coalition, which is the National Youth Chapter of the 

2 Sierra Club in the nation for this organization. 

3 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to 

4 speak with you all today about the proposed smog 

5 rules. 

6 I want to begin by urging the Environmental 

7 Protection Agency to adopt the strictest possible 

8 standards to set ground-level ozone standards at 60 

9 parts per billion. 

10 I remember quite vividly that spring, 

11 frankly, it wasn't that long ago. My child spent 

12 countless hours visiting the doctor, taking breathing 

13 tests and using the inhaler. I remember particularly 

14 the concern of my mother when the doctor prescribed a 

15 daily regiment of steroids in order to manage my 

16 asthma. She asked questions like, Will they stunt his 

17 growth? Will there be other side effects? His asthma 

18 really isn't that bad. Could the cure be worse than 

19 the disease? 

20 Ultimately, I had to take this medication, 

21 and it worked after two years receiving. It had 
397

1 helped me manage my own asthma. But mothers shouldn't 

2 have to worry about their sons' asthma medication, 

3 because children shouldn't have to struggle with 

4 asthma, not when we have the ability to do something 

5 about it. 

6 Today the EPA is considering lowering the 

7 ozone standards to somewhere between 65 and 70 parts 

8 per billion, while also receiving comments, 60 parts 

9 per billion. 

10 I merely urge you to adopt the 60 parts per 

11 billion. A standard of 60 parts per billion will save 

12 four to five times more lives than a standard of 70 

13 parts per billion, four to five times more lives. 

14 Think about that for a minute. 

15 By revising the ground-level ozone standards 

16 to 60 parts per billion, we have the ability to 

17 prevent thousands of deaths. By the EPA's own 

18 estimates, 60 parts per billion standard would prevent 

19 6400 premature deaths, 6400 children who may go home 

20 to their parents, 6400 fathers and mothers who will 

21 raise their children, 6400 brothers and sisters who 
398

1 will grow up together, and 6400 grandparents who will 

2 love their partners and all their grandchildren. 

3 How often do we get to make that type of 

4 impact? The proposed ground-level ozone rule before 

5 us today provide an opportunity to make a substantial 

6 difference in the lives of millions of Americans. Not 

7 only can you prevent 6400 premature deaths, but we can 

8 avert 1.8 million asthma attacks. 

9 We live in the United States of America, the 

10 most advanced industrial society our world has ever 

11 seen. In a country like ours, no child should have to 

12 spend hours at a doctor's office when they could have 

13 been playing outside. And no life should be cut short 

14 to a preventable pollution. We can achieve a 60 part 

15 per billion standard. Indeed, you have a moral 

16 obligation to achieve this standard. 

17 Please set the ground-level ozone standards 

18 at 60 parts per billion. Thank you. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

20 Our next two speakers will be Laura Kate 

21 Bender and Deepak Jonnalagedda. 
399

1 MR. JONNALAGEDDA: Jonnalagedda. 

2 MS. SASSER: I'm going to let you spell that 

3 for the court reporter. 

4 Okay. Ms. Bender. 

5 MS. BENDER: Hi. My name is Laura Kate 

6 Bender. That's L-A-U-R-A K-A-T-E B-E-N-D-E-R. 

7 I'm a program specialist with the American 

8 Lung Association in Virginia. I work on our Healthy 

9 Air Campaign up in Virginia, educating the public and 

10 our officials about the health impacts of clean air. 

11 In somebody's absence today, I'm here to ask 

12 you to finalize the ozone standard of no bigger than 

13 60 parts per billion. It's no secret that ozone is 

14 dangerous. The American Clean Air and Lung 

15 Association -- and talk about the problem with 

16 prosperage (sic). 

17 I train nurse practitioners and asthma 

18 educators to use the Air Quality Index so they can 

19 help their patients next to the machine based on the 

20 forecast. I don't know if they're senior citizens, 

21 COPD, children with asthma -- teach them how a RAV 
400

1 (phonetic), a Virginia nail base for ozone, can affect 

2 their health. 

3 At some point, the whole New Mexico sunk to 

4 the media and so I followed the new arch, that it 

5 leads out to the main common suite. So people were 

6 standing; they're behind me. So that's our special 

7 holding room. And they're healthy people, 

8 particularly kids, and they experience long-term 

9 lasting harm from all their illnesses. 

10 The people I talk to are fairly very 

11 surprised about ozone pollution. They know firsthand. 

12 They are often very experienced with symptoms like 

13 shortness of breath and then in combination and notice 

14 their smogging. 

15 What does impress them is the tools -- they 

16 get them out, Grays Rules -- my tongue is a little -- 

17 sorry. 

18 Naturally you want to talk to the Inspector 

19 of Air Quality. They ask for information, I give them 

20 information about how much are the intubate's 

21 computer, I'll confirm. All of us know, it's the 
401

1 least 2,000 received, but the firmness there is not 

2 strong enough to get the technical up. 

3 And while the post update is 65 to 70 parts 

4 per billion, the improvement you will still not get 

5 the little plus, for the amount of ozone. 

6 The scientific record clearly shows that the 

7 standard of 60 parts per billion provides the most 

8 protection. And the ozone pollution is dangerous to 

9 human health. That's also allowed for Public's 

10 Interface Meetings folks. 

11 That's why a 60 parts per billion is for our 

12 nation and the scientists and all know the advantages 

13 of clean air, the Lung Association. 

14 As you know, the organization uses EPA data; 

15 it's surround. You will see the Clean Air Report. 

16 And it shapes a lot of great cities and counties 

17 across the metric globe ozone. 

18 In particular, however, the D.C. suburbs, 

19 Richmond, and Danbury's suburbs, that's where it's 

20 really going to help me to look for a solvent. So in 

21 my experience it got me, especially on the humids, 
402

1 it's steaming high and the Air Quality Index. It 

2 varies for Baltimore zone. And we've come a long way 

3 being in this facility in Virginia, when a publicist 

4 issued her solicited report on a Virginia's goal -- I 

5 live in Fairfax County. 

6 Fairfax, we updated on mid-average. 

7 Mid-average was one of the 35 that help me go to the 

8 base three year. And I was just mentioning the 

9 report, that average -- the mid-average is about 35. 

10 So we made great progress. 

11 However, so many failed to grade for ozone. 

12 And I completely -- it was recent an outward standard, 

13 but we had the first like Chuterber (phonetic) Base on 

14 Sierra's in-log screen. 

15 We embark NAAQS ozone standards, so we 

16 continue the great progress we made on Enochs 

17 (phonetic), and they can truly help me, for people 

18 that need for asthma, as well as children and the 

19 elderly and also the vulnerable. 

20 It's strictly at our cotton peak, living 

21 people, living in an area that got a failing grade for 
403

1 its ozone levels, I'm assuming it's a report. 120,000 

2 other children with asthma; 262 plus in a number of 

3 poll safety. 

4 It's clear there's still more work to do to 

5 protect their health from ozone pollution. And it's 

6 clear that all Virginians regardless of the great 

7 rooms, its the Air Quality Test. Otherwise, you know 

8 what's in the room. 

9 The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set 

10 the primary ozone standard at a level that protects 

11 public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

12 It's the test. Gave us the standard, as you 

13 gave us yours, and EPA had a promise ozone safety-free 

14 report. We will ask for safety and our lungs need 

15 some ground pressure, nearly every day a test factor. 

16 They expect our lungs to be solely on science. 

17 Not with spoken, these years will come to a 

18 cross solution and you're fine. They point to some 

19 base laws and assertions; do you want to play? Do we 

20 assert? We'll trust the end result. Are we going to 

21 continue? I'm not a scientist. Just attorney, for 
404

1 example, of law. 

2 We did erupt. Kid's asthma erupted. 

3 Grandparents will see you again with the next call. 

4 From position do services more often or certain 

5 summers, two parents are available. Make sure it's 

6 official time. All Virginians deserve their hands 

7 free. 

8 And I called them asking to finalize the 

9 ozone limits with no greater than 60 parts per 

10 billion. Our health depends on it. Thank you. 

11 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

12 Mr. Jonnalagedda. 

13 MR. JONNALAGEDDA: Yes. Jonnalagedda. 

14 MS. SASSER: Yes. Spell that. 

15 MR. JONNALAGEDDA: My name is Deepak 

16 Jonnalagedda, D-E-E-P-A-K J-O-N-N-A-L-A-G-E-D-D-A. 

17 I'm a computer science student, minoring in 

18 mathematics, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and 

19 I'm also an Executive Committee Member of Sierra's 

20 Student Coalition. And I would like to urge the EPA 

21 to support an ozone level at 60 parts per billion or 
405

1 my personal preference. 

2 I am an American citizen of India, Kolkata. 

3 And when I first came to this country, I was always 

4 told that USA is number one. I was always told that 

5 you are the greatest country in the world. And I 

6 believed this. But we can always -- we can say 

7 whatever we want, but what we say does not matter. 

8 All that matters is what we prove. And we need to 

9 prove to the world that we are the greatest country in 

10 the world. 

11 We often forget that our atmosphere is not 

12 limited to just the United States. That act proves 

13 that we produce -- spread across the world. The harm 

14 that we do to the environment is not just leading to 

15 what happens in America, that's every single country 

16 in the world. There are some people that don't 

17 operate air at quality standard. We use a current 

18 step gesturing, distributes the air, and all above and 

19 all considerate. 

20 We need to prove to the world that we 

21 prioritize the public's health over making money. And 
406

1 I believe that we do prioritize the public's health by 

2 lowering the ozone standards below 60 parts per 

3 billion. We need to set these low emission standards 

4 because this also encourage clean energy and 

5 encouraging clean energy is a big part of investing in 

6 our future. And investing in our future is what we're 

7 supposed to be doing, isn't it? 

8 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. We 

9 appreciate you coming today. Thank you both. 

10 Next speakers are Kelsey Crane and Jory 

11 Lerback. 

12 Before we get started, is there anyone else 

13 here who I hadn't seen and has not been called, has 

14 their time? 

15 Are you Alan Bederka? 

16 MR. BEDERKA: Yes, I'm Alan Bederka. 

17 MS. SASSER: Okay. So you're on my list. 

18 Okay. Anybody else? 

19 MR. RORIES: Chuck Rories. 

20 MS. SASSER: I'm sorry. Who? 

21 MR. RORIES: Chuck Rories. 
407

1 MS. SASSER: Okay. I have a Collin Rees. 

2 MR. REES: Yes. I had my speech already. 

3 MS. SASSER: Let's get started with 

4 Ms. Crane. Let's start back and then we will check 

5 the list. Ms. Crane. 

6 MS. CRANE: Hi. My name is Kelsey Crane, 

7 K-E-L-S-E-Y C-R-A-N-E. I'm a directional leader with 

8 the Sierra Student Coalition. We are the largest 

9 youth organization dedicated to environmental 

10 protection and supporting climate change. 

11 I'm here -- I'm going to keep this short. 

12 You've already heard a lot of science and you heard a 

13 lot of arguments. I'd really like to ask EPA to stand 

14 up for what you already shown the value and believe 

15 in, and to set a smog standard at 60 parts per 

16 billion. Lower them. 

17 From what I understand, to live we need 

18 food, water and air. To live well, we need clean 

19 food, water and air. And I would like to know that 

20 this organization, the SSC, that we've given all this 

21 power to protect our environment, we are achieving 
408

1 them and it's not protecting -- the interest is 

2 protecting people who like the ability to not only 

3 live, but to live well. 

4 And to do that, we need to enact the 

5 standards that we know are scientifically necessary 

6 and what we've been told is the maximum of 60 parts 

7 per billion is what's scientifically necessary to keep 

8 people healthy and living well. Thank you. 

9 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Lerback. 

10 MS. LERBACK: Hi. I'm Jory Lerback, J-O-R-Y 

11 L-E-R-B-A-C-K. 

12 I'm from the greater Los Angeles area, and I 

13 was diagnosed with asthma when I was in eighth grade. 

14 And at that time, I wanted to become an athlete and do 

15 all those sorts of things, running and soccer. And so 

16 when I started to play sports and do one mile, 

17 two-mile races, that was just not worth the pain and 

18 panic and the cost that go with having to treat that. 

19 And I couldn't help by being an athlete when I had to 

20 leave in the middle of the school days because I would 

21 cough so hard that I started to vomit. 
409

1 So those were some of the things that I 

2 personally would like you to only know and not wish 

3 them on anyone else. And I would hope that the U.S. 

4 in general would grow to that same level. 

5 And so I would like to urge the EPA to have 

6 lower standards for the smog and air pollutants. And 

7 now I am a geologist and I work in the ground-water 

8 industry and I'm watching the pollutants go through 

9 just the ground-water system. I know that those 

10 travel a lot further than are currently reported. I 

11 know that so many factors affect the air as well. 

12 And I would like to urge the EPA to have 

13 more accurate and assess monitoring throughout the 

14 U.S. and using that information to hold the 

15 contributors to pollution -- air pollution 

16 accountable. Thank you. 

17 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

18 And I'd like to call Tim Harlin Marks and 

19 Alan Bederka. 

20 MR. BEDERKA: Bederka. 

21 MS. SASSER: Mr. Marks. 
410

1 MR. MARKS: Thank you. So my name is Tim 

2 Harlin Marks. I'll do exactly that which is to tell 

3 the truth or something. I'm coming here from a little 

4 town called Minneapolis, Minnesota, where I'm a member 

5 and a leader for the North Star Chapter of the Sierra 

6 Club. 

7 So you heard a lot of testimony tonight 

8 about people who have asthma, some people know people 

9 have some. But it's not my story to tell this. 

10 My best friend growing up had severe asthma 

11 and I still remember to this day the coughing and the 

12 wheezing and horror in his face a few times when he 

13 had a more severe reaction and the ambulances were 

14 reached. 

15 I also remember going to his door some 

16 beautiful summer Saturdays, and I remember his mom 

17 come and said and telling me he couldn't come outside 

18 and join us because we would go play soccer in the 

19 park. And I didn't really understand it then, but I 

20 know now those were days when the air quality was 

21 particularly low and it wasn't safe. 
411

1 So not surprisingly, I'm here tonight to 

2 testify in favor of the smog standard of no more than 

3 60 parts per billion, and I'm sure there will be some, 

4 probably many even and probably quite a bit of money, 

5 saying you can't afford standards like these. But I'm 

6 quite confident anyone who has a child or knows a 

7 child with asthma would strongly disagree. 

8 We're passing all of these costs to those 

9 children in the form of missed school days, and missed 

10 opportunities to go outside and play with their 

11 friends and a normal childhood experience. 

12 I love my best friend growing up who had 10 

13 children in the house and was doing these challenges, 

14 and we can no longer plead ignorance. We know better. 

15 The EPA's findings have shown us that 

16 implementing standards of 60 parts per billion would 

17 prevent 1.8 million asthma attacks, 1.9 million missed 

18 school days, and 6,400 premature deaths per year. 

19 So with this proposed standard, we have an 

20 opportunity to make an immeasurable impact on the 

21 lives of children and the families of children with 
412

1 asthmas. And I'd like the EPA to implement the 

2 standard and allow the science we trust. Thank you. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Bederka. 

4 MR. BEDERKA: Yes. My name is Alan Bederka. 

5 That's B-E-D-E-R-K-A. I have no special title, 

6 credentials, or anything else. I'm simply another 

7 American citizen, and maybe that's enough. 

8 Ever since I was eight years old, I've 

9 carried this inhaler in my pocket. For 15 years, I, 

10 like millions of Americans, have lived with asthma. 

11 My first attack occurred in the fall of my third grade 

12 year at Ashlawn Elementary, a public elementary school 

13 in Arlington, Virginia. 

14 My mother had taken me to the pumpkin patch, 

15 as she did every year, so that I might take a hay 

16 ride, play in the hay bails, and of course, get our 

17 Halloween pumpkin. This year, however, following our 

18 trip to the pumpkin patch, I found myself deathly ill. 

19 In the following days, my condition continued to 

20 worsen as I struggled every day to breathe. 

21 My mother, not knowing what to do, took me 
413

1 to the doctor where I was nebulized for the first 

2 time. The doctor then informed us that I had 

3 developed asthma, which had been triggered by a 

4 previously unknown allergy to hay mold. Needless to 

5 say, my days at the pumpkin patch were over. For the 

6 rest of my childhood, my asthma had a profound effect 

7 on my life. I couldn't run as fast as the other kids, 

8 play as hard as the other kids, and often could not be 

9 outside for as long as the other kids, especially in 

10 the summer. 

11 While my asthma certainly had a profound 

12 effect on me personally growing up, I was one of the 

13 lucky kids. Many of the children I played with and 

14 grew close to growing up had asthma far more severe 

15 than my own. One of my friends, Fenimore, had asthma 

16 that was so bad that he needed to have a nebulizer in 

17 his home, which he used almost religiously, every 

18 other week. In addition, Fenimore was put on copious 

19 amounts of prednisone by his doctor which resulted in 

20 stunting is physical development and his growth. The 

21 amount of prednisone Fen was put on resulted in his 
414

1 growing more slowly than other children. In addition, 

2 he had a condition commonly referred to as "moon 

3 face," as a result of his copious prednisone usage. 

4 Fen's story, and my story, are stories that 

5 are lived out every day by millions of children across 

6 America. The true tragedy, however, is that stories 

7 like mine, and Fen's, could easily be prevented. 

8 Thanks to efforts by the EPA. -- including its new 

9 Clean Power Plan, which will further reduce particle 

10 and smog pollution -- by 2030 we could avoid up to 

11 150,000 asthma attacks in children and 2800 hospital 

12 admissions. 

13 I sincerely hope that the EPA will continue 

14 to act to regulate particle and smog pollution in the 

15 United States. With an aggressive enough plan, it may 

16 even be possible that asthma will be a thing of the 

17 past in my lifetime. Thank you all for taking the 

18 time to hear my testimony. 

19 MS. SASSER: Thank you for taking the time 

20 to come here and give it. We appreciate that very 

21 much. 
415

1 Next speakers I have are Collin Rees 

2 speaking for someone else and Charles Rories. 

3 MR. REES: Thank you. Collin Rees on behalf 

4 of Nina Sherburne. That's N-I-N-A; last name is 

5 S-H-E-R-B-U-R-N-E. Nina Sherburne. 

6 My name is Nina Sherburne. I'm a preschool 

7 teacher in the District of Columbia and in the 

8 unfortunate position of watching sweet two and 

9 three-year-olds battle with real for real various 

10 symptoms of asthma. 

11 This past year, I had two asthmatic children 

12 in my class. My fellow teachers and I, who constantly 

13 monitor ambient air quality during the summer months, 

14 hoping to never encounter Code Orange or Code Red 

15 days. In such cases, our whole class will remain 

16 indoors to protect the health of that little girl and 

17 little boy. 

18 When the air quality was supposedly safe, I 

19 watched one of those same children have weekly 

20 episodes of wheezing, coughing, and difficulty 

21 breathing. One of us will take the boy to the 
416

1 director's office, monitoring him closely for the next 

2 15 or 20 minutes, while crossing our fingers that his 

3 symptoms wouldn't worsen. These episodes were 

4 obviously frightening to the boy, unsettling for his 

5 classmates, and scary for us as adults. Suddenly I 

6 know this child will only get harder as he ages. The 

7 heat, humidity, and particulate power in the D.C. 

8 summer air will only be exacerbated as time changes to 

9 be stable. And that's why I'm asking you to take the 

10 most strict stance on smog as you are possibly able to 

11 do so. 

12 It even hurt, but I can. I'm constantly 

13 stepping outside on the playground to tap on the 

14 window of my new car and having to move away. Every 

15 season during this task force at my place of 

16 employment, I cover air quality in the neighborhood, 

17 and I volunteer at several fossil-free campaigns and 

18 we push for an additional way from fossil fuels 

19 center -- heard when they were coming. 

20 But in the end, I'm supposed to be teaching 

21 and preparing my preschoolers for their future, not to 
417

1 have had their health, it's right in the presence. 

2 I ask you to please take a moment to 

3 consider the powerful position you are in and how your 

4 decision can change lives with a single number. Think 

5 about the amount of time and energy, resources and 

6 dollars that are spent fighting smog and its effects. 

7 If you choose the scientifically proven with 

8 a 60 parts per billion recommended by public health 

9 professional, 60 parts per billion, imagine the gift 

10 of freedom you will give to this country. What might 

11 be as decided "gains two," if air quality is never 

12 achieved? And you might by secret become if you were 

13 able to step -- just step out into the world and 

14 breathe. Thank you. 

15 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Rories. 

16 MR. RORIES: Hi. So I'm humbled by the 

17 powerful stories, and people have -- many spoken have 

18 a better grasp of the daily impacts on many of you. 

19 So I'm going to follow on anyway. 

20 My name is Charles Rories, and I'm here on 

21 behalf of the DC Sierra Club Chapter. I'm a biologist 
418

1 and a biochemist. I work at the Mayo Clinic and NIHU 

2 presently doing cancer and quantitative research. I 

3 worked at the Patent Office for a while doing biotech 

4 Patent examination. And now I'm kind of working with 

5 energy issues and so it's D.C. who want to extend 

6 dramatic climate change. 

7 I taught at a community college for a while, 

8 I-N-O-V -- four years ago, INOVA. So I'm a biologist 

9 first, and I came here with two thoughts, that -- I 

10 was sent -- my brother had asthma. I remember that he 

11 still gets the nebulizer, the inhalers. Those should 

12 make -- conditions are not so great. 

13 We're under attack. I have to be concerned 

14 of these preventative measures. These days anything 

15 can happen at any time. And I heard a lot in 

16 preparing for this talk. I understand that the 

17 current level is 75 parts per billion for ozone and 

18 that's not sufficient to protect public health. 

19 I came here with two thoughts. One is that 

20 the information of the lung scarring in a large number 

21 of children. So as they get older, every time there's 
419

1 an attack, there's more loss of function in lung 

2 tissue. And the accumulation cumulative effect is how 

3 tiny they be -- teenagers they have the more 

4 debilitated permanently, and it goes on throughout 

5 their lives every time there's -- has attacks 

6 permanent and the nature of this genetic. 

7 Well, this is permanent scarring of the 

8 lungs and loss of lung function. And that and the 

9 idea that this is just corporations and enterprises 

10 shouldn't be allowed to profit on human health and by 

11 their life span and the quality of life -- doing 

12 ungratefully, and so the dilemma strongly assumes by 

13 the arguments today. So the cost is too great for us 

14 that we have to be allowed to kill people and make a 

15 mistake to be able to stay in business. I think that 

16 there are ways to proceed without placing pocket 

17 first. 

18 All right. So I started looking at the 

19 issues by the EPA regs. I can see that we have 

20 current proposal of 65 to 70 parts per billion. I was 

21 surprised to read this statement on the EPA documents: 
420

1 The Administrator did not include a standard of 65 

2 part per billion in the proposed range, because in 

3 increasing uncertainty of the scientific evidence to 

4 lower ozone concentrations, that lower -- uncertainty 

5 in scientific evidence that lower the proposed ozone 

6 concentrations. 

7 This uncertainty reduces competence in ozone 

8 standard level below 65 parts per billion and will 

9 result in additional health improvements compared to 

10 those that contend 65 to 70. But then I see this, the 

11 EPA staff propose that there could be benefits. A lot 

12 of us met people and noticed they said, yes, 

13 definitely benefits. 

14 Just looking at the numbers, I think it's 

15 very powerful. You'll see at 70 parts per billion, 

16 let's see, expected to be health benefits. I don't 

17 know how you put a dollar value on a child's future or 

18 on their life, on a person's life, on the value. But 

19 people manage -- how can you know the potential of an 

20 individual who either dies or is crippled by 

21 debilitating effects of bad air? 
421

1 So economists can come up with numbers, 

2 6.4 to -- 13 billion benefits by 2025 and a cost of 

3 about 4 billion. Or if you go to 65 part per billion, 

4 you get 19 to 38 billion benefits. Now, that's 

5 three-fold improvement in health benefits by 5 part 

6 per billion drop at a cost of 15 billion. So it's 

7 even by -- over a four-fold increase in costs. You 

8 have a three-fold increase in benefits and spelled in 

9 terms of premature deaths, asthma-related emergency 

10 visits, children missing time from school, children 

11 being laid out, dead is permanently; heart attacks, 

12 cardiovascular effects. It's interesting you get 

13 heart attacks from people who never had signs of 

14 health problems, when the air is bad and that hurts, 

15 with relation to smoggy areas, high polluted areas. 

16 That seems to be the case. 

17 So we got these people, they're receiving 

18 benefits, health benefits resulting in hundreds of 

19 thousands of asthma attacks, and each one of them 

20 possibly injuring that child permanently in life. 

21 And a four-fold increasing cost, I can only 
422

1 imagine that the conclusion is made, well, if you go 

2 down to 60 parts per billion, even higher treatment on 

3 that, we can expect significant benefits. But take -- 

4 now take that and even set aside the costs and think 

5 of the -- and look at analyzing that. Because I heard 

6 someone say 2 million school days at 60 parts per 

7 billion and the numbers that I have were 1 million at 

8 65. So that's doubling the number of lost school 

9 days, and children are losing school because they're 

10 too sick to come, another million days when children 

11 are missing school by going down 65 to 60. 

12 At least I understand -- but really it's 

13 supportive of 65 to 70 part per billion, I think, is 

14 powerful and good. And I just want to urge that EPA 

15 have a 60 or better. So we have numerous health -- 

16 medical associations, health organizations are 

17 endorsing 60 part per billion, and I think that we can 

18 afford it. Humans are innovative and remiss when it 

19 comes to solving problems. And I think with the 

20 failure of cost to protect people would find ways to 

21 get around it, find alternative unless those millions 
423

1 are assumed to proceed. 

2 So I thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

3 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. I've got 

4 two names, two final names. Mark Barna and Seth Long. 

5 Mr. Barna, please. 

6 MR. BARNA: Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you 

7 for this opportunity to speak. 

8 I'm currently a resident of Southeast, 

9 Washington, D.C. However, I grew up in Detroit. 

10 As I can remember as child, I happen to get 

11 away and I seen a lot of parts of the city and seen 

12 the effects of the cars, the factories, power plants, 

13 seen the pollution from some of the fire power plants 

14 issued -- (inaudible) 

15 They are driving the cost of health care, it 

16 excessively affects vulnerable communities, and kids 

17 in the neighborhood, some of the plants. 

18 These families both in general have beared 

19 the costs dealing with the consequences of air 

20 pollution and current asthma and lung disease. 

21 Friends of the EPA propose the subject air 
424

1 quality standards for ground-level ozone. The effects 

2 of this is possible to provide the requirements of 

3 very low standards. 

4 The economic benefits far outweighs its 

5 costs. For every dollar invested in reducing smog 

6 emissions, the American public stands to save $7 in 

7 healthcare expenses associated with clean air. It's a 

8 huge savings. 

9 Just as important as the financial burden, 

10 though, if you reduce smog and your life just goes up 

11 for substantial amounts. 

12 Personally, I'm an avid runner and seconds 

13 will bust into wealthy stores today and train outside. 

14 But that deserves to be able to handle clean air 

15 around where I'll run. I can't imagine having to give 

16 up my daily sports as a result of pollution being 

17 squeamished. 

18 For many Americans such as children living 

19 in open neighborhood plants, this is reality for them. 

20 The answer is clear. The EPA has an 

21 opportunity to prevent 1.8 million asthma attacks, 
425

1 over 6400 premature deaths, as well as your proposal 

2 to reduce ground-level ozone at 60 parts per billion, 

3 and I urge you to implement this soon. Thank you. 

4 And thank you for your time. 

5 MS. SASSER: Yes. Thank you very much. You 

6 may remain seated. Mr. Long. 

7 MR. LONG: Thanks for your time. I'm 

8 actually going to be reading testimony submitted by 

9 Travis Thompson, a doctor. I'm not actually a doctor. 

10 I'm just playing one at EPA hearings. He's a DC 

11 Sierra Club Chapter member. 

12 As an Emergency Medicine doctor, I see many 

13 terrifying cases come racing through the Emergency 

14 Department doors. Nothing scares me, however, than a 

15 critically-ill child. I can remember one particular 

16 case endly (sic). 

17 During the middle of the night, a young 

18 child woke from sleep with a tight chest and 

19 struggling to breathe. The ambulance would have 

20 started medication, but there's no noticeable 

21 improvement. The child's mother was in tears asking 
426

1 if we would have to intubate him, and facing the 

2 life-saving process that involves forcing a tube 

3 through the vocal chords. 

4 Fortunately, the team and I were able to 

5 avoid this by getting additional medications to resume 

6 his breathing. This patient was lucky. He only spent 

7 one night in the hospital. 

8 I wish I could say that cases like this only 

9 present a few times a year, but they don't. I wish I 

10 could say that all cases have a happy ending like this 

11 one, but they don't. 

12 Severe complication with asthma can be 

13 deadly. Parents often ask me what they can do to 

14 protect their children from having asthma 

15 exacerbations, commonly known as an asthma attack. 

16 And when educating the patients about asthma, one 

17 point in the talk I cover is how to avoid asthma 

18 triggers. Poor air quality is a common asthma 

19 trigger, so I advise parents to monitor the air 

20 quality each day. 

21 On days of moderate to colder air quality 
427

1 measures, their child should avoid going outside. 

2 However, of course right especially the summer poor 

3 air is so common that its precaution is unrealistic. 

4 There are also now two effects, with growing 

5 childhood obesity and diabetes, keeping a child inside 

6 or in recess also prevents much needed exercise. 

7 And the air quality primarily affects those 

8 most vulnerable in society; the young and the elderly. 

9 It manifests itself as asthma attacks in children and 

10 refer -- and lung problem in the elderly. 

11 Some of those harmful effects come from 

12 burning fossil fuels worse, which are very small 

13 particles that easily travel deep into the lungs. 

14 Once in the lung tissue, these particles cause 

15 significant damage, though temporary and permanent. 

16 Besides these two, there are no additional 

17 known effects in the young adult, but there's also 

18 evidence to indicate that poor air quality is harmful 

19 for people of all ages. Some studies report that poor 

20 air quality associated with decreased exercise volumes 

21 increased rates of lung inflammation, as known as 
428

1 exacerbations, lung cancer and overall mortality. 

2 The World Health Organization 2014 Report 

3 progress explained on one side it's heart disease, 

4 stroke, and several other cancers to the list. And 

5 the report highlights a limited number of options, and 

6 though citizens have changed their air quality and 

7 challenge governments and industries to enact and 

8 enforce regulations that will protect all people. 

9 Physicians are charged to maintain community 

10 health over individuals and communities. Every day I 

11 see patients with ailments and treat many of those for 

12 poor air quality. And breathing air quality or 

13 reducing particulate matter can prevent long-term 

14 health effects for people of all ages, but only if you 

15 choose to take action. 

16 If I can tell all my patients of what's smog 

17 and particulate matter, I would, never mind taking an 

18 aspirin a day or quitting smoking conditions all 

19 directly. To have control over the quality of the air 

20 you breathe, any government embodied concerning the 

21 public good must set stringent standards for air 
429

1 quality to help protect the health of its people. 

2 Travis Thompson, M.D. Thank you. 

3 And I also wanted to add this word -- 

4 suggested comment on studying the air quality time 

5 from the West was in fossil fuel. Plants don't stop 

6 polluting during winter or days. 

7 I just want to say personally, today we're 

8 living. You see the hand we're dealt, you know, how 

9 much help you need to be here, like a 100-degree day, 

10 trying to get -- so I'm sure you all have personal 

11 experiences too. Thanks for your time. 

12 MS. SASSER: Thank you. Okay. Our next two 

13 speakers, Christopher Wilson and Alex Hirtle. You 

14 both come and sit at the table here. 

15 And you have a timer system working here 

16 that will give you five minutes. As I said, when you 

17 see the light turn yellow, that means you spoke for 

18 four minutes. And when it turns red, you can try to 

19 wrap up. 

20 Mr. Wilson. 

21 MR. WILSON: I'm here. I'm Christopher 
430

1 Wilson. I'm a public affairs consultant, and I'm 

2 based in New York State. And I worked for the past 

3 seven years as an advisor to the American Chain 

4 (phonetic) Governance and energy also, American Oil 

5 Policy. And I'm prepared today as a private citizen. 

6 I should not begin with -- 

7 Let me make it clear from the outset based 

8 on my professional knowledge and experience, I support 

9 the adoption to significantly strengthen ambient air 

10 quality, your standard for ozone. 

11 As EPA's Clean Air Act sets out -- current 

12 science clearly indicates that the existing ozone 

13 standard of 75 ppb do not adequately protect the 

14 health of Americans, the health effects, the health 

15 requirement of effects of ozone. And there's a strong 

16 evidence the vulnerable populations, especially 

17 children with asthma and those would be compromised by 

18 health, suffer at much lower levels down to 60 ppb. 

19 For this reason, I recommend that you -- 

20 NAAQS be set at 60 ppb, providing an adequate margin 

21 of safety requirement by the Clean Air Act. 
431

1 With that said, I'd like to address some of 

2 the issues surrounding the standard. 

3 As we've already seen, there's a strong 

4 opposition to strengthening the ozone rule for 

5 elements for our country's "yes, we have corporate 

6 sector." 

7 The argument, then, in tightening the 

8 standard beyond the current 75 ppb would be prohibited 

9 at the expense of drastic over your current plans. I 

10 would like to offer a different perspective based on 

11 the assents wrote by example, three of corporate 

12 sector over many years of air quality issues. So it 

13 will be a little different perspective from some 

14 you've heard. 

15 For five years from 2007 to 2012, I worked 

16 very closely as a consultant, referred since major 

17 industrial sectors, multiple levels of government, and 

18 health environment NGOs, and a successful development 

19 of the new National Air Quality, NAAQS System, Canada. 

20 This was the ground-breaking tests and 

21 census-base process. The actual -- this agreement on 
432

1 the new Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone on 

2 particulate matter, along with management systems -- 

3 At first this sounds like mixing -- in a 

4 climate change with us, with their actually large 

5 science upon us and lessons that are relevant to the 

6 current EPA verses. 

7 First, the new standards surrounding ozone, 

8 agreed to by consensus, are more demanding than the 

9 range considered by the common EPA proposal, 63 ppb 

10 for 2015 and 62 ppb for 2020, with the same average as 

11 new present NAAQS. And by the way, initiated a new 

12 process to revise those standards for 2025 to further 

13 increase the stringent in the standard. 

14 Secondly, the final NAAQS were approved, 

15 less stringent than 60 ppb, supported by a health 

16 environmental organization stationed in -- 

17 (inaudible), where they were accepted as a compromise 

18 by all, including the industry, as a necessary 

19 protection for human health, which was the primary. 

20 Three, Ozanian (phonetic) air quality 

21 challenges among the severe results in the U.S. Ozone 
433

1 pollution is the factor where their wrought problem in 

2 reporting accretions, including by popular in 

3 domestic product -- (inaudible). The yield (phonetic) 

4 told Sanford docket in full a realization. In fact, 

5 it's quite explicit that they would be challenging to 

6 implement new required action on multiple fronts, 

7 including by industry, transportation sectors, and all 

8 other government. 

9 Fourth, the business sector, including most 

10 of the major industries in the country, did not see at 

11 option more protective air quality standards as the 

12 one agreed on earlier. They were forever to get a 

13 share of the heavy lifting, all responsible sectors 

14 faced the same demands, the system when it docket the 

15 comprehensive with the youth. I'm sure not the case. 

16 It's also worth noting that the youth system 

17 in the proposed ozone and 2.5 ambient standards were 

18 unanimously adopted by all the Canada's governance, 

19 federal and resource, including government's strong 

20 assertive credential, as well as liberals. This 

21 indicates that governance, the parties involved, see 
434

1 air quality standards as a pressing public health 

2 concern and all this pollution. 

3 What overriding conclusion can been drawn 

4 from this excursion with the alien and sum up, plus in 

5 the interest of Canadian air quality policy? 

6 The conclusion I'd like to highlight is the 

7 good air quality policy and good business and all your 

8 accommodation. 

9 Clearly, the major trade business is all 

10 about you. I see many smart folding corporations all 

11 over the world, including major companies in this 

12 country. I have noted above the EPA administrative 

13 period, since 1970 have seen the greatest NAAQS 

14 regulation on national improvements in air quality in 

15 the United States. We also have a period serving both 

16 the U.S. economy. 

17 So if I go with the alien's good air quality 

18 and key number growth of -- (inaudible) 

19 Finally, as important as these 

20 considerations are in the political world to deliver 

21 an economic requirement, they, of course, should not 
435

1 be a basis for the new ozone NAAQS. With the Clean 

2 Air Act, as I've talked about courts, the standard 

3 must be set solely on the basis of health and 

4 environmental protection. On that basis, I suggest 

5 you pass it with protection and health for the 

6 requirement of NAAQS of ozone with an adequate margin 

7 of safety. The ozone NAAQS should set at 60 ppb. 

8 Thank you for your consideration. 

9 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 

10 Mr. Hirtle. 

11 MR. HIRTLE: Good evening. Thank you for 

12 allowing me to testify. And thanks for staying so 

13 late for stragglers. 

14 My name is Alex Hirtle, and live in 

15 Riverdale Park, Maryland, a small incorporated town 

16 about 11 miles northeast of here. I'm here tonight to 

17 testify that I absolutely support EPA's proposal to 

18 strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

19 for ground-level ozone. 

20 I've lived in Maryland most of my life, and 

21 although I find my state to be the beautiful "America 
436

1 in Miniature" that it is as well as having a wealth of 

2 cultural opportunities, I'm also aware that Maryland 

3 is, according to a recently validated science-based 

4 report, the most polluted state east of the 

5 Mississippi River in terms of overall quality. 

6 As a young boy growing up and enjoying 

7 running, I signed early onto my school's cross-country 

8 team and spent my summers running hundreds of miles to 

9 train for our fall races. Unfortunately, I wasn't 

10 aware that this region was one of the worst places for 

11 a young cross-country trainer, especially in the 

12 summertime when ground-level ozone becomes acute. At 

13 the age of about 14, I started to develop asthma, 

14 which came in the form of coughing, pressure on my 

15 chest, and was so severe at times that I had to use an 

16 inhaler and could not perform my daily workouts. 

17 Although I finished high school generally in good 

18 health, my asthma has remained with me, to the point 

19 where I get allergy injections on a regular basis. To 

20 moderate my asthma symptoms, I have to carry an 

21 inhaler around in the event of having an asthma 
437

1 attack. 

2 This is not my testimony. The doctors feel 

3 that the bad air quality has aggravated by much 

4 migrated asthma was enhanced from that. 

5 You just heard my story why I fully support 

6 strengthening standards to clean our air, but I want 

7 to take a minute to speak for someone that cannot 

8 testify on her behalf this evening -- in my hand here 

9 I have a picture of my beautiful daughter, Willow. 

10 She is 21 months old and to my knowledge is in pretty 

11 good health. But last summer I noticed something -- 

12 on certain days she was not really herself, coughing 

13 and sneezing regularly, having puffier eyes, and more 

14 irritable as well as having difficulty sleeping. It 

15 is then that I started noticing a correlation between 

16 her health and Code Yellow and Code Orange days. 

17 Although our pediatrician could not make an 

18 absolute determination if Willow has allergies and 

19 asthma, living in a state with some of the worst air 

20 quality in the country certainly isn't helping her, 

21 and it's not helping me knowing she may have to go 
438

1 through the same things I've gone through -- limit 

2 your physical activity on Code Orange and Code Red 

3 days, get regular allergy shots, carry around and use 

4 an inhaler when needed, and always be under the threat 

5 of knowing that a severe asthma attack can end your 

6 life, just like it has for thousands of children, 

7 adults with respiratory concerns, and seniors in the 

8 past few years. 

9 Willow, just like your sons and daughters, 

10 as well as your grandsons and granddaughters, deserve 

11 better. I'm asking the EPA to strengthen our air 

12 quality standards for ground-level ozone for the 

13 health and safety of everyone in Maryland and the D.C. 

14 Metropolitan area, as well as the country as a whole. 

15 Thank you. And I have two copies of my 

16 testimony to submit to the Agency for your record. 

17 Thank you. 

18 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Okay. 

19 This is our last speaker. I would like to call Brenna 

20 Mueller. 

21 MS. MUELLER: Hi. Thank you so much. And 
439

1 it's 7:30 and we're wrapping this up. I'll keep this 

2 brief. I want to thank you for your time. 

3 Hi. My name is Brenna Mueller. I'm in the 

4 DC Chapter of the Sierra Club. Here in the District 

5 we comprise over 3600 -- over 3600 members to support 

6 us here in the District of Columbia. 

7 And we strongly urge EPA to implement those 

8 protective standards on the lowest end of the range 

9 recommended by EPA science advisors, 60 parts per 

10 billion. 

11 As you know, this will have a specific 

12 effect on public health safety and a direct impact on 

13 lives, and EPA should move forward with this 

14 protective standard advised by scientists. 

15 Smog is the most widespread pollutant in 

16 United States, and it's also one of the most 

17 dangerous. It is linked to asthma attacks, 

18 respiratory illness, health disease, and even 

19 premature death. 

20 And as you know and as we've heard 

21 throughout the day, scientists have studied the impact 
440

1 of smog on health for decades. And the science is 

2 very clear that smog hurts people at levels currently 

3 considered safe in the United States. And Americans 

4 deserve to know when smog pollution reaches dangerous 

5 or unhealthy levels. 

6 So the EPA's proposal follows existing law 

7 that scientists set for protective standards of a 

8 reduce smog, it should save lives. So we urge today 

9 EPA to deliver the most effective standards. 

10 The Sierra Club and the American Lung 

11 Association have partnered here to -- met here today 

12 in support of protective standards at 60 parts per 

13 billion. And the case analysis shows that setting a 

14 standard for smog will prevent up to 7,900 premature 

15 deaths, 1.8 million asthma attacks on children, and 

16 1.9 million missed school days each year. 

17 So Americans today need a health benefit 

18 that will protect the standard to reduce the smog 

19 pollution. So thank you for your time. 

20 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much for coming. 

21 Is there any speakers in the room who have 
441

1 not had an opportunity to speak? 

2 All right. Well, I want to thank everyone 

3 again for coming today. We really appreciate taking 

4 time to do that, and we have reported all your 

5 comments and will be entered into the docket with this 

6 rule making and considered by the Administrator of the 

7 Agency as we move forward on this proposed rule. 

8 If you have additional comments, they need 

9 to be submitted in writing by March 17th. And the 

10 instructions for that are available outside in the 

11 lobby and also on the website. So I thank you all 

12 very much, and that concludes today's hearing. Thank 

13 you. 

14 Meeting adjourned. 

15 (The hearing concluded at 7:35 p.m.) 

16

17

18

19

20

21
442

1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 

2 

3 I, Delores M. Green, reporter, do hereby 

4 certify that I was authorized to and did report in 

5 stenotype notes the foregoing proceedings and that 

6 thereafter my stenotype notes were reduced to 

7 typewriting under my supervision. 

8 I further certify that the transcript 

9 contains a true and correct transcript of my stenotype 

10 notes taken therein to the best of my ability and 

11 knowledge. 

12 

13 ___________________________ 

 Delores M. Green 

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21