### 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. 16The 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. 3I'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. 5Finally, 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. 9So 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. 19Our 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. 9Thank 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. 13MS. 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. 3The 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. 19While 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. 5In 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 19may 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. 5CSPA 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. 19Meanwhile 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. 3MS. GOODMAN: Thank you for the opportunity 4 to speak on behalf of the American Lung Council. 5EPA 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. 19While 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. 5The 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. 13These 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. 3So 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. 16When accounting these factors, there appear 17 to be marginal, if any, benefits from a lower ozone 18 standard. The Exposure and Lung Function Risk 19Assessments 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." 6All 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. 16In 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. 5These 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 9Agency 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. 3MS. SASSER: Thank you. 4 MS. SAX: Yes. 5MR. 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. 15MS. 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. 5API 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 16Air 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. 9These 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. 3The 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. 19Second, 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. 6I'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. 13My 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. 15Since 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 9more 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 16Americans. 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. 6MS. SASSER: Thank you very much, both of 7 you. 8 MR. SILVERMAN: One comment to Mr. Feldman. 9It'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) 13MS. 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 16Ms. Debbie Shprentz. 17 MR. KRESOWIK: Thank you very much, and that 18 was exactly correct. 19My 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. 6I 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. 16This 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 19millions 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. 3This 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. 6I 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. 13According 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. 6They 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. 16That 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. 5MS. 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. 9My 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. 16The 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. 5As 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 19Act 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. 3How 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. 9New 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. 3Third, 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. 9Fourth, 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. 19And 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. 3Studies 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. 15These 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. 5State your name. 6MR. 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. 13So 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. 6MS. 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. 6I 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. 15I 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. 19But 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. 9We 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. 15Now, 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. 6Our 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. 16As 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. 15We 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." 6Let'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. 13MS. LANGDON: Mr. McCormick, we appreciate 14 your testimony. We do have a full schedule here. 15MR. 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. 5Thank you very much. 6MS. 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. 9MR. 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? 15MS. LANGDON: There he is. 16MR. 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. 15And 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. 3To 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. 9You 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 16Act 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. 13Thank you for your work that helps make 14 living out that motto possible, and thank you again 15 for the chance to speak today. 16MS. 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, 16minorities, 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. 6Low 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. 16Children 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. 9In 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. 16Electric 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. 9And 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. 9Our 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. 15MR. 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. 5Manufacturers 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. 9Increasingly, 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. 15When 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. 6Reliance 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. 15This 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 6multitude of vast in non-attainment areas. And the 7 picturesque will get still worse if EPA issues an 8 ozone standard. 9Manufacturers 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. 9MR. 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. 6Our 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. 13Given 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. 3The 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. 9All 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. 19MR. 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. 5I'm speaking today on behalf of NESCAUM's 6member 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. 13For 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. 9Furthermore, 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. 15MR. MILLER: Yes. 16MR. 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? 13We're ready to move on then to David 14 Friedman and Adam Beitman. 15Okay. Mr. Friedman. 16MR. 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. 6Our 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. 13There 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 6manufacturing 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. 15New non-attainment area designations and 16multiple 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. 3I will be happy to answer any questions you 4 may have about our testimony. Thank you. 5MS. SASSER: Thank you very much, 6Mr. 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. 16And 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? 3These 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. 15So, 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? 9Thank you all. 10 Okay. I'd like to call Ms. Kristin Cook and 11 Brian Urbaszewski. 12 Okay. Is Samantha Ahdoot here? 13MS. AHDOOT: Samantha Ahdoot. 14 MS. SASSER: Won't you come on up, and we'll 15 have the two of you go. 16You'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. 5I 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. 13So 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. 16MS. 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. 3My 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. 6Some 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. 16Thank you for the opportunity to speak 17 today. 18 MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 19And, 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. 3MS. 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. 6MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Thank 7 you. 8 MR. SILVERMAN: You have a copy of it? 9We 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. 13Doctor, 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. 61.2 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. 13Air 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. 9In 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. 3If 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. 13MS. 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. 19I 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. 6And 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. 9I 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. 3MS. 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. 9TFAH 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. 5Their 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. 15In 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. 5We 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. 13Thank you again for the opportunity to 14 provide this testimony. I'd be happy to provide any 15 further information needed. 16MS. 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. 19All 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.) 3MS. 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. 6The 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 6minutes. 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. 9MS. 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. 13Please 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. 3MS. 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. 9And 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. 16I 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. 9California 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. 3Thank 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. 15During 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. 9But 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. 15MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Muhammad. 16MR. 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. 5So 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. 13MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Next two 14 speakers will be Kendyl Crawford and Jon Baker. 15Ms. Crawford. 16MS. 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. 5The 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. 5I 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. 9Strengthening 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? 3MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 4 Mr. Baker. 5MR. 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 9Virginia 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. 13As 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. 5The 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. 16There 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? 5Well, 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. 19We'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. 9Time 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. 16The 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. 19MS. 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; 6my 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. 3In 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. 16EPA'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. 19A 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. 9Asthma 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. 9Thank 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. 15But 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. 19So 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. 19We 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. 5At 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 9Volatile 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. 16And 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. 15So 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. 6Concerned 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. 9MS. 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. 13That 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. 16MS. 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 19monitoring 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. 16Mr. Alderson. 17 MR. ALDERSON: Thank you. Do you want the 18 copies, correct? 19MS. 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. 5We 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. 9EPA 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. 15With 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. 6The 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. 15In 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. 19MS. 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. 5First, 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. 16Twenty 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. 9I 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 19mature, 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. 6I 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 9mother-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. 3With 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. 19My 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. 3I see my time is up, and I thank you very 4 much for the great opportunity to share this 5 experience with you. 6MS. 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. 15I'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. 19And 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. 5I 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. 15On 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 9me 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. 15I 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. 3This 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. 16So 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. 3Ms. 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. 13We 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 9Air 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. 15Someone 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. 19The 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. 3The 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 9Air 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. 16I 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. 6And 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. 19So 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. 3So 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.) 3MS. 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. 5We 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. 15These 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 19most 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. 9Before 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. 19All 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. 15And 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. 5So 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. 15Thank 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. 3It 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. 19We 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? 6There 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. 9Industry 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. 5In 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. 16Unfortunately 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. 15MS. VERSTEEG: Hello. My name is Elizabeth 16Versteeg. 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. 19I'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. 19When 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. 16And 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. 15I'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. 15As 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. 9In 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. 15To 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. 15In 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. 9As 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? 15And 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. 6MS. 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. 13I guess Sarah didn't show up. I call Mollie 14 Simon. Is Mollie Simon in the room? 15Okay. 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. 3MR. PENNIMAN: Okay. It's William Penniman, 4 P-E-N-N-I-M-A-N. 5I 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 -- 5Well, 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. 16There 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. 6In 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. 15From 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. 19Now, 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. 15MR. 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. 19MS. 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. 3While 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. 13The 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. 3By 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 9much 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. 9MR. 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. 16The 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. 6The 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. 13Since 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. 6The 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. 13MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 14 Ms. McIntyre. 15MS. 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. 16Children, in particular, are the most 17 vulnerable group because they breathe more air per 18 unit of body weight, are more active outdoors, are 19more 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. 16And 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. 19MS. 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. 9The 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. 15ACC 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 16manufacture 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. 6Communities 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. 13New 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. 3For 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. 6MS. 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. 16I'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. 13I wanted to take a brief moment to address a 14 few key points. 15First 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. 6And smog pollution also disproportionately 7 affects communities of color. A 2011 analysis of U.S. 8 populations and air quality found that African 9Americans 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. 16According 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. 5Research 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 6Americans who are struggling to breathe clean air. We 7 deserve clean air quality standards that protect and 8 preserve health. 9I 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. 15This 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. 16MR. 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. 15Clean 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. 3According 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. 6MS. 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. 3EPA'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 6many 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. 9With 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. 15MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 16Our next two speakers this afternoon will be 17 Ronnie Citron-Fink and Richard Reis -- Reis. 18 MR. REIS: Reis. 19MS. 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. 5I 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. 19But 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. 5The 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. 16Let's set an example to the rest of the 17 world that we value and protect what's most 18 important -- our precious children. 19Why? 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 19more 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. 5MS. 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. 9MS. 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 -- 16All 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. 3MR. 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. 16I 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. 16And 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. 19Just 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 16Agency 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. 19So 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. 19We'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. 6And 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. 16It'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. 3And 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. 6Mr. 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. 16My 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. 5I 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? 5There'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. 3MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 4 Mr. Mitchell. 5MR. 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. 9BP 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. 19In 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. 6It 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. 5MR. 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. 19While 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. 5First, 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. 19Consequently, 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. 15Fourth, 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. 3Fifth, 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. 15Therefore, 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. 5MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Stillman. 6MS. STILLMAN: Thank you for having me to 7 speak today. My name is Susan Stillman. I live in 8 Vienna, Virginia. 9I'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. 15I'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. 16I 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? 6Okay. 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 19minutes 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. 3I'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. 9Good 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. 13I 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. 15I think that obviously with the goals it 16makes 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 6maybe 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, 9manufacturers 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. 16The 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 6Maharam. 7 However, it pains me to think what 8 additional investments they, environmental 9manufacturers, 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 16major in either Environmental Education and 17 Interpretation or in Environmental Studies. I live if 18 Fairfax County with my parents, my grandparents, and 19my 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. 6Right 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. 19I 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. 3In 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. 15With 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. 19MS. 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. 6My 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. 9I'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 19pollution 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. 3This 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. 9We'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 19much 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. 6MS. 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 9Ambient 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. 15You 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. 5You 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 9makes 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 19mandated 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. 3Typically, 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. 19Second, 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. 19What'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. 5In 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. 9Your 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. 3Smog 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. 3EPA 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 9me 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. 13MR. 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. 15Another 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." 9The 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. 3The 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. 15Now, 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. 3That'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. 13The next two speakers are Ivy Main and Donna 14 McDowell. 15MS. MAIN: My name is Ivy Main, I-V-Y 16M-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 19mother 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. 6Asthma 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. 3And 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. 13And 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. 3Our 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. 19MS. 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. 5The 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. 15My 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. 5I 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. 6Mr. 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. 9Thank 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. 15AESI represents several emissions 16manufacturers -- 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. 9AESI 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. 19MS. 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. 6First, 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. 13Smog pollution also disproportionately 14 affects communities of color. A 2011 analysis of the 15 U.S. populations and their air quality found that 16African Americans and Latinos communities were more 17 likely to live in counties that had worse problems 18 with particulate pollution, also found that African 19Americans 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. 9I 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. 15People 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. 19EPA 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 6American 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. 9It'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. 13I'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. 3And I feel very fortunate to advocate today, 4 and on paper -- clean air, clean water, and action on 5 climate change. 6And 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. 16MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 17 Our next two speakers are Claire Collins and 18 Hunter Dureses (phonetic). 19How 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. 3MS. HIGGINS: It's H-A-Y-D-E-N and then 4 Higgins, H-I-G-G-I-N-S. 5My 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. 16Ozone 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? 5Greater 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. 9Research 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. 5EPA 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. 19Okay. 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. 6I 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. 15D.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. 5Thank 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. 9MR. 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. 15I 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. 19The 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. 6By 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. 3Finding 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." 9This 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. 16Many of the companies affected by this 17 pollution standard, models for industries and the 18 industries of civilization. 19And 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. 15Regulating 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. 13Thank you for your time to listen to me, a 14 long day with this. 15MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Next two 16 speakers are Monica Loswal (phonetic) and Erica 17 Mitrano. 18 Okay. Donna Smith. 19Ms. 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. 3The 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. 15Among 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. 15MS. 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. 5On 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. 15By 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 19mountains, 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. 6When 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. 13When 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. 3Both 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. 6But 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. 16You 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. 5Faced 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. 19I 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. 3And 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. 16So 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. 9So 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? 5MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. 6Ms. 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. 19In 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. 9And 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. 15There 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. 9Asthmatics, 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. 13As 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. 19The 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. 6And 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. 3MS. SASSER: Thank you. 4 Thank you all for your comments. Our next 5 two speakers are Sergio Payan and Joshua Low. 6MR. 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. 3MR. 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. 16And 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. 5Our next two speakers are Daren Bakst -- 6MR. BAKST: Bakst. 7 MS. SASSER: Bakst. -- and Marlin Mosroff 8 here? Greer McBeth? 9That'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. 19MR. 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. 9I 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. 19When 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. 13The 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. 5EPA 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. 6MS. McBETH: Do you want me to spell my 7 name? 8 MS. SASSER: Yes, please. 9MS. 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. 15Smog 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 9my 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. 15What 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. 19I 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. 6Lowering 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. 16Raymond Keating. Please have a seat. 17 All right. Thank you, Mr. Keating. You may 18 go ahead. 19MR. 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. 3My 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. 16Based 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. 16Regarding costs, in September 2014, SBE 17 Council's Center for Regulatory Solutions Senior 18 Fellow Kevin Nyland, who was the former Deputy 19Administrator 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 6mining have less than 20 workers. It's very much 7 small institutions when you look the potential to 8 most. 9The 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. 5Next we will call James Tsai and Rick Nunno. 6MR. 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. 9Hi. 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. 16Today, 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 9much 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. 16Those 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. 3Other 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. 3The 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. 19MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. Thank you 20 both. 21 Next speakers are Carol LeBlanc and Karissa

### 364 1 Gerhke. 2 Ms. LeBlanc. 3MS. LeBLANC: Do you need the spelling? 4 MS. SASSER: Yes. Please spell your last 5 name for the court reporter. 6MS. LEBLANC: L-E-B-L-A-N-C. 7 Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I 8 appreciate it. 9While 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. 9The 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. 13Asthma 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. 16We 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. 3MS. SASSER: Thank you. Ms. Gerhke. 4 MS. GERHKE: Gerhke. So it's G-E-R-H-K-E. 5I 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. 9And 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. 3We 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. 15MS. McCARTNEY: My name is Dana McCartney. 16I 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. 9In 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. 13UCS 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. 13The 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? 5MS. SASSER: Yes. 6MS. 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. 9She 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. 9Our 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. 13MR. 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. 3The 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. 3MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Lynch. 4 MR. LYNCH: Hi. Blake Lynch. That's 5 B-L-A-K-E L-Y-N-C-H. 6Good 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 16Today, 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. 9My 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. 13So 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. 19MR. 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 -- 3MS. SASSER: Thank you very much for coming. 4 Our next to speakers, Amanda Hurowitz and 5 Malin Moench. 6MR. MOENCH: Moench. 7 MS. SASSER: Moench. Please have a seat at 8 the center. 9All 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. 6I 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. 19So 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. 5I 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. 9I 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. 19It'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. 6MR. 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. 13In 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. 9Ozone 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 19mitigate 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. 9The 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. 3You 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. 19MS. 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. 9So 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? 13MR. MOENCH: What's that? 14 MR. SILVERMAN: Did you travel here from 15 Utah today? 16MR. 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. 5MR. 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. 9And 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. 15The 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. 19And "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. 3To "insure domestic Tranquility," obviously 4 the standard having health and someone and life is a 5 trick question, tranquility -- 6And "promote common defense," President 7 Nixon, Wallace, or -- to protect the country from all, 8 I guess, foreign and domestic. 9Through 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. 13Also, "promote general Welfare," at least 14 that's part of health and education, welfare, and so 15 health is included. 16Welfare 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. 6Gross 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. 13Gross 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? 5So 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. 16You'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. 5I 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. 3Thank you for giving me the opportunity to 4 speak with you all today about the proposed smog 5 rules. 6I 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. 6Today 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. 15By 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. 3How 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. 9We 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. 19MS. 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. 5MS. 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 9Air 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. 3At 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. 15What 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. 3And 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. 6The 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. 16And 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. 6Fairfax, 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. 15We 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. 9The 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? 15Are you Alan Bederka? 16MR. BEDERKA: Yes, I'm Alan Bederka. 17 MS. SASSER: Okay. So you're on my list. 18 Okay. Anybody else? 19MR. 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. 3MS. SASSER: Let's get started with 4 Ms. Crane. Let's start back and then we will check 5 the list. Ms. Crane. 6MS. 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. 9MS. 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. 19And 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. 15I 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. 15The 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. 19So 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. 3MS. 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 6America. 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. 13I 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. 19MS. 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. 3MR. 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. 6My 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. 15MS. SASSER: Thank you. Mr. Rories. 16MR. 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. 13We'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. 19I 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 -- 16medical 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. 3MS. SASSER: Thank you very much. I've got 4 two names, two final names. Mark Barna and Seth Long. 5Mr. Barna, please. 6MR. 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) 15They 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. 9Just 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. 5MS. SASSER: Yes. Thank you very much. You 6may 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. 16And 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. 16Besides 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. 9Physicians 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. 16If 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. 3And 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 9much 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. 15And 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. 19For 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. 3As 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. 15For 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 -- 3At 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. 9Fourth, 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. 16It'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. 3What 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? 6The conclusion I'd like to highlight is the 7 good air quality policy and good business and all your 8 accommodation. 9Clearly, 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) 19Finally, 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. 9MS. 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. 6As 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. 9Willow, 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. 15Thank 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. 3Hi. 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. 15Smog 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. 6So 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 3I, 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