1

--------------------------------- : 1

:

In the Matter of: : 2

:

HOU STON OZONE RECONSIDERATION : 3

PUBLIC HEARING :

: 4

:

-------------------------------- : 5

6

7

Houston, Texas 8

Tuesday, February 2, 2010 9

10

11

The following pages constitute the 12

proceedings held in the above

- captioned matter at 13

Houston Hilton Hobby Airport, 8181 Airport Boulevard, 14

Moody Ballroom, Houston, Texas 77061, before Tama ra 15

Vinson, CSR, a Notary Public in and for the State of 16

Texas, beginning at approximately 9:33 a.m. 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

252

A P P E A R A N C E S 1

PANEL MEMBERS: 2

MS. SUSAN STONE, HEID 3

MS. LYDIA WEGMAN, HEARING OFFICER 4

MR. GUY DONALDSON, EPA REGION 6 5

MR. GAUTAM SRINIVASAN, OGC 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

253

C O N T E N T S 1

PAGE

2

Opening Statement

- Ms. Wegman.............. 6

3

Speakers:

4

Ms. Robyn Prueitt, Ph.D..................... 10

Mr. Nguvi Kahiha............................ 15 5

Ms. Valerie Covey........................... 20

Ms. Susannah Fuchs.............. ............ 25 6

Ms. Karen Derr.............................. 28

Mr. Ron Hayden.............................. 30 7

Mr. Ted Steichen............................ 33

Ms. Janice Nolen for Ms. Mary Partridge..... 37 8

Mr. Ryan Rittenhouse............. ........... 43

Mr. Matthew Tejada, Ph.D.................... 46 9

Ms. Janice Nolen............................ 49

Mr. Robert Malina, Ph.D..................... 54 10

Senator Mario Gallegos...................... 58

Ms. Brenda Ackarman

- Sioson.................. 62 11

Ms. Margaret Mitchell....................... 64

Mr. Michael Tuvim, Ph.D..................... 66 12

Ms. Rebecca G. Moss......................... 69

Mr. George W. Batten, Jr., Ph.D............. 74 13

Mr. Brandt Mannchen......................... 79

Ms. Eva Hernandez........................... 85 14

Mr. Philip Snyder........................... 89

Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Ph.D................. 92 15

Ms. Elizabeth Hendler....................... 97

Mr. Kevin Bloomer........................... 101 16

Ms. Wendi Hammond........................... 103

Mr. Neil J. Carman, Ph.D.................... 108 17

Mr. Gabriel Clark

- Leach..................... 111

Ms. Laura Blackburn......................... 114 18

M r. Dan Buda reading for Senator Wendy Davis 118

Mayor Annise Parker......................... 123 19

Ms. Debbie Hastings......................... 126

Mr. Patrick McIlvain........................ 130 20

Mr. Donald Cook............................. 131

Mr . Deron Patterson......................... 134 21

Ms. Elena Craft, Ph.D....................... 138

Ms. Christina Wisdom........................ 142 22

Senator Rodney Ellis........................ 148

Mr. Robert Levy............................. 153 23

Mr. Jon White............................... 155

Mr. Thomas Weber............................ 160 24

Ms. Jenifer Wilde........................... 164

Mr. Greg Twidal............................. 165 254

Speakers (continued): 1

Ms. Tashiica Miles.......................... 169 2

Ms. Christine Naspinski, Ph.D............... 172

Representative Kristi Thibaut............... 175 3

Mr. Jed Anderson............................ 179

Mr. Walt Baum............................... 184 4

Mr. Peter Bella............................. 190

Dr. Nancy Russell........................... 193 5

Mr. Ken Flippin............................. 195

Mr. Rick Haigwood........................... 198 6

Ms. Sharron Stewart......................... 202

Ms. K ate Fischer............................ 206 7

Mr. Bill Crosier............................ 207

Ms. Stephanie Cole.......................... 211 8

Ms. Nancy Murphy............................ 212

Mr. Jim Schermbeck.......................... 216 9

Ms. Na ncy Lomax............................. 223

Mr. Scott Johnson........................... 224 10

Ms. Deborah Shafto.......................... 228

Mr. Lev Guter............................... 231 11

Ms. Melanie Oldham.......................... 235

Ms. Bon nie New.............................. 240 12

Ms. Rosalia Guerro

- Luera.................... 244

Ms. Stephanie Nugent........................ 247 13

Ms. Erin Hickok............................. 248

Mr. Shaun Bickley........................... 250 14

Dr. David Marrack........................... 252

Ms. Donna Hoffman........................... 257 15

Mr. Jim Lester.............................. 262

Mr. Rod Clifton............................. 265 16

Mr. David Bradley........................... 267

Mr. Jon Boyd................................ 268 17

Mr. A.J. Davis.............................. 271

Ms. Angelita Sanchez........................ 273 18

Mr. Harold J. Farber, M.D., M.S.P.H......... 275

Mr. Raj Natarajan........................... 280 19

Mr. Larry Stelly............................ 281

Ms. Anna Pierce............................. 287 20

Mr. Garrett Butler.......................... 289

Ms. F.T. Farenthold......................... 292 21

Mr. Stephen Kent............................ 293

M r. Alberto Sosa............................ 299 22

Ms. Scarlett Russell........................ 300

Mr. Michael Drab............................ 302 23

Ms. Anna Fisher............................. 304

Mr. Joshua Malone........................... 306 24

Mr . Jim Williams............................ 308

Ms. Bridget Jensen.......................... 310 255

Speakers (continued): 1

Ms. Gracen Sheni............................ 313 2

Mr. Phil Walk............................... 316

Ms. Diane Aguirre........................... 318 3

Mr. Alejandro Savransky..................... 320

Ms. Anastasia Ozain......................... 322 4

Mr. James Rine.............................. 324

Ms. Judy Emerson............................ 325 5

Mr. Art Browning............................ 327

Mr. Thomas Williams......................... 328 6

Ms. Alyssa Ibarra........................... 329

Mr. Ian Davis............................... 330 7

8

Closing Statement

- Ms. Wegman.............. 332 9

Reporter's Certificate...................... 333 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

256

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

2

MS. WEGMAN: Good morning. Thank you 3

very much for attending the Environmental Protection 4

Agency's public hearing on our proposal to set new 5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, for 6

ground

- level ozone that are different from those that 7

we set in 2008. 8

First, I want to thank all of you for coming. 9

And those of y ou who had to travel, I appreciate your 10

taking the time and giving your energy to participate 11

in this public hearing. We very much appreciate your 12

being here. It's extremely important to us to hear 13

what you all have to say about our proposal. 14

My name is Lydia Wegman. I am the Director 15

of the Health and Environmental Impacts Division, 16

which is part of the Office of Air Quality Planning 17

and Standards that's part of EPA's Office of Air and 18

Radiation. And with me on the panel is S usan Stone, 19

who works with me in the Health and Environmental 20

Impacts Division; Guy Donaldson, who works in our 21

Region 6 office in Dallas; and Gautam Srinivasan, who 22

is with our Office of General Counsel in Washington, 23

D.C. 24

I'm going t o be chairing today's hearing. 257

We're here today to listen to your comments on our 1

proposal to set different primary and secondary 2

standards and it is an important opportunity for the 3

public to comment on our proposed rule. We on the 4

panel may ask questions if we want to clarify 5

something you are saying, but the chief purpose of 6

this hearing is for us to listen to your comments. We 7

are not trying to discuss or debate the proposal. We 8

want to hear what you have to say about it. 9

I want to briefly describe the proposal that 10

is the subject of today's hearing. It was published 11

in the Federal Register on January 19th, if anyone 12

hasn't found that yet. Based on the Administrator's 13

review of the science of the im pacts of ozone and 14

other photochemical oxidants, we are proposing 15

different primary and secondary ozone standards than 16

those that were set in 2008. These

-- the primary 17

standards are to protect public health with an 18

adequate margin of safety and the secondary standards, 19

or welfare standards, are to protect vegetation and 20

ecosystems. 21

We are proposing that the level of the 22

eight

- hour primary health

- based standard, which was 23

set in 2008 at a level of .075 parts per million, or 24

7 5 parts per billion, should instead be set at a level 258

in the range of .060 to .070 parts per million. So 1

we're proposing to change the standard to be more 2

health protective, moving from a level of .075 parts 3

per million to a level in the range of .060 to .070 4

parts per million. 5

For the secondary, or welfare

- based standard, 6

which was set in 2008 to be identical to the primary 7

health standard, we are proposing instead a new 8

cumulative, seasonal standard with a specific form 9

that is called the W126 with a level between 7 to 15 10

parts per million hours. The administrator intends to 11

sign the final notice based on this proposal by August 12

31st of this year. 13

Turning now to how the hearing will function 14

today, f irst we are going to be preparing a written 15

transcript of the hearing and we have our court 16

reporter here taking notes on everything that is said. 17

And she will be preparing the written transcript and 18

that will be available as part of the official r ecord 19

of the hearing and for the rule. In addition, we are 20

accepting written comments until March 22nd, 2010. 21

And in the registration area, there is a handout if 22

you are interested in submitting written comments that 23

tells you how you can do tha t. 24

The way the hearing will work is that I will 259

call scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs. 1

So I'll be calling two people at one time. When you 2

come forward and begin speaking, please state what 3

your name is and your affiliation , if you have one, 4

and it will also help our court reporter if you will 5

spell out your name for her. We are asking that you 6

limit your testimony to five minutes each so that we 7

have time to hear from everybody today and to please 8

remain at the m icrophone until both speakers in the 9

pair have finished speaking. And then after you 10

finish your testimony, one of us, the members of the 11

panel, may ask clarifying questions. 12

And each speaker's oral testimony will become 13

part of the official record. If you have a written 14

copy of your statement, please give it to the folks at 15

our registration table and we will enter the full 16

written text of your comments in the docket for you. 17

We have a timekeeping syste m I hope, though I 18

confess I'm not seeing it right now. Oh, there it is. 19

I hope speakers will be able to see it. We might need 20

to move that. So it's green, yellow and red lights. 21

When it's green and you start, you'll have five 22

minutes to speak . The yellow light will signal two 23

minutes left to speak and when the red light comes on, 24

we want you to wrap up your testimony, and if it goes 2510

on too long we'll ask you to stop. 1

We are prepared to stay here as late as we 2

need to to hea r everybody who wants to speak today. 3

And if you do want to speak and haven't yet 4

registered, please do so. The registration table is 5

outside. We ask for your patience as we go through 6

the hearing today, and if we need to make minor 7

adjustments , we hope you will understand that. 8

So thank you, again, all for participating 9

and I think we're ready to go. Let's make sure we 10

have the timekeeping system going. So our first 11

speakers will be Robyn Prueitt and Nguvi Kahiha. I 12

hope I didn't mangle that name too badly. 13

DR. PRUEITT: Thank you for the 14

opportunity to speak here today. I am Dr. Robyn 15

Prueitt, R

- O

- B

- Y

- N P

- R

- U

- E

- I

- T

- T, a toxicologist at 16

Gradient, and I am speaking on behalf of the American 17

Petroleum Institute. 18

After careful analysis of EPA's rationale for 19

the proposed reconsideration of the 2008 ozone 20

standard, it is evident that the epidemiology and 21

controlled human exposure studies relied on by EPA do 22

not support a low ering of the standard. At the time 23

of the 2008 rule

- making, it was clear that there were 24

many issues with these studies and those issues still 2511

remain. Because the Administrator is basing the 1

reconsideration on the scientific record from the last 2

ozone review, my comments will only include these 3

data; however, I must point out that more recent 4

studies also do not support a further lowering of the 5

standard. 6

The epidemiological evidence for short

- term 7

health effects of ozone is w eak and does not support 8

causality at levels below .08 ppm. The NMMAPS study 9

by Bell, et al. that EPA cites as a key study 10

supporting the relationship between premature 11

mortality and short

- term exposure to ozone is an 12

example. This study report ed substantial variability 13

in mortality coefficients across 95 cities and the 14

vast majority of these coefficients were not 15

statistically significant. 16

Results were inappropriately combined across 17

cities and summarized as an overall nation al average 18

relative risk; however, this is of limited value in 19

light of the substantial heterogeneity across cities 20

and regions. This variability should be taken into 21

account if these coefficients are going to be applied 22

to risk analyses. 23

Another issue is that the mortality 24

coefficients were based on 24

- hour average ozone 2512

levels rather than the eight

- hour averaging time used 1

for past and current ozone standards. 2

Confounding by particulate matter is a common 3

iss ue in studies of ozone health effects. Bell, et 4

al. computed estimates with and without adjustment for 5

PM10 and claimed that the overall results were robust 6

to inclusion of PM10 or PM2.5. A re

- analysis of these 7

data by Smith, et al. demonstrated that when PM10 is 8

included in the model, the effect of ozone decreases 9

by 22 to 33 percent and that the ozone mortality 10

effect is statistically significant only when PM10 11

concentrations are above the median. Although the 12

Smith, et al. re

- analysi s was not published until 13

2009, EPA was aware of these data through public 14

comments on the 2007 proposed rule for the ozone 15

NAAQS. 16

Other examples of weak epidemiological 17

evidence are the three meta

- analyses that EPA cites as 18

evidence o f a robust association between short

- term 19

ozone exposure and mortality. The authors of all 20

three meta

- analyses stressed the high degree of 21

heterogeneity in the estimates from individual cities 22

and the fact that the results for many of the cities 23

were not statistically significant. They also 24

reported evidence of publication bias and 2513

model

- selection bias, which should high

- bias risk 1

estimates, yet each meta

- analysis reported extremely 2

weak risks. Thus, these analyses do not provide 3

rob ust evidence of a causal relationship between ozone 4

and mortality at ambient exposures as EPA suggests. 5

In addition to the weak epidemiological 6

evidence for short

- term effects of ozone exposure, 7

EPA's assessment of this evidence is not 8

s cientifically appropriate. Risk estimates that are 9

not statistically significant are used by EPA as 10

evidence for a positive association and in the risk 11

assessment. The few statistically significant risk 12

estimates reported in mortality studies are very weak 13

and susceptible to confounding and bias. 14

EPA also ignored certain negative studies in 15

favor of those with positive results. An example of 16

this can be seen in the review of the panel studies. 17

The key studies cited by EPA repor ted small 18

respiratory effects but other studies of similar 19

design reporting no association between ozone exposure 20

and respiratory effects were not cited as key studies. 21

EPA also did not appropriately take into 22

consideration the flaws in the time

- series and panel 23

studies, such as their use of ambient monitors as 24

surrogates of personal exposures. In addition, many 2514

of the panel studies used self

- reported peak 1

expiratory flow rate measurement, which have been 2

demonstrated to be highly unreliable. 3

Controlled human exposure studies also do not 4

support an association between adverse respiratory 5

effects and ozone exposure below .08 ppm. The study 6

by Adams that EPA relied on as evidence of respir atory 7

effects associated with prolonged ozone exposure at 8

.06 ppm did not report statistically significant 9

effects. EPA's re

- analysis of these data used an 10

inappropriate statistical test and concluded that a 11

small group change in respiratory fun ction 12

attributable to two of the 30 study subjects was 13

statistically significantly different from the control 14

group. This interpretation of the Adams data is 15

scientifically inappropriate and should not be used as 16

positive evidence of respiratory effects at exposure 17

to .06 ppm ozone. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Your time is up. If you 19

can try to wrap up. 20

DR. PRUEITT: I just have my conclusion. 21

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. 22

DR. PRUEITT: In conclusion, th e many 23

issues inherent to the epidemiology and human clinical 24

studies relied on by EPA as evidence for the 2008 2515

rule

- making still remain in the proposed 1

reconsideration. The epidemiological evidence for 2

short

- term health effects of ozone is weak

, 3

methodologically flawed and not appropriately assessed 4

by EPA. Both the epidemiological and controlled human 5

exposure studies do not support an association between 6

short

- term exposure to ozone and adverse effects at 7

levels below .08 ppm. Thank you. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 9

MR. KAHIHA: Good morning. My name is 10

Nguvi Kahiha. It's spelled N

- G

- U

- V

- I, last name 11

K

- A

- H

- I

- H

- A, and I am with DEKRA America. 12

As a member of the I/M industry and on behalf 13

of CITA, DEKRA America supports the new proposed 14

revision of air quality standards. We believe that 15

these new regulations are necessary to help to ensure 16

a cleaner and safer environment for our future and the 17

future of our children. 18

DEKRA has been in the inspection business for 19

almost a hundred years servicing people and the 20

environment around the world. We understand the 21

effects and consequences that ground

- level ozone has 22

on people and the environm ent. Literature and 23

scientific research states that one of the main 24

emitters of pollutant gas such as NOx and VOCs are 2516

vehicles. As a result, the commitment of the I/M 1

industry lies not solely in making cars safer but also 2

cleaner. 3

T he I/M industry has rolled out very 4

effective and innovative programs to curve the output 5

of vehicle emission. For example, the I/M program in 6

the Atlanta area tests, on average, 2.3 million cars a 7

year. The projected emission reduction in 2009 f or 8

metro Atlanta alone was 316 tons of carbon monoxides, 9

19 tons of VOCs and 19 tons of NOx a day. As you may 10

imagine, similar success stories can be found in many 11

other metropolitan regions where vehicle emission

-- 12

sorry. As you can imagine, similar success stories 13

can be found in many other metropolitan regions where 14

vehicle emissions is an ongoing health hazard to the 15

citizens of these areas. 16

Besides the conventional I/M programs to 17

reduce emi ssions, there are abundant other initiatives 18

to gear America to a cleaner future. These 19

initiatives include Ride

- Share programs, public 20

relations campaigns to inform the public on air issues 21

and educational programs on proper vehicle 22

maintenance . The moving public may argue that some of 23

these programs are an inconvenience due to the cost 24

and time associated with emission testing. Even this 2517

argument was taken into consideration by the I/M 1

industry. Technology innovations, such as OBD

- II 2

testing and other alternative programs, help reduce 3

motorist inconvenience and help to keep the costs 4

down. 5

No doubt

-- no doubt the revision of the air 6

quality standards will create new challenges for 7

program administrators. One mig ht ask how practical 8

new or adjusted programs are to meet new standards. 9

As mentioned earlier, the I/M industry has proven 10

track records on how to implement programs 11

efficiently, cost effectively and quickly. Therefore, 12

it can be argued that the industry has the competence 13

and experience to successfully tackle these new 14

challenges. 15

An example to meet new standards could be to 16

expand existing emission test programs into suburban 17

areas where the moving public heavily commutes into 18

regions with high pollution rates. Another more 19

essential example would be the integration of 20

diesel

- operated heavy trucks into already existing 21

federal annual safety inspection programs. Heav y 22

trucks make up the majority of long

- distance highway 23

users, driving more than 120,000 miles a year. Trucks 24

use about 14 billion gallons of gasoline, 23 billion 2518

gallons of diesel fuel annually. Heavy trucks alone, 1

excluding smaller commercial vehicles, are responsible 2

for about 3 million tons of NOx emission annually. 3

The influx of commercial vehicles in metro 4

areas cause an increase in emission pollution. 5

According to a study by Oak Ridge National Lab, about 6

25,000 trucks dr ive through Knoxville, Tennessee daily 7

and contribute 40 percent of NOx emission in that 8

area. 9

There are new regulations for new trucks to 10

meet certain emission standards and several states 11

have implemented annual emission inspection pro grams 12

to oversee and control emission output caused by 13

commercial vehicles. Nevertheless, in order to meet 14

the new standards of ground

- level ozone, a nationwide 15

test program should be rolled out, and maybe in 16

combination with the FMCSA periodic safety inspection 17

program 396, 17 through 23. 18

In conclusion, the I/M industry has proven to 19

be the most effective way to reduce ground

- level 20

ozone. In addition, there are significant points that 21

the proposed revision has a direct impact on the 22

economy. Firstly, metro area Atlanta alone, 23

inspection providers employ more than 2,500 24

inspection

-- inspectors and the number would increase 2519

if the program is expanded into new areas. Most 1

se rvice providers are small businesses that use the 2

program to create employment opportunities

-- 3

(Brief interruption.) 4

MR. KAHIHA: Most service providers are 5

small businesses that use this program to create 6

employment oppor tunities and economic growth. 7

I'm almost done. 8

During the State of the Union address on 9

January 27, 2010, President Barak Obama made it clear 10

how important small business success is to the U.S. 11

economy. 12

Secondly, toug her police

-- policies on air 13

pollution force other industries to utilize cleaner 14

energy. Increased investment into clean energy would 15

lead to more innovation, advancement in technology and 16

a cleaner environment but also economic strength. 17

Refer encing again President Obama, he stated the 18

effect on clean energy on the economy as follows

-- 19

MS. WEGMAN: Excuse me. Your time is 20

up. 21

MR. KAHIHA: Last sentence. 22

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. 23

MR. KAHIHA: Thank you. "Because the 24

nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the 2520

nation that leads the global economy and America must 1

be that nation." 2

On behalf of DEKRA America, CITA and the I/M 3

industry, I would like to thank you for your time. 4

MS. WEGMAN: Very good. Thank you both 5

very much. Any questions? 6

Please try to speak in a modulated way so the 7

court reporter can get your testimony. 8

Our next two speakers a re Valerie Covey and 9

Susannah Fuchs. Is Ms. Fuchs here? Okay. Great. 10

Welcome. 11

MS. COVEY: I gave her a copy of mine in 12

case I talk fast. 13

MS. WEGMAN: Oh, okay. Thank you. 14

MS. COVEY: Hello. My name is Valerie 15

Covey. I'm County Commissioner, Precinct 3, 16

Williamson County. 17

Williamson County, Texas is one of the 18

fastest

- growing counties in the country with a current 19

population of approximately 400,000, estimated to 20

almost triple i n the next two decades. We are located 21

just north of Austin, Texas. 22

The citizens of Williamson County proactively 23

support clean air and a healthy environment. 24

Williamson County has voluntarily been an active 2521

participant in clean air for ce efforts, including the 1

Clean Air Coalition, Clean Air Force, Clean Air 2

Partners, Early Action Compact and an enhanced vehicle 3

inspection maintenance, I&M, program since 1993. 4

Williamson and Travis Counties are the only 5

two counties in Texas which are designated attainment 6

and voluntarily opted into the I&M program. 7

Williamson County and most of its cities have enforced 8

heavy

- duty diesel anti

- idling ordinances and other 9

emission

- reducing measures. We were the f irst area in 10

Texas, again voluntarily, that entered into an MOA 11

with TCEQ on anti

- idling enforce. 12

Our citizens also understand, however, that a 13

healthy, vibrant economy provides the capital for 14

measures to improve the environment, includ ing clean 15

air. A nonattainment designation is costly to the 16

taxpayers and extremely difficult for an area to 17

provide the infrastructure and job creation needed for 18

a growing populace because the permitting requirements 19

are so onerous. Plus, dec isions regarding 20

infrastructure expansion or creation are taken away 21

from local control even if funding is strictly local. 22

Williamson County has made great progress in 23

reducing ozone levels through voluntary and 24

citizen

- supported measure s. EPA's own reports 2522

documents this decline showing the designed value for 1

our area decreasing from 90 ppb ten years ago to 75 2

parts per billion in 2009. Immediate implementation 3

of significantly lower standards would be detrimental. 4

We ask for a gradual implementation of any reduction 5

in ozone standard to allow for more timely and 6

accurate scientific data to be evaluated. 7

Our area is the prime example of a successful 8

Early Action Compact model. It would be reasonable, 9

with the successes already mentioned, to reward those 10

areas that have been diligent to seek

-- seeking to 11

voluntarily comply rather than imposing the heavy hand 12

of inflexible governmental implementation that would 13

restrict counties for many years to come. We request 14

that the successful EAC model be continued. 15

Transport ozone from current nonattainment 16

areas and from Mexico adversely affects Williamson 17

County and Travis County ozone load. Transport 18

modeling shows that 60 to 80 percent of local O3 load 19

is from non

- area source transport. This means that on 20

days with elevated ozone, the background levels alone 21

exceed the proposed new primary standards. Proposed 22

rules and attainment timetables do not sufficiently 23

differe ntiate between transport and local source VOC 24

and NOx. We request that the Agency recognize the 2523

role of transport/background ozone in the calculations 1

and implementation of ozone standards. 2

Further, timetables for attainment unduly 3

pena lize areas subject to transport/background ozone. 4

Also, the time period to regain attain

-- to regain 5

attainment status begins at designation, well before a 6

conformity plan, or SIP, is even prepared, leaving 7

little time for conformity. This leads to a 8

self

- fulfilling recipe for continual nonattainment and 9

long

- term detrimental consequences. We request that 10

there be a transitional implementation of any 11

reduction of ozone ambient air standards. 12

We have grave concerns about the 13

decision

- making process that went into the 14

reevaluation and scientific review of the 2008 data as 15

well as some of the supporting evidence, what we think 16

are inaccurate conclusions based on equivocal, 17

indeterminate and questionable reading of the data. 18

A significant part of the proposed rules are 19

set by comments like "the judgment of the 20

Administrator." Other quotations from the proposed 21

rules include "an adequate margin of safety," "an 22

unacceptable risk of harm, even if the ris k is not 23

precisely identified," "increasing uncertainty 24

associated with the understanding of the likelihood of 2524

such effects at lower O3 levels." These comments 1

indicate that the decision

- making process is one of 2

policy and perhaps politics, not science. 3

Thank you for the opportunity to provide 4

these comments. We also expect to provide written 5

comments during the comment period. In summary, we 6

disagree strongly with the retroactive and punitive 7

nature of the proposed standards and would request 8

that the primary standard remain at the 2008 O3 level 9

of 75 parts per billion and that the secondary O3 10

standard be identical to the primary standard. 11

We request that there be a transitional 12

implementation of any reduc tion of ozone ambient air 13

standards. 14

Three, through Williamson County's voluntary 15

measures, great improvements in the ozone level have 16

been achieved. We request that the successful Early 17

Action Compact model be continued. 18

And finally, consideration of transport and 19

background O3 should be a major factor in the Agency's 20

approach to areas presently in attainment. Bottom 21

line, if the ozone standards are reduced to the lower 22

end of the proposed levels, it wo n't matter what we do 23

locally because of the amount of impact of transport 24

and background O3. Thank you very much. 2525

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. I have a 1

question for you. 2

MS. COVEY: Sure. I'll try. 3

MS. W EGMAN: This may be something

-- 4

MS. COVEY: You know these terms much 5

better than I do. 6

MS. WEGMAN: Well, this is something you 7

may want to submit for the record. You talked 8

about

-- I think you said 16 [sic] to 80 percent of 9

your ozone on some days comes from non

- area source 10

background. If you can provide the supporting 11

information and how that calculation was done, we 12

would like to see that. 13

MS. COVEY: We will, and there are some 14

other f olks I think speaking today. They may address 15

that also. But we definitely will in our written 16

comments. Appreciate the opportunity. 17

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. Any 18

other questions? Okay. 19

MS. FUCHS: Thank you for the 20

opportunity to speak. I am Susannah Fuchs, 21

S

- U

- S

- A

- N

- N

- A

- H F

- U

- C

- H

- S, with the American Lung 22

Association of the Central States. 23

The American Lung Association is the leading 24

organization work ing to save lives by improving lung 2526

health and preventing lung disease through our fight 1

for air. Air pollution continues to threaten the 2

lives and health of millions of people in the United 3

States despite great progress since the modern Clean 4

A ir Act was first passed in 1970. The American Lung 5

Association fights relentlessly for healthy air and 6

exhorts the EPA to adopt a national air quality 7

standard for ozone that truly protects public health. 8

The standard set in 2008 under th e Bush 9

Administration limits ozone levels to 75 parts per 10

billion. Overwhelming evidence shows that this 11

current standard failed to meet the requirements of 12

the law and protect public health from serious harm. 13

The American Lung Association recom mends the EPA adopt 14

the most protective level in the proposed range: 60 15

ppb. 16

Ozone is a powerful respiratory irritant that 17

leads to shortness of breath, chest pain, inflammation 18

of the lung lining, wheezing and coughing, increased 19

ris k of asthma attacks, need for medical treatment and 20

for hospitalization for people with lung disease, and 21

even premature death. Children who grow up in areas 22

of high ozone pollution may never develop full lung 23

capacity in adulthood. 24

Ground

- level ozone is one of the nation's 2527

most widespread air pollutants and threatens the 1

health of millions of people. Where we are meeting 2

today, the Houston

- Baytown

- Huntsville metropolitan 3

statistical area alone is comprised of a po pulation of 4

over 5.7 million people that are regularly exposed to 5

unhealthy and dangerous levels of ozone. According to 6

the American Lung Association's 2009 State of the Air 7

report, 76 percent of these residents are at a 8

heightened risk of suffe ring potentially fatal 9

respiratory and health effects from ozone. 10

The Clean Air Act requires that air quality 11

standards must be set at levels that protect public 12

health, including that of sensitive populations, with 13

an adequate margin of safety. The people at greatest 14

risk of suffering the adverse health effects of 15

ground

- level ozone include individuals with lung 16

disease, children, people who work or exercise 17

outdoors, senior citizens, those suffering from 18

cardiovascular diseas e and diabetes, and otherwise 19

healthy individuals who experience health effects at 20

lower levels of exposure than the average person. 21

While many suffer the greatest risk, the fact 22

remains that the serious health effects of ozone 23

pollution affect us all. According to Dr. Rogene 24

Henderson, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 2528

Chair to the EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, 1

adverse lung function effects and symptoms are 2

observed in some individuals at 60 ppb. Given that 3

clinical study participants are typically healthy 4

adults, this shows that the standard must be set lower 5

to provide the additional protection needed by all. 6

All Americans deserve to breathe clean air 7

and we are counting on EPA to deliver clean air in our 8

communities. In addition to adverse health effects 9

ranging from respiratory symptoms, lung function 10

changes, emergency department visits for respiratory 11

disease and hospital admissions, we know that 12

breathing ozone can shorten human life at levels 13

currently considered safe. Further, the study 14

entitled "Ozone and short

- term mortality in 95 U.S. 15

urban communities" shows that ozone kills. 16

On behalf of the American Lung Association of 17

the Central States, I appeal to the EPA to fulfill its 18

duty to protect our health and save lives. Adopt the 19

protective standard of 60 ppb. Thank you. 20

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Any questions? 21

Great. Thank you both very much. 22

Our next speakers are Kar en Derr and Ron 23

Hayden. 24

MS. DERR: Thank you, panel, for this 2529

opportunity to speak. I'm Karen Derr. Karen with a 1

K, D as in David, E

- R

- R, and I've lived in the greater 2

Houston area since the second grade. Presently I live 3

just outside of downtown. I'm here today because I am 4

concerned about the air quality here in Houston and 5

its effects on our health. 6

This is a city with horrible health 7

statistics. My own parents both came here in the 8

1950s. My mother died of

-- at 72 from Parkinson's. 9

No one in her family had ever had Parkinson's before 10

and her family can be traced back to the Texas 11

Republic so we know her family history. Parkinson's 12

is a disease that's known to be caused b y one of two 13

things: Either genetic or environmental conditions. 14

You can see why I'm worried about our health. 15

After 45 years of living here, I am now 16

experiencing symptoms of asthma. Please, I'm asking 17

you to go forward with setting t he primary standard at 18

the more protective limit of 60 parts per billion. 19

Those of us who live here know sometimes you can cut 20

the smog with a knife. Sometimes it burns in the back 21

of your throat when you go outside in the morning. 22

The lower lim it will do the most to protect our 23

health, especially for people suffering from illnesses 24

like asthma who live on the city's east and southeast 2530

sides. 1

I sell residential real estate for a living. 2

I see the effect poor air quality has on our economy 3

here in Houston. Families who come here on job 4

interviews and house

- hunting trips often choose 5

opportunities in cities with better air quality 6

instead of Houston. Residential relocation 7

professionals will tell you that measures to i mprove 8

our air quality, like lowering both the primary and 9

secondary standards to lessen the impact of smog, will 10

strengthen Houston's economy in the long run. Thank 11

you. 12

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 13

MR. HAYDEN: My name is Ron Hayden, 14

H

- A

- Y

- D

- E

- N. I am the Global Warming Chair of the 15

Houston Group Sierra Club. I am here today to support 16

the EPA. Others will talk about the benefits of new 17

proposed ozone standards regarding he alth and clean 18

air. My concern is the effects of industrial 19

greenhouse gases on the atmosphere and the devastating 20

effect on the global climate. 21

Climate change is not a Democrat idea or a 22

liberal idea. It's not a political agenda. It is not 23

a theory. It is a fact. In the past 650,000 years, 24

the atmosphere has never contained more than 300 parts 2531

per million of CO2. Today we are at 390 parts per 1

million, the excess CO2 put up there by humans and by 2

the burning of fossil fuel s. That CO2 is rising at 3

the rate of 2 parts per million per year. If we 4

continue at this rate, we will be at 570 parts per 5

million by the year 2100. 6

We think we are making progress; however, our 7

CO2 emissions on a global scale are inc reasing instead 8

of decreasing in spite of our efforts to go green. We 9

are still on a global business

- as

- usual path. We need 10

to be under 350 parts per million to have a stable 11

climate. That steady rising line of the Keeling Curve 12

needs to flatt en out and begin to descend. 13

A recent peer

- reviewed climate report 14

submitted by Ronald Prinn of MIT and the Center for 15

Global Change Science, a major climate lab with global 16

credibility, said that a business

- as

- usual scenario 17

will almost certainly cause the global temperature to 18

rise by 5.2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 and could 19

be as much as 7.4 degrees Celsius. 5.2 degrees will 20

mean an ice

- free planet and sea levels 40 feet to 200 21

feet higher than they are toda y. 7.4 degrees will 22

mean the end of most of humanity on this planet.

- 23

This is just one climate model. There are 24

many others. The warming might not be as bad as 2532

predicted but it might be worse. Can humanity afford 1

this gamble? By el iminating fossil fuel usage, we 2

will save the earth as we know it from destruction. 3

We will clean the air. We will have healthier people 4

and we will generate millions of new green energy 5

jobs. 6

The worst

- case scenarios may not take effec t 7

for 30 years or 40 years, but one thing is certain: 8

Each year will be worse than the last and some years 9

will be catastrophic. If America takes dramatic 10

action now, we can save future generations. 11

My purpose in testifying here is to s upport 12

the EPA. It seems improbable that Congress will enact 13

any meaningful climate legislation before the next 14

election cycle and even then it will probably be 15

inadequate to meet the demands of Mother Nature. You 16

cannot bargain with Mother Nat ure, you cannot bail out 17

Mother Nature. She does not care about our jobs, our 18

economy, our people or anything about us. It is pure 19

physics. If humans continue to put more CO2 in the 20

atmosphere than the earth can absorb, she is going to 21

r ain down misery on the planet like nothing we have 22

ever experienced in human history. We owe it to our 23

children and grandchildren and future generations to 24

stop this global suicide. 2533

Fossil fuels must be reduced and eliminated 1

within the next 50 years. Coal should be eliminated 2

within the next 20 years. Coal

- fired electric 3

utilities are by far the largest emitter of CO2. They 4

need to all be shut down. We need to get on with the 5

job of building alternative energy sources. Wind

, 6

solar, geothermal and even fourth

- generation nuclear 7

power can fill the gap. The EPA should enforce a 8

Clean Air Act and a Clean Water Act vigorously. 9

If we continue to let special interests and a 10

spineless Congress determine our futur e, then God help 11

us all. We need a robust grass

- roots movement to 12

pressure Congress to enact energy policy legislation 13

that will solve the problem based on science and not 14

on politics. In the meantime, the EPA is the only 15

tool we have to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Thank 16

you. 17

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you both 18

very much. 19

My next speakers are Ted Steichen and Ryan 20

Rittenhouse. Is Mr. Rittenhouse here? 21

Let's see. John Stalling, would you like t o 22

come forward? 23

MR. STEICHEN: Good morning. My name is 24

Ted Steichen, S

- T

- E

- I

- C

- H

- E

- N, and I'm a policy 2534

advisor with the American Petroleum Institute. Good 1

morning, Lydia and panel. Appreciate seeing you 2

today. 3

As you know, the API is the primary trade 4

association for the oil and gas industry and we've 5

been involved with the NAAQS issue for a long time. 6

There's really three points that I wanted to talk 7

about today. One, I wanted to talk about the role 8

that the oil and gas industry has had to clean the 9

air. I'd like to just highlight what Dr. Prueitt said 10

about the fact that the science is not conclusive. 11

And third I want to talk a little bit about the 12

impacts of this potential rule. 13

First of all, in the years since 1970, as 14

have been spoken by other folks here, the air quality 15

has improved quite a bit, and I want to pick out one 16

example where the refining industry has had a very 17

large part of that. Since about 2004 , cleaner fuels, 18

specifically sulfur fuels, sulfur that has been 19

removed from diesel, is allowing for new cleaner 20

trucks and buses and other vehicles to utilize that 21

cleaner fuel in order to operate catalysts and systems 22

that they have on board. And we believe by 2030, the 23

amount of emissions from those fleets of diesel 24

vehicles will be decreased by 90 percent. So it's 2535

going to be equivalent of taking nine out of ten of 1

those vehicles off the road, again, through cleaner 2

fuels. 3

Again, I just wanted to identify that, you 4

know, Dr. Prueitt, I think, laid out pretty well her 5

analysis of what's happened with the science on the 6

ozone standard. And specifically, there's been a lot 7

of discussion about the 2002, 2006 Adam study, and I 8

think she brought out very clearly that, one, in that 9

study they were testing people in a clinical 10

environment against filtered air, in other words, air 11

that contained no ozone, and they were seeing results 12

that were conclusive that there was some kind of 13

effect around .08 part per million and then it's 14

debatable as to whether or not there was any effect at 15

.06. 16

Dr. Prueitt again talked a little bit about 17

the statistics. There's a number of different 18

publish ed papers that are already in the docket that 19

identify that there is no consensus that those 20

clinical tests of a very small number of subjects 21

actually identify that there is an issue at .06. 22

Okay. Moving on to my third point, I want to 23

talk about what the impact of this is. And again, if 24

we look at the science, we do not see that there's a 2536

consummate benefit here, and so now we're looking at 1

what the impacts are. And if we look at .06 part per 2

million, the EPA identified which monitors in the 3

country would exceed that level, and basically all the 4

monitors

-- not all, but most. And those monitors 5

that would exceed .06 include a site in rural Kansas 6

and areas in the wilderness in the west. And the 7

reason that we don't show the entire country not 8

meeting the .06 is because we don't have monitors in 9

all of the country. So if we did, we would find that 10

most small towns and rural areas would not meet this 11

new ozone standard. So what's a prob lem today in our 12

major metropolitan areas, which is being worked 13

heavily by our state and local agencies to improve air 14

quality, will now become an issue that will exist 15

throughout the nation. 16

Why is that important? Well, first of all, 17

it points out this conversation about what the 18

background level is. If there are these kind of 19

levels in places where there are, frankly, very few 20

cars and certainly not any specific industry, where is 21

it coming from? And part of it is coming f rom 22

transport and part of it is coming from naturally 23

occurring ozone. Sometimes it comes down from the 24

stratosphere. There's other issues, but this also 2537

points to when the testing is done. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Mr. Steichen, your time is 2

up. 3

MR. STEICHEN: Okay. I'm sorry. 4

MS. WEGMAN: That's okay. 5

MR. STEICHEN: My lights weren't 6

working. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Yes, I can see that. 8

MR. STEICHEN: So in summary, thi s 9

proposal lacks scientific justification for the 10

reasons outlined by Dr. Prueitt, and the variability 11

and uncertainty provide ample justification for the 12

Administrator to adopt a policy not to tighten the 13

ozone standard. This reconsideration is obviously a 14

political and not a scientific act. Job losses, less 15

domestic oil and gas production and energy security 16

will result from this proposal without a clear 17

scientific basis for selecting a differe nt numeric 18

standard. The ozone standard need not be changed now. 19

We urge the Administrator not to pursue this proposal. 20

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 21

MS. NOLEN: Thank you. Just to be 22

clear, my name is Janice Nolen. That' s J

- A

- N

- I

- C

- E 23

N

- O

- L

- E

- N. At this point, I'm reading testimony that 24

was provided by Mary Partridge, our Chair of the Board 2538

for this time. She is unable to be here because of a 1

medical emergency, so I'm just reading her testimony. 2

"Good morning. My name is Mary Partridge and 3

I Chair the National Board of Directors for the 4

American Lung Association. I began volunteering for 5

the Lung Association 30 years ago here in Houston. 6

Thank you for the opportunity to share the position of 7

the Lung Association on EPA's proposed national air 8

quality standards on ozone. 9

"The American Lung Association saves lives 10

through the prevention of lung disease and the 11

promotion of lung health. We are committed to the 12

fight for healt hy air. Key to that fight has been our 13

work to support stronger national air quality 14

standards. We recognize the critical role these 15

standards play, that they quite literally drive the 16

work that we do as a nation to clean up pollution. 17

"Fighting for clean air, for healthy air, is 18

central to our mission. We are pleased that EPA is 19

reconsidering the recommendations of expert 20

scientists, including EPA's own Clean Air Scientific 21

Advisory Committee, as well as national pub lic health 22

and medical societies, for a much stronger ozone 23

standard. 24

"The American Lung Association calls on EPA 2539

to adopt a primary national air quality standard for 1

ozone of 60 parts per billion. The Clean Air Act 2

requires EPA to se t a standard that protects public 3

health with an adequate margin of safety. But what 4

does that mean, really, to protect public health with 5

a margin of safety? How should EPA provide that 6

protection? 7

"First, it means that EPA should fol low the 8

advice of distinguished air pollution experts who form 9

the Agency's own Clean Air Advisory Committee

-- Clean 10

Air Scientific Advisory Committee. They gave 11

unprecedented unanimous support for a standard within 12

the range you are considerin g. These experts reviewed 13

over 1,700 studies. They saw clear evidence of harm 14

that ozone can do to children, older people, people 15

who exercise or work outdoors, people with lung 16

diseases like asthma and chronic bronchitis. They 17

looked at studi es that tracked ozone pollution in 18

scores of cities around the nation and found that the 19

ozone levels needed to be much, much lower. They 20

looked at clinical laboratory studies and found that 21

even healthy adults could be harmed if they breathed 22

ozone at concentrations much, much lower than the 2008 23

standard. 24

"To project public health, EPA must set the 2540

standard no higher than the range these experts 1

recommended. Secondly, EPA should set the most 2

protective level within that r ange. The Clean Air Act 3

recognizes the limits of science. We cannot know 4

everything about harm from pollution from the tests we 5

do. Researchers cannot test children or people with 6

serious asthma in a lab. The risk for them is too 7

great. That 's why the Act requires that EPA include a 8

margin of safety in the standard to provide an extra 9

layer of protection for those who need this the most. 10

"EPA has studies"

-- "evidence from a 11

clinical study that found that this pollutant harme d 12

the lungs of healthy adults who breathed ozone at 13

levels well within the range you're considering. 14

Clinical studies are the gold standard of testing. If 15

healthy adults need more protection from ozone within 16

this range, then children and others absolutely need a 17

stronger standard. That's why the American Lung 18

Association and groups like the American Medical 19

Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 20

American Thoracic Society and the American Public 21

Health Association urged y ou to set the standard at 60 22

parts per billion. 23

"Ozone pollution poses health risks for 24

infants, children, teenagers, seniors, and people with 2541

asthma and other lung diseases. For these people, 1

smog

- polluted air means more breathing problems, 2

aggravated asthma, fear

- filled trips to the emergency 3

room and even admission to the hospital. For children 4

growing up breathing high levels of ozone routinely in 5

the summer may mean that their lu ngs do not develop to 6

their full function, a risk that can affect their 7

health for the rest of their lives. For some 8

individuals ozone means premature death. 9

"The science is clear, the law is clear. EPA 10

has a legal requirement to set t he standard where it 11

protects the health of the public, including 12

vulnerable people like a number of my own family 13

members, with a margin of safety. Part

- way there is 14

not good enough. A stronger stand is essential to 15

protect public health. 16

"EPA estimates that by setting that standard 17

at 60 parts per billion, that will reduce the number 18

of emergency room and hospital visits by 21,000 each 19

year in the future, will cut the number of days missed 20

from school because of asthma attac ks by 2.1 million 21

annually, and most critically it will save from 4,000 22

to 12,000 lives each year. 23

"On behalf of the American Lung Association, 24

I urge you to adopt a substantially stronger ozone 2542

standard of 60 parts per billion. Quite literally, 1

the health of members of my family and my former 2

neighbors here in Houston depend on you. Thank you 3

again for your consideration." 4

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both very much 5

for your testimony. I do want to just make one 6

statement. This has come up a couple of times about 7

this being a political decision or a policy decision. 8

This is a science policy decision. The Administrator 9

looks at the science and our proposal lays out the 10

science behind the Administrator's proposed decision, 11

but it is also her judgment. The Clean Air Act 12

specifically gives her the authority to make the 13

judgment interpreting the science before her. So I 14

just wanted to clarify that p oint. 15

Okay. Thank you both. 16

Is Mr. Rittenhouse here, Ryan Rittenhouse? 17

MR. RITTENHOUSE: Yes. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Great. And then 19

Matthew Tejada. 20

And I do just want to make one announceme nt. 21

If you haven't signed in at the front desk, we'd 22

appreciate it if you would do so. Certainly if you 23

want to speak, it's important that you register, but 24

even if you're not going to speak, it will be very 2543

helpful for our records to have a log of everyone 1

who's come today. So if you aren't going to speak but 2

would sign in, we would still appreciate it if you 3

would sign in at the front desk. Thank you. Okay. 4

MR. RITTENHOUSE: My name is Ryan 5

Rittenhouse. That's spelle d R

- I

- T

-- 6

(Brief interruption.) 7

MR. RITTENHOUSE: My name is Ryan 8

Rittenhouse. My last name is spelled R

- I

- T

- T

- E

- N 9

house. And I would like to thank you all for allowing 10

us to provide these comments to you today. I am with 11

Public Citizen, Incorporated. We are a national 12

nonprofit and consumer interest organization. We 13

focus mostly on environmental issues here in Texas. I 14

work out of the Austin office. 15

So today I would like to applaud the EPA for 16

taking such an aggressive stance on attainment issues. 17

We would say you could go even further and, like the 18

American Lung Association just said, even make a 19

stricter standard. We definitely would be behind 20

that. This is a very important issue and there's a 21

lot of people's welfare and livelihoods at stake here. 22

And not only that, but the EPA

-- we would 23

like the EPA to go further, and not just on this issue 24

but with all issues. Ri ght now there are 12 coal 2544

plants proposed here in Texas and coal plants are one 1

of the largest individual sources of nitrogen oxides 2

and other toxic air pollutants in existence. And TCEQ 3

is failing in its job to protect the environment and 4

to pr otect the public health of Texans. 5

Now, we already have 17 coal plants in Texas. 6

That's more than any other state in the country by far 7

and they're talking about adding 12 more at a time 8

when over this past year energy demand has gone down 9

in the state of Texas. So there's absolutely no need 10

for these new sources of pollution. Just insane. 11

So please, go ahead, come here, come to 12

Texas, do TCEQ's job for them since they can't seem to 13

do it for themselves. The Perry

- appointed 14

commissioners are

-- seem to be more preoccupied with 15

ensuring that the large corporate companies that run 16

these coal plants are allowed to get away with 17

polluting instead of protecting the health and

-- of 18

Texans and the environment, which is what we're 19

supposed to be doing. So please, do whatever you can, 20

do whatever

-- for example, they're

-- only 75 miles 21

away, as the crow flies, the White Stallion coal plant 22

is proposed in Bay City in Mata gorda County. That is 23

going to be the largest individual source of pollution 24

in the county. It will contribute to nonattainment 2545

here in Houston, and you can stop that plant. You 1

have the power to come in and stop that. 2

And it's not ju st ozone attainment, it's many 3

issues the coal plants affect, but I won't go into 4

those because we're here to talk about ozone. So 5

please come here, do whatever it takes to stop White 6

Stallion and these other coal plants that are proposed 7

throug hout the state. 8

There's a number of other things. For 9

instance, CO2 emissions aren't even regulated by the 10

TECQ. They said they would do it, but they're not 11

doing it. They won't even accept a company's own 12

voluntary CO2 reductions. T hey won't put it in their 13

permit. And we've been wrestling with them over this 14

for many years. So please, give us a hand down here. 15

Also, there are other existing and proposed 16

coal plants bordering all of the nonattainment areas 17

in Texas or the areas that could go into nonattainment 18

because of this new rule. So this is one of the 19

biggest issues regarding this, is these new coal 20

plants, because TCEQ is also not looking at the 21

combined effect of these plants. They won't look at 22

the combined effect of these new plants with the 23

existing plants. They won't look at the combined 24

effect of all the plants together. They won't do any 2546

of that. 1

So please, do what's right, stop this new 2

coal rush in Texas. It 's completely unnecessary and 3

it will only result in killing more people. Thank 4

you. 5

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 6

MR. TEJADA: My name is Matthew Tejada. 7

I'm the executive director of the Galveston

- Houston 8

Association fo r Smog Prevention and Mothers For Clean 9

Air. We are Houston's leading health and clean air 10

advocacy nonprofit. I am neither a lawyer nor a 11

scientist nor a medical doctor, but I am very pleased 12

that you, Ms. Wegman, just reminded all of us that we 13

are here to set a science

- based policy to protect our 14

health. 15

We've heard a lot so far today about the 16

impacts of background and transport. I think it is 17

actually good that we are considering a science

- based 18

policy because of the problem of background and 19

transport, especially for an area such as Houston. 20

Because Houston has been waging this battle, we can 21

debate about how seriously it's been waging that 22

battle, but it has been waging this battle fai rly 23

alone for many decades and we need a standard that 24

will actually force us to start looking at the fact 2547

that a lot of the pollution that is in the Houston 1

area is coming in or is being re

- circulated from other 2

parts of the state and other part s of other states. 3

We will never have clean air in a place such 4

as Houston that really protects human health if we 5

continue under the illusion that Houston's air is only 6

Houston's air and that Houston's air doesn't go to 7

other communitie s outside of our region and that our 8

communities do not receive air from other regions that 9

are not yet controlled for ozone. That is one reason 10

why I think we should follow the science and set a 11

policy to protect public health that includes 12

con trolling ozone for most of the major sources, just 13

like Ryan just mentioned, from a proposed coal

- fired 14

power plant that would never be built in our region so 15

it is going to be built several miles outside of our 16

region. That should never happen if we actually want 17

to protect public health and if we ever think we're 18

going to have a chance to reach an ozone standard 19

which actually protects public health from ozone. 20

From my perspective, that is really

-- that's 21

really my sincerest h ope, is that we set a standard 22

that forces us to start thinking outside of the box. 23

There's a lot of things that we've done in Texas that 24

have helped to lower our ozone numbers, but for 2548

everything that we have done I would say there's 1

probably another thing that we have not done over our 2

history. And that's not just for point sources, 3

that's for mobile sources, it is for offroad sources. 4

And if you look at the recent modeling, we're going to 5

need a whole bunch of new solution s for area sources. 6

These are all going to be a problem, not just for 7

Houston but for almost any major metropolitan area in 8

the state of Texas or across the United States. 9

And we've heard today that we need more time 10

to figure things out , to have a transition period, and 11

I'd say that is exactly the wrong way to go. We need 12

a goal to work towards. Setting this standard and 13

setting a strong standard is exactly the sort of goal 14

we need to start looking at the options we have 15

prev iously passed over for whatever reason, political 16

or otherwise, and we need a goal that is strong enough 17

to stimulate Houston, which is home to most of the big 18

brains in this country who have the know

- how to figure 19

out how to clean up the air, to a ctually get us to 20

start thinking of new ways to clean up our air. 21

This standard, wherever it's set within your 22

range, I think is entirely achievable if we actually 23

start to use those big brains and if we start to look 24

at air quality in r eality and start looking at all of 2549

the sources of air quality not just in the Houston 1

region and not just in the State of Texas but across 2

the country. I'm hoping that this new standard will 3

actually force us to start regulating air pollution 4

and trying to protect public health in a cohesive, 5

broad manner across our entire country, and that's why 6

I think you should set as strong a standard as you 7

can. Thank you. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both. Thank you. 9

Our ne xt speaker will be Janice Nolen. And 10

we don't have the next couple of speakers after her, 11

so after Ms. Nolen speaks we'll take a short 12

five

- minute break. 13

MS. NOLEN: Thank you, Lydia. This time 14

it's actually me speaking. 15

My name is Janice Nolen. I serve as the 16

Assistant Vice President for National Policy and 17

Advocacy of the American Lung Association in 18

Washington, D.C. Thank you again for the opportunity 19

to comment on the ozone national air quality standard. 20

First, please let Administrator Jackson know 21

that we applaud her willingness to reconsider the 22

ozone standard. The Lung Association took legal 23

action in 2008 to get this review because we did not 24

want another five or ten

- year delay. Her welcome 2550

decision gives the Agency the opportunity to act now 1

to improve the health of millions and save the lives 2

of thousands of people. 3

The Lung Association urges EPA to adopt the 4

most protective level under review: 60 parts per 5

bil lion. We understand fully how important this 6

decision is. The national air quality standard on 7

ozone is one of the most important decisions she will 8

make as Administrator. 9

Some may question why the standard needs to 10

be lowered at all. After all, didn't EPA just tighten 11

the standard in 2008? You will no doubt hear 12

arguments that EPA is just moving the goal post 13

presumably just before the clean air football goes 14

sailing over the top. Or as reports often ask me, 15

when is the Lung Association going to be satisfied? 16

When is the air clean enough? 17

My answer is simple: The air will be clean 18

enough when it does not make people sick. Right now 19

it kills them. With this action, EPA has the 20

oppor tunity to use basic, old

- fashioned, highly 21

effective measures that actually improve health by 22

changing behaviors. 23

The current head of the Office of Management 24

and Budget, Cass Sunstein, wrote a recent bestseller 2551

called Nudge. In it, Mr. Sunstein argues for using 1

creative measures to change behavior. He and his 2

coauthor Richard Thaler cite examples of policy 3

changes that then drove behaviors that provided a 4

welcome outcome. 5

Without intending to agree with all of 6

Mr. Sunstein's conclusions, I would argue that the 7

national air quality standard is such a nudge. 8

Setting the standard does not dictate many behaviors. 9

Instead, it drives communities, states, businesses and 10

the federal government to find ways to reach that 11

goal. Yes, the standard is not voluntary, but many 12

nudges are not. As a tool, the standard has proven 13

its power. We have 40 years of history showing its 14

effectiveness in saving lives and in pre venting 15

dangerous health endpoints like asthma attacks, 16

emergency room visits and hospital admissions. 17

If EPA sets the standard at 60 parts per 18

billion, that action will set in motion a change of 19

nudges

-- a chain of nudges that will hav e 20

far

- reaching benefits for millions of Americans. Your 21

office produced conservative estimates of the impact 22

the standard will have on health endpoints in ten 23

years. They are especially conservative as they do 24

not include impacts on the million s who live in large 2552

parts of California. Thanks to the changes nudged in 1

place by the 60

- part

- per

- billion standard, children 2

will have 58,000 fewer asthma attacks each year. 3

Because they had better health, children with asthma 4

would attend 2.1 m illion more days of school each 5

year. Emergency medical people will have 21,000 fewer 6

children or adults who cannot breathe to rush to the 7

emergency room or the hospital. 8

One of the best examples of the power of this 9

nudge is in the est imate that lowering the ozone 10

standard to 60 parts per billion will help prevent 11

over 5,800 heart attacks annually. Now, EPA is not 12

saying that ozone causes heart attacks, but the tools 13

to cut ozone will clean up particulate matter as well. 14

Cutting particulate matter prevents heart attacks. 15

That's a nudge effect if I ever heard one. 16

Finally, the greatest impact will be saving 17

12,000 lives each year. Ozone does kill. But as with 18

heart attacks, many of those lives will be s aved by 19

using tools that reduce particulate matter as well as 20

ozone precursors. 21

Why do we support 60 parts per billion? 22

Because the law requires that EPA set the standard 23

where it protects health with a margin of safety. EPA 24

has evide nce from a study that show harm to healthy 2553

adults breathing 60 parts per billion of ozone. If a 1

level of 60 parts per billion cannot protect healthy 2

adults from harm, how could any higher level meet the 3

test to protect seniors, children or people with 4

asthma or chronic bronchitis? 5

If you need a more compelling reason, think 6

of it as the best available nudge. Where else in the 7

work of the federal government can simply saying yes 8

to the lowest number prevent so much harm, protect so 9

many people and save so many lives. 10

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 11

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you, Janice. Any 12

questions? Okay. Very good. Thank you. 13

All right. We'll take a five

- minute break. 14

(Break.) 15

MS. WEGMAN: We are providing audio 16

streaming of this

-- it's actually not streaming. 17

It's an audio recording of today's hearing. And what 18

we're doing is we're recording it and then every 19

couple of hours, we take a break so that we can post 20

the audio streaming. So there is a two

- hour delay. 21

But all of this testimony is going to be available in 22

audio form from our Web site, if you want to hear 23

yourself again or hear other people. 24

So just a couple of reminders. If you have 2554

any written testimony, please drop it off at our 1

registration desk or give it to our court reporter. 2

Please do not speak too quickly for our court reporter 3

so she can get down what you say. An d please do spell 4

your name when you come up for our court reporter. 5

So our next two speakers are State Senator 6

Mario Gallegos and Robert Malina. 7

SENATOR GALLEGOS: It's pronounced 8

Gallegos. 9

MS. WEGMAN: My apologies, Senator 10

Gallegos. 11

SENATOR GALLEGOS: I'd rather Mr. Malina 12

start. 13

MS. WEGMAN: All right. You can have it 14

that way. 15

MR. MALINA: Do I have to press this 16

button? 17

MS. WEGMAN: You do, and you have to 18

hold it down. 19

MR. MALINA: Yes. May name is Robert 20

Malina, M

- A

- L

- I

- N

- A. It's a good Polish name. Means 21

frambuesa. 22

I am a retired professor. I spent most of my 23

career studying the growth, health, and physical 24

activity in children and in fact co

- chaired the CDC 2555

panel that wrote the most recent recommendation of 1

American children back in 2005. And I also currently 2

am involved with a collaborative project studying the 3

physical growth of youngsters living in a copper basin 4

in southwestern Poland looking at the consequences of 5

lead on their growth and physical development. 6

Nevertheless, I'm here on behalf of the No 7

Coal Coalition of Matago rda County and we support the 8

proposed new ozone ambient air standard recommended by 9

the EPA. The rationale is simple: Common sense. 10

Ozone is potentially detrimental to the health of the 11

population and the environment. Coal

- fired power 12

plants are a major contributor of nitrogen oxide to 13

the environment. Though the new proposed plants are 14

advertised as clean, this is a relative concept. They 15

are clean relative to all the plants, but they still 16

emit pollutants on a continuous basis. 17

Closer to home, Matagorda County, we are the 18

proposed site for the White Stallion coal and pet 19

coke

- fired power plant. We have heard reports of the 20

estimated emissions of pollutants. Of course, these 21

are only estimates. We are informed t hat the smoke 22

stacks will have monitors. Who monitors the monitors? 23

Presumably Lyondell and Oxea

- Celenese, both of whom 24

are located in the county, have monitors, yet both 2556

companies were listed by the EPA as in non

- compliance 1

with environmental r equirements for clean air and 2

water and hazardous waste, reported toxic waste 3

releases into the environment within the past three 4

years. The same is true of our neighbor to the east, 5

Phillips 66 Company Sweeny Complex. 6

Wind and water do not stop at geopolitical 7

boundaries. Moreover, of relevance to Houston 8

residents and given the prevailing wind patterns, it 9

is likely that many of the pollutants emitted by the 10

White Stallion plant will make their way to the 11

Houston metropolitan complex and perhaps move the 12

region into nonattainment. 13

Of course, there are no government

- regulated 14

monitors in Matagorda County. They are typically 15

located in larger industrial and metropolitan centers. 16

B ackground monitoring in Matagorda County has 17

apparently never been done. Why? Cost. We are too 18

rural, we are too small in number and too removed from 19

major urban centers to count, contrary to what our 20

local politicians and state representatives say. It 21

appears that they are willing to compromise the health 22

of the population and the environment for the sake of 23

local economic development; at most, 150 jobs after 24

construction is completed, if it's ever completed. 2557

Hence, it is imp erative that the EPA exert 1

its authority and put into place new ozone standards 2

that will improve the quality of the air we breathe. 3

Of relevance in Matagorda County, the lung cancer rate 4

in the county was 28 to 60 percent higher than state 5

avera ges between 2000 and 2004, the last year for 6

which I could find statistics. 7

The situation is the same for asthma. Texas 8

already has many coal

- fired power plants. Among Texas 9

youth under 18 years of age, 61 of every 1,000 who 10

live within a 30

- mile radius of a coal

- fired power 11

plant have asthma. 12

We heard critical comments on epidemiological 13

science and many questions about the database. The 14

criticisms focused primarily on methods and 15

statistical significanc e, which is a relative concept, 16

not on the underlying health problems. You tell that 17

to a mother whose child has asthma. You tell that to 18

a teacher whose children cannot go outside to exercise 19

in a time period when we want our youngsters to be 20

physically more active. 21

From a public health perspective, it is 22

cheaper in the long run to prevent disease, and 23

reducing ozone will do that, as already mentioned by 24

many before me. It is cheaper to prevent disease than 2558

to prevent

-- tha n to treat it. And of course, we all 1

know our healthcare system is already overtaxed. 2

Need I say more? The answer is simple. We 3

need to stop the proliferation of new coal power 4

plants and improve the quality of our ambient air. We 5

st rongly recommend and support the proposed EPA 6

standards for the sake of the health of our population 7

and environment. Thank you for your time. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 9

Senator Gallegos? 10

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you. I am sure 11

when Mr. Malina mentioned politicians and state reps, 12

he wasn't talking about me. But let me say good 13

morning. And my name is State Senator

-- well, I am 14

State Senator Mario Gallegos. It's spelled M

- A

- R

- I

- O. 15

It's Gallegos, G

- A

- L

- L

- E

- G

- O

- S, and I represent where 16

you're sitting right now. It's called Senate District 17

6, which includes a large portion of Harris County. 18

First, I'd like to thank the EPA for holding 19

the hearing in my district today. I know that many of 20

my constituents and many Houstonians are concerned 21

about the quality of our air and appreciate having the 22

opportunity to participate today. I'm here to testify 23

in favor of the proposed changes to the ozo ne 24

standard. 2559

We here in Houston have had our fair share of 1

air quality challenges, and ozone and smog have been a 2

long major issue in the Houston area. Asthma and 3

other respiratory problems are prevalent throughout my 4

senatorial distr ict and the Houston region. Through 5

hard work and collaboration of stakeholders across the 6

region, our area has been reduced

-- has seen reduced 7

smog and ozone over the past several years, however, 8

we cannot afford to rest on our laurels when ther e is 9

so much work left to do. The fact is ozone is still a 10

major problem and threatens the health and quality of 11

life of millions of people, not only in Houston but 12

across the nation. 13

Some who oppose the proposed changes will 14

argue that EPA has created a moving target just when 15

we get close to attainment and the EPA adopts a 16

stricture standard. However, I argue that this is 17

exactly the kind of push we need to continue to 18

improve our air. I am proud of the progress t he 19

Houston region has made towards mitigating smog, but 20

we still have a lot of work to do. 21

As State Senator for this region and as a 22

Houston resident, I enthusiastically support the 23

proposed ozone standards and I believe they are 24

neces sary to continue our progress against ozone and 2560

smog and make our health

-- and make it healthier for 1

our people across Houston, Texas, and the nation. 2

And on a

-- those are my prepared remarks, 3

but I just want to tell you that I have

-- e very 4

session have proposed several pieces of legislation 5

dealing not only with ozone and smog but air 6

monitoring across my district. I was born and raised 7

here for 59 years, was born and raised right at the 8

mouth of the Houston ship channel, so I know 9

everything that goes on there. 10

I could have provided a better setting than 11

this

-- than this hotel. We could have been at 12

Hartman Park where you had your hearing last time. 13

You could have seen and smelled what we're talking 14

abo ut today, and that would have a better

-- not only 15

for the folks that are here, but for

-- also for the 16

news media that's here. I mean, you can just walk 17

outside and just take a big deep breath and smell 18

everything that's coming out of those towers. 19

But I am serious about this situation. I 20

mean, I was

-- like I said, 59 years here in Houston, 21

Texas and born and raised right there at the turning 22

basin of the Houston ship channel. I know when stuff 23

comes in, what stuff comes out. I know what they're 24

unloading and what they're not because I've smelled it 2561

for 59 years. And I just tell you that, you know, 1

hopefully that these proposed changes in the ozone 2

and

-- that help especia lly Houston

-- I know a lot of 3

it is not industry, a lot of it is the automobiles and 4

everything else that, you know, emits emissions into 5

our air, but we got

-- you know, we have to start 6

somewhere. 7

And those of us that are

-- really wa nt to 8

see clean air, like a lot of people in this room, you 9

know, look for changes and, you know, I am kind of 10

glad that the EPA is starting to come out and kind of 11

open their eyes, when you can't see through the smog, 12

and propose these types of changes. But with that, 13

I'll answer any questions. And thank you very much. 14

MS. WEGMAN: Well, thank you both very 15

much. I have just one question, actually, for both of 16

you. We've proposed a range of 60 to 70 parts per 17

billion a nd I just wondered if either of you has any 18

view on where within that range it makes more sense to 19

set the standard. 20

MR. MALINA: From the perspective of the 21

health of the children, the lower the better. It's 22

very, very simple. They're the next generation. 23

They're the ones that will be paying for it, both 24

tax

- wise and health

- wise. 2562

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 1

SENATOR GALLEGOS: That was Robert 2

Malina who just made those comme nts. And I agree with 3

Mr. Malina and I think that

-- you know, and I'm a 4

realist. I see both sides of this and there's 5

industry on the other side, but you can't work if you 6

can't breathe. And you know, I'm saying that a lot of 7

the industry hir es my folks, hires my constituents, 8

but they also got to breathe and

-- in order to work. 9

So

-- and I've seen so many of them with asthma. And 10

the ones that testified at the Hartman

-- at the 11

Hartman Park had a lot of

-- you know, they had

-- 12

th ey brought their oxygen tanks and then stuff like 13

that, but it's a reality in my district and across the 14

city and across this country. Thank you. 15

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you both. 16

Our next two speakers are Brenda

-- B renda 17

Ackarman and Margaret Mitchell. 18

MS. ACKARMAN

- SIOSON: Good morning. My 19

name is Brenda Ackarman

- Sioson and Brenda is easy. 20

(Brief interruption.) 21

MS. ACKARMAN

- SIOSON: Okay. My name is 22

Brenda Acka rman

- Sioson, and that last name is 23

A

- C

- K

- A

- R

- M

- A

- N hyphen S

- I

- O

- S

- O

- N, and that's not the 24

first time I've had to spell that. 2563

I'm testifying here today in three 1

capacities: One

-- and they're all related, though. 2

One as a representative of Gordon

- Darby, Incorporated, 3

the current database provider for the State of Texas 4

and other states' I/M programs. And that's inspection 5

and maintenance programs. One as a private citizen 6

who does get my car inspected a nd emissions

- tested 7

every year, all four cars. That's not a good thing. 8

Right? And then also as a 14

- year member of the I/M 9

industry. I've worked in state government as well as 10

in the private sector in the I/M industry. 11

In all capacit ies, I'm in support of the 12

EPA's implementation of the strictest standards 13

related to ground

- level ozone. The data from our I/M 14

programs across the country does support the 15

effectiveness of the programs in reducing harmful 16

emissions for motor ve hicles. And additionally, the 17

technology used to test most of the vehicles today is 18

relatively unobtrusive and it's convenient for the 19

motorists. So

-- and additionally, it's also more

-- 20

gotten very much so cost

- effective. So I think it's 21

ver y little to ask of states and citizens, motorists 22

in particular, to get their cars tested so that they 23

can do their share for cleaner air. 24

I will end by saying this is a very 2564

complicated issue, however, I have respect for what 1

the EPA is doing. There are no two nonattainment 2

areas that are alike. And with that said, I encourage 3

the EPA to consider these differences when setting the 4

standards, but most importantly or more importantly 5

when implementing and enforcing those standard s. We 6

do owe it to our children to act responsibly as 7

always. Thank you. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 9

MS. MITCHELL: Hi. My name is Margaret 10

Mitchell and I haven't really prepared my remarks so 11

I'm just going to go off the cuff. And I am here to 12

ask when the EPA will not only set standards but when 13

will the EPA enforce the standards? The day that the 14

eight

- hour ozone standard was implemented was the day 15

that we had the ozone that the one

- hour standard 16

completely failed but that was the day that the 17

one

- hour standard was no longer relevant. The 18

six

- hour

-- the new standard is better, however, it 19

still does not regulate the spikes of ozone which are 20

a different type of damage. Chronic versus spiked 21

ozone are both dangerous. 22

And then secondly, not only do we need to 23

actually enforce the ozone standards, Texas is in a 24

unique position because of our petrochemical 2565

industrial complex and many of the laws and the tools 1

that regulators are given by EPA across the board 2

don't really help Houston. And one of the examples is 3

benzene. The majority of the country, benzene is a 4

global source. However, Houston is different in that 5

we have such a large industri al complex that the 6

majority of our benzene is actually from point 7

sources. 8

Now, I don't

-- I researched that two years 9

ago and I don't know what the latest standing, but I 10

just know that the latest commissioner of our 11

Environmental Quality Commission says that we can't do 12

anything about benzene because we don't have the 13

tools. So not only do we need to enforce 14

health

- related standards, we need to give our 15

regulators the tools by which to enforce the 16

standar ds. 17

And the science is continually showing that 18

the history of emissions that we have is completely 19

inaccurate. We are getting so many emissions that 20

have never been monitored or measured. The whole 21

upset issue is just a disgrace. And I beg

-- I beg 22

the EPA to finally give Houston the tools that it 23

needs to solve our ozone problem. 24

Our ozone problem is not a threat. It is a 2566

reality. Children are being damaged every single day, 1

and just because we haven't had the sa me ozone 2

recently is because we haven't had 55, 60 days in a 3

row of a hundred degrees. Luckily, in the last two or 4

three years we've had very mild temperatures, but if 5

we go into another weather cycle where we get the more 6

usual sustained hot da ys, the ozone is going to shoot 7

up again. So I ask the EPA to look at Houston, to 8

look at our situation, and help us. Thank you. 9

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both very much 10

for your testimony. Thank you. 11

Our next two speakers are Michael Tuvim and 12

Rebecca Moss. 13

Good morning. 14

DR. TUVIM: Good morning. My name is 15

Michael Tuvim, T

- U

- V

- I

- M. I am an associate professor 16

of pulmonary medicine at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. 17

I'm not a physician. I'm a scientist. I do work with 18

lung disease models, although I'm not an ozone 19

professional I'd say. I studied available data and 20

mostly what I know about it comes from published 21

research. I am grateful to the esteemed pa nel for the 22

opportunity to testify. 23

And I'm very pleased that EPA is taking a 24

step towards cleaner air by proposing to strengthen 2567

the national air quality standard for ozone consistent 1

with what independent scientists conclude is 2

neces sary. I think it's well known that ozone is a 3

powerful pollutant that can damage our lungs and 4

airways causing health effects ranging from coughing 5

and wheezing to asthma attacks and even premature 6

deaths. Certain groups of population, like pregn ant 7

women, children, teenage, senior citizens, and people 8

with lung disease are particularly vulnerable to the 9

health effects of ozone. 10

And new epidemiological and clinical studies 11

show the health impact of breathing ozone at levels 12

lo wer than the current ambient quality standard. In 13

fact, clinical studies of otherwise healthy adults 14

have found decreased lung function, increased 15

respiratory systems [sic], inflammation, increased 16

susceptibility to respiratory infection at or bel ow 17

the current standards of 75

-- .075 parts per million. 18

Specifically, I found published research, 19

which in the rigorous model elevation, found that even 20

at 60 such characteristics as forced vital capacity 21

and forced expiratory volume measurably decreased 22

after six hours exposure in healthy volunteers. I 23

have a references in my statement here. 24

And of course, the effects of ozone are much 2568

more pronounced in individuals with lung disease, 1

particularly in asthmatics. Here in Harris County, in 2

2009 we had 140 days with high ozone. And by high, I 3

mean, you know, all the sort of those orange ozone 4

days, red and purple, whatever is high. Here we have 5

about 4 million people living, an d in those various 6

groups of risk, like women, senior citizen, diabetes 7

and so forth, we can safely lump more than a million 8

people. So those groups are not

-- not some fringe, 9

small buckets of population. It affects the majority 10

of people. 11

And in 2007, the independent Clean Air 12

Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed a summary of 13

scientific research and concluded that an ozone 14

standard greater than .070 parts per million is not 15

adequate. As

-- under the Clean Air Act, air qua lity 16

standards must be set at levels that protect public 17

health, including that of sensitive populations. 18

Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that EPA may not 19

consider other factors, such as economic cost, when 20

setting ambient air quality standar ds. As a result, 21

the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee 22

recommended setting a new ozone standard at the range 23

of 0.60 [sic] to 70 parts per million. And as I said, 24

the research states that even at 60, you can measure 2569

the effect, although mild. 1

And when crafting 2008 standards, EPA 2

unfortunately disregarded and misrepresented 3

scientific recommendations from Clean Air Scientific 4

Advisory Committee and from EPA's own scientists. The 5

standard was set at an arbitrary level that was 6

inconsistent with the scientific consensus. The 7

standards ensured that the millions of Americans who 8

live in communities with ozone concentration at the 9

high end of the allowable range continued to breathe 10

toxic an d polluted air. And unfortunately this

-- oh, 11

my time is up. That's it. 12

MS. WEGMAN: You can finish your 13

sentence if you'd like. 14

DR. TUVIM: Well, I hope that EPA will 15

basically listen to the scientists, you know, wi th all 16

the relying professionals in our everyday activities, 17

you know, car mechanics or air scientists. We have to 18

go by what people who know most about the subject tell 19

us. That's my personal approach. Thank you. 20

MS. WEGMAN: Th ank you, Dr. Tuvim. And 21

if you do have references to the things you've said, 22

that would be very, very helpful. 23

Ms. Moss? 24

MS. MOSS: Hi, my name is Rebecca Moss, 2570

R

- E

- B

- E

- C

- C

- A M

- O

- S

- S, and I am here representing the 1

Texas Association of Manufacturers. 2

I am going to start off by giving you some 3

information about Texas manufacturers and the 4

manufacturing sector. The Texas Association of 5

Manufacturers represents more than 450 large and small 6

Texas manufacturers covering every manufacturing 7

sector and employing more than 800,000 Texans. In 8

2008, Texas remained the top exporting state in the 9

nation for the seventh year in a row according to the 10

U.S. Commerce Department report. When t he final 11

numbers are tallied, we expect to keep this ranking 12

for 2009. 13

Manufacturing contributes over $96 billion 14

annually to the Texas economy. Every one dollar in 15

manufactured goods generates an additional dollar and 16

43 cents in eco nomic activity, more than any other 17

sector. Manufacturing contributes one

- third of all 18

corporate taxes collected by state and local 19

governments. Manufacturers employed approximately 20

892,000 Texans in 2008 with an average compensation of 21

$63,000 , the highest in the private executor. Not 22

only does manufacturing create jobs directly, 23

depending on the manufactured product, between two and 24

a half and 17 indirect jobs are created for every one 2571

manufacturing job. 1

I am here today bec ause TAM opposes the EPA's 2

eight

- hour proposed ozone standard. TAM's core policy 3

principles promote quality jobs for Texans in a 4

positive environment for Texas manufacturers. One 5

such core principle is to promote a regulatory 6

environment that is fair, transparent, science

- based 7

and predictable. TAM cannot support the proposed 8

eight

- hour ozone standard because it runs afoul of 9

this core principle for many reasons. 10

The current air quality standard is improving 11

air quality, and since 1997, when the EPA established 12

a primary eight

- hour ozone standard, there have been 13

no significant scientific developments justifying this 14

dramatically lower standard. 15

While the scientific rationale for the EPA's 16

proposal is unclear, the consequences of this proposal 17

are concrete. First, the EPA's proposal will undo 18

state utility plans that were created to efficiently 19

and cost

- effectively reduce emissions. If the 20

standard is adopted, the power sector ca nnot protect 21

the diversity of fuels used for electric generation in 22

Texas or the cost of electricity for consumers. As 23

the number one consumer of energy, manufacturers will 24

be hit the hardest by this consequence and forced to 2572

move operations ove rseas where energy prices are not 1

at the mercy of an increasingly unpredictable 2

regulatory scheme. 3

In addition to higher energy prices, 4

manufacturers small and large will be adversely 5

impacted when hundreds of counties become 6

nonattain ment under the proposed standard. In 7

addition to having state and local officials seek 8

emission cuts for manufacturers, new and modified 9

sources in a nonattainment area must offset their 10

emissions. This will discourage economic investment 11

and development in Texas and throughout the United 12

States, further exporting tax dollars and jobs 13

overseas. 14

The final consequence I will address regards 15

the proposed standard and current background ozone 16

concentrations. In many areas in Texas, background 17

ozone standards are higher than the standard set in 18

the EPA's current proposal. The climate, vegetation 19

and landscape of eastern Texas naturally

-- sorry

-- 20

naturally contribute a significant percentage of the 21

background ozo ne in the state. To compound these 22

natural features, mobile source emissions in Texas' 23

numerous urban areas contribute overwhelmingly to 24

ozone precursor emissions. This fact is further 2573

exacerbated by our shared border with Mexico and 1

foreign mo bile source emissions, emissions which Texas 2

has no authority to control. 3

Even if manufacturers control all the 4

emissions they can, other sources, whether natural or 5

mobile, foreign or domestic, are uncontrollable but 6

negatively impact o perations under the attainably low 7

proposed standard. 8

In conclusion, I'd like to point to the great 9

strides in air quality that have been made under the 10

current Texas air permitting program. Ambient 11

concentrations of ozone and other cri teria pollutants 12

have been significantly reduced. Fuel

- fired electric 13

generation units have

-- are already subject to 14

extensive state and federal regulation which has 15

dramatically reduced NOx emissions. Industry has 16

worked diligently to meet the current standard and is 17

continuing to work with regional government, citizens 18

and the business community to improve air quality in 19

Texas. Mandating that emissions be reduced to this 20

lower and likely unattainable lev el will cripple 21

industry at a time when other factors are already 22

forcing American jobs overseas. 23

As manufacturers, we make the things you use, 24

from pharmaceuticals to airplanes and gasoline. If 2574

you want these things to continue to be m ade in 1

America, please carefully consider the consequences of 2

the costly proposal such as the one before you today. 3

Thank you very much. 4

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. I just want to 5

state for the record that, as I think you're probably 6

aware, cost actually can't be taken into account in 7

the setting of the standards. The things you talk 8

about are largely implementation questions that are 9

not related to the setting of the standards. To the 10

extent you have any scientific, you kno w, information 11

you want to provide for the record, please do, as well 12

as information about the background points you made. 13

MS. MOSS: Okay. 14

MS. WEGMAN: That would be very helpful. 15

MS. MOSS: Thank you. 16

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both very much. 17

Our next speakers are George Batten and 18

Brandt Mannchen. And I believe, Dr. Batten, you have 19

a PowerPoint presentation. Is that correct? 20

DR. BATTEN: Yes. My name is George 21

Batten. That's George as in George Washington and 22

Batten, B

- A

- T

- T

- E

- N, as in batten down the hatches. 23

Some of my credentials appear in the written 24

comments that I'm supplying and so I'l l omit them 2575

except to say that I consider myself a knowledgeable 1

citizen and I have a little education in atmospheric 2

physics and chemistry, but I am not an atmospheric 3

expert. 4

I'm a native Houstonian who's been in 5

residence here for a ll except one of my 72 years. 6

That's long enough that I remember my father showing 7

me the Big Dipper and the Little Dipper on clear 8

summer night skies from our yard in the Montrose area. 9

Usually that's not possible now. I also remember 10

ground

- le vel ozone so concentrated that a red sun at 11

noon could be seen near my office at the University of 12

Houston prompting me to add a line to the well

- known 13

sailor's weather rhyme: Red sun at night, sailor's 14

delight. Red sun in the morning, sailor's t ake 15

warning. Red sun at noon, lungs gone too soon. 16

Those times are gone and the ground

- level 17

atmosphere is a little better now, but Houstonians 18

still suffer from ozone produced by sunlight acting on 19

ozone precursors from many sources, e specially from 20

vehicles and local chemical plants. As the rhyme 21

indicates, long

- term exposure to ground

- level ozone 22

causes much damage to lungs, making breathing more 23

difficult and reducing life expectancy. 24

Too often when action is needed and a few 2576

people oppose it, one hears the cry of jobs, jobs, 1

jobs. In this case, however, one can look at 2

EPA

- posted data about ozone and see the thousands of 3

person days lost because of it. Economically , the 4

person days lost are equivalent to jobs lost. That 5

and the also posted high mortality and morbidity due 6

to ozone lead me to urge the EPA to, one, strengthen 7

the eight

- hour primary ozone standard to no more than 8

65 parts per million

-- I'm sorry, 65 parts per 9

billion. And that's in my written comment, but I 10

actually would like to see it at 60 parts per billion. 11

And two, to establish the seasonal secondary standard 12

close to the low end of the proposed range, that is, 13

near 7 ppm hou rs. 14

The EPA's statistical arguments are needed 15

but not easily understood by the average citizen, so I 16

want to conclude by something that will make the 17

effect of ozone obvious. Perhaps you've wondered, as 18

I did years ago, why in some cit ies, Houston in 19

particular, rubber bands around boxes and document 20

stacks become weak, then break, then become a gooey 21

mess. In his autobiography, the late physicist 22

Richard Feynman mentions, without explanation, that 23

rubber bands last longer in New Mexico than they do in 24

Los Angeles. The cause is ozone, which breaks rubber 2577

molecules. 1

I am going to need a slide now. I don't 2

know, is there a

-- is that the

-- 3

MS. WEGMAN: Let me see what we can do. 4

We can get our tech people here. 5

DR. BATTEN: Okay. The first slide 6

shows an ozone sensor that anyone with a hammer can 7

make. It's probably a good Cub Scout project. It's a 8

little bit hard for you to see, I think, but I'll 9

poin t out here it has two rubber bands. This rubber 10

band

-- this rubber band right here is exposed to the 11

air. This one up here is covered with kitchen 12

plastic. It's got a couple of pieces of cellophane 13

tape around it just to hold it in place. 14

I hung this sensor behind my house. 15

Am I supposed to push this to the next slide 16

or something? Oh, there it is. 17

The bottom here is the north side of the 18

house

-- or not the north side, the eaves of the 19

house. So the sunl ight is coming in from

-- or the 20

skylight is coming in that side so this is protected 21

from skylight. It's not really essential, it turns 22

out. But I hung it there a week ago Friday, left it 23

there for

-- until Sunday, took it out and looked at 24

th e two rubber bands that are there. 2578

Push the right button here in a minute. 1

Maybe. Well, it's essential that I show you the next 2

one. 3

MS. WEGMAN: Let's see if we can get 4

some help. 5

DR. BATTEN: Just got to know where the 6

button is. 7

This is the control rubber band which was 8

covered in plastic. You will notice that it has a 9

rather smooth edge to it. This is a photomicrograph 10

that I

-- I'm not a very good photomicrographer, but I 11

hope that shows up a little bit. Remember that this 12

was left up for a week in the winter when we don't 13

have very much ozone. 14

I just turned it off. 15

MS. WEGMAN: If you can just wrap up 16

with your last slide. 17

DR. BATTEN: Get one more slide up here. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Yeah. 19

DR. BATTEN: Okay. You see what happens 20

to this. This is caused by the ozone attacking the 21

rubber there. That's only after a week at this

-- the 22

ozone le vel was only about 40 parts per

-- less than 23

40 parts per billion at this time. Thank you. 24

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 2579

Just one question I wanted to be clear 1

on. You said in your written testimony you were 2

supporting a l evel of 65 parts per billion but in your 3

oral testimony you were supporting 60? Is that

-- 4

MR. BATTEN: Actually, what I said was 5

in the written document it says no more than 65 parts 6

per billion. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Thank y ou for the 8

clarification. 9

Mr. Mannchen? 10

MR. MANNCHEN: My name is Brandt 11

Mannchen, B

- R

- A

- N

- D

- T M

- A

- N

- N

- C

- H

- E

- N, and I'm the air 12

quality chair for the Houston Regional Group of the 13

Sierra Club. 14

I have two issues I'd like to talk about 15

today. The first issue can be summed up by saying 16

who, after all, speaks for forests, nature and 17

wilderness. This regards the secondary standard for 18

ozone and we prefer the lower end, the 7 ppm level, 19

but we'd also like to bring up the concern is whether 20

this standard is understandable to the normal person. 21

After all, what EPA is proposing is a 22

cumulative, seasonal standard expressed as an annual 23

index of the sum of weighted ho urly concentrations 24

cumulated over 12 hours per day, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 2580

p.m., during the consecutive three

- month period within 1

the ozone season with a maximum index value set at a 2

level within the range of 7 to 15 parts per million 3

hours. 4

No offense, but that is incomprehensible to 5

the average person and we

-- we want a standard that's 6

close to 7 ppm but maybe in a different format so that 7

people can actually understand it. 8

The reason we support a stronger secondary 9

st andard in part is because of climate change, which 10

could drive higher ozone standards, and we already 11

have stressed ecosystems and vegetation, and so this 12

would cause even additional stress to these 13

ecosystems. Vegetation is more sensitive to ozon e 14

than humans are. Vegetation serves as the canary in 15

the coal mine with regard to ozone, climate change, 16

and human health and welfare. 17

Also, we would like to suggest that we need 18

air monitors in our state parks, national parks and 19

refuges and forests. We would suggest Sam Houston 20

National Forest near

-- and a monitor near Little Lake 21

Creek Wilderness area, which is not a Class I 22

wilderness area but it's a beautiful area nonetheless. 23

Trinity River National Wildlife Refuge, Big Thicket 24

National Preserve, San Bernard National Wildlife 2581

Refuge where the beautiful Columbia bottomland 1

vegetation exists. And these areas are downwind of 2

the Houston area and so they would provide a good idea 3

of what sort of damage is bein g done or damage is not 4

being done because of the ozone. 5

If these areas don't work out, you might try 6

some of the state parks, like Stephen F. Austin or 7

Huntsville State Park or some of the local nature 8

parks. 9

In wilderness, t he standard is untrammeled 10

and you must preserve natural conditions, and with a 11

more stringent national ambient air quality standard 12

we will have less trammeling and more natural 13

conditions in wilderness and also benefit other 14

natural areas. 15

The second thing I'd like to speak about is 16

there are those who say that a stronger ozone standard 17

is not achievable. Those people are wrong. All it 18

takes is a will and there will be multiple ways to 19

achieve the standard. We need to do what is best for 20

the health of the public and not someone's desire to 21

make money. 22

One area where you can do a whole lot is 23

upsets. It seems to me that probably 95 percent of 24

the upsets, when you lo ok at the reasons why they have 2582

upsets, which are emissions that are sort of like 1

"whoops," are caused either by human area [sic], 2

equipment malfunction or poor maintenance or poor 3

design, and those are preventable. So most upsets are 4

preventabl e. 5

And we have weak enforcement and our 6

enforcement here is so weak that the Sierra Club has 7

been forced to sue Shell, for instance, and have an 8

agreement to reduce upsets. We also have sued Chevron 9

and we're in negotiations with Chevro n about reducing 10

their upsets. And there may be other companies that 11

we go in the same direction. Because citizens' 12

lawsuits, unfortunately, down here are what is 13

required to get some of these companies to clean up. 14

It is disheartening to hear the Governor of 15

Texas speak out against clean air and the proposal to 16

strengthen the ozone standard which protects public 17

health and welfare. Governor Perry says that such an 18

effort will kill jobs, but he does not say that ozone 19

kills a nd hurts people. This is not leadership. 20

Apologists for polluters are not leaders but service 21

of polluters. 22

It is disheartening that the Texas Commission 23

on Environmental Quality states, "We've been very 24

active in getting all the low

- hanging fruit. We're 2583

really running into a brick wall." After 40 years, 1

TCEQ should be going after more than low

- hanging 2

fruit. If this is the best TCEQ can do, then we need 3

EPA to assume responsibility for the pr eparation and 4

implementation of the state implementation plan. A 5

defeatist attitude does not lead to clean air. 6

This is the same TCEQ who three years ago 7

said you could shut down the Houston ship channel and 8

it wouldn't make a differenc e for attaining the ozone 9

standard and yet just last year they said we have 10

attained the standard of .08 parts per million and 11

therefore we're doing really well and patted 12

themselves on the back. 13

TCEQ needs to be pushed very hard to do i ts 14

job, which is the protection of the public health and 15

welfare. TCEQ's job is not to process permits for 16

polluters as fast as possible. 17

I have two sentences. 18

It is not to make excuses for pollution and 19

it is not to fail to enforce the law against 20

polluters. The Sierra Club hopes that the TCEQ and 21

Governor get the message and begin an honest effort to 22

reduce emissions which cause ozone. Nothing less will 23

do. This is a matter of life and breath. Thank you. 24

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. I actually have 2584

two questions for you. One is about the secondary 1

standard. And you don't have to answer it now, but if 2

you have thoughts on how to create what you would find 3

to be a more comprehensible secondary standard, we 4

would be interested in it. We work to try to develop 5

one that we think will be protective of public 6

welfare, but we would be very interested in your 7

comments on that. 8

And I wondered i f you could say just a little 9

bit more about climate change and ozone, the points 10

you were making about climate change. Just say a 11

little bit more about what you were thinking about

-- 12

MR. MANNCHEN: Sure. Depending on

-- 13

and agai n, the modeling isn't perfect, but it suggests 14

that in many areas we are going to have more heat, 15

hotter periods of time, maybe longer periods of 16

drought. If we, in fact, have that and we have more 17

of that kind of weather in the Houston area or ev en in 18

the state of Texas because of trans

- boundary air 19

pollution problems within the state and from areas 20

outside the state, as Matthew Tejada mentioned, for 21

gas, then we could very well be producing more ozone. 22

And if we produce more ozone and b ecause vegetation is 23

more sensitive to ozone, then we could have more 24

vegetation damage as

-- and I am just not worried 2585

about vegetation but the ecosystems of the entire 1

forest, the entire prairie, whatever that vegetative 2

ecosystem is and all th e animals that respond to it 3

and are dependent on it. 4

And as far as the secondary standard, in my 5

view, it was much easier when the secondary standard 6

was stated in form of ppm. That was much more 7

understandable for me to explain to my members and 8

also to members of the general public. But when you 9

start going into multiple months cumulative whatever, 10

it just gets kind of lost on the public as to what 11

you're really trying to do. 12

And I know it's difficult for you and I know 13

this new standard is supposed to somehow make it more 14

protective and more representative of what's happening 15

to vegetation in ecosystems, but somehow it also needs 16

to be comprehensible by the general p ublic. Thank 17

you. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Corroboration. 19

Our next two speakers are Eva Hernandez and 20

Philip Snyder. 21

MS. HERNANDEZ: Hello. My name is Eva 22

Hernandez and I'm the regional representative with 23

Sierra Club. 24

MS. WEGMAN: You have to hold down

-- at 2586

the bottom it says push. 1

MS. HERNANDEZ: Right there? 2

MS. WEGMAN: That's it. Thank you. 3

MS. HERNANDEZ: So I'll repeat that. My 4

name is Eva Hernandez and I work statewide here in 5

Texas with the Sierra Club, which is a national 6

organization. Brandt also just spoke. 7

So first I'd like to start by saying on 8

behalf of Sierra Club, we're in support of the 9

strongest re vised ozone standard of 60 parts per 10

billion. We really are at an energy crossroads here 11

in Texas. Coal

- fired power plants are one of the 12

heaviest single sources of pollution in the state and 13

Texas has the opportunity to move towards a clean 14

energy future right now. 15

Smog

- forming ozone is caused by nitrogen 16

oxides which are emitted by large industrial sources, 17

such as coal

- fired power plants, cement kilns, 18

refineries, chemical plants and also from smaller 19

numerous sources, such as vehicular emissions and 20

construction, offroad construction equipment. 21

Coal

- fired power plants, however, are the largest 22

industrial source of pollution in the state. Existing 23

coal plants in Texas emit 112,852 tons of nitrogen 24

oxides, whic h form smog, which makes people 2587

susceptible to lung tissue damage and reduces lung 1

function. 2

There are 12 new proposed coal plants in the 3

State of Texas and in various stages of permitting. 4

From the coal plants that are currently being p ursued 5

that are not yet permitted, if they were to be 6

permitted they would emit 12,855 tons per year of 7

nitrogen oxide. For those coal plants that have been 8

recently permitted and are in various stages of 9

construction around the state, they woul d emit 16,804 10

tons per year of nitrogen oxide, which, again, is what 11

causes ozone pollution. 12

Texas cannot build new coal plants and 13

achieve health standards. To meet these new standards 14

and protect our health, we also need to shut down some 15

of the old really

-- really dirty coal plants. Texas 16

coal plants also have a negative impact on air quality 17

in surrounding states. So that's a concern we implore 18

the EPA to take into consid eration, the impact of coal 19

plants in Texas on other states, including Oklahoma 20

and Arkansas. 21

The best way for urban areas to meet the new 22

ozone standard is to reduce major emission sources of 23

ozone, including existing and new coal plant s, and to 24

reduce vehicular emissions through smarter 2588

transportation solutions. All sectors, government, 1

business, residential, everyone will need to be 2

involved in this process. 3

One of the newly proposed coal plants that 4

would have a major impact on air quality in the region 5

is the newly proposed White Stallion coal plant in Bay 6

City. On behalf of Sierra Club, we ask that the EPA 7

step in and halt the permitting of the White Stallion 8

coal plant because of the health impacts on the 9

community and Texans. We also ask that the EPA step 10

in and halt the permitting and construction of the 11

remaining 11 coal

- fired power plants that are in 12

various stages of permitting and construction because 13

of these health reasons. 14

The Texas Commission on Environmental 15

Quality, TCEQ, supervised by the EPA has been 16

responsible for creating plans and tracking progress 17

to reduce emissions in Texas. Unfortunately, Texas 18

asthma rates have almost doubled in the past ten 19

years. So Texas state legislators, medical 20

communities, Sierra Club, and our environmental 21

partners are calling on the EPA to seize this 22

important opportunity to halt the permitting or 23

construction of any new coal plants in the state until 24

the TCEQ does its job and enforces the Federal Clean 2589

Air Act. 1

And in order for cities cross Texas, 2

including Houston, to reach attainment levels, we also 3

have to phase out existing dirty coal plants. It's 4

really time to invest in renewable energy and energy 5

efficiency in Texas. We have the incredible energy 6

resources here for wind and solar. We have people and 7

industries with the know

- how to create energy 8

efficiency. So we have a lot of potential here in 9

Texas for clean energy. 10

And so just to reiterate, on behalf of Sierra 11

Club, we support the strongest proposed revised 12

standards for the ozone. Thank you. 13

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 14

MS. HERNANDEZ: And I also have with me 15

to deliver, there are over 200 handwritten comments 16

that were collected over two days by our partners at 17

the Texas Campaign for the Environment. So I will 18

leave those with you today. 19

MS. WEGMAN: Very good. Thank you. 20

MR. SNYDE R: Hi. My name is Philip 21

Snyder. That's Philip with one L, S

- N

- Y

- D

- E

- R, among 22

the very many variations of how to spell Snyder. I 23

speak for the Green Party of Texas. May I resume? 24

MS. WEGMAN: Yes, you may. 2590

MR. SNYDER: And I worked for a local 1

air pollution agency for 23 years. For most of that 2

time, I was in charge of the air quality analysis 3

section. Manmade ozone results basically from 4

precursors nitrogen oxides and volatile orga nic 5

compounds. Some of these compounds are much more 6

volatile than others, to paraphrase George Orwell. In 7

most cities, transportation provides most of the NOx 8

and the VOCs. However, in Houston, a lot more NOx 9

than usual comes from industry an d the VOCs, the 10

volatile ones, the really volatile ones, come almost 11

exclusively from East Harris County, AKA the ship 12

channel. 13

Where does it start from? Well, Mr. Mannchen 14

went into upsets. Again, maintenance is a major 15

issue. Cool ing towers, most people don't think of 16

cooling towers as a source of VOCs, but those pipes 17

are carrying hot volatile products and inevitably they 18

leak, and when they do and go unchecked for weeks on 19

end, you get significant emissions of VOCs. 20

The same is true of cleaning out barges. 21

Some of what they carry in tank trucks, some of what 22

they carry when you clean them out, where are the 23

fumes to go? That's right. Into the air. 24

Transportation is another major source of 2591

VO Cs, but they are not terribly volatile. If they 1

were, Dallas would have the same kind of ozone problem 2

that Houston does. 3

Okay. Ozone levels in Houston have gotten an 4

awful lot better over the last few years, especially 5

once industries started providing halfway honest 6

emission inventories. Transportation is cleaner than 7

it used to be and for some reason there are fewer 8

inversions which meteorologically help smog. I'm not 9

going to get into that. There's not th e time. Okay. 10

Keep trying to improve vehicle emissions and, 11

in particular, let's get some serious maintenance 12

being done along the ship channel. They're going to 13

have to spend a lot more money on maintenance. This 14

will, of course, red uce corporate profits. That's too 15

bad. Public health and safety comes first and profits 16

come second. And I might add that the new standard of 17

60 ppb especially is approaching the normal Houston 18

ozone even on days when there are no leaks, there a re 19

no upsets, nothing. I mean, I watched ozone form over 20

the city for more than 20 years and believe me, 60, 21

70, 80 ppb, even on good days is normal. To get to 60 22

and keep it there is going to need serious changes in 23

the way people live in this city. And I'm not sure 24

anyone is really ready for that. I've got

-- there 2592

are other Green Party people ready to speak on just 1

what those lifestyle changes will have to be. Thank 2

you. Any questions? 3

MS. WEGMAN: I just wondered if you or 4

the Green Party has a position on what level we should 5

set between 60 and 70? 6

MR. SNYDER: I would say 60. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. 8

MR. SNYDER: I mean, you might as well 9

shoot for it. You know, you might conceivably get to 10

70 in the next few years, but 60 is definitely the 11

goal to shoot for. 12

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you both very 13

much. 14

Our next two speakers are Elizabeth Hendler 15

and M ichael Honeycutt. 16

DR. HONEYCUTT: As EPA re

- examines the 17

ozone NAAQS

-- 18

MS. WEGMAN: I'm sorry. Would you mind 19

introducing yourself for the court reporter? 20

DR. HONEYCUTT: Okay. Michael 21

Honeycutt, M

- I

- C

- H

- A

- E

- L H

- O

- N

- E

- Y

- C

- U

- T

- T. 22

As EPA re

- examines the ozone NAAQS, I, 23

Dr. Michael Honeycutt, director of the toxicology 24

division, would like to offer the following comments 2593

on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental 1

Quality. 2

In developing the range for the new standard, 3

EPA did not consider personal exposure to ozone. It 4

is a scientific fact that outdoor ozone levels are not 5

indicative of the ozone levels that people actually 6

breathe. You do not have to take th e word of the TCEQ 7

on this. EPA's own CASAC ozone review panel wrote the 8

following to EPA in a letter dated June 5, 2006. 9

And I quote, The Ozone Staff Paper should 10

consider the problem of exposure measurement error in 11

ozone mortality time

- series studies. It is known that 12

personal exposure to ozone is not reflected 13

adequately, and sometime not at all, by ozone 14

concentrations measured at central monitoring sites. 15

Therefore, it seems unlikely that the observed 16

associations between short

- term ozone concentrations 17

and daily mortality are due solely to ozone itself. 18

What this means is that the epidemiology 19

studies used by EPA to set the health

- based ozone 20

standard are not scientifically rigorous e nough to be 21

used as the basis for this important policy decision. 22

These studies are based on the supposition that the 23

majority of people breathe outside air eight to 24 24

hours each day while the scientific data clearly show 2594

this is not the case. 1

Many time

- series studies have used patient 2

medical records instead of patient history to monitor 3

exposure and assess health effects. Similar to 4

ambient monitoring data, patient medical records are 5

inadequate indices to associate ozone ex posure and 6

health effects. EPA also used clinical studies 7

published by Dr. William Adams as the basis for 8

lowering the .08 part per million standard. EPA 9

reanalyzed Dr. Adams' data inappropriately, as pointed 10

out by Dr. Adams himself in his com ments to EPA. 11

We hear anecdotally that hospital visits for 12

asthma rise when ozone levels rise, but hospital 13

admissions data show this is not the case. Texas 14

inpatient hospital discharge data on number of 15

hospital visits for asthma between 1999 and 2001 16

actually show that fewer children in Texas visit the 17

hospital for asthma during peak summer ozone season as 18

compared to wintertime. Results from four

- year air 19

quality study conducted by Texas A&M University and 20

Driscoll Children's Hospital indicate hospital 21

admissions to be weakly correlated with ambient daily 22

maximum ozone levels. The Kaiser Permanente report 23

and the Gauderman study in 2004 found no increased 24

hospital admissions in elde rly patients and health 2595

effects in children due to ozone levels

-- or due to 1

ozone alone. 2

Texas has spent significant state resources 3

through multimillion dollar field studies on examining 4

transport and background of ozone precursors. T he 5

results of these studies confirm that background ozone 6

and interstate transport are major factors in ambient 7

ozone levels. We know that as the standard is 8

lowered, transport and background will represent 9

greater percentages of the problems fo r Texas cities. 10

The ozone standard proposal states that "EPA 11

recognizes the need in our CAIR replacement effort to 12

address the reconsidered ozone standard, and we are 13

currently assessing our options for the best way to 14

accomplish this." We believe it will be extremely 15

challenging for EPA to promulgate the replacement 16

program in a timely manner or without legal 17

challenges. 18

Some Texas areas may have to achieve the 19

standard in as little as three to six years before 20

control strategies can take effect. Considering the 21

magnitude of background ozone, we question if the 22

necessary technology exists to reduce ozone precursors 23

on sources within the State's control in such a short 24

time period. Your very own propos al acknowledges that 2596

"benefits from federal engine standards increase 1

modestly each year." In fact, within five to six 2

years, mobile NOx emissions will start to increase 3

unless vehicle standards are tightened further. 4

There is no indica tion from EPA of any 5

studies to evaluate the social impact of tighter 6

regulations. Texans and the EPA have both seen that 7

programs that mandate changes to personal lifestyles 8

were rejected. We witnessed it with the centralized 9

Vehicle Inspectio n and Maintenance program and the 10

Employee Trip Reduction program. They proved to be 11

unacceptable to the public. EPA has failed to 12

thoroughly examine the probability that individual 13

citizens will simply choose to not comply with 14

inconvenient or onerous rules. 15

In conclusion, a policy decision this 16

important must be made not just by using good science, 17

but understanding its limitations and using that 18

science correctly. The exposure estimates in the 19

epidemiology studies used to justify lowering the 20

ozone standard do not account for personal exposure to 21

ozone and are therefore faulty, as noted by EPA's own 22

CASAC. EPA needs to address personal exposure before 23

they implement such a costly and unobtainable 24

standard. Thank you. 2597

MS. WEGMAN: I actually have one 1

question. I don't know if anyone else does. I just 2

want to make sure what you were saying, Dr. Honeycutt, 3

about the patient records. Did you say that they were 4

not adequate ? Did I understand that correctly? 5

DR. HONEYCUTT: That's correct. Patient 6

medical records as opposed to patient histories. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 8

MS. HENDLER: Good morning. My name is 9

Elizabe th Hendler. That's H

- E

- N

- D

- L

- E

- R, and I am a 10

project manager for the 8

- Hour Ozone SIP Coalition. 11

The 8

- Hour Coalition is comprised of members from the 12

energy industry with the common interest of achieving 13

the goals of clean air and a strong econom y for Texas. 14

The Coalition's refining, petrochemical and electric 15

utility members have been strong supporters of clean 16

air improvements. 17

The Coalition opposes the EPA's decision to 18

re

- propose the final 2008 ozone NAAQS. We raised 19

ques tions about uncertainties in the science, costs, 20

and impacts on state implementation efforts in the 21

2008 NAAQS revision process. Our questions remain 22

unanswered, and the current proposal to set a new 23

lower NAAQS magnifies the uncertainties and the 24

potential for adverse impacts. 2598

In 1997, EPA set a new eight

- hour standard 1

concluding that it protected the public health and 2

provided an adequate margin of safety. Since that 3

time, air quality in Houston and around the United 4

States has improved dramatically, despite increased 5

population and economic growth. 6

The list of recent air quality 7

accomplishments in the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria 8

region is impressive. The most noticeable of these is 9

that our region attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2009 10

based on the most recent three years of monitored 11

data. 12

Reducing ozone while providing a better 13

quality of life for citizens is not an accident. It's 14

the result of the thorough application of scien ce, 15

data, targeted reductions, and actions by citizens, 16

business and government. These initiatives were 17

significant. Industry sources were required to reduce 18

highly reactive volatile organic compounds by more 19

than 64 percent and nitrogen oxides by 80 percent over 20

the past decade. There are few remaining ozone 21

precursor reductions available in Houston at any cost. 22

The 2008 NAAQS revision process raised many 23

serious questions. Still remaining are questions 24

about the underlying health and risk science, 2599

cost/benefit analyses, how to treat naturally 1

occurring background levels of ozone and international 2

transport, impacts to existing state and local 3

regulatory efforts, and impacts on the national energy 4

supply. 5

During the previous ozone NAAQS review, EPA 6

found that there was no bright line health effects 7

threshold at which to set the level of the standard 8

and concluded, based on policy judgments, that the 9

.08 ppm max standard level would protect public health 10

and provide an adequate margin of safety. The 2008 11

NAAQS review provided no new evidence to assist EPA 12

with establishing that bright line. EPA has not 13

brought forward additional new data or health studies 14

that clarify the uncertainties raised in the 2008 15

assessment. 16

We continue to question the adequacy of the 17

Regulatory Impacts Analysis, or RIA, that accompanied 18

the 2008 NAAQS revision for two reasons. First, the 19

report ignores the costs associated with the economic 20

impacts of regulations beyond immediate control costs. 21

It does not consider unemployment effects or the cost 22

of business relocation. Second, the 2008 RIA does not 23

calculate the effect of the proposed NAAQS revision on 24

the national energy supply, yet elsewhere in the same 25100

report, EPA assumes correctly that new and expensive 1

controls will be imposed on the energy industry in 2

Houston. The public must have a better tool that 3

considers all costs and benefits. 4

The questions raised in the previous NAAQS 5

revision process have not been answered in the current 6

proposal. In fact, the current proposal magnifies the 7

uncertainties and adverse impacts. EPA's RIA modeling 8

suggests that to achieve the proposed 60 to 70 ppb 9

range would require elimination of nearly all Houston 10

area emissions, both stationary and mobile sources, 11

yet, EPA does not identify any control strategies 12

capable of such a reduction. In essence, EPA is 13

sugg esting that Houston close up shop in order to 14

progress from the 1997 standard to a new standard. 15

In addition, recent scientific evidence 16

points to the large and increasing role of 17

international transport of ozone and its precursors. 18

A ne w lower NAAQS in which internationally transported 19

ozone represents a significant contribution means that 20

even sweeping new national rules would not be enough 21

to reduce ozone levels to help areas achieve 22

attainment. 23

The mission of the 8

- Hour Ozone SIP Coalition 24

is to assure that air quality decisions are based on 25101

the best scientific data and result in rules that are 1

effective in addressing air quality issues while 2

achieving the goals of clean air and a strong economy. 3

Rather tha n proceed with this proposal to lower the 4

NAAQS, we encourage EPA to focus its efforts on the 5

implementation aspects of the current standard and to 6

work to better resolve uncertainties in the science 7

and costs in preparation for the next Clean Air Act 8

mandated review of the ozone NAAQS in 2013. We look 9

forward to continuing to work with EPA to achieve 10

those goals. 11

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. As I've asked 12

others before, if you have information on background 13

in specific, that would be helpful. 14

MS. HENDLER: We'll be submitting that 15

in our written testimony. Thank you. 16

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Our next two 17

speakers are Kevin Bloom [sic] and Wendi Hammond. 18

MR. BLOOMER: It's still good morning. 19

My name is Kevin Bloomer, B

- L

- O

- O

- M

- E

- R. I'm an 20

employee at Westlake Chemical Corporation. We're a 21

manufacturer of commodity chemicals, polyethylene, 22

polyvinyl chloride resins principally. We've got 23

plan ts in

-- chemical plants in four different cities 24

across the United States that will be potentially 25102

impacted by this rule. 1

This new lower standard is of concern to me 2

and my company because of the fact that

-- it's been 3

pointed out, I th ink, that

-- by other people that are 4

better at epidemiology

-- I can say it but I don't 5

have a good background in it. Dr. Honeycutt with the 6

TCEQ, who's also a former employer of mine, worked on 7

this NAAQS SIP standard in

-- for ozone way back in 8

the early '90s. And Guy Donaldson with Region 6 was a 9

coworker at EPA at the time on that. We have some 10

background in the area and

-- as well as Dr. Prueitt, 11

who earlier spoke as a representative of API. They 12

point out issues that EPA has wit h coming up with a 13

lower standard which is a range, and I have some 14

concerns over that because if there is a lower 15

standard that is needed, why is EPA proposing a range, 16

then, for this new lower ozone NAAQS standard? 17

If EPA goes forward with this, and I 18

certainly hope that y'all don't, because of the 19

scientific problems shown by the rule. I do wish that 20

y'all consider other factors that impact the ozone in 21

our area, and that is, transports, one of them. It's 22

mobile sources as well. And as others have said 23

before and as monitor data has shown, the ozone level 24

in Houston is and has been getting better since I 25103

started working on the issue back in 1992. So we are 1

making progress and I think you need to recognize the 2

fact that things that have been done are making the 3

air cleaner for the citizens of Houston and for the 4

rest of the country. 5

So I appreciate your time this morning and if 6

there are any questions, please

-- please feel free

. 7

Thank you. 8

MS. WEGMAN: I just want to note that we 9

are proposing a range in order to take public comment 10

on whether it should be higher or lower, middle end of 11

the range. So we're trying to, you know, decide where 12

to wind up w ithin that range, just to answer that 13

question. 14

MS. HAMMOND: Hello. My name is Wendi 15

Hammond, W

- E

- N

- D

- I H

- A

- M

- M

- O

- N

- D. I am an attorney 16

that represents nonprofit groups throughout the State 17

of Texas on air issues. I am here toda y on behalf of 18

the SEED Coalition and Kids 4 Clean Air. 19

We support the lowest standard, .060, to be 20

adopted as far as the ozone NAAQ standard. It can be 21

achieved. Now, while there has been a lot of 22

improvement in clean air, it has not been as 23

significant as the data suggests. For example, when 24

you actually look at the numbers for the monitoring 25104

system in the state of Texas, you will find out that 1

what happens is the extreme circumstances

- - the way 2

that the NAAQS is written out, it is supposed to allow 3

for extreme circumstances to be taken into account in 4

case there is an unusual spike in the ozone, actually, 5

is too favorable because it does not take into account 6

unusual lows. Fo r examples, in 2007, for the 7

Dallas

- Fort Worth area we had an extremely wet summer 8

and we did not hit triple

- digit numbers, which is 9

usually occurring very early in the summertime, until 10

the middle of August. The same thing happened in '09. 11

We h ad extremely wet area even in the Houston area and 12

the Austin and the Dallas

- Fort Worth areas. 13

What has happened is in the Houston area it 14

actually would have, the monitors for that year, 15

reached the current NAAQS standard but as soon as w e 16

take into account and take away these extreme 17

standards and

-- events

-- excuse me, extreme events, 18

what happens is we actually show spikes of the ozone 19

under the normal circumstances that occur under 20

average hot days during the summer in the s tate of 21

Texas. And in fact, in Houston, even though they 22

attain the eight

- hour standard, the monitors showed 23

violation of the old one

- hour standard. 24

And that's significant when they actually 25105

start talking about how the eight

- hour standa rd works. 1

No, it doesn't, because the one

- hour standard needs to 2

actually come back. And that is a problem with the 3

form that is going to be adopted. 4

Using the form beforehand under the one

- hour 5

standard, you could actually have a violation in one 6

year of three highs and therefore you were able to 7

start implementing solutions immediately and as 8

quickly as possible. Under the new eight

- hour 9

standard, you have to actually take the average of the 10

th ree years fourth highest, therefore, the public must 11

be exposed to poor air pollution for at least three 12

years before they even can declare that there is a 13

problem. After that, the implementation alone can 14

take a year to two years just to even get it to 15

declare as a nonattainment area and then you're 16

dealing with potential litigation after that. And so 17

the time frame under the eight

- hour standard actually 18

takes too long for the public health. 19

You have to find a standard that can be 20

actually identified quicker. And if the .06 is it, 21

just make it to where it's not necessarily the fourth 22

highest day of a three

- hour

-- three

- day

-- three

- year 23

average because the public needs assistance much 24

quicker, especially in areas lik e the state of Texas, 25106

when you just heard the Texas Commission on 1

Environmental Quality give comment that the air 2

pollution and the science is inaccurate, which isn't 3

the case. 4

The science is clear. They

-- especially for 5

people with respiratory illnesses and children, and I, 6

for one, when I was a kid did stay outside for eight 7

hours a day during the summertime, which is the 8

typical ozone season. And we're actually dealing with 9

an obesity epidemic for children. We want them 10

outdoors. Band practice happens during the summertime 11

ozone seasons. Football practices, soccer 12

tournaments, all of those things where the children 13

are exposed, and so we do have to look at what the 14

health needs are for the children as well, as well as 15

other people with respiratory illnesses and the 16

elderly. They too cannot be shut

- ins. They have to 17

be allowed to go outside. We're trying to be very 18

active adults in the world, and kids, and we need to 19

be able to make it so they can d o so. 20

One of the problems also is the monitoring 21

system for the rural areas. We have got to get more 22

monitors in rural areas and you have to actually look 23

at what the ratio is. For example, under the EPA 24

standard, it actually took citi zens from Navarro 25107

County to push their own government to get a monitor 1

in the area because they were concerned about power 2

plants in the Freestone area, which was upwind of 3

their area. Freestone County has now done that as 4

well. Those counties have

-- the population is less 5

than what EPA standards require for monitor placement, 6

but there is major industry in that area that is 7

blowing and contributing to not only to those rural 8

areas but also downwind nonattainment areas in the 9

Dallas

- F ort Worth area. 10

Transport is an issue. If you actually 11

reduce the standard to .06, you are actually going to 12

bring in much more of an area under the control so 13

that we can look for solutions. Your own reasonable 14

further progress allows for the State to take 15

advantage of sources that are 250 kilometers from the 16

actual nonattainment area. And the State of Texas 17

actually took advantage of that, but when we are in 18

the permitting process they don't. And the refore, 19

under this, we need to as well. Thank you for your 20

time and I'll submit written questions by the March 21

deadline. 22

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Very good. Thank 23

you both for your comments. 24

Our next two speakers are Neil Ca rman and 25108

Gabriel Clark

- Leach. 1

DR. CARMAN: My name is Neil Carman. 2

MS. WEGMAN: Dr. Carman, if you can 3

press the button on the speaker and hold it while you 4

talk. I'm sorry, but you have to hold it. 5

DR . CARMAN: Thank you. My name is Neil 6

Carman. I am the Clean Air Program Director for the 7

Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club representing over 8

25,000 members in the state of Texas who want clean 9

air. I'm here to support the EPA's efforts to ti ghten 10

the ozone standard to 60 parts per billion averaged 11

over eight hours. 12

I'm also here as a runner, a marathon runner, 13

representing many athletes who try to run in Texas 14

cities, and the smog and the high ozone levels cause a 15

lot of respiratory problems when you're out running 16

for one, two or three hours. Marathon runners are 17

often out there even for more than three hours, four 18

and five hours. So runners have a serious issue in 19

trying to train and compete in cities with high ozone 20

levels. 21

This is very important that the EPA tighten 22

the ozone standard because we know that the current 23

standard does not adequately protect public health. 24

There were

-- you've heard some comments from some of 25109

the previ ous speakers about the current standards and 1

the way the EPA had evaluated it does not consider 2

personal exposure. One of the problems with the way 3

we monitor ozone today is there's many gaps. There's 4

areas where there's no ozone monitoring at al l, and so 5

I'm here to support EPA's efforts to provide funding 6

for more ozone monitors to cover areas where we have 7

significant gaps in Houston and Dallas and many other 8

cities. That's a very important way to get more ozone 9

evidence about what t he personal exposures might be to 10

people who are outside, whether they're children or 11

runners or whatever. 12

This standard is very important for Texas 13

because we have the largest industrial base in the 14

United States in terms of industrial factories and in 15

terms of industrial air pollution, including volatile 16

organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Texas leads 17

the nation in the amount of industrial air pollution, 18

specially from some of the plants like coal

- fired 19

power plants and other sources. 20

One of the big problems, though, with the way 21

we've been regulating ozone is we only look at it in 22

terms of these nonattainment areas where they violate 23

the standard. We need a regional approach to be 24

c onsidered in evaluating ways to address ozone 25110

problems because a lot of sources are outside the 1

nonattainment areas. And obviously we've made 2

tremendous progress in Texas in areas like Houston, 3

Beaumont, Port Arthur, Dallas

- Fort Worth, but there i s 4

a lot of transported pollution coming in from other 5

areas and so we've done a very poor job of regulating 6

regional transport of these large sources outside. 7

I want to point out that in Texas, if the 8

standard was set at 70 parts per bil lion for eight 9

hours, there's at least 18 million Texans, that's 10

about 75 percent of the population, that currently 11

basically have dirty air. If you take the standard 12

down to 60 parts per billion, which is what I 13

recommend for eight hours, we're looking at over 20 14

million Texans, over 80 percent of the population 15

which has

-- is breathing dirty air in the summertime. 16

So I'm very strongly advocating that EPA set 17

the standard at 60 parts per billion for eight hours 18

because I thin k the science clearly supports we need a 19

standard set at 60 parts per billion. 20

We know ozone is a highly toxic gas and it's 21

formed in the air on warm summer days from manmade 22

pollution. We do need to clean up vehicles and other 23

transportation sources, so I am not just complaining 24

here about industrial factories. But anyway, I 25111

applaud EPA's efforts and I want to finally say that 1

this effort to lower

-- tighten the ozone standard is 2

clear evidence that the Clean Air Act works as 3

Congress adopted it, passed it nearly four decades 4

ago, and I applaud EPA's efforts for proposing this 5

revision to the existing ozone standard. Thank you. 6

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 7

MR. CLARK

- LEACH: Good aftern oon. My 8

name is Gabriel Clark

- Leach. That's C

- L

- A

- R

- K hyphen 9

L

- E

- A

- C

- H. I'm here on behalf of the Environmental 10

Integrity Project. 11

The Environmental Integrity Project would 12

like to thank the EPA for this opportunity to comment 13

on th e proposed revisions to the primary and secondary 14

NAAQS for ozone. The Environmental Integrity Project 15

is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes 16

the strong enforcement of existing federal and state 17

anti

- pollution laws and works to pre vent the political 18

and

-- political interference with those laws. 19

The critical focus of the Clean Air Act from 20

the beginning has been the protection and enhancement 21

of the quality of the nation's air resources so as to 22

promote the public health and welfare and the 23

productive capacity of its population. There are many 24

who believe that this goal is beyond our grasp or that 25112

the benefits of clean air are outweighed by the costs 1

of attainment. While the EIP, Environmental Integrity 2

Project, believes that these people are mistaken, that 3

their consideration of both the costs and benefits of 4

clean air are too narrowly calculated, it is not 5

necessary to meet their arguments today on this forum. 6

It is unnecessary because these a rguments are 7

irrelevant to EPA's charge under Section 109(b) of the 8

Clean Air Act to set primary ozone standards at a 9

level requisite to protect public health and public 10

welfare and secondary standards requisite to protect 11

public wealth [sic] fro m any known or anticipated 12

adverse effects associated with the presence of ozone 13

in ambient air. 14

As Justice Scalia observed in his majority 15

opinion for the Supreme Court in Whitman v. American 16

Trucking Associations, the text of 109(b), i nterpreted 17

in its statutory and historical context with 18

appreciation for its importance to the Clean Air Act 19

as a whole, unambiguously bars the consideration of 20

costs from the NAAQS

- setting process, and thus ended 21

the matter for the Supreme Court as well as the EPA. 22

In 2008, the EPA set a revised primary NAAQS 23

standard for ozone above the range that had been 24

unanimously recommended by the Clean Air Scientific 25113

Advisory Committee of EPA's Science Advisory Board. 1

In setting these s tandards

-- the standard, the EPA 2

failed to justify its departure from the 3

well

- supported recommendation of its own experts, 4

which were echoed by medical experts and public health 5

organizations nationwide. In so doing, EPA failed to 6

meet the statutory charge under Section 109 of the 7

Clean Air Act. The proposed primary standards that 8

are the subject of the public comment hearing today 9

will rectify this mistake. 10

Though the adoption of this reasonable 11

standard will be met by strong opposition from 12

powerful interests, EPA must not founder from its 13

responsibility to protect the quality of our nation's 14

air and the health and welfare of its people. While 15

the voices of those who disproportionately bear the 16

cost of air pollution, the elderly, the young, the 17

sick, the poor, are often unheard in proceedings such 18

as this, their needs must not be ignored. Thus the 19

Environmental Integrity Project supports EPA's 20

decision to reconsider the ozone NAAQS in light of 21

overwhelming scientific evidence that the primary 22

standards set in 2008 does not adequately protect the 23

public health and welfare, and encourages the EPA to 24

finalize standards consistent with the recommendations 25114

of its own experts. Thank you. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Mr. Clark

- Leach, do you 2

have any recommendation within the range that we 3

proposed and

-- any thoughts on that? 4

MR. CLARK

- LEACH: Consistent with the 5

recommendations of public health organizations like 6

t he American Lung Association and information in 7

studies EPA considered, we recommend the lowest 8

proposed standard of 60 parts per billion. 9

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank 10

you both very much. 11

Our next two speakers a re Laura Blackburn and 12

Dan Buda. 13

MS. BLACKBURN: My name is Laura 14

Blackburn, L

- A

- U

- R

- A B

- L

- A

- C

- K

- B

- U

- R

- N, and I am 15

representing the League of Women Voters of Texas as 16

well as League of Women Voters of Houston. 17

According t o EPA's report of counties 18

violating the primary ground

- level ozone standard 2006 19

to 2008, Texas shares with California some of the 20

highest out

- of

- compliance three

- year averages. And as 21

I am sure you know, Houston and Los Angeles compete 22

with ea ch other as to which has the highest level of 23

ground

- level ozone. This is not a contest we like to 24

win. 25115

After viewing the proposed rule which the 1

Administrator has presented, we agree with her in many 2

areas. Certainly EPA should take t he advice of their 3

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee with regard to 4

the lower and upper limits of the standard. 5

We applaud the Administrator, contrary to 6

others today, for reviewing the Adams 2006 study and 7

the conclusion that cont rolled human studies are the 8

most certain evidence of adverse health effects. The 9

fact that the Adams studies report a greater than 10 10

percent decrement in lung function in 7 to 20 percent 11

of healthy adults among people with

-- indicates a 12

much greater level among people with lung disease. We 13

are particularly concerned about children with asthma. 14

We would encourage the administrator, 15

however, to give further credence to those studies 16

that show health effect s not only at .06 parts per 17

million but below that. Some studies indicate that 18

there are morbidity and mortality effects at below 19

0.25 [sic] to 0.35 [sic] parts per million, i.e., the 20

Bell studies of 2006 and the Burnett study of 1997. 21

While you will be happy to know that the League of 22

Women Voters of Texas does not recommend a standard 23

below background levels, we do think that this 24

evidence strongly suggests that a .06 part per million 25116

standard would not only protect the public health bu t 1

offer an adequate margin of safety. 2

And now I have a question to ask. Many 3

people have mentioned background today and I've 4

noticed that they view it in a different perspective 5

than I do typically. As a scientist, background means 6

n aturally occurring and what I hear today is that 7

background means to some people that which comes over 8

from the next county. And I would like EPA to speak 9

to what background really means to them. 10

MS. WEGMAN: I'll take a crack at tha t. 11

If others want to jump in, they can. We actually have 12

a way of calculating the background or estimating the 13

background which we used in this review, and I will 14

remind folks this is a reconsideration of our March 15

2008 standard so we're using t he record from that 16

review. And when we did the risk assessment for that 17

standard, we used a background of 15 to 35 parts per 18

billion ozone. So that's 15 to 35 parts per billion 19

that we assume when we did the risk assessment. The 20

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee was aware of 21

that when they made their recommendations to set a 22

standard at 60 to 70 parts per billion. 23

Our definition of background is different yet 24

again from what you mentioned or what some othe rs 25117

think. We use a term called policy relevant 1

background, which includes natural background and it 2

also includes some international influences. But we 3

do not consider Mexico and Canada because of the 4

agreements that are in place with them and the 5

expectation that they, through those agreements, will 6

be controlling their emissions. So we have a specific 7

definition of that background that we use when we do 8

these analyses and that is what we used when we did 9

the March 2008 review. 10

MS. BLACKBURN: Thank you. Do you know 11

if that is required of states to use the same 12

procedure? 13

MS. WEGMAN: That is a

-- not required 14

of states that I am aware of. That's an analysis that 15

we did. It's a term we use, a s I said, policy 16

relevant background when we do our standard reviews, 17

our ambient air quality standard reviews. But there's 18

no requirements that the states follow that specific 19

approach. 20

MS. BLACKBURN: What a shame. We also 21

app laud the Administrator for recommending a new 22

secondary standard and we do support that standard. 23

Thank you. 24

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 25118

MR. BUDA: My name is Dan Buda. I am 1

legislative director for State Senator Wendy Davis and 2

I'm here on behalf of her today. 3

On behalf of Senator Davis, I want to start 4

out by saying thank you for holding these hearings on 5

such an important issue. It's very important to 6

Senator Davis as well as to residents of her district 7

in North Texas and the DFW metroplex. 8

As North Texas continues to struggle with 9

nonattainment, Senator Davis welcomes any help in 10

addressing ways to bring down ozone

- causing emissions 11

from all sources. As I'm sure you're aware, the DFW 12

metroplex is home to a large number of pollution 13

sources. A large pollution

-- a large population, 14

excuse me, brings with it vehicular emissions and 15

congestion from automobile and truck traffic , coupled 16

with a lack of resources to resolve that in the 17

foreseeable future as well as a significant amount of 18

business and industry. 19

The gas drilling in the Barnett Shale is 20

continually increasing with over 12,000 wells drilled 21

since 2004 and an additional 3,500 permitted. The 22

cluster of cement plants in Midlothian, just south of 23

Dallas, is home to the largest concentration of cement 24

kilns in the nation. Add in the area's power 25119

generation plants and there's an extremely dens e and 1

complex web of emissions and pollutant sources. 2

Furthermore, winds in the DFW area are typically blown 3

southeast to northwest, sending emissions from 4

Midlothian cement kilns and Dallas traffic over 5

Tarrant County and Fort Worth, where they bake in the 6

sun, producing massive quantities of ozone. 7

As the DFW region works toward a new state 8

implementation plan for 2011, due to the failure of 9

its 2007 SIP as well as a second SIP due at the end of 10

2013 to address new emission standards, we must look 11

at the cumulative effects of all these different 12

emission sources and how ozone

- forming emissions, 13

including nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile 14

organic compounds from all s ources can be reduced to 15

try and bring the area back into attainment so as not 16

to risk the health of our community nor the loss of 17

federal highway funds which are sorely needed in 18

Texas. 19

Senator Davis urges EPA to continue to 20

research and test best available control technologies 21

and is happy to see the recent agreement between EPA 22

and LaFarge to install a selective catalytic reduction 23

system in one of their Illinois cement kilns. She is 24

optimistic that the technology will prove successful 25120

and looks forward to the prospect of that technology 1

making its way to Texas to significantly reduce the 2

air toxics emissions from our Midlothian cement kilns 3

and others around the state. 4

As EPA continues to study the issue a nd 5

implement policies and regulations, Senator Davis 6

urges you toward the .06 parts per million standard 7

for ozone. From the EPA's own Office of Air Quality 8

Planning and Standards, estimates of the number of 9

adverse health effects avoided in 2020 by this new 10

standard are substantial: 8.1 million fewer days of 11

people having to restrict activities, 2.5 million 12

fewer missed days of work and school, 111,000 fewer 13

incidents of upper and lower respiratory symptoms, and 14

58,000 fewer cases of aggravated asthma. 15

Compelling health concerns beg for 16

implementation of the .06 standard. A recent study 17

from the Community

- Wide Children's Health Assessment 18

and Planning Survey sponsored by Cook Chi ldren's 19

Hospital found that one in four children in North 20

Texas ages eight and nine has asthma. This 25 percent 21

incidence of asthma is significantly higher than the 22

state average for five to nine

- year

- olds at 7.1 23

percent and the national average of 9.4 percent. The 24

prevalence of asthma is also abnormally high in North 25121

Texas 10 to 14

- year

- olds with 20 percent diagnosed. 1

On top of that, the study also shows a correlation 2

between asthma and the H1N1 flu. While 8 percent of 3

all Americans have been diagnosed with asthma, 32 4

percent of patients hospitalized with the H1N1 flu 5

have asthma. 6

We encourage the continued work of EPA and 7

also stress the importance of its cooperation with 8

TCEQ and the Texas Railroad Commission, par ticularly 9

with regard to emission studies and the appropriate 10

pollution control methods in the Barnett Shale, to 11

monitor, study and implement policies and standards 12

that will improve the lives and health of North Texas 13

residents. EPA must work closely with state agencies 14

to ensure that all state and federal requirements are 15

being met. This is vital to ensure that best 16

practices in the areas of pollution reduction are 17

being used to both protect both Texans' he alth and 18

facilitate the continued but healthy growth of the 19

region's economy. 20

EPA should also coordinate efforts with local 21

and regional groups, including environmental groups, 22

cities, counties, and industry organizations to 23

develop so lutions that cut emissions across all types 24

of pollution sources, which is the only way to 25122

successfully lower emissions to achieve attainment. 1

And if Senator Davis' office can be of any further 2

assistance, do not hesitate to contact us. 3

I would like to say in closing on a personal 4

note, prior to working for Senator Davis I actually 5

worked for Senator Gallegos, who testified here 6

earlier, and I made numerous trips to this area. And 7

as I'm remembering from that, as I feel today, I' ve 8

been in this town for about two and a half hours and 9

I'm already clearing my throat, my eyes and lungs are 10

already burning. So there's something going on here 11

that I don't get in Austin, so

-- but thank you. 12

MS. WEGMAN: Thank y ou. 13

MS. STONE: Are you going to submit the 14

information from the Cook Children's Hospital? 15

MR. BUDA: Yes, we'll submit that with 16

the written comments. 17

MS. STONE: Thank you. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Yes, having those 19

statistics

-- the basis for those statistics will be 20

helpful. 21

MR. BUDA: Will do. 22

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you 23

both very much. 24

All right. Next speaker s are Mayor Annise 25123

Parker and Debbie Hastings. 1

MAYOR PARKER: I'm Annise Parker, Mayor 2

of the City of Houston, A

- N

- N

- I

- S

- E. 3

MS. WEGMAN: Mayor Parker, I hate to do 4

this, but you need to push down on this lower button 5

and hold it. 6

MAYOR PARKER: The entire time? 7

MS. WEGMAN: I'm afraid so. 8

MAYOR PARKER: All right. I'm Annise 9

Parker. And for the court reporter, A

- N

- N

- I

- S

- E, 10

Mayor of the City of Houston, and my comme nts will be 11

brief today. They don't address every issue in the 12

proposal or rule

- making. I know that the EPA has 13

proposed a secondary standard to protect the 14

environment. I won't address that. Instead, my 15

comments focus on the primary standard designed to 16

protect public health and including our most 17

vulnerable populations, children, people with asthma 18

and older adults. 19

The City of Houston supports the 20

recommendation of the Clean Air Act Science Advisory 21

Committee and the proposal of EPA to set a primary 22

ozone standard in the range of 60 to 70 parts per 23

billion. This standard will be protective of human 24

health, the criterion established in the Clean Air 25124

Act. 1

There is no doubt it would be a significant 2

challenge for Houston to meet the lower standard so 3

the amount of lead time and our ability to achieve 4

regional coordination is significant to us, but we do 5

want to be on record in supporting a goal that will 6

protect our citizen s and that is based on real 7

science. 8

Houston has a

-- has higher elevated levels 9

of a number of pollutants, including ozone and several 10

air toxics. We also have a very large population and 11

one of the highest vehicle miles traveled, or V MTs, in 12

the country. We're proud of the fact that we have the 13

largest petrochemical and refining complex in the 14

country at our doorstep, but these factors do create a 15

tough air pollution situation, especially when coupled 16

with our very high back ground level of ozone. 17

One of the reasons we're supporting EPA's 18

proposal today is that this standard will also help us 19

address other air toxics issues that we have, 20

something we've been particularly focused upon. Air 21

toxics are also VO Cs and these chemicals are regulated 22

to meet the ozone standards. We have been aggressive 23

in trying to reduce the levels of butadiene in Houston 24

and some other air toxics. We believe that the higher 25125

standards

-- or the lower standards, I should say, 1

will help us in that effort. 2

We have made great strides in reducing our 3

air pollution here in the Houston area although we 4

have not met the current ozone standard. Mobile 5

sources of p ollution can only be regulated by the EPA 6

and these sources, cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, 7

construction equipment, air crafts, trains, 8

locomotives, marine vessels, all impact our area and 9

they account for a significant portion of the 10

pollutio n that causes our ozone here locally. 11

As pointed out in the Federal Register 12

notice, the EPA has taken action to regulate most of 13

these sources, and in fact, in the last few years much 14

of the improvement in air quality in Houston is the 15

result of these actions. We can only ask you to keep 16

it up, especially if the EPA adopts the most ambitious 17

of the proposed standards. We recognize that 18

achieving good air quality and protecting the air for 19

our citizens, giving them healthy air t o breathe, is 20

not without cost. The specifics of how to achieve 21

this standard and how long Houston will have to 22

achieve it are important questions, but once the 23

standard is adopted we'll do whatever we need to do to 24

address it. 25126

We do believe, however, that where possible, 1

the EPA should not impose penalties against regions 2

that do not meet the national ambient air quality 3

standards due to the contributions of preempted 4

sources. It's simply a matter of fairness for us, 5

what

-- I have no problem if we have

-- face penalties 6

for what is within our control, but what is outside of 7

our control is of concern. We look forward to working 8

with the TCEQ and other state agencies in developing a 9

regional approach that wor ks for all of us. And thank 10

you for the opportunity to comment. 11

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you, Mayor Parker. 12

MS. HASTINGS: Good afternoon. My name 13

is Debbie Hastings, and I'm a Vice President for 14

Environmental Affairs for the Texas Oil & Gas 15

Association. I have a Master's degree in 16

environmental resources and over 20 years of 17

environmental management experience, including working 18

at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for 19

nearly 19 years. 20

TxO GA was founded in 1919 and it represents 21

more than 4,000 members. Texas' 27 refineries 22

manufacture 27 percent of the nation's fuel and the 23

oil and gas industry directly employs 189,000 Texans. 24

These jobs are located in 225 of our 254 counties. 25127

In addition, our industry is responsible for 1

the top two job multipliers in the state. 17 new jobs 2

are created with every one petrochemical manufacturing 3

job and 14 new jobs are created for every petroleum 4

refining job. In fiscal year 200 8, the oil and gas 5

industry paid 9.9 billion to the State in taxes and 6

royalties. Our industry is a cornerstone to the 7

state's economy. 8

I share this information to help us to 9

remember that real people are employed by the oil and 10

gas industry of this state. Regulatory decisions that 11

threaten oil and gas jobs have very real implications 12

for hundreds of thousands of Texas families. It's 13

tempting to turn a blind eye to economics that impact 14

the oil and gas industry, but to do so is a disservice 15

to the thousands of Texans whose livelihoods depend on 16

oil and gas. 17

Constantly changing standards issued by the 18

EPA create uncertainties that impact oil and gas 19

investment, economic expansion and ultimately jobs. 20

The EPA's proposal to once again lower the NAAQS 21

continues a trend of creating a moving target for 22

success. A moving target creates unpredictability and 23

diverts finite resources away from expanded job 24

creation and economic development. 25128

While working to meet previous air quality 1

standards, the oil and gas industry has been a leader 2

in developing technologies to improve air quality in 3

Texas with tremendous results. Air quality in Texas 4

is dramatically improving. According to TCE Q's most 5

recent data, air quality has continued to improve 6

cross the state as our population grows by the 7

millions. To accomplish this, the oil and gas 8

industry has invested $148 billion towards improving 9

the environmental performance of its pro ducts, 10

facilities and operations. A great percentage of this 11

was done in Texas. But the standard must be stable 12

for employers to continue to make quality investments 13

to meet the goal. 14

Counties and employers statewide have been 15

working hard to meet the 1997 eight

- hour ozone 16

standard which was then lowered again. The federal 17

regulatory process to develop the strategies to meet 18

this new standard were already in motion when EPA 19

decided to once again propose to lower the s tandard to 20

a level that is currently unattainable with existing 21

technology. Just as it has taken time to develop and 22

implement the technology and practices to successfully 23

meet the 1997 standard for the Houston

- Galveston

24

Brazoria area, we need to find consensus on reasonable 25129

cost

- effective plans to achieve the existing 2008 1

standard before it is lowered further. 2

The oil and gas industry is committed to 3

continuing to improve air quality, and we must be 4

mindful of the time and r esources required to develop 5

the technology needed to meet any lower standard. To 6

dismiss the realities of what's required to meet air 7

quality standards is to jeopardize economic stability 8

and opportunity. As the EPA continues

-- continually 9

em braces proposals that inject uncertainty into our 10

economy, we urge the federal government through the 11

EPA to consider the real

- world consequences for Texas 12

families whose livelihood are linked to oil and gas. 13

We also urge you to consider the real

- w orld 14

consequences that a changing goal will have on the 15

industry's ability to supply the nation with fuel. As 16

there is no new science that dictates lowering the 17

standard, our industry must plan years in advance to 18

bring energy to its customers in a timely manner. So 19

we urge you to leave the current standard in place. 20

Thank you. 21

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. I'll just note, 22

as you're aware, that costs are not considered in 23

setting the standard, and to the extent you have any 24

scientific, you know, basis for why we shouldn't 25130

change the standard, we would encourage you to submit 1

that to the record. 2

MS. HASTINGS: Will do. Thank you. 3

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 4

Our next two speakers are Patrick McIlvain 5

and Donald Cook. 6

MR. MCILVAIN: Good afternoon. Welcome 7

to Houston. I'm so glad you're here. I'm C. Patrick 8

McIlvain, community activist, Vice President, First 9

Ward Civic Council and chair special events for Super 10

Neighborhood 22. I have no

-- 11

THE COURT REPORTER: Spell your name, 12

please. 13

MR. MCILVAIN: It's M

- C capital I

- L

- V as 14

in Victor, A

- I

- N. Scottish American. 15

I have no set wo rds here. I have no talking 16

points. I just want to speak from my heart and from 17

my experience of being here in Texas and the fact that 18

our air has gotten worse. I think that if we were 19

more proactive in preventing illnesses, we would be 20

much healthier and have a much better economy all the 21

way around. It is

-- I wonder about the number of 22

lives that have health issues with every new 23

petrochemical job plant that is open. I think we need 24

to look at the human values and not so mu ch the 25131

monetary values. Thank you. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 2

MR. COOK: Hello. I am Don Cook and I 3

am here because I live in the neighborhood. I'm a 4

public citizen. I'm also a member of the Green Party, 5

but I am no t speaking for the Green Party. Phil 6

Snyder, who spoke about an hour ago, was

-- gave sort 7

of our official presentation, and as a retired air 8

quality tester, he was much more cognizant of 9

technical and scientific matters in that area than I 10

am. He did ask me to stress, however, that when he 11

spoke about the difficulties which the EPA will face 12

in enforcing these rules, I think he was concerned 13

about the level of automotive pollution in the city, 14

he was not trying to discourage you but str ess the 15

challenge and he wanted me to express the hope that 16

many of us feel, the hope that we can build a better 17

world. 18

Every generation wants to build a better 19

world for its children. With seven billion people on 20

the planet, however, several systems close to 21

collapsing, it will probably not be a materially 22

better world. Hopefully it will be a sustainable 23

world, a world which will last, a world which, if I 24

can use the word which I am uncomfortable with, might 25132

be spiritually better in that it will

-- we will raise 1

and train better people who will interact with each 2

other in a more loving, peaceful and functional way. 3

I'm almost 62 years old. For almost exactly 4

30 years I've lived within six m iles of the Houston 5

ship channel. I know that many of the lives of my 6

thousands of neighbors have been shortened by that 7

proximity over the years and I fear, naturally, for 8

the longevity of my wife, my children and myself. 9

I've also bee n to a lot of government 10

hearings over the years. Usually the situation was 11

one where some project was planned which I and most of 12

the other citizen speakers did not seem to approve of, 13

but it always seemed to me that the project that was 14

planne d was going to go through anyway. Whatever we 15

did, the public or the people would be ignored and it 16

was going to happen come hell or high water. That's 17

unfortunately always proved true in every instance 18

that I've personally investigated and I hop e that will 19

be the case now, that the EPA will prevail here in its 20

desire to make more stringent ozone levels and enforce 21

them. 22

It also occurred to me as I was thinking 23

about what I was going to say yesterday that the 24

difference betwee n

-- a difference between Republicans 25133

and Democrats which I might want to share with 1

people

-- I did mention I am a Green Party, right?

-- 2

and the difference is

-- that I am thinking of is that 3

Republicans seem to always keep their word but 4

unfortunately they promise things which are not good, 5

while Democrats promise things which are good but 6

don't necessarily deliver on them. So functionally 7

they frequently come close to being identical in 8

action, and of course the reason for that can be laid 9

down to the lack of separation of corporation and 10

state and our approximate democracy. 11

The corporations will fight the EPA on this. 12

They have been, I'm sure, today. Then after the 13

recent Supreme Court decision of January 21 st 14

reinforcing the notion of corporate personhood and 15

removing even more barriers to political donations by 16

corporations, they will be even stronger. Jobs will 17

probably be something they'll focus on in this very 18

weak economy we have now, or rath er, this economy 19

that's getting healthier if you don't look at jobs. 20

Well, my comments to that are you can't work 21

if you're dead and you shouldn't have to work in a way 22

in a place that's going to endanger your health and 23

the health of ot hers. My thumb moved there. And 24

secondly, that I hope

-- I hope those seeking 25134

employment in the energy industry can find the jobs in 1

the booming clean, safe, never

- ending energy industry 2

which is coming along now with solar and Zephyr. 3

In closing, I want to say on this Groundhog 4

Day that I hope the groundhogs in the EPA will not be 5

frightened by their shadows and we will not have 6

another six weeks of what has been an interminable 7

ozone winter. Thank you. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 9

Our next two speakers are Deron Patterson and 10

Elena Craft. 11

Actually, it's the button on

-- yeah, just 12

hold

-- where it says push, you have to hold it while 13

you speak. 14

MR. P ATTERSON: Hi. My name is Deron 15

Patterson from Sugar Land, Texas. That's D

- E

- R

- O

- N. 16

I work for PPG Industries in the glass division. 17

And PPG, we have a glass factory in Wichita 18

Falls, Texas. We employ over 400 people. We have two 19

flo at lines there making clear glass and tinted glass 20

and we make the most energy

- efficient glass in the 21

market. But I'm here today speaking more broadly as a 22

member of the Texas Glass Association. I am on the 23

State Board and, therefore, I'm talking about the 24

whole Texas glass industry, including my competitors. 25135

And what I wanted to talk about was a 1

solution to this problem of reducing our NOx, SOx and 2

other greenhouse emissions, which is energy codes. 3

And I am happy to report that our state energy 4

conservation office held a hearing just last week on 5

Texas implementing the 2009 energy code. And it looks 6

very favorable that on the commercial side for our 7

development that we'll have the newest energy code and 8

in 2012 we'll have it for residential. And that's a 9

good thing because in Texas we allowed too many years 10

to pass without updating our state energy code. Right 11

now we have the 2000 series. 12

And I mentioned the energy codes because with 13

the 2009 energy code, when it goes into effect every 14

commercial building in this state will have insulated 15

glass, like I have in here in front of you, requiring 16

the most energy

- efficient properties of low

- emissivity 17

glass. And guess what? It's all made in Texas by PPG 18

in Wichita Falls, Guardian Industries in Corsicana, 19

Texas, and Cardinal Industries in Waxahachie. And 20

there's dozens of fabricators who can temper and 21

insulate and laminate the glass here in Texas. And so 22

when this new energy code comes into place, it's going 23

to reduce energy consumption in all of our buildings 24

for new constructions. So I'd ask the EPA to continue 25136

strengthening energy codes throughout our state and 1

every state and that will take care of new 2

co nstruction. 3

But now, existing construction, like this 4

hotel

-- my kids hate it when I am out traveling and 5

looking on the floor of the logos of glass, airports 6

gets you in trouble, but I couldn't help but to notice 7

this hotel here has en ergy

- inefficient monolithic 8

glass. But the problem for our building owners today 9

is the federal tax credit of $1.80 per square foot is 10

just not good enough. There's some legislation 11

working its way through the house to raise that to 12

three dolla rs a square foot and we really need the 13

support to get the incentives for the existing 14

buildings because there is countless thousands of 15

buildings in this city and Austin and San Antonio, El 16

Paso, Dallas that could be retrofitted, and not just 17

with glass. That's not the magic bullet. It's an 18

important one to get to energy

- efficient buildings, 19

but new air

- conditioning systems, new lighting system, 20

et cetera. So we need more incentives to get our 21

building owners to do that. Because i f we do, what we 22

know the statistics are that buildings, homes, 23

hospitals, commercial buildings, schools consume 70 24

percent of electricity. 50 percent of that 25137

electricity comes from coal and coal without 1

carbon

- sequestration equipment is our big gest emitter 2

of NAAQS and SOx and CO2. So we need more incentives 3

to reduce that, and energy codes is a great way to do 4

that. 5

Now, I thought I'd just put a plug in for my 6

own company. At our factory in Wichita Falls, Texas, 7

we

-- abo ut every 10 to 12 years you have to redo the 8

float line as far as the refractories and we're about 9

ready to turn off our tint line here in a few weeks. 10

And PPG is going to spend an extra about six to eight 11

million dollars putting in our proprietary oxygen fuel 12

technology on that tint line. It will be our third 13

plant in the U.S. And what does that mean? That 14

means we'll consume 10 percent less natural gas, 15

correspondingly 10 percent less CO2. But the big 16

reduction is on NOx. The NOx wi ll be reduced by 70 17

percent, which is a great thing. 18

And I just want to let all my competitors 19

know, while this is a PPG proprietary technology, 20

we'll be glad to sell it to them so that all 30

- plus 21

plants in the United States can have this technology 22

and reduce NOx by 70 percent throughout the United 23

States. Thank you for your time. 24

MS. WEGMAN: I do have one quick 25138

question. Do you have any opinion on the ozone 1

standard th at we proposed in light of the

-- 2

MR. PATTERSON: Yes. My personal 3

opinion is we should go at the lesser amount. 4

MS. WEGMAN: Meaning 60 parts

-- 5

MR. PATTERSON: That is correct. 6

MS. WEGMAN : Okay. Thank you very much. 7

MR. PATTERSON: And we have the 8

solution. 9

MS. WEGMAN: I definitely got that part 10

of the message. 11

DR. CRAFT: My name is Elena Craft and 12

I'm a toxicologist with Environmen tal Defense Fund, a 13

nonprofit, science

- based environmental organization. 14

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about EPA's 15

proposed revisions to the nation's health

- based 16

national ambient air quality standard for ground

- level 17

ozone. 18

We applaud Lisa Jackson and the Obama 19

Administration for reviewing and restoring scientific 20

integrity in the decision

- making process, especially 21

when it comes to decisions that affect the health of 22

our citizens. The previous Administrator Johnson had 23

no foundation for arbitrarily selecting the 2008 ozone 24

standard of 75 part per billion and in fact his 25139

decision was rejected by the Clean Air Scientific 1

Advisory Committee as a failure to protect human 2

health. 3

We thank EPA for restoring science

-- 4

science's rightful place in the decision

- making 5

process and recommending a more health

- protective 6

standard of 60 to 70 part per billion. En vironmental 7

Defense Fund supports a primary ozone standard of 60 8

part per billion as offering the best protection for 9

vulnerable populations against an array of 10

ozone

- related adverse health effects and premature 11

mortality, and a secondary standar d for ozone of 7 12

part per million per hour to provide increased 13

protection against ozone

- related adverse impacts on 14

vegetation and forested ecosystems. The standards 15

represent the protective ends of the ranges 16

unanimously recommended by CASAC. 17

We've heard today from API and others 18

regarding questions on the findings from the Adams 19

study. API fails to mention that they funded the 20

study in an attempted

-- and in attempting to refute 21

the findings from Adams, they would have us be lieve 22

that we are exposed to ozone in the same manner as a 23

typical lab rat. 24

The truth is that we're exposed to ozone in 25140

combination with many other pollutants, such as 1

particulate matter. In fact, the lowering of ozone 2

requires the lowering of chemical precursors such as 3

NOx and VOCs. NOx also contributes to the formation of 4

PM. EPA has calculated the value of these 5

co

- benefits. An ozone standard of 60 part per billion 6

could translate to a combined morbidity and mortality 7

benefit of $48 billion when you add in the effects of 8

the decreased PM. 9

In Texas, asthma is one of the most prevalent 10

chronic diseases and the continuing rise makes it one 11

of the state's biggest health concerns. According to 12

a 2007 study by the Texas Department of State Health 13

Services, an estimated 2.3 million adult Texans have 14

self

- reported lifetime asthma and 1.4 million have 15

been officially diagnosed with asthma. Both of these 16

estimates are higher than our n ational averages. 17

Asthma affects more children than any other 18

chronic disease and is one of the most frequent 19

reasons for hospital admissions among children. The 20

Texas Department of State Health Services reports that 21

over 800,000 and 58 0,000 of Texas children have 22

self

- reported lifetime and then officially diagnosed 23

asthma respectively. Given the large number of 24

affected Texans, asthma has resulted in major economic 25141

and social burdens accounting for over 25,000 1

hospitalization s and an estimated $447 million in 2

total hospital charges in 2007 alone. In addition, 3

from 1999 through 2005, there were a total of 1,831 4

deaths in Texas associated with asthma. 5

It's fitting to remember some of the previous 6

comments we've heard regarding the ozone debate. In 7

2007, David Schanbacher at TCEQ stated that "Texas is 8

using every opportunity to address the current ozone 9

problem and still faces insurmountable challenges." 10

Also in 2007, our own Governor Per ry wrote that "not 11

even a complete shutdown of the Houston ship channel 12

would bring about sufficient reductions." 13

One wonders how we met the 1997 standards 14

without shutting down the entire state last year, 15

given those proclamations. Ind ustry representatives, 16

and indeed our own state environmental agency, 17

consistently claim that strong environmental 18

protections strangle economic development. TCEQ likes 19

to say that a stronger standard will result in 20

devastation of the traditiona l drive

- through. Their 21

claim is that we won't be able to idle the engines in 22

the cars while we wait for our Big Mac, fries and 23

supersized soft drink. 24

The truth is that if TCEQ were serious about 25142

protecting the health of the citizens in our state, 1

then instead of coming to hearings testifying against 2

health

- based protective standards, then they would 3

exercise more of the opportunities that we have to 4

reduce ozone concentrations, including stopping the 5

issuance of permits that fa il to consider emissions, 6

limiting emissions from stationary sources, operating 7

meaningful trading schemes, and then encouraging a 8

mass transit system. 9

MS. WEGMAN: Your time is up. If you 10

can wrap it up, please. Thank you. 11

DR. CRAFT: We respectfully ask that 12

Administrator Jackson continue following the path of 13

science in protecting human health, heed the course 14

charted by EPA's independent Scientific Advisory 15

Committee, and be guided by EPA's own pro fessional 16

staff in continuing the nation's critical race for 17

healthier air. The Clean Air Act mandates to protect 18

human health from ground

- level ozone with an adequate 19

margin of safety calls for nothing less. Thank you. 20

MS. WEGMAN : Thank you. 21

We have one more speaker before we take our 22

lunch break. That is Christina Wisdom. 23

MS. WISDOM: Good afternoon. Since I am 24

the last thing between the morning and lunch, I will 25143

be brief. My name is Christina Wisdom and I'm the 1

Vice President and general counsel for the Texas 2

Chemical Council. TCC is a statewide trade 3

association representing approximately 70 chemical 4

manufacturers with more than 200 Texas facilities, the 5

great majority of which are located in the HGB 6

nonattainment area. 7

TCC member companies manufacture a number of 8

products, such as plastics and insulation products 9

that increase energy efficiency, which in turn lower 10

emissions of the ozone precursors such as NOx. In the 11

HGB nonattainment area, TCC members have worked with 12

other industrial sectors to invest $4 billion since 13

2001 to reduce NOx emission by over 80 percent. 14

We oppose lowering the NAAQS for ground

- level 15

ozone as it will have a devastating impact on the 16

chemical industry resulting in the loss of high

- paying 17

jobs and higher consumer prices. EPA should fully 18

implement the '97 and the 2008 standards before 19

considering lowering the standard even fur ther. 20

Air quality in Texas and across the nation 21

dramatically approved

-- improved. In Texas, HGB is 22

the only region that has yet to receive attainment 23

status designation from EPA with the '97 standard. 24

However, monitoring data from TCE Q for 2007, '8 and '9 25144

indicates that HGB is currently meeting that standard. 1

This is very impressive, despite the state's rapidly 2

growing economy and population. 3

However, at the end of 2008, counties across 4

the U.S. were still not in att ainment with the '97 5

standard. Existing challenges remain, the most 6

significant of which is the high contribution of Nox 7

emissions from mobile sources, particularly in urban 8

areas. In Houston, mobile sources account for 55 9

percent of NOx emissi ons and in Dallas they account 10

for 74 percent. Considering the federal government 11

has sole regulatory authority over mobile source 12

emissions, there's little the states can do to meet 13

the regulatory hurdles posed by a lower ground

- level 14

ozone sta ndard. 15

It is unnecessarily punitive for EPA to 16

implement a lower standard before the federal fuel and 17

engine standards can be fully implemented and their 18

emissions reductions fully realized. Furthermore, the 19

cost of achieving the lower NAAQS should deter

-- 20

should deter EPA from lowering the standard at this 21

time. I acknowledge that the Clean Air Act prohibits 22

EPA from considering costs when establishing the NAAQS 23

but not when analyzing how to achie ve the NAAQS. EPA 24

is authorized to consider the cost, the technical 25145

feasibility and the time necessary to attain a new 1

NAAQS. 2

In the revised Regulatory Impact Analysis, 3

EPA acknowledges that several areas cannot reach 4

attainment by us e of only known controls. Despite the 5

fact that necessary technology to reduce ozone further 6

and at this magnitude from point sources is still 7

under development, EPA has estimated that in HGB it 8

could cost anywhere from between 15 to $30,000 a ton 9

to make further NOx reductions. This estimate seems 10

arbitrary at best since NOx emission trades in the HGB 11

Cap

- and

- Trade program have traditionally averaged more 12

that $150,000 a ton. 13

Nowhere in the analysis does EPA analyze how 14

a low er ozone standard will jeopardize the U.S. 15

economy and ultimately impede the states' ability to 16

achieve the standard. EPA's is predicting that 650 17

counties will not be

-- will not be in attainment with 18

the 60 parts per billion. That means that th e states 19

with those counties will face significant hurdles in 20

attracting jobs and economic development. Existing 21

businesses in those 650 counties will face more 22

permitting requirements to operate, which ultimately 23

will lead to significant operational delays and 24

increase cost. This means that all Americans in those 25146

650 counties will face increased energy costs as more 1

regulatory hurdles drive up the cost of electricity. 2

Ultimately, these ramificat ions will have a 3

significant impact on the states' ability to achieve a 4

lower NAAQS and TCC finds EPA's analysis insufficient 5

to support an assumption that it is technically 6

feasible for states to achieve a lower NAAQS in a 7

cost

- efficient and tim ely manner. 8

Finally, it is not clear that the difference 9

between the existing 2008 standard and a lower ozone 10

standard will result in measurable improvement in 11

public health. Given that this proposal is one of the 12

most expensive regulat ions ever issued by the federal 13

government, it's alarming that EPA would go forward 14

with it, given the uncertainty as to whether the 15

proposal is based on peer

- reviewed sound science and 16

verified data. 17

In conclusion, TCC supports scientif ically 18

based, transparent, cost

- efficient environmental 19

regulations aimed at improving and protecting the 20

environment while enabling businesses to flourish and 21

grow in the United States and Texas. Because we 22

believe that this proposal is contrar y to these 23

principles, we oppose lowering the eight

- hour primary 24

and secondary ozone standards. Thank you so much for 25147

your time. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Just a couple 2

of small things. We do not take costs into account in 3

setting the standards, as you're absolutely correct 4

that we do take costs and feasibility into account 5

when it comes to attaining or implementing those 6

standards. We do create a Regulatory Impact Analysis, 7

which is what you were referring to. T o the extent 8

that you have information about, you know, 9

inaccuracies, from your view, in that, we would like 10

that information and the underlying data that support 11

it. That would be

-- 12

MS. WISDOM: We'll be happy to submit 13

that in our written comments. 14

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. As well as any 15

information you have on the science? 16

MS. WISDOM: Absolutely. Thank you. 17

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 18

Okay. Well, thank you everybody for 19

participating this morning. We're going to take a 20

lunch break and I believe we are scheduled to start 21

again at 2 o'clock. 22

(Lunch break.) 23

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Folks, I think we 24

will start up the hearing again. Just bef ore we get 25148

started, I want to remind people that if they want to 1

speak, to please sign up with our registration desk. 2

And even if you don't want to speak, if you would let 3

the folks at the registration desk know that you're 4

here, we'd like to kno w how many people have come for 5

the record. It makes a big difference to us how many 6

people come out and we very much appreciate everybody 7

taking the time today to come and talk with us. 8

So our first speakers this afternoon are

-- 9

and just as a reminder to folks, we are calling people 10

up in pairs and so we'll have the first two speakers 11

and then we've got a timer and everyone has five 12

minutes to speak. So the first speaker is State 13

Senator Rodney Ellis and Robert Levy. 14

SENATOR ELLIS: Thank you. My name is 15

Rodney Ellis. 16

MS. WEGMAN: Senator, would you just 17

turn the mic on. I don't think it's

-- 18

SENATOR ELLIS: Can you hear me? 19

I'm Rodney Ellis. I'm a state s enator from 20

Houston. I've been in the state legislature 20 years. 21

Prior to that, I was on the city council here in 22

Houston for six years. I'm also on the National 23

Commission on Energy Policy and I co

- chair a 24

commission to get African Americans engaged in the 25149

dialogue about climate change. I'm active with a 1

group of state legislators, bipartisan group around 2

the country, who have been working closely with the 3

White House to encourage comprehensive legislation on 4

this subject. We met i n our nation's capital last 5

week. We submitted about 1,201 names, a good number 6

from Texas, might I add, encouraging comprehensive 7

legislation to deal with the issue of climate change. 8

I am here today because I have fought for 9

clean air during my entire tenure in the Texas senate. 10

Back in 1991 I introduced a bill to have Texas adopt 11

the Cal LEV emissions standards. Obviously, thanks to 12

the work of the current administration, there won't be 13

a need to put that bill in again now. But sometimes I 14

do think that if we had adopted those standards back 15

then just how far we would be towards achieving our 16

goal and not having a number of the problems that 17

we're going to have to deal with pre tty soon today. 18

I'm here because first I want to applaud 19

President Obama, Lisa Jackson and the administration 20

for the positive steps that they have taken, having 21

the courage to make the necessary decision to improve 22

America's public heal th and protect their environment 23

by establishing a new, more stringent health

- based 24

standard for ground

- level ozone. I applaud this 25150

action particularly because of the large body of 1

scientific evidence that the proposed ozone standard 2

is needed t o protect our most vulnerable population 3

groups: Our children, our elderly, and people who 4

suffer from asthma. 5

I noted that a number of people particularly 6

in my state, some in state government, who would 7

question these new standards. I welcome the standards 8

with open arms because I know ultimately it is the 9

right thing to do. 10

I want to make seven quick points. One, 11

Houston is at a critical crossroads. So is the state 12

of Texas. We can perceive the issues of polluti on and 13

climate change as serious obstacles or we can embrace 14

these challenges as massive opportunities. If we want 15

to continue to be the energy players in the next 16

century that we were in the last century, I think we 17

need to look closely at some of the fossilized 18

thinking that we have had over the years and figure 19

out how to embrace this new green economy. I know 20

that Houston and I know Texas has the intellectual 21

capacity to do that, the capability to do it, and I 22

hope that my colleagues in government will seize this 23

opportunity. 24

Number two, I think there are indications 25151

indicates that the interstate transport of ozone 1

across state lines is contributing to my home town's 2

ozone challenges. Because of this, I urge the EPA to 3

quantify the impact of interstate ozone transport in 4

this area and across the country and to also put in 5

place the necessary interstate controls to address 6

this crucial issue. 7

Number three, the Obama Administration's 8

decision to tighten emissions standards on various 9

types of vehicles over the past year will have a 10

significant positive impact in reducing the region's 11

ozone levels over the next five to ten years. In 12

fact, vehicular emission r eductions relative to the 13

new standards account for more than 95 percent of the 14

emissions reductions that the TCEQ has included in the 15

SIP for the Houston area to maintain the 1997 16

eight

- hour ozone standards of 85 parts per million. 17

Four th point, the reliance on vehicular 18

emissions

-- emission reductions to attain the 1997 19

ozone standard suggests that significant emission 20

reductions will be required from the area's industrial 21

commercial sectors in the next SIP to attain the new 22

proposal standard. I want to urge the TCEQ and EPA to 23

come together with local and regional stakeholders to 24

assure that the necessary scientific analysis are 25152

promptly undertaken to assure the most cost

- effective 1

ozone

- reduction strategies are id entified for 2

inclusion in the forthcoming SIP to assure timely 3

attainment of the new ozone standard. 4

Fifth point, I urge my colleagues at the TCEQ 5

to figure out how we may reduce the region's level of 6

air toxins, particulates and greenho use gases as plans 7

are finalized to meet the new ozone standard in the 8

future. 9

Sixth point

-- and I am going to submit this, 10

by the way

-- available data indicate that this region 11

may have already attained the 1997 eight

- hour ozone 12

sta ndard. This fact highlights the remarkable 13

progress we're already making in reducing smog in our 14

area. I call on the TCEQ to promptly convey all 15

stakeholders to put in place the necessary SIP and 16

maintenance plan to assure actual attainment of th e 17

1997 standard over the next few years. 18

Seventh and last point, in Houston, by 2018, 19

TCEQ predicts that the factories and other industrial 20

facilities will produce 43 percent of our air 21

pollutants while cars and trucks will account for o nly 22

14 percent. Of all large industrial emissions in 23

Texas in 2007, 40 percent of the NOx emissions come 24

from power plants. Most of the power plant NOx 25153

emissions are from 17 existing coal

- fired

-- 1

coal

- fired power plants. 11 recently permitted and 2

proposed coal plants would emit 27,000 additional tons 3

of NOx annually if they're permitted to go into 4

operation. I want to raise that issue because it's 5

going to be very difficult to get where we know we 6

need to be if we don't do something about those 7

plants. 8

Thank you for coming to Houston to let me 9

testify. 10

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you for taking the 11

time. 12

MR. LEVY: Hi, I'm Robert Levy and I'm 13

h ere representing first myself as a citizen, secondly 14

I serve as President of GHASP, Mothers For Clean Air, 15

President of the Board, and thirdly as Director of a 16

group known as Industry Professionals For Clean Air. 17

Personally, I have a Ph.D. in chemi cal engineering and 18

I worked for roughly 40 years in oil refining 19

industry. 20

So my colleagues and I are deeply concerned 21

about the health effects that

-- the known health 22

effects of the ozone, the public health being 23

compromised, and we 're here to strongly urge EPA to 24

act to lower the standard to the range that's been 25154

proposed and preferably to 60 parts per billion. 1

I think we all have some personal stories 2

about ourselves or friends or acquaintances in town 3

who have suffered as a result of ozone in the 4

atmosphere. Personally, I can say that as a 5

70

- year

- old runner, I have a lot of concerns about 6

my

-- the health of my lungs going forward. Also, my 7

wife suffers chronic respiratory issues which some how 8

magically disappear every time we travel outside of 9

Houston for more than 24 hours. So I also have 10

personal

-- strong personal feelings about this issue. 11

On the technical side, representing Industry 12

Professionals For Clean Air, we a ll have experience in 13

the industry and we firmly believe that technical 14

solutions are available and

-- and unreasonable cost. 15

And we realize that in the past industry has often 16

objected to tightening of the standards but then in 17

the past it's bee n found that cost

- effective solutions 18

are available and in some cases even profitable 19

solutions. So we believe that smart engineers can 20

work these problems and lead us to achieving the 21

better standards. 22

Once again, I urge the EPA to hee d the expert 23

scientific advice which has come from the Scientific 24

Advisory Committee and proceed to implement the 25155

strongest recommended standard of 60 parts per 1

billion. I appreciate having the opportunity to 2

testify and I

-- we will have writte n comments 3

submitted by one of my colleagues, Lucy Randall. 4

Thank you. 5

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 6

much. 7

Our next speakers are Jon White and Thomas 8

Weber. And generally, we would like both speakers to 9

stay up until both speakers are done with their 10

comments. 11

MR. WHITE: Good afternoon. My name is 12

Jon White. That's Jon, J

- O

- N, no H. I am here today 13

representing the

-- I serve as the Director for 14

Natural Resources & Environmen tal Quality for Travis 15

County. I also serve as the county's environmental 16

officer. I am here today representing the Travis 17

County Commissioners' Court. We have written comments 18

that we will provide to the reporter. We expect there 19

will be add itional written comments from Travis County 20

in coordination with our regional Clean Air Coalition. 21

So you can expect that later on. 22

Travis County is one of five counties within 23

the Austin

- Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area. 24

The pre sent population of the region is about 1.7 25156

million. That's about a 32 percent increase from the 1

year 2000. Travis County is the fifth most populous 2

county in the state of Texas. Current population of 3

Travis County is almost exactly right at one million. 4

And, again, that's about a 23 percent increase from 5

the year 2000. So we are a rapidly growing, rapidly 6

urbanizing area. Air quality is a major concern to 7

people of Travis County as well as the entire region. 8

Travis County is a signatory to three 9

voluntary agreements to reduce harmful air emissions 10

in the Austin

- Round Rock region, specifically 11

emissions that are precursors to ozone formation. 12

In

-- that includes the pioneering Early Action 13

Compact. I think it was the first of its kind. The 14

County, as well as its partners in the region, have 15

implemented a number of controls and programs to 16

reduce emissions. These have been extremely 17

successful since 1999. Our design value has go ne 18

from 90 parts per billion in 1999 to 75 part per 19

billion last year. 20

Now, Travis County will continue to promote 21

and implement additional emission reduction strategies 22

through our regional efforts. We also understand very 23

clearly th at any tightening of the current standard 24

will likely

-- could very well put Travis County into 25157

a nonattainment status. Nevertheless, Travis County 1

commends the U.S. EPA and its commitment to further 2

protect public health and quality of ecosystems and 3

agricultural production. Travis County also strongly 4

supports U.S. EPA in its efforts to base its standards 5

on science. 6

So Travis County still has some additional 7

concerns with respect to the new proposed standards. 8

First and for emost, I think, we are very concerned 9

about transport from out

- of

- region emission sources. 10

Our region is adversely affected by both interstate 11

and intrastate transport from sources beyond our 12

jurisdictional control. Multi

- day

-- monitoring data 13

taken during multi

- day high ozone episodes in the 14

region show that background ozone concentrations, 15

meaning the stuff that's transported in, accounts for 16

about 80 percent of our eight

- hour maximum. 17

Transported emission make it highly unlikely 18

that the region will be able to demonstrate attainment 19

even with additional control strategies. Accordingly, 20

we hope the EPA will consider some sort of a phased 21

implementation approach, exten ded compliance time 22

frames or alternative compliance pathways. Mr. Weber 23

will expand on that. 24

The final point that I will make today is 25158

that a metropolitan area designation for any 1

nonattainment is

-- a metropolitan areawide 2

designati on is essential. 78 percent of nitrous oxide 3

emissions in the Austin

- Round Rock area are from 4

mobile sources. So 80 percent of what we've got is 5

from transported sources and another 80 percent of 6

what's left is from mobile, automotive

- type source s. 7

Urbanization beyond the central core of the 8

region is proceeding at some of the fastest rates in 9

the country. Commuting, transportation, all those 10

things, those are regional issues. They're not 11

localized. Therefore, Travis County s trongly 12

recommends that any nonattainment designation for the 13

Austin

- Round Rock MSA include a metropolitan area 14

designation. A single county nonattainment 15

designation would be inappropriate because it would 16

undercut the ability of the region to achieve success. 17

It will be essential to the success of control 18

strategies to reach attainment that all significantly 19

contributing geographic areas be included, and this 20

would be consistent with EPA's past practice. 21

At a minimum, the most

-- the most populous 22

counties on the IH

-- on the Interstate Highway 35 23

corridor, specifically Williamson County, Travis 24

County and Hays County, should be included if a 25159

nonattainment designation is determined for t he 1

Austin

- Round Rock MSA. And I will pass on for 2

additional technical comments to Mr. Weber. Thank 3

you. 4

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Just one 5

question. I want to make sure I understood what you 6

were saying. You said that backgroun d ozone accounts 7

for 80 percent of the eight

- hour

-- 8

MR. WHITE: Under certain conditions of 9

multiple days when we have high ozone levels. 10

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. 11

MR. WHITE: In those specific 12

circumstances, that's the case. And we obviously 13

would be glad to provide the background reports 14

related to that. 15

MS. WEGMAN: That's what I was going to 16

ask, if you could provide the information about that 17

and also the figures you were giving a bout mobile 18

source emissions

-- 19

MR. WHITE: Yes. 20

MS. WEGMAN:

-- and their contribution. 21

MR. WHITE: Be pleased to do that. 22

MS. WEGMAN: And I just want to make 23

sure, you were saying include Williams [sic], Travis 24

and Hays Counties? Did I hear that correctly? 25160

MR. WHITE: Yes. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. 2

MR. WEBER: Good afternoon. Thank you 3

for being here in Houston. I'm Thomas Weber, 4

W

- E

- B

- E

- R, also with Travis County. So I'm going to 5

continue with the comments and not repeat what 6

Mr. White's indicated. 7

One

-- again, focusing on some of our 8

implementation concerns. Time frames for corrective 9

me asures appear to be too short. Although some of 10

this is a little bit uncertain, we did notice that EPA 11

identifies a time range from 2014 to 2031 during which 12

the primary standard must be attained probably, 13

depending on severity. Due to airborne w ater quality 14

studies conducted by Baylor Institute for Air Science 15

2006, we're aware that there are a lot of

-- there's a 16

lot of data that indicate the transport of ozone into 17

our particular metropolitan area from upwind sources, 18

and so we believ e that rather than guiding a timeline 19

for attainment based on severity that it should be 20

more focused on what is contributing to that 21

metropolitan area and, therefore, the attainment 22

deadline should be similarly set for nearby adjacent 23

metropolit an areas. 24

To

-- on phased implementation, our 25161

Commissioners' Court raised the concern to us that we 1

want to express today that jumping from our current 2

conditions to a standard, say, in the range of 60 to 3

65 may be unrealistic expectation to immediately 4

resolve and it may discourage a lot of voluntary or 5

even regulatory solutions. Now, we're not

-- we're 6

not questioning the standard but more the phase

- in of 7

goals to

-- I guess we're suggesting a phase

- in of 8

goals to have some incremental time frames. For 9

instance, you could have an MSA reduce the design 10

value by 5 parts per million in the first five years 11

followed by 5

-- another 5 parts per million in the 12

next five years. So you could have perhaps successive 13

implementation plans. Ultimately each MSA would be 14

expected to achieve attainment of the adopted standard 15

that you're establishing through this rule

- making. We 16

think this approach, or one similar, would encourage 17

effort s rather than placing the focus on litigating or 18

seeking to immediately overturn a standard that may be 19

immediately unrealistic. 20

Two points on monitoring. It's our 21

understanding that the reliability of the ozone data 22

obtained from air

- m onitoring equipment is 23

insufficient. We particularly think it's insufficient 24

for nonattainment designations under the proposed 25162

standard. U.S. EPA's quality assurance specifications 1

allow an accuracy of plus or minus 5 percent and we 2

think that this error could be reduced by more 3

frequent calibration efforts, and so we think that 4

within this rule

- making U.S. EPA and State of Texas 5

should develop more stringent quality assurance 6

protocols. Based on the health effects documentation 7

o f EPA presented with the proposed standards and the 8

costly consequences of nonattainment, it's crucial to 9

more accurately measure air quality. 10

Relating to the secondary ozone standard, we 11

look at this with interest. We concur with the goa l 12

for more protection of ecosystems, vegetation, and 13

agricultural crops. Just as one for instance, Travis 14

County is

-- and its partners are responsible and 15

invest millions of dollars annually to preserve and 16

enhance, I guess I'll call it, vegeta tive habitat or 17

forested lands for federally endangered species in our 18

area. That said, we recommend and urge EPA to 19

eliminate the gaps in the air

- monitoring network that 20

currently exist. We noted in your facts sheet that 21

there's been an additi onal rule

- making to add perhaps 22

three non

- urban monitoring locations per state. Three 23

locations appears to be

-- it seems an inadequate 24

number for a state the size of Texas. We believe it's 25163

essential that the monitoring network measure the air 1

quality conditions in an area where these non

- urban, 2

non

- human receptors exist. 3

Again, we have a letter signed by Judge Sam 4

Biscoe of Travis County. It was

-- these comments 5

were unanimously adopted by our Commissioners' Court 6

just last week, and we

-- as Mr. White said, we expect 7

that we'll try to provide additional information to 8

you. 9

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. That would be 10

great if you can provide some additional information, 11

especially

-- well, on several points, but the 12

monitoring point you made about the problem with the 13

calibration and the reliability of the monitors. More 14

detail on that would be helpful because we did have a 15

separate rule

- making on rules of moni toring, as you 16

note, but this question about calibration is something 17

we could conceivably address in this rule

- making if, 18

you know, we understand better what your concern is. 19

MR. WEBER: We'd be pleased to do that 20

helping. 21

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. And then I hope also 22

your testimony, even though this doesn't relate to 23

this standard per se but on the implementation side, 24

lays out a little more fully some of your ideas for 25164

phasing and extending timelines. That woul d be very 1

helpful. 2

MR. WEBER: Okay. 3

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Great. Thank you 4

both. 5

Our next two speakers are Jenifer Wilde and 6

Greg Twidal. 7

MS. WILDE: Hi, everyone. My name is 8

Jenifer and I am here as a private citizen and

-- 9

COURT REPORTER: Full name, please. 10

MS. WILDE: Jenifer Wilde. You can say 11

"wild," it doesn't really matter. J

- E

- N

- I

- F

- E

- R 12

W

- I

- L

-- D

- E. 13

I am here as a private citizen and as a 14

representative of my peers in the environmental 15

movement who could not be here today. Most of them 16

are in Austin. And I have prepared my comment as an 17

artistic expression of how I really feel. And this is 18

in no way meant to be a joke or to make fun of all 19

these proceedings. I do take this very seriously. I 20

just thought I would express it as personally felt. 21

Yo, EPA, I like what you're trying to do. 22

Polluters coming in making me so blue. Breathing 23

clean air is what I really like. If someone makes it 24

dirty, I'm putting up a fight. These big coal plants, 25165

all of them on grill, shutting them down gives me such 1

a thrill. But Perry says that this proposal is 2

killing jobs, but real ly it's our own health getting 3

robbed. The air that we breathe, it affects us all. 4

So come on everybody, let's get on the ball. 60 parts 5

per billion is where we want to be. Living in America 6

healthy and free. Thank you. 7

MR. TWID AL: Wow, how do you follow 8

that? 9

Hello, everyone, representatives of the EPA. 10

My name is Greg Twidal. That's T

- W

- I

- D

- A

- L. And for 11

starters, I'm English but I am actually an American 12

citizen and for most of my life I have lived in the 13

infamous District 29. 14

There's been a lot of talk today about

-- in 15

regards to the petrochemical complaints but little has 16

been said about the people living there. For the 17

record, I have been diagnosed with asthma. I have 18

severe alle rgies. All my friends and family know that 19

I sneeze and I am so loud and it's so uncontrollable. 20

And throughout most of my life I've had respiratory 21

problems. Please bear with me. My heart is beating 22

really fast. 23

MS. WILDE: Mine was too. Don't worry. 24

MS. WEGMAN: Just take your time and 25166

speak

-- 1

MR. TWIDAL: Well, thank you. Thank you 2

very much. 3

MS. WEGMAN:

-- at your own pace. 4

MR. TWIDAL: For the record, I s upport 5

the ruling to reduce the standard to

-- I believe it's 6

.60 parts per million? Is that correct? 7

MS. WEGMAN: Yeah. It's a range of 60 8

to 70 and you sound like you're supporting the lower 9

end of the range at 60. 10

MR. TWIDAL: Yes. Any kind of reduction 11

would be very, very

-- yes, it would help thousands of 12

people. The following comments I make today as a 13

private citizen. This is an oral testimony and I do 14

so

-- I'm a private citizen with community int erests. 15

I'm a volunteer for TEJAS, that's the Texas 16

Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, as well as a 17

member for the American Cancer Society, but I do not 18

speak directly for them. 19

Most of what I have to do

-- most of what I 20

have to say today I say out of love for my neighbors, 21

friends and family. Representatives, as you already 22

know, this is not just an environmental issue. This 23

is a human rights concern. District 29 is known for a 24

lot of things, most of them are impressive. It is 25167

home to the second largest collection of petrochemical 1

plants and refineries. You can't miss them. If you 2

take 610 east you'll see them for miles. 3

What you might not know is that it is also 4

home for the

-- it is home for the highest number of 5

uninsured persons in the nation according to a record 6

in 2008. This information can be found. So now we 7

take an area that creates lots and lots of pollutions 8

and now we have an area whe re the people are not only 9

at risk to the VOCs but also to the water, to 10

everything going on, but unfortunately are uninsured. 11

There are some insurance companies that do not cover 12

people

-- that just will not cover people in this 13

area. They won' t. 14

But they actually had to expand the district 15

to an area in Humble, which I also lived in. I lived 16

on Lake Houston. Water has to be shipped from Lake 17

Houston to the other areas within District 29 because 18

of pollution, because the wat er is not drinkable. And 19

believe me, the water in Lake Houston isn't that much 20

better either. Okay. 21

Asthma, cancer, and lung disease rates are 22

rampant in the area. My work with several volunteers, 23

we go home to home, speak to family a fter family after 24

family, and we hear nothing but reports of cancer, 25168

asthma, COP disease, aches and pains, and it's 1

startling. These are mostly minority families who are 2

just trying to make means here in the United States 3

who

-- and some of them, I am in this area, are, you 4

know, unfortunately they're not yet citizens. I want 5

to put it that way. So they can't turn to anyone. 6

Their voices are not being heard and it's very 7

shocking. 8

And then there are t he children in the area. 9

And I got to tell you, this is pretty upsetting. 10

These children in this area who know nothing about 11

taxes, environments, the economy. They don't know 12

anything about it. They know about soccer. Okay. 13

Well, honestly, the y're being exposed to daily plumes 14

of VOCs that are being produced from these plants. 15

They look like clouds. But what happens is these 16

clouds move over these communities and dissipate and 17

these VOCs end up just covering communities, schools, 18

pla ygrounds. It's awful. You can see many of the 19

chemical plants from the school playgrounds. That's 20

how close they are. 21

As they mature, these children, their bodies 22

do not develop at a normal rate. And right now we are 23

hearing from the families and their doctors of 24

underdeveloped lungs, respiratory systems and other 25169

disastrous illnesses. And again, these families do 1

not have insurance. 2

MS. WEGMAN: Mr. Twidal, your time is 3

up. I'm sorry. 4

MR. TWI DAL: Oh, okay. I believe that 5

these petrochemicals can be socially responsible and I 6

believe that if we work together on this, we can all 7

benefit. Thank you very much. 8

MS. STONE: Yeah, I do have one 9

question. Are you going to submit written testimony? 10

MR. TWIDAL: Sure, I believe I can. 11

MS. STONE: Great. 12

MR. TWIDAL: I'm very new at this. 13

MS. STONE: Thank you. 14

MR. TWI DAL: You're welcome. 15

MS. WEGMAN: That would be helpful if 16

with the statistic you have

-- 17

MS. STONE: Right. 18

MR. TWIDAL: I will. 19

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both very much. 20

Our next two speakers are Tashiica Miles and 21

Christine Naspinski. 22

MS. MILES: I'm Tashiica Miles. I'll 23

probably spell it for you. There's no way you'll ever 24

get it right. T

- A

- S

- H

- I

- I

- C

- A, Miles, M

- I

- L

- E

- S. I'm 25170

here from the Community In

- power and Development 1

Association. We're a nonprofit organization based out 2

of Port Arthur, Texas. I'm here to speak about the 3

pollution that we have. 4

We're surrounded by refineries everywhere, 5

north, south, east and west. And what I was going to 6

do is talk about how the ozone levels are impacting 7

the children. But I think everyone pretty much hit on 8

the effects it has on children. So thank you, 9

Mr. Twidal. So I'm going to take a different approach 10

here. 11

What I want to talk about is America. I want 12

to talk about how America has progressed over the 13

years. We as Americans have come a long way from 14

slavery, segregation, diversity and oppression. Women 15

now have the right to vote. We have our first African 16

American president and we have our first Latina 17

Supreme Court judge. The fact that we have come such 18

a long way as a nation is proof that we can continue 19

to progress and move forward to ensure that everyone 20

in Texas, as well a s in other parts of the United 21

States, have clean air and clean water to drink and 22

breathe. 23

Where I live, the pollution is constant and 24

it attributes to high levels of ozone. I'm here 25171

because I'm wanting to support the lower ozone level s. 1

Was it 60 ppb, 60 parts per billion? I'm also here to 2

speak for my community as well as any community that 3

has to go through this, blacks, whites, Asians, 4

Latinas, all other people from all creeds, colors, 5

races and nationalities. As America ns, we have the 6

right to breathe clean air for a better quality of 7

living, which is why it's so important that the EPA 8

tries to enforce stricter air quality laws. 9

Everyone has a job to do. A police officer's 10

job is to serve and protect. A fireman's job is to 11

put out fires and rescue little cats from trees for 12

old women. A doctor's job is to make sure that you 13

have the proper medicine and maintain perfect health. 14

The EPA's job is to make sure that we all have clean 15

air to breathe. With that being said, I would like to 16

once again restate the fact that I'm in support of the 17

60 parts per billion. 18

I also have documentation that I brought from 19

my organization. We put together a pamphlet that 20

we've g iven out probably to everyone on the planet or 21

anyone we come in contact with, but just in case you 22

guys don't have it, I brought these especially for 23

you. So don't ask for the documentation because I'm 24

way ahead of you. 25172

So

-- and based on the documentation, we 1

found that benzene, butadiene and propylene are all 2

leading causes of cancer. Where I live, we have 3

children with cancer, asthma, breathing problems, 4

respiratory infections and et cetera. I'm here just 5

to let you guys know that I would really appreciate 6

it, and so would everyone else, if you guys would do 7

the right thing and try and help us provide a better 8

quality of living for our children and our children's 9

children and the future to come. Thank you. 10

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 11

DR. NASPINSKI: My name is Christine 12

Naspinski. That's spelled C

- H

- R

- I

- S

- T

- I

- N

- E. Last 13

name N

- A

- S

- P

- I

- N

- S

- K

- I. I am an environmental 14

toxicologist and I operate a small

- scale vegetable 15

farm. Previ ously I worked for a number of years in 16

the petroleum and petrochemical industry as a chemical 17

engineer. I am here today as a private citizen, but I 18

am also a member of the American Association for the 19

Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned 20

Scientists, though I am not here representing them 21

specifically. 22

Thank you very much for providing this 23

opportunity for the public to comment on EPA's 24

proposal to revise the national am bient air quality 25173

standard for ozone. I agree with EPA's proposal to 1

strengthen the standards for ozone to be consistent 2

with the 2007 staff paper and the recommendations of 3

the independent Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. 4

This proposal is in line with the Clean Air Act 5

mandate that EPA set air quality standards to protect 6

the public health, including that of sensitive 7

populations consistent with the best available science 8

and with an adequate margin of safety. The Supreme 9

Court h as ruled that EPA may not consider other 10

factors, such as compliance costs, when setting 11

ambient air quality standards. 12

In the fields of environmental toxicology and 13

public health, we often have to make conclusions and 14

recommendations ba sed on limited information. 15

However, in the case of ozone, I believe the data are 16

plentiful and clear. In otherwise healthy adults, 17

exposure to ozone levels at or below the current 18

standard of 75 parts per billion has been shown to 19

result in dec reased lung function, increased 20

respiratory symptoms, inflammation, and increased 21

susceptibility to respiratory infection. In fact, 22

even in our own area, a Felix (phonetic) study in 23

Galveston demonstrated adverse effects on lung 24

function from ozone levels well below the current 25174

standard. 1

The current ozone limit is not sufficient to 2

protect even otherwise healthy adults, much less 3

sensitive populations. Children, teens, pregnant 4

women, senior citizens, and peo ple with existing lung 5

and cardiovascular diseases are particularly 6

vulnerable to the health effects of ozone. Our air 7

quality standards must protect these sensitive 8

populations. I believe a primary limit of 60 ppb will 9

accomplish this goal. 10

As an environmental toxicologist, I urge EPA 11

to heed the scientific evidence reviewed by its own 12

staff and the recommendations of the independent 13

advisory committee. As an educator, I urge EPA to 14

protect children's health and thus their a bility to 15

attend school and learn by adopting the primary limit 16

of 60 ppb. As an urban farmer, I urge EPA to adopt 17

the secondary cumulative ozone limit which protects 18

the viability of agricultural plants, including food 19

crops. 20

As an e ngineer, I know that we as a nation 21

can utilize our considerable creativity and ingenuity 22

to find economically feasible ways to met these 23

proposed standards. And as a taxpayer, I want to see 24

the large volume of publicly funded ozone research be 25175

used to improve the health of our country's people and 1

ecosystems. Thank you very much for the opportunity 2

to speak today. 3

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you both 4

very much. 5

Our next two speakers

-- our next two 6

speakers are State Representative Thibaut

-- I'm 7

probably mispronouncing it

-- and Jed Anderson. 8

REPRESENTATIVE THIBAUT: Good afternoon 9

and thank you for the opportunity to be with you 10

today. My name is Kristi Thibaut. So I know 11

everybody messes

-- and I'm State Representative of 12

District 133. I serve west and southwest Houston. I 13

represent a wonderfully diverse community of people of 14

all background, experiences and income levels who hail 15

literally from all over the wo rld. Despite any 16

difference we may have, we all share a desire to raise 17

our families in a safe, healthy environment. 18

I'm here today because I am concerned, not 19

only as a legislator but also as a parent of a young 20

child, that the propose d construction of a new coal 21

plant in this region will further erode air and water 22

quality in this area. As you know, the 23

Houston

- Galveston area is currently designated as 24

nonattainment for ozone per Clean Air Act, which means 25176

that the air quali ty for my constituents fails to meet 1

minimum health

- based federal standards. 2

Construction of this new plant as currently 3

proposed would add over 4,000 tons of nitric oxide to 4

the air in the Houston area every year. This would 5

significan tly affect our already high ozone levels and 6

make it more difficult for Houstonians to get back 7

into attainment. Furthermore, the proposed White 8

Stallion plant, which would remove 36,000 acre

- feet of 9

water each year from the Colorado River, which serves 10

many drought

- stricken areas of our state, and 11

emissions from this plant will contaminate the river 12

and nearby Matagorda Bay with mercury. 13

As a member of the Texas Legislature, I have 14

a responsibility to the constituents I represent and 15

to all the people of Texas to serve the public 16

interest. Unfortunately, the Texas Commission on 17

Environmental Quality, as we know is TCEQ, routinely 18

authorizes major new sources of ozone witho ut regard 19

to potential impacts on air and water quality in the 20

region. Therefore, I am requesting that permitting of 21

this new coal plant be denied until such time as TCEQ 22

brings its rules and policies up to minimum standards 23

required by the Clea n Air Act and Houston area 24

residents can be assured that construction of a new 25177

plant will not negatively impact air and water quality 1

in our region. 2

As a legislator representing my constituents 3

and as a mother of a small child, I cannot stand by as 4

our air and water quality are further eroded. I ask 5

that you act to protect Texas families. Thank you 6

again for this opportunity to speak today. 7

I just wanted to add a couple of points, too, 8

that I'm sure that you are well aware of but I'd just 9

like to reiterate that this particular plant is 10

built

-- is going to be built in a county that borders 11

two nonattainment counties, Fort Bend and Brazoria 12

County. And also it is my understanding, and correct 13

me if I'm wrong, that there are two other counties 14

along the Gulf Coast that also may be close to 15

nonattainment, Victoria County and Corpus

-- and 16

Nueces County, I believe. 17

So I find it very troubling not only that we 18

would build more coal plants in this particular area 19

but also before we decide to build a coal plant, that 20

not only that we take into consideration the air 21

quality in that particular county but how it will 22

affect the entire region. But also the impacts on 23

that c ounty on the environment. 24

If you know anything about that particular 25178

county, it's very marshy, it's very agricultural. I 1

don't think any time that we decide to build something 2

like this that we actually take into account not just 3

the ai r quality but the water quality, how it's going 4

to affect the farmers per se in that region. And they 5

have already been stricken with

-- they've had some of 6

their water shut down already because of farm water 7

users. I just think we need to look a t everything, 8

and that's all I would get at, is it's not just the 9

air, it's the entire environmental impact to the 10

entire community. 11

Plus I just

-- I'm concerned as a parent. As 12

you know, there was a story recently in the Chronicle 13

ab out how air quality affects absences in schools. So 14

it all is related. 15

And I appreciate your time. I know that 16

you've probably heard this time and time again, but I 17

thank you. I wouldn't be here today if I thought the 18

TCEQ was actually doing its job. So thank you very 19

much. 20

MS. WEGMAN: Well, we really appreciate 21

your time and the time of everybody here today. It 22

means a lot to us that people are coming in and 23

letting us know what their exper iences are and their 24

views. So thank you very much. 25179

I do have one question. On the ozone 1

standard that we are proposing, do you have any views 2

on whether we should, you know, issue the more 3

health

- protective standard that we are propos ing? 4

REPRESENTATIVE THIBAUT: I think that 5

that would be great. Thank you. 6

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 7

MR. ANDERSON: My name is Jed Anderson 8

and I'm here today representing the SIP Transformation 9

Workgrou p. 10

I'd like to comment on two issues in the 11

preamble. The first is the anticipated deadline for 12

SIP submittal in 2013. The second is where EPA noted 13

the difficulty in addressing trans

- boundary emissions. 14

These issues both speak directl y to a problem that is 15

becoming more apparent: The inability of the current 16

SIP process to timely, efficiently, and effectively 17

move us forward in achieving better air quality. 18

Although the SIP might be due in 2013, as the 19

preamble states, all of us know this is not likely to 20

happen, at least in an acceptable form, until around 21

2020. San Joaquin's one

- hour SIP wasn't approved 22

until about two months ago, approximately 16 years 23

after it was originally due. Houston' s one

- hour SIP 24

wasn't approved until 2003, about ten years after it 25180

was due. Houston's 85 ppb SIP now is expected to be 1

submitted in a few months, almost 13 years after the 2

NAAQS was changed. We cannot allude to the public 3

that three years from now a SIP will be submitted that 4

demonstrates attainment. We must tell the public the 5

whole truth. Telling them part of the truth by 6

telling them what the statute says is not the whole 7

truth. 8

In telling the truth and exposing this iss ue 9

to the light, we then must address the underlying 10

issue of why it takes so long to develop a SIP and 11

what are the inherent problems of the SIP process that 12

drive us to spend so much time and resources on these 13

plans. In 2004, the National Res earch Council wrote 14

the following: "The SIP process now mandates 15

extensive amounts of local, state, and federal agency 16

time and resources in a legalistic, and often 17

frustrating, proposal and review process which focuses 18

primarily on compliance w ith intermediate process 19

steps. This process probably discourages innovation 20

and experimentation at the state and local levels; 21

overtaxes the limited financial and human resources 22

available to the nation's air quality management 23

system at the state, local, and federal levels; and 24

draws attention and resources away from the more 25181

germane issue of ensuring progress toward the goal of 1

meeting the NAAQS." 2

We can set the ozone standard at 5 parts per 3

billion but it does not matter if we cannot 4

efficiently, timely and effectively achieve this 5

standard. Most important thing to our lungs is not a 6

better standard but better air. This must be our 7

primary focus. To achieve this focus, the current 8

process must be transformed into a comprehensive 9

multi

- pollutant air quality planning process that 10

assigns responsibility for achieving the NAAQS with 11

the authority to achieve the NAAQS and ensures that 12

control strategies are coordinated, prioritized, and 13

pur sued in the most efficient way possible, 14

considering various air quality and climate change 15

goals. 16

The Clean Air Act must be revised to do this. 17

There are two suggested components. The first is that 18

responsibility must be aligned with a uthority. States 19

are responsible for achieving the NAAQS, yet the 20

authority to achieve the NAAQS rests largely now with 21

the federal government, the ability to regulate 22

federally preempted sources and 23

interstate/international pollutant transport. 24

Last year an article co

- authored by NOAA 25182

found that the average ozone level contributed from 1

pollutant transport in Houston was 60 ppb. If we set 2

the NAAQS at a level of 60 to 70 ppb, this means that 3

before TCEQ even gets into creating the SIP, 4

approximately 75 percent of the problem is off the 5

table. Of the potential 25 percent we can control, 6

approximately one

- half to two

- thirds of these 7

emissions are from federally preempted sources. We 8

are now down to an air quality planning process that 9

can address 8 to 13 percent of the problem, yet states 10

are 100 percent responsible for achieving attainment 11

and will be sanctioned if they don't. This 12

misalignment between responsibility and a uthority 13

results in substantial resources being spent on 14

finger

- pointing, administrative exercises, less 15

cost

- effective control strategies and delays. 16

The second needed revision is to address 17

pollutants comprehensively. The result of ou r current 18

compartmentalized approach is that resources are 19

sometimes spent on control strategies that increase 20

non

- targeted pollutants and do not fully take 21

advantage of potential control strategy synergies. 22

For example, the SIP process drove the Houston area to 23

impose billion dollar NOx reductions, relying heavily 24

on SCR technology. Though SCRs are wonderful in 25183

reducing NOx, they increase PM due to the ammonia slip 1

and increase greenhouse gases because they take 2

significant energy to o perate. 3

EPA's National Action Plan Vision for 2025 4

found that a significant amount of greenhouse gas 5

emissions could be reduced at a net cost savings to 6

America largely through energy efficiency. Energy 7

efficiency reduces not only CO2 but also NOx, PM, 8

mercury and other emissions. So on one hand you have 9

a process that's cost billions of dollars and 10

increased PM and CO2. On the other, you have a 11

process that might reduce all pollutants at a ne t cost 12

savings to America. It's time to make a change in our 13

approach. 14

A multi

- pollutant strategy that prioritizes 15

based on public health and environmental impact is 16

necessary at a time when financial resources at all 17

levels of govern ment and the private sector are 18

scarce. It is critical to urge Congress to make 19

structural improvements to the Clean Air Act to ensure 20

that all future control efforts are coordinated, 21

prioritized and implemented in the most efficient 22

manner cons idering various air quality and climate 23

change goals. Thank you. 24

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. I'll note that 25184

while today's hearing is obviously about our ozone 1

proposal and not about the implementation strategy, 2

within our office we ha ve a group of folks who are 3

actually working on these SIP transformation issues 4

that you talk about and I can give you the name of 5

someone to be in contact with if you want. 6

MR. ANDERSON: That would be great. 7

Thank you, Ms. Wegman. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. Did you 9

have any specific comments on the ozone standard? 10

MR. ANDERSON: I don't other than, yeah, 11

we need to figure out how we need to get there. 12

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 13

Our next speakers are Walt Baum and Ken 14

Flippin. Is the other speaker here? Are you Walt 15

Baum or

-- 16

MR. BAUM: Yes, ma'am, Baum. 17

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Baum, sorry . Is Ken 18

Flippin here? We'll just go ahead, then. 19

MR. BAUM: Thank you for your time 20

today. My name is Walt Baum and I'm here today 21

representing the Association of Electric Companies of 22

Texas, or AECT. 23

COURT REPOR TER: Could you spell your 24

last name? 25185

MR. BAUM: Yes, ma'am. Baum, B as in 1

boy, A

- U

- M. 2

The Association of Electric Companies of 3

Texas is a trade association representing 12 different 4

electric companies in Texas. Just li ke the Texas 5

electric industry is different from the rest

-- from 6

most of the rest of the country, our association 7

represents all four of the different types of electric 8

companies in the state. We have both vertically 9

integrated rate

- based elect ric utilities that operate 10

outside of ERCOT and then inside ERCOT we represent 11

the different companies that are independent 12

generation companies that are not rate

- based power 13

plants and retail electric providers and regulated 14

transmission and distribution utilities. 15

As far as the proposed ozone standard, as you 16

know, EPA last changed the ozone standard in 2008 to 17

.075 parts per million and the state, cities and 18

businesses have all been working diligently to d evelop 19

plans to reach that standard. And the two previous 20

ozone standards set by the EPA have been attained 21

throughout Texas. EPA is now proposing a new ozone 22

standard with a range of .060 parts per million to 23

.070 parts per million. 24

This one

- size

- fits

- all approach will be 25186

problematic for Texas to meet since the background 1

concentrations of ozone in some areas of Texas are 2

already higher than .060 parts per million, which 3

means that no amount of technology or money would 4

all ow certain areas to comply. This new standard is 5

likely to affect not only large urban areas of Texas 6

but possibly all of East Texas. 7

Power plants have already made significant 8

reductions in nitrogen oxides, NOx, a precursor to 9

ozone of 50 percent to 80 percent across the state. 10

Texas has one of the lowest NOx emission rates for 11

power plants compared to all the other states across 12

the nation. And I do have some charts that I

-- I 13

would like to leave behind that shows that. I kn ow 14

there's been a lot of discussion today about how Texas 15

leads the nation in pounds of pollutants, but one of 16

the things representing the electric industry that I'm 17

proud of is that Texas not only has made dramatic 18

reductions in NOx and SO2 over the past 15 years, our 19

power plant fleet that on a per megawatt hour of 20

electricity produced, we have one of the cleaner 21

fleets in the country as far as SOx and NOx pollutants. 22

For the large urban areas, ma ny sources are 23

federally regulated, such as planes, locomotives, 24

ships and truck engines, and cannot be required by the 25187

State to make reductions. Thus this handicap should 1

be addressed in any new rules rather than EPA just 2

saying here is a lower standard but we cannot help you 3

meet those reductions. 4

As we've done in the past, the electric 5

industry is ready to do our fair share in helping to 6

further clean the air in Texas. We agree with lots of 7

the earli er speakers that there is no silver bullet to 8

meeting our need for new electricity in the state that 9

is both environmentally clean and economically 10

efficient. Texas

-- we need to continue to develop 11

our energy efficiency programs in the state. Te xas 12

has one of the leading programs in energy efficiency 13

and we're proud of that. 14

We also need to continue our leadership in 15

renewable energy. We've installed more megawatts per 16

hour

-- or more megawatts, period, of wind energy in 17

the state of Texas than any other state in the 18

country, and that's something we are very, very proud 19

of our

-- our record in that. But we also need to 20

continue. It's going to take all different types of 21

resources to meet our needs in the future. We need to 22

continue to look at new

-- look at the possibility of 23

new nuclear, at solar and other sustainable energy 24

technologies. And with that, I'd be happy to answer 25188

any questions. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. If you do have 2

any information about the background levels, we've 3

been asking other speakers to provide that. And did 4

you have a view on the ozone proposal that we issued 5

as far as what level of standard we should set or 6

whether we should revise it? 7

MR. BAUM: In general, we feel that the 8

new standard set in 2008 is a standard that is 9

sufficient; however, if you choose to reduce the 10

standard, we do have one issue, as I stated, that we 11

do think that you should try and take a look at is th e 12

issue of how

-- how can you handle the different types 13

of industry that is federally regulated and does not 14

fall under the state regulations, such as, you know, 15

offroad and airplanes and locomotives and such. 16

We think that there, you k now, has been lots 17

of industries in Texas who have already invested 18

billions of dollars to get us down to the .075 19

standard and although, you know, we can't pick up and 20

move our power plants to another state or any place 21

else once a new standard is

-- is set. So we are

-- 22

you know, we are here in Texas and for Texas

-- for 23

our companies to grow, we need Texas to continue to 24

grow, but it isn't

-- you know, it

-- we have already 251 89

invested a lot to try to meet new standards and want 1

to work with the EPA in further developing new 2

standards. 3

MS. STONE: Thank you. 4

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 5

MR. BAUM: Thank you for your time. 6

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Is Ken Flippin here? 7

Okay. Bill Crosier? Is Bill Crosier here? Okay. We 8

have

-- we have no one else scheduled at this time. 9

There are three folks who did sign up but don't appear 10

to be here. Peter Bella, Stephanie Cole and a B. 11

Simon? 12

MR. BELLA: Peter Bella. 13

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. If you'd like to 14

speak. And let me just check if there is anyone else 15

here in the room who would like to speak or you have a 16

later time. 17

(Discussion off the record.) 18

M S. WEGMAN: If there's anyone else here 19

who is signed up for a later time and would like to 20

speak earlier, just please go out to the registration 21

desk and we'll get you on earlier. Okay. 22

You're Ken Flippin? 23

MR. BELLA: I'm Peter Bella. 24

MS. WEGMAN: I'm sorry. Peter Bella. 25190

My apologies. Okay. Go right ahead. 1

MR. BELLA: Thank you for the 2

opportunity to speak before you today. My name is 3

Peter Bella, P

- E

- T

- E

- R B

- E

- L

- L

- A. And I am the 4

Director of the Natural Resources Department of AACOG, 5

the Alamo Area Council of Governments, in San Antonio. 6

AACOG hosts the Air Improvement and Resources 7

Committee representing local municipal and county 8

government in the San Antonio region charged with 9

developing local responses to our ozone challenge. 10

San Antonio is the largest city in the United 11

States in attainment of the ground

- level ozone NAAQS 12

and we are proud of that record. Tha nks to our 13

longstanding partnership with EPA and the Texas 14

Commission on Environmental Quality, we have avoided 15

nonattainment through innovative programs such as our 16

Early Action Compact. San Antonio is one of 13 17

regions which signed an EAC and regained full 18

attainment status in 2008. We thank you for that 19

opportunity. 20

Given the analysis provided by our in

- house 21

photochemical modelers, it is not clear that local 22

control strategies exist which can be implemented to 23

achieve an ozone standard revised below 70 parts per 24

billion. For these and other reasons, the AIR 25191

Executive Committee proposes three specific comments. 1

One, the San Antonio region does not agree 2

with lowering the eight

- hour average ozone standard 3

from the current level without balancing credit 4

acknowledging transport into our airshed. 5

Two, the primary and secondary ozone standard 6

should be the same standard. 7

Three, permitting rules need to require 8

evaluation of downwin d ozone impacts using 9

photochemical grid modeling. Permits should be 10

modified or denied if adverse health impacts or 11

violation of the national ambient air quality 12

standards will occur as a result of permit action. 13

The elected officials on the AIR Executive 14

Committee requested that I also convey to you their 15

continuing commitment to reducing local ozone 16

precursor pollution on a voluntary basis. Local 17

voluntary measures are having a positive impact and 18

have increased in number and impact value since the 19

EAC expired in 2007. We have remained in attainment 20

of particulate matter and all other criteria 21

pollutants as well. We are committed to continuing to 22

improve air quality in the San Anton io region. 23

One of the earlier comments was that the 24

level of the ozone standard should not be further 25192

lowered. The Committee members asked me to emphasize 1

that this comment should not be misconstrued. The 2

members are highly supportive of improving public 3

health. As a practical matter, our analysis shows not 4

only the limits of our ability to attain a reduced 5

standard but also shows the negative impact of 6

transport on our local monitors. It is clear that 7

with a lowered standar d, we will absolutely require 8

reductions from sources outside our region in order to 9

assure attainment. We want to work with you and the 10

State proactively to address the issue of transport. 11

We also hope to further our understanding of 12

t he health risks associated with ozone in our region 13

by conducting a local health study. Such a study 14

would assess, inventory, and take into account impacts 15

from the pollution source mix particular to our 16

region. 17

Thank you for taking the time to come to 18

Houston and receive these comments. 19

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bella. I 20

just want to make sure I'm understanding your 21

comments. I am understanding you don't support our 22

proposed revision. Is that correct? 23

MR. BELLA: Without consideration of the 24

transport issue and it's

-- we have not outlined and 25193

defined what that would look like. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Are you planning to 2

do that and submit c omments on that point or

-- 3

MR. BELLA: Yes, ma'am. We are planning 4

to submit written comments by the March 22nd

-- 5

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Very good. And then 6

you said the primary and secondary standards should be 7

the s ame? Did I hear

-- 8

MR. BELLA: Yes, ma'am. 9

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Okay. 10

MR. BELLA: Thank you. 11

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 12

DR. RUSSELL: Good afternoon. My name 13

is Nancy Russell. That's R

- U

- S

- S

- E

- L

- L, two S's, two 14

L's. And I am a doctor of public health with 27 years 15

of experience in research concerning the prevention 16

and treatment of cancer in people. Today I am 17

speaking as a retired private citizen. 18

I've reached the age of 71 without the 19

extreme diseases of lung cancer, asthma or emphysema, 20

but I do have chronically irritated eyes, nasal 21

passages, and sinuses. Respiratory illness hit me 22

about once or twice a year and last longer th an I 23

think they should. I worry about the chronic colds 24

and other respiratory problems of my grandchildren. I 25194

miss seeing stars. 1

I am strongly in favor of the EPA 2

strengthening the air quality standard to the .060 3

parts per million. These may cause decreased profits 4

occasionally and inconveniences, but we are an 5

imaginative and resourceful people. As an example, 6

seven years ago someone ran into and totaled my car. 7

Rather than plunge into debt immediately, I decided to 8

see how long I could get by just by riding my bike or 9

taking the Houston metro bus to my job in the Texas 10

Medical Center. This despite everyone telling me that 11

I could not possibly live in Houston without a car. 12

The metro system was not only reliable, but 13

it delivered me closer to my office door than the 14

parking garages of my coworkers and saved me between 15

60 and $100 a month just in parking. On the bus, I 16

met the wonderfully diverse groups of people who live 17

in Houston, including w hat had previously been an 18

invisible group to me, the number of people on 19

wheelchairs and with crutches and blind who were being 20

taken care of by the metro system. 21

Five years later, I was still without a car 22

but seemed to be still alive and I had used the money 23

I saved from car insurance, car repairs, et cetera, to 24

pay off the mortgage on my house and have savings left 25195

over. Thank you for the opportunity. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you very mu ch. Thank 2

you both. 3

MR. BELLA: Thank you. 4

MS. WEGMAN: Our next speakers are Ken 5

Flippin, if he is here, and Rick Haigwood. 6

MR. FLIPPIN: My name is Kenneth 7

Flippin, F

- L

- I

- P

- P

- I

- N. I'm a community or ganizer and 8

work on political campaigns and I've worked all over 9

the state. 10

I currently live in Austin, Texas, but I've 11

worked, as I said, and lived in almost every part of 12

the state, West Texas, Austin, Houston, Dallas, and 13

have got t o travel to San Antonio and South Texas 14

quite a bit. And the perspective that I would like to 15

add to the hearing, there's been a lot of people that 16

are scientists that understand all of the science 17

behind why these change in standards are importan t, 18

but as somebody that's been an activist on the ground 19

in a lot of these different communities, I want to 20

just give the perspective of

-- both from my family 21

and from just knocking on doors, seeing the difference 22

in the quality of lives of peop le according to where 23

they live and the quality of air. 24

There's definitely a difference with folks 25196

that live, for example, in the southeast part of 1

Houston or as you get closer and closer to the ship 2

channel, those areas that have the highest ozone 3

standards. What you see is that it's not every single 4

child but tends to be the children who have 5

vulnerabilities to lung issues, asthma and so forth, 6

they become much more severe. And then when it 7

becomes a community problem, it really changes those 8

communities because you have less opportunity for 9

those kids to play outside and be active and involved 10

in their community. 11

I go back to West Texas where I'm originally 12

from and y ou get out there and you can actually feel 13

the difference just walking around. You understand 14

that there's a difference in the air quality. 15

And I think that one of the things that is 16

really important for us in this state is to recognize 17

that with us having such a fast

- growing state with 18

such big urban areas and with so many of our youth

-- 19

you know, so many of our young people already have 20

disadvantages in the state. We have one of the 21

highest dropout rates in the country and we have some 22

of the highest health problems in the country. And 23

this is something that will be one piece of solving 24

that larger puzzle for those younger folks, the next 25197

generation of folks that will be leading our country 1

in the next 30, 40 years. 2

The other thing that I'd like to comment is 3

just that I know that a lot of the business and 4

industry folks think, well, this is just going to be 5

too much of a constraint, but there is a creative 6

surge of energy that has really risen up in the last 7

I'd say five to ten years among young people here in 8

Texas and I think it's true across the country. 9

People that are coming out of our business schools, 10

our law schools, our policy schools, our colleges, and 11

our high schools that want to change the way America 12

works towards a more positive way. There's less 13

obsession with their own ego and more sense of a need 14

to contribute to their community. And these folks can 15

help us solve the pr oblems that we've created with our 16

air quality. 17

And there's a big business opportunity there. 18

I know that there's big business in coal, but there's 19

also big business if we move towards renewable energy 20

but also just in making the energy that we use now, 21

using it more efficiently working in our homes. And I 22

think by having these new standards, it actually 23

queues to all of those folks that are looking to build 24

businesses, get involved in businesses in that 25198

community. It gives th em a great initiative and 1

opportunity to see that this is a place that they can 2

start a business, that they can do something. And we 3

need that in Texas. 4

Our state government is not friendly on this 5

and that's a big issue. And so that's why we need the 6

federal standards to change, so that we can have that 7

incentive in Texas and we can make a big difference. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 9

much. 10

If you can state your name and spell it for 11

our court reporter, please. 12

MR. HAIGWOOD: Hi. My name is Rick 13

Haigwood, spelled H

- A

- I

- G

- W

- O

- O

- D. I'm the President 14

of a company called CNG

- NGV Solutions, Incorporated 15

here in Houston. We're one of two natural gas vehicle 16

conve rsion companies, the other being Parkway 17

Chevrolet. Between the two of us, we represent about, 18

I guess, eight or

-- eight of the ten EPA

- certified 19

companies that are on the list of certificate of 20

compliance companies. We just started recently. 21

I'm also a member of a group called the 22

Houston Natural Gas Vehicle Consortium. We have 23

partners in that. It's Apache Corporation, Anadarko, 24

Shell Oil, CNG for America, groups like this that are 25199

ready to put in fueling infrastructure. 1

One of the problems that we have right now 2

with implementing this is that the EPA has rules that 3

certify vehicles on a model year and vehicle model and 4

engine family. As an example, if you've got an F150, 5

an F250, an F350, pickup truck, a n Expedition E150, 6

250, 350 van, and they all have the same exact 7

5.4

- liter engine in them, you have to certify each 8

individual one of these vehicles over and over and 9

over again. 10

It's not the vehicle that makes the 11

emissions. It's th e engine. Now, when you do this, 12

you have to pay 110 to $150,000 per vehicle to get the 13

certification. I think that's not a very good idea, 14

quite frankly. It's a big hamstring for us to try to 15

implement natural gas use. 16

Now, when we're trying to meet these ozone 17

and NOx emission standards just by the implementation 18

of converting these vehicles

-- and I agree we 19

should

-- you should have a certificate of conformity 20

on an engine, but not doing the same en gine. As an 21

example, again, that 5.4 engine has been in use since 22

2005 up to 2009 and actually 2010 is the last year 23

they're going to use it and then they'll have another 24

one. But you've got a

-- '5, '6, '7, '8, '9, '10

-- 25200

five years times all six of those vehicles that you 1

have to re

- certify annually at the same cost. So I 2

would think that unless there's a change to the 3

engine, modification to the engine or to the brain of 4

it, that it should only be done one time or needed to 5

be done one time. 6

You're causing an exorbitant cost by having 7

this regulation on the consumer. Right now it costs 8

about 12, $15,000 but you get tax credits to do your 9

conversion. Most of our customers are fleets. I'm 10

working with commercial fleets and government fleets. 11

We also represent International Navastar platform, 12

which is a Phoenix 466 engine made by a company called 13

Emission Solutions out of Dallas that changes school 14

buses to run on natural gas. And we could convert 12, 15

15 of these a week, you know, and reduce fast, you 16

know, the NOx emissions out of school buses. 17

There was just a study done by you guys that 18

said every child in America spends between ten and 35 19

minutes a day twice a day in a school bus at idle 20

going from one spot to the next to the next to the 21

next. Have y'all ever

-- or do you remember, I 22

guess

-- of course you have. Do you remember sitting 23

in a school bus? 24

MS. WEGMAN : Yes. 25201

MR. HAIGWOOD: Part of one of my deals 1

that I do when I go talk to people, is I take them and 2

say, well, pull up one of your buses in front of your 3

shop and let's go out there and have the meeting 4

there. You know, let it id le. About ten minutes 5

later, they're going, oh, we got to get the heck out 6

of here. You know, it's pretty nasty. 7

The $32,000 tax credit, the new Natural Gas 8

Act that's being proposed is going to help a lot to 9

getting things done. One of the issues we have, as I 10

said, was the infrastructure. The group that I just 11

mentioned, Shell and Apache, Anadarko, are ready to 12

jump all over that side of it, put it in. The problem 13

is is that chicken

- egg kind of a thing. 14

Another p art of this, the bi

- fuel

-- I'm out 15

of time. Anyway, I just

-- you know, I look forward 16

to working with EPA. I talk to you guys quite often. 17

You know, it's just something we need to do and we're 18

ready to do it now. It's not something that's in t he 19

future. I could be

-- I could have your car converted 20

in two days if you were on the list. 21

MS. WEGMAN: Well, I'll keep that in 22

mind for the future. I did just want to ask

-- I 23

think I'm understanding you to say you feel you could 24

help meet a new

-- 25202

MR. HAIGWOOD: We already do. 1

MS WEGMAN:

-- more protective ozone 2

standard. Do you have an opinion on what

-- 3

MR. HAIGWOOD: We already do. 4

MS. WEGMAN: Do you have an opinion on 5

what we propose? 6

MR. HAIGWOOD: Yes, I think we should. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. 8

MR. HAIGWOOD: I mean, it's

-- you know, 9

every one of the eng ines that I represent that y'all 10

have is

-- we're 210 compliant already, you know, and 11

we meet that. 12

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Very good. Well, 13

thank you. 14

MR. HAIGWOOD: Thank you. 15

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you bot h very much. 16

Is Sharron Stewart here? We have three more 17

speakers currently signed up. So I think why don't 18

we

-- if they're all here, we'll go through them and 19

then take a break. So Sharron Stewart. Is Kate 20

Fischer here? 21

MS. STEWART: Hello. My name is Sharron 22

Stewart. I'm a private citizen from Brazoria County. 23

I've been involved in these issues for 40 years. I 24

began as the first environmental aide in the Texas 25203

Legislature in 1971, which was quite a commut e. 1

I would like to talk to you specifically 2

about the ozone monitors in Brazoria County. Until 3

recently there was only one. It was located in Clute. 4

Clute is adjacent to Lake Jackson and Dow Chemical. 5

What you need to understand is in the four counties 6

around Galveston Bay, we have one

- half of the entire 7

national petrochemical refining capability and one of 8

the largest segments of that is located in Freeport, 9

Texas, particularly Dow Chemical. 10

This is the largest individually owned site 11

in the world by any measure, be it the number of 12

people employed directly or by contract, by the amount 13

of land surface covered by the plants, by the amount 14

of product produced, by the amount o f power generated. 15

They have three power plants there and a coal plant in 16

the Hill Country that only serves that facility. 17

But it is very rural. There are only

-- 18

there are less than 700,000 people in Brazoria County 19

as a whole. Brazor ia County is the third largest by 20

land county. The largest county is near El Paso. The 21

second largest county is Harris County. The third 22

largest is Brazoria. We are bigger than Rhode Island, 23

but we are rural, although an hour from Houston. 24

You have the ship channel complex, you have 25204

the Texas City complex, and you have the Freeport 1

complex. Now, it's no longer all Dow but it's still 2

mostly Dow. 3

That monitor was put in place in April of 4

1974. The old Texas Air Boar d came to me in '73 and 5

asked me to help get the site funded, which I did. 6

The site was built mostly by the work of two 7

employees, one of whom recently retired and the other 8

who now represents Erin Brockovich as their expert in 9

California. 10

It was an important site. It was well sited 11

by TCEQ. It's on city property owned by the city of 12

Clute. It's a softball field and it's immediately 13

near Dow, BASF, Shintech and other smaller plants. It 14

is immediately downwind of the Do w Plant A complex. 15

It is the only monitor that picks up that information. 16

The 2000 AQS study, which was part of EPA's 17

Great Waters project, EPA and NOAA funded it. 18

Galveston Bay air quality was the third part of that 19

study, which was ver y important to this area, which 20

showed the transport that people argued over until 21

that study was done. Of course, we argued after it 22

was done and spent an awful lot of money around here 23

to try and refute it, but instead, the statistics do 24

not r efute it. You know, the work that was done does 25205

not refute what the 2000 study showed. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Ms. Stewart, you're out of 2

time. 3

MS. STEWART: And I haven't even gotten 4

to the point. This monitor

-- please give m e one more 5

minute. This monitor has been moved to the Dow 6

Chemical site where they have their monitor. This was 7

done in 2003. Their monitor picks up air from bottom 8

land, forests, ranch land, farm land and the gulf. It 9

is not in a direct patt ern. It is adjacent. And the 10

statistics went down dramatically. 11

I am tired of all of the obfuscation that's 12

done in Texas on air quality issues. At least 11 13

times that monitor between '74 and '90 was the No. 1 14

highest reading in the country. Now no one knows 15

what's the highest reading in the country because 16

things get averaged out. I've met with TCEQ with 17

another person who will testify later about that and 18

did not get anywhere because to move it bac k to the 19

Clute site would take one to two days of two people's 20

time and they'd have to rent a trailer. 21

MS. WEGMAN: I am afraid I'm going to 22

have to ask you to wind up your testimony. I think we 23

understand your concern about the mo ving of the 24

monitor from the Clute site and it sounds like you 25206

also think we should get some monitors

-- or some more 1

monitors should be placed in Brazoria. 2

MS. STEWART: Absolutely. 3

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Okay. Well, th ank 4

you. Thank you very much. If you don't mind waiting 5

until the next speaker is done. Thank you. 6

MS. FISCHER: Hi. My name is Kate 7

Fischer. I am a native Houstonian. I am in favor of 8

setting a limit for ground

- level ozone to 60 parts per 9

billion. My cousin Greg, also a native Houstonian, 10

always used to jokingly say, "I don't trust air I 11

can't see." But poor air quality is very serious and 12

causes health problems such as asthma and increased 13

susceptibility to respir atory infections. 14

I personally have had a series of upper 15

respiratory infections during my years spent in 16

Houston. It is my hope that stricter regulations will 17

help better our city and greatly benefit our country. 18

Thank you. 19

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both very much. 20

I think the last speaker we'll take before a short 21

break, if he is here, is John Yaiber. Is John Yaiber 22

here? Okay. It's a little early, so I think what 23

we'll do is take a ten

- minute break r ight now. And 24

again, if anyone else here wants to sign up to speak, 25207

please do so. 1

(Break.) 2

MS. WEGMAN: Okay, folks. Sorry for 3

that delay there. Turned out to be a longer delay 4

than I expected. 5

So our n ext two speakers are John Yaiber and 6

Bill Crosier. They're here? Bill Crosier is here. 7

Is John Yaiber? No. Is Stephanie Cole here? 8

Okay. Whenever you're ready to start. 9

MR. CROSIER: Okay. I'm Bill Crosier, 10

C

- R

- O

- S

- I

- E

- R. I'm Co

- Chair of the Progressive Action 11

Alliance, which is a multi

- issue organization based 12

here in Houston. 13

First, I want to thank you for conducting 14

this hearing in public and listening to us. I'm sure 15

you're going to be ready to get up and move around a 16

bit more after this is over. 17

I'm an engineer. I like to talk about 18

numbers and equations and graphs and dollars and 19

things like that, but I'm not going to talk about that 20

here today. I'm going to talk a little about people's 21

lives and just ask you a few questions that I hope 22

you'll be considering when you're thinking about the 23

standards for ozone. 24

Well

- paid industry representatives have been 25208

here today to convince you that they're doing all that 1

they can or at least they're doing enough and that the 2

pollution they're putting in the air really isn't so 3

bad and that, you know, it's okay, we just need to 4

keep doing what we're doing. But one of the 5

questions

-- the first question is what do we tell our 6

children and our grandchildren and their grandchildren 7

what are they going to do if they have asthma or 8

other, you know, bronchial problems, lung problems, 9

and they want to go outside and pl ay with their 10

friends at school or after school and the ozone level 11

is too high? We all have friends that are like that 12

that have children that way. 13

Just a little personal thing. A friend and 14

coworker had to move out of Houston over 20 years ago 15

because his young children had respiratory 16

difficulties, and every time the ozone level was too 17

high it would bother them severely. It wasn't just a 18

matter of going outside and play; sometimes they could 19

hardly breathe. So will their children or their 20

grandchildren be able to live in Houston? You know, 21

this is over 20 years ago and we're still facing the 22

same issues. 23

And as I mentioned, we also have not just 24

friends with young children, we also have parents and 25209

grandparents. Many of them have respiratory 1

difficulties as well. The ozone doesn't bother me as 2

much, at least I don't

-- not that it's obvious. I 3

don't know if it's cutting years off my life or not, 4

but I know it's cutting years off of other people's 5

lives. And it's really hard to put a dollar value on 6

that, and that's one reason I completely support the 7

60 part per billion standard and I

-- hopefully we'll 8

be able to decrease that even more in the future. 9

The

-- we've bee n told for decades, again, 10

that the air is going to be cleaned up soon, but we 11

keep building power plants and expanding coal mines as 12

fact as we can, it seems, with frequent disregard for 13

what it's doing to our environment. And you know, I 14

just want to know when we're going to get serious 15

about cleaning up the air that we breathe and also the 16

water, of course. 17

One more thing to think about. There's one 18

word that industry representatives are afraid to say 19

when they're talking a bout the economics of this 20

situation and the feasibility and this sort of thing. 21

It's a word that points towards a way of saving 22

consumers money or cleaning up our environment and 23

saving our precious resources for future generations. 24

It's a word that won't solve all our problems, but it 25210

completely negates the talk about whether we can 1

afford this technology or that now, even if we chose 2

to ignore the dramatic health effects of air pollution 3

on our lives. It's a word that European countries, 4

Japan and most of the rest of the world embraces but 5

for some reason it can't be spoken by policy

- makers 6

here. 7

If you haven't figured it out yet, the word 8

is conservation. We used to talk about it, but, you 9

know, I

-- it's been decades, it seems like, since 10

elected officials or candidates or policy

- makers want 11

to talk about it. It's not something the industry 12

wants to hear. They want us to keep consuming more 13

energy. They equate consuming energy with a good 14

lifestyle. But it's not necessary. 15

We can promote economic growth and green 16

jobs, preserve everyone's health, clean up our air and 17

save consumers money if we use less oil and gas and 18

coal while we de velop a renewable energy. Let's do 19

the right thing for our children and grandchildren. 20

Let's conserve fossil fuels that can be used for other 21

things besides fuels for the petrochemical industry 22

and save them for other uses and reduce the maximum 23

ozone allowable to 60 parts per billion or less. 24

Let's remember the future generations, please. Thank 25211

you. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 2

MS. COLE: My name is Stephanie Cole. 3

That's spelled C

- O

- L

- E. And I currently reside in 4

Kansas City, Kansas. And I appreciate the opportunity 5

to be here and speak today. 6

I am here to speak in support of the proposed 7

revision to air quality standards and I applaud the 8

EPA for proposing science

- based rules that reflect the 9

mission of your agency, which is to protect human 10

health and the environment. 11

Currently, far too many Americans suffer from 12

respiratory illness and these conditions are worsened 13

by ozone pollution. Children, the elderly, and those 14

with respiratory illnesses are especially at risk and 15

these populations would greatly benefit from reduced 16

ozone pollution. 17

I'm an aunt to two boys in Nebraska: Taylor, 18

who is three, a nd Isaac, who is 10 months old. Both 19

of them live in central Nebraska with their parents, 20

and just a few miles from their home in Nebraska is a 21

coal plant that's currently being expanded to add 22

additional coal

- burning capacity. And as you know, 23

coal

- fired power plants are a source of nitrogen 24

oxides, which contribute to ozone pollution. And I'm 25212

concerned that Taylor and Isaac will be growing up in 1

close proximity to a large source of pollution that 2

could unfairly impair their health or could handicap 3

their ability to reach their full developmental 4

potential. 5

And while the health and well

- being of my 6

nephews is certainly important to me, there are many 7

more beyond my family who are harmed by air pollution 8

that we can reduce. Scientific research demonstrates 9

that the ozone pollution is harmful to human health 10

and I am encouraged to see the EPA taking the 11

necessary steps to address this longstanding public 12

health and environmental issue. And I would ask that 13

the EPA establish a rule that reflects the 14

recommendations of the scientific community and that 15

limits ozone at 60 parts per billion. 16

And again, I appreciate the opportunity to 17

speak today. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both for your 19

testimony. 20

Let me just check again. Is John Yaiber 21

here? Nancy Murphy and Jim Schermbeck. 22

MS. MURPHY: Hi. I'm Nancy Murphy and 23

I'm actually here as a private citizen. I hope I 24

speak for all the people that brea the in Sugar Land 25213

because that's where I'm from. And I want to

-- I'm 1

an anthropologist, I'm an activist, and I'm also a 2

member of the citizens advisory panel for a chemical 3

plant in my area. 4

My husband is a

-- works for the oil 5

indus try. And I will tell you, all the people that I 6

know in those industries are wonderful and caring 7

people, but like Senator Ellis said earlier in the 8

other room, he said, I pay my taxes not because I'm a 9

decent and honorable person, although I am, I pay my 10

taxes because the IRS will come after me if I don't. 11

And I will have to

-- I have to agree with him, that 12

this is certainly the

-- this is why I pay my taxes. 13

Although these are wonderful, decent people 14

in the oil industry and the chemical industries that I 15

work with, they're not going to do the right thing 16

unless they are forced to do the right thing. And I 17

am so glad to see the EPA again involved in the 18

environmental issues. It's been a long wait. But 19

we're

-- I hope that you guys will be making the 20

changes necessary. Certainly, the 60 parts per 21

billion is more than a goal, it's certainly a 22

necessity. 23

Another issue that's important

-- I want to 24

hit on two more issues. One is that we've got really 25214

an excellent cancer

-- we're like the center of the 1

world for cancer research. You know, they don't put 2

the best cancer hospitals in the world or even in

-- 3

large great cancer hospitals in places that doesn't

-- 4

that don't have cancer. I mean, a lot of people are 5

very proud of the fact that we've got these great, you 6

know, cancer hospitals, but people need to wake up as 7

to why it is that we've got these great cancer 8

hospitals. And from my family and the peop le that 9

I've known, I can tell you that cancer is not a small 10

issue in our area. 11

I want to talk just briefly in my remaining 12

minutes about what business really looks like in 13

Texas. And you know, I'm all for being friendly, 14

okay. But the business

- friendly experience in Texas 15

really does seem to have no bounds and I'm concerned 16

that an area

-- give an example from another area. 17

We've got

-- mandatory binding arbitration is a tool 18

that businesses use and it is certainly a 19

business

- friendly tool. 20

We've recently had a person, Jamie Leigh 21

Jones, that was gang

- raped with a number of other 22

women in Iraq through the KBR and KB

-- they are 23

unable to take their case to court because KBR has a 24

mandatory

-- made them sign a mandatory binding 25215

arbitration clause, which means that they just 1

negotiate this out of court. All right. That's a 2

business

- friendly tool and businesses have a lot of 3

business

- friendly tools in Texas. 4

In order to seek any ki nd of justice, these 5

women had to go to Al Franken in Minnesota to have 6

legislation drawn up although Jamie Leigh Jones lives 7

in Houston. You know, this is where that legislation 8

should have been written up, but it had to be written 9

up by Al Fra nken in Minnesota. Now, that's wrong. 10

That's business friendly out of bounds. 11

And I'm concerned that you guys have heard a 12

lot of stories from the

-- from industry

-- and 13

thank

-- you know, my husband works for the industry. 14

But busines s friendly can exist

-- can coexist with 15

business responsibility. And I want that to happen 16

because although I appreciate having a livelihood, I 17

also appreciate having a life. And that's not

-- you 18

know, we're just not talking in bumper stickers, 19

these

-- these are real issues. 20

We've

-- my family has fought with cancer in 21

the last two years and it's

-- and I will tell you, 22

when I moved here 12 years ago I didn't have asthma. 23

I have asthma now. And I didn't realize I would be 24

buying a house in Sugar Land five miles from the 25216

Parish coal

- burning plant. It's one of the largest in 1

the country. It's amazing how we can close our eyes 2

to things that are right under our nose. 3

But these are real issues and I hope th at 4

this panel will understand that business friendly must 5

have parameters. They must have parameters. And 6

we're dealing with healthcare issues that certainly 7

M.D. Anderson is well aware of and other people are 8

too. We can certainly do better. Thank you. 9

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 10

much. 11

MR. SCHERMBECK: Gee, I'm so sorry. I 12

don't have any fingerpuppets or anything like that. I 13

can't be too entertaining. I know y'all have been 14

here all day. 15

My name is Jim Schermbeck. I'm here to

-- 16

it's S

- C

- H

- E

- R

- M

- B

- E

- C

- K. I'm here today representing 17

Downwinders at Risk, a 16

- year

- old grassroots group 18

based in Dallas

- Fort Worth whose main focus is 19

cleaning up the largest concentration o f cement 20

manufacturing in the United States. 21

Dallas

- Fort Worth is now at the end of its 22

second decade of being in continual violation of the 23

Clean Air Act because of its chronic ozone or smog 24

problem. One of the reasons why is the failu re of 25217

government to demand the best control technology for 1

the 10 cement kilns that are operating just a few 2

square miles of each other in Midlothian, south of 3

Dallas

- Fort Worth. 4

These kilns emit half of all the industrial 5

pollution in north Texas and account for 8 to 9 6

percent of all the ozone

- forming emissions in the 7

region. DFW is the only nonattainment area in the 8

whole country that has so many cement kilns 9

immediately upwind of its urban centers. 10

W e support the EPA's reevaluation of the 11

national ambient ozone standard and encourage the 12

Agency to set a health

- based standard between 60 and 13

70 parts per billion. In our opinion, this action 14

would right a wrong committed two years ago when the 15

Agency ignored its own Scientific Advisory Committee's 16

unanimous recommendation and set the standard too 17

high. 18

Science should always be the standard by 19

which we assess public health damage and it should 20

guide our policy

- making as well. Unfortunately, 21

that's not the case here in Texas now nor has it been 22

for quite some time. Our own state agency is 23

ideologically driven or, rather, contribution driven. 24

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has become 25218

an extension of Rick Pe rry's campaign and so it works 1

to support his political agenda at the expense of 2

science and the public health. 3

As a consequence, this is making TCEQ the 4

biggest purveyors of junk science in the State of 5

Texas. They are the bizarro worl d state environmental 6

agency where the mission is to avoid enforcement of 7

environmental laws by ridiculously wrong

- headed 8

approaches to problem. It's as if they didn't mean to 9

solve the problems to begin with. 10

Nothing illustrates this better and the need 11

for stricter federal oversight from you guys than the 12

case study of how TCEQ has repeatedly fumbled DFW's 13

chronic ozone problem and the Midlothian cement plants 14

that contribute to it. 15

Case study No. 1, where to put

-- where to 16

center your clean air plan. Anyone who lives or 17

visits even the Dallas

- Fort Worth area knows that the 18

predominant wind direction during spring and summer 19

during the ozone season is south and southeast going 20

north and northwest. Anyone who looks at the record 21

of violations of ozone standards in Dallas

- Fort Worth 22

can see the results of those winds. They are all 23

gathered in the northwest quadrant of the metro mess 24

in terms of both the numbers o f violations and the 25219

highest readings of ozone, and Tarrant, Denton, Parker 1

and Wise Counties. 2

Yet the monitor that the TCEQ chose to design 3

their entire clean air plan around the mid decade in 4

2006 was in Collin County, directly due eas t of 5

Tarrant County, far, far away from where the worst 6

chronic monitors are and where the

-- and way out of 7

the path of the predominant winds. The result was 8

that last summer, during the middle of the worst 9

economic slowdown since the Great Dep ression, DFW saw 10

yet another TCEQ clean air plan fail. And by the way, 11

it failed because of those problematic monitors in 12

Tarrant County. 13

Again, I'm sorry, I don't have any fancy 14

visual aids, but here you go. Here's where the winds 15

blow in DFW, all right, to the north and to the 16

northwest, and here's where EPA and TCEQ decided to 17

center their clean air plan around, way to the east. 18

As a consequence, we failed our umpteenth clean air 19

plan and we are now due to have two done by the time 20

2013 rolls around. 21

Case study No. 2, the impact of the cement 22

plants. I

- 20 is a major interstate highway that runs 23

the length of DFW on its southern border. When you're 24

on I

- 20, you're in the thick of the southern part of 25220

an urban area with an estimated 6 to 7 million people. 1

As you ride in your car along the highway in Arlington 2

past one of the region's busiest malls, you can look 3

out your window due south and see the smokestacks in 4

the Midlothian cement plants cl ear as day. Well, when 5

it is clear as day. 6

Yet TCEQ took the position that these cement 7

plants, the region's largest industrial facilities by 8

far, accounting for half of all the industrial air 9

pollution in north Texas, had absolutely no impact on 10

air quality in Dallas or Tarrant County just across 11

the county line. Citizens had to petition the Agency 12

to get the adjacent county included in DFW's 13

nonattainment area for this last round of SIP 14

planning. That was a petition that was granted. 15

Modeling, then, after that petition was 16

granted revealed that the plume, sure enough, did have 17

an impact on DFW air quality. And by the way, the 18

impact

-- those exact monitors in Tarrant County that 19

were most chronic and troublesome for us, and so by 20

choosing Frisco instead of Tarrant County as the way 21

to design your clean air plan, you avoid having to put 22

controls on the cement plants that could have saved 23

you the trouble this l ast summer of failing another 24

clean air plan. 25221

If you look at the choices they made in terms 1

of control technology throughout this decade, TCEQ has 2

lectured us on how SNCR and SCR were technically 3

infeasible to install in the Midlothian c ement plants. 4

Those technologies might work over in Europe but 5

certainly never over here. Then a permit violation 6

allowed my group to leverage

-- it needed to press for 7

the nation's first insulation of

-- installation of 8

SNCR in a U.S. cement pl ant. And guess what, the 9

technology worked. It worked so well that not only 10

does that plant have a full

- scale operating SNCR unit 11

on both of its kilns, but the plant across the street 12

has one as well. 13

For a short period of time

-- 14

MS. WEGMAN: Mr. Schermbeck? 15

MR. SCHERMBECK:

-- the country

-- yes, 16

ma'am, I am wrapping up. 17

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 18

MR. SCHERMBECK: These are just 19

instances

-- three instances where the TCEQ has been 20

completely wrong in terms of the science they used. 21

The last example that I was going to use is the 22

natural gas field, Barnett Shale field, which they 23

have not taken into account lately but whi ch has grown 24

by gangbusters in the last three or four years and now 25222

accounts for the equivalent of all the emissions of 1

vehicles in the DFW area. 2

Just this morning I was in Dallas watching 3

the swearing in of Dr. Armendariz as the new reg ional 4

administrator. This is somebody who has taken on 5

TCEQ's abuse of science directly in almost every one 6

of these instances. To me, that shows that this 7

Agency is finally getting serious about taking on air 8

quality. 9

But if you rea lly want to get serious, 10

exclude the State next time. Deal directly with 11

locals, make it easier to have a federal 12

implementation plan drawn up between the locals who 13

want to solve the clean air plan but have their plan 14

thrown out by the State la st time, and the EPA. Don't 15

let the State get involved. They're not serious about 16

clean air, and putting them in charge of a new clean 17

air plan is the equivalent of putting the Klan in 18

charge of civil rights enforcement. It just will not 19

get t he job done. Thank you. 20

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both. Did you 21

have a question? 22

MS. STONE: Yes. 23

MS. WEGMAN: Just one second. I was 24

going to say do you have a written

-- 25223

MR. SCHERMBECK: Oh, I'm sorry. 1

MS. WEGMAN:

-- statement? 2

MR. SCHERMBECK: Really? Because this 3

is just my notes. 4

Yes, ma'am? 5

MS. STONE: So your recommendation about 6

the stan dard is just within the range of

-- 7

MR. SCHERMBECK: 60 to 70, yes, ma'am. 8

MS. STONE: So any part

-- 9

MR. SCHERMBECK: It's exactly what the 10

Scientific Advisory Committee recommended. 11

MS. ST ONE: Thank you very much. 12

MR. SCHERMBECK: Thank y'all. We 13

appreciate it. 14

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both for coming. 15

Okay. Our next speakers, Nancy Lomax and 16

Scott Johnson. 17

MS. LOMAX: Good aft ernoon. My name is 18

Nancy Lomax. My family has lived in the Houston area 19

for 100 years and I live about 600 feet from the 20

southwest corner of Loop 610, which is probably one of 21

the busiest highways in the world. So I'm extremely 22

concerned about air quality and support your proposal 23

for 60 ppb as a

-- or even better. 24

My mother

-- my elderly mother and my 25224

youngest daughter both suffer from asthma, and after I 1

turned 60 I've started wheezing myself. Sometimes it 2

makes me smile a little because it sounds like there's 3

a little kitten mewing inside my lungs, but I know 4

it's not a humorous matter and that my likelihood of 5

this getting worse as I get older is great. 6

So I'm not going to take more of y our time. 7

I just wanted to say I am an ordinary citizen. I'm 8

not a scientist. But I

-- as kind of the sandwich 9

generation of taking care of elderly and older 10

children and grandchildren, I call myself the club 11

sandwich. I have at least three la yers. 12

I know the effects of asthma. I've had to 13

drive my mom to the hospital when she is as gray as 14

this turtleneck for lack of oxygen. So please be sure 15

that you remember those of us who are not scientists. 16

We just breathe the air and we need some help. Thank 17

you very much. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you very much. 19

MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. My name 20

is Scott Johnson, J

- O

- H

- N

- S

- O

- N. Thank you for 21

offering the opportunity for us to speak today. 22

I'm speaking on my own behalf. And as 23

someone who spent some years in elementary school in 24

Houston in the mid '70s, I have recollections of 25225

taking a tour of the ship channel at that time and 1

looking at these tank farms and breathing the air th at 2

was very polluted and very inhospitable and wondering 3

if this was the way that the world should be. And 4

many of the speakers have talked about great strides 5

that we've made, but to me a lot of times when we're 6

talking about improving the situation, we're talking 7

about making up for lost time. We're talking about 8

catching up when we had a disastrous situation before 9

with levels twice as high or greater in Houston area, 10

in Los Angeles area and other cit ies in the U.S. and 11

now we're finally coming down to standards that are 12

coming close to what the proposal is from your 13

Scientific Advisory Committee in 2008. 14

And as well, I have recollections of driving 15

along Interstate 10 and breathing diesel exhaust while 16

the windows were closed, and granted, poor ventilation 17

system in an older car, and wondering again if I 18

should be breathing this, why is this out there, why 19

am I getting a headache. Thankfully, that same year, 20

approximately, that the catalytic converter was then 21

required on vehicles and made an astounding 22

improvement in the emissions from mobile sources. 23

Regarding here and now, 2010, one of the 24

challenges as I see it, as was indicated by a prior 25226

speaker, is that the EPA delegates certain 1

responsibilities to the Texas Commission on 2

Environmental Quality. I'm not sure that is in the 3

public's interest for them to be doing that and 4

particularly related to PSD, there's potential for 5

significant deterio ration. And this is the issue 6

having to do with having major point sources, such as 7

coal

- fired power plants or cement kilns or plastics 8

factories located and sited in attainment areas in 9

non

- urban counties, outside of the boundary or the 10

jurisdiction of the nonattainment areas and therefore 11

not being looked at with as much review and in as 12

stringent a way, and also having less people who were 13

there to protest the case as well and then having 14

those sources be upwind of urban count ies and urban 15

counties being penalized for that. 16

The classic example is a cement

-- a 17

coal

- fired power plant on Oak Grove which is being 18

sited in Robertson County. Modeling work that was 19

done on behalf of the region for Central Texas, w hich 20

I am from Austin, indicated that the

-- when those two 21

800 megawatt power plant units came online on certain 22

days during the ozone season, the effect on our 23

regional ozone would, in essence, negate all of the 24

gains that we made through the p lanning process, all 25227

the Early Action Compact, including emissions testing 1

for vehicles in two of three urban counties as well as 2

other controls, Stage 1 vapor recovery to grease and 3

solvents, that heavy duty diesel idling rule that we 4

put into p lace. 5

And this is very troublesome because, as 6

you

-- was mentioned earlier, there are other 7

coal

- fired power plants out there that are in various 8

stages of the permitting process and those need to be 9

evaluated. What the TCEQ indicates is that we're 10

following EPA guidance, and that may be true, but are 11

they ever requiring photochemical modeling to be done 12

to show on certain days, in certain wind conditions, 13

where those nitrogen oxide emissions are going to and 14

in this case they're coming from the northeastern 15

trajectory on certain days coming into Williamson 16

County, where Round Rock is, and creeping over the 17

border to Travis County, where Austin is. 18

This is something that the EPA, I believe, 19

needs to address to have any hope to meet a goal of 60 20

to 70 part per billion range that you're proposing. 21

And I'm supportive of the lower end, 60 parts per 22

billion. 23

A new primary standard, I think, will also 24

facilitate a reduction of n ot only ground

- level 25228

emissions, toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas 1

emission, particular carbon dioxide, because it should 2

accelerate the transformation from fossil fuel energy 3

generation to one where there is no choice but to put 4

some catalyt ic reduction on the plant or have the 5

person do offsets or, better yet, diversify their 6

portfolio of generation to be using non or low carbon 7

sources. Thank you very much for your time. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you very much. Thank 9

you both very much for your time. 10

The next two speakers are Deborah Shafto and 11

Lev Guter or Guter. I'm not sure which. 12

MS. SHAFTO: Thank you. I guess I don't 13

have to push the button this afternoon, do I? 14

MS. WE GMAN: No. We got some help and 15

fixed that. 16

MS. SHAFTO: I appreciate that. I don't 17

have any statistical data to present

-- 18

(Brief interruption.) 19

MS. SHAFTO: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is 20

Deborah, spelled the old

- fashioned way, D

- E

- B

- O

- R

- A

- H, 21

Shafto, S

- H

- A

- F for Frank, T

- O. 22

I don't have any

-- as I said, I don't have 23

any statistical data to present. There's been a lot 24

here. What I wanted to remind you of is when I was a 25229

child, which was a long time ago, the best part of the 1

year was the summer days, the long summer days where 2

we would take off our shoes, leave them in the closet, 3

run outside, play all day all of our childish games 4

outside in the sun. 5

Later on I became a teacher and we had code 6

red days where the children aren't allowed out, we had 7

code orange days when they're allowed out but not 8

allowed to engage in strenuous athletics. We've 9

limited their lives and not just healthwise, but t he 10

fun of being a child now has to take place mostly 11

inside in the summer. There was one particular year 12

when day after day there were those alert days. You 13

had to listen to the radio and get the alert before 14

you came to school. 15

Ther e was one particular little boy who 16

during

-- I taught

-- I think I had him in 17

kindergarten that year. He was in the hospital about 18

six times with asthma. When I was growing up, I never 19

even heard of anybody who had asthma. I never heard 20

the w ord. I don't think there's a classroom in 21

Houston today that doesn't have at least one sufferer 22

from asthma. Maybe it isn't as severe as this little 23

boy going to the hospital time after time, but they're 24

there. They're there. You have to watch the air 25230

quality. The parents have to make arrangements to 1

have inhalers in the nurse's office. The nurse has to 2

be sure and be there to administer the medicine. 3

I don't think this is what we ha ve in mind 4

when we plan for our children. I have heard today 5

corporate interests deny the veracity of the 6

established scientific fact. I have heard them impugn 7

the reliability of sources on the collection of that 8

data. I don't think there's a doubt in anybody's mind 9

whether that data is real, whether the scientific 10

facts are in fact real. 11

I call your attention to the fact that 12

corporations are neither moral nor immoral. They are 13

amoral. What happens in a corporation is the bottom 14

line is what counts. I don't doubt that you

-- going 15

to be subject to tremendous pressure from those people 16

concerned with the bottom line. They speak of the 17

loss of jobs if these new standards are presented or 18

implemented. This is

-- t hese are the same 19

corporations that will lay off 500 or 1,000 people 20

just to meet

-- to make the bottom line of a quarterly 21

report look good. They're not concerned about jobs or 22

employment. It's a red herring. 23

Without intervention, wha tever makes a profit 24

is what will be done. And you are our intervention 25231

and I implore you to make that intervention, to make 1

this new standard a reality and to make the next 2

intervention even more stringent so that once again 3

the children can take off their shoes and run around 4

every summer day. Thank you. 5

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you very much. 6

MR. GUTER: Hi. Good afternoon. My 7

name is Lev Guter. My first name is spelled L

- E

- V. 8

My last na me is G

- U

- T as in Thomas, E

- R. And I'm an 9

associate field organizer with the Sierra Club for 10

Arkansas and I am based out of Little Rock, Arkansas 11

and that's where I live. 12

I'd like to give a perspective from Arkansas. 13

I don't know how ma ny folks here today have given you 14

this perspective, but I feel that it's important to 15

come here to Houston to speak with you

- all about the 16

regional implications and, of course, the national 17

implications that the comments in this room are going 18

t o have. The ripple effect of what happens in Houston 19

is an incredibly important thing that we to the east 20

are concerned about because the westerly winds are 21

going to blow whatever is commuted around here into 22

our state. So what happens in Houston doesn't 23

necessarily stay in Houston when it comes to air 24

quality. 25232

Now, Arkansas is mostly a rural state. We 1

have a lot of rural poor and a lot of those folks just 2

can't afford healthcare. And the air quality 3

standards that are being discussed today are going to 4

directly impact the amount of, you know, damage, 5

basically, that our people in these rural parts are 6

going to have to their health. And they, just to put 7

it frankly, can't afford to have asthma. I mean, they 8

can't afford to have conditions like asthma that are 9

going to be aggravated through the pollution that 10

we're going to be seeing if these standards aren't 11

tightened. And that's why the Sierra Club is 12

advocating for the 60 parts per billion standa rd. 13

We feel that that is the only way that people 14

are going to be protected to have the best health that 15

they can have and that they're entitled to have 16

whether they're poor or rich. And since we have a lot 17

of poor in Arkansas, I come t o ask you to consider 18

them when you're thinking about making a 19

recommendation. 20

Now, also another part of sort of the 21

perspective from Arkansas deals with our state 22

agencies and that's why the national federal agency 23

can have a lot of c lout, can have a lot of influence 24

and can have a lot of guidance in the ways that we're 25233

dealing with our air quality in our state. I'd like 1

to cite two examples. The first example is our state 2

implementation plan, our SIP. That is under attack, 3

and actually on February 8th, this coming Monday, we 4

are organizing around a hearing of our own in the 5

state to protect our SIP against utilities in 6

Arkansas. 7

Entergy, SWEPCO, and the Arkansas Electric 8

Cooperative Corporation have come together and 9

requested that our state environmental agency, the 10

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, make a 11

variance to the SIP. The deadline for that air 12

quality SIP is October 15th, 2013. Now, since the EPA 13

has not approved that SIP, the five

- year clock has not 14

started to run. Therefore, the state utilities have 15

asked the state agency to push back that deadline. 16

And since the EPA hasn't ruled on it, the state 17

governing body can have a say. 18

The ABEQ has approved that variance. The 19

commission which oversees that agency is called the 20

Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. On 21

January 22nd, there was a meeting of that Commission 22

and the Sierra Club asked for a public hear ing on that 23

variance before the Commission makes a final ruling. 24

If we hadn't asked, then the public never would have 25234

had a period of comment. And February 8th is our time 1

to say, listen, this variance is a bad idea because if 2

the deadline is pu shed back, we're just going to have 3

more time to breathe in all of this really filthy air. 4

If the federal government can come in and 5

make some really, you know, strict and important 6

standards, not overly strict, it's just in order to 7

hav e the amount of air quality that we deserve, then 8

the federal guidelines, the federal regulations are 9

really going to put some teeth into what we can do in 10

Arkansas. And since the Arkansas utilities have so 11

much power, have so much money and influ ence, it's 12

really a way that the EPA can help us out in Arkansas, 13

the people who don't have a voice. So that's why we 14

are advocating for the 60 parts per billion. Thank 15

you very much. 16

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. I just wanted 17

to ask you if you have any information about 18

populations in Arkansas and how they might be affected 19

by ozone or any information about transport coming 20

from Texas to Arkansas and could submit that for the 21

record. 22

MR. GUTER: I woul d certainly like to do 23

that. Thank you very much. 24

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. That would be very 25235

helpful. 1

MR. GUTER: Okay. Thank you. 2

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you for coming today. 3

Thank you both. 4

Our n ext two speakers are Minoo Sherkat and 5

Melanie Oldham. 6

Are you Melanie? 7

MS. OLDHAM: Melanie. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Is Minoo Sherkat 9

here? Is Bonnie New here? 10

MS. OLDHAM: Hi. Good afternoon. My 11

name is Melanie Oldham, O

- L

- D

- H

- A

- M. And I've been a 12

healthcare professional, a physical therapist for 28 13

years. I am a new member on the H

- GAC Regional Air 14

Planning Committee from Brazoria County and I've been 15

an unpaid public health advoca te since 2000. I also 16

have three children, two of which had asthma when they 17

were younger. And I know what ozone alert days mean 18

because I, you know, would watch that daily and 19

whether or not they could go outside. 20

Just to mention, my Rep is Dennis Bonnen, 21

former Chairman at Environmental Reg for six years in 22

Texas. My senator is Mike Jackson. 23

I want to thank EPA, thank y'all for being 24

here to listen to us and

-- to all of us. And I want 25236

to thank the Scientific Advisory Committee for taking 1

the time and long effort to look at the studies and 2

come up with these recommendations. And I am up front 3

and I'm very supportive of the 60 parts per billion to 4

protect, you know

-- the stud ies show to protect 5

public health of children with asthma and other people 6

at risk. 7

Let me

-- Brazoria County, we're south of 8

here. We're a county of

-- it will be close to 9

300,000 people directly south of Houston. Again, my 10

Rep is D ennis Bonnen and, you know, he brags we do 11

have very low unemployment and we have jobs, jobs, and 12

jobs, but a lot of us feel that jobs at what cost. It 13

has been maybe our public health. 14

Right now Brazoria County is the No. 4 county 15

in t he nation for release of carcinogens in air and 16

water. We're infamous. We're the No. 1 emitter of 17

dioxins in the nation. Dioxins from Dow Chemical, 18

Freeport, Texas. The American Lung Association gives 19

us an F every year for ozone because we exc eed the 20

recommended number of days. 21

And we are a severe nonattainment county. 22

Just like Harris County, we're a hot spot. We have 23

the whole chemical industry, like Ms. Stewart spoke 24

to, in the Port Freeport and we have

-- we're growing 25237

so fast. We have road construction, a variety of 1

sources of NOx, VOCs, which make ozone. 2

I would just like to comment on monitoring. 3

As Ms. Stewart spoke earlier, we only have two TCEQ 4

ozone monitors in Brazoria County. One that was 5

historically there was put there 37 years ago by TCEQ 6

and a lot of important stakeholders, was, when we 7

weren't paying attention, moved in 2003. You know, 8

they were getting readings as high as 140 parts per 9

billion and it was moved to far West Lak e Jackson, 10

which is on Dow property. And of course, the design 11

values have come down and our industry is bragging in 12

the local newspapers we're going to make 84 parts per 13

billion, but they don't say that that's the old 1997 14

standard. 15

But a lot of us feel

-- we

-- actually, 16

Sharron and I, we got hit by the hurricane. We were 17

in Austin in September '08 and we got to go to

-- went 18

to TCEQ and got to speak with David Brymer and Susan 19

Hildebrand, who are now the heads of Air Divisi on TCEQ 20

in Austin, and they looked at everything and agreed 21

that the ozone monitor was put in the wrong location. 22

It should not be there on Dow property. If nothing

-- 23

and it should be two miles northeast of there. But 24

they didn't have the fund s to move it. 25238

And as Sharron and others, we strongly

-- to 1

have good historical data, we need that monitor back 2

in Clute, Texas first thing. Then, you know, TCEQ 3

wants to put another monitor where it should be, two 4

miles north, then that would be something to look at. 5

But unless we have accurate monitoring, how are we 6

going to know what our issues are and how bad they are 7

in Brazoria County or anywhere else? You know, I am 8

hoping that EPA, or whoever, will help TCEQ look at 9

where the correct sites should be for monitoring. 10

Also, as someone mentioned, 43 percent of our 11

air pollutants are from industry. And a lot of my 12

friends work for industry down in Brazoria County. 13

There's a lot of goo d responsible companies that are 14

doing their fair part and there's other companies that 15

could do a whole lot better. 16

Also, 40 percent of our NOx comes from power 17

plants, but they're getting ready

-- they're hoping to 18

build a coal power p lant in Bay City right next to our 19

county. And a lot of the

-- one thing people don't 20

want to discuss, that every 56 baby boys born in Texas 21

now have autism. As a physical therapist that does 22

pediatric PT, that's something that should get 23

peopl e's attention. You know, that's directly due to 24

mercury from coal

- burning plants and other sources. 25239

Also, the technology does exist to reduce 1

ozone emissions by industry. I am a new member on the 2

H

- GAC Regional Air Planning Committee and I just sit 3

there and wonder, listening to the conversation 4

between industry, government, and the public health 5

advocates where I hear over and over industry saying 6

there is no good science. You know, I say read the, 7

you know, Federal Registry. You know, I only have a 8

biology degree, but I can read and understand that 9

people have taken a long time

-- the Scientific 10

Advisory Committee made these recommendations for a 11

good reason, and if we really want to

-- y ou know, the 12

studies were done on adults. We don't know exactly 13

the effects on children, but not

-- why not err on the 14

side of caution, do the right thing, and recommend the 15

60 parts per billion to protect children with asthma 16

and people at risk

. 17

Because I work with those people day in and 18

day out and we have serious issues in Brazoria County 19

and Texas. We have our own cancer center in Lake 20

Jackson, Texas, and I just want you

-- ask you at EPA 21

to help us, give some guidance to TCEQ, help put some 22

teeth into their program. We need to change our TCEQ 23

penalty policy so we get this industry's attention. 24

They just laugh at the penalties now. And again, just 25240

do the right thing and support the 60 parts per 1

billion to prote ct public health. 2

MS. WEGMAN: Very good. Thank you. 3

MS. NEW: Good afternoon. I am Bonnie 4

New. I am a

-- 5

COURT REPORTER: Spell your name, 6

please. 7

MS. NEW: New, N

- E

- W. I'm a physicia n 8

specializing in occupational and environmental health 9

and I'm the Director of a Texas group called Health 10

Professionals for Clean Air. This is a group of 11

doctors and researchers who banded together in the 12

early 2000s to voice the concern of the medical 13

community because of the public health burden of poor 14

air quality in Texas and the fact that it is often 15

discussed in local circles as if it's

-- improvement 16

of air quality would be a lifestyle amen ity, like 17

going to the park, as opposed to a public health 18

issue. 19

The medical community and scientific 20

community has weighed in quite heavily on the issue of 21

health effects of ozone. The EPA's CASAC was 22

extraordinarily complete in rev iewing the literature 23

and explaining their decision for supporting a range 24

of 60 to 70 ppb. We do know from chamber studies that 25241

there are adverse effects on adults, not children but 1

adults, and the supposition, of course, would be that 2

children would be even more sensitive. But there are 3

positive chamber studies at 60 ppb. So given the 4

range under consideration includes that as the lower 5

limit, Health Professionals for Clean Air supports the 6

NAAQS level of 60 ppb. 7

One thing that the expert summaries such as 8

CASACs do not adequately convey is the clinical side 9

of dealing with the ozone issue. This is no joke. 10

Patients and families have an experience that I will 11

try and recall to you a little bit and physicians have 12

another experience. This is not what you read 13

typically in summaries of the medical literature, but 14

it is very much the front line of what happens when 15

the ozone meets the lungs. For patients and families, 16

asthma and other chronic lung conditions are a real 17

lifestyle

- altering experience, a life

- altering 18

experience. And in fact, they often are life 19

threatening. People do die of asthma. 20

Physicians spend more and more time treating 21

asthma . We see

-- there's an increased incidence of 22

asthma. We see more asthma in

-- exacerbations in the 23

emergency room. But the patients live with this every 24

day and it affects family members as well in terms of 25242

productivity and cost and enjoyment o f life. And 1

siblings who aren't attended

-- they have a different 2

childhood experience when one of their siblings is 3

acutely sensitive and reacts with

-- to ozone 4

pollution with asthma. 5

For physicians, it's extraordinarily 6

frustrating in the clinical setting. The medications 7

that we have in our armamentarium are many and 8

different types that do different things, but while we 9

try the more sophisticated and newer generations to 10

try to control the inflammatory reaction that is 11

caused by exposure to ozone and other intense 12

irritants, the truth is it's limited. There are 13

people who still die in the emergency room and the ICU 14

despite full

- blown medical care that

-- whose airways 15

cannot be opened up. 16

And all the inhalers and so on that are 17

commonly used

-- I mean, it's a mainstay of primary 18

care practice, those treat symptoms. It's very 19

helpful and it's advantageous to have your symptoms 20

controlled, but believe me, that's not affecting the 21

disease. What will affect the disease, the airway 22

irritation, is less irritants. That's ozone, among 23

other things. 24

Another thing that doctors are acutely aware 25243

of, there's not only an increased incidence of asthma 1

in

-- or prevalence of asthma in

-- among adults and 2

children and we would assume that might be due to air 3

pollution increasing over time compared to, say, 1920, 4

but you are probably aware there's California

-- 5

several California studies from 2004 that were an 6

abso lute knock

- out for doctors. It

-- these studies 7

showed that asthma is not just exacerbated, 8

existing

-- people with existing asthma, but that 9

ozone caused the asthma in a cohort of children in 10

California. 11

MS. WEGMAN: I have to ask you to wrap 12

up. I'm sorry. 13

MS. NEW: Okay. Very good. 14

At any rate, the arguments that we hear 15

against ratcheting down the ozone level appropriately 16

are, one, it costs too much, and second, an impugning 17

of the science. The medical community finds both of 18

those both insulting and presumptuous and, really, 19

contrary to our goals of public health. HPCA endorses 20

60 ppb, the Texas Medical Association and the

-- and 21

ten medical specialty societies in the State of Texa s 22

last May endorsed the consensus statement on 23

improvement of air quality that asked for the state 24

and federal governments to enact legislation that 25244

would indeed protect public health. That's what 60 1

ppb would do and all of the doctors in Texas have 2

spoken for it. 3

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you very much. I 4

don't know if you have written testimony that you can 5

give us and fill in what I had to cut off. 6

MS. NEW: Yes. 7

MS. WEGMAN: And we are probably aware 8

of the studies that you were citing as far as causing 9

asthma, but if you can just make sure we have those 10

citations so we know which one you're referring to, 11

MS. NEW: Will do. Tha nk you. 12

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Very good. Thank 13

you. 14

(Break.) 15

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. We'll start up again 16

if we could. Our next two speakers

-- Minoo Sherkat? 17

Is Rosalia Guerro

- Luera

-- let me see, Minoo Sh erkat? 18

No? How about Stephanie Nugent? Okay. 19

MS. GUERRO

- LUERA: Good afternoon. My 20

name is Rosalia Guerro

- Luera. That is R

- O

- S

- A

- L

- I

- A 21

G

- U

- E

- R

- R

- E

- R

- O dash L

- U

- E

- R

- A. Thank you. 22

I'm here as a resident. I'm a mom and a 23

resident of Sugar Land, Fort Bend County. As you've 24

heard and I learned today, we not only make great 25245

sugar but we also make great glass thanks to my friend 1

at PPS [sic]. So I was glad to hear about that. We 2

are actually about 30 miles downwind of

-- here of the 3

industrial complex and it's nice to know now we 4

actually have an air monitor located in Sugar Land 5

because, as someone else mentioned, things that happen 6

in Houston not always stay in Houston . So we are 7

usually affected by huge plumes of toxic chemicals 8

that tend to float down our way and then turn into 9

ozone when they approximate Sugar Land and so it's 10

sort of like an ozone pandemic down there. 11

And although I currently do not live on the 12

fence line, I am not ignorant of the plight of 13

fence

- line communities, as I was actually born and 14

raised in Texas City, which is another industrial 15

town, little

-- from here closer to Galveston County 16

and is just down the road. Y ou might have heard of 17

us. We do have a nasty habit of blowing up. 18

And although when I was younger the plants 19

were the economic engine of our small town, my father 20

did not work there because when I was young, blacks 21

and Mexicans were no t allowed to work at the plants 22

and

-- at least that's what the hiring manager told my 23

father. I'm thankful for him today because my dad 24

just turned 83 last week and I have many memories and 25246

I can continue to enjoy my father, and not so much 1

the se are memories that many of my schoolmates do not 2

have because either their fathers were vaporized 3

during some accident or are quietly and courageously 4

combatting their cancer diagnosis. 5

I remember this

-- these are very vivid 6

memories I have of going to funerals putting down 7

young, vibrant men into the ground as collateral 8

damage to the 5 o'clock rush hour. I remember it was 9

actually considered rude to ask why they died so young 10

and it was even considered ruder to se ek any justice 11

on their behalf. 12

I believed that at 14 years of age but at 40 13

I no longer believe that. So I come to you in part to 14

honor those men and seek justice for them now and a 15

safe environment for their grandchildren. Needless t o 16

say, I do support the strengthening of the ozone 17

standard. I think it is the least we can do and I 18

mean that literally and figuratively. It is the least 19

we can do. And although I know you cannot take 20

economic impacts into consideration, I pe rsonally find 21

it reprehensible that industry would come here and 22

count pennies in front of suffering communities. 23

In closing, I would like to publicly thank 24

our elected officials, our local officials, our state 25247

reps, our senators and oth ers that have spoken here 1

today on our behalf. I thank them for voting the 2

right way on the issues most of the time, and even 3

though they were staring into the jaws of defeat, it's 4

a thankless job, I know, and I do publicly thank them. 5

And I enc ourage them to take up these issues 6

vigorously in the next session. 7

And for my final words, I will take them from 8

Cesar Chavez

-- I steal them from him

-- who said, you 9

cannot stop an idea whose time has come, and I think 10

this is one of those ideas whose time has come today. 11

Thank you very much. 12

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you very much. 13

MS. NUGENT: Hi, my name is Stephanie 14

Nugent. That's N

- U

- G

- E

- N

- T. And I am here to show my 15

support for th e 60 parts per billion limit on 16

ground

- level ozone. 17

I'm a runner and I've been a runner for most 18

of my life. I've also lived in cities for most of my 19

life, and so I find it kind of ironic that through 20

trying to improve my health, better my breathing 21

capacity, I actually may have been damaging my lungs. 22

Smog exposure has been referred to as a sunburn of the 23

lungs. Now, I put on sunscreen before I go running 24

outside to protect my skin and I don't use SPF 5, I 25248

use SPF 55. Unfort unately, I can't do the same for my 1

lungs. But the EPA can and they can do that by 2

implementing the 60 parts per billion limit on the 3

ozone. 4

I have been here for most of the day, heard a 5

lot of the testimony, and a lot has been said abo ut 6

stricter air standards being at odds with economic 7

growth. I see that as a really narrow view. If we 8

focused on building a clean energy economy, wind, 9

solar, geothermal energies, clean air would go hand in 10

hand with job creation and economic development. It 11

doesn't have to be an either/or scenario, and I hope 12

that the EPA recognizes that as well. I also hope 13

that the EPA will stand behind the science and go for 14

that 60 parts per billion limit. Thank you. 15

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both. Is Erin 16

Hickok here? And let me

-- just checking on Minoo 17

Sherkat. 18

MS. HICKOK: Hi. Can I get started? 19

MS. WEGMAN: You sure may. 20

MS. HICKOK: Great. My na me is Erin 21

Hickok and

-- 22

(Brief interruption.) 23

MS. HICKOK: My name is Erin, E

- R

- I

- N, 24

Hickok, H

- I

- C

- K

- O

- K. I wanted to address some 25249

comments made by some industry representatives that I 1

heard today saying that it's just not possible to 2

reduce ozone emissions, and this is simply not the 3

case. In a

-- in a nation where we made it to the 4

moon, where we're increasing our technology at rates 5

completely unheard of in the past, you know, the 6

solutions are really simple. It's clean, renewable 7

energy and the costs are far too high to do nothing. 8

I am here today to take a stand for clean 9

air, not just for myself, but for my nieces and 10

nephews and their little lungs that are breathing this 11

air, and for my mother, who suffers from pulmonary 12

hypertension. Much of my life I've watched her suffer 13

being on oxygen. Once a vibrant woman, she can no 14

longer work. She lives in our Social Security system 15

above

-- or below poverty level and no longer can 16

contribute to society the great talents that she once 17

had and often stays inside because going outside can 18

aggravate her lungs. She hates being a burden on the 19

system with high medical costs, expensive medications, 20

and really tethered to her oxygen. 21

And we know that it's not just my mom. There 22

are thousands of lives that could be saved every 23

single year by enforcing these standards. And the 24

cost to future generations is simply unacceptable. 25250

I definitely applaud the EPA in putting forth 1

the standard that's based on the science and I know 2

that we can achieve this. Like I said, the solutions 3

are simple. It's clean, renewable energy and it not 4

only will reduce the ground

- level ozo ne and smog that 5

are causing people to suffer, but at the same time 6

will help us combat climate change. At the same time 7

it will give us new green jobs, open up entire new 8

industries and education opportunities for the next 9

generation. And also it gives us opportunities as a 10

nation to be a global leader in green technologies. 11

These are the kind of solutions that I would like to 12

see and I strongly support the 60 parts per million 13

[sic] regulation. Thank you. 14

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you for 15

being here most of the day. 16

MS. HICKOK: Thank you. 17

MS. WEGMAN: I have no one else right 18

now signed up to speak. Is there anyone in the 19

audience who would wish to speak? 20

(Dis cussion off the record.) 21

MR. BICKLEY: My name is Shaun Bickley, 22

S

- H

- A

- U

- N B as in bravo, I

- C

- K

- L

- E

- Y, and I'm a 23

resident of Houston and I came here to speak in 24

support of the EPA proposed regulation of reducing the 25251

air quality to

-- the air quality standard to 60 parts 1

per billion. 2

Up to 10,000 lives would be saved per year by 3

adopting these regulations, which means 10,000 people 4

are dying every year because they can't breathe. For 5

me, this is e nough, but if there are those who insist 6

on attaching a dollar value to these lives, by any 7

cost analysis we can't afford not to act. 8

In every cost analysis performed by analysts, 9

these regulations are a win. In addition to saving 10

lives , reduced medical costs to the community, it's 11

estimated at 13 to 100 billion. Over 330,000 missed 12

days of work and 1.9 million missed days of school 13

would be avoided, resulting in increased productivity. 14

Nor is this a loss for business. Coal and 15

dirty energy technology is not the only source of 16

energy jobs. It's not even the source of jobs in the 17

21st century. Renewable green jobs create four jobs 18

for every one job in the dirty energy industry. There 19

are entirely new industr ies opening up in wind, solar, 20

and geothermal. The United States will be at the 21

forefront of the energy industry without sacrificing 22

the health and lives of people. 23

Renewable energy even offers the chance to 24

become totally energy self

- s ufficient and even the 25252

opportunity to sell our excess energy to other 1

countries. We know this is possible because Iceland 2

has done it and I think that anything they can do we 3

can do as well. That's all. 4

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 5

MR. BICKLEY: You're welcome. 6

DR. MARRACK: I'm Dr. Marrack, 7

M

- A

- R

- R

- A

- C

- K, initial D. I'm a retired physician 8

after over 60 years in active practice. I'm also 9

until rec ently the co

- chair of the Air Waste 10

Management Association's Waste Management Committee 11

and a member of the Health Effects Committee. I had 12

to retire because I've lost most of my vision. 13

The ambient air in Houston is improving 14

incredibl y slowly. A snail goes faster. The problem 15

lies in, one, the EPA's obsession with

-- 16

MS. WEGMAN: Can you just press the 17

button again on the mic? 18

DR. MARRACK: I can't see a button. 19

MS. WEGMAN: I'm sor ry. It's just that 20

lower button. 21

DR. MARRACK: Push. I'm sorry. I 22

touched it accidentally. I apologize. 23

MS. WEGMAN: I understand. No problem. 24

Thank you. 25253

DR. MARRACK: Sorry, ma'am. 1

The problem of the air pollution in Houston 2

is partly compounded by the fact that EPA is obsessed 3

with ozone. Not that it's an innocent compound. It 4

is very injurious. But even more important are the 5

fine particulates, PM2.5 and smaller, which come from 6

combustion sources. They are faraway the most 7

important damaging agent in the ambient air here in 8

Houston and elsewhere. 9

EPA persists in treating particulates as a 10

homogeneous chemical, like lead or mercury. Whereas, 11

in fact, it's a very heterogeneous mix of particles 12

coming from various sources. The one I want to 13

protect

-- concentrate on, the one that matters to 14

healthcare, is the particulates derived from 15

combustion sources, the CPM2.5 and smaller, 16

part icularly those around 1 micron. They are not 17

homogeneous. They have a core of amorphus carbon and 18

a coating

-- a very porous particle, I might say, with 19

a huge surface area, around 500 to 1,000 square meters 20

per gram. They absorb chemicals avidl y, both those 21

from the combustion source and those from the ambient 22

air. 23

The studies that have been done by EPA and 24

others, Demarini and Janelle Lucas at

-- Lewtas at the 25254

EPA Triangle Park; Dan Costa, EPA, all demonstrate the 1

mass of f ine par

-- combustion

- generated fine 2

particles is largely due to the absorbed chemicals. A 3

fifth to a third of their mass is absorbed chemicals. 4

Of these, they are demonstrated to be the polyaromatic 5

hydrocarbons and PCBs and other allergenated 6

hydrocarbons, all of which are anything but good for 7

you. 8

They are irritants. Demarini and Lewtas 9

showed extracting these chemicals from combustion 10

par

-- collected combustion

-- collected combustion 11

particles, that not only are they analyzable and show 12

multiple compounds present, GC mass spec, but, also, 13

that they are carcinogenic in direct animal 14

experiments. 15

EPA has chosen to ignore most of the 16

recommendations from its Scientifi c Committee. I was 17

a member of the industrial combustion coordinating 18

rule

- making committee, and we might as well not

-- not 19

met, basically. 20

We need to reduce the PM2.5 and smaller 21

particles to less than 30 micrograms per meter cubed 22

and we need to enforce that law efficiently and 23

completely across the whole spectrum of industries. 24

EPA refuses to recognize that the alternative 25255

will be to clean up those particles before they are 1

emitted, removing the injurious organic c hemicals, 2

which is the other alternative. 3

The technology for doing this exists. The 4

costs of doing it are not much greater than that 5

getting down to 60 PB

-- parts per billion

-- sorry

-- 6

micrograms. And the costs don't go up exponenti ally 7

with increasing the amount of removal of fine 8

particulates for emissions. And this applies not only 9

to marine engines, railway track engines, stationary 10

units, pumps, off

- road vehicles, and, of course, 11

highway vehicles, too. And possibly t he most 12

difficult to do is the highway vehicles. The rest of 13

them are relatively easy. 14

MS. WEGMAN: Dr. Marrack, your five 15

minutes is up. I wonder if you could wrap up and then 16

we have a couple of questions, I think. 17

DR. MARRACK: Thank you. The EPA needs 18

to enforce rigid standards that protect the public as 19

required by congressional law and they're certainly 20

not doing that. And we need to go forward in this 21

urgently, not waiting three or four years. 22

Thank you. 23

Any questions? 24

MS. WEGMAN: Well, I do have a couple of 25256

questions. The first is, you said we were ozone 1

obsessed. 2

DR. MARRACK: Yes. 3

MS. WEGMAN: I just wondered if you have 4

an opinion on the proposal we have out for ozone of 60 5

to 70 parts per billion. 6

DR. MARRACK: It isn't what your 7

Scientific Advisory Committee advised. 8

MS. WEGMAN: Actually, in this instance, 9

it is. Thi s proposal

-- 10

DR. MARRACK: It's within the range, but 11

it isn't the lowest figure and it isn't the most 12

public health protective one. 13

MS. WEGMAN: Well, just to be clear, the 14

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee did recommend 15

a standard within the range of 60 to 70 parts per 16

million [sic]. So we've proposed a range consistent 17

with what they recommended and we're taking comment on 18

that, and I wondered if you had an opinion within that 19

range? 20

DR. MARRACK: It's nothing like

-- low 21

enough, it should be about 40. That was my opinion at 22

the time. 23

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. The 24

other thing I just wanted to mention. As far as 25257

particulate matter goes, we are very mindful of the 1

problems with particulate matter and we are currently 2

in the middle of a review of our particulate matter 3

standard and we plan to have a proposal out in 4

November of this year. And I hope you'll be able to 5

follow that and give us your thoughts on that as well. 6

So I just wanted you to be aware that that review is 7

underway. And our Administrator, Lisa Jackson, 8

decided to accelerate that review and do it more 9

quickly than our normal five

- year period because she 10

was concerned about the fact that the standard we set 11

in 2006 was not consistent with the recommendations of 12

our Scientific Advisory Committee. 13

DR. MARRACK: Thank you for the advice. 14

MS. WEGMAN: I just wanted you to know 15

that. Okay. Thank you very much. 16

Okay. Is Donna Hoffman here? 17

(Discussion off the record.) 18

MS. HOFFMAN: My name is Donna Hoffman, 19

H

- O

- F

- F

- M

- A

- N, Donna, D

- O

- N

- N

- A. I am the 20

communications coordinator for the Lone Star Chapter 21

of the Sierra Club. We have about 24,000 members 22

across the state. And first I want to thank the EPA 23

for the wisdom of proposing a new health

- based ozone 24

standard and I want to thank you as individuals for 25258

coming to do this work here today. 1

So I'm asking EPA to pass the protective 2

standard of 60 parts per billion. As someone who grew 3

up on the Gulf Coast, I was born in Galveston, lived 4

in Port Arthur for a year as a toddler and grew up in 5

Corpus Christi. I'm aware of the smell and the 6

consequences of air pollution, and I can't accept that 7

as a way for us to live. So I'm really delighted to 8

be participating in this process. 9

My mother and her siblings all had asthma as 10

children and different times throughout their lives. 11

My Uncle C.G. Jones died of lung cancer, though he 12

wasn't a smoker. So as a person myself who practices 13

yoga

-- yoga involves a lot of long, deep breathing. 14

Full breaths is a big part of yoga, so I want those 15

breaths to be full of clean air. 16

Sierra Club and our health and environmental 17

community partners are part of a large movement of 18

individuals, communities of faith, legislators, 19

business people and many, many citizens, and we're 20

focusing on the large industrial facilities in 21

particular because we figure that the large industrial 22

facilities are the fastest way to get ozone out of our 23

air that we breathe. We're also concerned, of course, 24

about highways and we've op posed the Grand Parkway 25259

project that's on

-- north of Houston because it would 1

increase trips traveled and we have a lawsuit about 2

that. 3

So we're focusing on these large industrial 4

facilities, in particular the coal plants and 5

refineries. Our Beyond Coal Campaign is part of a 6

big, dynamic clean energy movement, clean energy 7

sector, and we're steadily putting in place more and 8

more already available energy efficiency measures to 9

reduce consumption and the need for so m uch power 10

generation. 11

We're already No. 1 in wind energy in Texas 12

and we're building more of that. We also are steadily 13

building more and more distributed solar power and 14

geothermal power. We're seeing more and more panels 15

on big box es at other large facilities like churches 16

and we'll see more and more solar panel in the 17

coming

-- panels in the coming years on higher 18

education institutes and all available rooftops, 19

including parking garages. 20

So this is where we need EPA's help. Right 21

now we are not looking at cumulative impacts in Texas, 22

and so that's where I am going to use my prop here. 23

I've got a map of Texas. It shows the existing 17 24

coal plants. They're mostly in the northeast sector 25260

of the state. You will see them in the yellow dots. 1

The red dots are the 12 proposed new coal 2

plants in Texas. So Texas has more than any other 3

state new proposed coal plants, and that's going to be 4

a real problem for meeting this new standard that we 5

want to be implemented of 60 parts per billion. So 6

right now, who

-- when we ask how are we going to do 7

this, how are we going to reduce the ozone, we're 8

looking to the councils of government, so the cities 9

and counties that get together and create the state 10

implementation plan, working with the TCEQ and the 11

EPA. And those councils of government can really only 12

look at what they have in control in their hands. So 13

they can only reduce ozone in thei r localities. 14

So what we're not right now looking at, and 15

I'm asking EPA's help to step in, in particular in 16

Texas and in other parts of the nation, to look at 17

what was once called areas of influence. So those 18

places in the state

-- and those are the clusters. I 19

will be pointing to those red and yellow dots that 20

aren't within these COGs, these councils of 21

governments, and right now the people who are being 22

charged with cleaning up their air can't control. 23

So I'm askin g EPA to put a structure in place 24

where the TCEQ is required to take into consideration 25261

cumulative impacts of all the large sources of ozone 1

so that those

-- so that we can phase out the dirtiest 2

of the existing coal plants and we can stop building 3

new coal plants. That's been our focus. 4

And also on the refineries. I should speak 5

briefly to that. We've been working on upset 6

emissions. TCEQ hasn't been enforcing the going over 7

the upset emissions. That's when a refinery sudden ly 8

puts out a whole bunch of pollution and whoops, those 9

numbers

-- Neil Carman went and looked at that

-- and 10

were very, very high so we're working with the 11

refineries to reduce that. 12

In the 1990s, the Texas State Legislature 13

passed a bill, Senate Bill 7, which called for 50 14

percent reductions in nitrogen oxides from Texas power 15

plants, so going back to the power plants briefly. 16

That led to significant reductions. There were 17

technologist in addition to what was done that could 18

have been put in place and the State said no, we 19

don't

-- we don't have to do that. So we're

-- we're 20

saying that's about fear and not wanting to change the 21

way of doing things. 22

So in conclusion, Texas isn't a fossil fuel 23

s tate, it's an energy state. We've got brilliant 24

innovators here who can go ahead and make that change. 25262

A lot of the energy sector is doing it. So I'm asking 1

for your help to pass 60 parts per billion standard 2

and also look at cumulative impacts a s an integral 3

piece of the method for getting there. Thank you very 4

much. 5

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 6

MR. LESTER: I am going to have to 7

apologizes for my voice. It almost never deserts me, 8

but it did today. I'm Jim L ester. I'm the Vice 9

President of the Houston Advanced Research Center. 10

The last name is L

- E

- S

- T

- E

- R. 11

We've been managing an air quality research 12

program in East Texas since 2002. I wish I were 13

sitting here today testifying about a NAAQ S for 14

benzene, but since we're here to talk about ozone, my 15

suggestion

-- I am not an epidemiologist. I 16

appreciate the science that the epidemiologists did. 17

Since they gave you a range of 60 to 70, my 18

recommendation would be 70 because I am concerned 19

about the scientific tools we have to operate at this 20

level. 21

The Clean Air Act requires that you model an 22

ozone episode and then you demonstrate the 23

effectiveness of your controls on th at episode. As 24

you get the standard lower, the spatial and temporal 25263

scale you have to model at increases. It's not 1

altogether clear that the models we've got now are 2

going to handle the kind of modeling we're going to 3

have to do for these lower standards. 4

You've already heard about the ozone 5

background problem in East Texas. There is a Web 6

site, www.tercairquality.org, where you can find the 7

conceptual model Dr. John Nielsen

- Gammon of A&M did 8

for background ozone in East Texa s. It is commonly 50 9

to 55 parts per billion in the ozone season across the 10

eastern part of the state. So we don't need a 11

multi

- county SIP approach, we need a multi

- state SIP 12

approach. 13

In order to properly model this, you have to 14

hav e a decent emission inventory. EPA and TCEQ use 15

emission factors to get the emission inventory for 16

their volatile organic compounds. We've done three 17

major field studies, have shown that the estimates you 18

get out of those emission factors are an order of 19

magnitude too low. We need to be measuring the 20

volatile organics, but nobody has taken the lead to 21

bring the measurement techniques to the U.S. We have 22

to go to Europe to bring in the proper ins trumentation 23

to get proper measurements on the VOC emissions. 24

It's not altogether clear that the current 25264

continental and atmospheric boundaries we use in these 1

models will work. We may need a hemispheric model, we 2

may need to blend the current ozone models with 3

climate models. Because we're talking about a big 4

scale here when you get down to that level and we're 5

not quite ready

-- I mean, you're talking about job 6

security for me and my scientists, but it's going to 7

be a challe nge. 8

So my suggestion would be that we set it at 9

70 and see what we can do and go incrementally. I 10

always believe in you head in the right direction and 11

you take an incremental approach to environmental 12

improvement. 13

And I do support the secondary standard. I 14

think that that is a good idea, to add the secondary 15

standard to the primary standard. Thank you. Sorry 16

about the voice. 17

MS. WEGMAN: No problem. Thank you for 18

offering your testimony today. I have a couple of 19

questions. Others may as well. 20

You supported as I understood your testimony 21

to say 70 because of the limitations of our modeling 22

capability. Do you also support 70

-- 23

MR. LESTER: It's not just your models, 24

it's the data we've got to put into the models. 25265

Because the emission inventory of VOCs is not very 1

good. 2

MS. WEGMAN: Do you support 70 from the 3

standpoint of the health scienc e? 4

MR. LESTER: Well, I'm assuming that 5

your epidemiologists were comfortable with that and so 6

that's why I am saying the top of the range. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. And the 8

other question on supporting a seconda ry standard, do 9

you support the standard that we proposed, the 10

separate secondary standard? 11

MR. LESTER: Yes, and now based on my 12

back

- of

- the

- envelope calculations, we'll probably 13

violate that in East Texas. But I am basically

-- I 'm 14

also primarily trained as an ecologist, so I think we 15

need the secondary standard in place. We've seen too 16

much ecosystem damage in the eastern part of the U.S. 17

to allow that to move west. 18

MS. STONE: Thank you. 19

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Anybody else have 20

questions? Okay. Thank you very much. 21

Let's see. David Bradley and Rob [sic] 22

Clifton, is either of them here? It looks like 23

they're both here. 24

MR. CLIFTON: My name is Rod Clifton, 25266

C

- L

- I

- F

- T

- O

- N. I am with the Arc Wind Institute. We 1

are a group of professionals that are involved in the 2

development of clean energy systems. And I wanted to 3

thank the EPA for doing this, for bringing this to the 4

forefront. Whatever tools are needed to help prevent 5

further dirty power generation systems from occurring, 6

we are completely for it and back the efforts to do 7

that. 8

I'm not acquainted with the ozone

- type issue 9

with power plants, but if it helps clean or prevent 10

coal power plants from being developed, especially in 11

our state, we would

-- we wholeheartedly back your 12

efforts to do that, coal being one of the dirtiest, 13

probably the dirtiest and most detrimental pollutants 14

in the atmosphere at this time. 15

And as we're all aware, I'm sure, right now, 16

the dilemma that the planet

-- not just Texas but the 17

planet itself is facing. More and more climate 18

scientists are coming

-- drifting to the conclusion 19

that we may have already passed the tipping point for 20

a runaway climate catastrophe. 21

So recently Texas has acquired the status of 22

being the No. 1 state in the United States for the 23

generation of clean sustainable power. And this was a 24

marvelous thi ng for our state. My group of folks just 25267

now coming to grips with the fact that we're 1

planning

-- there are entities planning to build 12 2

new dirty coal

- powered plants in the state of Texas 3

and that we are also now known, or I believe, as one 4

of the dirtiest polluting states in the U.S. that we 5

would actually compound this problem by doing this. 6

We just wanted to make our statement here 7

that we're 100 percent behind you. It's not just the 8

state of Texas. It's a planetary crisis that we're 9

battling. Texas should be leading the way, pardon me, 10

in clean energy development, not leading the way to 11

help destroy our planet. Thank you very much for all 12

you're doing. 13

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you for coming today. 14

MR. BRADLEY: I echo a lot of what Rod 15

said. 16

MS. WEGMAN: I'm sorry. Could you 17

introduce yourself? 18

MR. BRADLEY: My name is David Bradley 19

and I live here in Housto n. I met Rod the other night 20

at a meeting for 350.org, which is an organization 21

dedicated to bringing the amount of carbon in the 22

atmosphere to 350 parts per million. And I echo a lot 23

of what he said. 24

I support and am excited by the EP A's current 25268

efforts to reduce air pollution. I encourage the EPA 1

to freely use the Clean Air Act to combat climate 2

change and other environmental disasters. 3

I must admit, I'm very afraid and devastated 4

by the likely effects of global wa rming. I mean, if 5

it's true, I mean, it feels like it definitely changes 6

a trajectory of my life. I don't know whether or not 7

I'd like to have kids and put them through the misery 8

which will likely ensue. I know the titans of the 9

polluting ind ustries continue to throw out excuses 10

about why they must pollute and risk the fate of the 11

human species. I hope the EPA will see through these 12

excuses and continue to push for limits to pollution 13

based on the health and the needs of human beings and 14

not the profits of major companies. 15

I want to thank you as well for coming out 16

and proposing these standards. And if there's 17

anything I can do to help you impose and enforce more 18

r igorous standards, I will definitely do that. Thank 19

you. 20

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you both 21

very much for your testimony. 22

Jon Boyd and A.J. Davis? 23

MR. BOYD: Hi. My name is Jon Boyd. 24

It's J

- O

- N B

- O

- Y

- D. I'm on the Board of Citizens 25269

Transportation Coalition, however, these comments 1

today will be my own. 2

I support the efforts to reduce the ozone 3

threshold to 70 parts per million. I can't make an 4

argument based on the science. I'll h ave to defer to 5

the scientists to make that call, but I support the 6

EPA on developing standards based on science. 7

As someone who follows local transportation 8

issues, I can tell you that we have enormous 9

opportunities to improve air quali ty simply by 10

changing the way we move around. According to the 11

last census, only about two persons out of 100 walk or 12

ride their bicycles to work as a percentage of total 13

workers in the Houston area. By contrast, three out 14

of four of us drive to work by automobile. So just 15

changing the way we get to work and the way we get 16

around to do our errands is a way that we can improve 17

air quality. 18

And I can't quantify for you how that would 19

change meeting a new ozone level, but we are not close 20

to

-- we can only

-- we're only scratching the surface 21

of the opportunities for improving local air quality 22

through changes in transportation. And what might be 23

said of Houston, Houston is a little bit

-- maybe 24

walks a little bit less than a lot of other cities, 25270

but we have enormous opportunities than most of the 1

country to do much better. 2

Furthermore, by EPA tightening its air 3

regulations, we might hope that this might lead to 4

some different r ule

- making from the Department of 5

Transportation. One way that

-- grants come in the 6

form of congestion mitigation air quality and 7

sometimes we are doing local projects to expand road 8

capacity to improve air quality, and while that might 9

improve the air temporarily by relieving bottlenecks, 10

in the long run it leaves us right where we started 11

from in having too many people driving and not enough 12

people using transit, not enough people walking, not 13

enough people using bicycles. So this is something 14

that we can do. We have lots of opportunities and 15

let's do it. Thank you. 16

MS. WEGMAN: I just want to check, you 17

said you supported 70. We propose 60 to 70. I just 18

wondered if you meant 70 specifically or you meant you 19

would support our proposed range. I just wanted to 20

check. 21

MR. BOYD: I would support the proposed 22

range. I picked 70 more or less that we need to 23

definitely make an increment somewhere, and if the 24

science tells us that we need to go lower, then we 25271

should strive to go lower. Thank you. 1

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you. 2

MR. DAVIS: My name is A.J. Davis. I'm 3

a constituent of Gene Green local. I'm not an 4

environmental expert. My science backgr ound required 5

me to take historical geology, and while I'm not an 6

environmental expert, certainly led me to understand 7

the consequences of the environment and the importance 8

of understanding it properly. And I don't believe in 9

junk science. 10

The Bible informs me that greed can lead even 11

the best of us to behave poorly when greed becomes a 12

factor. And unfortunately, I think the creation of 13

pollution is often a cost

- savings measure that we 14

don't need, unfortunately. I'll come ba ck to that in 15

a minute. 16

I

-- again, I'm not an expert. I don't know 17

the numbers. I'm not going to say any numbers. What 18

my issue is, I'm

-- I'd rather have the environment be 19

a little bit too clean than a little bit too dirty. 20

When it's a little bit too dirty, there is rampant 21

diseases, which even as laborers we end up working and 22

then we have to suffer the ill effects and end up 23

costing us what little material wealth we gain through 24

our outsourcing to medical costs. Whereas if the 25272

environment is a little bit too clean, well, maybe our 1

jobs do pay a little less but our quality of life is 2

nonetheless improved, and I think that's worth 3

stating. 4

One point I did want to make relating to 5

labor and offshoring is that pollution can also be 6

offshored as well as jobs. And if we set higher 7

standards here, sometimes it concerns me that 8

companies that do pollute here would just then move 9

their facilities overseas an d pollute there, and 10

since

-- you know, it's one atmosphere for the earth. 11

I would also

-- if we set serious standards, 12

I want to see serious regulations of some sort made to 13

protect from the import and

-- of pollution. I can't 14

do anyth ing about someone working for less money in a 15

foreign country, but if the reason we're trying to

-- 16

we lose jobs here is to protect the environment, I 17

want to make sure that it's protected overseas as 18

well. Of course, I would prefer for the jobs t o be 19

here, but that's another issue. And that's really 20

about all I have to say. Any questions? 21

MS. WEGMAN: I don't think I have any. 22

MR. DAVIS: Thank you. 23

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you for 24

comi ng. Thank you for your testimony. 25273

Angelita Sanchez and Harold Farber? 1

MS. SANCHEZ: Hi. My name is Angelita 2

Sanchez and I am motivated to being here because this 3

New Year's I decided to be more committed to something 4

else besides just recycling, and so I've been reading 5

information. And I raised five children. I don't 6

think I remember any of them having the respiratory 7

problems that my grandchildren now do. 8

And I go to visit

-- I have two older 9

d aughters now. One has four children and the other 10

one has two. Each one of them have respiratory 11

issues. I was shocked because I used to live in 12

California and I was shocked when I heard that one of 13

them had to be hospitalized to wear a mask and then 14

they got it fixed and then they had to go back in, 15

like, three weeks later. It just wasn't going away. 16

One of the daughters lives in 77506 area code 17

and they're near the refineries, the Goodyear plant, I 18

think Deer Park and Baypor t. I was really surprised 19

to hear my grandson say

-- I said, "You kids play on 20

the computer too much and watch too much cartoons. 21

Let's get outside, let's go do some gardening, pick up 22

leaves, investigate," stuff like that, because that's 23

how I grew up. 24

And they said, "We don't like to go outside." 25274

And I said, "That's too bad. You need to go 1

outside. Why don't you want to go outside?" 2

They said, "The air stinks." And you know 3

what? Now that I live in Pasad ena, I can guarantee 4

you that air stinks. And if you go out there to enjoy 5

a full moon at, like, 1:00 in the morning it's worse. 6

I'm just appalled that my daughter will even stay 7

living there. 8

I'm more appalled that the businesses

-- they 9

go to Morales Elementary and they let the children go 10

out and play. I just can't believe that. When you 11

look at her medicine cabinet and look at all this 12

allergy stuff that she has to buy, it's there now, it 13

will be there next month. It's always there. I've 14

had an opportunity now to visit several times. 15

There's always medication there. There's medication 16

at the other daughter who moved away from the Pasadena 17

area. It's still th ere. 18

My mother died in 2007 from respiratory 19

problems. The doctors wanted to know, did she smoke, 20

did she work in a factory, did she, did she, you know, 21

all this stuff. She was a homemaker and she raised us 22

and that's basically all tha t my mother ever did. She 23

never smoked, she never drank, she never did anything. 24

She died of respiratory issues. 25275

So I hope you guys can do whatever you can to 1

just really clean it up and whatever strict standards 2

need to be put in place , I would like to see them 3

there. Because you know what? Since I was a child, I 4

remember going to school and them talking about the 5

environment way back in the '50s and '60s, and you 6

know what, I don't think we've made the progress that 7

we shou ld be able to do. That's really about all I 8

have to say. 9

MS. WEGMAN: Well, that was a lot. 10

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for sharing 11

that with us. 12

DR. FARBER: I am Dr. Harold Farber. 13

I'm a pediatric pulmonologist at Baylor College of 14

Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital. I am speaking 15

as a private citizen as a content expert, not for the 16

institution. I wish to thank the person who came 17

before me for putting a very human f ace on this. 18

I want to start out by saying I concur with 19

the consensus of the scientific and medical community 20

that the EPA should strengthen ozone standards and I 21

strongly support the 0.60 part per billion [sic] 22

standard. 23

Why we need an ozone standard, again, ozone 24

is highly toxic. It's important for the air we 25276

breath. The current standards fail to protect the 1

health of millions of Americans as the Clean Air Act 2

requires. Again, we need a much tighter national air 3

quality standard. 4

The science is clear on this. Lower 5

standards

-- excuse me, higher standards do not

-- are 6

not sufficient to protect the public health. And to 7

protect the health of children, the elderly, and other 8

sensitive groups, the EPA should set the ozone 9

standard at 60 parts per billion. As you know, the 10

law requires EPA to base its decisions solely on the 11

need to protect the public health. 12

And although I'm sure you're aware of some of 13

these studies, I do wa nt to highlight them that 14

document the harm of ozone and the benefits of 15

reducing the standard to 0.6 parts per billion [sic]. 16

One of the classic studies was done in Atlanta in 1966 17

during the Olympics. And the Olympic preparations 18

included strategies to minimize traffic congestion, 19

including an integrated 24

- hour

- a

- day public 20

transportation service, closure of downtown to private 21

automobiles, alternate downtown delivery schedules. 22

With this in place, the one

- hour peak ozone 23

decreased from 81.3 parts per billion to 58.6 parts 24

per billion during the Olympic games. Associated with 25277

this, childhood asthma emergency department visits 1

dropped by 40 percent and asthma hospitalizations 2

dropped by 20 percent. Ver y, very tangible health 3

benefits associated with reductions of ozone in the 4

levels that you're proposing. 5

In Southern California, children in high 6

ozone and low ozone communities were followed. The 7

maximum one

- hour ozone averaged 50.1 i n the low ozone 8

communities and 75.4 in the high ozone communities. 9

Children in the high ozone communities who played 10

three or more sports, kids who spent more time active 11

outside, had three times the risk of developing asthma 12

as children in the low ozone communities. Again, 13

very, very tangible benefits clearly demonstrated with 14

reductions from current standard to this 0.60 or less. 15

The children's health study in Southern 16

California also showed that monthly prevalence of 17

asthma medication use was associated with monthly 18

average ozone levels, with three times the asthma 19

among children who were reported to spend more time 20

outdoors. Again, monthly summer ozone peaked at 70 to 21

100 parts per billion in the high communities, well 22

below 60 parts per billion in the low communities. 23

Again, much more asthma medication use associated with 24

higher ozone levels and less use associated with 25278

reductions to the range near a 0.6 part s per billion. 1

Among nonsmoking California university 2

students, the lifetime exposure to ozone levels above 3

60 parts per billion was associated with decreases in 4

small airways function as measured on lung function 5

tests, about a 5 to 10 percent of predicted reduction 6

associated with being in high ozone communities. 7

Again, very clear benefits of lowering ozone levels. 8

And if I take some of our most vulnerable 9

patients, patients with cystic fibrosis who have very 10

high med ical care utilization, a 10 part per billion 11

increase in ozone was associated with a 10 percent 12

increase in the odds of having two or more pulmonary 13

exacerbations. This takes years off of life of cystic 14

fibrosis patients, often requires escalation of 15

antibiotics, of therapy, frequently hospitalizations. 16

Again, I could go on but my time is short. 17

This science is clear. Current ozone 18

standards do not sufficiently protect the public 19

health. Harm to the respiratory health of childr en 20

has been clearly demonstrated at levels at or near 21

current standards and substantial benefit has been 22

clearly demonstrated with reductions to levels near 23

the proposed standard of 0.60 parts per billion. I 24

strongly endorse the reduction to 0.60 parts per 25279

billion. 1

I just wish to highlight for you the groups 2

that have also called for the 0.60 parts per billion 3

ozone ozone standard include the American Academy of 4

Pediatrics, the American Lu ng Association, the 5

American Public Health Association, and the American 6

Thoracic Society. Thank you so much. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both very much 8

for your time. Dr. Farber, it looks like you have a 9

list of studies. I think we a re familiar with them, 10

but if you would submit it for the record, that would 11

be helpful for us to have. 12

DR. FARBER: I will. Thank you. 13

MS. WEGMAN: Let me just check if we 14

have any questions. All right. Thank you v ery much. 15

DR. FARBER: Thank you. 16

(Discussion off the record.) 17

DR. FARBER: They're both published 18

studies. They're all published peer

- reviewed studies. 19

MS. WEGMAN: They are

-- but it's 20

helpful to have the public comments citing them as 21

well. 22

DR. FARBER: It very clearly documents 23

the

-- that the .60 as recommended by the Council for 24

Scientific

-- CASAC, yeah, is

-- is important, is 25280

scientific, is evidenced

- based a nd we need to go to 1

.6. So thank you. 2

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 3

Our next two speakers, Raj Natarajan and 4

Stephen Kent. Is Stephen Kent here? Okay. We'll go 5

ahead with Mr. Natarajan. 6

MR. NATARAJAN. Am I alone? 7

MS. WEGMAN: Apparently. Mr. Natarajan, 8

if you could spell your name. 9

MR. NATARAJAN: I'm sorry. My name is 10

Natarajan, N

- A

- T

- A

- R

- A

- J

- A

- N. My first name is R

- A

- J. 11

I do want to support the 60 parts per billion 12

standards you are proposing. I think you can even go 13

lower with the technologies available. My main 14

problem

-- I didn't want to talk here, but I do want 15

to point out, I don't

-- that EPA is very much 16

politicized and I hope the 60 ppb, which you are 17

proposing, and the standard can be suggested on August 18

31, 2010

-- it is going to take a few years, at least 19

until 2013. 20

And I'm sure you already know that most of 21

the EPA regulations ha ve not been followed for the 22

last eight years. It has gone haywire. And I hope 23

you can see the agonizing stories about all of these 24

people, but I think some of them will be alive to see 25281

the news standards being enforced. That's going to be 1

one of the big problems, the enforcement, and I 2

hope

-- I don't want to introduce politics here, at 3

least for the next three years. Before the next three 4

years it will be enforced. That's my prior

-- that's 5

my wish. And I wish you good luck. 6

MS. WEGMAN: Well, thank you. We 7

appreciate your coming out and talking with us today. 8

Let me check if Stephen Kent is here. Is 9

there anyone else in the audience who would like to 10

speak at this time? Come on forward. An d let me just 11

ask if you have registered to speak. 12

MR. STELLY: No, I haven't. I'm sorry. 13

MS. WEGMAN: That's all right. 14

MR. STELLY: Hi. My name is Larry 15

Stelly, S

- T

- E

- L

- L

- Y. And let me say at the out set I 16

am simply a member of the interested public, 17

interested because I like to breathe, but I am not an 18

expert in any of the statistics. 19

We've heard some heartrending stories, of 20

course, about the adverse health effects from 21

excessive ozone, not to mention other particulates in 22

the air, but

-- and that, of course, compelling as it 23

is, is only a small part of the picture. I would like 24

to address

-- first of all, let me go on record as 25282

saying that whether it's done or enforced b y the end 1

of this year or on some sort of a time schedule that 2

corporations can plan for and adhere to, I would favor 3

the 60 part per billion standard and perhaps a lower 4

one in times to come

-- 5

MS. WEGMAN: You just have to push th e 6

button and leave it on. 7

MR. STELLY:

-- as technology advances, 8

of course. But if you look at it on a strictly a 9

microeconomic basis, we know that something like 16 10

percent of our GNP is spent on health. That's about 11

twice the next highest country, which is Germany. 12

Germany's per capita GNP, even with a weak dollar, 13

strong euro, believe it or not is not any higher per 14

capita GNP than America's is, even though they have a 15

fairly homogenously well

- educated soci ety, and we 16

don't necessarily have that though we're working 17

toward it. 18

The point is, we're spending twice as much as 19

a highly advanced country like Germany. And if you 20

were to posit

-- and this is just, again, conceptual. 21

If we were to eliminate the adverse respiratory and 22

cancer and other health effects, including those of 23

kids who are not able to grow up athletic and strong 24

because they can't go out and run, put it all 25283

together, I don't think it would be unreasonable to 1

po sit that if we could control just ozone and other 2

particulates, we might have anywhere from 5 to 10 3

percent reduction of our medical expenditures. What 4

does that work out to? 5

Well, if 16 percent of 14 trillion is 6

something like 2.3 tril lion for medical, if you reduce 7

that by 5 percent you're reducing it

-- yearly medical 8

costs by maybe 115

-- by as much as 230 billion, at 9

the very least at 5 percent of 6

-- of 2.3 trillion, 10

something like $115 billion a year. 11

Now, comp are that microeconomic benefit, 12

strictly dollars and cents reduced medical expenses to 13

what it would cost to retrofit or upgrade or change 14

the source of fuel. I don't know the numbers, but 15

let's just assume perhaps $10 billion, maximum $20 16

billion nationwide, that would be

-- for the most 17

part, it would tend to be something on the order of a 18

one

- time expense, whereas the savings on a 19

health

- benefit basis would be yearly for as far as 20

future can stretch. It seems to me that the 21

m icroeconomic benefit of improved health greatly 22

outweighs the cost to industry of adhering to the 23

standards that we're talking about. 24

Now, there is legitimate concern, of course. 25284

They're saying, well, we are concerned about an 1

unknown legislative political environment. That was 2

mentioned this morning. We don't know how to plan. 3

Let's make it specific. Plan for 60 and in future 4

years plan for improved standards, not just with ozone 5

but right across the board. Plan f or it, budget for 6

it. If you have to charge a little more, that's a 7

matter that you'll have to work out perhaps with your 8

public utility commissions, but make the investment. 9

It is definitely worthwhile. That's strictly on a 10

microeconomic basis

. 11

MS. WEGMAN: Well, thank you. If you 12

have any calculations that you want to submit for the 13

record

-- 14

MR. STELLY: I wish I had because, as I 15

say, I am simply a reasonably well

- informed member of 16

the public, not an expert, but just the conceptual 17

difference between the continued annual savings in the 18

health budget of this country versus the essentially 19

relatively short

- term, one

- time benefits of enforcing 20

the technological improvements that companies would 21

have to make. 22

Coal is an enormous resource potentially. 23

Can coal be used cleanly? Well, it probably can be if 24

it's done right. But again, if the particulate 25285

restraints are there, industry would have no choice, 1

if they want to use coa l, than to do it right. 2

Scrubbers, coal gasification plants, for example. 3

We are just now coming into an era of massive 4

discoveries of natural gas from shale, as you know. 5

Louisiana, Texas, up in Pennsylvania and New York, 6

huge, huge, hu ge potential for power generation. We 7

need to go into that area, not to mention the 8

renewables, not to mention, of course, with the 9

President's comment at the State of the Union, which 10

is to consider, you know, major investment in nuclear, 11

you k now, which is clean. Take care of the disposal, 12

probably more of us got it licked and that's being 13

done. 14

So I would say enforce the lower or the 15

improved standards to 60, not just there but across 16

the board with other particulates, let industry know 17

that they've got to plan for it, plan long

- term, make 18

the investment, the country comes out way ahead. 19

One small concern might be that our 20

competitiveness against other countries, especially 21

shall we say dirty polluting cou ntries in such 22

areas

-- aspects as petrochemical products, 23

manufactured products, there may be some concern that 24

our country would have a competitive disadvantage if 25286

we improve our standards. I would submit that as a 1

country, given that industry, for example, pays 2

massively for health insurance, medical care for its 3

own employees, they would save in that respect, and 4

beyond that the country would save and there would 5

probably be reduced taxes on major income earners like 6

major industry to support whatever public health, you 7

know, programs exist. 8

And let's remember, even though public health 9

legislation plan, you know, by the administration may 10

not pass, we nonetheless have major expenditures even 11

today as the state and local level in public health. 12

That's already a taxable item which industry could be 13

relieved partly now and going on into the future. So 14

on a microeconomic basis, it makes a lot of sense. 15

And industry can plan for it

. 16

I dare say one last thing, which is way 17

beyond the purview of your department, and that is 18

this: It's been

-- it's not original with me. If we 19

import goods, services, especially goods and 20

petrochemical items from countries that are k nown to 21

be high polluters, that should be taxable, that should 22

be added. And if they exploit their workers, by 23

golly, that should be taxable. If a Chinese worker 24

doing the same thing

-- 25287

MS. WEGMAN: I am afraid we're going to 1

ha ve to wind down. 2

MR. STELLY: One last

-- I am just about 3

to wind it up. 4

If a Chinese worker makes one

- tenth what the 5

American industrial worker is, there's a

-- the ten 6

times factor. If the cost of pollution, for example, 7

is perhaps double what it is per unit of output, 8

average that in. Ten plus two over two is six. Half 9

of that, sock them and other third

- world nonconforming 10

countries with low labor standards and high pollution, 11

sock them with the tariffs. It will even out and 12

protect American domestic industry from that kind of 13

unfair competition. If

-- 14

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. I think you're going 15

to have to wind up, please. 16

MR. STELLY: Let them squeal. We are an 17

independ ent country and we are sovereign still. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. 19

Our next speakers are Garrett Butler and Anna 20

Pierce, if they're here. 21

(Discussion off the record.) 22

MS. WEGMAN: O kay. Ms. Pierce? 23

MS. PIERCE: Hi. My name is Anna 24

Pierce. That's A

- N

- N

- A P

- I

- E

- R

- C

- E. I am a recent 25288

graduate of the University of Texas at Austin. I 1

studied sustainability issues as well as social 2

justice issues, and through al l of my experience with 3

my schooling and also the organizing that I have been 4

involved with for the past five years, these issues 5

have just become incredibly important to me and the 6

people that I work with. 7

I work mostly with young people. I started 8

an organization. It's a statewide organization 9

working with youth around the state combatting climate 10

change and other environmental issues. And mostly 11

what I want to say is that

-- all the p eople that I 12

know that are my friends and my peers that I have 13

worked with, they go to school, they have jobs, and 14

they also work tirelessly day in and day out to make 15

sure that we have a just and sustainable future. 16

This is something th at we know will affect 17

our generation and will affect future generations and 18

we feel like we want to make our voices heard here 19

today. And not many people could come out because of 20

school, but I hope to be here to not only represent 21

myself but t he other folks I work with as well. And 22

we just want you to know that we very much support the 23

lowering of the emissions standards for this. We'd 24

like to see it at 60 parts per billion because we 25289

really do know that the health of not only ourselv es 1

but our communities and the entire planet are at stake 2

with this and every step that we can take to help 3

reduce emissions is going to be a really important 4

step to making sure that we have a better future for 5

ourselves and for generations to c ome. So I thank you 6

for being here today and taking these comments. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Well, thank you very much 8

for coming out and for representing yourself and your 9

fellow students. We appreciate that. 10

Is Garrett Butler here? 11

MR. BUTLER: It stinks out there today, 12

especially in this part of town. Raise your hand

-- 13

I am 58 years old

-- 14

MS. WEGMAN: I'm sorry. Could you just 15

repeat your name for the court reporter? 16

MR. BUTLER: I am Garrett Butler, 58 17

years old, born and raised in Houston, actually about 18

a half a mile from here. My two older brothers had 19

bad asthma. They were here in this part of town ten 20

years longer than I was. Then we moved over by S outh 21

Main and Post Oak not far from Houston Lighting & 22

Power and the paper mill. If anybody has been around 23

Houston they might remember that. The paper mill 24

stank real bad. 25290

At about three or four, that's when I lived 1

over there by th at paper mill. Okay. By first grade 2

I had ADD

-- they didn't know what that was back 3

then

-- OCD and dyslexia. By third grade, I was like 4

the first special education here in town until I got 5

my GED actually. At eight we moved over to 6

Tanglewo od, which was a much cleaner part of town. My 7

brothers' asthma went away. They ended up going to 8

college and never

-- in cleaner towns like Austin back 9

then and other places and never developed asthma 10

again. 11

At ten I was diagnosed

-- b ecause I had been 12

playing in Buffalo Bayou and a lot of dirty water 13

probably over there in the woods, with 14

hyperthyroidism. The Dr. Kelsey of Kelsey

- Seybold 15

Clinic sent me home one day with the radiation killed 16

my thyroid gland, put me on maximum does of Thyroxine, 17

kind of just put me on the backburner and let me burn 18

my pituitary out. Keep on telling it quit taking 19

these maximum doses, which is a natural speed. Ended 20

up driving everybody crazy until they finally figure d 21

it out at about 40. 22

Got my driver's license at 14. Dad was a 23

mortgage banker. Started coming over here and driving 24

this part of town taking pictures of foreclosures and 25291

mortgage houses put me right back here in all this 1

polluted ai r. Started developing bronchitis. Started 2

going to Freeport a lot surfing. At about 16, in and 3

out with bronchitis until I was 38 years old. 4

Moved my family to Oregon into a national 5

forest. Never got bronchitis once I left town 15 6

y ears in a national forest, never got sick. Started 7

coming back here to Houston. Last three years, in and 8

out, and had three bouts of bronchitis when I stay 9

around this city. Because I live down here on my 10

sailboat in Clear Lake and bronchitis is coming back. 11

At about ten, I developed a dust phobia. 12

Now, I'm 29 years old, I started wearing a mask just 13

because I know this particulate matter is really 14

saturated with a lot of stuff so it gives me just a 15

little bit of a psychologica l edge and actually helps. 16

Sometimes I wear the charcoals one just to take the 17

smell away. And it probably won't ever be cleaned up. 18

I'm going to keep wearing my mask, but just want 19

everybody to know that you move to the national forest 20

and you get out of this air

-- I was in the cleanest 21

part of Oregon right there on the central Oregon coast 22

where they set the standards for clean air right there 23

at Tillamook Head. Okay. Thank you. 24

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you for 25292

coming. 1

Is Stephen Kent here? Is there anyone else 2

in the audience who would like to speak right now? 3

I'm sorry, did you register? 4

MS. FARENTHOLD: No, I did not, but I'll 5

give you my name. It's F.T. Farenthold, and I'll 6

spell that. F as in Frank, A

- R

- E

- N

- T

- H

- O

- L

- D. 7

MS. WEGMAN: I want to make sure we got 8

that. I'm sorry, could you repeat your name just for 9

us? Because we don't have it. 10

MS. FARENTHOLD: Francis T. Farentho ld. 11

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 12

MS. FARENTHOLD: And I am going to say 13

that this resonates with me, because more than 30 14

years ago as a resident of Corpus Christi I appeared 15

before what was then the Clean Air

-- Clean Air Agency 16

of the state. And I was later in the Legislature when 17

we established Earth Day and so on and so forth. So I 18

have keenly watched, especially because I am from 19

Corpus Christi and the Coast and so forth, the process 20

in this state and I than k you for coming. I hope you 21

will stick with your guns whatever those decisions are 22

because this state government is incapable, as it is 23

organized and implemented, to protect the people of 24

this state. And I think you've heard enough of that 25293

today. 1

So I thank you for being here. It is a 2

wonderful experience after these 30 years of great 3

frustration, both in and out of office, to find people 4

so receptive about the concerns of the citizenry. And 5

thank you. 6

MS. WEGMAN: Well, thank you very much 7

for taking the time to come today. We appreciate it. 8

Is there anyone else in the room who hasn't 9

spoken who would like to speak at this point? Okay. 10

If not, I think we will take a break at least for 15 11

minutes and we'll see if others show up. Thank you 12

all. 13

(Break.) 14

MS. WEGMAN: So the next speakers are 15

Stephen Kent and Albert Sosa. 16

(Discussion off the record.) 17

MR. KENT: So I am going to do a 18

presentation and this is basically off the TCEQ Web 19

site and it's available to everybody. And it shows 20

you the events that have happened as far as ozone. 21

Unfortunately, the TCEQ is not obligated to produce a 22

daily path of the ozone through our atmosphere, just 23

when it goes over a certain amount. As a matter of 24

fact, it's, like, 125 in Houston, but, you know, 25294

humans being weaker or Houstonians being tougher, ours 1

is actually above the trigger for Dallas or San 2

Antonio or any other part of Texas. And talking with 3

the people, it turns out that they had too many events 4

that they had to chart if they kept us at the same 5

level as the rest of Texas. 6

Particulates are my field, really. Ozone is 7

ju st a sideline. I'm going to start a video and I'll 8

talk through it as soon as I sign in. Sorry. Okay. 9

This is really from

-- I was a teacher in 10

high school chemistry and this is really from them. 11

This is a map of our analyzers around th e city. All 12

these yellow things, you can get it off the TCEQ Web 13

site. A little more close you can see one of them. 14

Ozone is a product of organic compounds, 15

nitrogen oxides. And now what we're going to do

-- 16

I'll tell you the rest of this stuff while this rolls, 17

but basically we're looking to see all the barbecue 18

pits and lawnmowers that are causing the ozone like 19

our Governor says. And he does this with TCEQ, who 20

tells me that they're not obligated to protect the 21

public hea lth, that they have a lot of decisions on 22

the table, you don't know all of it. I know I got a 23

kid that's not feeling good. I know when I was 24

teaching the kids knew when the air was bad. They 25295

knew it was bad when the ozone was high. They knew it 1

was bad when particulates were high. And why did 2

they? 3

Because we got right up front with it and we 4

started trying to get the TCEQ information, which they 5

should release every five minutes when they get it, 6

but they hold on to it for an hour average, an hour 7

and a half after it happens. So somebody is actually 8

in the path of that red dot. Or when it begins

-- 9

you'll see it goes different ways, and that just 10

depends on which way the wind is blowing . Some are 11

worse than others. After this video, you should be 12

able to tell where you really don't want to live in 13

Houston because that is in the direct path. 14

Now, if you look, there's a little spot in 15

here that is the

-- anyway, a litt le spot in here, 16

that's the ship channel. Okay. It takes a little 17

while for ozone to form because you have to have 18

volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, 19

ultraviolet light and a spot for that reaction to 20

occur, and that's particulates, PM 2.5, which we have a 21

problem with in Houston as well. 22

So you're starting to see why this area to 23

the west is a problem. And we only have the problem 24

with higher ozone numbers or particulates when there's 25296

no wind because it just hangs. Otherwise, they're 1

counting on the diurnal winds to bring the air out to 2

the ocean and bring it back in and, you know, save us. 3

Well, you know, it doesn't always work that 4

way and you end up with students that are in a 5

classroom that are obviously getting a higher 6

concentration of ozone in their homes or in the school 7

where they happen to be when the ozone cloud passes 8

than other students which are outside of the path. So 9

we think everything is equal for students and 10

everything be on a tax basis, nobody is guaranteeing 11

the equal air for each one of these students that are 12

in a classroom. 13

I was in one classroom and all of a sudden 14

they were tarring the roof next to us while they were 15

taking a TAKS s cience test. I go, are you crazy? I 16

said kids are getting sick. How can they take a TAKS 17

test and concentrate when they have this in their 18

nose? And as it happens, there's also welders going 19

on. Welders generate manganese. Manganese goes 20

st raight up the optic nerve into the brain, reduces 21

the brain capacity. 22

Lead obviously is a problem. We had 23

enough

-- 7 trillion pounds of it thrown across our 24

nation while we were putting lead in gasoline. This 25297

also hurts our students. So there's no equality. 1

When we talk equal testing, there's no equality. 2

Somebody is getting this, somebody else doesn't. 3

But if there were a batch of people that 4

thought they'd like to have a batch of ozone and not 5

reduce our standard, I have an ozone generator and we 6

could ramp them right up. They want to have that in 7

their nose, we can have it. But that's a rule that's, 8

like, 75 part per billion over an hour period or an 9

eight

- hour period. Well, they went to the eight

- hour 10

period because they failed so often under the hour 11

period. 12

This is really sort of hitting you at the end 13

of the day. Anyway, so the

-- so if you take the same 14

basis across the city, you can see that one

-- I live 15

up in Kingwood but I got hit and you can actually 16

smell it. Students could smell it. Coming in the 17

classroom, they'd say, it smells like it does outside 18

in here. It should. I have the cleanest filters and 19

everything else. So

-- 20

MS. WEGMAN: Mr. Kent, I just want to 21

let you know your time is up so if you can just try to 22

wrap it up. 23

MR. KENT: Great. I'll wrap up. 24

So the standard ought to change. It hurts 25298

people's health. It's not onerous. It 's getting it 1

to ready stage. I don't see a barbecue pit or a 2

lawnmower causing any of these things. And if anybody 3

wants to suck in enough ozone, I can make it happen. 4

Because it can happen in 75 part per billion. If you 5

take that over a five

- minute period, it's 7,200 part 6

per billion and if you say, oh, well, they're over 200 7

times what they report based on emission factors on 8

their methanes or volatile organic compounds, we'll 9

just ramp it up 2,000 times. That gives them 3.6 10

milli on part per billion

-- 3.6 million part per 11

billion, 3.6 percent in their air in a five

- minute 12

period and we'll see what happens. 13

Anyway, that's a site. That's in back of a 14

school. And the other site is right in back of a 15

library. So this is right in the middle of us and 16

we're not next to the ship channel. Thank you. 17

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you very much. 18

Are you Albert Sosa? 19

MR. SOSA: Yes, ma'am. 20

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Great. And let me 21

just check. Is Scarlett Russell here? Okay. We'll 22

have both of you come up since we like to try to have 23

two folks at a time. 24

MR. SOSA: So I just speak into this? 25299

MS. WEGMAN: Yes, and if you can just 1

spell your name for the court reporter, please. 2

MR. SOSA: A

- L

- B

- E

- R

- T

- O and Sosa is 3

S

- O

- S

- A. 4

All right. I believe that

-- I'm not

-- just 5

a student so I believe that the Clean Air Act should 6

provide other solutions to this problem, not only by 7

reducing the amount of ozone emissions but providing a 8

solution such as carbon sinks specially in the forms 9

of trees along the side of the road as a buffer for a 10

sidewalk to make ped estrian travel more desirable 11

because car emission helps produce ozone. 12

Also, I believe the EPA should approach this 13

issue holistically and join with the education 14

department and educate the youth and provide

-- help 15

provide education to inspire young leaders in the 16

environment movement. Okay. Thank you. 17

MS. WEGMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. 18

I am just wondering, can we get the lights? 19

Thank you. So we can see people. 20

Let me just say, because we have a bunch of 21

new folks here. The way we're doing this is we call 22

people up two at a time and we ask, in general, it's 23

fine if both people stay until both people are done 24

speaking. And for purposes of the court reporter, if 25300

you could spell your name when you come up so she can 1

keep track of who's talking. 2

MS. RUSSELL: Hello. My name is 3

Scarlett Russell, S

- C

- A

- R

- L

- E

- T

- T R

- U

- S

- S

- E

- L

- L. 4

Hello. How's it going? Thanks for coming 5

down here tod ay to talk to us. Appreciate it. I'm 6

not a scientist by any means so I'm not going to sit 7

here and rattle off a bunch of statistics about 8

pollution. What I am is a person that's lived in 9

Houston for the past 11 years. I'm also a community 10

org anizer. What that means is that I directly go to 11

the public and knock on their doors from 4:00 p.m. to 12

9:00 p.m. I meet about 50 people on average per 13

night. And I go to canvas on environmental and social 14

justice. 15

And what I have seen in my several months 16

canvassing here in the Houston area is a lot of sick 17

children, a lot of asthma, a lot of lung disease, a 18

lot of cancer everywhere, a lot of sick elderly people 19

that are suffering day in and day out. The amount of 20

pollution surrounding us, it's insane how many 21

refineries and smokestacks there are surrounding this 22

city. 23

There is a lot of distraction by, you know, 24

urban sprawl out there that's not quite in the 25301

pollution, and, you know, there's gorgeous downto wn 1

with their hypnotizing skyscrapers, but there is a 2

reality of pollution here. 3

And one of the things that keeps, you know, 4

community organizers going is the passion for the 5

better good of human kind, whether it's social 6

justice, whether it's better environmental policies, 7

anything. And I'm sure that's why you guys are in 8

this set today, right? Because you care about humans, 9

you care about the environment. Your job is to 10

protect the environment, be defenders. 11

So as an environmentalist and a community 12

organizer, I do definitely feel that same passion 13

towards that, as I'm sure you all four feel today. 14

You wouldn't be here if you didn't understand the dire 15

importance of protecting the environmen t that we live 16

in. This is a wonderful opportunity for you guys to 17

make a step towards protecting us, the public 18

health

-- the public for our health and to protect the 19

environment and have it be clean and as safe as 20

possible for future generatio ns. 21

So I definitely urge you on behalf of myself 22

and hundreds upon thousands of people that I've seen 23

suffering, please, please lower it to 60 parts per 24

billion. It's a good step. 25302

Another good step to take is renewable 1

energy . We don't need anymore coal plants. You can't 2

deny that the technology is rapidly advancing in 3

renewable energy. It's getting more and more 4

increasingly affordable. There's a lot of opposition 5

from the polluters, but they don't have our best 6

interests in mind. They have their pocketbooks in 7

mind, the amount of money that they rake in from 8

raping, excuse my language, the earth and our health. 9

Please reduce it to 60 parts per billion and 10

definitely do some investment in renewable ener gy. 11

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you very much. Our 12

next speakers, Michael Drab and Anna Fisher. 13

MR. DRAB: Michael Drab, M

- I

- C

- H

- A

- E

- L 14

D

- R

- A

- B. 15

I'm here. I'm a student at U of H. I'm a 16

freshman. And I'm not going to talk about, you know, 17

scientific things or, you know, health hazards or 18

anything like that. I am going to talk about the 19

future of where this city will be if it doesn't do 20

anything to stop the pollution that's happening. One 21

of my favorite hobbies to do is to walk around to see 22

things, to look at, you know, random things, but 23

whenever I can't find new things to look at, whenever 24

everything is getting old, I can always look up to the 25303

sky. I've done that since I was a kid. 1

My grandparents own a ranch out in central 2

Texas and I used to sit out there in the middle of the 3

night and lay on my back and look at the stars. And 4

out there, you wouldn't believe, the stars are 5

amazing. You can look up in the sky and it's 6

co mpletely dark but the light shining on you will make 7

you feel like it's bright day. And not in the same 8

way that you see here in Houston, where it never gets 9

dark. 10

I look up at the stars here, or I try to at 11

least, and I see a deep purple sky with pink clouds. 12

It's like, okay, if you don't think that that's 13

unnatural or you don't think that that's, you know

-- 14

I mean, just the most disgusting thing you've ever 15

seen, whether it be, you know, a differe nt color than 16

other places and it's different, it's still something 17

that's not natural for me to look at. 18

And I can't see the stars it's so thick. You 19

can't even see light permeating off just the light 20

bulb because the orange is so thic k around it. And I 21

know that if I ever have kids and it keeps going like 22

this, the only thing that they'll have to think about 23

stars is me telling them they used to be out there but 24

all you can see is pink and purple now. And that's 25304

one thing t hat deeply saddens me because everyone 1

needs the stars to look at. It's motivation. It's 2

something to say, you know, there's something better, 3

there's something that will always have energy, 4

there's something that can live off of its own

-- you 5

know. I don't know much about stars. I just like to 6

look at them, you know. So it's just something 7

beautiful to look at and everyone needs to see that. 8

If we keep going this way, no one will be able to see 9

them. And that's all I have to say. 10

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 11

MS. FISHER: Hi, my name is Anna Fisher, 12

A

- N

- N

- A F

- I

- S

- H

- E

- R. I'm also a student at the 13

University of Houston and I've lived in Texas since I 14

was in fourth grade. That's eight years old or 15

something. And you grow up hearing about all these 16

things like acid rain or how the pollution is getting 17

worse. And you know, in your geography class you keep 18

learning about pollution, how you can stop it. And at 19

the same time in our physics c lass you're learning 20

about the renewable energy that's coming out, all the 21

new technologies that are coming out and then at the 22

same time you're learning about all the new companies 23

that are coming out and all the new companies that 24

keep growing and how you can go into business and how 25305

you can go into oil company and how there's all these 1

wonderful opportunities to intern for an oil company. 2

And it's just so strange that people don't see the 3

correlation between one and the other. 4

And I have gotten involved in the 5

environmental club in my high school. I'm not 6

incredibly active, but it's just the idea that I care 7

and it's so saddening to think there are so many 8

people there who don't realize that one thing is 9

correlated to the other. 10

And my mom is from Mexico City and my dad is 11

from England. And we go to Mexico three times a year, 12

and I feel the difference when I go. I don't feel it 13

here. Luckily, I haven't been affected by the smog 14

here, but I know that when I go to Mexico City my eyes 15

water when I walk outside. And you get used to it 16

after a few days, but there it's, like, normal to see 17

people walking around with a face

- covering mask 18

because the pollution is so bad. 19

And when I go to England and I visit my 20

grandma in the north, it's open fields. When we go to 21

Scotland, it's beautiful fresh air and I

-- it's so 22

easy to see the contrast. And right now I feel that 23

Houston is that place that's in the m iddle and I've 24

seen

-- I feel like I've seen both sides, and I'm just 25306

hoping that we can take some sort of right steps so 1

that Houston makes the step towards being greener and 2

having cleaner air more like England and so it doesn't 3

become somethin g like Mexico City, which I'm hoping 4

they're going to be able to fix that, too, but we'll 5

see. And that's pretty much it. Thank you. 6

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both for coming. 7

Thank you for your testimony. 8

Josh Malone and Ji m Williams. 9

MR. MALONE: Hi, guys. My name is 10

Joshua Malone, J

- O

- S

- H

- U

- A M

- A

- L

- O

- N

- E. 11

So I am speaking to you as the president of 12

the Environmental Club at the University of Houston. 13

I'm an intern with the nonprofit advoca cy group, 14

Environment Texas and just a concerned citizen most of 15

all. 16

I'm 22 and I've spent just about 20 of those 17

years living in Houston. And, you know, it's enough 18

for me to think that all these reports about how bad 19

Houston's smog is, all these horrible health reports, 20

it's enough to make me think that for a large portion 21

of my life maybe this is just the way it is. But I am 22

glad you guys are here because I think it's showing 23

everybody that it doesn't have to be this way. 24

And I think at this point I would hope the 25307

health concerns are obvious. Our air quality laws I 1

think have protected business at the expense of

-- at 2

the expense of our citizens. And the Environmental 3

Club

-- if I could direct everyone to the huge 4

phonebooks I have stacked in my hands, Environmental 5

Texas and myself have been canvassing the University 6

of Houston just this past week and we have collected 7

over just

-- actually exactly 365 petitions asking the 8

EPA to do the right thing. Thank you. 9

And one for

-- you know, one for every day of 10

the year just about. And it's just asking for, you 11

know, seemingly the most basic of needs, clean air. 12

And it's such a seemingly simple request, but it's 13

something that mo st other cities take for granted. 14

And I hope that you heed this request from these 15

nearly 400 young students and these young Houstonians 16

and the countless others with premature emphysema or 17

asthma or other lung diseases. 18

And you know, I am not naive. I know this 19

probably isn't an easy decision and you have likely 20

other interests you have to weigh, too, but

-- but I 21

am still

-- I still have enough faith in our 22

government that they still have the public health's 23

best interest at heart and I just ask that you do the 24

right thing. Thank you. 25308

MS. WEGMAN: I just want to assure you 1

that the reason that we have made this proposal to 2

revise the standard is because of Lisa Jackson, the 3

Administrator, EPA's concern about public health and 4

the environment and the concern that the standard be 5

clearly grounded in the science. So I want to assure 6

you that is very much on all of our minds. 7

I should have asked this of other folks, but 8

maybe you can speak to this question. Do you support 9

any particular number for the ozone standard between a 10

level of 60 and 70 parts per billion that we've 11

noticed? 12

MR. MALONE: Yes, I think the level of 13

60 parts per b illion is

-- been very acceptable. And 14

from the reports I've seen and from the research I 15

have done, it would make a big difference. 16

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 17

MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Jim Williams, 18

J

- I

- M W

- I

- L

- L

- I

- A

- M

- S. I am the Chair of the local 19

Sierra Club, the Houston group, but I'm here more as a 20

private citizen than anything else. 21

I was on my way to a doctor's appointment at 22

the medical center and I happened to pass by the 23

Methodist Hospital, and sitting there on the table was 24

a blurb about ozone. And I picked it up and when I 25309

went to my appointment, I sat there and read it. And 1

I was just dumbfounded, flabbergasted at really how 2

bad Methodist Hospital said ozone was. It burns the 3

lungs like a sunburn. 4

I was in Mexico City here sometime back and I 5

find that they use ozone the same way we use chlorine 6

to purify water. I mean, when you think about 7

chlorine and ozone, I mean, it's really bad for your 8

lungs. 9

I further read more in the Methodist Hospital 10

brochure and it said that it's particularly bad for 11

seniors. And I'm a senior. It's particularly bad for 12

kids and it's really bad for kids with asthma. And 13

it's bad for people who are sens itive to ozone. So

-- 14

and it's just bad for everybody else. I mean, it's 15

not particularly bad but it is bad. 16

So we need to get ground ozone down to 17

reasonable limits. As I've been in Houston for 36 18

years, my respiratory problems have increased over the 19

years. I used to take one Dristan and that would 20

handle it. Now I am on two decongestants and 21

antihistamines twice a day and I rinse my nose with 22

saltwater. It's

-- we need to clean up the air here 23

in Houston. And ozone, 60 parts per million [sic] 24

would be a good target. Thank you. 25310

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 1

much for coming. 2

Our next speakers are Bridget Jensen and 3

Gracen Sheni. 4

MS. JENSEN: Hello, I'm Bridget Je nsen, 5

B

- R

- I

- D

- G

- E

- T, last name Jensen, J

- E

- N

- S

- E

- N. 6

First of all, I want to thank y'all for the 7

long day that y'all have spent here. I know it's been 8

a very long day and I appreciate the attention that 9

you're giving to everybody who is testifying before 10

you. So thank you. 11

I come tonight after my workout with my high 12

school track team and so I come from that, and my 13

concern is for these student athletes that I coach. I 14

don't want them to go through

-- live through the same 15

story that I have. Back in the summer of 1995, I was 16

hospitalized for a month with a very severe case of 17

pneumonia. The doctors went in to do a scope of my 18

lungs and they found severe scar tissue, and they said 19

where in the world could this have come from. 20

And the only thing I could think of is back 21

when I was a graduate student a Cal Tech in Pasadena, 22

California, I would go out and train on my bicycle 23

around the Rose Bowl . And sure enough, you couldn't 24

see the San Gabriel Mountains, even though they were 25311

just a couple of miles away. And I would come in from 1

those workouts

-- here I'm trying to stay in shape

-- 2

literally curling up in the fetal position wheezing. 3

And it hurt. So I

-- that's the only place I can 4

think of of where my lung scar tissue came from. So 5

that

-- so I obviously have depressed lung function. 6

And it came back to me just a couple years 7

ago. I am training for the world age group duathlon 8

championships. And it's the summertime and I'm 9

training pretty hard, and sure enough I come down and 10

I get hospitalized again with pneumonia. So I don't 11

dare go outside and train anymore in the summertime. 12

And here, it s eems so ironic that here we 13

have this obesity issue, an epidemic in this country. 14

They're asking people to go and exercise. And it's 15

great to go outside and exercise for our mental 16

health, to get our vitamin D up, but if we're just 17

going to be exposing them to levels of ozone that's 18

going to create more problems for them with their 19

lungs, we'll just be trading an epidemic of obesity 20

for an epidemic of depressed or impaired lung 21

function. So I don't know what good that's go ing to 22

do. 23

We're obviously going to have to make 24

changes. People have talked about the changes to our 25312

energy systems but also there may be

-- have to be 1

changes to our food systems that will affect our rural 2

counties. Maybe farmers w ill have to go to less 3

tillage of the soil, perhaps we need to be thinking 4

about less transportation of our food so we cut down 5

on transportation. We just eat more locally things. 6

So the point is, is that there's

-- the 7

changes that we are going to have to make will affect 8

all of our society and not just the industry, not just 9

individuals, all of us. And as a coach, I stress to 10

my track team, granted, we have these individual 11

events that we strive for, but it is a team sport. 12

Our attitude and our efforts affects the team. And 13

it's that way, too, in the United States. 14

I want corporations and individuals to see 15

this effort to safeguard the quality of our air as a 16

team effort. And I would like to see that the EP A 17

adopt 60 parts per billion ozone as I believe that 18

that is what will safeguard the air quality for 19

everyone. And so I might even venture back outside 20

and train in the summertime. Because I believe that 21

our greatest resource in the country is our human 22

resource and our human resource that's educated and 23

healthy, and to have that we need to have healthy air. 24

Thank you. 25313

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 1

much. 2

MS. SHENI: Gracen Sheni, G

- R

- A

- C

- E

- N 3

S

- H

- E

- N

- I. 4

Good evening. I'm Gracen. I'm a student at 5

the University of Houston. I'm a sophomore. Active 6

member in Environmental Club. Took part as public 7

relations director. And I really enjoy so much about 8

the environment. I mean, all my life I have just been 9

as about as passionate of a kid as you could find, 10

just wanting to be in the clean air, you know, just 11

wanting to really protect what God gave us and just 12

see the beauty in how everything has been. And I 13

really

-- I am so

-- I mean, it's very disappointing 14

to see the effect that

-- the unfortunate effects that 15

we as a society put on such large cities as Houston. 16

I mean, I have a Planet Earth series DVD and 17

it 's just incredible to see the difference. You know, 18

we've turned one type of

-- they seem like two 19

different words, honestly. You know, it's just 20

incomparable the look of clean air versus

-- you know, 21

clean sky versus, you know, the smog that we have come 22

to see today, unfortunately. 23

And I just want to keep it kind of concise, 24

but personally my grandmother, she was on an oxygen 25314

tank for the majority of her life. And growing up 1

just with her, I was

-- I was so disheartened, I 2

didn't think

-- I still today think that, you know, no 3

one should grow up or be born into a society where 4

they have to worry about the air that they're 5

breathing or, you know, stepping outside and thinking, 6

you know, am I going to get

-- are my l ungs going to 7

be blackened or

-- you know, it's just

-- it's 8

saddening to think that we have to have that burden on 9

our back throughout daily life sometimes today, when I 10

know in the past that was never an issue and people 11

just lived, you know, p eacefully and it was the way 12

things

-- I think the way God intended us to live. 13

And so I think the most important thing about 14

this, we have such an amazing opportunity to act now 15

and join together with all of our shared common belief 16

pro tecting the environment to just get us back

-- 17

restore and preserve for the future the air that we 18

have that will be here today and tomorrow and the next 19

day after that and generations and so on as you can 20

imagine, but, you know, if not for us, jus t think of 21

what we could do for the people that we can't

-- we 22

won't see. It's kind of hard to imagine, but it's 23

such a

-- such a huge surreal type of realization when 24

we think about it that way. 25315

And also, I just wanted to say, I mean, I 1

think a lot of issues concerning the environment in 2

general, it's a lot about time and awareness. Because 3

we are running out of time, I think, and if

-- in 4

terms of, you know, 60 parts

-- I mean, I'm so 5

steadfastly for that number instead of 70. I'll tell 6

you why. Because why wait? Why

-- why save the 70 7

for a later time, you know? It's now or never, you 8

know. It's got to be acting now or

-- I mean, we 9

can't

-- we'll never know the

-- we'll never know what 10

could have been. 11

So if we're given that chance, I say just go 12

for it and let's see what will happen if

-- what's the 13

worst, you know? They'll deny it, but over time 14

they'll see that they were wrong and that we'll need 15

to change the standards. So I mean, it's kind of a 16

win

- win situation. I think people will start getting 17

it so hopefully we can change more people's mind to 18

see the light in it. So thank you very much. 19

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. Than k you both 20

very much. 21

Our next two speakers, Phil Walk and 22

Carondelet Dember. Have I got this right? Is that 23

either

-- is Phil Walk here? Okay. Great. 24

Carondelet Dember? What about Diane Aguirre? 25316

MR. WALK: My name i s Phil Walk, P

- H

- I

- L 1

W

- A

- L

- K. I'm a student at University of Houston. 2

Until recently I worked with Scarlett, she spoke 3

earlier, and also Diane with the Texas Campaign for 4

the Environment. We actually canvassed on electronics 5

waste takeback laws

. 6

But ozone is something that I guess I care a 7

little more about just because it does affect us, 8

like, right here. And moved down here from, like, a 9

town outside of Philadelphia when I was eight years 10

old or so, and I didn't know what an ozone day was. I 11

didn't know what ozone was. And my dad works

-- or he 12

worked for a chemical plant who was in charge of 13

getting air permits and paying fines, working with the 14

TCEQ and EPA and stuff like that , and he always talked 15

about

-- I remember when he talked about changing the 16

one

- hour standard to the eight

- hour standard and it 17

was

-- I actually did a science fair project in middle 18

school about, like, creating ozone. I used big 19

plastic bags a nd had these strips with zanidine 20

(phonetic) and it reacted to the ozone. 21

I mean, it's a big problem here and, I mean, 22

sure, anyone who lives in Houston has been outside on 23

an ozone day in the summer and just how uncomfortable 24

it can get , not only the heat but the fact that you 253 17

know that you are breathing something that is 1

unhealthy. And it's not just, like, particulate 2

matter in the air, which is something else that 3

definitely needs to be addressed, but I think lowering 4

it to

-- or lowering that limit to 60 parts per 5

billion is definitely a step in the right direction. 6

And I mean, if it's

-- it is the Environmental 7

Protection Agency. I think

-- I mean that does show, 8

like, a proactive step, I guess, and maybe working o n 9

stepping up to that name, I guess. 10

And I don't know, because I am kind of 11

saddened, really, like there are so many problems that 12

we face today that I kind of feel like we've trashed 13

our planet in a way. And I mean, people who are 14

younger than me, kids today, I feel badly for them 15

because, I mean, our lifestyle

-- I mean, every time I 16

turn on a TV or start my car up, I mean, I am 17

contributing to, you know, the lowering of their 18

quality of life, I suppose. 19

And it 's something that I think has been 20

delayed for a long time and I want to see that change. 21

I want to

-- I want to actually have some hope for 22

maybe having kids of my own and not wanting them to, 23

you know, grow up with asthma or cancer. I haven't 24

had anything like that. 25318

So I think I've said my peace and I really

-- 1

I really want to see that 60 parts per billion 2

standard. And thank you. 3

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 4

MS. AGUIRRE: My name is Diane, 5

D

- I

- A

- N

- E, Aguirre, A

- G

- U

- I

- R

- R

- E. And I'm also a 6

student at the University of Houston and I work for 7

the Texas Campaign For the Environment as well. 8

But yeah, I'm really up here because I am 9

graduating in May and, like, I want to stay here but 10

it's just so terrible. I mean, we canvassed on ozone 11

for a couple of days last week and just, like, the 12

reactions that we got from people, like, every other 13

person I talked to, yeah, my child has asthma, yeah, 14

my niece, you know. It really affects a lot of people 15

in this area and it's just, like, the idea of, you 16

know, building a career and a family here, that just 17

is not that appealing to me at this point in time 18

because

-- because of that. I mean, it's just

-- I 19

mean, just the disregard that there is for the public 20

health is pretty appalling. 21

But I really wanted to comment on, like, what 22

a no brainer this is, really. I mean, the 23

Environmental Protection Agency, you know, got to w ork 24

to protect the public health and this is, you know

-- 25319

has all the science behind it. It's going to, you 1

know, help a lot of people, really. It's a small step 2

that's going to make a really big difference. 3

And I also wanted to commen t on the reactions 4

that I got while we were canvassing on this. I mean, 5

most people were for it but, of course, when you talk 6

to 50 people a day on one particular issue, of course 7

you're going to find people that are going to be like, 8

no, I don' t like what you're doing, I don't agree with 9

this. But the reactions that we got from them are 10

really just I would say flippant. I mean, they really 11

didn't have anything to, you know, back up their 12

disagreement in any way rather than except for, you 13

know

-- well, I really don't know. I mean, it's just 14

like no, I don't want this. It was really not 15

anything that you could build a dialogue on. 16

But yeah, if you'll, you know

-- lowering, 17

you know

-- lowering it down to 60 parts per billion, 18

there's really just, from what I've read, like, a lot 19

of good evidence to support that. That is going to 20

help a lot of people in the long run. And yeah, I 21

guess I am done. 22

MS. WEGMAN: I want to say thank you. I 23

also want to say that

-- to all of you folks who are 24

here, have some hope and faith for the future. With 25320

all of you here and all of you working as hard as you 1

are to try to protect the environment, I have a lot of 2

faith in the future. 3

So Carondelet Dember? Okay. Alejandro 4

Savransky. Is Alejandro here? Okay. Great. And 5

Anastasia Ozain. 6

Oh, and I want to make sure folks know, if 7

you want to speak and you haven't registered yet, 8

please register at our registration desk by 7:30. We 9

are going to

-- we'll stay to listen to everybody 10

who's registered by 7:30, but if you haven't 11

registered by then we are going to try to cut it off. 12

We have a court reporter who is getting very tired. 13

MR. SAVRANSK Y: My name is Alejandro 14

Savransky. It's A

- L

- E

- J

- A

- N

- D

- R

- O S

- A

- V

- R

- A

- N

- S

- K

- Y. 15

I'm the field organizer for Environment Texas over a 16

statewide citizen

- based environmental service 17

organization working on clean air, clean water and 18

healthy spaces. We have about 20,000 members and 19

supporters across the state. We're based in Austin. 20

We do our work across the state. And we're here 21

definitely speaking in support of the science

- based 22

standard of 60 parts per billion. 23

I've been doing environmental work in 24

organizing for the past four, almost five years. I 25321

started in Miami, Florida. My first job was a 1

canvasser. I knocked on people's doors to talk about 2

environmental issues. I knocked on a lot of d oors for 3

many years and then I moved to L.A. to also work on a 4

canvassing campaign. 5

In L.A., one of the things that really struck 6

me is driving into L.A., you can actually see the 7

smog. It is so thick and it's something that really 8

st rike

-- it strikes everyone. Some people, I just 9

think, you see all the time commuting into L.A., but I 10

just could not help but notice it. 11

And I've been very, very fortunate to live in 12

Texas for the past two years. I think this is one of 13

the best places in the world. It's an amazing state. 14

I live in Austin and I came to Houston for the first 15

time roughly a year ago. And Houston has a bad 16

reputation. Coming here for the first time, I 17

remember thinking, oh, I am not going to li ke it, it's 18

not going to be a nice place. I think it's a 19

wonderful place and coming here I think it's a 20

beautiful place, beautiful open parks, open spaces. 21

There's an amazing light rail. 22

And one of the things that struck me also is 23

ju st there's great people, people that have a lot of 24

issues, a lot of environmental issues, especially 25322

clean air. I've had the privilege of canvassing in 1

places like Baytown, Galena Park, and just knocking on 2

people's doors and talking to them and hearing the 3

horror stories of how these people that live so close 4

to refineries and how affected they've been by the 5

quality of the air. And these people deserve better. 6

Texans deserve better. Houstonians deserve better. 7

And we

-- we've tried to ask legislators to 8

take action and they haven't. We've asked Texas 9

Commission on Environmental Quality to take action and 10

they haven't. We need the EPA to step in and take 11

action. There seems t o be no other way for clean air 12

in Texas than federal action and we really hope that 13

you take that action and actually finally adopt the 60 14

parts per billion standard. So thank you very much. 15

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 16

M S. OZAIN: Hello, my name is Anastasia 17

Ozain. That's A

- N

- A

- S

- T

- A

- S

- I

- A, last name O

- Z as in 18

zebra, A

- I

- N. I am actually not a part of the 19

Environmental Group at U of H, but I am a student and 20

I just wanted to say that a lot of people say that 21

w ater is a source of life, but for humans it's air. I 22

mean, you can go three days without water, but how 23

long can you go without air? And we often use the 24

phrase "I am going to get some fresh air." Why? 25323

Because air is supposed to be refreshing an d 1

restoring. And if you can't get that when you go 2

outside, if you can't get that when you walk down the 3

street, then why do we have it? You know, what's the 4

need of it? 5

And it's like when you have polluted air and 6

you have air that is contaminated, you exhale to 7

inhale

-- inhale fresh air. But if you're inhaling 8

something that is just as bad as what you exhale, 9

what's the point of exhaling at all? I mean, 10

that's

-- I mean, and it's true. If life

-- air is 11

supposed to be the source of life, it's what we need, 12

and it's so sad because

-- I'm in the health field and 13

it's so sad to see so many

-- a three

- year

- old catch 14

pneumonia and it's summertime. You know, it's like, 15

why is he getting sick? And another seven

- year

- old 16

who has cancer and a doctor tells her she only has six 17

months to live. It's sad. 18

All of these

-- all of these things are 19

happening, and it's not

-- it's not anything genetic. 20

It's something that is the cause

-- i s caused by 21

pollution. And we know this and we have done nothing 22

about it and it's very saddening and I believe that we 23

should try and do something to help these kids because 24

they have to live on. And if they can't even make it 25324

to their tenth b irthday, then how do we expect to have 1

a new generation of healthy individuals? And it's a 2

very sad thing. 3

It's something I wish we could reverse, but 4

we can't reverse time. We can only try and move and 5

prevent and try and restore. So let's try to restore 6

the air, therefore, we can restore life. Thank you. 7

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both. 8

James Rinf and Judy Emerson? 9

MR. RINE: My name is James Rine. 10

That's R

- I

- N

- E. I am a

-- I am a member of Oil Patch 11

Democrats, which is an organization that supports a 12

rational energy policy for this nation. I am also a 13

research geologist and have been in the 14

petroleum

- related research for the last 30 year s or 15

so. 16

I moved to Houston about six years ago. I 17

was happy to come back to Houston. But I

-- just 18

personally I wasn't happy in the afternoons when I 19

went to go ride my bike

-- I usually ride about 60 to 20

100 miles a week

-- that I k ept hearing ozone 21

warnings. So personally I am for the lower standards. 22

Also, for my son, when he visits me I can feel more 23

comfortable that he goes outside. 24

But personally, being in the oil industry or 25325

related industry for the last 30 years, I am proud of 1

the work I've done but I'm very disappointed by my 2

industry and the state government of my adopted state 3

of Texas that it thinks of short

- term profits. They 4

put it in a higher value than the health of the 5

general population. And then on the other side, we 6

then refuse or want to deny general healthcare to the 7

people we sicken by the bad air. 8

So I firmly support the lower standards and I 9

thank you for your time sitting on this panel. 10

MS. WEGMAN : Thank you for your time. 11

MS. EMERSON: Judy Emerson, J

- U

- D

- Y 12

E

- M

- E

- R

- S

- O

- N. I

-- I'm a grandma and I've got

-- I 13

can't even count how many I've got anymore. I gave 14

up. But I have four here in Houston, and so far 15

they're healthy. But I have a nephew who has a young 16

son who was born with

-- turned out to be over and 17

over again hospitalization after hospitalization, some 18

kind of asthma that was trying to take his life 19

several times here in Houston. And th is is a young 20

man whose wife he took care of and they went to 21

prenatal. She ate right and she did exercise, and so 22

she's wondering, well, why is my kid so sick? 23

Okay. I have a granddaughter in California 24

whose 200 miles from Los Angele s. She has sickle cell 25326

anemia and so she also has asthma and, you know, she 1

lives quite away from Los Angeles and she

-- in the 2

high desert. So she has a bad case of sickle cell and 3

they just are

-- the asthma and the sickle cell just 4

eat each other up and her in the process, and she's 5

been hospitalized I don't know how many times. And 6

she has to carry an air tank around with her all the 7

time. She's 14. She's getting better because the 8

medicines have gotten better. But nevertheless, 9

people deserve better life than this. 10

And if my

-- my grandkid in Corpus Christi 11

was born healthy and she was fine until she got into 12

her preteens and she started developing asthma. And 13

it's just getting worse. And I have a young man w ho 14

joined our family via my daughter's marriage. He's 15

her brother

- in

- law and he has AIDS. Of course, he has 16

immune deficiency. So every time there's an ozone 17

alert, he's

-- he's always

-- that's the first thing 18

he checks in the morning is what's happened with the 19

weather. And so this is very difficult for him. 20

I have just these members of my family and 21

this is just repeated over and over again. We need 22

60, not 70, not 75. Please. Thank you. 23

MS. STONE: Thank you. 24

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you both for putting 25327

your time here to share your thoughts with us and your 1

life stories. 2

Art Browning and Thomas Williams. 3

MR. BROWNING: Yes. Thank you for 4

listening to all of us. It's been a long day for you, 5

I'm sure. My name is Art Browning. That's A

- R

- T 6

B

- R

- O

- W

- N

- I

- N

- G. 7

Somewhat like Jim, who spoke a minute ago, I 8

am a semi

- retired petroleum geologist, still working, 9

so so me of my greener friends may think I'm part of 10

the problem but we do need energy. And part of my 11

life story is I grew up in East Tennessee near the 12

coal

- fired steam plant electric power generating plant 13

that spilled all that sludge all over the pl ace. I 14

was in the shadow of that, and on a good day when the 15

wind was blowing away, our car didn't get covered with 16

ash. On a bad day, Mom got pretty bad asthma. So I 17

am keenly aware of how air quality can affect people's 18

lives. 19

Thi s isn't just about coal plants here, 20

though. I am firmly in favor of y'all lowering the 21

ozone content here. 22

One of the things I do here in Houston is I 23

have helped with a public access television program 24

and we've had several guests through the years who 25328

live in Houston near

-- especially down near the 1

refineries. I'm lucky enough to live northwest on 2

290, which is further away from the refineries, but we 3

still have a lot of traffic, you know, a uto vehicular 4

traffic. And before they had ozone maps that I could 5

see online, I used to get bronchitis occasionally. I 6

thought it was pollen, but it didn't seem to be 7

seasonal. Now I think I need to start watching the 8

ozone. But I'd like y'a ll to think about that. 9

Also, one of the things that's come out in 10

some of the television programs when we have guests 11

talk about air quality in Houston, which we're going 12

to do again next week, is that the monitoring isn't 13

done 24 hours around the clock. It's mainly done 14

during the day. We need to tighten up

-- tighten up 15

that a lot so that the upsets that happen in the wee 16

hours of the morning, people don't know about that 17

because we're not monitoring it as much as we should. 18

So those are some of the

-- just a few of the 19

items that I'd like to bring up. And thank you for 20

your attention and thank you for your hope for the 21

future. I appreciate that. 22

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 23

MR. WI LLIAMS: Hi. I am Thomas 24

Williams. That's T

- H

- O

- M

- A

- S W

- I

- L

- L

- I

- A

- M

- S. And I 25329

work with a small family propane business so, you 1

know, again, I might, you know, by some here be 2

considered part of the problem but am really glad that 3

I'm seeing the EPA step up and try and lower the 4

standards to 60 parts per billion to submit to the 5

Clean Air Act. 6

Even though we'll again probably have adverse 7

effect on my own business, it's something that's 8

needed for my nephews, wh o are already developing 9

asthma, at six months old already coming up with 10

issues. And I'm already seeing just these issues come 11

up with everybody that I deal with and that's just 12

really, you know, wanting to push for this cleaner 13

action. Thank you. 14

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 15

Ian Davis? Is Ian Davis here? Is there 16

anybody else here who hasn't spoken who would like to 17

speak? These will be the last two

-- last two 18

speakers of the day. 19

MS. IBARRA: My name is Alyssa Ibarra, 20

A

- L

- Y

- S

- S

- A I

- B

- A

- R

- R

- A. I'm a senior at Rice 21

University and I'm

-- haven't been living here for so 22

long, maybe four years, but I'm a native Texan and I 23

guess that's the angle I'm going to take it as. I was 24

trying to fig ure out how I should take it, as a child, 25330

adult or student or whatnot, but I'll take it as a 1

Texan. 2

And I think we have a lot going against us. 3

There's so many

-- I guess the mindsets and politics, 4

it's very entrenched to go against this

-- I'm sorry, 5

this progress. But even down to the urban design of 6

our cities, we're not

-- it's very hard to get away 7

from our cars and from our lifestyles, and all these 8

things are going against this progression that we

-- 9

we've heard that we want to take. And

-- sorry. 10

I do think that we can do some things as a 11

bottom

- up approach to change our lifestyles, to jog in 12

different times of the day or monitor our kids when

-- 13

I don't have kids, but our children when they play 14

outside. But I think it has to be a top

- down approach 15

too. So I am here asking you to meet us halfway, 16

basically, and to try to do 60 parts per billion, just 17

to be clear. Thank you. 18

MS. WEGMAN: Thank you. 19

MR. DAVIS: Hello, my name is Ian Davis. 20

It's I

- A

- N D

- A

- V

- I

- S. And I am with the Sierra Club 21

and

-- but I want to talk to you about my family. And 22

I am a fifth

- generation Texan and most of my family is 23

from the Houston area. And every J uly 4th, we head up 24

towards Galveston, a little town called Bacliff right 25331

there on the bay, and we have our July 4th picnic, you 1

know, and it's fun. And, I mean, generations and 2

generations of Robinsons all getting together and 3

having a blast, K entucky Fried Chicken, the whole bit. 4

But what we've noticed over the years is it 5

just seems like every time we come in, drive into 6

Houston, you can just kind of feel and smell and 7

just

-- there's something not quite right. And I am 8

not a scientist like Dr. Neil Carman, but I know how 9

it feels on a personal level. 10

And the little thing I wanted to share with 11

you along those lines is not only does our family stay 12

strong on July 4th picnics but, you know, we love to 13

camp. Stephen F. Austin State Park, there's a little 14

park just outside of Houston, that's where we have our 15

little Thanksgiving annual dinners, and it's just

-- 16

you know, everybody loves being outside. We love 17

playing croquet, playing football, throwing a Frisbee, 18

but I'm starting to get worried that as my wife and I 19

get ready to start a family, can our kids go outside 20

like we did. I mean, are we going to be stuck inside 21

playing Xbox 360? I mean, which is fun. I like 22

Madden, you kno w. It's a good, fun football game, but 23

I grew up going camping all around the Houston area, 24

out all parts of Texas. I mean, my dad was an Eagle 25332

Scout and we just loved going to state parks. And 1

it's one of these recreational things I think famil ies 2

can do when they don't have a lot of money. 3

And that's what's great about Texas, is we 4

have so many cool different geographic features from 5

Big Bend to the Big Thicket and I just want my kids to 6

be able to enjoy what I enjoyed. 7

So I wanted to thank you guys for taking the 8

time. I know it's been a long day, you guys. Really 9

appreciate it. Thank you. 10

MS. WEGMAN: Well, thank you. It's been 11

an extremely worthwhile and educational and rewarding 12

day f or us. Thank you absolutely. 13

Unless anyone else is registered to speak, 14

we're going to end the hearing now. So I want to 15

thank everybody who has come today and taken the time 16

to offer us their testimony. And it is extremely 17

important. I want to assure you that we will be 18

summarizing this testimony and presenting it to the 19

Administrator of EPA, Lisa Jackson, as she moves 20

forward to make a decision on the final rule. So 21

thank you all very much for your time and dedi cation. 22

(Public hearing concluded at 7:44 p.m.) 23

* * * * * 24

25333

CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC. 1

I, TAMARA VINSON, the officer before whom the 2

foregoing public hearing was taken, do hereby certify 3

that the proceedings in the foregoing pages was taken 4

by me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to 5

typewriting under my direction; that said 6

transcription is a true record of the proceedings 7

given by said parties; that I am neither counsel for, 8

related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the 9

action in which this public hearing was taken; and, 10

further, that I am not a relative or employee of any 11

counsel or attorney employed by the parties hereto, 12

nor financially or otherwise interes ted in the outcome 13

of this action. 14

15

16

17

18

___________________________________ 19

Tamara Vinson, TEXAS CSR 3015

Expiration Date: 12

- 31

- 2010 20

Firm Registration No. 241

1601 Rio Grande, Suite 443 21

Austin, Texas 78701

22

23

24

25