Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172-3661
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-09-28T04:00Z

1              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

            2    

            3    

            4    

            5    

            6    

            7    

            8        PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE REGARDING

            9    REVISIONS TO THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

           10                           FOR OZONE 

           11    

           12    

           13    

           14    

           15                    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

           16                   THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2007

           17    
                 
           18    
                 
           19    
                 
           20    
                 
           21    
                 
           22    
                 
           23    
                 
           24    REPORTED BY:
                 LISA N. MEDNIS
           25    CSR NO. 12960
                 JOB NO: 555254

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         1


                                                                          

            1      LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2007 

            2                           9:15 A.M.
                 
            3                             * * *
                     
            4    

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  GOOD MORNING.  I THINK WE'LL GET THE 

            6    HEARING STARTED NOW.  

            7             THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ATTENDING THE 

            8    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S HEARING ON OUR 

            9    PROPOSED OZONE STANDARD.  

           10             BEFORE I READ THE OPENING STATEMENT, I JUST 

           11    WANTED TO ASK IF WE HAVE ANY PRESS IN THE ROOM, AND IF 

           12    THERE ARE, IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELVES TO EITHER 

           13    FRANCISCO ARCANTE, WHO'S STANDING OVER THERE, OR JOHN 

           14    MILLER, WHO'S SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE.  OKAY.  SEEING 

           15    NONE, WE WILL PROCEED.  

           16             I RECOGNIZE MANY OF YOU HAVE TRAVELED A LONG 

           17    DISTANCE TO COME TO THE HEARING THIS MORNING, AND I WANT 

           18    TO THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE EFFORT TO DO THAT.  WE VERY 

           19    MUCH APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE TO 

           20    ATTEND THE HEARING THIS MORNING.  

           21             MY NAME IS LYDIA WEGMAN, AND I AM THE DIRECTOR 

           22    OF THE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DIVISION OF THE 

           23    OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS IN NORTH 

           24    CAROLINA.  IT'S PART OF EPA'S OFFICE OF AIR AND 

           25    RADIATION.  I WILL BE CHAIRING THE HEARING TODAY, AND WE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         2


                                                                          

            1    ARE HERE TODAY, OF COURSE, TO LISTEN TO YOUR COMMENTS ON 

            2    OUR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE OZONE STANDARD.  

            3             AS A REMINDER, THIS HEARING IS AN OPPORTUNITY 

            4    FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON OUR PROPOSED RULE.  THE 

            5    PANEL MEMBERS MAY ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE SEEKING 

            6    CLARIFICATION OF ELEMENTS OF OUR PROPOSAL, BUT WE ARE 

            7    NOT HERE TO DISCUSS OR DEBATE THE PROPOSAL.  

            8             I WANT TO ALSO INTRODUCE MY FELLOW PANEL 

            9    MEMBERS.  THIS IS JOHN HANNON, WHO'S WITH OUR OFFICE OF 

           10    GENERAL COUNSEL IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND MATT HABER, WHO 

           11    IS WITH OUR REGION 9 OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO.  

           12             BEFORE WE START THE COMMENT PERIOD, I'M GOING 

           13    TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE OUR PROPOSED RULE WHICH IS THE 

           14    SUBJECT OF TODAY'S HEARING.  IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE 

           15    FEDERAL REGISTER ON JULY 11TH.  

           16             GROUND LEVEL OZONE IS THE PRIMARY COMPONENT OF 

           17    SMOG.  IT IS FORMED THROUGH THE REACTION OF NOX, 

           18    NITROGEN OXIDES, AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, VOC'S, 

           19    IN THE PRESENCE OF SUNLIGHT.  EXPOSURE TO OZONE IS 

           20    ASSOCIATED WITH A WIDE ARRAY OF RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS, 

           21    INCLUDING AGGRAVATED ASTHMA, INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO 

           22    RESPIRATORY INFECTION, INCREASED DOCTOR'S VISITS, 

           23    INCREASED EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS, HOSPITAL 

           24    ADMISSIONS, AND PREMATURE DEATH.  

           25             IN ADDITION, GROUND LEVEL OZONE CAN HAVE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         3


                                                                          

            1    HARMFUL EFFECTS ON SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES, INCLUDING 

            2    TREES AND CROPS AND ON THE ECO SYSTEMS THEY INHABIT.  IT 

            3    HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT BOTH THE LEVEL OF OZONE TO WHICH 

            4    PLANTS ARE EXPOSED AND THE DURATION OF THE EXPOSURE ARE 

            5    IMPORTANT FACTORS IN DETERMINING PLANT RESPONSE.  THE 

            6    MOST SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, INCLUDING BIOMASS LOSS AND 

            7    YIELD REDUCTIONS, RESULT FROM THE ACCUMULATION OF OZONE 

            8    EXPOSURES THROUGHOUT THE GROWING SEASON WITH HIGHER 

            9    CONCENTRATIONS OF OZONE PRODUCING GREATER IMPACTS.  

           10             BASED ON OUR CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE LARGE BODY 

           11    OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, WHICH IS NOW AVAILABLE 

           12    CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED 

           13    WITH OZONE, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

           14    PROTECTION AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT THE CURRENT OZONE 

           15    STANDARDS ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND 

           16    WELFARE.  

           17             A NUMBER OF NEW HEALTH STUDIES HAVE BEEN 

           18    CONDUCTED INDICATING THAT ADVERSE EFFECTS OCCUR 

           19    FOLLOWING EXPOSURE TO OZONE AT LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT 

           20    STANDARD.  FURTHERMORE, THESE STUDIES INDICATE THAT 

           21    PEOPLE WITH RESPIRATORY ILLNESS, SUCH AS ASTHMA, ARE 

           22    PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THESE ADVERSE IMPACTS.  IN 

           23    ADDITION, NEW SCIENTIFIC STUDIES CONFIRM THAT EXPOSURE 

           24    TO OZONE ADVERSELY EFFECTS THE GROWTH OF SENSITIVE PLANT 

           25    SPECIES AND MAY INCREASE THEIR SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DISEASE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         4


                                                                          

            1    AND PESTS.  

            2             AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC 

            3    EVIDENCE AND THE ADVICE OF OUR CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC 

            4    ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE, 

            5    THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROPOSED TO REVISE BOTH THE 

            6    PRIMARY STANDARD, WHICH IS THE STANDARD DESIGNED TO 

            7    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, AND THE SECONDARY STANDARD 

            8    DESIGNED TO PROTECT PUBLIC WELFARE.  

            9             THE CURRENT -- CURRENTLY, THE PRIMARY AND 

           10    SECONDARY OZONE STANDARDS ARE IDENTICAL, AN EIGHT-HOUR 

           11    STANDARD OF 0.08 PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY 

           12    .084 WITH OUR CURRENT ROUNDING CONVENTION.  UNDER OUR 

           13    PROPOSAL, THE -- BOTH THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 

           14    STANDARDS WOULD BE REVISED AND THE FORM OF THE SECONDARY 

           15    STANDARD MAY CHANGE SO THAT IT IS NO LONGER IDENTICAL TO 

           16    THE PRIMARY.  

           17             SPECIFICALLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIMARY 

           18    STANDARD, WE PROPOSE TO REVISE THE LEVEL OF THE STANDARD 

           19    TO WITHIN THE RANGE OF .070 TO .075 PARTS PER MILLION 

           20    AND REQUESTED COMMENT ON ALTERNATIVE LEVELS DOWN TO .060 

           21    PARTS PER MILLION AND UP TO AND INCLUDING RETENTION OF 

           22    THE CURRENT STANDARD.  WE ALSO PROPOSE TO SPECIFY THE 

           23    LEVEL OF THE PRIMARY STANDARD TO THE THIRD DECIMAL PLACE 

           24    BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY IN WHICH OUR MONITORS WORK AND 

           25    WE CAN DETECT OZONE TO THAT LEVEL OF ACCURACY.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         5


                                                                          

            1             CONCERNING THE SECONDARY STANDARD, WE PROPOSE 

            2    TWO ALTERNATIVES:  THE FIRST WOULD BE TO ESTABLISH A NEW 

            3    FORM OF THE STANDARD CALLED THE W126, WHICH IS DESIGNED 

            4    TO CUMULATE OZONE EXPOSURES AND GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO 

            5    HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS.  THE FORM OF THE STANDARD WOULD 

            6    ADD TOGETHER WEIGHTED HOURLY OZONE CONCENTRATION ACROSS 

            7    A CONSECUTIVE THREE-MONTH PERIOD WITH THE HIGHEST OZONE 

            8    LEVELS.  

            9             A SECOND OPTION WOULD BE TO REVISE THE 

           10    SECONDARY STANDARD TO BE IDENTICAL TO THE PROPOSED 

           11    EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD.  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON OUR 

           12    PROPOSED RULE CAN BE FOUND IN THE FACTS SHEET THAT'S 

           13    AVAILABLE IN THE REGISTRATION AREA.  

           14             WHEN WE PUBLISHED THE RULE ON JULY 11TH IN THE 

           15    FEDERAL REGISTER, THAT BEGAN A 90-DAY COMMENT PERIOD, 

           16    WHICH WILL CLOSE ON OCTOBER 9TH, AND WE HAVE A HANDOUT 

           17    AVAILABLE IN THE REGISTRATION AREA THAT HAS DETAILED 

           18    INFORMATION FOR SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS.  WE ALSO 

           19    HAVE A LIST OF ALL OF THE TOPICS IN THE PROPOSED RULE ON 

           20    WHICH THE AGENCY IS SEEKING COMMENT, AND THAT'S ALSO 

           21    AVAILABLE AT THE REGISTRATION AREA.  WE ARE REQUIRED 

           22    UNDER A CONSENT DECREE TO ISSUE THE FINAL RULE BY MARCH 

           23    12TH OF 2008, AND WE INTEND TO MEET THAT DATE.  

           24             TURNING TO TODAY'S HEARING, THIS IS ONE OF FIVE 

           25    HEARINGS WE'RE HOLDING ACROSS THE COUNTRY ON THE OZONE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         6


                                                                          

            1    STANDARD.  THERE'S ANOTHER HEARING GOING ON TODAY IN 

            2    PHILADELPHIA, AND WE HAVE THREE MORE SCHEDULED NEXT 

            3    WEEK, SEPTEMBER 5TH, IN HOUSTON, ATLANTA, AND CHICAGO.  

            4    THERE WILL BE A WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED OF EACH OF 

            5    THE HEARINGS, AND THOSE WILL BE ADDED TO THE DOCKET FOR 

            6    THIS RULE MAKING.  

            7             THE WAY WE WILL WORK THE HEARING TODAY IS THAT 

            8    I WILL CALL THE SCHEDULED SPEAKERS IN PAIRS.  WHEN IT'S 

            9    YOUR TURN TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR 

           10    AFFILIATION AND THAT WILL HELP THE COURT REPORTER WHO 

           11    WILL BE WORKING WITH US TODAY, AND WE VERY MUCH 

           12    APPRECIATE HER HELP.  WE'RE ASKING THAT TESTIMONY BE 

           13    LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES EACH AND THAT YOU REMAIN AT THE 

           14    MICROPHONE AFTER YOU FINISH SPEAKING UNTIL BOTH SPEAKERS 

           15    IN THE PAIR HAVE FINISHED SPEAKING.  

           16             AFTER YOU'VE FINISHED YOUR TESTIMONY, A MEMBER 

           17    OF THE PANEL MAY HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION.  EACH 

           18    SPEAKER'S ORAL TESTIMONY WILL BECOME PART OF OUR 

           19    OFFICIAL RECORD BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE A TRANSCRIPT, AS I 

           20    MENTIONED.  IF YOU DO HAVE A WRITTEN COPY OF YOUR 

           21    TESTIMONY, PLEASE GIVE IT TO THE STAFF AT THE 

           22    REGISTRATION DESK AND WE'LL PUT THE FULL TEXT OF THE 

           23    WRITTEN COMMENTS IN THE DOCKET AS WELL.  

           24             WE HAVE A TRADITIONAL TIME-KEEPING SYSTEM HERE 

           25    OF GREEN, YELLOW, AND RED LIGHTS.  WHEN YOU BEGIN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         7


                                                                          

            1    SPEAKING, THE GREEN LIGHT WILL COME ON.  YOU WILL HAVE 

            2    FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK.  THE YELLOW LIGHT WILL COME ON AT 

            3    ONE MINUTE SIGNALING THAT YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT TO 

            4    SPEAK.  THEN WE WOULD ASK YOU TO STOP SPEAKING WHEN THE 

            5    LIGHT TURNS RED OR FAIRLY CLOSE TO THAT MOMENT.  WE WANT 

            6    TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE DOES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY 

            7    TO COMMENT, AND WE WILL BE TAKING SOME BREAKS 

            8    PERIODICALLY DURING THE DAY.  

            9             LET'S SEE, I THINK I'VE COVERED EVERYTHING WE 

           10    NEED TO COVER HERE.  SO I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL AGAIN 

           11    FOR PARTICIPATING, AND WE'LL GET STARTED WITH THE FIRST 

           12    TWO SPEAKERS JANEA SCOTT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE AND 

           13    CARL ZICHOLA FROM SIERRA CLUB.  

           14             YOU HAVE TO PRESS AND HOLD THE WHOLE TIME 

           15    YOU'RE SPEAKING.  

           16        JANEA SCOTT:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS JANEA SCOTT.  

           17    THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY.  I'M 

           18    TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, A 

           19    NON-PROFIT, NON-GOVERNMENTAL, AND NON-PARTISAN 

           20    ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION WITH MORE THAN 500,000 

           21    MEMBERS NATIONWIDE.  

           22             SINCE 1967, OUR ORGANIZATION HAS LINKED 

           23    SCIENCE, ECONOMICS, AND LAW TO SOLVE TODAY'S MOST 

           24    PRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS.  TODAY WE RESPECTFULLY 

           25    REQUEST THAT EPA SET THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         8


                                                                          

            1    STANDARD FOR OZONE AT .060 PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH IS 

            2    THE PROTECTIVE END OF THE RANGE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED 

            3    BY THE CLEAN AIR SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AN EPA 

            4    APPOINTED PANEL OF THE NATION'S LEADING EXPERTS.  

            5             OZONE EFFECTS THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM BY 

            6    DAMAGING LUNG TISSUES AND REDUCING LUNG FUNCTION.  AS A 

            7    RESULT, IT CAN LEAD TO THE EXACERBATION OF ASTHMA AND 

            8    CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AS WELL AS DIMINISHED LUNG 

            9    DEVELOPMENT IN GROWING CHILDREN.  MORE RECENT STUDIES 

           10    SHOW THAT OZONE EXPOSURES INCREASE THE RISK OF PREMATURE 

           11    DEATH.  

           12             ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION'S 

           13    STATE OF THE AIR 2007 REPORT, EIGHT OF THE TOP TEN MOST 

           14    OZONE POLLUTED COUNTIES ARE HERE IN CALIFORNIA.  IN LOS 

           15    ANGELES COUNTY ALONE, AIR POLLUTION CONTRIBUTES TO 

           16    APPROXIMATELY 760,000 CASES OF ASTHMA AND 288,000 CASES 

           17    OF CHRONIC BRONCHITIS.  ACCORDING TO EPA, LOWERING THE 

           18    OZONE HEALTH STANDARDS TO LESS THAN .065 PARTS PER 

           19    MILLION WOULD HAVE FAR REACHING BENEFITS IN PREVENTING 

           20    THE DEATH AND DISEASE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS POLLUTION.  

           21             THE IMPERATIVE OF PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH FROM 

           22    AIR POLLUTION IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  IN 

           23    1970 A UNANIMOUS UNITED STATES SENATE, IN 

           24    STRAIGHTFORWARD AND PLANE LANGUAGE, PROVIDED FOR AN 

           25    EFFECTIVE TWO-STEP PROCESS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST AIR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                         9


                                                                          

            1    POLLUTION.  FIRST, CONGRESS COMMANDED THAT THE MAX BE 

            2    BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS.  THEN 

            3    SECOND, AFTER THE HEALTH-BASED STANDARDS HAD BEEN SET, 

            4    CONGRESS DIRECTED THAT ECONOMICS BE THOROUGHLY 

            5    CONSIDERED IN DEVISING THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

            6    STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE THE STANDARDS.  

            7             SOME IN THE INDUSTRY HAVE LONG PROTESTED THIS 

            8    CAREFULLY CALIBRATED DUAL SYSTEM.  THEY ARGUE THAT THIS 

            9    TWO-STEP INCREASE SHOULD BE CONFLATED RATHER THAN 

           10    DISTINCT AND THAT THE NATION'S HEALTH STANDARDS SHOULD 

           11    BE BASED ON ECONOMICS.  THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN TROTTED 

           12    OUT TIME AND AGAIN AND RESOUNDINGLY REJECTED OVER THE 

           13    PAST 37 YEARS.  IT WAS MOST RECENTLY REJECTED IN 2001 BY 

           14    A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT.  THE COURT UPHELD THE BEDROCK 

           15    PRINCIPLE THAT NAAQS SHOULD BE PRECAUTIONARY IN 

           16    SAFEGUARDING AGAINST ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS AND BE BASED 

           17    EXCLUSIVELY ON PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           18             THEREFORE, AS THE CLEAN AIR ACT PLAINLY STATES, 

           19    THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST ESTABLISH OZONE STANDARDS THAT 

           20    ARE REQUISITE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN 

           21    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF THIS 

           22    HISTORY, I RAISE A POINT THAT IS TOO OFTEN OVERLOOKED.  

           23    NAAQS ARE EFFECTIVE.  THEY WORK.  NAAQS ARE THE 

           24    CORNERSTONE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND THEY HAVE 

           25    SUCCESSFULLY DRIVEN OUR NATION'S EFFORTS TO SOLVE ITS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        10


                                                                          

            1    AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS.  

            2             SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE NAAQS IN 1970, OUR 

            3    NATION HAS MADE STEADY PROGRESS IN CLEANING UP THE AIR.  

            4    LEAD, PARTICULATE MATTER, CARBON MONOXIDE, AND SULFUR 

            5    DIOXIDE HAVE ALL BEEN REDUCED.  AND OZONE PRECURSORS, 

            6    WHICH ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO TODAY'S HEARING, HAVE ALSO 

            7    BEEN REDUCED.  IN FACT, OXIDES IN NITROGEN HAVE BEEN 

            8    REDUCED BY NEARLY 25 PERCENT, AND VOLATILE ORGANIC 

            9    COMPOUNDS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY OVER 50 PERCENT.  

           10             AT THE SAME TIME THAT THIS POLLUTION HAS 

           11    DECREASED, OUR ECONOMY HAS FLOURISHED.  SINCE 1970, OUR 

           12    GDP HAS GROWN BY 174 PERCENT.  THE PAST 37 YEARS HAVE 

           13    CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT WE CAN MAKE OUR AIR SAFE TO 

           14    BREATHE WHILE GROWING OUR ECONOMY.  GIVEN THE 

           15    RESPONSIBILITY AND TRUST IN EPA TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH 

           16    FROM OZONE AIR POLLUTION, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CALLS ON 

           17    ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON TO BE STEADFAST AND UNWAVERING IN 

           18    SETTING THE STANDARD FOR OZONE.  ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON 

           19    MUST BASE HIS DECISION EXCLUSIVELY ON WHAT IS REQUISITE 

           20    TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF 

           21    SAFETY.  

           22             CASAC HAS UNANIMOUSLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY ADVISED 

           23    ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON THAT, ONE, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC 

           24    JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING THE CURRENT PRIMARY 

           25    EIGHT-HOUR NAAQS; THAT, TWO, THE PRIMARY EIGHT-HOUR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        11


                                                                          

            1    NAAQS NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED TO PROTECT HUMAN 

            2    HEALTH, PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE SUBPOPULATIONS; AND, 

            3    THREE, CASAC ALSO UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED A RANGE OF 

            4    .060 TO .070 PARTS PER MILLION FOR THE PRIMARY NAAQS.  

            5             THIS CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM CASAC LEAVES NO ROOM 

            6    FOR MISINTERPRETATION, BUT EPA HAS NEVERTHELESS PROPOSED 

            7    TO SET A STANDARD THAT IS WEAKER THAN THE UNANIMOUS 

            8    RECOMMENDATION.  IN ADDITION, EPA HAS ALSO EXPRESSLY 

            9    HELD OPEN THE PROSPECT OF RETAINING THE CURRENT OZONE 

           10    HEALTH -- CURRENT HEALTH STANDARD FOR OZONE UNCHANGED, 

           11    EXPLICITLY SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENT ON SUCH AN OUTCOME.  

           12    NEITHER OPTION IS ACCEPTABLE.  IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE TO 

           13    TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE BREATHING HEALTHY AIR WHEN 

           14    THEY ARE NOT.  

           15             ONE REASON THE CLEAN AIR ACT HAS BEEN A MODEL 

           16    OF SUCCESS IN REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS IS THE 

           17    BEDROCK PRINCIPLE CONTAINED WITHIN IT, THAT THE SETTING 

           18    OF NAAQS MUST BE BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE.  

           19    TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND TO INSURE THE REQUIRED 

           20    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE 

           21    RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT EPA SET THE OZONE HEALTH 

           22    STANDARD AT .060 PARTS PER MILLION, THE PROTECTIVE END 

           23    OF THE RANGE RECOMMENDED BY CASAC.  WE'LL ALSO BE 

           24    SUBMITTING DETAILED WRITTEN COMMENTS, AND I THANK YOU 

           25    AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT TODAY.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        12


                                                                          

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

            2        CARL ZICHOLA:  I'M IMPRESSED, SHE NAILED THE TIME.  

            3             I'M CARL ZICHOLA, THE REGIONAL STAFF DIRECTOR 

            4    FOR THE SIERRA CLUB OF CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, AND HAWAII.  

            5    GOOD MORNING.  

            6             THE SIERRA CLUB IS TODAY REAFFIRMING OUR 

            7    INSISTENCE THAT EPA ADOPT HEALTH-BASED OZONE STANDARDS 

            8    THAT TRULY PROTECT THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE THREATENED BY 

            9    DANGEROUS SMOG POLLUTION.  NOWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES 

           10    IS THIS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IT IS HERE IN CALIFORNIA 

           11    WHERE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LIVE IN WHAT ARE THE WORST AIR 

           12    QUALITY BASINS IN THE COUNTRY.  

           13             WE CALL ON EPA TO ADOPT A STANDARD THAT REDUCES 

           14    OZONE CONCENTRATIONS TO .060 FROM THE PRESENT INADEQUATE 

           15    STANDARD OF 0.084 PARTS PER MILLION.  OZONE STANDARDS 

           16    MUST BE BASED ON THEIR EFFECTIVENESS PROTECTING HUMAN 

           17    HEALTH, NOT ON COST TO POLLUTERS.  THE BENEFITS TO THIS 

           18    APPROACH ARE WELL DOCUMENTED.  EVEN THE BUSH 

           19    ADMINISTRATION, UNDER WHOSE AUSPICES THESE STANDARDS ARE 

           20    BEING DRAFTED, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE U.S. CLEAN AIR 

           21    REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE OF ALL OF 

           22    THE NATION'S EFFECTIVE REGULATORY PROGRAMS.  

           23             PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH IS NOT ONLY LEGALLY, 

           24    ETHICALLY, AND MORALLY REQUIRED, IT'S COST EFFECTIVE.  

           25    THE ARGUMENT OF POLLUTERS TO THE CONTRARY MUST BE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        13


                                                                          

            1    REJECTED.  PARENTHETICALLY, THE ESTIMATES OF COST 

            2    BENEFITS TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY OVER THE 30 YEARS -- 

            3    FIRST 30 YEARS OF CLEAN AIR REGULATION IN THIS COUNTRY 

            4    RANGES FROM M.I.T.'S ESTIMATE OF FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS 

            5    TO EPA'S OWN ESTIMATE OF 26 TRILLION DOLLARS IN REPORTS 

            6    THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

            7    AGENCY.  

            8             WE ARE TODAY DEMANDING THAT EPA DO WHAT ITS OWN 

            9    CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS TOLD THE 

           10    AGENCY IT SHOULD, "SUBSTANTIALLY," IN QUOTES, "TIGHTEN 

           11    THE OZONE STANDARDS."  THE BENEFIT OF DOING SO -- THE 

           12    BENEFITS OF DOING SO ARE ENORMOUS.  

           13             HERE IN LOS ANGELES, EPA'S OWN DATA SUGGESTS 

           14    THAT LOWERING THE STANDARDS TO 0.65 WOULD LOWER THE 

           15    MORTALITY RATE FROM 14 DEATHS IN A MILLION TO TWO PER 

           16    MILLION.  EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT WOULD BE THE REDUCTION IN 

           17    SUFFERING FOR PEOPLE WITH CHRONIC AND ACUTE RESPIRATORY 

           18    PROBLEMS.  

           19             UNFORTUNATELY, OVER THE PAST MORE THAN SIX 

           20    YEARS THE CREDIBILITY OF EPA HAS BEEN BATTERED.  

           21    ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS TO WEAKEN CLEAN AIR PROTECTIONS 

           22    HAVE RESULTED IN LITIGATION FROM AFFECTED STATES, THE 

           23    OPPOSITION OF NUMEROUS GOVERNORS, INCLUDING GOVERNOR 

           24    SCHWARZENEGGER, AND EVEN THE REJECTION BY THE UNITED 

           25    STATES SENATE OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S MISLEADINGLY NAMED 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        14


                                                                          

            1    "CLEAR SKIES PROPOSAL."  

            2             CALIFORNIA, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE STATE'S 

            3    MAJOR AIR DISTRICTS, EVEN HAD TO MOVE TO CODIFY THE 

            4    PREEXISTING NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM THAT REQUIRES 

            5    AGING POWER PLANTS AND INDUSTRIAL SITES TO UPGRADE THEIR 

            6    FACILITIES TO COMPLY WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS MET BY 

            7    CLEANER NEW SOURCES WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE INDUSTRIES.  

            8    THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF SUCH SOURCES IN CALIFORNIA AND 

            9    EPA'S REGULATION WOULD DRAMATICALLY DEGRADE A PROTECTION 

           10    FOR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.  WITH RARE EXCEPTION, EPA HAS 

           11    BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO RELAX PROTECTIONS FOR HUMAN 

           12    HEALTH TO ACCOMMODATE THE POLLUTERS.  

           13             WHILE THE CORRUPTION HAS BEEN NOTED OF OTHER 

           14    AGENCIES, SUCH AS B.L.M. WHERE TOP OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN 

           15    IMPLICATED IN CORRUPTION IN ONE AND STEVEN GILES HAS 

           16    BEEN SENT TO PRISON HAS, SO FAR IT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND AT 

           17    EPA.  THE FAVORITISM OF REGULATED INDUSTRIES HAS.  

           18             THERE'S AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THE HARM OZONE 

           19    POLLUTION CAUSES AND THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM REDUCING 

           20    AIR POLLUTION GENERALLY.  THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR EPA TO 

           21    ALLOW THE STANDARD TO REMAIN AS IT IS AS SOME PROPOSE OR 

           22    TO LOWER THE STANDARD ONLY MODESTLY.  IT IS TIME TO MAKE 

           23    THE KIND OF SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION RECOMMENDED BY CASAC, 

           24    AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO DO SO.  EPA'S MISSION AND 

           25    THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO DEMAND NO LESS.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        15


                                                                          

            1             WE CALL ON EPA TO ADOPT A STANDARD THAT REDUCES 

            2    OZONE CONCENTRATIONS TO 0.060 FROM THE PRESENT 

            3    INADEQUATE STANDARD OF 0.84 PARTS PER MILLION.  

            4             THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND YOU FINISHED 

            6    WELL IN ADVANCE OF YOUR FIVE MINUTES.  SO THANK YOU 

            7    BOTH.  

            8        CARL ZICHOLA:  TRUST AND PITHY.  

            9        MR. HANNON:  I'M SORRY, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.  

           10             YOU BOTH RECOMMENDED 60 AND COMMENTED THAT 

           11    CASAC HAS RECOMMENDED BETWEEN 60 AND 70, AND I THINK 

           12    MS. SCOTT'S RECOMMENDATION HERE WAS THAT IT BE ON THE 

           13    PROTECTIVE END OF THE RANGE.  

           14             FOR BOTH OF YOU, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE WHETHER 

           15    THAT'S A SCIENCE-DRIVEN RECOMMENDATION OR PUBLIC-POLICY, 

           16    HEALTH-DRIVEN RECOMMENDATION, IN BETWEEN 60 AND 70?  

           17    CASAC ITSELF DIDN'T -- IT IS A RANGE, SO IT'D BE USEFUL 

           18    TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON HOW YOU -- WHAT YOU THINK THE 

           19    BASIS WOULD BE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CHOOSE WITHIN 

           20    THAT RANGE, IF HE WERE TO CHOSE WITHIN THAT RANGE.  

           21        JANEA SCOTT:  WELL, WE PICKED .060 BECAUSE IT IS THE 

           22    MORE PROTECTIVE END OF THE RANGE, AND WE FIGURE THAT 

           23    WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THE SCIENCE HAS BEEN SHOWING, 

           24    THAT OZONE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO PREMATURE DEATH AND THAT 

           25    TYPE OF THING AND THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        16


                                                                          

            1    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY, THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE 

            2    CLEAN AIR ACT, THAT THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE SURE TO 

            3    COVER THAT, THE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  SO THAT'S WHY WE 

            4    PICKED THE LOWER END OF THE RANGE THEY SUGGESTED.  

            5        CARL ZICHOLA:  I SHOULD COMMENT THAT WE ALWAYS TRY 

            6    TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION HERE.  I THINK THE CLEAN 

            7    AIR ACT ITSELF, IN NUMEROUS LOCATIONS, ERRS ON THE SIDE 

            8    OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE AMPLE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  THE 

            9    AIR TOXIC SECTION HAS EXPLICIT LANGUAGE THAT DOES SO, 

           10    AND THE SIERRA CLUB HAS ALWAYS FELT THAT WE NEEDED TO DO 

           11    THAT.  

           12             HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IT'S ESPECIALLY OBVIOUS 

           13    THAT WE NEED TO GO TO THE CAREFUL END OF THE SPECTRUM.  

           14    IT'S GOING TO BE A WHILE BEFORE WE EVEN GET THERE.  ONE 

           15    IN FIVE CHILDREN IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY HAS ASTHMA.  

           16    FRESNO HAS AN ASTHMA RATE FOUR TIMES THE NATIONAL 

           17    AVERAGE.  I WAS IN SACRAMENTO THIS WEEK WORKING WITH 

           18    LATINOS FROM THE CENTRAL VALLEY LOBBYING FOR CLEAN AIR 

           19    PROTECTIONS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE, ONE OF WHOM HAS A 

           20    GRANDCHILD WHO'S ALREADY HAD TO LOSE A LUNG BECAUSE OF 

           21    ASTHMA.  THIS IS NOT SOME THEORETICAL EXERCISE.  

           22             WHEN YOU HAVE A RANGE, WE EXPECT IT TO BE AT 

           23    THE LOW END OF THE RANGE, THE TIGHTER END OF THE RANGE, 

           24    THE MORE PROTECTIVE END OF THE RANGE, NOT THE END OF THE 

           25    RANGE THAT'S THE MOST LACKS AND EASIEST TO COMPLY WITH 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        17


                                                                          

            1    FOR POLLUTERS.  THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING 

            2    INTENSELY, MANY OF WHOM -- IN FACT, A YOUNG BOY WHO WAS 

            3    GOING TO BE TESTIFYING HERE TODAY COULD NOT BECAUSE HIS 

            4    MOTHER WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER YESTERDAY OR 

            5    PRECANCEROUS LESIONS THAT SHE NEEDS ADDITIONAL TESTING 

            6    FOR.  

            7             THE PEOPLE OF OUR STATE, THE STATE OF 

            8    CALIFORNIA, WE'RE DEMANDING THE TIGHT END OF THE 

            9    SPECTRUM.  WE'RE NOT REQUESTING IT.  THANK YOU.  

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JESSE 

           11    MARQUEZ AND SARAH KIRSCHBAUM.  YOU CAN CORRECT ME, 

           12    PLEASE.

           13        SARAN KIRSCHBAUM:  IT'S OKAY.  I HAVE VERY 

           14    AVANT-GARDE PARENTS.  IT'S SARAN, LIKE THE WRAP.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  SARAN, THANK YOU.  

           16        SARAN KIRSCHBAUM:  CAN I GIVE YOU THOSE?  

           17        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU CAN.  OKAY.  GREAT.  THANK YOU.  

           18        SARAN KIRSCHBAUM:  DO I NEED THIS?  

           19        MR. HANNON:  YOU NEED TO PUSH AND HOLD.

           20        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU NEED TO PUSH AND HOLD FOR PURPOSES 

           21    OF THE COURT REPORTER, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

           22        SARAN KIRSCHBAUM:  OKAY.  MY NAME IS SARAN 

           23    KIRSCHBAUM, K-I-R-S-C-H-B-A-U-M, AND I'M WITH THE 

           24    COALITION ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND JEWISH LIFE OF SOUTHERN 

           25    CALIFORNIA AND THE INTERLEAGUE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNSEL 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        18


                                                                          

            1    HERE.  THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK 

            2    ABOUT, OH, OUR AIR QUALITY AND OZONE AND ALL THAT STUFF 

            3    WHICH IS NOT IN THE PAPER.  

            4             I AM HERE TO URGE THE EPA TO DRAFT A RISK 

            5    ASSESSMENT THAT YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS HAVE RECOMMENDED IN 

            6    SETTING THE OZONE LAYER -- LOWER BEFORE -- THAN .07 OR 

            7    WHATEVER ALL THOSE LAYERS ARE BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT 

            8    HEALTH BENEFITS AND INCLUDING THE DECREASE IN 

            9    INDIVIDUAL -- WE ARE GETTING MORE RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS 

           10    HERE IN LOS ANGELES AND IN CALIFORNIA, AND THERE ARE 

           11    MORE HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS, AS YOU KNOW, WHEN THE SMOG 

           12    GOES UP AND REDUCED OZONE LAYERS WOULD REALLY HELP.  

           13             NOW, THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, THE TALISMAN SPOKE 

           14    OF BALANCING THE COMMUNAL AND THE PRIVATE.  THE 

           15    INDIVIDUAL AND THE COMMUNITY.  YOUR JOB IS TO DO JUST 

           16    THAT.  THE EPA'S JOB IS TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF 

           17    HOW THE ACTIVITIES OF OUR INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AFFECTS NOT 

           18    ONLY ITS INDIVIDUALS, BUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR 

           19    CITIES AND OF OUR COUNTRY AS A WHOLE NOW AND FOR THE 

           20    FUTURE.  WE ALSO HAVE A DUTY TO FUTURE GENERATIONS, JUST 

           21    AS YOU DO.  

           22             ONE STORY ILLUSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE 

           23    ACTIONS TODAY WITH THEIR CONSEQUENCES FOR GENERATIONS TO 

           24    COME.  IT'S THE STORY OF HONI THE CIRCLE MAKER, THIS IS 

           25    THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, WHO PLANTED CAROB TREES, WHICH 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        19


                                                                          

            1    TAKE ABOUT 50 OR SO YEARS TO PRODUCE.  A MAN WALKED BY 

            2    AND LAUGHED AT HIM AND SAID, "OH, MAN, WHY ARE YOU 

            3    PLANTING THESE TREES?  YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BEAR THE -- 

            4    EVER TASTE THE FRUIT."  

            5             AND HONI REPLIED, "THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE ME 

            6    PLANTED SO THAT I MIGHT ENJOY, AND I PLANT FOR THOSE WHO 

            7    COME AFTER ME."  

            8             OUR FAITH TEACHES US TO REFLECT ON OUR PAST AND 

            9    PRESENT TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE WHO COME AFTER US.  THIS IS 

           10    WHY THE EPA WAS ESTABLISHED, TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE WHO 

           11    COME AFTER US AND TO PROTECT THOSE OF US TODAY FROM 

           12    POLLUTANTS IN OUR AIR AND WATER AND FROM THE 

           13    PARTICULATES THAT COME FROM OUR CARS AND THE BURNING OF 

           14    FOSSIL FUELS.  TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OZONE LEVELS ARE AS 

           15    LOW AS POSSIBLE TO KEEP CHILDREN, TEENAGERS AND CITIZENS 

           16    OF ALL AGES FROM NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS.  

           17             SMOG IS AN ETHICAL AND MORAL ISSUE.  WE EXPECT 

           18    MILLIONS MORE IN CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS.  

           19    WE ARE NOW THE 12TH LARGEST GENERATION -- GENERATOR NOW 

           20    OF GREENHOUSE GASES NOW.  WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE IN 20 

           21    YEARS IF STRICT STANDARDS ARE NOT PUT INTO PLACE NOW?  

           22    WE KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES.  WE KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES 

           23    WILL BE.  THIS IS WHY THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE.  BY NOT 

           24    HAVING STRICT STANDARDS IN PLACE NOW, WE ARE PUTTING 

           25    GENERATIONS OF YOUNG AND OLD AT RISK AND THAT IS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        20


                                                                          

            1    IMMORAL.  IT IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE DECISION.  

            2             OUR RESPONSIBILITY, TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY, 

            3    IS TO LEAVE THIS EARTH IN BETTER SHAPE THAN WE FOUND IT, 

            4    AND THE EPA HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE POWER TO DO 

            5    THIS.  PLEASE DRAFT THE RISK ASSESSMENT THAT WAS 

            6    RECOMMENDED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE.  MAKE IT AS LOW AS 

            7    POSSIBLE.  IT WILL HELP.  IT WILL DECREASE THE INCIDENTS 

            8    OF RESPIRATORY ASSISTANCE IN CHILDREN, FEWER HOSPITAL 

            9    ADMISSIONS, AND RELATED OZONE DEATHS.  THIS SHOULD NOT 

           10    BE A POLITICAL ARENA.  WE ALL BREATHE AIR AND MANY OF US 

           11    HAVE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.  DON'T LET OTHERS DRILL 

           12    A HOLE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE BOAT.  THERE IS ONLY ONE 

           13    SHIP FOR ALL OF US.  

           14             I THANK YOU.  THAT'S IT.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  MR. MARQUEZ.

           16        JESSE MARQUEZ:  MY NAME IS JESSE MARQUEZ.  I'M THE 

           17    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COALITION FOR A SAFE 

           18    ENVIRONMENT.  WE'RE ONE OF THE SMALLEST OF OUR 

           19    ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.  I LIVE AT 613 NORTH 

           20    GULF AVENUE IN WILMINGTON, CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS 4 BLOCKS 

           21    FROM THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES, APPROXIMATELY 15 BLOCKS 

           22    FROM THE PORT OF LONG BEACH, 7 BLOCKS FROM THE CONOCO 

           23    PHILLIPS OIL REFINERY, ABOUT 20 BLOCKS FROM VALERO OIL 

           24    REFINERY, ABOUT 25 FROM SHELL OIL REFINERY, AND ABOUT 30 

           25    FROM THE ARCO OIL REFINERY.  I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        21


                                                                          

            1    THE MEMBERSHIP THAT WE HAVE IN 24 CITIES HERE IN 

            2    CALIFORNIA.  

            3             ON JULY 11TH, 2007, ADMINISTRATOR STEVEN 

            4    JOHNSON STATED THAT BETWEEN 1970 AND 2006 TOTAL 

            5    EMISSIONS OF THE SIX PRINCIPAL AIR POLLUTANTS DROPPED 54 

            6    PERCENT AND THAT THIS WAS A SUCCESS.  I CALL THIS A 

            7    NATIONAL DISGRACE AND AN INSULT TO THE TENS OF THOUSANDS 

            8    OF PEOPLE WHO DIE EVERY YEAR PREMATURELY AND THE 

            9    MILLIONS OF U.S. RESIDENTS WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM 

           10    RESPIRATORY AND HEART DISEASES EVERY DAY FROM OZONE, AIR 

           11    POLLUTION, AND TOXIC CHEMICAL EXPOSURE.  

           12             IN 36 YEARS, IT SHOULD HAVE DROPPED OVER 90 

           13    PERCENT, NOT 54 PERCENT.  OZONE KILLS THE INNOCENT.  

           14    OZONE MAIMS PERMANENTLY.  OZONE DESTROYS FAMILY LIVES.  

           15    OZONE DESTROYS INDIVIDUALS' HOPES AND DREAMS.  OZONE IS 

           16    DESTROYING THE PLANET WE LIVE ON.  I ASK WHY.  THE ONLY 

           17    TRUTHFUL ANSWER IS THAT THE US EPA HAS ALLOWED IT TO 

           18    HAPPEN BY SETTING STANDARDS THAT WILL NEVER ACHIEVE A 

           19    SAFE ENVIRONMENT AND SAFE PUBLIC HEALTH LEVEL.  

           20             IN ALL OF THE U.S. EPA'S HISTORY, IT HAS NEVER 

           21    ELIMINATED OR MINIMIZED ANY PRINCIPLE CRITERIA TOXIC AIR 

           22    POLLUTANT.  THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.  ADMINISTRATOR 

           23    PROPOSED A STANDARD OF .070 PPM TO .075 PPM, WHICH IS 

           24    UNACCEPTABLE AND DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF 

           25    SAFETY.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        22


                                                                          

            1             IT IS A FACT THAT THE SURVEYING PARK IN 2002 

            2    UNANIMOUSLY RULED THAT PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH WAS THE 

            3    ONLY BASIS FOR A STANDARD, YET TODAY WE ARE STILL FACING 

            4    A GROWING MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.  IN FACT, THE 

            5    CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY 

            6    CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR 

            7    RETAINING THE CURRENT EIGHT-HOUR NAAQS STANDARD, THAT 

            8    THE CURRENT PRIMARY OZONE STANDARD BE REVISED AND THAT 

            9    IT SHOULD BE BETWEEN .060 AND .070 PPM.  STANDARDS NEED 

           10    TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH, 

           11    PARTICULARLY IN SENSITIVE POPULATIONS AND THAT IS THE 

           12    COMMUNITY THAT I REPRESENT.  

           13             THE OZONE HEALTH STUDY MUST EXPLICITLY INCLUDE 

           14    AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY AS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN 

           15    AIR ACT.  IT DOES NOT.  THE ROUNDING LOOPHOLE MUST BE 

           16    ELIMINATED.  FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS, LOS ANGELES 

           17    RESIDENTS HAVE ONLY SEEN ONE LARGE SMOG CLOUD OVER THE 

           18    CITY.  NOW WE SEE TWO.  IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, THE PORT 

           19    OF LOS ANGELES IS THE NUMBER ONE LARGEST AIR POLLUTION 

           20    SOURCE.  THE PORT OF LONG BEACH IS THE SECOND LARGEST 

           21    SOURCE.  THE SEVEN MAJOR OIL REFINERIES ARE THE THIRD 

           22    LARGEST SOURCE, AND HAVE CREATED A NEW TOXIC DEATH CLOUD 

           23    IN THE SOUTH BAY.  IN THE LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH 

           24    HARBORS, WE ARE NOW CALLED THE DIESEL DEATH ZONE.  YOU 

           25    CAN SEE THE SMOG CLOUD OVER THE HARBOR THAT NEVER 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        23


                                                                          

            1    EXISTED BEFORE.  

            2             THE MOST IMPACTED AREAS ARE ENVIRONMENTAL 

            3    JUSTICE COMMUNITIES COMPOSED OF PEOPLE OF COLOR, LOW 

            4    INCOME, POVERTY LEVEL, ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE AND 

            5    POLITICALLY DISENFRANCHISED.  OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

            6    COMMUNITIES HAVE, FOR DECADES, BEEN RACIALLY PROFILED, 

            7    TARGETS OF RACIAL CLASSISM, VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION, 

            8    AND DESIGNATED AS INDUSTRIAL SACRIFICIAL LAMBS.  IT IS 

            9    NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE TO US.  

           10             THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS FAIL TO 

           11    COMPLY WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 OF FEBRUARY 11TH, 

           12    1960 -- 1994, WHICH ARE THE FEDERAL ACTIONS TO ADDRESS 

           13    ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND MINORITY POPULATIONS AND 

           14    LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS.  THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT 

           15    PERFORMED TO IDENTIFY THE DISPROPORTIONATE HIGH AND 

           16    ADVERSE HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EFFECTS OF THIS 

           17    PROGRAM, POLICY, AND ACTIVITIES.  

           18             IN MY WRITTEN COMMENTS, I HAVE PROVIDED MORE 

           19    DETAILED INFORMATION; BUT IN THE PACKET I DO WANT TO 

           20    REPRESENT PEOPLE WHO CANNOT MAKE IT HERE.  ONE IS 

           21    MR. EDWARD MORRUM, A WILMINGTON RESIDENT WHO HAS 

           22    CURRENTLY BEEN IN LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY HOSPITAL FOR 

           23    SEVEN YEARS DYING OF LUNG CANCER.  HE NEVER SMOKED, 

           24    NEVER HAD ASTHMA OR ANY RESPIRATORY HEALTH PROBLEM IN 

           25    ALL OF HIS LIFE.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        24


                                                                          

            1             RIGHT HERE IS ANOTHER PHOTO OF LITTLE 

            2    ONE-YEAR-OLD ADRIA WITH HER MOTHER MARIE.  AT ONE YEAR 

            3    OLD, SHE'S ALREADY DIAGNOSED WITH ASTHMA AND HAVING TO 

            4    HAVE A NEBULIZER TO BREATHE.  ADRIA'S LITTLE BROTHER, 

            5    NINE YEARS OLD, ALREADY HAVING TO USE A RESPIRATOR.  

            6             THESE OTHER PHOTOS JUST SHOW WHAT OUR CLOUDS OF 

            7    SMOG ARE AND WHY THEY ARE CAUSED.  THIS IS CONOCO OIL 

            8    REFINERY ON ONE OF ITS FLARING SUNSET NIGHTS IN 

            9    WILMINGTON.  ANOTHER CLOUD OF POLLUTION DURING THE 

           10    DAYTIME.  AND HERE, JUST SOME FACT SHEETS SHOWING YOU 

           11    THE DATA FROM THE AQ DISTRICT OF OIL REFINERIES.  AS YOU 

           12    CAN SEE THE TOTALS, EVERY YEAR IT HAS INCREASED SINCE 

           13    1999.  

           14             I THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.  

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.  

           16    THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU.  

           17        MR. HABER:  I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. MARQUEZ.  

           18             ARE YOU RECOMMENDING -- WE'VE PROPOSED A 

           19    STANDARD OF PRETTY SIGNIFICANT FIGURES, AND PART OF THE 

           20    REASON FOR THAT WAS WE SAID THAT THAT REFLECTS THE 

           21    CURRENT STATE OF WHAT MONITORING TECHNOLOGY CAN DO.  

           22             ARE YOU SUPPORTING THAT IN YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT 

           23    THE --

           24        JESSE MARQUEZ:  I'M SUPPORTING THAT WE ADOPT THE 

           25    LOWEST STANDARD WHICH IS .060.  IT IS A FACT THAT --

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        25


                                                                          

            1        MR. HABER:  I'M SORRY.

            2        A.   -- TECHNOLOGY EXISTS RIGHT NOW TO ELIMINATE 

            3    OVER 90 PERCENT OF ALL EMISSIONS.

            4        MR. HABER:  YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED THAT WE CLOSE THE 

            5    ROUNDING LOOPHOLE AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT.  

            6             WOULD THIS DO THAT OR DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT 

            7    RECOMMENDATION?  

            8        JESSE MARQUEZ:  THIS WOULD DO THAT IF WE STAYED AT, 

            9    SPECIFICALLY, 060.

           10        MR. HABER:  THANK YOU.  

           11        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  MR. MARQUEZ, IF YOU WOULD 

           12    LIKE TO SUBMIT THOSE PHOTOS FOR THE RECORD, WE CAN 

           13    INCLUDE THOSE IN THE DOCKET, IF YOU HAVE COPIES OR --

           14        JESSE MARQUEZ:  I HAVE PASSED TO YOU COPIES ALREADY.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JACK 

           16    STEWART AND MIKE SANDLER.  

           17             ARE YOU MR. --

           18        JACK STEWART:  JACK STEWART.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  IS MR. SANDLER HERE?  ALL 

           20    RIGHT.  

           21        JACK STEWART:  GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR THE 

           22    OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY THIS MORNING.  

           23             MY NAME IS JACK STEWART.  I'M PRESIDENT OF 

           24    CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION.  

           25    CMTA IS CALIFORNIA'S ONLY STATEWIDE TRADE ASSOCIATION 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        26


                                                                          

            1    REPRESENTING MANUFACTURERS AND IS COMPRISED OF THOUSANDS 

            2    SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES LOCATED 

            3    THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  I AM ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE 

            4    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS STATE AND 

            5    ASSOCIATIONS GROUP, AN AFFILIATE ORGANIZATION STATE 

            6    MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTING 48 STATES.  

            7             I'D LIKE TO START BY ECHOING MY COMMENT -- BY 

            8    ECHOING COMMENTS THAT WE TOO SUPPORT U.S. EPA'S ONGOING 

            9    EFFORT TO IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THROUGHOUT THE NATION.  I 

           10    AM PROUD TO SAY THAT THE MANUFACTURERS I REPRESENT ARE 

           11    DOING THEIR PART TO MAKE THE AIR CLEANER HERE IN 

           12    CALIFORNIA.  I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT CMTA AND OUR MEMBER 

           13    COMPANIES FREQUENTLY PARTNER WITH THE CALIFORNIA 

           14    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE CALIFORNIA AIR 

           15    RESOURCES BOARD, AND THE LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS LOCATED 

           16    THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA TO ACHIEVE BOTH CLEANER AIR AND A 

           17    HEALTHY ECONOMY TO SERVE THE POPULATION THAT GROWS BY 

           18    SOME 500,000 PEOPLE EACH YEAR.  

           19             IN JUST THE PAST YEAR, CMTA MEMBER COMPANIES 

           20    HAVE WORKED WITH THE REGULATORY AGENCIES I JUST 

           21    MENTIONED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM OIL STORAGE TANKS, TO 

           22    REDUCE DIESEL EMISSIONS, TO REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM OUR 

           23    PORTS, TO ADVANCE FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY, TO REDUCE 

           24    FREIGHT TRAIN EMISSIONS, TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

           25    QUALITY OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.  THESE EXAMPLES ARE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        27


                                                                          

            1    BUT A FEW OF THE MANY EFFORTS OF THE CMTA COMPANIES -- 

            2    MEMBER COMPANIES ARE DOING TO IMPROVE THE AIR QUALITY 

            3    AND WORK TOWARDS ATTAINING THE CURRENT NATIONAL OZONE 

            4    STANDARD.  

            5             IN THAT REGARD, I BELIEVE IT IS INAPPROPRIATE 

            6    FOR U.S. EPA TO CHANGE THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD FOR 

            7    THE FOLLOWING REASONS:  ONE, THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD 

            8    IS WORKING.  BASED ON EPA ESTIMATES, AIR QUALITY 

            9    THROUGHOUT THE NATION HAS IMPROVED.  ACCORDING TO EPA'S 

           10    OWN DATA, TOTAL EMISSIONS IN THE SIX PRINCIPAL AIR 

           11    POLLUTANTS HAVE DROPPED BY 54 PERCENT SINCE 1970.  THE 

           12    NATIONAL AVERAGE FOR OZONE LEVELS HAS DECREASED BY 21 

           13    PERCENT DURING THE 1980 TO 2006 TIME FRAME.  CURRENT 

           14    FEDERAL AND STATE INITIATIVES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE 

           15    OZONE CAUSING EMISSIONS OVER THE NEXT TWO DECADES.  

           16    EXISTING REGULATIONS WILL RESULT IN EMISSION REDUCTIONS 

           17    FOR POWER PLANTS BY 50 PERCENT BY 2015 AND FROM CARS AND 

           18    TRUCKS BY MORE THAN 70 PERCENT BY 2030.  

           19             SECOND, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SCIENCE USED TO 

           20    JUSTIFY LOWERING THE OZONE STANDARDS SUGGEST THAT THE 

           21    EPA IS MAYBE PROPOSING REGULATIONS THAT COULD HARM THE 

           22    ECONOMY WITHOUT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED ENVIRONMENTAL 

           23    AND/OR PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS.  I WOULD NOTE THE RECENT 

           24    ADAMS STUDY DONE AT UC DAVIS, WHICH INDICATES THERE MAY 

           25    BE LITTLE OR NO PUBLIC HEALTH ADVANTAGE TO LOWERING THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        28


                                                                          

            1    OZONE STANDARDS BELOW THE CURRENT .08 PPM LEVEL.  

            2             FINALLY I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL 

            3    FOR ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR FURTHER -- THE POTENTIAL OF THE 

            4    ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FURTHER OZONE STANDARD REDUCTION.  

            5    THE EPA ESTIMATES THAT MEETING CURRENT AIR MANDATES WILL 

            6    COST THE NATION 27 BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY WITH A 

            7    CUMULATIVE COST OF MORE THAN 180 BILLION DOLLARS.  THE 

            8    INCREASED COST TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED STANDARD WILL 

            9    ADD ANOTHER 10- TO 22 BILLION DOLLARS IN ANNUAL COSTS, 

           10    MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR MANUFACTURERS TO REMAIN 

           11    COMPETITIVE IN THE UNITED STATES AND PROVIDE THE JOBS 

           12    FOR MILLION CALIFORNIANS.  

           13             I -- THE TERM I LEARNED DURING CALIFORNIA'S 

           14    GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE IS "LEAKAGE," OR THE INADVERTENT 

           15    ACT OF MOVING JOBS AND THEIR RELATED DIVISIONS FROM ONE 

           16    GEOGRAPHIC REGION TO ANOTHER DUE TO INCREASED REGULATORY 

           17    COSTS.  IF THE COST TO COMPLY WITH THE LOWER OZONE 

           18    STANDARD CAUSES US MANUFACTURERS TO MOVE INDUSTRIAL 

           19    OPERATIONS TO LESS COSTLY, LESS REGULATED LOCATIONS, IN 

           20    SUCH PLACES AS MEXICO, SOUTH AMERICA, AND ASIA, THEN WE 

           21    HAVE SUCCEEDED IN ONLY DOING HARM TO OUR ECONOMY WHILE 

           22    TRANSFERRING EMISSIONS TO ANOTHER REGION OF THE WORLD.  

           23             TO PUT IT QUITE SIMPLY, THE CURRENT STANDARDS 

           24    ARE WORKING.  IMPROVEMENTS IN AIR QUALITY HAVE AND 

           25    CONTINUE TO OCCUR.  FOR THAT REASON, I HAVE -- FOR THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        29


                                                                          

            1    REASONS I HAVE MENTIONED, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS 

            2    TIME TO CHANGE THE NATIONAL OZONE STANDARD.  DOING SO 

            3    WOULD BE, IN EFFECT, MOVING THE GOALPOST IN THE MIDDLE 

            4    OF THE GAME.  

            5             I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.  THANK 

            6    YOU.  

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  JUST A COMMENT, WHICH I'M 

            8    SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF.  

            9             WE DON'T TAKE COSTS OR IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 

           10    INTO ACCOUNT IN SETTING THE STANDARD, SO THE ECONOMIC 

           11    ISSUES ARE ONES WE DON'T CONSIDER.  

           12             I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU ABOUT THE ADAMS 

           13    STUDY THAT YOU MENTIONED.  PERHAPS YOU'RE GOING TO 

           14    PROVIDE FURTHER DETAIL ON WRITTEN COMMENTS, BUT YOU SAID 

           15    THAT -- I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE STUDY SHOWS THAT THERE 

           16    WILL BE LITTLE OR NO PUBLIC HEALTH IMPROVEMENT?  

           17        JACK STEWART:  YES.

           18        MS. WEGMAN:  AND IF YOU COULD PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON 

           19    YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT.

           20        JACK STEWART:  OKAY.  

           21        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  

           22        MR. HANNON:  I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON THE LAST 

           23    COMMENT YOU MADE ABOUT MOVING THE GOALPOST IN THE MIDDLE 

           24    OF THE GAME.  I HAVE SEEN THAT REFLECTED IN OTHER 

           25    COMMENTS AS WELL.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        30


                                                                          

            1             HOW DO YOU -- HOW DO YOU PUT THAT IN THE 

            2    CONTEXT WHERE CONGRESS HAS MANDATED THAT WE HAVE A 

            3    REVIEW EVERY FIVE YEARS TO REVIEW AND REVISE AND ACT AS 

            4    APPROPRIATE -- 

            5        JACK STEWART:  WELL, IT SEEMS TO BE THAT A VERY 

            6    DETAILED -- WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH A VERY DETAILED 

            7    PROCESS OF DOING STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.  IT JUST 

            8    SEEMS TO BE, WE HAVE SET UP A METHODOLOGY NOW TO GO 

            9    AFTER THE CURRENT LEVELS; AND UNTIL WE GET TO THOSE 

           10    LEVELS, IT SEEMS INAPPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THE STANDARDS 

           11    UNTIL WE DO THAT.  

           12        MS. WEGMAN:  MR. SANDLER.  

           13        MIKE SANDLER:  THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY.  

           14    MY NAME IS MIKE SANDLER.  I AM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

           15    OUTREACH DIRECTOR FOR CALIFORNIA INTERFAITH POWER AND 

           16    LIGHT.  

           17             I'M HERE TO URGE THE ADOPTION OF THE STRICTEST 

           18    POSSIBLE OZONE STANDARD.  CALIFORNIA INTERFAITH POWER 

           19    AND LIGHT WAS FOUNDED TO ORGANIZE A RELIGIOUS RESPONSE 

           20    TO GLOBAL WARMING AS THE MORAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME.  OUR 

           21    MEMBER CONGREGATIONS ARE LED BY CLERGY WHO ARE EDUCATING 

           22    THEIR CONGREGANTS ABOUT THE DANGERS OF GLOBAL WARMING 

           23    AND OUR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT.  

           24    EVERY MAJOR RELIGION CALLS ON ITS BELIEVERS TO BE 

           25    FAITHFUL STEWARDS OF CREATION.  THE WEB OF LIFE THAT 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        31


                                                                          

            1    SURROUNDS US AND BINDS US TO EACH OTHER AND TO OUR 

            2    PLANET.  WE ALL HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT CREATION TO 

            3    INSURE A HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN 

            4    AND FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.  

            5             WE SHARE THE CONCERN OF MANY ENVIRONMENTAL AND 

            6    PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS ABOUT AIR POLLUTION AND ITS 

            7    RESULTANT HEALTH EFFECTS, INCLUDING THE ASTHMA EPIDEMIC.  

            8    I MYSELF AM AN ASTHMA SUFFERER, WHICH I BELIEVE I 

            9    CONTRACTED WHILE LIVING IN SACRAMENTO AND THE CENTRAL 

           10    VALLEY IN THE '80S.  HERE IN LOS ANGELES, WITH SOME OF 

           11    THE HIGHEST OZONE LEVELS IN THE COUNTRY, CHILDREN, 

           12    TEENAGERS, SENIOR CITIZENS, AND PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE 

           13    ARE VICTIMS TO THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE.  

           14             CALIFORNIA INTERFAITH POWER AND LIGHT JOINS 

           15    WITH OTHER GROUPS, SUCH AS ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA, THE 

           16    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF 

           17    PEDIATRICS, AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY, AND MANY OTHER 

           18    PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS IN RECOMMENDING 

           19    AN OZONE STANDARD OF 0.06 PARTS PER MILLION.  THE EPA 

           20    MUST IMPROVE ITS CURRENT PROPOSAL FOR THE NATIONAL AIR 

           21    QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE TO FOLLOW WHAT YOUR OWN 

           22    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS HAVE SAID IS NEEDED TO PROTECT 

           23    PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           24             WHEN YOU FINALIZE THE STANDARDS NEXT YEAR, I 

           25    URGE YOU TO ADOPT A STRONG OZONE STANDARD OF 0.060 PARTS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        32


                                                                          

            1    PER MILLION CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF YOUR 

            2    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.  

            3             IN MY REMAINING FEW MOMENTS, I'D LIKE TO READ A 

            4    FEW QUOTES FROM VARIOUS RELIGIOUS LEADERS AROUND THE 

            5    WORLD.  

            6             QUOTE, "WE CANNOT INTERFERE IN ONE AREA OF THE 

            7    ECO SYSTEM WITHOUT PAYING DUE ATTENTION BOTH TO THE 

            8    CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH INTERFERENCE IN OTHER AREAS AND TO 

            9    THE WELL-BEING OF FUTURE GENERATIONS."  POPE JOHN PAUL, 

           10    II.

           11             "GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT JUST A SCIENTIFIC OR A 

           12    POLITICAL ISSUE.  IT IS A MORAL ISSUE.  IT IS TIME FOR 

           13    THE MORAL VOICE OF RELIGION TO SPEAK UP LOUDLY TO DEMAND 

           14    ACTION."  RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS 

           15    ACTION CENTER OF REFORMED JUDAISM.  

           16             "MUSLIMS, HEED THE CALL TO PROTECT THE EARTH 

           17    AND ITS INHABITANTS.  WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH 

           18    OUR CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO REDUCE 

           19    GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION."  DR. SAYYID M. SEED, 

           20    SECRETARY GENERAL OF ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA.  

           21             YOU MAY WONDER, WHY AM I TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL 

           22    WARMING IN AN OZONE HEARING?  WELL, I ACTUALLY 

           23    CO-AUTHORED A STUDY FOR THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY 

           24    MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN 2003 DESCRIBING MANY OF THE 

           25    OVERLAPS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND AIR POLLUTION.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        33


                                                                          

            1             AS YOU MAY KNOW, AS TEMPERATURES RISE, THE 

            2    INCIDENTS OF OZONE BECOMES MORE PRONOUNCED.  AND IF 

            3    YOU'RE INTERESTED, I COULD REFER YOU TO THOSE STUDIES OR 

            4    YOU CAN CONTACT THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

            5    DISTRICT AND ASK THEM ABOUT THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN 

            6    2003.  SO RISING TEMPERATURE IS ONE ASPECT.  

            7             I WAS JUST IN THE OTHER ROOM TALKING WITH 

            8    SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO CAME DOWN HERE FROM FRESNO.  WHEN I 

            9    DROVE THE I-5 THROUGH THE CENTRAL VALLEY A COUPLE WEEKS 

           10    AGO, I NOTICED THAT THE AIR QUALITY IS TYPICALLY PRETTY 

           11    BAD, BUT IT SEEMED WORSE THAN USUAL.  I ASKED THEM, 

           12    "WHAT ABOUT THE FOREST FIRES IN SANTA BARBARA?"  OVER 

           13    80,000 ACRES OF FOREST HAS BEEN BURNING NORTH OF SANTA 

           14    BARBARA.  ALL OF THAT AIR POLLUTION IS BLOWN INLAND AND 

           15    HAS HAD AN EFFECT.  

           16             SO INCREASED FOREST FIRES, MORE PRONOUNCED HEAT 

           17    WAVES, AND DROUGHTS WILL ALL AFFECT AIR QUALITY.  

           18             ALSO, ON A DAY LIKE TODAY WHEN OUR PEEK POWER 

           19    LOAD IS AT ITS MAXIMUM, A LOT OF THOSE PEEK POWER PLANTS 

           20    ARE ONLINE.  THOSE TYPICALLY HAVE A GREATER IMPACT ON 

           21    AIR POLLUTION AS WELL.  

           22             SO I GUESS IN CONCLUSION, I URGE YOU TO TAKE 

           23    STRONG ACTION.  THANK YOU FOR HEARING MY TESTIMONY 

           24    TODAY.  

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  QUESTIONS?  THANK YOU BOTH.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        34


                                                                          

            1    ELINA GREEN, AND -- IS THERE AN INTERPRETER COMING IN?  

            2    OH, THE NEXT PERSON.  THANK YOU.  MONICA PARILLA.  YES.  

            3    THANK YOU.  

            4             WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL --

            5        ELINA GREEN:  SURE.  GOOD MORNING.  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  I'M SORRY, THE MICROPHONE.  

            7        ELINA GREEN:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS ELINA GREEN.  

            8    I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE LONG BEACH ALLIANCE FOR 

            9    CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA, AND WE'RE A BROAD-BASED COMMUNITY 

           10    ASTHMA COALITION WORKING IN LONG BEACH AND THE 

           11    SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND 

           12    WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA WHO ARE LIVING IN 

           13    THOSE COMMUNITIES.  

           14             SO HAVING SAID THAT, I DO COME REPRESENTING A 

           15    REALLY BROAD-BASED COMMUNITY COALITION OF AGENCIES, 

           16    PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTITIONERS, CLINICIANS, AND FAMILIES OF 

           17    CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA.  SO OUR COMMUNITIES ARE CURRENTLY 

           18    INUNDATED WITH POLLUTION.  

           19             I KNOW JESSE MARQUEZ SPOKE BEFORE ME ABOUT THE 

           20    POWER PLANTS AND THE GOODS MOVEMENT SYSTEM THAT'S 

           21    FUNCTIONING HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.  THIS GOODS 

           22    MOVEMENT SYSTEM BRINGS IN 40 PERCENT OF THE NATION'S 

           23    GOODS, AND THESE -- THAT WHOLE SYSTEM IS HAVING A 

           24    HORRIBLE IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THESE COMMUNITIES.  

           25    THIS IMPACTS THE WORK THAT YOU ALL ARE DOING AROUND 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        35


                                                                          

            1    OZONE.  

            2             THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD DID AN 

            3    EMISSION REDUCTION PLAN, AND THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN 

            4    THERE THAT WAS VERY TELLING ABOUT THE WORK THAT YOU ALL 

            5    ARE DOING AND CONSIDERING IN TERMS OF CAPPING THE OZONE 

            6    LEVELS IN THIS AREA AND THAT THEY ASCEEDED IN THEIR 

            7    DOCUMENT THAT THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ARE 

            8    SUBSIDIZING THE GOODS MOVEMENT SECTOR WITH THEIR HEALTH.  

            9             SO THESE EXTERN AMOUNTS THAT THE EMISSION 

           10    REDUCTION PLAN LOOKED AT ARE OFTEN NOT TAKEN INTO 

           11    ACCOUNT WHEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE DOING REGULATIONS 

           12    AND RULE MAKING.  IT'S IN THIS REALLY CRITICAL TIME THAT 

           13    I'M HOPING TO BRING FORWARD SOME OF THOSE STORIES IN 

           14    THAT WE PROVIDE FREE SERVICES FOR COMMUNITIES THAT ARE 

           15    EXPERIENCING THE NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS AND ARE NOT 

           16    BEING COVERED BY THE INDUSTRY OR ARE NOT TAKEN INTO 

           17    ACCOUNT OFTEN WHEN THIS TYPE OF RULE MAKING IS BEING 

           18    MADE.  

           19             SO I REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER THESE IMPACTS 

           20    THAT NO ACTION WOULD HAVE -- NO ACTION AROUND THE OZONE 

           21    REGULATIONS WOULD HAVE ON THE FAMILIES LIVING IN THESE 

           22    COMMUNITIES WHO ARE ALREADY HEAVILY INUNDATED WITH AIR 

           23    POLLUTION.  I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS YET CITED THIS, 

           24    BUT YOU KNOW, THE FOLKS LIVING IN CALIFORNIA HAVE MUCH 

           25    HIGHER RATES OF ASTHMA FOR BOTH CHILDREN AND ADULTS.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        36


                                                                          

            1    THERE'S ABOUT A 13-PERCENT AVERAGE RATE OF ASTHMA AS 

            2    COMPARED TO AROUND A 10-PERCENT NATIONAL AVERAGE; BUT 

            3    THAT BEING SO, THERE ARE HOT-SPOT COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE 

            4    ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED, PARTICULARLY OUR SOUTHERN 

            5    CALIFORNIA AREA.  

            6             IN THE LONG BEACH HEALTH DISTRICT, THERE'S BEEN 

            7    RECENT DATA THAT SHOWED A 20-PERCENT RATE IN CHILDREN.  

            8    SO WE KNOW THAT CHILDREN ARE ALREADY HEAVILY IMPACTED.  

            9    AND REGULATIONS THAT GOVERNING BODIES, SUCH AS THE EPA, 

           10    ARE MAKING DO HAVE DRAMATIC IMPACTS IN IMPROVING THE 

           11    HEALTH OF THESE COMMUNITIES AND MUST BE CONSIDERED.  

           12             SO I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING MY COMMUNITY TO 

           13    REQUEST THAT THESE ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES BE 

           14    CONSIDERED IN THE RULE MAKING IN THAT EPA MOVES FORWARD 

           15    WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEIR OWN SCIENTISTS HAVE 

           16    MADE TO SET THE LIMITS AT .06 FOR THE OZONE AND PROTECT 

           17    THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA LIVING 

           18    IN THESE COMMUNITIES.  SO THANK YOU.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  MRS. PARILLA AND 

           20    INTERPRETER, HELLO.  

           21        MONICA PARILLA:  (STATEMENT GIVEN IN SPANISH.)

           22        THE INTERPRETER:  GOOD MORNING, ALTHOUGH I'M GOING 

           23    TO SPEAK THROUGHOUT THE HEARING TODAY, WITH THE FIRST 

           24    PERSON I WILL ALWAYS BE REFERRING TO THE EXACT WORDS OF 

           25    THE SPEAKERS.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        37


                                                                          

            1             HAVING SAID THAT, SHE SAID:  

            2                 "MY NAME IS MONICA PARILLA, AND I AM HERE 

            3             REPRESENTING MY COMMUNITY IN LONG BEACH.  I 

            4             HAVE LIVED IN LONG BEACH FOR SIX YEARS, AND I 

            5             LOVE MY COMMUNITY AND THAT IS WHAT BRINGS ME 

            6             HERE TODAY.  I ALSO HAVE A CHILD WHO IS 

            7             SUFFERING WITH ASTHMA, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW 

            8             MORTIFYING IT IS NOT KNOWING WHEN HE MIGHT HAVE 

            9             AN ATTACK, HAVING -- OR WHEN I MIGHT HAVE TO 

           10             RUSH OUT TO THE E.R., HAVING TO GO TO CONSTANT 

           11             DOCTOR'S VISITS, RUNNING OUT OF MEDICATION, 

           12             HAVING TO GO OUT AND GET MORE, ALSO CALLING THE 

           13             SCHOOL CONSTANTLY TO CHECK HOW HE'S DOING, AND 

           14             LIVING IN FEAR THAT THE SCHOOL WILL CALL ME AT 

           15             ANY MOMENT TO LET ME KNOW THAT HE HAD AN 

           16             ATTACK.  YOU'RE ALWAYS AFRAID THAT THE REST OF 

           17             YOUR CHILDREN OR THE CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY 

           18             WILL ALSO GET ASTHMA.  

           19                 "IT ISN'T POSSIBLE THAT KNOWING ALL OF THE 

           20             DIFFERENT CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE SUFFERING, NOT 

           21             ONLY ASTHMA BUT OTHER ILLNESSES, SUCH AS 

           22             CANCER, AND WITH YOU HAVING THE MEANS TO 

           23             CORRECT THIS, THAT IT IS NOT BEING DONE.  

           24                 "YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS HAVE INDICATED THAT 

           25             YOU NEED TO REDUCE THE OZONE STANDARDS, AND I 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        38


                                                                          

            1             URGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION.  IT IS MOSTLY OUR 

            2             LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES THAT ARE HARMED BY THE 

            3             AIR POLLUTION GENERATED.  SO I AM HERE TO ASK 

            4             THAT YOU, PLEASE, HELP US CLEAN UP OUR 

            5             ENVIRONMENT."  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  GRACIAS.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS 

            7    ARE RABINA SUWOL AND ALICIA HANCOCK.  

            8        RABINA SUWOL:  HI, GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS --

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU HAVE TO HOLD IT.  

           10        RABINA SUWOL:  HI, GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS RABINA 

           11    SUWOL.  I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA SAFE 

           12    SCHOOLS.  WE ARE A CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

           13    ORGANIZATION LOCATED HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.  THANK 

           14    YOU FOR SCHEDULING THESE IMPORTANT MEETINGS TODAY AND 

           15    FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.  

           16             WITH ASTHMA, CANCER, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, 

           17    HORMONAL DISRUPTIONS, AND A HOST OF IMMUNE DISORDERS 

           18    VERY MUCH EPIDEMIC, IT'S IMPERATIVE TO SET MORE 

           19    PROTECTIVE STANDARDS REGARDING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

           20    HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES, STANDARDS THAT COMPLY WITH 

           21    THE CLEAN AIR ACT, STANDARDS THAT RECOGNIZE THE UNIQUE 

           22    VULNERABILITY OF CHILDREN, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

           23    COMMUNITIES THAT YOU'VE HEARD MANY MEMBERS SPEAK BEFORE 

           24    YOU TODAY THAT ARE COMMUNITIES WHOSE LIVES AND HEALTH 

           25    ARE ALREADY DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY TOXIC 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        39


                                                                          

            1    EMISSIONS FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES.  

            2             HERE IN CALIFORNIA, WE HAVE THE MOST 

            3    CONTAMINATED AIR ON THE CONTINENT AND I THINK IT'S 

            4    REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT.  IT IS ABOUT 

            5    OUR CHILDREN WHO ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE.  THEY HAVE NO 

            6    WAR CHESTS, THEY HAVE NO VOTE, THEY HAVE NO LOBBYISTS, 

            7    AND THEY DEPEND UPON ADULTS TO PROTECT THEM.  WITH EPA'S 

            8    OWN THRESHOLD STANDARD BASED UPON 160-POUND ADULT MALE, 

            9    HEALTHY MALE, OUR CHILDREN AND FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE AT 

           10    RISK.  

           11             I ASK THAT EPA PLEASE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO 

           12    INSURE GREATER PROTECTION FOR ALL CITIZENS BY CREATING 

           13    MORE STANDARDS THAT WILL PROTECT HEALTH AND THE 

           14    ENVIRONMENT AND COMPLY WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  THANK 

           15    YOU SO MUCH.  

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  DO YOU HAVE A VIEW ON WHAT 

           17    LEVEL WE SHOULD SET OUR OZONE STANDARD -- AT WHAT LEVEL 

           18    WE SHOULD SET IT?  

           19        RABINA SUWOL:  I THINK THAT YOUR SCIENTISTS HAVE 

           20    SPOKEN, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO WORK WITH 

           21    COMMUNITIES AND OTHER SCIENTISTS WHO ARE VERY 

           22    KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE VERY SPECIFICS IN A NUMBER.  I 

           23    THINK IT WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE FOR TO STATE A NUMBER 

           24    AT THIS TIME BECAUSE I REALLY THINK IT NEEDS TO BE 

           25    REVIEWED.  THANK YOU SO MUCH.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        40


                                                                          

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  MS. HANCOCK.  

            2        ALICIA HANCOCK:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS ALICIA 

            3    HANCOCK, AND I AM A MEMBER OF ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA.  I 

            4    WANT TO THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK 

            5    TO YOU THIS MORNING ABOUT THE OZONE STANDARDS.  

            6             MY JOB IS ACTUALLY WORKING AS AN ATTORNEY, BUT 

            7    I'M NOT HERE FOR MY JOB TODAY.  I'M HERE BECAUSE I FEEL 

            8    LIKE IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO COMMENT ON OUR AIR 

            9    QUALITY STANDARDS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.  I'M HERE 

           10    BECAUSE I FEEL IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A RESIDENT OF 

           11    LOS ANGELES CITY WITH ONE OF THE WORST AIR QUALITIES IN 

           12    THE COUNTRY, AND I'M HERE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'S MY 

           13    RESPONSIBILITY AS THE AUNT OF A FOUR-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO 

           14    LIVES IN SOUTH L.A. WHO HAS TO OFTEN STOP PLAYING 

           15    BECAUSE HIS ASTHMA JUST GETS TOO BAD.  I HAVE A 

           16    RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS FUTURE AND MY 

           17    FUTURE CONTAIN A LOT LESS BAD AIR DAYS.  

           18             YOUR JOB HERE TODAY IS TO LISTEN TO ALL OF US 

           19    AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL CONTINUE TO FILE THROUGH 

           20    THIS ROOM UNTIL 9:00 O'CLOCK TONIGHT, AND I'M NOT SURE 

           21    THAT I ENVY YOU THAT.  YOU'LL HERE FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE 

           22    LIKE ME WHO WILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADOPT THE STRICTEST 

           23    STANDARD POSSIBLE OF .060 PARTS PER MILLION, AND YOU'RE 

           24    ALSO GOING TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO TELL YOU 

           25    THAT WE'RE JUST FINE AND THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THE STATUS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        41


                                                                          

            1    QUO.  

            2             BUT WHAT I'M HERE TO DO IS REMIND YOU THAT YOU 

            3    HAVE ONE RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS TO 

            4    PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  THE CLEAN AIR ACT MANDATES 

            5    THAT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS MUST BE SET AT LEVELS THAT 

            6    PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, INCLUDING THAT OF SENSITIVE 

            7    POPULATIONS, WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  THE 

            8    SUPREME COURT, IN 2002, ALSO MANDATED THAT IN SETTING 

            9    THOSE STANDARDS, PUBLIC HEALTH SHOULD BE THE SOLE FACTOR 

           10    CONSIDERED BY THE EPA.  

           11             HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW:  WE KNOW THAT ONE-THIRD OF 

           12    THE U.S. POPULATION LIVES IN CITIES RIGHT NOW WITH AN 

           13    UNSAFE LEVEL OF OZONE.  THAT'S 99 MILLION PEOPLE.  WE 

           14    KNOW THAT EXPOSURE TO OZONE LEADS TO AN INCREASED RISK 

           15    OF PREMATURE DEATH.  WE KNOW THAT BREATHING OZONE, EVEN 

           16    AT LOW LEVELS, CAN LEAD TO CHEST PAIN AND COUGHING, 

           17    AGGRAVATED ASTHMA, REDUCED LUNG FUNCTION, AND 

           18    IRREVERSIBLE LUNG DAMAGE.  

           19             IN 2006, THE CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

           20    COMMITTEE REVIEWED OVER 2,000 PAGES OF SCIENTIFIC 

           21    STUDIES.  AFTER DOING SO, THEY UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED 

           22    THAT THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARDS ARE INADEQUATE, AND I 

           23    WOULD ARGUE THAT THE STANDARDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY 

           24    PROPOSED ARE ALSO INADEQUATE.  IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT 

           25    YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, NOT ONLY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        42


                                                                          

            1    THE MOST SENSITIVE INDIVIDUALS, BUT THE HEALTH OF ALL OF 

            2    US, I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER ADOPTING THE 

            3    STANDARD OF .060 PARTS PER MILLION.  

            4             YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO HEAR FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE 

            5    WHOSE JOB IT IS TO REPRESENT THE OIL INDUSTRY, THE AUTO 

            6    INDUSTRY, THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY, AND THE DIESEL 

            7    ENGINE INDUSTRY.  THEIR JOB IS TO TELL YOU THAT 

            8    EVERYTHING IS FINE.  THEIR JOB IS TO TELL YOU THAT 

            9    LOWERING THE STANDARDS WILL LEAD TO ECONOMIC DISTRESS.  

           10    IT COULD LEAD TO JOBS LEAVING AND COULD DISRUPT BUSINESS 

           11    AS USUAL.  BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY.  THEIR 

           12    RESPONSIBILITY IS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT MAINTAINING THE 

           13    STATUS QUO GOES AGAINST A DECADE OF SCIENCE THAT SAYS 

           14    DOING SO IS DANGEROUS TO HUMAN HEALTH.  THEY ALSO HAVE A 

           15    RESPONSIBILITY TO LET YOU KNOW THAT TODAY WE HAVE THE 

           16    TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL ALLOW US TO CREATE ENERGY, PROVIDE 

           17    TRANSPORTATION, AND CONTINUE WITH BUSINESS AS USUAL 

           18    WITHOUT EMITTING DANGEROUS LEVELS OF NITROUS OXIDE AND 

           19    VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.  

           20             SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO URGE YOU, AGAIN, TO 

           21    REMEMBER THAT YOUR ONE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO HUMAN 

           22    HEALTH.  AND IN ORDER TO MEET YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO 

           23    PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH, THE EPA SHOULD ADOPT A STANDARD OF 

           24    0.060 PARTS PER MILLION.  THANKS VERY MUCH.  

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  QUESTIONS?  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        43


                                                                          

            1        MR. HABER:  YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THE EXISTENCE OF 

            2    TECHNOLOGIES --

            3        MS. WEGMAN:  MS. HANCOCK, ONE QUESTION FROM 

            4    MR. HABER.

            5        ALICIA HANCOCK:  OH, I'M SORRY.  

            6        MR. HABER:  THANKS.  YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THE 

            7    EXISTENCE OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT EXIST THAT WOULD BE 

            8    CAPABLE OF REDUCING NITROGEN OXIDES AND VOC EMISSIONS 

            9    THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO ATTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS, 

           10    PERHAPS PARTICULARLY IN THE L.A. BASIN.  

           11             WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THAT 

           12    NOW, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, IN YOUR WRITTEN 

           13    COMMENTS, TO SUBMIT EXAMPLES OF THOSE TECHNOLOGIES 

           14    BECAUSE WE'D BE VERY INTERESTED.  

           15        ALICIA HANCOCK:  OKAY.  

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  NEXT SPEAKERS ARE DAN JOHNSON AND LARRY 

           17    GREEN.  

           18        DAN JOHNSON:  MY NAME IS DAN JOHNSON, AND I'M HERE 

           19    TODAY REPRESENTING THE WESTERN STATES AIR RESOURCES 

           20    COUNSEL.  THAT IS WESTAR TO MOST PEOPLE.  WESTAR'S 

           21    MEMBERS INCLUDE THE AIR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATORS FROM THE 

           22    15 WESTERN STATES.  EACH MEMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 

           23    PROTECTING AGAINST HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

           24    IMPACTS FROM AIR POLLUTION.  AS SUCH, WE'RE VERY 

           25    INTERESTED IN THESE STANDARDS.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        44


                                                                          

            1             INDIVIDUAL WESTAR MEMBERS WILL COMMENT ON THE 

            2    PROPOSAL THAT WILL FOCUS ON THE LEVEL AND THE FORM OF 

            3    THE STANDARDS AND EMPHASIZE EPA'S OBLIGATION TO SET THE 

            4    STANDARDS BASED ON SCIENCE WITHOUT REGARD TO 

            5    IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.  WESTAR'S COMMENTS TODAY ASSUME 

            6    THAT EPA WILL ADOPT NEW LOWER OZONE STANDARDS, AND BASED 

            7    ON THAT ASSUMPTION, WILL FOCUS ON THE IMPACT OF THE 

            8    REVISED STANDARDS IN THE WEST, THE FUNDING, AND 

            9    RESOURCES NEEDED TO EVALUATE AND IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS TO 

           10    ADDRESS OZONE UNDER REVISED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 

           11    STANDARDS AND THE POTENTIAL FAR REACHING EFFECT OF A NEW 

           12    SECONDARY STANDARD.  

           13             FIRST, FUNDING:  IF EPA ADOPTS A PRIMARY 

           14    STANDARD IN THE PROPOSED RANGE OF 0.07 TO 0.75 PARTS PER 

           15    MILLION, IT'S LIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE MANY NEW LARGE 

           16    NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS IN THE WESTERN STATES AND 

           17    TRANSPORTED AIR POLLUTION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE 

           18    TO THESE NEW PROBLEM AREAS.  THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE IN 

           19    MANY STATES, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE EASTERN U.S. WHERE 

           20    EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO UNDERSTAND THE 

           21    COMPLEX ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORT.  

           22             WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT PROVIDED PRIMARILY 

           23    THROUGH THE OZONE TRANSPORT COMMISSION, OR THE O.T.C., 

           24    THOSE STATES HAVE DEVELOPED THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES 

           25    THAT ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE SOURCE RECEPTOR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        45


                                                                          

            1    RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS GEOPOLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND TO 

            2    IDENTIFY THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO UNHEALTHFUL 

            3    LEVELS OF OZONE THROUGH MOST OF THE EASTERN U.S.  PARTLY 

            4    AS AN OUTGROWTH OF THAT ANALYSIS, EPA HAS IMPLEMENTED 

            5    SEVERAL IMPORTANT EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS THAT HAVE 

            6    RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS, 

            7    INCLUDING THE NAAQS AND CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE CARE.  

            8             THE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN AIR POLLUTION 

            9    IN THE EASTERN U.S. WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT 

           10    FINANCIAL SUPPORT THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE O.T.C. 

           11    TO ASSIST IN EVALUATION OF PLANNING AND THE FUNDING TO 

           12    IMPLEMENT THE NOX SIP CALL AND CARE.  THE WESTERN STATES 

           13    DID NOT BENEFIT FROM THESE PROGRAMS.  THE FUNDS USED BY 

           14    EPA WERE TAKEN OFF THE TOP OF FUNDS PROVIDED BY CONGRESS 

           15    TO SUPPORT ALL STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

           16    AGENCIES.  

           17             THE EFFECT OF THESE OFF-THE-TOP ALLOCATIONS HAS 

           18    BEEN TO REDUCE THE FUNDING AVAILABLE TO WESTERN STATE 

           19    LOCAL PROGRAMS.  WESTERN STATES HAVE ACCEPTED THESE 

           20    REDUCTIONS UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF AND THE COSTS 

           21    ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING THE NECESSARY CAPACITY TO 

           22    ADDRESS REGIONAL PROBLEMS.  

           23             WITH EPA'S PROMULGATION OF A NEW STAND AND THE 

           24    PROPOSED CHANGE, THE WESTERN STATES WILL BE IN THE SAME 

           25    POSITION AS THE EASTERN STATES WERE IN 20 YEARS AGO.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        46


                                                                          

            1    WE'LL BE FACED WITH A COMPLEX REGIONAL SCALE PROBLEM 

            2    AFFECTING A VAST GEOGRAPHICAL AREA WITHOUT THE CAPACITY 

            3    TO EVALUATE THE UNDERLYING CAUSES AND EFFECTS, MUCH LESS 

            4    ASSESS MOST COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE 

            5    PROBLEMS.  

            6             ACCORDINGLY, WE EXPECT EPA TO PROVIDE FUNDING 

            7    COMMENSURATE WITH THAT PROVIDED TO SUPPORT THE O.T.C., 

            8    NOX SIP CALL AND CARE.  A NEW LOWER OZONE STANDARD WILL 

            9    RESULT IN GOOD WORK FOR THE WESTERN STATES.  THE FUNDING 

           10    NEEDED BY THE WESTERN STATES TO ADDRESS THIS IMPORTANT 

           11    NEW CHALLENGE SHOULD NOT BE A REALLOCATION OF EXISTING 

           12    FUNDS CURRENTLY BEING USED TO CARRY OUT OTHER IMPORTANT 

           13    AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, NOR SHOULD IT ADVERSELY 

           14    IMPACT THE ONGOING AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS GOING 

           15    ON IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.  

           16             SECOND TOPIC IS THE SECONDARY STANDARD.  A NEW 

           17    SECONDARY STANDARD TO PROTECT AGAINST ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 

           18    FROM OZONE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT MOST -- MANY MOSTLY 

           19    RURAL WESTERN STATES.  MONITORING WILL BE NEEDED TO 

           20    DETERMINE THE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE IN THESE AREAS WHERE 

           21    LITTLE OR NO DATA IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.  IF A PROBLEM 

           22    IS FOUND, CREDIBLE ANALYSIS WILL BE NEEDED TO JUSTIFY 

           23    THE IMPOSITION OF CONTROLS.  

           24             AS DISCUSSED BEFORE WITH RESPECT TO THE 

           25    PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY STANDARD, EPA WILL NEED TO PROVIDE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        47


                                                                          

            1    SIGNIFICANT FUNDING TO STATES:  FIRST, TO IDENTIFY AREAS 

            2    THAT VIOLATE THE SECONDARY STANDARD; THEN TO EVALUATE 

            3    THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE INITIAL REDUCTION OPTIONS.  

            4             IN SUMMARY, EPA SHOULD ADOPT NEW STANDARDS FOR 

            5    OZONE BASED ON SCIENCE WITHOUT REGARD TO IMPLEMENTATION 

            6    ISSUES.  WE TRUST THAT EPA UNDERSTANDS THIS OBLIGATION 

            7    AND THAT NEW LOWER STANDARDS WILL BE PROMULGATED.  IN 

            8    RESPONSE WESTERN STATES WILL NEED TO DEVELOP THE 

            9    EXPERTISE AND CAPACITY TO ASSESS THE STATUS OF 

           10    COMPLIANCE WITH NEW STANDARDS OVER A VAST GEOGRAPHIC 

           11    AREA AND TO EVALUATE AND IMPLEMENT EMISSION REDUCTION 

           12    OPTIONS.  

           13             TO ACCOMPLISH THIS EFFECTIVELY AND ON A TIMELY 

           14    BASIS, WESTERN STATES WILL NEED ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL 

           15    SUPPORT COMMENSURATE WITH THAT PROVIDED TO EASTERN 

           16    STATES OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES.  THANK YOU.  

           17        MR. HANNON:  I DO TAKE IT THAT YOU'RE ASSUMING AND 

           18    PRESUMING THERE WILL BE A TIGHTENING OF THE STANDARD 

           19    BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY, BUT YOU MADE NO 

           20    RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.  

           21             DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON 

           22    LEVELS OR -- AND SPECIFICALLY ON THE SECONDARY ON THE 

           23    FORM OF THE STANDARD?  

           24        DAN JOHNSON:  WESTAR IS WORKING WITH THE 

           25    ORGANIZATION LARRY WILL BE TALKING -- WILL BE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        48


                                                                          

            1    REPRESENTING IN A MOMENT, AND I BELIEVE WE WILL 

            2    ULTIMATELY HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.  AT THIS POINT, WE DO 

            3    NOT.

            4        MR. HABER:  I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.  YOU TALKED 

            5    EXTENSIVELY ABOUT FUNDING NEEDED AND USED AS AN EXAMPLE 

            6    THE FUNDING IN THE APPROACH PROVIDED IN THE NOX SIP CALL 

            7    AND CARE AND THAT WAS PAIRED WITH A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE 

            8    PROGRAM THAT EPA DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED ON ITS OWN.  

            9             ARE YOU ENVISIONING OR DO YOU HAVE A 

           10    RECOMMENDATION FOR A SIMILAR PROGRAM FOR THE WESTERN 

           11    STATES OR PORTIONS OF THE WESTERN STATES?  

           12        DAN JOHNSON:  I DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO 

           13    THE SPECIFICS OF THE PROGRAM.  WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS 

           14    THAT WITHOUT THE HELP OF EPA, BOTH THE EXPERTISE, THE 

           15    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL PROGRAMS, AND THE 

           16    FINANCIAL SUPPORT, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE STANDARD IS 

           17    SET, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE WESTERN 

           18    STATES TO TAKE ON THAT KIND OF WORK WITHIN EXISTING 

           19    BUDGET CONSTRAINTS.  

           20             THAT'S THE SAME POSITION THE EASTERN STATES 

           21    WERE IN 20 YEARS.  WE FIND OURSELVES -- OR WE HOPE THAT 

           22    EPA WILL SET A NEW LOWER STANDARD, AND IF SO, WE WILL 

           23    FIND OURSELVES IN THAT SAME POSITION ONCE THAT HAPPENS.  

           24        MR. HABER:  THANK YOU.  

           25        LARRY GREEN:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS LARRY GREEN, 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        49


                                                                          

            1    AND I SERVE AS THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER FOR 

            2    SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

            3    IN CALIFORNIA.  I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL 

            4    ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES, NACAA, BOARD OF 

            5    DIRECTORS AND SERVE AS CO-CHAIR OF NACAA'S EXTERNAL 

            6    RELATIONS COMMITTEE.  

            7             ON BEHALF OF NACAA, WHICH IS AN ASSOCIATION OF 

            8    AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES IN 54 (SIC) STATES AND 

            9    TERRITORIES AND OVER 165 METROPOLITAN AREAS ACROSS THE 

           10    COUNTRY, I'M TESTIFYING TODAY ON EPA'S PROPOSED 

           11    REVISIONS TO THE OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

           12    STANDARDS, NAAQS.  

           13             NACAA COMMENDS EPA FOR PROPOSING TO SET A MORE 

           14    STRINGENT PRIMARY OZONE NAAQS TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           15    OZONE COMPOSURE IS LINKED TO MANY ADVERSE HEALTH 

           16    EFFECTS, INCLUDING PREMATURE MORTALITY IN PEOPLE WITH 

           17    HEART AND LUNG DISEASE.  RECENT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE 

           18    ADVERSE EFFECTS OCCUR AT CONCENTRATIONS LOWER THAN THE 

           19    CURRENT STANDARD.  ALTHOUGH WE APPRECIATE THE EPA'S 

           20    PROPOSAL TO TIGHTEN THE STANDARD, WE NEVERTHELESS HAVE 

           21    SOME SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE AGENCY'S PROPOSAL.  

           22             EPA'S CONGRESSIONALLY CHARTERED BODY OF 

           23    INDEPENDENT SCIENCE ADVISORS, THE CLEAN AIR SCIENCE 

           24    ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CASAC, UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED BASED 

           25    ON SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES AND 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        50


                                                                          

            1    CLINICAL STUDIES THAT THE PRIMARY OZONE STANDARD NEEDS 

            2    TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED AND RECOMMENDED 

            3    STRENGTHENING PRIMARY OZONE NAAQS TO A LEVEL WITHIN THE 

            4    RANGE OF .060 TO .070 PARTS PER MILLION.  HOWEVER, EPA'S 

            5    PROPOSED RANGE OF LEVELS .070 TO .075 PPM FALLS OUTSIDE 

            6    THAT RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUSLY BY CASAC, COINCIDING ONLY 

            7    AT CASAC'S UPPER BOUND.  

            8             IN DETERMINING THE LEVELS REQUISITE TO PUBLIC 

            9    HEALTH AND WELFARE, NACAA STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT EPA 

           10    SHOULD FOLLOW THE SCIENCE OF THE LEARNED INFORMED ADVICE 

           11    OF CASAC.  GIVEN CASAC'S STATUTORY DEFINED ROLE IN NAAQS 

           12    REVIEW PROCESS, EPA NEEDS TO SPECIFICALLY INDICATE WHY 

           13    IT CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF ITS INDEPENDENT 

           14    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.  IN ADDITION, WE QUESTION WHY EPA 

           15    IS CONSIDERING RETAINING THE CURRENT STANDARD OF .084 

           16    PPM WHEN, AS CASAC POINTS OUT, A LARGE BODY OF 

           17    SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES ADVERSE HEALTH 

           18    EFFECTS AT THE CURRENT STANDARD.  CASAC SAID IT BEST, 

           19    THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING THE 

           20    CURRENT PRIMARY EIGHT-HOUR NAAQS.  

           21             TURNING NOW TO THE SECONDARY OZONE STANDARD TO 

           22    PROTECT PUBLIC WELFARE, NACAA IS PLEASED THAT EPA HAS 

           23    PROPOSED A DISTINCT CUMULATIVE SEASONAL STANDARD.  OZONE 

           24    PROHIBITS PHOTOSYNTHESIS, CAUSES VISIBLE DAMAGE TO 

           25    LEAVES, AND REDUCED AGRICULTURAL CROP YIELDS.  A 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        51


                                                                          

            1    CUMULATIVE SEASONAL STANDARD MORE DIRECTLY CORRELATES 

            2    WITH THE EXPOSURE OF PLANTS TO OZONE SINCE PLANTS ARE 

            3    EXPOSED TO THIS POLLUTION DURING THE ENTIRE OZONE 

            4    SEASON.  

            5             AS WITH THE PRIMARY STANDARD, EPA'S PROPOSAL IS 

            6    A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BUT FALLS SHORT OF WHAT 

            7    SCIENCE INDICATES IS NEEDED.  ALL EPA DID PROPOSE 

            8    PROMULGATING A DISTINCT CUMULATIVE SEASONAL SECONDARY 

            9    STANDARD CALLED W126, AGENCY'S PROPOSED RANGE FOR A 

           10    LEVEL EXTENDS OUTSIDE CASAC'S RANGE.  IN ADDITION, WE 

           11    ARE TROUBLED THAT EPA PROPOSED, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, 

           12    MAKING THE SECONDARY STANDARD IDENTICAL TO THE PRIMARY 

           13    STANDARD DESPITE AGREEMENT AMONG CASAC ECOLOGICAL 

           14    EXPERTS CONVENED IN A 1997 WORKSHOP AND EPA STAFF ON A 

           15    NEED FOR A DISTINCT CUMULATIVE SECONDARY STANDARD TO 

           16    PROTECT VEGETATION.  

           17             FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO BOTH PRIMARY AND 

           18    SECONDARY STANDARDS, TO THE EXTENT THAT NEW 

           19    PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN 

           20    SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS SINCE EPA PROPOSED THIS RULE, WE 

           21    ENCOURAGE THE AGENCY, TIME PERMITTING UNDER THE COURT 

           22    ORDERED DEADLINE, TO REVIEW THESE STUDIES DURING THIS 

           23    DELIBERATION OF A FINAL RULE.  

           24             WE ARE FURTHER CONCERNED THAT EPA IN THIS 

           25    PROPOSAL, AS IN THE PARTICULAR MATTER, NAAQS IS MIXING 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        52


                                                                          

            1    IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES IN A RULE SETTING IN A 

            2    HEALTH-BASED STANDARD.  EPA NEEDS TO ERECT A STRONG 

            3    FIREWALL BETWEEN STANDARD SETTING AND IMPLEMENTATION 

            4    ISSUES.  THE SUPREME COURT IN WHITMAN VERSUS AMERICAN 

            5    TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS WAS VERY CLEAR THAT EPA MAY NOT 

            6    CONSIDER THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION IN SETTING THE 

            7    NAAQS.  

            8             IN ADDITION, FOR POLICY REASONS, EPA SHOULD NOT 

            9    LET CONSIDERATIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION LEAD INTO STANDARD 

           10    SETTING.  THE BENEFITS OF SETTING A STRONG STANDARD ARE 

           11    HARDER TO MEASURE IN THAT ONE CANNOT PRECISELY IDENTIFY 

           12    WHOSE LIFE IS SAVED, WHOSE CHILD HAS FEWER ASTHMA 

           13    ATTACKS, AND WHICH TREES GROW FASTER AND STRONGER 

           14    BECAUSE OF LESS OZONE POLLUTION.  THE COST, ON THE OTHER 

           15    HAND, CAN BE EASILY TALLIED IF CONSIDERATIONS ARE 

           16    IMPLEMENTATION AND ARE ALLOWED TO INFLUENCE STANDARD 

           17    SETTING, THEN THE HUMAN PROPENSITY FOR AVOIDING PAYING 

           18    MAKES IT VERY LIKELY THAT SOME STAKEHOLDERS WILL CLAMOR 

           19    FOR A WEAKER STANDARD TO AVOID THIS COST.  

           20             LET ME CLOSE BY SAYING THAT WHILE EPA SHOULD 

           21    NOT COMBINE IMPLEMENTATION AND STANDARD SETTING ISSUES 

           22    IN THIS RULE MAKING, WHATEVER DECISION EPA MAKES ON THE 

           23    LEVEL OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY NAAQS WILL HAVE A 

           24    PROFOUND EFFECT ON THE WORK OF STATE AND LOCAL CLEAN AIR 

           25    AGENCIES.  EPA MUST RECOGNIZE THIS, NOT IN SETTING THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        53


                                                                          

            1    NAAQS, BUT IN TIMELY RULE MAKINGS AND APPROPRIATION 

            2    REQUESTS BY REQUESTING SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR STATE AND 

            3    LOCAL CLEAN AIR AGENCIES TO CARRY OUT THE WORK 

            4    ASSOCIATED WITH MEETING THE NEW NAAQS, PROVIDING 

            5    SUFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE, SUCH AS MONITORS, ISSUING 

            6    TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES, AND ADOPTING NATIONAL 

            7    RULES THAT ADDRESS MAJOR SOURCES OF OZONE PRECURSORS.  

            8             ACCORDINGLY, IT WILL BE IMPERATIVE FOR EPA TO 

            9    WORK IN CLOSE PARTNERSHIP WITH STATE AND LOCAL CLEAN AIR 

           10    AGENCIES AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ADDRESS 

           11    IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND ACHIEVE THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF 

           12    PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION.  THANK YOU FOR THIS 

           13    OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.  

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH.  

           15        LARRY GREEN:  AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A RECOMMENDED 

           16    NUMBER YET.  I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION.  

           17        MR. HANNON:  WELL, I WASN'T AND I WON'T.  YOU 

           18    MENTIONED THAT WE NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY WE DIFFER FROM 

           19    CASAC IN OUR PRIMARY PROPOSAL.  OUR PREAMBLE DOES HAVE A 

           20    DISCUSSION OF THAT, SO I'D RECOMMEND THAT IN YOUR 

           21    WRITTEN COMMENTS, I ASSUME YOUR ORGANIZATION WILL 

           22    COMMENT DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD, THAT YOU EXPLAIN IN 

           23    MORE DETAIL, NOT JUST THAT WE SHOULD EXPLAIN, BUT IF 

           24    THERE ARE ANY DEFECTS IN OUR EXPLANATION, THEN THAT WILL 

           25    BE IMPORTANT FOR US TO HEAR FROM YOU.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        54


                                                                          

            1             YOU MENTIONED IF THERE ARE IMPORTANT NEW 

            2    PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES SUBSEQUENT TO THE CASAC REVIEW OF 

            3    THE AIR QUALITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT, THAT WE SHOULD REVIEW 

            4    THOSE.  IT'S ALWAYS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE ON ANY OF THE 

            5    REVIEWS BECAUSE THERE IS A TIME LAG THAT OCCURS BETWEEN 

            6    WHEN THE SCIENCE, IN EFFECT, HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR THE 

            7    CRITERIA DOCUMENTED WHEN THE PROPOSAL AND THE FINAL RULE 

            8    COMES OUT.  BUT IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE OF HOW TO 

            9    DEAL WITH THAT NEW SCIENCE.  

           10             SO IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC STUDIES, AGAIN, YOU 

           11    SHOULD -- YOU SHOULD IDENTIFY THOSE, BUT ALSO TAKE INTO 

           12    CONSIDERATION EPA'S POSITION IN THE LAST PM REVIEW AND 

           13    IN PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF WHAT WE CALL THE PROVISIONAL 

           14    ASSESSMENT OF NOT TAKING THEM INTO ACCOUNT, BUT MORE 

           15    LOOKING AT THEM TO SEE, IS IT WORTH DELAYING THIS RULE 

           16    MAKING TO GO BACK TO CASAC AND REVIEW NEW STUDIES?  SO 

           17    TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND YOUR SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WE 

           18    HANDLE THE NEW SCIENCE WILL BE USEFUL.  

           19             YOU ALSO MENTIONED THAT YOU CAUTIONED US TO NOT 

           20    MIX IN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.  WAS THERE ANYTHING 

           21    SPECIFIC THAT YOU HAD IN MIND THAT YOU SAW IN THE 

           22    PREAMBLE OR INDICATION FOR COMMENT OR SOMETHING OF THAT 

           23    NATURE?  

           24        LARRY GREEN:  I THINK WE ANTICIPATE, AS WE'VE HEARD 

           25    TODAY, COMMENT FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING.  AND 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        55


                                                                          

            1    AS A COUNTER TO THAT, AND I'VE HEARD YOUR COMMENTS, OF 

            2    COURSE, ALREADY TODAY THAT YOU CLEARLY ARE -- YOU KNOW, 

            3    YOUR COMMENT BACK THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE YOUR 

            4    POLICY, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT AND I'VE HEARD THAT 

            5    TESTIMONY TODAY.  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  JUST ONE POINT I WOULD ADD TO WHAT JOHN 

            7    SAID AS FAR AS NEW SCIENCE:  THAT THE EXTENT THAT WE 

            8    WOULD CONSIDER ANYTHING NEW, IT WOULD REALLY NEED TO BE 

            9    SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.  NOT -- PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT 

           10    INTERPRETATIONS OF EXISTING STUDIES AND THAT WOULD 

           11    CERTAINLY BE ONE WOULD COMMENT ON --

           12        LARRY GREEN:  SURE.

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  -- BUT ANY NEW SCIENCE WOULD REALLY 

           14    HAVE A BE A NEW SCIENCE.  OKAY.  THANK YOU BOTH.  

           15             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE DR. ROBERT VINETZ AND 

           16    MELISSA KING STANSBERY.  

           17             LET ME CHECK, IS SAMEERAH SIDDIQUI IN THE ROOM?  

           18    NO.  OKAY.  THANK YOU.  

           19             GOOD MORNING, DR. VINETZ.  DO YOU WANT TO --

           20        ROBERT VINETZ, M.D.:  YES.  AM I ON OR OFF?  

           21        MS. WEGMAN:  I'M AFRAID YOU HAVE TO HOLD IT DOWN.  

           22        ROBERT VINETZ, M.D.:  I HAVE TO HOLD IT DOWN.  OKAY.  

           23             WITH MY FELLOW MICROPHONE, I'M DR. ROBERT 

           24    VINETZ.  I'M A PEDIATRICIAN.  I'M DIRECTOR OF THE 

           25    PEDIATRIC ASTHMA AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        56


                                                                          

            1    QUEENS CARE FAMILY CLINICS, WHICH IS A NON-PROFIT 

            2    FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTER, AND WE HAVE 

            3    APPROXIMATELY 7,000 CHILDREN UNDER OUR CARE.  ABOUT 800 

            4    OF THEM HAVE ASTHMA.  I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE STEERING 

            5    COMMITTEE FOR THE ASTHMA COALITION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

            6    AND A FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS.  

            7             WHILE I'M INVOLVED IN ALL THOSE ORGANIZATIONS, 

            8    I'M NOT HERE REPRESENTING ANY SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION.  

            9    THE TIME CONSTRAINTS HAVE JUST NOT ALLOWED ME TO PURSUE 

           10    THAT.  I'VE BEEN IN PRACTICE FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS, 

           11    AND I CAN TELL YOU I'VE SEEN HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND 

           12    HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA.  I DON'T WANT TO 

           13    REALLY INFLATE THE RISK OF OZONE IN THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT 

           14    I DO WANT TO TAKE THE PREROGATIVE OF A PEDIATRICIAN TO 

           15    DO A LITTLE BIT OF A SHOW AND TELL.  

           16             WHAT I'VE DONE HERE IS TAKE SOME AIR, ACTUALLY 

           17    IT WAS AIR THAT CAME FROM OUTSIDE, WENT INTO MY LUNGS, 

           18    AND I'VE BLOWN AIR INTO THIS BALLOON.  IN APPROXIMATELY 

           19    ONE MINUTE THAT I'VE BEEN SPEAKING, ROUGHLY 63,000 

           20    CHILDREN IN L.A. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHO HAVE 

           21    ASTHMA, 63,000 APPROXIMATELY, IF THEY BREATHE AT ABOUT 

           22    25 BREATHS PER MINUTE, LET'S SAY ON AVERAGE, THEY'VE 

           23    TAKEN 1,575,000 BREATHS OF AIR LIKE THIS.  

           24             I LOOKED IN THE L.A. TIMES THIS MORNING.  THE 

           25    AIR QUALITY WAS -- FOR TODAY WAS LISTED AS MODERATE FOR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        57


                                                                          

            1    THOSE IN THE L.A. BASIN.  FOR SAN BERNARDINO IT WAS 

            2    SEVERE.  MODERATE AND SEVERE ARE EUPHEMISMS FOR NOT VERY 

            3    GOOD.  AND WE KNOW FROM LOTS OF CLINICAL EXPERIENCE THAT 

            4    WHEN THE AIR QUALITY IS BAD, KIDS GET SICKER.  

            5             OZONE IS A TOXIN.  I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU 

            6    THAT.  THERE MAY BE SOME DEBATES UPON LEVEL OF WHETHER 

            7    SUCH AND SUCH A LEVEL IS SAFE OR NOT.  MY PERSONAL 

            8    FEELING IS THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS MORE THAN NECESSARY 

            9    AND CAN BE HARMFUL.  MUCH MORE HARMFUL FOR KIDS THAN FOR 

           10    ADULTS.  AGAIN, YOU'VE PROBABLY KNOWN THAT THE REASONS 

           11    FOR THAT ARE THAT CHILDREN'S LUNGS ARE NOT FULLY GROWN.  

           12    THEY'RE MATURING.  CHILDREN TAKE MORE BREATHS PER MINUTE 

           13    THAN ADULTS, SO THEY ARE TAKING MORE OF THESE IN.  

           14             ALL RIGHT.  OZONE DECREASES THAT GROWTH.  IT 

           15    DECREASES LUNG FUNCTION, AND WE HAVE SCIENTIFIC 

           16    MEASUREMENTS OF THAT, AND IT CAUSES PERMANENT LUNG 

           17    DAMAGE.  IT CAN INCREASE THE RISK OF ADULT LUNG DISEASE.  

           18    THERE HAVE BEEN OCCASIONS WHEN I'VE HAD AS MANY AS THREE 

           19    CHILDREN ON BREATHING MACHINES AND NEBULIZERS FOR ASTHMA 

           20    AT ONCE.  THAT'S PREVENTABLE.  FEW CHILDREN -- FEW OF US 

           21    IN OUR LIFETIME, FEW HUMAN BEINGS, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY 

           22    EVER TO SAVE A LIFE.  YOU IN THE EPA, I THINK RIGHT NOW, 

           23    HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF MILLIONS 

           24    AND MILLIONS OF CHILDREN AND ADULTS AND THEIR PARENTS 

           25    AND FUTURE GENERATIONS WITH A SINGLE DECISION.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        58


                                                                          

            1             I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR ENOUGH AT THIS 

            2    TIME THAT A LEVEL OF 0.060 IS GOOD ENOUGH.  IT'S WHAT WE 

            3    NEED.  I URGE YOU TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH TO 

            4    SUPPORT THE 0.06 STANDARD PROMOTED OR SUPPORTED BY THE 

            5    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR OWN 

            6    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND DO THE RIGHT THING 

            7    FOR ALL OF US.  

            8             FINALLY, I GUESS IS THE END OF THE SHOW AND 

            9    TELL.  THIS IS A PEDIATRICIAN'S PREROGATIVE.  

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  0.06.  IT SAYS "060" FOR THOSE OF YOU 

           11    WHO CAN'T SEE IT.  THANK YOU, DR. VINETZ.  

           12             MS. STANSBERY.  

           13        MELISSA KING STANSBERY:  HELLO, MY NAME IS MELISSA 

           14    KING STANSBERY, AND I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN RESIDING IN 

           15    LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  I THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE 

           16    OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON EPA'S PROPOSED REVISION TO THE 

           17    NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS IN REGARD TO OZONE.  

           18             I AM PLEASED THAT THE EPA IS TAKING THE STEP 

           19    TOWARD CLEANER AIR BY PROPOSAL TO STRENGTHEN THE 

           20    NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS.  UNFORTUNATELY, FROM 

           21    WHAT I'VE READ, THE EPA PROPOSAL FALLS SHORT OF THE 

           22    STANDARDS RECOMMENDED BY ITS OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS AND 

           23    TO NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION TO PUBLIC 

           24    HEALTH.  IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSAL LEAVES OPEN THE 

           25    POSSIBILITY THAT THE STANDARDS WILL NOT BE STRENGTHENED 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        59


                                                                          

            1    AT ALL.  

            2             OZONE HAS PROVEN TO BURN LUNGS AND AIRWAYS 

            3    CAUSING COUGHING AND WHEEZING, ASTHMA ATTACKS, AND EVEN 

            4    PREMATURE DEATHS.  CHILDREN, SENIOR CITIZENS, AND PEOPLE 

            5    WITH LUNG DISEASE, PEOPLE WHO WORK OUTSIDE ARE 

            6    PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO THE HEALTH EFFECTS FROM 

            7    OZONE.  EPIDEMIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL STUDIES SHOW 

            8    ADVERSE IMPACTS ON BREATHING AT LEVELS LOWER THAN THE 

            9    CURRENT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD.  IN FACT, 

           10    ACCORDING TO STATISTICS PROVIDED BY PHYSICIANS FOR 

           11    SOCIAL REFORM, CLINICAL STUDIES OF OTHERWISE HEALTHY 

           12    ADULTS HAVE FOUND DECREASED LUNG FUNCTION, INCREASED 

           13    RESPIRATORY SYSTEMS, INFLAMMATION, AND INCREASED 

           14    SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RESPIRATORY INFECTION AT EXPOSURE TO 

           15    GROUND LEVEL OZONE AT LEVELS AS LOW AS 0.060 PARTS PER 

           16    MILLION.  

           17             I FEEL THAT PERSONALLY I'VE EXPERIENCED THIS 

           18    FIRSTHAND.  I'M AN OTHERWISE HEALTHY ADULT WHO SUFFERS 

           19    FROM OCCASIONAL SEASONAL ALLERGY SYMPTOMS.  LAST SUMMER, 

           20    I TOOK UP THE SPORT OF CYCLING AND FOUND THAT AFTER LONG 

           21    LEISURELY BIKE RIDES IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, FOR 

           22    DAYS AND WEEKS AFTERWARDS I WAS UNABLE TO FILL MY LUNGS 

           23    TO CAPACITY OR BREATHE DEEPLY WITHOUT COUGHING AND 

           24    EXPERIENCING PAIN.  

           25             CALIFORNIA HAS THE DUBIOUS HONOR OF HOLDING 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        60


                                                                          

            1    FOUR OF THE FIVE WORST RANGING CITIES FOR GROUND LEVEL 

            2    OZONE IN THE COUNTRY.  THE INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR 

            3    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED A 2,000-PAGE 

            4    SUMMARY OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THAT THE HEALTH 

            5    IMPACTS OF OZONE AND UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE 

            6    CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT HUMAN 

            7    HEALTH.  THESE SCIENTIST PAID FOR WITH, I SUPPOSE, OUR 

            8    TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS RECOMMENDED NEW OZONE STANDARDS IN 

            9    THE RANGE OF 0.06 TO 0.07 PARTS PER MILLION ON THE HIGH 

           10    END OF THE RANGE.  

           11             IN ADDITION, THERE'S AN OLD LOOPHOLE THAT LETS 

           12    COMMUNITIES CLAIM THEY'RE MEETING THE STANDARDS OF OZONE 

           13    WHEN THEY AREN'T.  DUE TO OLDER MONITORING EQUIPMENT 

           14    THAT WERE MUCH LESS ACCURATE, THE EPA AGREED TO ALLOW 

           15    REGULATORS TO ROUND DOWN TO THE NEAREST TWO DECIMAL 

           16    PLACES.  THIS -- BECAUSE OF THIS, MANY COMMUNITIES ARE 

           17    IN CONCENTRATIONS THAT REACH UP TO 0.085, AND THAT BEING 

           18    THE REAL STANDARD INSTEAD OF WHAT IS LISTED AS LAW.  

           19             AS I RESEARCHED INFORMATION IN PREPARING FOR MY 

           20    TESTIMONY TODAY, I LOOKED FIRST TO WHO COULD POSSIBLY BE 

           21    OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE PROPOSAL IS 

           22    FOR A BETTER STANDARD THAN WE CURRENTLY HAVE.  I 

           23    THOUGHT, WELL, POSSIBLY THESE ARE FRINGE GROUPS OR 

           24    RADICAL GROUPS, WHO KNOWS, THEY MAKE ME NUTS.  BUT 

           25    INSTEAD I FOUND A LIST THAT INCLUDES THE AMERICAN LUNG 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        61


                                                                          

            1    ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY, AMERICAN 

            2    ACADEMY OF PEDIATRIC PHYSICIANS, PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL 

            3    REFORM, UNION OF CONCERNS SCIENTISTS.  THESE DON'T SOUND 

            4    LIKE RADICAL GROUPS TO ME.  

            5             I ALSO WANTED TO KNOW WHY THE EPA WAS NOT 

            6    FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS WHO 

            7    WERE PAID BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.  

            8    I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE ARGUMENTS WERE IN FAVOR OF 

            9    PROPOSING A STANDARD THAT DOES NOT PROTECT PUBLIC 

           10    HEALTH.  

           11             SADLY, IN MY QUICK RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET, I 

           12    WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS.  INSTEAD, 

           13    I FOUND A REPORT THAT, IN THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO THE 

           14    RELEASE OF THE PROPOSAL, REPRESENTED THIS FOR THE 

           15    ELECTRIC UTILITIES, CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, BIG OIL 

           16    COMPANIES, AND THE AUTO MAKERS ORGANIZED HIGH LEVEL 

           17    MEETINGS WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO 

           18    DISCUSS NEW STANDARDS.  I CAN'T HELP BUT QUESTION AS A 

           19    CONCERNED CITIZEN WHETHER THOSE MEETINGS MIGHT POSSIBLY 

           20    BE INFLUENCING THE CHANGE IN THE RECOMMENDATION.  

           21             AS A TAXPAYER AND PRIVATE CITIZEN, I URGE THE 

           22    EPA TO LIVE UP TO ITS FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS AN 

           23    AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE MISSION TO PROTECT THE 

           24    ENVIRONMENT AND BY DOING SO, PUBLIC HEALTH.  HEED THE 

           25    ADVICE OF YOUR OWN PAID SCIENTISTS AND DO THE FOLLOWING:  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        62


                                                                          

            1    REVISE THE AIR QUALITY STANDARD OF ACCEPTABLE OZONE 

            2    LEVELS TO THE RANGE OF .060 TO 0.07 PARTS PER MILLION, 

            3    REMOVE THE LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS FOR ROUNDING DOWN OF THE 

            4    NEAREST TWO DECIMAL PLACES, AND ELIMINATE THE OPTION ON 

            5    THE TABLE UNDER WHICH THE NEW GROUND LEVEL OZONE 

            6    STANDARD MAY NOT EVEN APPLY TO CERTAIN POLLUTERS.  

            7             THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME THE 

            8    OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.  

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  ONE QUESTION, MS. STANSBERY.  THANK YOU 

           10    VERY MUCH.  THE LAST POINT YOU MADE ABOUT MOVING THE 

           11    OPTION OF HAVING THE STANDARD NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN 

           12    POLLUTERS, I DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW THAT.

           13        MELISSA KING STANSBERY:  FROM WHAT I READ, AND I 

           14    HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I HAVE NOT READ EVERY LETTER OF THE 

           15    ACTUAL PROPOSAL, BUT THE INFORMATION THAT I RECEIVED 

           16    FROM MY RESEARCH WAS THAT THE OPTION REMAINS OPEN THAT 

           17    THE STANDARD MAY NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN POLLUTERS AND THAT 

           18    YOU WOULDN'T CHANGE IT AT ALL, THAT THEY WANTED IT TO 

           19    REMAIN AS THIS MANUFACTURING GENTLEMAN, I BELIEVE, THAT 

           20    TESTIFIED EARLIER, THAT HE WANTED THE STANDARD TO REMAIN 

           21    THE SAME.

           22        MS. WEGMAN:  JUST TO CLARIFY, THE STANDARD WOULD 

           23    APPLY TO EVERYONE, BUT THE COMMENT THAT WE'VE GOTTEN IS 

           24    THAT WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE THE STANDARD.  WE SHOULD RETAIN 

           25    THE CURRENT STANDARD.  THANK YOU BOTH.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        63


                                                                          

            1             MARTHA DINA AGUELLO AND RUPAL PATEL.  

            2        RUPAL PATEL:  GOOD MORNING.  

            3        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU HAVE TO PUSH AND HOLD, SORRY.  

            4        RUPAL PATEL:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS RUPAL PATEL.  

            5    I REPRESENT COMMUNITIES FOR CLEAN PORTS.  WE'RE A 

            6    NON-PROFIT PUBLIC ADVOCACY CAMPAIGN BASED IN LOS ANGELES 

            7    WHOSE MISSION IS TO SIGNIFICANTLY AND IMMEDIATELY REDUCE 

            8    PORT POLLUTION IN THE BASIN.  

            9             POLLUTION FROM PORTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT RELATED 

           10    INDUSTRY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A HOST OF ILLS IN 

           11    CALIFORNIA.  THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD OUTLINES 

           12    THAT POLLUTION FROM PORT-RELATED INDUSTRIES WAS 

           13    RESPONSIBLE FOR 30 PERCENT OF STATEWIDE NITROGEN OXIDES, 

           14    OR NOX, AN OZONE PRECURSOR AND 2,400 PREMATURE DEATHS 

           15    ANNUALLY.  THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH, 

           16    WHICH SERVE AS A HUB FOR DIESEL TRUCKS, TRAINS, 

           17    OCEAN-GOING VESSELS, CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT, AND 

           18    HARBOR CRAFT REPRESENT THE LARGEST FIXED SOURCE OF NOX 

           19    EMISSIONS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN PREDICTED TO 

           20    TOTAL 24 PERCENT OF NOX EMISSIONS IN 2020 WHEN GOODS 

           21    MOVEMENT IS PREDICTED TO QUADRUPLE IN SIZE.  

           22             THE ANNUAL COST TO CALIFORNIANS DUE TO AIR 

           23    POLLUTION FROM PORTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT TOTAL OVER 19 

           24    BILLION DOLLARS IN PUBLIC HEALTH EXPENDITURES, 65 

           25    MILLION DOLLARS IN MISSED WORKDAYS, AND 100 MILLION 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        64


                                                                          

            1    DOLLARS IN SCHOOL ABSENCES.  GOODS MOVEMENT IS A 

            2    PROFITABLE INDUSTRY.  IT'S A 300-BILLION-DOLLAR-PER-YEAR 

            3    BUSINESS AT THE LOS ANGELES AREA PORTS ALONE.  

            4             VIABLE COST EFFECTIVE CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND 

            5    ALTERNATIVE FUELS EXIST TODAY TO CLEAN UP THE INDUSTRY.  

            6    SO COMMUNITIES FOR CLEAN PORTS ADVOCATES FOR THE 

            7    STRONGEST MOST AGGRESSIVE REGULATORY MEASURES AND 

            8    INDUSTRY PRACTICES TO END PORT POLLUTION POISONING 

            9    THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  

           10             A SIGNIFICANTLY STRONGER OZONE STANDARD WOULD 

           11    PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF RESIDENTS IN THE SOUTH 

           12    COAST AIR BASIN AND IN ALL COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE 

           13    COUNTRY WHO ARE INFECTED BY POLLUTION FROM THE GOODS 

           14    MOVEMENT.  EPA'S INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC 

           15    ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE 

           16    CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS INADEQUATE TO COMBAT THE 

           17    COSTLY PUBLIC HEALTH AND ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF OZONE 

           18    POLLUTION.  THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED THAT THE 

           19    EPA SHOULD SET AN OZONE STANDARD OF .060 PARTS PER 

           20    MILLION.  

           21             BY CONTRAST THE EPA HAS PROPOSED A WEAKER 

           22    STANDARD IN THE RANGE OF .070 PARTS PER MILLION TO .075 

           23    PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH TO 

           24    MAINTAIN THE ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH 

           25    REQUIRED UNDER THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT.  EPA MUST 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        65


                                                                          

            1    RESIST PRESSURE FROM PROFITABLE PORTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT 

            2    INTEREST TO ATTAIN THE CURRENT WEAK OZONE STANDARD AND 

            3    TO OVERLOOK THE DRAMATIC HEALTH AND ECONOMIC 

            4    CONSEQUENCES OF THE STATUS QUO.  STATUS QUO HAS RESULTED 

            5    IN CHILDREN LIVING IN THE PORTS CITY OF LONG BEACH TO 

            6    SUFFER ASTHMA RATES DOUBLE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.  STATUS 

            7    QUO IS NO LONGER AN OPTION.  

            8             POLLUTION FROM PORTS AND GOODS MOVEMENT AFFECTS 

            9    US ALL AND THE ENTIRE STATE CONTINUES TO SUBSIDIZE OUR 

           10    NATION'S TRADE THROUGH INCREASED HEALTH COSTS.  GOODS 

           11    MOVEMENT IS THE SINGLE LARGEST SOURCE OF AIR POLLUTION 

           12    IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FROM ORANGE COUNTY TO THE SAN 

           13    FERNANDO VALLEY TO THE INLAND EMPIRE.  RESPONSIBLE FOR 

           14    MORE DEADLY DIESEL SMOG EACH DAY THAN ALL OF THE 6 

           15    MILLION CARS IN THE REGION.  

           16             WE URGE EPA TO SHOW TRUE LEADERSHIP IN THE FACE 

           17    OF INDUSTRY PRESSURE AND INCREASE THE FEDERAL OZONE 

           18    STANDARD TO .060 PARTS PER MILLION AS RECOMMENDED BY 

           19    YOUR INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

           20    COMMITTEE.  THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES EPA TO BASE ITS 

           21    DECISION SOLELY ON THE NEED TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           22    RETAINING THE CURRENT WEAK OZONE STANDARD WILL RESULT IN 

           23    FURTHER DEATHS, ILLNESSES, AND TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC COST 

           24    TO OUR NATION.  THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 

           25    TESTIFY.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        66


                                                                          

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

            2        MARTHA DINA AGUELLO:  GOOD MORNING.  MY NAME IS 

            3    MARTHA DINA AGUELLO.  I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH 

            4    AND ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS FOR PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL 

            5    RESPONSIBILITY IN LOS ANGELES.  I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE 

            6    LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASTHMA COALITION ALONG WITH 

            7    DR. VINETZ.  

            8             TODAY I DON'T REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON ASTHMA.  

            9    A LARGE PART OF THE WORK THAT WE DO IS EDUCATING 

           10    PHYSICIANS, HEALTH EDUCATORS, AND OTHERS ON REPRODUCTIVE 

           11    HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.  AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT 

           12    WE'VE BEEN FINDING IS THAT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF LOW 

           13    BIRTH WEIGHT, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF AIR 

           14    POLLUTION.  

           15             THERE'S A GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S 

           16    A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GROUND LEVEL OZONE AND LOW BIRTH 

           17    WEIGHT.  AT OUR ORGANIZATION OUR MOTTO IS PREVENT WHAT 

           18    CAN'T BE CURED, AND IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WE HAVE 

           19    TO DO A BETTER JOB AT TREATING THOSE THINGS THAT WE 

           20    CAN'T PREVENT.  ASTHMA IS A MANAGEABLE DISEASE BUT NOT 

           21    PREVENTABLE.  LOW BIRTH WEIGHT CAN OFTEN BE PREVENTED 

           22    WITH PROPER PRENATAL CARE, BUT REDUCING THE BURDEN OF 

           23    DISEASE IN OUR COMMUNITIES IS A TEAM EFFORT.  

           24             WE CAN INCREASE THE QUALITY OF THE CARE 

           25    RECEIVED IN OUR COMMUNITIES.  WE CAN FIGHT TO INCREASE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        67


                                                                          

            1    THE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE.  WE CAN EDUCATE PATIENTS, AND 

            2    WE CAN EDUCATE COMMUNITIES.  WE CAN EDUCATE PHYSICIANS 

            3    TO PROVIDE BETTER CARE.  YOU ARE PART -- YOU, THE EPA, 

            4    ARE PART OF THAT PREVENTION TEAM.  YOU CAN DO WHAT WE 

            5    CAN'T.  YOU CAN SET STANDARDS THAT WILL PROTECT HEALTH 

            6    AND THE ENVIRONMENT.  

            7             WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION 

            8    OF YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS BY SETTING A STRONG OZONE 

            9    STANDARD.  

           10             I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT -- THERE'S A FEW 

           11    OTHER THINGS THAT WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS OZONE 

           12    STANDARD.  WE'VE PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON ASTHMA, BUT WHAT 

           13    WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE BURDEN OF DISEASE IS 

           14    DISPROPORTIONATE OF COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.  WHILE WE HAVE 

           15    GREATLY REDUCED INFANT MORTALITY RATE, THERE'S A 

           16    SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WITHIN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN, NATIVE 

           17    AMERICAN, AND LATINO COMMUNITIES.  THE RATE OF INFANT 

           18    MORTALITY RATE FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN IS MORE THAN 

           19    DOUBLE THAT OF WHITE WOMEN, AND LOW BIRTH WEIGHT 

           20    CONTINUES TO BE THE MAIN INDICATOR FOR THAT INFANT 

           21    MORTALITY RATE.  

           22             THE MEDICAL AND SOCIAL COST OF LOW BIRTH WEIGHT 

           23    AND LOW BIRTH WEIGHT BABIES IS SIGNIFICANT.  IN 1998 

           24    ALONE IT COST US THREE TO FIVE -- FOR THE 3.5- TO 4 

           25    MILLION CHILDREN THAT WERE BORN WITH A LOW BIRTH WEIGHT, 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        68


                                                                          

            1    IT COST US FIVE TO 6 BILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN IT WOULD 

            2    TO CARE FOR A CHILD WHO WAS NOT BORN WITH LOW BIRTH 

            3    WEIGHT.  THE QUESTION TODAY IS, WILL THE NEEDS OF 

            4    POLLUTERS CONTINUE TO TRUMP THE NEEDS OF MILLIONS OF 

            5    PREGNANT WOMEN AND SOON TO BE MOMS?  WILL THE EPA ACT TO 

            6    PREVENT HARM OR WAIT TO ARGUE ABOUT DECIMAL POINTS?  

            7    WILL WE WAIT FOR MORE SCIENCE OR WILL WE ACT NOW?  WILL 

            8    WE LEARN THE LESSON OF TOBACCO AND ACT WHEN WE KNEW 

            9    THERE WAS HARM OR WAIT FOR SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY WHILE 

           10    PEOPLE ARE DYING?  

           11             THE EPA SHOULD ADOPT A STANDARD OF PRIMARY 

           12    OZONE OF .060.  IT SHOULD ELIMINATE THE ROUNDING 

           13    LOOPHOLE, AND IT SHOULD INCLUDE A STRONGER MARGIN OF 

           14    SAFETY THAT IS REQUIRED IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  WE HAVE 

           15    NO MORE TIME TO WAIT.  THANK YOU.  

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  JUST ONE SECOND.  WE HAVE A COUPLE 

           17    QUESTIONS.  

           18        MR. HANNON:  ONE QUESTION ON THE REFERENCE TO THE 

           19    SCIENCE ON LOW BIRTH WEIGHT IN RELATIONSHIP TO OZONE.  

           20    IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON THAT, YOU SHOULD SUBMIT IT 

           21    FOR THE RECORD.

           22        MARTHA DINA AGUELLO:  YES, WE WILL.  

           23        MR. HANNON:  GOOD.  

           24        MS. WEGMAN:  IF YOU HAVE ANY STUDIES AT ALL ON THAT, 

           25    PLEASE SUBMIT THEM.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        69


                                                                          

            1        MARTHA DINA AGUELLO:  YES, I WILL.  THANK YOU.  

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE MITZI SHPAK 

            3    AND DR. JENNIFER SNOW.  YOU HAVE TO -- YOU HAVE TO PRESS 

            4    DOWN ON THE MICROPHONE AND HOLD IT.  KEEP IT DOWN WHILE 

            5    YOU SPEAK.  

            6        MITZI SHPAK:  SORRY.  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS MITZI 

            7    SHPAK.  I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ACTION NOW AND A 

            8    MEMBER OF THE E.B. LOUIS LAB AT CAL TECH.  

            9             ACTION NOW'S PRIMARY CONCERN IS AND ALWAYS WILL 

           10    BE PUBLIC HEALTH.  SEVERAL HERE HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN 

           11    ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THE DELETERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS OF 

           12    ADOPTING A LOWER OZONE STANDARD.  THEY HAVE ALSO 

           13    REMINDED YOU THAT YOUR MANDATE IS TO PROTECT, NOT DO THE 

           14    MINIMUM POSSIBLE, BUT TO PROTECT.  IT'S IN YOUR NAME.  

           15    IT MEANS THAT YOU PREVENT HARM BEFORE IT HAPPENS.  

           16             THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THE DAMAGE TO HUMAN 

           17    HEALTH THAT WILL HAPPEN IF YOU DO NOT ADOPT THE 

           18    STRICTEST STANDARDS ACHIEVABLE.  THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS 

           19    OF ADOPTING STRICT STANDARDS GO BEYOND THE IMPROVEMENTS 

           20    AND HEALTH EFFECTS.  IT IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.  EVERY 

           21    IMPROVEMENT IN AIR QUALITY IN THIS BASIN HAS RESULTED IN 

           22    AN ECONOMIC BOOST AS FORMERLY UNLIVABLE COMMUNITIES 

           23    BECAME LIVABLE AGAIN.  

           24             AS A NATIVE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, I HAVE 

           25    WATCHED MANY LOCAL TOWNS GO INTO DECLINE IN THE 1950'S 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        70


                                                                          

            1    AND '60S.  FAMILIES MOVING AWAY, BUSINESSES CLOSING 

            2    BECAUSE THE AIR WAS UNBREATHABLE.  IT IS NO COINCIDENCE 

            3    THAT THESE SAME COMMUNITIES HAVE EXPERIENCED AN ECONOMIC 

            4    RENAISSANCE BEGINNING IN THE MID 1970'S WHEN NEW CLEAN 

            5    AIR STANDARDS CAME INTO FORCE.  NO ONE WANTED TO LIVE IN 

            6    PASADENA, MONROVIA, SOUTH PASADENA IN THE 1960'S.  

            7    HOUSES SOLD FOR UNDER $10,000 AND THAT WAS LESS THAN 

            8    HALF OF THE AVERAGE OF OTHER AREAS WITH CLEANER AIR.  

            9             AS THE AIR CLEARED, THESE COMMUNITIES 

           10    EXPERIENCED AN ECONOMIC RENAISSANCE.  THESE ARE NOW SOME 

           11    OF THE MOST DESIRABLE PLACES TO LIVE, ATTRACTING 

           12    FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES AND COMMANDING ONE HALF TO A 

           13    MILLION DOLLARS FOR THOSE SAME UNWANTED HOUSES.  

           14             ANOTHER BENEFIT TO BUSINESS IN ADOPTING 

           15    STRICTER STANDARDS IS TO PROTECT BUSINESSES THAT DO THE 

           16    RIGHT THING.  THOSE BUSINESSES THEN INVEST THE EXTRA 

           17    MONEY TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE COMMUNITY AND 

           18    ENVIRONMENT.  

           19             WHEN THE EPA ALLOWS HIGHER LEVELS OF POLLUTION, 

           20    IT CONFERS AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE TO THOSE BUSINESSES 

           21    THAT DO NOT CARE ABOUT OUR HEALTH OR EVEN THE LONG-TERM 

           22    ECONOMIC HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES.  THANK YOU.  

           23        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

           24        MR. HABER:  I HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION, PLEASE.  

           25             YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        71


                                                                          

            1    ECONOMIC BENEFIT -- 

            2        MITZI SHPAK:  MY HEARING IS POOR.  IT'S JUST AN 

            3    AMPLIFIER.  

            4        MR. HABER:  YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL 

            5    ECONOMIC BENEFIT FOR BUSINESSES THAT DO THE RIGHT THING 

            6    COMPARED WITH BUSINESSES THAT DO NOT, WHICH WE DO SPEAK 

            7    OF IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING 

            8    REGULATIONS.  

            9             DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING PARTICULAR ABOUT HOW THAT 

           10    WOULD PLAY OUT IN THE CONTEXT OF A MORE PROTECTIVE OZONE 

           11    STANDARD VERSUS A LESS PROTECTIVE OZONE STANDARD?  

           12        MITZI SHPAK:  NOT AT THIS MOMENT.

           13        MR. HABER:  THANKS.  

           14        MITZI SHPAK:  THANK YOU.  

           15        JENNIFER SNOW, PH.D.:  HELLO.  IT'S WORKING?  

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO PRESS IT DURING 

           17    YOUR TESTIMONY.  

           18        JENNIFER SNOW, PH.D.:  OKAY.  THERE WE ARE.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  YEAH, SORRY.  

           20        JENNIFER SNOW, PH.D.:  THAT'S OKAY.  MY NAME IS 

           21    JENNIFER SNOW, AND I AM THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF A 

           22    GROUP CALLED PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIANS UNITING.  ONE OF THE 

           23    MANY THINGS WE DO IS WE TRY TO WORK WITH CHURCHES ON 

           24    ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.  

           25             I ACTUALLY WANTED TO OPEN BY ASKING THE MEMBERS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        72


                                                                          

            1    OF THE PANEL IF YOU ARE FROM LOS ANGELES OR WHERE YOU 

            2    ARE FROM?  ARE YOU FROM THE EAST COAST?  

            3        MR. HABER:  I GREW UP IN ANAHEIM.

            4        JENNIFER SNOW, PH.D.:  WONDERFUL.  WONDERFUL.  SO 

            5    YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE HERE.  I ACTUALLY AM FROM THE 

            6    EAST COAST.  I ONLY MOVED HERE ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.  I 

            7    AM A DOCTOR, BUT I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, BUT THAT'S OKAY.  

            8    YOU HAVE SCIENTISTS, AND THEY HAVE TOLD YOU THE RESULTS 

            9    OF THEIR RESEARCH, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE ADEQUATE 

           10    STANDARD WOULD BE, WHICH IS .060.  

           11             YOU'VE ALSO HEARD A LOT OF THINGS TODAY FROM 

           12    PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOT OF DETAILS AND A LOT OF SPECIFICS 

           13    AND A LOT OF STATISTICS ON HOW THE OZONE LAYER AFFECTS 

           14    US AND HOW THE -- THIS SMOG THAT WE LIVE WITH AFFECTS 

           15    US.  I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT.  I'M NOT AN 

           16    EXPERT IN ANYTHING EXCEPT PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCE IN LIVING 

           17    IN LOS ANGELES AND LIVING WITH THE HIGH OZONE LEVELS 

           18    THAT WE HAVE.  

           19             SINCE MOVING HERE THREE YEARS AGO, I MYSELF AM 

           20    A VERY HEALTHY PERSON.  I'M AN OUTDOOR'S PERSON.  I'VE 

           21    DEVELOPED SINUS INFECTIONS.  I'VE DEVELOPED RESPIRATORY 

           22    INFECTIONS.  I'VE DEVELOPED ASTHMA.  IT'S A REGULAR 

           23    FEATURE OF LIVING IN LOS ANGELES, IN THIS BASIN, THAT 

           24    YOU DO DEVELOP ASTHMA.  I LIVE IN PASADENA WHICH HAS 

           25    BEEN -- BECOME MUCH CLEANER THAN A LOT OF AREAS OF LOS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        73


                                                                          

            1    ANGELES.  

            2             THERE'S A WOMAN IN MY CHURCH WHO JUST HAPPENED 

            3    TO TELL ME THE OTHER DAY THAT HER GRANDSON DEVELOPED 

            4    ASTHMA, VERY SEVERE ASTHMA.  HE HAD A SEIZURE, AN ASTHMA 

            5    SEIZURE, BRONCHIAL SEIZURE IN SCHOOL A FEW YEARS AGO.  

            6    HE'S NOW IN A COMA.  HE HAS SPENT MOST OF HIS CHILDHOOD 

            7    IN A COMA, AND HE IS UNLIKELY TO WAKE UP.  AND, YOU 

            8    KNOW, SHE DIDN'T THROW IT OUT THERE AS A TERRIBLE 

            9    TRAGEDY.  IT IS A TRAGEDY FOR HER, BUT IT IS WHAT WE 

           10    LIVE WITH.  THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN IN LOS 

           11    ANGELES.  THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN IN THE BASIN.  

           12    THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA.  

           13             SO WE'RE ASKING YOU, PLEASE, TO FULFILL THE 

           14    STANDARD THAT THE EPA IS HELD TO FULFILL.  YOU HAVE BEEN 

           15    CALLED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  YOU KNOW THAT.  I 

           16    DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THAT, BUT I'M ASKING YOU TO, 

           17    PLEASE, HOLD US TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD THAT YOU CAN.  

           18    WE HAVE NO WAY OF PROTECTING OURSELVES OTHER THAN 

           19    THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS.  WE NEED THE .060 

           20    STANDARD.  WE NEED THAT STANDARD TO BE STRINGENT.  WE 

           21    NEED IT TO BE TIGHT.  WE ARE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE, 

           22    PLEASE, HOLD INDUSTRY AND HOLD US TO THAT STANDARD.  

           23             THERE'S NO ONE IN LOS ANGELES WHO WOULD NOT 

           24    RATHER PAY A FEW MORE PENNIES FOR THEIR POWER, A FEW 

           25    MORE PENNIES FOR THEIR GAS, A FEW MORE PENNIES FOR THEIR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        74


                                                                          

            1    SMOG CHECK THAN WATCH CHILDREN DIE.  WE ALL WOULD RATHER 

            2    HAVE A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.  WE ALL WOULD RATHER HAVE 

            3    AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS HEALTHY WITH PLANTS THAT CAN 

            4    SURVIVE.  

            5             I ALSO COMMEND YOU ON THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT 

            6    STANDARD, AND I HOPE THAT YOU DO ALSO INCLUDE THAT IN 

            7    YOUR NEW STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS.  THAT IS ALL I HAVE 

            8    TO SAY.  THANK YOU SO MUCH.  

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  

           10             OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE ALLEN LARSON AND 

           11    CHRISTINE BRYANT.  

           12        ALLEN LARSON:  HI, MY NAME IS ALLEN LARSON.  I AM A 

           13    FILM AND TELEVISION PRODUCER HERE IN LOS ANGELES, SO 

           14    I'VE GOT TO LIVE HERE IN LOS ANGELES.  I AM HERE AS YOUR 

           15    NEIGHBOR ACTUALLY.  WE'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT OF GREAT 

           16    TESTIMONY HERE TODAY.  YOU ALREADY HAVE.  I'M LISTENING, 

           17    AND I'M LEARNING A LOT AND HAVING A GREAT TIME BACK 

           18    THERE.  I'M GOING TO LEAVE THEM TO GIVE YOU SOME OF 

           19    THOSE NUMBERS.  I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT BEING A 

           20    NEIGHBOR.  

           21             AS YOUR NEIGHBOR -- I'M A GOOD NEIGHBOR.  I'M 

           22    THE KIND OF GUY THAT WOULD COME OVER AND HELP YOU 

           23    ORGANIZE YOUR GARAGE ON THE WEEKENDS AS LONG AS YOU WERE 

           24    BARBECUING.  I'M ALSO THE GUY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE.  I 

           25    WAS AN EAGLE SCOUT, AND I HAD A GOOD DAD THAT TAUGHT ME 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        75


                                                                          

            1    A LOT OF STUFF.  SO I DRIVE A PRIUS, AND I'M FORTUNATE 

            2    TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD REALLY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.  I'M 

            3    SMART.  I DON'T EVEN COMMUTE THAT OFTEN.  I'M ABLE TO 

            4    WORK FROM HOME A LOT OF THE TIME, WHICH I THINK IS COOL.  

            5    AND NORMALLY THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH.  IT REALLY WOULD BE.  

            6    EXCEPT THREE WEEKS AGO TODAY, MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE, WHO'S 

            7    SITTING IN THE BACK OF THIS ROOM, GAVE BIRTH TO MY 

            8    BEAUTIFUL DAUGHTER WHO'S ALSO SITTING IN THE BACK OF THE 

            9    ROOM, AND OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP OR SHE'D BE TESTIFYING 

           10    INSTEAD OF ME.  

           11        MS. WEGMAN:  CONGRATULATIONS.  THAT'S GREAT.  

           12        ALLEN LARSON:  THANK YOU.  AND IT CHANGED KIND OF 

           13    EVERYTHING, MY PERSPECTIVE.  WHERE IT WAS OKAY THAT I 

           14    COULD CONTRIBUTE LESS TO THE BAD STUFF IN THE AIR AND 

           15    TRY TO LIVE A GOOD LIFE IF THE WHOLE KIND OF HURT ME A 

           16    LITTLE BIT, THAT'S OKAY.  BUT IT'S NOT OKAY THAT IT 

           17    HURTS MY DAUGHTER.  AND IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN, YOU 

           18    UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.  

           19             YOU UNDERSTAND -- THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO.  

           20    YOU PROTECT THEM FROM THE POWER OUTLETS.  YOU PROTECT 

           21    THEM FROM THE SHARP EDGES.  YOU PROTECT THEM FROM THE 

           22    FAST TRAFFIC.  YOU DRIVE LIKE A GRANDFATHER.  I DRIVE 

           23    LIKE A GRANDFATHER NOW.  ALL OF THESE THINGS I DO 

           24    BECAUSE I LOVE HER AND WANT TO BE THE BEST FATHER THAT I 

           25    CAN BE.  PART OF THAT IS LEADING BY EXAMPLE.  PART OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        76


                                                                          

            1    THAT IS NEVER TURNING MY BACK ON A NEIGHBOR IN NEED.  

            2    PART OF THAT IS JUST BEING A GOOD HUMAN BEING.  AND I AM 

            3    YOUR NEIGHBOR, AND I'M ASKING FOR YOUR HELP.  

            4             .060, THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY.  IT'S ACHIEVABLE.  

            5    WE CAN DO IT.  IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN'T RISE TO THE 

            6    CHALLENGE OF.  ALL THESE FOLKS HAVE GREAT SCIENTIFIC 

            7    REASONS WHY IT'S NECESSARY, AND THERE IS NO REASON GREAT 

            8    ENOUGH TO RISK MY DAUGHTER'S HEALTH TO NOT DO IT.  SO 

            9    THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.  THANK YOU.  

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  THANK YOU TO YOUR WIFE AND 

           11    DAUGHTER FOR TRUCKING OVER HERE TODAY.  

           12        CHRISTINE BRYANT:  I AM FOLLOWING THAT.  I THINK 

           13    THAT'S GREAT.  

           14             GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS CHRISTINE BRYANT, AND 

           15    I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE AMERICAN 

           16    LUNG ASSOCIATION.  I AM CURRENTLY THEIR BOARD SECRETARY, 

           17    AND I'VE BEEN WITH THE ORGANIZATION FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS.  

           18    I'M ONE OF THREE SPEAKERS FROM THE LUNG ASSOCIATION 

           19    YOU'LL BE HEARING FROM TODAY.  THE OTHER TWO 

           20    REPRESENTATIVES  WILL BE REPRESENTING THE STATE OF 

           21    CALIFORNIA.  

           22             SO THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION IS ONE OF OUR 

           23    NATION'S OLDEST LUNG HEALTH DISEASE ORGANIZATIONS, AND 

           24    OUR MISSION IS TO PROTECT LUNG HEALTH AND PREVENT LUNG 

           25    DISEASE AND FIGHTING FOR CLEAN AIR.  HEALTHY AIR IS VERY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        77


                                                                          

            1    CENTRAL TO THAT MISSION.  YOU'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE FIVE 

            2    YEARS AGO IN OUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO THAT FIGHT, WE 

            3    TOOK LEGAL ACTION TO REQUIRE THIS REVIEW.  

            4             I'M GOING TO STEP BACK.  IS IT BETTER THAT I 

            5    STAY AWAY FROM THIS MICROPHONE?  OH, THANK YOU.  THAT 

            6    HELPS.  IT WAS DRIVING ME NUTS.  

            7             THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION TODAY IS CALLING 

            8    ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO ADOPT A 

            9    PRIMARY NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE 

           10    AT WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ALL DAY, THE 0.060 PARTS PER 

           11    MILLION AVERAGED OVER THE EIGHT HOURS.  WHILE THE RANGE 

           12    YOU'VE PROPOSED IS A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT ON THE EXISTING 

           13    STANDARD, IT FALLS SHORT ON WHAT WE NEED.  THE HEALTH -- 

           14    INDEED, THE HEALTH OF TOO MANY PEOPLE IS AT STAKE.  

           15             NOW, THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES YOU TO SET A 

           16    STANDARD THAT PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN ADEQUATE 

           17    MARGIN OF SAFETY.  WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?  AN 

           18    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  HOW DO YOU PROVIDE THAT 

           19    PROTECTION?  FIRST, WE BELIEVE THAT THE EPA SHOULD 

           20    FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF THE 23 SCIENTISTS THAT, I'M SURE, 

           21    YOU'VE HEARD QUITE A BIT ABOUT TODAY, WHO FORMED THAT 

           22    CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY 

           23    GAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR TIGHTER STANDARDS.  

           24             LAST OCTOBER THOSE SCIENTISTS SENT THE 

           25    COMMITTEE THEIR OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION IN A LETTER THAT 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        78


                                                                          

            1    WAS BOTH EXPLICIT AND POINTED.  THE COMMITTEE WARNED 

            2    THAT OZONE SMOG STANDARD NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY 

            3    REDUCED AND THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION 

            4    FOR RETAINING THE CURRENT WEAKER STANDARD.  THE 

            5    COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED A RANGE STANDARD OF 0.060 TO 0.070 

            6    PARTS PER MILLION, A RANGE THAT WOULD PROVIDE MUCH MORE 

            7    PROTECTION THAN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US 

            8    TODAY.  

            9             UNFORTUNATELY, THE TIGHTEST NEW STANDARD 

           10    PROPOSED BARELY TOUCHED THE LEVELS THAT THE SCIENTISTS 

           11    RECOMMENDED.  NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, THE PROPOSED RANGE IS 

           12    BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.  EVEN A STANDARD SET AT 

           13    0.75 PARTS PER MILLION WOULD LEAD TO MUCH LESS OZONE 

           14    ACROSS THE NATION.  BUT THE CLEAN AIR ACT JUST DOESN'T 

           15    DIRECT YOU TO DO BETTER.  IT DEMANDS THAT YOU PROTECT 

           16    THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  CLEANER AIR IS NOT CLEAN ENOUGH.  

           17             EPA ARGUED THE PROPOSAL THAT THE UNCERTAINTY OF 

           18    THE RESEARCH KEEPS YOU FROM TIGHTENING THE STANDARD TO 

           19    THE LEVEL THAT THE LUNG ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDS.  

           20    UNCERTAINTY IS TO BE EXPECTED IN RESEARCH.  IN FACT, THE 

           21    CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT REALITY IN 1970 WHEN IT ADOPTED 

           22    THE REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE THAT MARGIN OF SAFETY IN THE 

           23    STANDARD.  SO ANY UNCERTAINTY TO COMPEL YOU TO TIGHTEN 

           24    THAT STANDARD, CLEARLY THE 23 SCIENTISTS FELT THAT.  

           25             THE PROPOSAL ALSO LEAVES OPEN A COMPLETELY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        79


                                                                          

            1    UNACCEPTABLE OPTION TO US AND THAT'S MAKING NO 

            2    IMPROVEMENTS.  IN DOING SO, YOU IGNORE A DECADE OF 

            3    COMPELLING RESEARCH THAT POINTS TO EVEN MORE HARM FROM 

            4    OZONE POLLUTION.  WE CANNOT WAIT ANOTHER DECADE TO 

            5    PROVIDE THIS PROTECTION.  

            6             AS YOU HEARD EARLIER TODAY, THE OZONE AIR 

            7    POLLUTION POSES RISK FOR INFANTS, SENIORS, AND PEOPLE 

            8    WITH ASTHMA AND OTHER LUNG DISEASES.  FOR THESE PEOPLE, 

            9    SMOG POLLUTED AIR MEANS MORE BREATHING PROBLEMS, 

           10    AGGRAVATED ASTHMA, HOSPITAL VISITS, AND EVEN PREMATURE 

           11    DEATH.  EVEN HEALTHY ADULTS WHO WORK OR EXERCISE 

           12    OUTDOORS ARE AT RISK.  IN OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT 

           13    WE'LL BE PROVIDING YOU, WE'LL DISCUSS THE SCIENTIFIC 

           14    EVIDENCE FOR A STRONGER OZONE LEVEL.  

           15             I'M HERE TODAY PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT'S PERSONAL 

           16    FOR ME.  I'VE BEEN A LIFE-LONG RESIDENT IN SOUTHERN 

           17    CALIFORNIA AND CURRENTLY MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY ARE AT 

           18    RISK.  MY MOTHER LIVES IN SAN DIEGO, AND SHE SUFFERS 

           19    FROM BORDERLINE EMPHYSEMA.  SHE WAS FORCED TO MOVE FROM 

           20    LOS ANGELES IN THE EARLY '70S BECAUSE THE AIR POLLUTION 

           21    LEVELS IMPACTED HER HEALTH.  TODAY SHE COUGHS, AND SHE 

           22    WHEEZES, AND SHE STRUGGLES TO GAIN THE BREATH OF AIR 

           23    THAT SHE NEEDS.  IT IS VERY HARD ON HER TOO WHEN THE 

           24    OZONE LEVELS INCREASE, AND IT'S TOUGHER FOR HER TO 

           25    BREATHE, AND IT'S TOUGHER FOR HER TO WALK.  WHAT I DON'T 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        80


                                                                          

            1    LIKE IS WORRYING THAT THE LEVELS OF OZONE THAT SHE'S 

            2    BREATHING MIGHT ACTUALLY SHORTEN HER LIFE.  

            3             OZONE ISN'T SOMETHING ABSTRACT FOR US.  IT 

            4    MEANS HER LIFE.  SINCE I HAVE THREE SECONDS LEFT, I'M 

            5    GOING TO END -- I'M GOING TO LEAVE YOU WITH A STATEMENT 

            6    THAT SAYS IT ALL FROM THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, 

            7    WHEN YOU CAN'T BREATHE, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.  

            8             THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME TODAY.  

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  I THINK WE HAVE ONE 

           10    QUESTION.  

           11        MR. HANNON:  MA'AM, I HAVE A QUESTION ON YOUR 

           12    COMMENT ON UNCERTAINTY.

           13        CHRISTINE BRYANT:  YES.

           14        MR. HANNON:  EPA RELIED ON THAT FOR REASONS NOT 

           15    PROPOSING, ANYWAY, TO GO BELOW 70 PARTS PER MILLION.  IF 

           16    EITHER TODAY OR IN YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS, IT WOULD BE 

           17    USEFUL IF YOU COULD EXPAND ON THAT.  

           18             SO, FOR EXAMPLE, CASAC'S ADOPTED 60, BUT 

           19    CERTAINLY THERE'S UNCERTAINTY BELOW 60 AS WELL.  SO 

           20    UNCERTAINTY DOESN'T DRIVE YOU FOREVER TO GO LOWER, BUT 

           21    THERE WOULD BE A BALANCE AT SOME POINT AT WHICH YOU STOP 

           22    GOING LOWER AND EVERYONE TODAY HAS STOPPED AT 60, 

           23    LARGELY, I THINK, BECAUSE OF ISSUES OF UNCERTAINTY AS 

           24    WELL AS ACCEPTING THE JUDGMENT OF CASAC THAT BELOW THAT 

           25    IS NOT APPROPRIATE.  BUT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE YOUR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        81


                                                                          

            1    ORGANIZATION'S VIEW ON HOW TO BALANCE UNCERTAINTY WITH 

            2    RISK AND OTHER FACTORS IN DECIDING WHERE TO STOP.  THAT 

            3    SEEMS TO BE THE CRITICAL ISSUE TO THIS PROPOSAL FROM 

            4    ALMOST ALL OF THE SPEAKERS TODAY.  THANK YOU.  

            5        CHRISTINE BYRANT:  I WILL MAKE SURE.  THANK YOU.  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  ENJOY YOUR NEW FATHERHOOD.

            7        ALLEN LARSON:  I WILL, THANK YOU.  

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE MATT KEENER 

            9    AND JILL LEVIN.  

           10             IS MR. KEENER HERE?  

           11        MATT KEENER:  YES, THANK YOU.  HI, I'M MATT KEENER.  

           12    I'M WITH THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA.  I 

           13    LIVE HERE IN LOS ANGELES WITH MY FAMILY, MY FRIENDS, THE 

           14    PEOPLE I CARE ABOUT MOST IN THE WORLD.  

           15             LOS ANGELES, OF COURSE, ACCORDING TO THE 

           16    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION'S STATE OF THE AIR REPORT 

           17    RELEASED ANNUALLY, HAS THE MOST UNPLEASANT DISTINCTION 

           18    OF HAVING THE WORST AIR IN THE NATION.  OZONE, IN 

           19    PARTICULAR, IS A REAL PROBLEM FOR US.  IN FACT, I DON'T 

           20    KNOW IF ANY OF YOU SPENT TIME HERE IN LOS ANGELES.  I 

           21    KNOW YOU GREW UP IN ANAHEIM.  YOU KNOW, THE OZONE IS 

           22    NOTICEABLE TO PEOPLE HERE IN LOS ANGELES.  I DON'T JUST 

           23    MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU CAN SEE THE SMOG.  I MEAN, 

           24    PARTICULARLY HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS.  

           25             LOS ANGELES IS ONE OF THE LARGEST AND ARGUABLY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        82


                                                                          

            1    MOST BEAUTIFUL CITIES IN THE WORLD.  PEOPLE ARE 

            2    ATTRACTED HERE AS VISITORS.  THEY COME HERE FOR THEIR 

            3    CAREERS AND IN VARIOUS FIELDS, PARTICULARLY 

            4    ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT 

            5    HAPPENS WHEN -- I HEAR THIS STORY COUNTLESS TIMES, AND I 

            6    EXPERIENCED IT MYSELF WHEN I CAME HERE:  IF YOU'RE 

            7    ATHLETICALLY INCLINED, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT YOU 

            8    DO WHEN YOU ARRIVE IN LOS ANGELES AND EXPERIENCE ALL 

            9    THIS BEAUTY AROUND US IS YOU WANT TO GET OUT IN IT AND 

           10    DO THAT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY THAT YOU LOVE THE MOST.  

           11    RUNNING, PLAYING TENNIS, SURFING.  WHATEVER IT IS THAT 

           12    YOU DO.  

           13             AS YOU EXERT YOURSELF, YOU START TO GET THIS 

           14    BURNING SENSATION.  I KNOW YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT I'M 

           15    TALKING ABOUT IT.  LOCALLY, WE REFER TO IT AS THE OZONE 

           16    BURN.  NOW, OF COURSE, TECHNICALLY, IT'S NOT A BURN, BUT 

           17    THAT'S WHAT THE LOCALS CALL IT.  WHEN SOMETHING GETS TO 

           18    THE POINT WHERE THE LOCALS HAVE GIVEN IT A NAME, IT'S 

           19    LIKE, HELLO, HEADS UP, WE'VE GOT AN ISSUE HERE.  

           20             NOW, YOU'VE BEEN HEARING -- I'M SURE YOU'RE 

           21    FULLY WELL-AWARE, BUT THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION IS 

           22    VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OZONE LEVELS.  WHAT WE WANT TO 

           23    ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO, AS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD, IS REALLY 

           24    PUSH TOWARD THAT MARGIN OF SAFETY AND NOT BE SWAYED BY 

           25    SHORT-TERM -- AND I STRESS, SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC INTEREST 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        83


                                                                          

            1    OF POLLUTERS BECAUSE OUR RESEARCH INDICATES THAT THE 

            2    LONG-TERM ECONOMIC INTEREST OF EVERYBODY -- FRANKLY 

            3    INCLUDING THOSE INDUSTRIES THAT ARE MAJOR POLLUTERS, THE 

            4    LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS GO TOWARD STRONGER 

            5    STANDARDS.  STRONGER STANDARDS MEAN HEALTHIER PEOPLE.  

            6    HEALTHIER PEOPLE MEANS A HEALTHIER ECONOMY.  

            7             WHEN PEOPLE ARE OUT ENJOYING THEMSELVES, THE 

            8    TOURIST ECONOMY PICKS UP.  PEOPLE ARE HARD AT WORK.  

            9    THEIR EFFECTIVENESS PICKS UP.  IT'S, FRANKLY, SILLY THAT 

           10    WE ARGUE THESE THINGS ON THIS SHORT-TERM IMMEDIATE 

           11    PROFIT BASIS.  

           12             AND, MR. HANNON, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR 

           13    CONCERN.  WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS MARGIN OF 

           14    SAFETY THING, WELL, WHERE DO YOU STOP?  YOU KNOW, I 

           15    WOULD -- I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO -- TO PUSH 

           16    TOWARD STOPPING WHEN WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN WE HAVE 

           17    PROTECTED OURSELVES.  OURSELVES, OUR LOVED ONES, OUR 

           18    FELLOW CITIZENS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.  THAT'S WHEN WE 

           19    STOP.  WE STOP WHEN WE ARE NOT UNCERTAIN.  LET'S NOT 

           20    RISK OUR LIVES, OUR CHILDREN'S LIVES, FRANKLY, OUR 

           21    GRANDCHILDREN'S LIVES.  

           22             IF WE'RE GOING TO ERR -- AND WE'RE HUMAN, WE 

           23    MAKE ERRORS, ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE TELLING US 

           24    THAT THIS IS WHAT WE MUST DO, AND MAYBE ONE OR TWO WITH, 

           25    MAYBE, SOME QUESTIONABLE FUNDING SOURCES ARE SAYING, 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        84


                                                                          

            1    "OH, THERE'S SOME UNCERTAINTY."  BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, EVEN 

            2    IF THERE IS SOME UNCERTAINTY, FRANKLY, SO WHAT?  LET'S 

            3    MOVE TOWARD CERTAINTY.  LET'S PUSH TOWARD CERTAINTY.  

            4    LET'S GET TO A PLACE WHERE THE STANDARDS ARE CLEARLY 

            5    PROTECTING US.  

            6             NOW, PEOPLE HAVE TOLD YOU, SCIENTISTS, 

            7    CITIZENS, LAWYERS ARE TELLING YOU THAT THE LAW REQUIRES 

            8    YOU TO DO THAT, AND WE WILL BE HERE NOW, THEN, TO PUSH 

            9    FOR YOU TO DO THAT.  TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE THING 

           10    THE LAW HAS CHARGED YOU TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, OUR 

           11    HEALTH.  THAT'S -- THAT'S YOUR JOB.  I'M SORRY TO HAVE 

           12    TO TELL YOU WHAT MY OPINION OF YOUR JOB IS.  I'M 

           13    COUNTING ON YOU AND MY LITTLE BABY BOY, WHO'S LESS THAN 

           14    TWO YEARS OLD WHO SPENT A WEEK IN THE HOSPITAL DUE TO 

           15    ASTHMA COMPLICATED STANDARD RESPIRATORY VIRUS LAST YEAR.  

           16    THE SCARIEST WEEK OF MY AND HIS MOTHER'S LIFE.  REAL 

           17    PEOPLE ARE BEING IMPACTED.  

           18             WE'VE GOT TO PUSH TOWARD REAL SAFETY, REAL 

           19    HEALTH AND THAT MEANS AT LEAST .6, NOT .7.  THANK YOU.  

           20        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

           21        JILL LEVIN:  HI, I'M JILL LEVIN.  I'M HERE AS A 

           22    CITIZEN AND A SINGLE MOTHER OF A THREE-YEAR-OLD.  

           23             SO I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE I'M THE FEMALE MATT 

           24    LARSON.  HE'S A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND SOMEBODY THAT'S 

           25    PARTICIPATED IN OUR COMMUNITY WORKING WITH NON-PROFITS.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        85


                                                                          

            1    I'M SELF-EMPLOYED, AND I'VE CHOSEN TO LIVE FAIRLY NEAR 

            2    MY WORK; BUT AS A PARENT OF A THREE YEAR OLD, I THINK 

            3    ABOUT IT.  I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN 

            4    FROM PESTICIDES, FROM TOO MUCH SUGAR, FROM OBESITY, AND 

            5    AIR QUALITY.  BUT I DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT AND 

            6    THAT'S WHY YOU ARE CHARGED TO PROTECT THE ADULTS AND OUR 

            7    CHILDREN.  AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHY I'M HERE.  

            8             FORTUNATELY, MY DAUGHTER DOESN'T HAVE PROBLEMS, 

            9    BUT EARLIER THIS YEAR ON KPCC RADIO, I THINK IF YOU'RE 

           10    FROM ANAHEIM YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH IT, THERE WAS 

           11    A STUDY THAT INDICATED THAT IF YOU LIVE WITHIN A THIRD 

           12    OF A MILE OF A FREEWAY OR HEAVILY TRAFFIC STREETS, 

           13    YOU'RE AT HIGHER RISK.  WELL, LIVING IN L.A., WHO 

           14    DOESN'T?  IT HAPPENS THAT I LIVE WITHIN A THIRD OF A 

           15    MILE FROM NOT THE FREEWAY, BUT TWO HEAVILY TRAFFIC 

           16    STREETS.  I'M PUTTING MY DAUGHTER IN PRESCHOOL ON PICO 

           17    BOULEVARD NEAR CENTURY CITY.  WELL, THEY PLAY OUTSIDE.  

           18    WHERE DO I GO TO MAKE IT SAFE?  DO I PUT MY DAUGHTER 

           19    OUTSIDE?  THIS IS SOMETHING I FEEL WE, AS A CITIZENRY, 

           20    SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT.  

           21             JUST LETTING OUR CHILDREN PLAY OUTSIDE WE HAVE 

           22    TO PUT ON SUNTAN LOTION.  OKAY.  WE MAKE THAT 

           23    CONCESSION.  WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT AS KIDS, BUT WE 

           24    HAVE TO PUT IT ON OUR KIDS.  SO THIS IS REALLY TROUBLING 

           25    TO ME THAT JUST LETTING MY DAUGHTER OUTSIDE IS NOT SAFE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        86


                                                                          

            1    ANY MORE.  WHO DO WE HAVE TO TURN TO?  WE HAVE TO TURN 

            2    TO THE EPA AND TRUST THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF 

            3    US OVER THE CONCERNS OF THE BIG OIL COMPANIES, THE 

            4    REFINERIES, AND THE CAR COMPANIES BECAUSE AS FAR AS I'M 

            5    CONCERNED, THEY SHOULD NOT RULE THE ROOST, EVEN IF 

            6    THEY'RE PAYING MONEY TO BUSH AND HIS CRONIES.  

            7             I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT IT ALSO SEEMS THAT -- 

            8    WELL, SORRY, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CLOUT YOU HAVE OVER 

            9    THE CAR COMPANIES TO GET THEM TO MOVE FASTER BECAUSE IN 

           10    L.A. WE LIVE IN OUR CARS.  SO HERE IS ONE OF THE 

           11    BIGGEST -- AS YOU KNOW, IN THIS STATE, HOW DO WE GET 

           12    AROUND IT?  SO IF WE NEED TO IMPROVE THINGS, IT'S NOT 

           13    JUST THE OZONE, BUT IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT ARE CREATING 

           14    THE OZONE PROBLEMS.  

           15             SO I'D LIKE TO FINISH WITH JUST SAYING THAT I'M 

           16    HERE AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN.  I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT 

           17    I'M A RESPONSIBLE PARENT, BUT I CAN'T DO IT ON MY OWN.  

           18    THANK YOU.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH.  

           20             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE LINDA WEINER AND PAUL 

           21    CORT.  YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE MICROPHONE DOWN WHILE YOU 

           22    SPEAK.  

           23        LINDA WEINER:  GOOD MORNING.  I NAME IS LINDA 

           24    WEINER, AND I REPRESENT THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA CLEAN 

           25    AIR TASK FORCE LOCATED IN SAN FRANCISCO.  I AM ALSO THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        87


                                                                          

            1    DIRECTOR OF AIR QUALITY ADVOCACY TO THE AMERICAN LUNG 

            2    ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA.  

            3             THE BAY AREA CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE IS A GROUP OF 

            4    PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTATION, AND 

            5    COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO 

            6    SHAPE AIR QUALITY POLICY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA.  OUR 

            7    MEMBERS INCLUDE THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE 

            8    SIERRA CLUB, THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, THE 

            9    NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL, FRIENDS OF THE 

           10    ENVIRONMENT, MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION, MAJOR 

           11    STATEWIDE ASTHMA COALITION, BREATHE CALIFORNIA, MANY 

           12    LOCAL COMMUNITY-BASED GROUPS.  

           13             WE'RE HERE TODAY TO URGE EPA TO ADOPT A STRONG 

           14    HEALTH PROTECTIVE STANDARD FOR OZONE.  EXCUSE ME IF I'M 

           15    BEING SOMEWHAT REPETITIVE IN THE BEGINNING, BUT WHILE WE 

           16    UNDERSTAND THAT EPA HAS PROPOSED STRENGTHENING THE 

           17    STANDARD, WE FEEL IT'S A MODEST PROPOSAL AND FALLS SHORT 

           18    OF THE GOAL RECOMMENDED BY THE -- BY YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC 

           19    EXPERTS.  

           20             AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE QUOTES FROM INDEPENDENT 

           21    ADVISORS THAT THEY NEED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED, 

           22    OZONE SMOG STANDARDS, AND THAT THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC 

           23    JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING THE WEAKER STANDARD.  THE 

           24    PROPOSED STANDARD BARELY TOUCHES THE MOST PROTECTIVE 

           25    LEVELS RECOMMENDED BY THOSE SAME INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS, 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        88


                                                                          

            1    BUT ALARMINGLY, THE NEW EPA PLAN LEAVES THE DOOR WIDE 

            2    OPEN TO AN OPTION THAT WE CONSIDER UNACCEPTABLE IN TERMS 

            3    OF MAKING NO IMPROVEMENTS.  MAKING NO IMPROVEMENTS WOULD 

            4    IGNORE A DECADE OF RESEARCH.  

            5             THE BAY AREA CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE IS VERY 

            6    CONCERNED BECAUSE WE SEE THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH.  

            7    WE SEE ITS SENSITIVE POPULATIONS, WHICH IS YOUR MARGIN 

            8    OF SAFETY, AND PARTICULARLY LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES MOST 

            9    IMPACTED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES OF POLLUTION, REAL PEOPLE 

           10    SUFFER REAL IMPACTS.  ON THOSE DAYS WHEN THE AIR IS TOO 

           11    DIRTY TO BREATHE, TOO DIRTY TO GO OUTSIDE, PEOPLE ARE 

           12    PRISONERS IN THEIR OWN HOMES.  THEY WIPE OFF POLLUTION 

           13    EVERY DAY FROM THEIR VENETIAN BLINDS, AND IT 

           14    SHOULDN'T -- IT REALLY IS TRUE THAT WHEN YOU CAN'T 

           15    BREATHE, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.  

           16             IT BEARS REPEATING THAT OZONE IS A POWERFUL 

           17    OXIDANT THAT CAN BURN OUR LUNGS AND AIRWAYS CAUSING THEM 

           18    TO BECOME INFLAMED, REDDENED, AND SWOLLEN.  OZONE 

           19    EXPOSURE, AS YOU KNOW, CAN LEAD TO SHORTNESS OF BREATH, 

           20    CHEST PAIN, WHEEZING AND COUGHING, INCREASED RISK OF 

           21    ASTHMA ATTACKS AND NOW WE KNOW EVEN PREMATURE DEATH.  

           22    THE MORE WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT OZONE POLLUTION, THE MORE 

           23    WE UNDERSTAND HOW DANGEROUS IT IS.  

           24             AS YOU KNOW, CASAC REVIEWED A 2,000-PAGE 

           25    SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        89


                                                                          

            1    THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT 

            2    PUBLIC HEALTH.  OTHER SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH 

            3    ORGANIZATIONS HAVE AGREED, INCLUDING W.H.O., THE ACADEMY 

            4    OF PEDIATRICS, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EPA'S CHILDREN'S 

            5    HEALTH PROTECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE AMERICAN 

            6    MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AND OTHERS.  

            7             BUT THE CRITICAL POINT WE WANT TO CONVEY TODAY 

            8    IS THAT THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF THE 

            9    DEVASTATING HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE AT LEVELS BELOW THE 

           10    CURRENT STANDARDS.  INDEED, STUDY IN EPA REPORT HAVE 

           11    DEMONSTRATED THAT SMOG CAN DAMAGE LUNGS AT 

           12    CONCENTRATIONS AS LOW AS .60 PARTS PER MILLION AND THAT 

           13    IS CERTAINTY.  WE KNOW THAT FOR SURE.  A LARGE 14-YEAR 

           14    STUDY IN 95 CITIES FOUND THAT SHORT-TERM PEAKS IN OZONE 

           15    LEVELS INCREASED DEATHS FROM RESPIRATORY AND 

           16    CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 

           17    MORTALITY AND OZONE WAS EVIDENT EVEN ON DAYS WITH 

           18    POLLUTION LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARD.  

           19             WE KNOW, WE HAVE SEEN STUDIES, THE TIGHTER THE 

           20    STANDARD, THE FEWER ASTHMA ATTACKS, THE FEWER HOSPITAL 

           21    TRIPS, AND THE FEWER DEATHS FROM AIR POLLUTION.  THERE 

           22    IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED.  

           23             BUT, FINALLY, IN MY LAST FEW MINUTES, I WANT TO 

           24    SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE FACT THAT THE CALIFORNIA -- THE 

           25    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION STATE OF THE AIR REPORT 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        90


                                                                          

            1    INDICATES THAT 99 MILLION AMERICANS STILL LIVE IN 

            2    LEVELS -- IN AREAS OF UNSAFE LEVELS OF OZONE.  

            3    CALIFORNIA HAS THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION OF DOMINATING THE 

            4    LIST OF CITIES AND COUNTIES WITH THE WORST AIR POLLUTION 

            5    USING QUALITY CONTROL AND EPA DATA TO ASSESS THOSE 

            6    LEVELS.  CALIFORNIA HAS 16 OF THE 25 MOST OZONE-POLLUTED 

            7    COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY AND 9 OF THE MOST OZONE-POLLUTED 

            8    CITIES.  REDUCING THIS POLLUTION IS CRITICAL BECAUSE AIR 

            9    POLLUTION TRAVELS AND SECOND-HAND SMOG DRIFTS INTO OTHER 

           10    COMMUNITIES.  

           11             WHILE IT MAY BE TRUE THAT A STRICTER STANDARD 

           12    MAY BE MORE DIFFICULT TO ATTAIN, THE HEALTH STAKES ARE 

           13    VERY HIGH.  THE HEALTH COSTS IN TERMS OF ILLNESS, 

           14    EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS, ASTHMA ATTACKS, AND EVEN 

           15    PREMATURE DEATHS, THE BENEFITS OF CLEANING UP AIR 

           16    POLLUTION HAVE PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO BE 

           17    OVERWHELMINGLY GREATER THAN THE COST.  ACCORDING TO AN 

           18    OFFICE -- WHITE HOUSE OFFICE MANAGEMENT SURVEY, TOTAL 

           19    BENEFITS OF EPA'S AIR POLLUTION REGULATIONS OUTWEIGH THE 

           20    COSTS BY AS MUCH AS 40 TO 1.  WE HAVE 37 YEARS OF 

           21    EXPERIENCE OF AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS, AND FINDING OUT 

           22    THIS HAS NOT HURT ECONOMIC GROWTH IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT 

           23    NOW THAT CLEANER TECHNOLOGY EXISTS THAT CAN HELP 

           24    IMPLEMENT THESE STANDARDS.  

           25             THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS BASING A 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        91


                                                                          

            1    STANDARD ON DIFFICULTY OF ATTAINMENT.  CALIFORNIA 

            2    RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW IF THEIR AIR IS HEALTHY 

            3    OR NOT.  AS YOU HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES, THE CLEAN AIR ACT 

            4    REQUIRES POLLUTING -- POLLUTION STANDARDS PROTECT PUBLIC 

            5    HEALTH WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  THE SUPREME 

            6    COURT CONFIRMED THAT UNANIMOUS DECISION IN 19 -- I MEAN, 

            7    IN 2002.  THE SOLE FACTOR WOULD BE SIMPLY PUBLIC HEALTH.  

            8    THE BAY AREA CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE STATES THE SCIENCE IS 

            9    CLEAR AND THE LAW IS CLEAR.  WE RECOMMEND .060 PARTS PER 

           10    MILLION.  THANK YOU.  

           11        MR. HABER:  I HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.  

           12        LINDA WEINER:  SURE.  

           13        MR. HABER:  YOU MENTIONED W.H.O., MY COLLEAGUES MAY 

           14    KNOW THIS, BUT DO YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD WHAT 

           15    THEIR RECOMMENDED EIGHT-HOUR OZONE NUMBER IS?  

           16        LINDA WEINER:  I DON'T, BUT I CAN FIND OUT.  I'LL 

           17    LET YOU KNOW PROBABLY BEFORE THE END OF THE DAY.  .051 

           18    MY COLLEAGUE TELLS ME.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  YEAH, WE DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION.  

           20        PAUL CORT:  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS PAUL CORT.  I'M 

           21    A STAFF ATTORNEY WITH EARTH JUSTICE.  I'M HERE TO URGE 

           22    YOU TO ADOPT AN EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD OF 60 PARTS 

           23    PER BILLION.  THE RECORD FOR A 60 PPB STANDARD HERE IS 

           24    MORE COMPELLING THAN THE RECORD EPA HAS USED TO SUPPORT 

           25    ANY PREVIOUS NAAQS DECISION.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        92


                                                                          

            1             IT WAS CASAC'S UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION THE NEW 

            2    STANDARD BE SET IN THE RANGE BETWEEN 60 AND 70 PPB.  

            3    EPA'S SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENTS FOR REJECTING 

            4    CASAC'S UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE NO BASIS IN SOUND 

            5    SCIENCE AND REPRESENT RADICAL DEPARTURES FROM THE WAY 

            6    EPA'S HAS USED SCIENTIFIC DATA IN THE PAST.  THE CLEAN 

            7    AIR ACT DOES NOT MANDATE THAT EPA FOLLOW CASAC'S 

            8    RECOMMENDATIONS BLINDLY.  

            9             SECTION 307(D)3 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, HOWEVER, 

           10    REQUIRES EPA TO INCLUDE IN THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE 

           11    MAKING AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS FOR ANY DIFFERENCES 

           12    BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL AND THE CASAC RECOMMENDATIONS.  EPA 

           13    DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY SUCH EXPLANATION.  EPA PROVIDES ITS 

           14    ARGUMENTS FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE STANDARD BELOW 70 PPB, 

           15    BUT IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT CAME TO CONCLUSIONS THAT 

           16    DIFFERED FROM CASAC.  THERE'S NO EXPLANATION OF WHY EPA 

           17    BELIEVES CASAC WAS WRONG.  NOTHING ON HOW CASAC 

           18    INCORRECTLY JUDGED THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OR WHY EPA 

           19    BELIEVES THAT EVERY SINGLE EXPERT ON THE COMMITTEE 

           20    OVERESTIMATED THE CERTAINTY OF THE STUDIES JUSTIFYING 

           21    THE STANDARD BETWEEN 60 AND 70 PPB.  EPA GIVES NO 

           22    EXPLANATION OF WHY ITS SCIENTIFIC REVIEW IS SUPERIOR OR 

           23    MORE REASONABLE THAN THAT OF CASAC.  

           24             IN THE END THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT 

           25    EXPLAINS WHY EPA'S SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENT SHOULD BE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        93


                                                                          

            1    AFFORDED DEFERENCE OVER THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATIONS OF 

            2    THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONGRESS 

            3    CREATED.  THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES MORE.  

            4             WHAT IS EVEN MORE ASTONISHING IS TO LOOK AT THE 

            5    TRANSPARENTLY ARTIFICIAL ARGUMENTS EPA USES TO REJECT A 

            6    LOWER STANDARD.  FIRST, EPA OBSERVES THAT THE EVIDENCE 

            7    FROM CLINICAL STUDIES AT EXPOSURE LEVELS BELOW 80 PPB IS 

            8    QUOTE "QUITE LIMITED."  THE EPA IS REFERRING TO THE 

            9    ADAMS STUDY, WHICH UPON EPA'S REANALYSIS DEMONSTRATED 

           10    STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE LUNG FUNCTION 

           11    IN HEALTHY ADULTS EXPOSED TO CONCENTRATIONS OF 60 PPB.  

           12    EPA DOES NOT POINT TO ANY FAULT IN THE STUDY.  IT DOES 

           13    NOT POINT TO OTHER STUDIES THAT CAME TO CONTRARY 

           14    RESULTS.  

           15             INSTEAD, EPA REJECTS THESE FINDINGS ONLY 

           16    BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES AVAILABLE.  THIS IS NOT A 

           17    REASONABLE BASIS FOR IGNORING DATA.  EPA CANNOT CLAIM TO 

           18    BE SETTING STANDARD THAT PROTECTS PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN 

           19    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY, INCLUDING PROTECTING THE 

           20    SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS, AND PROTECTION AGAINST 

           21    UNCERTAIN AND UNKNOWN IMPACTS WHEN EPA HAS 

           22    UNCONTROVERTED DATA THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH 

           23    EPIDEMIOLOGICAL AND OTHER STUDIES DEMONSTRATING IMPACTS 

           24    AT 60 PPB.  

           25             WITH RESPECT TO THESE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES, 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        94


                                                                          

            1    EPA CLAIMS THAT MANY STUDIES REPORT POSITIVE AND 

            2    STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATIONS, WHILE OTHERS ARE 

            3    NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND OTHERS ARE NOT 

            4    POSITIVE.  THIS STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS IS NOT AN 

            5    ARGUMENT FOR IGNORING AVAILABLE DATA.  THIS IS SIMPLY 

            6    THE NATURE OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES.  THE STUDIES USED 

            7    TO SUPPORT PRIOR NAAQS DECISIONS, SUCH AS 1997 FINE PM 

            8    NAAQS, WERE NOT UNIFORMLY STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AND 

            9    POSITIVE; AND YET, EPA WAS WILLING TO RELY ON THOSE 

           10    STUDIES THAT WERE.  

           11             EPA'S THIRD ARGUMENT IS, AGAIN, MERELY A 

           12    STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS.  EVIDENCE OF CAUSALITY BECOMES 

           13    INCREASINGLY UNCERTAIN AT LOWER LEVELS OF THE EXPOSURE.  

           14    THIS WAS TRUE IN 1997 WHEN EPA SET THE OZONE STANDARD 

           15    THE LOWEST EXPOSURE LEVEL DEMONSTRATED IN CLINICAL STUDY 

           16    AND THIS WAS TRUE WHEN EPA SET THE FINE PM STANDARD AT 

           17    THE LOWEST EXPOSURE LEVEL FOUND IN STATISTICALLY 

           18    SIGNIFICANT EPI STUDIES.  

           19             WHAT'S MORE TROUBLING ABOUT USING THIS FACT AS 

           20    AN ARGUMENT FOR REJECTING MORE HEALTH-PROTECTIVE 

           21    STANDARDS IS THAT THE EPA HAS MORE DATA DEMONSTRATING 

           22    THE CAUSATIVE LINK BETWEEN OZONE EXPOSURE AND HEALTH 

           23    EFFECTS THAN IT HAS EVER HAD FOR ANY PRIOR NAAQS RULE 

           24    MAKING.  EPA'S FINAL ARGUMENT IS BASED ON ITS RISK 

           25    ASSESSMENT; AND IT IS AN IMPLICIT SUGGESTION THAT WITH 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        95


                                                                          

            1    THE 70 PPB STANDARD, THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND 

            2    ASTHMATICS LEFT TO SUFFER IS ACCEPTABLE AND THE 

            3    MORTALITY IMPACTS ON THE ELDERLY ARE LOW ENOUGH TO 

            4    IGNORE.  THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE OF RISK 

            5    ASSESSMENT AND IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE RATIONALE FOR 

            6    DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF THE STANDARD.  

            7             FIRST, EPA'S USE OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT TO 

            8    DETERMINE WHEN THE STANDARD MEETS THE STATUTORY CRITERIA 

            9    IS AN ILLEGAL ATTEMPT TO BALANCE COST AND BENEFITS.  

           10    NEVER BEFORE HAS THE EPA ACTUALLY USED THE RISK 

           11    ASSESSMENT TO DRAW A LINE BETWEEN LEVELS OF POLLUTION 

           12    KNOWN TO RESULT IN ADVERSE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS.  EPA 

           13    DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE REMAINING HEALTH IMPACTS ARE NOT 

           14    ADVERSE OR THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF THESE IMPACTS IS 

           15    NEGLIGIBLE.  THE RISK ASSESSMENT IS USED TO SAY THAT 

           16    THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT EPA WILL 

           17    TOLERATE.  THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  

           18             WELL, JUSTICE BRIOR OPINED THAT THE NAAQS NEED 

           19    NOT BE RISK FREE, THE EPA TWISTS THE MEANING OF THE TERM 

           20    TO JUSTIFY ALLOWING IMPACTS THAT ARE CERTAIN BUT AFFECT 

           21    ONLY A SMALL POPULATION.  

           22             AGAIN, THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT EPA MUST PROTECT 

           23    EVEN SENSITIVE SUBPOPULATIONS FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS.  THE 

           24    RISK THE SENSITIVE SUBPOPULATION FACES IS BORN OUT IN 

           25    THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH EFFECT STUDIES.  NOT IN THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        96


                                                                          

            1    RISK ASSESSMENT.  EPA'S RELIANCE ON THE RISK ASSESSMENT 

            2    TO REJECT A 60-PPB STANDARD IS BOTH IRRATIONAL AND 

            3    ILLEGAL.  I URGE YOU TO ADOPT A 60-PPB STANDARD THAT 

            4    WILL TRULY ADDRESS THE SUFFERING CAUSED BY OZONE 

            5    POLLUTION.  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  WE HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR 

            7    MR. CORT.  

            8             I THINK YOU SAID THAT THERE ARE UNCONTROVERTED 

            9    DATA SHOWING IMPACTS OCCURRING AT 60 PARTS PER BILLION, 

           10    AND I JUST WONDERED WHICH DATA YOU WERE REFERRING TO?  

           11        PAUL CORT:  TO THE ADAMS -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH 

           12    YEAR, BUT THE CLINICAL STUDY SHOWING --

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  

           14        PAUL CORT:  YEAH.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

           16        MR. HANNON:  I ALSO HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE ADAMS 

           17    STUDY BELOW .80, EPA SAYING THE EVIDENCE IS QUITE 

           18    LIMITED.  

           19             IT'D BE USEFUL TO COMMENT, PERHAPS, IN YOUR 

           20    WRITTEN TESTIMONY AS TO EPA'S VIEWS LARGELY THAT IT WAS 

           21    A SINGLE STUDY AS COMPARED TO AS .080.  THERE'S NUMEROUS 

           22    STUDIES AT THAT POINT AND THAT'S QUITE LIMITED IN THE 

           23    SENSE OF THE VOLUME OF THE EVIDENCE, THE MAGNITUDE OF 

           24    THE EVIDENCE.  YOU DID REFERENCE THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT 

           25    WITH THE EPI STUDIES, ET CETERA; BUT DRAWING THAT LINK 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        97


                                                                          

            1    WOULD BE USEFUL TO KNOW MORE DETAIL AS COMPARED TO JUST 

            2    SAYING THERE'S ONE STUDY THERE.  

            3        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  

            4             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE COUNCILWOMAN RAJI BRAR 

            5    AND CRAIG JORDAN.  

            6        COUNCILWOMAN RAJI BRAR:  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS 

            7    RAJI BRAR.  I'M A COUNSEL MEMBER IN THE CITY OF ARVIN 

            8    AND A GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 

            9    AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT.  

           10             AT THIS TIME, THE CITY OF ARVIN HAS THE 

           11    UNWANTED DISTINCTION OF BEING THE MOST POLLUTED CITY IN 

           12    THE NATION.  LAST YEAR, ARVIN HAD THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF 

           13    GROUND LEVEL OZONE VIOLATIONS IN THE NATION.  WE ARE, 

           14    AGAIN, LEADING THE PACK WITH VIOLATIONS THIS YEAR.  OUR 

           15    COMMUNITY IS EXTREMELY DEVASTATED TO LEARN THAT WE ARE 

           16    BREATHING SUCH BAD AIR.  

           17             ARVIN IS KNOWN AS A FARMING COMMUNITY.  WE ARE 

           18    LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE 

           19    THE BREAD BASKET TO THE WORLD.  I FIND IT RATHER IRONIC 

           20    THAT THE COMMUNITY WHICH HELPS TO NOURISH OTHER 

           21    COMMUNITIES IS CURRENTLY STRUGGLING TO BREATHE.  WE DO 

           22    NOT HAVE SMOKE STACKS OR FACTORIES WHICH CAUSE OUR BAD 

           23    AIR.  WE INHERIT FROM THE COMMUNITIES TO THE NORTH OF 

           24    US.  IT GETS CARRIED DOWNWIND AND GETS TRAPPED BY THE 

           25    MOUNTAINS THAT SURROUND OUR TOWN.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        98


                                                                          

            1             AS YOU DRIVE INTO OUR CITY, YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE 

            2    THE MOUNTAINS THAT ARE LESS THAN SEVEN MILES AWAY.  WHEN 

            3    YOU WALK OUT YOUR FRONT DOOR, YOU KNOW INSTINCTIVELY BY 

            4    THE SMELL IN THE AIR AND BY LOOKING AT THE SKYLINE THAT 

            5    IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO GO OUTSIDE.  

            6             WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS.  

            7    OZONE POLLUTION IS BOTH DANGEROUS AND PERVASIVE.  IT 

            8    POSES A SERIOUS AND COSTLY THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH.  

            9    EXPOSURE TO OZONE CAN CAUSE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT 

           10    AFFLICTIONS:  CHEST PAIN, COUGH, AGGRAVATES ASTHMA, 

           11    REDUCING LUNG FUNCTION, AND EVENTUALLY SHORTENING LIFE 

           12    EXPECTANCY, ALL OF WHICH INCREASE EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS 

           13    AND HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS.  

           14             STRONG NATIONAL OZONE STANDARDS ARE NOT JUST A 

           15    GOOD IDEA, BUT A MUST.  IN OUR COUNTY 22 PERCENT OF OUR 

           16    CHILDREN HAVE ASTHMA.  ONE IN FIVE OF OUR CHILDREN CARRY 

           17    INHALERS TO SCHOOL WITH THEM DAILY.  OUR CHILDREN ARE 

           18    KEPT INDOORS ON BAD AIR DAYS.  HAVING YOUR CHILDREN STAY 

           19    INDOORS WHEN THEY SHOULD BE OUT PLAYING IS, SIMPLY PUT, 

           20    UNJUST.  WE ARE LIMITING THEIR POTENTIAL AND INCREASING 

           21    THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF OTHER DISEASES, SUCH AS CHILDHOOD 

           22    OBESITY DUE TO INACTIVITY.  OUR HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS TEAMS 

           23    ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PRACTICE ON BAD AIR DAYS.  THIS IS 

           24    SERIOUSLY LIMITING THE POSSIBILITIES TO EXCEL IN A 

           25    VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ARENAS.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                        99


                                                                          

            1             THE EPA'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT OUR PUBLIC 

            2    HEALTH.  AS A MEMBER OF THE AIR DISTRICT, I AM 

            3    CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH IN OUR 

            4    JURISDICTIONS AND THAT OUR HANDS ARE TIED AND TO GO TO 

            5    THE STATE A.R.B.  AT THE STATE A.R.B. LEVEL, I AM TOLD 

            6    THAT THEIR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE EPA IS A REGULATORY 

            7    AUTHORITY.  THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE IN 

            8    WHICH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES MUST WORK 

            9    TOGETHER TO HELP PROTECT OUR PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           10             THERE SHOULD BE NO COST PUT ON THE QUALITY OF 

           11    LIFE FOR THE CHILDREN OF OUR COMMUNITIES.  THE EPA 

           12    SHOULD STRENGTHEN ITS PROPOSAL TO THE OZONE STANDARD 

           13    RECOMMENDED BY ITS SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHICH 

           14    IS .060 PARTS PER MILLION.  WE, AS HUMAN BEINGS, NEED 

           15    THREE THINGS TO SURVIVE:  FOOD TO EAT, WATER TO DRINK, 

           16    AND CLEAN AIR TO BREATHE.  RIGHT NOW, OUR SURVIVABILITY 

           17    IS BEING COMPROMISED.  WE DESERVE BETTER.  WE LIVE IN 

           18    THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, AND IT IS TIME OUR 

           19    COUNTRY BEGINS ACTING LIKE IT.  

           20             AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, AS THE MOTHER OF A 

           21    THREE-YEAR-OLD LITTLE BOY, I IMPLORE THE EPA TO 

           22    STRENGTHEN ITS OZONE STANDARDS.  OUR CHILDREN'S HEALTH 

           23    AND FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.  THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME 

           24    TODAY.  

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  MR. JORDAN.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       100


                                                                          

            1        CRAIG JORDAN:  THANK YOU.  IS THIS ON?  

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  IT IS.

            3        CRAIG JORDAN:  MY NAME IS CRAIG JORDAN, AND I SPEAK 

            4    FOR MYSELF.  

            5             I WAS BORN IN SAN BERNARDINO AND LIVED THERE 

            6    MOST OF MY LIFE.  WHEN I WAS SMALL, THE AIR WAS CLEAN.  

            7    BY THE MID 1970'S, THE SMOG BECAME VERY THICK.  I WAS A 

            8    YOUNG MAN WITH TWO CHILDREN, A WIFE, GOOD JOB, GOOD 

            9    FRIENDS.  I LIKED SAN BERNARDINO EXCEPT FOR THE SMOG.  I 

           10    CONTEMPLATED LEAVING AND WOULD HAVE BUT FOR THE PROMISE 

           11    OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  FOR ME THAT PROMISE WAS THAT IF I 

           12    CAN LIVE UNTIL THE YEAR 2000, WHEN I WOULD BE 61, I 

           13    COULD BREATHE CLEAN AIR AGAIN IN SAN BERNARDINO.  

           14             WELL, THE AIR DID BECOME CLEANER, BUT THE 

           15    PROMISE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.  THERE IS STILL WAY TOO 

           16    MUCH SMOG IN SAN BERNARDINO.  WE ARE ALL IN A GIANT GAS 

           17    CHAMBER WHERE WE MUST BREATHE THE AIR.  I SHOULD NOT BE 

           18    ALLOWED TO PUT POLLUTION INTO THAT CHAMBER THAT HARMS 

           19    THE HEALTH OR PREMATURELY KILLS MY NEIGHBOR, AND MY 

           20    NEIGHBOR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT TO ME.  

           21             HERE WE ARE IN 2007 CONSIDERING WHETHER TO 

           22    REVISE THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD.  THE EPA FUNDED 

           23    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BY BELL, PANG, AND DOMENICI WHICH 

           24    REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT QUOTE "ANY ANTHROPOGENIC," 

           25    MEANING HUMAN CAUSED, "CONTRIBUTION TO AMBIENT OZONE, 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       101


                                                                          

            1    HOWEVER SLIGHT, STILL PRESENTS AN INCREASED RISK FOR 

            2    PREMATURE MORTALITY."  

            3             AS I READ THE BELL REPORT, THERE IS NO SAFE 

            4    LEVEL OF OZONE.  THE REPORT SAYS THE AMBIENT LEVEL OF 

            5    OZONE RANGES FROM 10 TO 25 PARTS PER BILLION, AND I SAY 

            6    THAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD, AND I BELIEVE OUR LEVEL OF 

            7    LAW REQUIRES SUCH A STANDARD UNLESS THERE'S OTHER VALID 

            8    SCIENCE TO THE CONTRARY.  

            9             LONG AGO, I WAS A CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR FOR 

           10    BERNARDINO COUNTY.  THE LAW I UNDERSTOOD HELD THAT IF A 

           11    PERSON COMMITS AN ACT THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD OR 

           12    SHOULD KNOW WOULD CAUSE INJURY OR DEATH TO ANOTHER 

           13    HUMAN, THE PERSON CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR AN ATTEMPTED 

           14    CRIMINAL ACT.  WHEN INJURY OR DEATH DOES OCCUR, THE 

           15    ACTUAL CRIME.  

           16             FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPOSE I PLACE A PERSON IN AN 

           17    AIRPLANE, FLY TO A REMOTE AREA OF THE NORTH POLE, LAND 

           18    THE PLANE, AND GENTLY PLACE THE PERSON ON THE ICE 

           19    WITHOUT SUPPLIES OR A JACKET AND FLY BACK HOME.  WHEN I 

           20    COMMIT THIS ACT, I'VE COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT OF 

           21    ATTEMPTED MURDER BECAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON SHOULD KNOW 

           22    THAT SUCH A SITUATION IS NOT SURVIVABLE.  IF THE PERSON 

           23    DIES, I'VE COMMITTED AN INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE.  

           24             RELATING THIS TO THE JOB OF EPA, UNLESS THERE 

           25    IS VALID SCIENCE CONTRARY TO THAT OF BELL, PANG, AND 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       102


                                                                          

            1    DOMENICI, IF PEOPLE IN THE EPA SET AN OZONE STANDARD AT 

            2    ANY LEVEL ABOVE THE AMBIENT LEVEL, THOSE PERSONS WOULD 

            3    OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY ARE DOOMING SOME HUMANS TO A 

            4    PREMATURE DEATH.  THIS ACT, IF PERFORMED, WOULD, IN MY 

            5    MIND, CONSTITUTE A CRIME.  I DOUBT ANYBODY AT EPA WANTS 

            6    TO KNOWINGLY COMMIT A CRIME, AND I DOUBT ANY CRIME WAS 

            7    COMMITTED WHEN THE CURRENT STANDARD OF 84 PARTS PER 

            8    MILLION WAS ADOPTED BECAUSE THE SCIENCE AT THAT TIME WAS 

            9    NOT AS CLEAR AS IT IS TODAY.  

           10             MY POINT HERE IS THAT WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC 

           11    EXPERTS TELL US THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF OZONE AND THAT 

           12    SETTING AN OZONE STANDARD ABOVE THE AMBIENT LEVEL WILL 

           13    CAUSE INJURY OR PREMATURE DEATH TO SOME HUMANS, THEIR 

           14    ADVICE SHOULD BE ACTED ON.  ISN'T THAT WHAT THE CLEAN 

           15    AIR ACT REQUIRES?  USE THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE TO 

           16    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH FROM ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL 

           17    ADVERSE EFFECT FROM AIR POLLUTION.  THANK YOU.  

           18        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  

           19             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JENNY SAKLAR AND SOCORRO 

           20    GAETA.  

           21        JENNY SAKLAR:  HELLO, I'M JENNY SAKLAR --

           22        MS. WEGMAN:  COULD YOU -- YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE 

           23    MICROPHONE DOWN AND KEEP IT DOWN WHILE YOU SPEAK.

           24        JENNY SAKLAR:  OH, I SEE.  HELLO, I'M JENNY SAKLAR 

           25    WITH A COMMUNITY-BASED GROUP CALLED FRESNO METRO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       103


                                                                          

            1    MINISTRY.  I'M HERE TODAY AS A BREATHER AND AS A 

            2    BREATHER OF SOME OF THE WORST AIR IN THE COUNTRY, THAT 

            3    OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AND OF FRESNO COUNTY.  

            4             I ASK WHY MUST IT TAKE REVOLUTIONARY ACTS IN 

            5    ORDER FOR OUR -- IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE CLEAN AIR TO 

            6    BREATHE AND WHY DOES BREATHING HEALTHY AIR REQUIRE 

            7    COMMUNITY ACTION AND ORGANIZING WHEN THE AIR AND THE 

            8    ENVIRONMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED BY THE 

            9    GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED STATES PROTECTION EPA?  

           10             TODAY I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT TWO 

           11    REVOLUTIONARY ACTS THAT OCCURRED THIS WEEK THAT REFLECT 

           12    OUR REALITY IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, OUR HEALTH 

           13    CRISIS, AND IT ALSO REFLECTS OUR PLEA TO YOU THAT YOU 

           14    NEED TO PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR HEALTH FROM OZONE 

           15    POLLUTION.  

           16             THIS WEEK I WAS A LEAD ORGANIZER AT A CLEAN AIR 

           17    ACTION DAY IN SACRAMENTO, AND AS THE MAIN PERSON -- 

           18    POINT OF CONTACT, MY PHONE WAS COMPLETELY OFF THE HOOK 

           19    WITH RESIDENTS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY THAT WANTED TO 

           20    ACT FOR CLEAN AIR.  OVER 150 PARTICIPANTS WE TOOK UP TO 

           21    THE CAPITAL TO TALK WITH OUR STATE LEGISLATURE ABOUT OUR 

           22    NEEDS FOR CLEAN AIR AND RELATED TO, ALSO, OZONE 

           23    POLLUTION, OF COURSE.  

           24             WE HEARD STORIES OF FAMILY MEMBERS SEEING THEIR 

           25    CHILDREN DROP ON THE SOCCER FIELDS.  WE SAW -- THERE WAS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       104


                                                                          

            1    A WOMAN THAT CONTACTED ME AND HER DAUGHTER -- HER 

            2    22-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER DIED.  THE CORONER TOLD HER IT WAS 

            3    FROM CHOKING BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T BREATHE.  SHE WANTED 

            4    TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS DAY, IN THIS ACTION, BUT SHE 

            5    HERSELF HAD A RESPIRATORY ILLNESS DURING -- ON TUESDAY 

            6    AND COULDN'T JOIN US.  

            7             OUR SITUATION IS A COMPLETE HEALTH CRISIS.  

            8    THIS IS OUR REALITY.  OUR MESSAGE IS THAT ACCORDING TO 

            9    C.H.I.S. DATA, THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH INTERVIEW SURVEY, 

           10    ONE IN FIVE OF OUR CHILDREN HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH 

           11    ASTHMA.  YOU CAN ONLY CONSIDER HOW MANY MORE ARE HAVING 

           12    PERMANENT LUNG DAMAGE AND INFLAMMATION AND OTHER 

           13    PROBLEMS AND AILMENTS RELATED TO OZONE POLLUTION.  OUR 

           14    REALITY IS THAT WE NEED OUR OZONE STANDARDS TO GIVE US 

           15    HEALTHY AIR TO BREATHE.  

           16             .006, THAT NEEDS TO BE THE STANDARD.  THAT 

           17    NEEDS TO BE THE PARTS PER MILLION THAT'S AT THE VERY 

           18    MAXIMUM.  

           19             THE SECOND REVOLUTIONARY ACT THAT I WANT TO 

           20    TELL YOU ABOUT IS A COMMUNITY MEETING IN THE CITY OF 

           21    ARVIN.  LAST NIGHT, WE WERE IN A ROOM ABOUT THIS SIZE 

           22    AND IT WAS FILLED TO CAPACITY.  WE HAD STANDING ROOM 

           23    ONLY WITH COMMUNITY RESIDENTS THAT WERE OUTRAGED AND 

           24    ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHED BY AIR POLLUTION AND CONCERNED 

           25    RESIDENTS, AND THEY CAME FORTH AND PROVIDED HOURS' LONG 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       105


                                                                          

            1    WORTH OF TESTIMONY TO TWO CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

            2    MEMBERS.  THE MESSAGE WAS CLEAR THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS 

            3    BEING DISRESPECTED.  

            4             WE WERE IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY.  IT WAS 

            5    PROBABLY STILL ABOUT 100 DEGREES OUTSIDE.  THERE WAS NO 

            6    AIR-CONDITIONING IN THE BUILDING.  NO FANS.  THERE WAS 

            7    NO TRANSCRIPTION.  THERE WAS NO RECORD OF -- OF THE 

            8    POWERFUL TESTIMONY.  WE JUST HEARD TODAY FROM RAJI BRAR 

            9    THAT THIS IS THE COMMUNITY WITH THE NUMBER ONE AIR 

           10    POLLUTION -- NUMBER ONE OZONE POLLUTION PROBLEM IN THE 

           11    ENTIRE COUNTRY, AND THIS IS THE KIND OF RESPECT THAT 

           12    WE'RE GETTING.  OKAY.  THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.  

           13             WE ARE STRUGGLING TO BREATHE.  THIS IS A 

           14    COMMUNITY-HEALTH CRISIS.  AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE HEAR THAT 

           15    IT'S THE DOLLAR, THAT WE'RE GOING SHUT DOWN BUSINESS, 

           16    THAT WE'RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN FARMS.  THAT'S NOT -- I 

           17    JUST CAN'T SEE THE BALANCE.  I JUST CAN'T SEE THE 

           18    BALANCE.  THERE'S SO MANY HEALTH ISSUES THAT HAVE SUCH A 

           19    HIGH-DOLLAR PROBLEM.  I DON'T KNOW IF I'M MAKING SENSE, 

           20    BUT I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING.  IT'S JUST 

           21    SUCH A BIG PROBLEM.  

           22             SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO THE OZONE STANDARD?  

           23    IF WE CAN'T BREATHE, WHAT ELSE IS THERE?  YOU KNOW, 

           24    NOTHING ELSE MATTERS WHEN OUR CHILDREN ARE STRUGGLING 

           25    AND WHEN THEY'RE CHOKING AND DYING AND WHEN THEY'RE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       106


                                                                          

            1    DROPPING ON THE SOCCER FIELDS.  THIS IS OUR REALITY IN 

            2    THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, AND YOU NEED TO SEND THAT 

            3    MESSAGE TO ALL OF THE EPA, TO ALL OF CALIFORNIA AIR 

            4    RESOURCES BOARD, AND TO OUR LOCAL AIR DISTRICT BECAUSE 

            5    WE ARE HAVING A VERY TOUGH TIME COMMUNICATING TO THEM 

            6    THAT PUBLIC HEALTH IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE.  

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  THERE'S A -- 

            8    WOULD YOU MIND MOVING?  THIS WAY THEY CAN HAVE A 

            9    TRANSLATOR.  THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY.  

           10        SOCORRO GAETA:  (TESTIMONY GIVEN IN SPANISH.)

           11        THE INTERPRETER:  GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS SOCORRO 

           12    GAETA, AND I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE MINISTRY JUST LIKE 

           13    JENNY.  I AM HERE REPRESENTING A GROUP OF PARENTS, 

           14    HISPANIC PARENTS.  IT IS A GROUP CALLED LUCA.  THEY 

           15    NAMED THEMSELVES LUCA, WHICH MEANS LATINOS UNITED FOR 

           16    ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS -- 

           17        JENNY SAKLAR:  FOR CLEAN AIR. 

           18        THE INTERPRETER:  THIS GROUP INCLUDES 15 MEMBERS, 15 

           19    OF WHOM ARE WOMEN AND THEN ONE DAD.  OUT OF THOSE 15 

           20    MEMBERS THERE IS ONE MOM WHO HAS FOUR CHILDREN.  OUT OF 

           21    HER FOUR CHILDREN, THREE OF THEM SUFFER FROM ASTHMA.  WE 

           22    PREPARED OURSELVES A LOT TO GO TO SACRAMENTO TO GO TO 

           23    THE AIR QUALITY MEETING.  WE PREPARED FOR A WHOLE MONTH, 

           24    AND THEN SHE COULDN'T GO BECAUSE ONE OF HER CHILDREN 

           25    WITH ASTHMA HAD TO BE ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       107


                                                                          

            1    OF AN ASTHMA ATTACK.  

            2             CAN YOU IMAGINE SPENDING THE WHOLE NIGHT IN THE 

            3    HOSPITAL WITH ONE OF YOUR CHILDREN ONLY TO GO BACK HOME 

            4    THE NEXT MORNING AND FIND THAT ANOTHER ONE IS SICK?  AND 

            5    THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MEDICAL 

            6    INSURANCE EVEN.  

            7             ALSO, I AM HEAR SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND OTHER 

            8    PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE FIELD.  AND THEY WORK FROM FOR 

            9    P.M. TO 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.  AND WHEN YOU LEAST 

           10    EXPECT IT, WE'RE GETTING SPRAYED LIKE WE WERE SPIDERS, 

           11    LIKE WE WERE BUGS.  THAT'S NOT RIGHT.  WE'RE GETTING 

           12    TREATED LIKE BUGS BEING SPRAYED WITH PESTICIDES.  AND 

           13    WHAT YOU DON'T REALIZE IS THAT THESE BUGS ARE THE ONES 

           14    THAT ARE PICKING THE VEGETABLES AND THE FRUITS THAT YOU 

           15    HAVE ON YOUR TABLES.  IT'S VERY SAD TO KNOW THAT THESE 

           16    CHILDREN CAN'T BREATHE.  THEY CAN'T PLAY SPORTS.  MY SON 

           17    WANTS TO PLAY SPORTS, AND HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE 

           18    WHEN HE TRIED TO, HE ENDS UP PASSING OUT.  THANK YOU 

           19    MS. WEGMAN:  GRACIAS.  THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING TODAY.  

           20             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE ANNE SMITH AND JASON 

           21    BARBOSE.

           22        ANNE SMITH:  MY NAME IS ANNE SMITH, AND I'M -- IS 

           23    THE MICROPHONE ON -- HI THERE, MY NAME IS ANNE SMITH.  I 

           24    AM A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  I OWN A COOKING SCHOOL IN CULVER 

           25    CITY.  I LIVE IN LOS ANGELES.  I LIVE ABOUT SIX BLOCKS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       108


                                                                          

            1    FROM THE 10 FREEWAY, TWO BLOCKS FROM FAIRFAX BOULEVARD, 

            2    TWO BLOCKS FROM LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD, AND TWO BLOCKS 

            3    FROM VENICE BOULEVARD, AND I'M SURROUNDED BY AN 

            4    UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF AIR POLLUTION.  YOU CAN SEE IT 

            5    ALL OVER MY HOUSE, ALL OVER MY TREES IN MY BACKYARD, AND 

            6    EVERYTHING THAT I COME IN CONTACT WITH.  

            7             I JUST RETURNED YESTERDAY FROM VACATION IN SAN 

            8    FRANCISCO, AND I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE 5 FREEWAY.  I CAME 

            9    TO THIS SIGN THAT SAID "LOS ANGELES 100 MILES," AND THE 

           10    SMOG FROM 100 MILES AWAY WAS JUST UNBELIEVABLE.  YOU 

           11    COULD SEE IT FROM THE ENTIRE HORIZON.  IN SAN FRANCISCO, 

           12    WHERE IT USED TO ALWAYS BE CLEAR, AND VISITING UP THERE 

           13    THIS PAST WEEK, IT'S COMPLETELY SMOGGY ALSO.  WE USED TO 

           14    THINK OUR SMOG BLOWS OUT INTO THE VALLEY, BUT YOU CAN 

           15    SEE IT AT THE COAST LEVEL TOO.  

           16             AFTER WORK AND ON THE WEEKENDS, I HIKE A LOT IN 

           17    LOS ANGELES.  AND ON THE DAYS WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN 

           18    SEE IT ALL AROUND YOU, YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE STINGING, 

           19    BURNING EYES AND, YOU KNOW, FEEL SORT OF LIGHT-HEADED, 

           20    LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO PASS OUT ALL THE TIME.  JUST 

           21    YESTERDAY, IT'S THE SAME THING.  NOW I'VE GOT TO RECOVER 

           22    FROM DOING ANY EXERCISE.  

           23             THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANTED TO JUST MENTION 

           24    IS I WENT WITH A FRIEND TO A GRAND FOUNDATION 

           25    PRESENTATION ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO.  IT WAS BECAUSE MY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       109


                                                                          

            1    FRIEND ASKED ME TO GO WITH HIM.  I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS 

            2    GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY HERE, BUT 

            3    THEY -- AT THE SEMINAR THEY SAID THAT RIGHT NOW 75 

            4    PERCENT OF ALL OF THE GOODS COMING INTO THIS COUNTRY ARE 

            5    COMING INTO THE L.A. PORTS, AND WITHIN THE NEXT TEN 

            6    YEARS, I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF 

            7    ALL OF THE GOODS IN THE COUNTRY.  

            8             YOU KNOW, BACK WHEN I DIDN'T LIVE IN 

            9    CALIFORNIA, WE USED TO THINK, OH, IT'S SO SMOGGY THERE; 

           10    BUT THE FACT IS THAT WHAT WE SUFFER THROUGH HERE IN LOS 

           11    ANGELES IMPACTS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, SO WE SHOULDN'T BE 

           12    PENALIZED FOR LIVING HERE BECAUSE REALLY THE WHOLE 

           13    COUNTRY BENEFITS FROM WHAT GOES ON IN LOS ANGELES.  SO 

           14    IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE LEVELS ACROSS THE COUNTRY 

           15    BE UNIVERSAL AND BE LOW SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T DIE.  

           16    THANKS.  

           17        MR. HABER:  ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.  YOU'VE JUST 

           18    REFERENCED THE FACT, AND UNQUESTIONABLE AND UNFORTUNATE 

           19    FACT, THAT BOTH LOS ANGELES AND SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY HAVE 

           20    THE WORST AIR QUALITY IN THE COUNTRY AND ARE 

           21    SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE CURRENT HEALTH STANDARD.  

           22             CAN YOU RELATE THAT AND, IF YOU WOULD, SUGGEST 

           23    WHETHER WE SHOULD CHANGE THE HEALTH STANDARD AS WE HAVE 

           24    PROPOSED, AND IF SO, IN WHAT WAY?  

           25        ANNE SMITH:  I'M NOT SURE.  I ASSUME THAT -- I 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       110


                                                                          

            1    CERTAINLY AGREE WITH EVERYBODY HERE THAT IF THE 

            2    RECOMMENDED STANDARD IS .06, THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD BE.  

            3             IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING?  

            4        MR. HABER:  YES.

            5        JASON BARBOSE:  MY NAME IS JASON BARBOSE.  I'M AN 

            6    ADVOCATE WITH ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA RESEARCH AND POLICY 

            7    CENTER.  WE'RE A STATE-BASED, CITIZEN-BASED 

            8    ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION.  THANK YOU, OF 

            9    COURSE, FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY IN 

           10    SUPPORT OF A STANDARD OF .06 PPM FOR EIGHT-HOUR OZONE 

           11    STANDARD.  

           12             IN MY BRIEF COMMENTS TODAY, I WANT TO STRESS 

           13    JUST THREE SIMPLE POINTS.  THE FIRST, OF COURSE, IS THAT 

           14    OZONE HARMS PUBLIC HEALTH.  WE'VE KNOWN FOR DECADES THAT 

           15    OZONE IS A POWERFUL POLLUTANT THAT CAN BURN OUR LUNGS 

           16    AND AIRWAYS.  WE'VE KNOWN THAT CHILDREN, TEENAGERS, 

           17    PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE TO 

           18    THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE.  WE'VE KNOWN THAT ASTHMA IS 

           19    THE MOST COMMON CHRONIC DISEASE AMONG CHILDREN.  THEN 

           20    WE'RE LEARNING MORE THAT ASTHMA ATTACKS ARE NOT JUST 

           21    TRIGGERED BY OZONE BUT THAT RESEARCH SHOWS OZONE MAY 

           22    INCREASE CHILDREN'S RISK OF DEVELOPING ASTHMA IN THE 

           23    FIRST PLACE.  

           24             OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT ONE-THIRD OF AMERICANS, 

           25    99 MILLION AMERICANS, LIVE IN THE AREAS WITH UNSAFE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       111


                                                                          

            1    LEVELS OF OZONE.  IN CALIFORNIA WE'RE HOME TO EIGHT OF 

            2    THE TEN MOST OZONE POLLUTED COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY.  SO 

            3    AGAIN, THE FIRST POINT JUST BEING THE SIMPLE ONE, THAT 

            4    OZONE HARMS PUBLIC HEALTH.  

            5             THE SECOND POINT IS THAT THE OZONE -- IS THAT 

            6    THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT 

            7    PUBLIC HEALTH.  1997, TEN YEARS AGO, AS YOU KNOW, AGENCY 

            8    SET NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AT .084 PARTS PER 

            9    MILLION AVERAGED OVER AN EIGHT-HOUR PERIOD; AND OF 

           10    COURSE, A DECADE OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL AND CLINICAL STUDIES 

           11    HAS FOUND NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS OF OZONE AT LEVELS 

           12    LOWER THAN THE CURRENT STANDARD.  

           13             IN FACT, CLINICAL STUDIES OF OTHERWISE HEALTHY 

           14    ADULTS HAVE SHOWN DECREASED LUNG FUNCTION, INCREASED 

           15    RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS, INFLAMMATION, INCREASED 

           16    SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RESPIRATORY INFECTION AT OR BELOW THE 

           17    CURRENT STANDARD OF .084.  THEN, MORE IMPORTANT, IN 2006 

           18    AS, OF COURSE, HAS BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT AT LENGTH TODAY, 

           19    YOUR CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AFTER 

           20    REVIEWING 2,000 PAGES OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON 

           21    HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE, UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED A NUMBER 

           22    OF THINGS.  

           23             ONE IS THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC 

           24    JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD.  

           25    TWO, THAT THE OZONE STANDARD MUST EXPLICITLY INCLUDE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       112


                                                                          

            1    THAT MARGIN OF SAFETY AS REQUIRED BY LAW IN THE CLEAN 

            2    AIR ACT.  THREE, THEREFORE, THE NEW EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD 

            3    SHOULD BE SET IN THE RANGE OF .07 TO -- .06 TO .07 PARTS 

            4    PER MILLION.  SO AGAIN, THE SECOND POINT IS THAT THE 

            5    CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS NOT PROTECTING THE PUBLIC 

            6    HEALTH.  

            7             THE THIRD AND MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT 

            8    PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH MUST BE YOUR AGENCY'S SOLE 

            9    CRITERIA FOR SETTING THESE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY 

           10    STANDARDS.  THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS WELL.  IN 2002, 

           11    THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULED THAT YOUR AGENCY 

           12    MUST SET AIR QUALITY STANDARDS BASED SOLELY ON WHAT IS 

           13    NEEDED TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  AND SO IT IS 

           14    CONCERNING AND UNFORTUNATE THAT ON JUNE 20TH, WHEN YOUR 

           15    AGENCY RELEASED YOUR PROPOSAL TO STRENGTHEN AIR QUALITY 

           16    STANDARDS, IT WAS WITHIN THE RANGE OF .07 TO .075 PARTS 

           17    PER MILLION.  THEN YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS SAY IT'S 

           18    NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, WHICH FAILS TO 

           19    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH WITH THAT ADEQUATE MARGIN OF 

           20    SAFETY AS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  

           21             THE MOST ALARMING THING TO US WAS THAT THE 

           22    PROPOSAL LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN TO RETAINING THE CURRENT 

           23    OZONE STANDARD WHICH, OF COURSE, WOULD DO NOTHING TO 

           24    IMPROVE AIR QUALITY.  

           25             SO IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD JUST SAY THE SCIENCE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       113


                                                                          

            1    IS CLEAR AND THE LAW IS CLEAR.  EPA SHOULD REJECT 

            2    INDUSTRY PRESSURE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.  INSTEAD, 

            3    ADOPT THE MOST PROTECTIVE OZONE STANDARD RECOMMENDED BY 

            4    YOUR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.  SO AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF 

            5    ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA, OUT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS 

            6    STATEWIDE, WE URGE EPA TO FINALIZE A STANDARD OF .06 PPM 

            7    IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

            9        MR. HANNON:  I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.  DID YOU 

           10    HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE SECONDARY STANDARD, THE 

           11    STANDARD DESIGNED TO PROTECT PUBLIC WELFARE?  

           12        JASON BARBOSE:  NO, I DON'T HAVE COMMENTS ON THOSE 

           13    TODAY.

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH.  

           15             ALL RIGHT.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JOSIE GASKEY 

           16    AND DR. JEAN OSPITAL.  

           17        JOSIE GASKEY:  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS JOSIE 

           18    GASKEY.  I'M THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND C.O.O. OF 

           19    THE ANNAPOLIS CENTER FOR SCIENCE-BASED PUBLIC POLICY.  I 

           20    AM HERE TODAY REPRESENTING OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.  I 

           21    TOO HAVE FAMILY THAT LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, AND MY BOARD 

           22    CHAIR RESIDES IN CALIFORNIA.  WE HAVE A 501(C)3 

           23    NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT PROMOTES AND SUPPORTS 

           24    PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY DECISION 

           25    MAKINGS.  WE WILL BE SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       114


                                                                          

            1    EPA ADMINISTRATOR.  

            2             IN MY SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY TODAY, I HAVE 

            3    INCLUDED A COPY OF THE CENTER'S NEWS PUBLICATION, "THE 

            4    SCIENCE AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF GROUND LEVEL OZONE."  THIS 

            5    REPORT WAS PEER-REVIEWED BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS 

            6    AND MEDICAL DOCTORS AND REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF 

            7    DIRECTORS OF THE ANNAPOLIS CENTER.  IN KEEPING WITH THE 

            8    TIME ALLOTTED, I WILL QUICKLY REVIEW THE FOLLOWING MAJOR 

            9    SUMMARY REPORTS OR SUMMARY POINTS FROM THE REPORT.  

           10             SINCE EPA LAST REVIEWED THE NAAQS IN 1997, 

           11    THERE HAVE BEEN LIMITED, IF ANY, DEVELOPMENTS IN 

           12    EPIDEMIOLOGY, TOXICOLOGY, OR THE BACKGROUND SCIENCE THAT 

           13    WOULD SUPPORT REVISION OF THE OZONE STANDARDS.  THE 

           14    RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 

           15    STANDARDS IN THE EPA'S FINAL STAFF PAPER AND CASAC'S 

           16    OCTOBER 24TH, 2006 LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ARE 

           17    PREMISED ON ESTIMATES OF HEALTH RISK FROM EXPOSURES TO 

           18    CONCENTRATIONS OF THE AMBIENT OZONE; HOWEVER, THE 

           19    ESTIMATES CONSIDERED ARE BASED ON AN INCOMPLETE 

           20    ASSESSMENT OF THE UNCONTROLLABLE BACKGROUND LEVELS OF 

           21    OZONE.  EPA ASSUMES THAT THERE WILL BE ZERO EMISSIONS 

           22    FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES IN NORTH AMERICA.  THIS RESULTS IN 

           23    AN OVERSTATEMENT OF HEALTH RISKS.  

           24             EPA AND CASAC CONTINUE TO OVERESTIMATE THE 

           25    MAGNITUDE AND CONSISTENCY OF AND UNDERESTIMATE THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       115


                                                                          

            1    UNCERTAINTY IN THE RESULTS OF ACUTE EPIDEMIOLOGIC 

            2    STUDIES, ESPECIALLY FOR EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS AND 

            3    HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS FOR ASTHMA AND OTHER RESPIRATORY 

            4    DISORDERS, SCHOOL ABSENCES, AND MORTALITY.  IN ADDITION, 

            5    EPA OVERSTATES THE LIKELIHOOD OF CAUSALITY,  

            6    PARTICULARLY FOR THE MORE SERIOUS END POINTS AND AT 

            7    LOWER OZONE CONCENTRATIONS.  

            8             WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIMARY OR HEALTH STANDARD, 

            9    OUR REPORT FOUND THAT OZONE IS A RESPIRATORY IRRITANT, 

           10    THAT THE RISK OF RESPIRATORY EFFECTS IS LOWER THAN 

           11    THOUGHT IN 1997.  THE EPA AND ITS SCIENCE ADVISORS HAVE 

           12    RECOMMENDED A TIGHTENING OF THE STANDARD, RELYING ON AN 

           13    INAPPROPRIATE COMPUTER MODEL TO ESTIMATE THE 

           14    UNCONTROLLABLE BACKGROUND OF OZONE.  WE BELIEVE THE EPA 

           15    HAS MISINTERPRETED THE ADAMS 2006 CLINICAL STUDY, THE 

           16    ONLY CONTROLLED STUDY THAT ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTS MAKING THE 

           17    EXISTING PRIMARY STANDARD MORE STRINGENT.  THESE STUDIES 

           18    ARE INCONSISTENT, PROVIDING A BIOLOGICALLY IMPLAUSIBLE 

           19    RANGE OF RESULTS, AND DO NOT ESTABLISH CAUSE AND EFFECT.  

           20             WITH RESPECT TO THE SECONDARY OR WELFARE 

           21    STANDARD, THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION 

           22    TO CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF A UNIQUE SEASONAL STANDARD 

           23    TO PROTECT VEGETATION DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS THE 

           24    UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS.  SINCE NO NEW DATA HAS 

           25    BEEN PRESENTED SINCE THE '97 REVIEW TO REDUCE THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       116


                                                                          

            1    UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS OF A CUMULATIVE SEASONAL 

            2    STANDARD, THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE THE 

            3    CURRENT SECONDARY STANDARD.  

            4             I ASK YOU TO NOT ONLY REVIEW THE SCIENCE IN 

            5    THIS REPORT BUT TRULY CONSIDER ITS FINDINGS WHEN MAKING 

            6    YOUR DECISION.  A HASTY DECISION TO IMPOSE MORE 

            7    STRINGENT OZONE STANDARDS WILL SERVE NO ONE, WILL HAVE 

            8    UNFORESEEN IMPLICATIONS, AND STAGGERING COSTS.  

            9             THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.  

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  AND YOU SAID YOU ARE GOING 

           11    TO SUBMIT THE REPORT TO THE RECORD TODAY; IS THAT RIGHT?  

           12        JOSIE GASKEY:  I ACTUALLY GAVE COPIES OF IT OUT 

           13    THERE AND A CD.  IF YOU NEED A HARD COPY, I CAN DO THAT 

           14    ALSO.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

           16        MR. HANNON:  YOU COMMENTED THAT THERE'S AN 

           17    INCOMPLETE ASSESSMENT OF THE BACKGROUND.  I ASSUME 

           18    THAT'S IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS WHERE BACKGROUND 

           19    COMES IN?  OF COURSE BACKGROUND'S NOT RELEVANT IN THE 

           20    EPI STUDIES OR IN THE CLINICAL STUDIES, BUT IT'D BE 

           21    USEFUL, I GUESS, TO HAVE YOUR COMMENTS ON HOW EPA SHOULD 

           22    OR SHOULD NOT TAKE BACKGROUND INTO ACCOUNT BOTH LEGALLY 

           23    AND FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE.  

           24        JOSIE GASKEY:  WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN THE WRITTEN 

           25    COMMENTS.  THANK YOU.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       117


                                                                          

            1        DR. JEAN OSPITAL:  GOOD MORNING.  

            2        MR. HABER:  YOU NEED TO PUSH AND HOLD THE 

            3    MICROPHONE.  

            4        DR. JEAN OSPITAL:  I'M CHALLENGED BY DOING THAT.  

            5    I'M SOMEBODY WHO CAN'T WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME 

            6    TIME.  

            7             GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS JEAN OSPITAL.  I SERVE 

            8    AS HEALTH EFFECTS OFFICER FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR 

            9    QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

           10    DISTRICT I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 

           11    ADDRESS THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.  I ALSO WANT TO THANK 

           12    YOU -- WE APPRECIATE YOU HOLDING THESE HEARINGS IN 

           13    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WHERE, AS YOU KNOW AND OFT HEARD 

           14    THIS MORNING, WE HAVE A SURFEIT OF OZONE.  

           15             THE SOUTH COAST AQMD IS THE AIR POLLUTION 

           16    CONTROL DISTRICT FOR LOS ANGELES FOR THE MAJOR PORTIONS 

           17    OF LOS ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, AND 

           18    FOR ORANGE COUNTY AND IS HOME TO SOME 16 MILLION PEOPLE, 

           19    WHICH CONSTITUTES ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE U.S. 

           20    POPULATION.  ALTHOUGH WE MADE DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENTS IN 

           21    AIR QUALITY OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES, RESIDENTS IN THE 

           22    SOUTH COAST ARE STILL EXPOSED TO SOME OF THE HIGHEST 

           23    LEVELS OF OZONE IN THE COUNTRY.  THEY BEAR A 

           24    DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM POOR 

           25    AIR QUALITY.  THE FIVE PERCENT OF THE U.S. POPULATION 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       118


                                                                          

            1    RESIDING IN THE SOUTH COAST SUFFERED NEARLY ONE-FOURTH 

            2    OF THE POPULATION EXPOSURES TO OZONE ABOVE THE CURRENT 

            3    NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARD.  

            4             IT IS A LONG-STANDING POLICY OF THE SOUTH COAST 

            5    AQMD THAT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS SHOULD BE SET TO 

            6    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AS CALLED FOR BY CONGRESS AND THE 

            7    CLEAN AIR ACT.  THEY CONCUR WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S 

            8    ANALYSIS AND THE CLEAN AIR SCIENCE ADVISORY'S COMMITTEE 

            9    ADVICE THAT THE CURRENT STANDARDS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO 

           10    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  WE STRONGLY URGE THE 

           11    ADMINISTRATOR TO ADOPT A NEW PROTECTIVE STANDARD THAT IS 

           12    CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF EPA'S CLEAN AIR 

           13    SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.  THIS WOULD MEAN A PRIMARY 

           14    STANDARD AVERAGE FOR EIGHT HOURS OF NO GREATER THAN 

           15    0.070 PARTS PER MILLION.  

           16             I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT A NOT TO BE EXCEEDED 

           17    STANDARD AT THIS LEVEL HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY OUR 

           18    STATE, CALIFORNIA'S AIR RESOURCES BOARD, TO PROTECT 

           19    PUBLIC HEALTH.  THIS LEVEL IS AT THE LOWER RANGE 

           20    PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  GIVEN THE CURRENT AIR 

           21    QUALITY IN OUR REGION, IT'S A HIGH CHALLENGE TO ACHIEVE 

           22    HEALTHFUL AIR QUALITY; HOWEVER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT 

           23    GREAT IMPROVEMENTS TO AIR QUALITY ARE ACHIEVABLE IF THE 

           24    WILL TO DO SO IS THERE.  

           25             THE BAR IS ALREADY SET QUITE HIGH WITH THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       119


                                                                          

            1    CURRENT STANDARD, AND AS YOU'VE HEARD, A MORE STRINGENT 

            2    STANDARD POSES AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE.  YOU HEAR THIS 

            3    MOSTLY, I THINK, FROM BUSINESS INTERESTS.  HOWEVER, TO 

            4    DO OTHER THAN SET THE OZONE STANDARD TO BE CONSISTENT 

            5    WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CASAC, WOULD MAKE THAT 

            6    PREVENTABLE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS WOULD CONTINUE TO 

            7    OCCUR IN OUR CHILDREN AND OTHERS FOR YEARS TO COME.  

            8    THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR 

            9    OPINIONS.  

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  I HAVE ONE QUESTION.  AS 

           11    YOU KNOW, THE CASAC RECOMMENDATION WAS .060 TO .070, BUT 

           12    YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THE .070 LEVEL; IS THAT CORRECT?  

           13        DR. JEAN OSPITAL:  OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE 

           14    STANDARD BE CONSISTENT WITH CASAC'S RECOMMENDATION, SO 

           15    THAT RANGE, I THINK, IS APPROPRIATE.  YOU KNOW, I HAVE 

           16    HIGH RESPECT FOR THE EXPERTISE AND JUDGMENT OF THE 

           17    MEMBERS OF CASAC, AND IF THAT RANGE IS GOOD FOR THEM, 

           18    IT'S GOOD WITH ME.  

           19        MR. HANNON:  I GUESS I HAVE ONE QUESTION.  THAT IS A 

           20    RANGE -- AND I ASKED THIS EARLIER THIS MORNING.  

           21             HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR 

           22    CHOSE?  IF HE WERE TO CHOSE WITHIN THE RANGE, IT WOULD 

           23    HAVE TO BE A SINGLE NUMBER.  

           24        DR. JEAN OSPITAL:  OF COURSE, IT DOES HAVE TO BE A 

           25    SINGLE NUMBER.  AS WE'VE HEARD, AND AS WAS DISCUSSED IN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       120


                                                                          

            1    THE PROPOSAL, THERE IS NO BRIGHT LINE THAT SAYS, "BELOW 

            2    THIS WE HAVE NO EFFECTS."  THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT 

            3    THERE IS A THRESHOLD -- WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A 

            4    THRESHOLD, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY WHERE THAT SHOULD 

            5    BE.  

            6             IF -- I THINK IF THE JUDGMENT IS TO BE 

            7    PROTECTIVE AND TO TAKE SERIOUSLY A MARGIN OF SAFETY, 

            8    THEN YOU WOULD SET THE STANDARD AT THE LOW END OF THAT 

            9    RANGE.  I THINK IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE A MORE STRINGENT 

           10    APPROACH AS TO THE -- HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS THERE, OF 

           11    COURSE THE HIGHER YOU GO, THE MORE EVIDENCE THERE IS 

           12    THAT THERE ARE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS.  

           13             SO I THINK THE CALL IS WHAT'S APPROPRIATE TO 

           14    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE 

           15    MARGIN OF SAFETY?  IF I WERE THE ADMINISTRATOR, I DON'T 

           16    KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO.  I'M SURE THERE ARE MANY ISSUES 

           17    PULLING AT HIS DECISION, BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD TEND TO 

           18    GO TOWARD THE LOWER END OF THE RANGE.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  I JUST WANT TO SAY, 

           20    MS. GASKEY, IF YOU DO HAVE A HARD COPY OF THE REPORT AND 

           21    CAN LEAVE IT WITH US, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.  IF NOT, 

           22    THAT'S FINE TOO.  THANK YOU.  

           23             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JOEL BALBIEN AND MARK 

           24    ABRAMOWITZ.  

           25        MARK ABRAMOWITZ:  RUMOR IS I HAVE TO PRESS THIS THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       121


                                                                          

            1    WHOLE TIME?  

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  EXACTLY.  THE WHOLE TIME YOU'RE 

            3    SPEAKING.

            4        MARK ABRAMOWITZ:  THANK YOU.  MY NAME IS MARK 

            5    ABRAMOWITZ, AND I'M PRESIDENT OF COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL 

            6    SERVICES.  WE'RE A CONSULTING FIRM THAT WORKS WITH A LOT 

            7    OF COMPANIES THAT HAVE NEW AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 

            8    AND ALSO WORK WITH FOLKS THAT BY THEMSELVES SOMETIMES 

            9    HAVE REGULATORY DIFFICULTIES AND HELP THEM GET OUT OF 

           10    THE DIFFICULT SITUATIONS.  

           11             I WASN'T GOING TO COME HERE AND SAY ANYTHING 

           12    TODAY, BUT SITTING BACK THERE AND SEEING SOME OF THE 

           13    PROPOSALS FOR THE SECONDARY STANDARD AND HAVING STUDIED 

           14    ECO SYSTEMS AND AIR POLLUTION AT UCLA YEARS AGO, I 

           15    COULDN'T HELP BUT BE VERY EXCITED AND THE -- SO I 

           16    THOUGHT I'D COME UP HERE AND SAY SOMETHING.  

           17             BEFORE I GET INTO THAT THOUGH, I DO WANT TO 

           18    OFFER THIS GLASS OF WATER HERE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  

           19    AND BEFORE I GIVE YOU THIS GLASS OF WATER, I WANT TO 

           20    TELL YOU THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT MOST PEOPLE 

           21    THINK THIS GLASS OF WATER IS PRETTY GOOD, BUT THERE WAS 

           22    ONE STUDY WHICH KIND OF SHOWED THAT IT WOULD HAVE SOME 

           23    ADVERSE HEALTH IMPACTS ON THE ADMINISTRATOR.  AND AS 

           24    STAFF, BEFORE GIVING THIS GLASS OF WATER TO THE 

           25    ADMINISTRATOR, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       122


                                                                          

            1    PROTECT YOUR BOSS WITH MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF MARGIN OF 

            2    SAFETY.  

            3             SO MY QUESTION IS TO YOU, ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE 

            4    THIS GLASS OF WATER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR?  ARE YOU GOING 

            5    TO LET HIM DRINK IT, MAKE SURE HIS HEALTH IS PROTECTED, 

            6    OR ARE YOU NOT, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S ONE STUDY WHICH 

            7    SAYS, "WELL, MAYBE HE'S GOING TO HAVE SOME HEALTH 

            8    EFFECTS FROM IT"?  AND THAT KIND OF SUMS UP IN A 

            9    NUTSHELL, HOW YOU FOLKS SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT DEALING 

           10    WITH RISK AND WHETHER OR NOT TO SET THE STANDARD AT 

           11    .060.  THINK OF THIS GLASS OF WATER AND WHETHER YOU WANT 

           12    TO GIVE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  FRANKLY, I WOULDN'T.  

           13    SO I'M FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           14             JUST A FEW COMMENTS, FIRST, ABOUT THE SECONDARY 

           15    STANDARD.  I THINK IT'S OUTSTANDING THAT EPA IS LOOKING 

           16    AT SETTING A SEPARATE STANDARD FOR -- A SEPARATE 

           17    SECONDARY STANDARD.  FOR SO MANY YEARS SECONDARY 

           18    STANDARD HAS REALLY GOTTEN LIP SERVICE AND HAS NOT 

           19    LOOKED AT HUMAN WELFARE.  BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT 

           20    YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT, AND I'VE CARRIED THESE THOUGHTS 

           21    AROUND FOR -- FOR DECADES, SO I APPRECIATE THIS 

           22    OPPORTUNITY.  

           23             FIRST OF ALL, HUMAN WELFARE ALSO CAN AFFECT 

           24    MATERIALS, VARIOUS THINGS WE HAVE, AND SO YOU FOLKS 

           25    SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THOSE KINDS OF THING IN A SERIOUS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       123


                                                                          

            1    MANNER.  HUMAN WELFARE INCLUDES MORE THAN JUST 

            2    AGRICULTURE.  HERE, SURROUNDING LOS ANGELES, WE STILL 

            3    HAVE SOME FORESTS, AND THOSE SUFFER GREATLY AND HAVE 

            4    SUFFERED GREATLY FROM AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS FOR MANY 

            5    YEARS.  AS A RESULT OF STRESSES ON THOSE FORESTS AND AIR 

            6    POLLUTION DAMAGE, PERHAPS PARTLY SO, WE'VE SEEN INCREASE 

            7    IN DISEASE AND THOSE HAVE CAUSED TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF 

            8    FIRES.  I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THOSE FROM BACK 

            9    EAST, AND DISEASE HAS CREATED THESE PROBLEMS.  

           10             THESE TREES OUT THERE ALSO HAVE SOIL HOLDING 

           11    CAPACITY.  AND WHEN DAMAGED FROM AIR POLLUTION, THEY 

           12    LOSE THEIR SOIL HOLDING CAPACITY.  AND THERE'S A -- AND 

           13    SO THERE ARE SOME IMPACTS FROM THERE.  MUCH OF THE 

           14    VEGETATION OUT THERE ALSO IS NOT IMPACTED BY LONG-TERM 

           15    CHRONIC EXPOSURES, BUT ALSO BY SHORT-TERM ACUTE 

           16    EXPOSURES.  I KNOW THERE ARE SOME STUDIES DECADES OLD 

           17    WHICH HAVE SHOWED THAT SOME OF THESE IMPACTS ARE NOT DUE 

           18    TO LONG-TERM EXPOSURES, BUT IT'S WHAT THE PEAK IS.  SO 

           19    YOU REALLY OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT THAT CAREFULLY 

           20    CONCERNING SETTING THE STANDARD.  

           21             LET ME COMMENT THAT IN TERMS OF THE MARGIN OF 

           22    SAFETY.  SPEAKING AS A PARENT, I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU 

           23    FOLKS TO BE HATED AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN BECAUSE MYSELF 

           24    AND, PERHAPS, OTHER PARENTS, WHEN THEY SEE AIR QUALITY 

           25    IS HIGHER THAN THE STANDARD, THEY DON'T LET THEIR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       124


                                                                          

            1    CHILDREN GO PLAY WITH THE OTHER KIDS, BUT THEY DO HAVE 

            2    HEALTHIER LUNGS.  SO BESIDES A LOT OF IMPLICATIONS WITH 

            3    CONTROLS, THE STANDARD YOU ARE GOING TO SET WILL 

            4    DETERMINE WHAT THE ACTIVITY LEVEL OF CHILDREN IS GOING 

            5    TO BE AND HOW THEY CAN PROTECT THEMSELVES AND WILL BE 

            6    PROVIDING SOMETHING ADDITIONAL TOOLS FOR THAT.  

            7             I SEE I'M OUT OF TIME, SO I WON'T GET INTO SOME 

            8    OF THE OTHER THINGS, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  AND YOU CAN CERTAINLY 

           10    SUBMIT COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU WANT TO.  

           11        JOEL BALBIEN, PH.D.:  HELLO, MY NAME IS DR. JOEL 

           12    BALBIEN.  I'M SPEAKING TODAY AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  

           13    THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY 

           14    ON EPA'S PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY 

           15    STANDARD FOR OZONE.  

           16             I'M PLEASED THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

           17    AGENCY IS TAKING A STEP TOWARD CLEANER AIR BY PROPOSING 

           18    TO STRENGTHEN THE OZONE AIR QUALITY STANDARD.  ACCORDING 

           19    TO THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE L.A., LONG BEACH, 

           20    RIVERSIDE METROPOLITAN AREA IS THE MOST POLLUTED IN THE 

           21    COUNTRY FOR BOTH OZONE PARTICULATES WITH AN AT-RISK 

           22    POPULATION OF NEARLY 3.8 MILLION PEOPLE IN L.A. COUNTY 

           23    ALONE.  

           24             WHILE NON-ATTAINED REGIONS LIKE SOUTHERN 

           25    CALIFORNIA FACE GREAT TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       125


                                                                          

            1    CHALLENGES IN MEETING EVEN THE EXISTING AND 

            2    SCIENTIFICALLY INADEQUATE STANDARD, THESE LOCAL EFFORTS 

            3    WILL HAVE A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS IF OUR CARS, 

            4    APPLIANCES, TRANSPORTATION, AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 

            5    IMPORTED INTO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ARE ENGINEERED UNDER 

            6    TIGHTER NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS.  UNFORTUNATELY, 

            7    EVEN EPA'S PROPOSAL FALLS SHORT OF THE OZONE STANDARD 

            8    ITS OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS SAID IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT 

            9    PUBLIC HEALTH.  FURTHERMORE ITS PROPOSAL LEAVES OPEN THE 

           10    POSSIBILITY OF NOT STRENGTHENING THE OZONE STANDARDS AT 

           11    ALL, WHICH MAY IN TURN LEAVE MANY NON-ATTAINMENT REGIONS 

           12    OF THE COUNTRY, LIKE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, VULNERABLE TO 

           13    A PLATEAU IN AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.  

           14             OZONE IS A POWERFUL POLLUTANT THAT CAN BURN OUR 

           15    LUNGS AND AIRWAYS, CAUSING HEALTH EFFECTS RANGING FROM 

           16    COUGHING AND WHEEZING TO ASTHMA ATTACKS AND EVEN 

           17    PREMATURE DEATH.  CHILDREN, TEENAGERS, SENIOR CITIZENS, 

           18    AND PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE 

           19    TO THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE.  NEW CLINICAL STUDIES OF 

           20    OTHERWISE HEALTHY ADULTS HAVE FOUND DECREASED LUNG 

           21    FUNCTION, INCREASED RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS, INFLAMMATION, 

           22    AND INCREASED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RESPIRATORY INFECTION AT 

           23    OR BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARD OF .08 PARTS PER MILLION.  

           24             THE INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

           25    COMMITTEE REVIEWED A 2,000-PAGE SUMMARY OF THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       126


                                                                          

            1    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF OZONE AND 

            2    UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD IS 

            3    NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH.  AS A RESULT, THE 

            4    COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED SETTING A NEW OZONE STANDARD IN 

            5    THE RANGE OF .06 TO .07 PARTS PER MILLION.  EPA'S 

            6    PROPOSAL TO STRENGTHEN THE STANDARD WITHIN A RANGE OF 

            7    .07 TO .075 PARTS PER MILLION OR WORSE, RETAIN THE 

            8    CURRENT OZONE STANDARD, IS WEAKER THAN WHAT THE AGENCY'S 

            9    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS SAY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC 

           10    HEALTH.  

           11             IN EFFECT, EPA'S PROPOSED STANDARDS WOULD 

           12    PROTECT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS BUT WOULD CONTINUE TO 

           13    LEAVE MILLIONS MORE, PARTICULARLY THOSE WITH LUNG 

           14    DISEASE OR WHO ARE OTHERWISE SENSITIVE TO AIR POLLUTION, 

           15    AND IN ALL LIKELIHOOD MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN SOUTHERN 

           16    CALIFORNIA EXPOSED TO THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF DIRTY AIR.  

           17             I AGREE WITH THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS AND EPA 

           18    ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS NOT 

           19    GOOD ENOUGH TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  EVERY AMERICAN 

           20    DESERVES TO BREATHE CLEAN AIR.  THOSE OF US THAT LIVE 

           21    AND BREATHE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECOGNIZE THAT BOTH 

           22    GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY NEED VERY CHALLENGING MACRO AIR 

           23    QUALITY TARGETS IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AND DEPLOY THE 

           24    REGULATORY STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGIES REQUIRED TO 

           25    ACHIEVE THE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT IN AIR QUALITY IN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       127


                                                                          

            1    OUR REGION AND THEREBY PROTECT THE POPULATION.  

            2             EPA SHOULD REJECT INDUSTRY PRESSURE TO RETAIN 

            3    THE CURRENT STANDARD, LISTEN TO ITS OWN SCIENTIFIC 

            4    ADVISORS, AND INSTEAD ADOPT AN OZONE STANDARD OF .060 

            5    PARTS PER MILLION WITH NO ROUND-UP LOOPHOLE.  

            6             IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE INCREMENTAL 

            7    COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS UTILIZED BY AIR QUALITY 

            8    REGULATIONS -- REGULATORS, INCLUDING EPA, THAT ASSUMES 

            9    ACTUAL ACHIEVEMENT OF EXISTING OZONE AND PARTICULATE 

           10    STANDARDS NATIONWIDE MAY SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERESTIMATE THE 

           11    REAL HEALTH AND OTHER BENEFITS OF A LOWER OZONE STANDARD 

           12    CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.  IN ADDITION, 

           13    MANY OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS FOR REDUCING OZONE 

           14    PRECURSORS MOTIVATED, IN PART, BY TOUGHER OZONE 

           15    STANDARDS WILL ALSO REDUCE DANGEROUS DIESEL 

           16    PARTICULATES, AIR TOXINS, UNREGULATED GREENHOUSE GAS 

           17    EMISSIONS, AND FUEL CONSUMPTION, THEREBY MULTIPLYING NET 

           18    BENEFITS BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.  

           19             OUR PRESIDENT OFTEN TALKS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE 

           20    OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN SOLVING 

           21    OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY-RELATED PROBLEMS; HOWEVER, 

           22    IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE 

           23    DEVELOPED AND COMMERCIALLY ADOPTED BY INDUSTRY AND 

           24    CONSUMERS UNLESS THERE ARE STRONG ECONOMIC AND 

           25    REGULATORY INCENTIVES THAT INTERNALIZE THE EXTERNAL 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       128


                                                                          

            1    COSTS OF MORE INEFFICIENT AND POLLUTING SYSTEMS.  

            2             IMAGINE WHAT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ENERGY SECURITY 

            3    SITUATION IN OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE TODAY IF BACK IN 1985, 

            4    THE CONGRESS, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

            5    TRANSPORTATION AND THE EPA, HAD THE WISDOM AND FORESIGHT 

            6    TO SET A CAFE TARGET OF 40 OR EVEN 50 MILES PER GALLON 

            7    AND A SIMULTANEOUS ULEV MANDATE FOR ALL LIGHT-DUTY 

            8    VEHICLES PURCHASED IN THE U.S. BY 2005?  IF THIS HAD 

            9    OCCURRED, MANY OF US WOULD BE DRIVING VEHICLES TODAY -- 

           10    WELL, I'LL FINISH BY SAYING THAT WE'D BE DRIVING 

           11    VEHICLES TODAY THAT WOULD BE -- HAVE AERODYNAMIC BODIES, 

           12    LIGHTWEIGHT COMPOSITE MATERIALS, LOW RESISTANCE TIRES, 

           13    POWERED BY SMART ENGINES, CLEAN DIESEL, AIR OR PLUG-IN 

           14    HYBRID DRIVE TRAINS.  

           15             INSTEAD, WE HAVE A U.S. AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY 

           16    THAT'S LAYING OFF WORKERS, LOSING MARKET SHARE TO THE 

           17    JAPANESE.  WE SHOULD BE LEADING THE WORLD IN CLEAN AND 

           18    EFFICIENT VEHICLES, NOT TRAILING.  

           19             IN SUMMARY, THE EPA CAN HELP CLEAN UP OUR AIR 

           20    HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND THROUGHOUT THE NATION 

           21    AND DRIVE THE ENGINE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION 

           22    NATIONWIDE BY FOCUSING ON THE SCIENCE, SETTING AN 

           23    AGGRESSIVE MACRO TARGET FOR INDUSTRY AND PROMOTING 

           24    MARKET-BASED SOLUTIONS MORE FEASIBLE TO HELP INDUSTRY 

           25    AND GOVERNMENT MEET THE MACRO STANDARDS OF THE LOWEST 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       129


                                                                          

            1    POSSIBLE COST.  

            2             THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK 

            3    TO YOU TODAY.  

            4        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  OUR NEXT TWO 

            5    SPEAKERS ARE SILLA SIEBERT AND LILLIAN LIGHT.  

            6        LILLIAN LIGHT:  I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU ALL A COPY 

            7    OF THE -- TODAY'S EDITORIAL.  

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  EXCELLENT.  YES, WE HAVEN'T 

            9    HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT YET, SO THANK YOU.  

           10        LILLIAN LIGHT:  GOOD AFTERNOON.  MY NAME IS LILLIAN 

           11    LIGHT, AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

           12    PRIORITIES NETWORK.  

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  CAN YOU HOLD IT WHILE YOU SPEAK?  

           14        LILLIAN LIGHT:  SHE SAID SHE WOULD KINDLY.

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  

           16        LILLIAN LIGHT:  I'M PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

           17    PRIORITIES NETWORK.  I APPRECIATE YOUR ALLOWING ME TO 

           18    TESTIFY TODAY AND TO ASK YOU TO REVISE THE NATIONAL AIR 

           19    QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE.  

           20             THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES THAT THE EPA SET A 

           21    STANDARD FOR OZONE BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE 

           22    SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.  UNFORTUNATELY, EPA'S DRAFT 

           23    STANDARD FALLS SHORT OF THE LEVEL CONSIDERED SAFE BY ITS 

           24    OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.  

           25             MORE THAN 1700 PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES HAVE BEEN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       130


                                                                          

            1    PUBLISHED SINCE EPA LAST REVIEWED THE OZONE NATIONAL AIR 

            2    QUALITY STANDARD IN 1997.  THIS NEW BODY OF RESEARCH 

            3    PROVIDES OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF 

            4    OZONE AND EXPOSURE LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARD.  

            5    THESE INCLUDE DECREASED LUNG FUNCTION, ASTHMA, 

            6    EXACERBATION, HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS, AND PREMATURE DEATHS.  

            7    WE'VE HEARD ALL ABOUT THOSE, BUT IT DOESN'T HURT TO SAY 

            8    IT AGAIN.  

            9             AFTER REVIEWING THESE DOCUMENTS, THE EPA'S 

           10    CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CASAC, 

           11    RECOMMENDED THE EPA TIGHTEN THE OZONE STANDARD TO A 

           12    LEVEL BETWEEN .06 AND .07; HOWEVER, IN JUNE, THE EPA 

           13    ANNOUNCED IT IS SEEKING PUBLIC COMMENT BETWEEN .06 AND 

           14    .08.  WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THE EPA RESERVES THE RIGHT TO 

           15    LEAVE THE STANDARD WHERE IT IS TODAY PUTTING THE HEALTH 

           16    OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AT RISK AND ESPECIALLY US LOS 

           17    ANGELES FOLKS.  

           18             IN ADDITION, THERE IS AN OLD LOOPHOLE THAT LETS 

           19    MANY COMMUNITIES CLAIM THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE STANDARD 

           20    FOR OZONE WHEN THEY ARE NOT.  SINCE THE EPA HAS AGREED 

           21    TO ALLOW REGULATORS TO ROUND DOWN TO THE NEAREST TWO 

           22    DECIMAL PLACES, AREAS DO NOT HAVE TO CLEAN UP POLLUTION 

           23    UNTIL CONCENTRATIONS REACH .085 PARTS PER MILLION, 

           24    MAKING THE REAL STANDARD WEAKER THAN THE OFFICIAL ONE.  

           25             NOW MILLIONS OF AMERICANS LIVE IN COMMUNITIES 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       131


                                                                          

            1    WHERE OZONE CONCENTRATIONS HOVER BETWEEN .081 AND .084 

            2    PARTS PER MILLION.  THAT'S MORE POLLUTION THAN THE 

            3    STANDARD WOULD SEEM TO ALLOW, BUT JUST LOW ENOUGH NOT TO 

            4    BE FORCED BY EPA TO CLEAN UP.  WE KNOW THAT EPA CAN HELP 

            5    THESE COMMUNITIES CLEAN UP THESE EMISSIONS.  CASAC 

            6    RECOMMENDED THAT EPA ELIMINATE THIS ROUNDING LOOPHOLE, 

            7    AND I BELIEVE YOU WILL BE DOING THAT.  I'M NOT SURE OF 

            8    THAT.  BUT I THINK YOU'VE BEEN --

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  WE DID PROPOSE TO GO TO THREE DECIMAL 

           10    POINTS.  THAT'S IN THE PROPOSAL, YES.

           11        LILLIAN LIGHT:  EXCELLENT.  THAT'S GREAT.  SINCE 

           12    ONE-THIRD OF THE U.S. POPULATION LIVES IN AREAS WITH 

           13    UNHEALTHFUL LEVELS OF OZONE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO SET AIR 

           14    QUALITY STANDARDS THAT ARE STRONG ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE 

           15    HEALTH OF OUR MOST SENSITIVE AMERICANS, CHILDREN, THE 

           16    ELDERLY, PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE, AND OUTDOOR WORKERS.  

           17             THERE'S A STRONG CONSENSUS AMONG THE MEDICAL, 

           18    NURSING, SCIENTIFIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNITIES THAT 

           19    .060 PARTS PER MILLION SHOULD BE THE STANDARD THAT WOULD 

           20    BEST PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH; AND ALL THESE PEOPLE TODAY 

           21    HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU THAT, AND I AGREE WITH THEM.  NOW, 

           22    ALSO, GROUPS THAT ADVOCATE FOR THIS STANDARD INCLUDE 

           23    EPA'S OWN CHILDREN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ADVISORY 

           24    COMMITTEE, WHICH YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO, THE AMERICAN 

           25    ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       132


                                                                          

            1    THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, AND MANY, MANY 

            2    OTHERS.  

            3             EPA, THIS PROPOSED STANDARD WILL ALLOW SOME 

            4    OZONE MORTALITY SINCE THE RESEARCH ON OZONE EXPOSURE 

            5    THRESHOLDS HAS FOUND NO SAFE LEVEL OF THIS GAS WHICH IS 

            6    THE MAJOR AGENT IN THE FORMATION OF SMOG.  EPA'S 

            7    CONSIDERING STRENGTHENING THAT STANDARD TO WITHIN -- OH, 

            8    WELL, LET'S SEE.  I'LL GO TO THE END.  

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU'RE DOING FINE.  YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER 

           10    MINUTE.

           11        LILLIAN:  WELL, ONE THING, CHILDREN -- I'M CONCERNED 

           12    ABOUT CHILDREN BECAUSE CHILDREN ARE MORE LIKELY TO 

           13    SUFFER THOSE EFFECTS BECAUSE THEY BREATHE MORE RAPIDLY, 

           14    THEIR AIRWAYS ARE NARROWER, AND THEY INHALE RELATIVELY 

           15    MORE POLLUTANTS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR BODY WEIGHT.  

           16    RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT OZONE EXPOSURE DURING CHILDHOOD 

           17    CAN RESULT IN PERMANENTLY STENTED LUNG FUNCTIONS.  

           18    MATTER OF FACT, USC IS DOING RESEARCH ON THAT KIND OF 

           19    THING AND HAVE FOUND THAT THAT IS HAPPENING.  

           20             WHEN YOU SET THE NEW OZONE STANDARD, MAKE IT AS 

           21    LOW AS POSSIBLE TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.  SO I STRONGLY 

           22    URGE YOU TO REJECT INDUSTRY PRESSURE TO RETAIN THE 

           23    CURRENT STANDARD AND FULFILL THE MANDATE REQUIRED BY THE 

           24    CLEAN AIR ACT TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF ALL AMERICANS AS 

           25    MUCH AS POSSIBLE.  PLEASE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       133


                                                                          

            1    YOUR SCIENCE ADVISORS AND ADOPT AN OZONE STANDARD OF 

            2    .060 PARTS PER MILLION.  

            3             THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY.  

            4        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            5        SILLA SIEBERT:  HELLO, MY NAME IS SILLA SIEBERT, AND 

            6    I AM A CITIZEN OR A LEGAL ALIEN OF AMERICA HERE.  I'M 

            7    REALLY FROM DENMARK, AND I AM ALSO THE ASSISTANT 

            8    ORGANIZER OF A MALIBU CITIZENS GLOBAL WARMING ACTIVIST 

            9    GROUP.  I HAVE STARTED A PROJECT CALLED "PROJECT 

           10    DO-THE-RIGHT-THING" TRYING TO FURTHER ENERGY 

           11    CONSERVATION HERE IN MY COMMUNITY AND ALSO IN THIS 

           12    COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.  

           13             I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO EVERYTHING THAT LILLIAN 

           14    LIGHT HAS JUST SAID.  MANY OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID THE 

           15    SAME.  I'M MORE HERE TO SPEAK AS A PERSON, TO YOU AS 

           16    PEOPLE.  I LIVE OUT IN MALIBU, AND I'M LUCKY ENOUGH TO 

           17    LIVE ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN WHERE THE AIR IS MOSTLY CLEAN, 

           18    SUPPOSEDLY.  I SEE, HOWEVER, LOS ANGELES, AND THERE IS A 

           19    BIG PURPLE CLOUD OVER LOS ANGELES MOST OF THE TIME.  

           20    WHEN IT DRIFTS OUT OVER THE OCEAN, IT MAKES SPECTACULAR 

           21    SUNSETS; HOWEVER I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY HEALTHY LIVING 

           22    UNDER THAT.  AND THERE IS A REASON WHY I PROBABLY STAY 

           23    OUT THERE.  

           24             IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE THAT A LOT OF THE AIR 

           25    POLLUTION AREAS WITH THE WORST AIR POLLUTION SEEMS TO BE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       134


                                                                          

            1    WHERE THE PEOPLE WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF RESOURCES TEND 

            2    TO LIVE.  I WONDER WHY THAT IS.  PROBABLY BECAUSE THE 

            3    AIR IN THERE IS NOT VERY HEALTHY FOR US.  ALL SCIENCE 

            4    HAS SHOWN THAT.  ALL SCIENCE AGREE ON THE EFFECT OF OUR 

            5    ACTIONS ON THE ENVIRONMENT.  YOU ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

            6    PROTECTION AGENCY.  YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US FROM 

            7    BAD THINGS IN THE ENVIRONMENT.  

            8             I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY 

            9    HAVING THIS HEARING WHERE WE ARE DISCUSSING SMALL LITTLE 

           10    CHANGES.  OF COURSE, IF THE BENEFITS -- IF THEY ARE 

           11    INTIMATE OVER THE LOWER STANDARDS OVER THE HIGHER 

           12    STANDARDS, IT WILL HAVE GREAT BENEFIT FOR ALL OF US.  

           13    WHAT I THINK IS SAD ABOUT THIS IS THAT WE'RE SITTING 

           14    HERE DISCUSSING SMALL LITTLE MINUTE THINGS LIKE THIS 

           15    WHEN WE SHOULD OVERALL AS A COUNTRY, AS A CITIZEN, ALL 

           16    OF US, SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND MAKE HUGE CHANGES.  THESE 

           17    ARE NOT TIMES FOR US TO SIT AROUND AND IDLE OVER LITTLE 

           18    THINGS.  ESPECIALLY INDUSTRY INTERESTS.  

           19             THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TO GAIN THE MOST FROM 

           20    KEEPING THESE STANDARDS HIGH, KEEPING THE ENVIRONMENT 

           21    POLLUTED, THEY WILL MAKE MONETARY GAINS.  I DON'T GET 

           22    ANYTHING FROM THAT.  I LOSE CLEAN AIR.  WE ALL DO.  SO 

           23    IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN OR CARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FUTURE 

           24    GENERATIONS, YOU WOULD WANT TO TRY TO DO AS MUCH AS YOU 

           25    COULD NOW.  YOU'RE IN AN ENORMOUS POSITION OF POWER.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       135


                                                                          

            1             I CAN DRIVE MY HYBRID.  I CAN CHANGE THE LIGHT 

            2    BULBS IN MY HOUSE.  I CAN SWEAT OUTSIDE.  I'M FREEZING 

            3    IN HERE RIGHT NOW, I WISH I BROUGHT MY SHOES AND MY 

            4    PANTS; HOWEVER, I CAN DO THAT, AND I DO.  I TRY AND 

            5    ENLIGHTEN MY NEIGHBORS AND MY FRIENDS AND YOU, PERHAPS, 

            6    ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LISTEN.  WE CAN MAKE SMALL CHANGES 

            7    OURSELVES.  WE'VE GOT TO START THERE, LOOK IN THE 

            8    MIRROR.  ONCE YOU'VE DONE THAT, YOU START LOOKING AT THE 

            9    BIG PLAYERS.  THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.  

           10             I COME FROM DENMARK.  IT'S A COUNTRY WITH -- 

           11    IT'S A SMALL COUNTRY, BUT PEOPLE HAVE AN ATTITUDE OF 

           12    ENERGY CONSERVATION AND A DEEP LONGING TO GO BACK TO A 

           13    MORE PURE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT.  IT'S BEEN EXTREMELY 

           14    HARD FOR ME TO MOVE TO AMERICA AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL 

           15    ACTIVIST; HOWEVER, IT'S GIVEN ME A GREAT CHALLENGE, AND 

           16    I'M VERY HOPEFUL FOR AMERICA.  IT'S A GREAT, GREAT 

           17    COUNTRY, AND WE HAVE SO MUCH WEALTH.  WE HAVE SO MANY 

           18    WELL-EDUCATED, BRIGHT PEOPLE, AND WE REALLY SHOULD BE 

           19    LEADING, LIKE MANY PEOPLE HAVE VOICED HERE TODAY.  WE 

           20    SHOULD BE LEADING THE COUNTRY.  WE ARE BEING LEFT 

           21    BEHIND.  NOT UNINTENDED.  

           22             AND BASICALLY, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL LISTEN TO 

           23    ALL OF US TODAY.  THERE ARE A FEW NAYSAYERS AMONGST US.  

           24    I HEARD ONE TESTIMONY TODAY.  IT WAS THE USUAL VERY DRY 

           25    SCIENCE TRYING TO TURN IT AROUND.  SO I HOPE THAT YOU 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       136


                                                                          

            1    WILL DO THE RIGHT THING.  THANK YOU.  

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  

            3        SILLA SIEBERT:  YOU'RE WELCOME.  

            4        MS. WEGMAN:  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE CIERRA MORALES 

            5    AND PHILIP HARBER, DR. PHILIP HARBER.  

            6        CIERRA MORALES:  HELLO.  I'M HERE AS A PRIVATE 

            7    CITIZEN.  

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME?  

            9        CIERRA MORALES:  OH, CIERRA MORALES, AND I'M A 

           10    MEMBER OF ENVIRONMENTAL -- ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA.  I 

           11    JUST WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME THIS 

           12    OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE TO SPEAK.  I DON'T HAVE A LOT 

           13    OF THE EXPERTISE, LIKE I'M SURE YOU HAVE, AND MOST 

           14    PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM HAVE.  

           15             I'M JUST -- I LIVE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MY 

           16    WHOLE LIFE; AND FOR THE GREATER PART OF MY LIFE, I'VE 

           17    HAD ASTHMA.  SINCE A CHILD, I'VE HAD SEVERE ASTHMA AND, 

           18    LIKE, CHRONIC BRONCHITIS.  I'VE BEEN HOSPITALIZED.  AND 

           19    IT WASN'T -- BECAUSE OF THAT, I'VE BEEN PUMPED FULL OF 

           20    PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS.  AND MY PARENTS WERE IGNORANT TO 

           21    WHAT EFFECT THIS HAD ON MY HEALTH.  IT WASN'T UNTIL 

           22    RECENTLY WHEN I REALLY STARTED TO WAKE UP TO THINGS THAT 

           23    I JUST STOPPED TAKING THE DRUGS, AND I WAS HEALED.  

           24             BUT I GUESS I JUST WANT TO SPEAK LIKE THE WOMAN 

           25    BEFORE SPOKE, AS A HUMAN TO A HUMAN TO A HUMAN TO A 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       137


                                                                          

            1    HUMAN BECAUSE I -- I JUST THINK THAT THESE ISSUES, 

            2    THOUGH, THEY'RE SCIENTIFIC, AND I'M SURE THERE'S SO MUCH 

            3    THAT GOES INTO IT.  I'M SURE YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT SO 

            4    MUCH, YOU KNOW, DETAILS; BUT I THINK THAT THE MAIN 

            5    THING, LIKE, I REALLY WANT TO GET ACROSS TO YOU TODAY IS 

            6    THIS IS A HUMAN ISSUE.  THIS IS AN ISSUE OF OUR EARTH.  

            7    THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT AFFECTS EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON 

            8    THIS EARTH, AND YOU GUYS ARE IN A POSITION OF POWER.  

            9             YOU HAVE EVERYTHING AT YOUR DISPOSAL RIGHT NOW 

           10    TO JUST START SOMETHING.  START A CHANGE.  START A 

           11    REVOLUTION, A CONSCIOUS REVOLUTION.  YOU -- SO MANY 

           12    PEOPLE ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.  I KNOW THAT I'M ONE OF 

           13    THEM THAT WOULD JUST DIE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT 

           14    WHERE YOU SIT AND JUST BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE WORLD FOR 

           15    THE BETTER.  I -- I MEAN, LIKE, THERE ARE -- THERE ARE 

           16    CHILDREN RIGHT NOW IN THIS MOMENT WHO ARE HAVING ASTHMA 

           17    ATTACKS.  THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE DYING OF LUNG CANCER 

           18    WHO DON'T EVEN SMOKE.  THERE IS SO MUCH GOING ON THAT 

           19    NEEDS TO CHANGE.  IT JUST NEEDS TO CHANGE.  

           20             AND I THINK THAT YOU ALL REALIZE THAT, AND I 

           21    JUST WANT TO SPEAK FROM MY HEART TO EACH AND EVERY ONE 

           22    OF YOUR HEARTS.  ESPECIALLY YOUR HEART.  I CAN SEE THAT 

           23    YOU SEE.  AND TO EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM, THAT IF WE COULD 

           24    JUST RISE TOGETHER IN LOVE AND PEACE AND UNITE AND 

           25    ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, I BELIEVE THAT WE COULD 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       138


                                                                          

            1    CHANGE THIS WORLD FOR THE BETTER.  

            2             AND I JUST WANT TO BE A LIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM 

            3    FOR YOU GUYS TODAY BECAUSE I'M SURE THIS HAS BEEN HEAVY 

            4    STUFF AND A LOT OF WHATEVER, BUT I JUST REALLY WANT TO 

            5    JUST EXTEND THIS LOVE TO YOU BECAUSE I HAVE FAITH IN 

            6    YOU.  I HAVE FAITH.  I HAVE FAITH IN YOU THAT YOU WILL 

            7    DO THE RIGHT THING.  I HAVE FAITH IN YOU THAT YOU WILL 

            8    CHANGE THIS WORLD FOR THE BETTER BECAUSE OUR LIVES 

            9    DEPEND ON IT AND THE LIVES OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR 

           10    CHILDREN'S CHILDREN, AND I JUST -- I HAVE FAITH IN YOU 

           11    ALL.  

           12             FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART, I HAVE FAITH AND I 

           13    JUST KNOW THAT THINGS WILL CHANGE.  BECAUSE IF THEY 

           14    DON'T CHANGE PRETTY SOON, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY 

           15    MORE HUMANS.  THERE ARE JUST GOING TO BE A BIG DARK 

           16    CLOUD.  A BIG PURPLE CLOUD OVER EVERYTHING.  AND I STILL 

           17    HAVE TIME LEFT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY 

           18    BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I SAID IT ALL.  SO I JUST -- I JUST 

           19    PRAY, YOU KNOW, AND HOPE AND BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL DO 

           20    THE RIGHT THING.  I HAVE FAITH IN YOU.  THANK YOU.  

           21        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

           22        PHILIP HARBER, M.D.:  THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY 

           23    TO SPEAK HERE.  I ALSO HOPE THAT I CAN GET THE BUTTON 

           24    RIGHT AND CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU SHOULD DO THE RIGHT 

           25    THING.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       139


                                                                          

            1             MY NAME IS PHILLIP HARBER.  I'M A PHYSICIAN 

            2    SPECIALIZING IN PULMONARY MEDICINE AND OCCUPATIONAL 

            3    ENVIRONMENTAL PREVENTIVE MEDICINE ON THE FACULTY OF 

            4    UCLA.  I'M HERE BECAUSE I'M A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN 

            5    THORACIC SOCIETY, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE 

            6    AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY.  THE A.T.S., OR AMERICAN 

            7    THORACIC SOCIETY, IS AN ORGANIZATION -- AN INTERNATIONAL 

            8    ORGANIZATION OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS DEDICATED TO 

            9    HELPING THE PUBLIC BE PROTECTED FROM THE DANGER OF AIR 

           10    POLLUTION AND IMPROVING RESPIRATORY HEALTH.  

           11             THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY STRONGLY 

           12    RECOMMENDS THAT THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR FOLLOW THE 

           13    FOLLOWING THREE POINTS FOR THE NAAQS:  FIRST, THAT THE 

           14    PRIMARY STANDARD SHOULD BE 0.060 PPM.  SECOND, THAT THE 

           15    PRECISION SHOULD BE TO THREE DECIMAL PLACES TO AVOID THE 

           16    ROUNDING ISSUE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.  AND, THIRD, THAT 

           17    THE STANDARD SHOULD BE A THREE-YEAR AVERAGE OF THE 

           18    ANNUAL FOURTH HIGHEST DAILY EIGHT-HOUR OZONE 

           19    CONCENTRATION.  

           20             THE A.T.S. CERTAINLY AGREES EPA ADMINISTRATOR 

           21    JOHNSON'S VIEW THAT, BEYOND REASONABLE UNCERTAINTY, 

           22    THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT AN IMPROVED STANDARD IS NECESSARY 

           23    AND THAT AT LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARD, 

           24    SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS OCCUR, BOTH MORBIDITY AND 

           25    MORTALITY.  AND, THEREFORE, THE A.T.S. STRONGLY SUPPORTS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       140


                                                                          

            1    THE NEED FOR A NEW STANDARD.  

            2             HOWEVER, THE A.T.S. BELIEVES THAT IN PROPOSING 

            3    A STANDARD OF 075 TO 070, THE ADMINISTRATOR JOHNSON HAS 

            4    NOT ADEQUATELY RECOGNIZED THE DANGERS OF OZONE AT LOWER 

            5    LEVELS; AND THEREFORE, THE A.T.S. RECOMMENDS A STANDARD 

            6    OF 060 TO PROTECT AGAINST SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS.  

            7             OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TIME CONSTRAINTS, SO I'D 

            8    LIKE TO MAKE JUST A FEW COMMENTS REALLY FOCUSED ON 

            9    CHILDREN, ALTHOUGH THE -- THERE ARE DATA FOR MANY AGES.  

           10    I'LL TRY TO ADDRESS FOUR AREAS, PRENATAL EXPOSURES, 

           11    EXPOSURES IN INFANCY, CHILDHOOD, AND ADULT EFFECTS OF 

           12    CHILDHOOD EXPOSURES.  MUCH OF THE WORK IS DONE BY 

           13    FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES HERE IN LOS ANGELES AS WELL AS 

           14    OTHERS INTERNATIONALLY AND AROUND THE COUNTRY IN TERMS 

           15    OF PRENATAL EFFECTS.  

           16             EXPOSURE OF OZONE DURING PREGNANCY AFFECTS 

           17    BIRTH WEIGHTS.  A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STUDY OF SOME 

           18    SHOWED THAT LOOKING AT COMMUNITIES WITH AN ARRAY OF 

           19    OZONE EXPOSURES, BIRTH WEIGHT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED 

           20    BY OZONE EXPOSURE DURING THE SECOND AND THIRD 

           21    TRIMESTERS.  THIS OCCURRED AT LEVELS THAT ARE EVEN BELOW 

           22    THE PROPOSED -- WHAT THE A.T.S. SUGGESTS OF THE 060 

           23    LEVEL, LEVELS AS LOW AS 30 PARTS PER BILLION.  AT THE 

           24    HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE STUDY OF THE EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS, 

           25    THE EFFECT ON BIRTH WEIGHT WAS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       141


                                                                          

            1    SMOKING DURING PREGNANCY, WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT A GOOD 

            2    THING ANYONE WOULD RECOMMEND.  

            3             ANOTHER STUDY DEMONSTRATED CONGENITAL DEFECTS, 

            4    PARTICULARLY INVOLVING THE HEART AND THE MAJOR BLOOD 

            5    VESSELS AFFECTED BY EXPOSURE.  THAT WAS DONE BY        

            6    MC CAULLY AT UCLA, LOOKING AT AS MUCH AS A THREE-FOLD 

            7    INCREASE IN SIGNIFICANT CARDIAC CONGENITAL DEFECTS.  

            8             OTHER STUDIES, SUCH AS HANSEN IN AUSTRALIA, 

            9    DEMONSTRATED THAT PRETERM EXPOSURE -- PRETERM BIRTH, 

           10    THAT IS BIRTH -- GIVING BIRTH BELOW 37 WEEKS, WAS 

           11    AFFECTED BY EXPOSURES TO OZONE.  

           12             THE SECOND AGE GROUP TO LOOK AT IS EARLY 

           13    INFANCY.  AGAIN, THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS STUDIES.  A 

           14    CANADIAN STUDY BY DALE, ET AL, SHOWED THAT OZONE LEVELS 

           15    IN THE 20 TO 30 PART PER BILLION RANGE INCREASED THE 

           16    RATE OF HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS OF INFANTS FOR RESPIRATORY 

           17    CONDITIONS USING A TIME SERIES ANALYSIS.  

           18             SOME POPULATIONS ARE -- I'LL SPEAK FASTER.  

           19    SOME POPULATIONS ARE MORE AFFECTED THAN OTHERS.  IN 

           20    PARTICULAR, ASTHMATIC CHILDREN HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE 

           21    PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE.  OTHERS HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED 

           22    WHY CHILDREN ARE MORE SENSITIVE.  ANOTHER AGE GROUP ARE 

           23    THE CHILDREN WHO HAVE ADVANCED BEYOND INFANCY.  

           24             MC CONELL AT USC AND COLLEAGUES LOOKING AT THE 

           25    CHILDREN'S HEALTH STUDY SHOWED THAT THE MORE OUTDOOR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       142


                                                                          

            1    EXPOSURE THAT YOU HAVE, THE GREATER THE CHANCE OF 

            2    DEVELOPING ASTHMA IF YOU PARTICIPATE IN SPORTS.  THAT 

            3    MEANS THAT OZONE EXPOSURES IN THE LEVELS OF CONCERN, NOT 

            4    ONLY MAKE ASTHMA WORSE, BUT THEY SEEM TO INCREASE THE 

            5    LIKELIHOOD OF DEVELOPING ASTHMA, PER SE.  AGAIN, AT 

            6    LEVELS IN THE 50 OR 60 PPB RANGE.  

            7             OTHER STUDIES HAVE LOOKED AT LONG-TERM IMPACT 

            8    OF CHILDHOOD OR PRENATAL EXPOSURE.  IRA TEGRA, ET AL, 

            9    LOOKED AT BERKLEY -- UC BERKLEY STUDENTS AND FOUND THAT 

           10    IF YOU GREW UP IN AREAS WITH SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE, YOU 

           11    HAVE WORSE LUNG FUNCTION.  

           12             AND SO IN SUMMARY, THE A.T.S. STRONGLY SUPPORTS 

           13    THE 060 STANDARD AND WILL SUBMIT -- THE A.T.S. WILL 

           14    SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS AND MORE DETAILS SUBSEQUENTLY.  

           15    THANK YOU.  

           16        MR. HABER:  I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU ABOUT -- YOU 

           17    ADDRESSED THREE ISSUES GENERALLY, AND WE'VE HEARD LOTS 

           18    OF TESTIMONY ON THE FIRST TWO; BUT ON THE THIRD, THE 

           19    FOURTH HIGH OVER THREE YEARS, YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING 

           20    ABOUT WHY YOU PICKED THAT AS OPPOSED TO OTHERS THAT WE 

           21    LOOKED FOR COMMENT ON.

           22        PHILIP HARBER, M.D.:  IF YOU LIKE, WE CAN SUBMIT 

           23    MORE WRITTEN DETAILED COMMENTS ON THAT.

           24        MR. HABER:  THAT WOULD BE USEFUL, YES.

           25        PHILIP HARBER, M.D.:  SIDE TRACK INTO AN IMPORTANT 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       143


                                                                          

            1    TECHNICAL ISSUE HERE.  

            2        MR. HANNON:  MINE IS ALSO A TECHNICAL ISSUE.  ON THE 

            3    ISSUE OF THE ROUNDING CONVENTIONS, WE ARE PROPOSING TO 

            4    HAVE THREE SIGNIFICANT DIGITS, BUT INVITE COMMENTS ON 

            5    WHAT TO DO WITH THE FOURTH DIGIT.  

            6             FOR EXAMPLE, OUR PROPOSAL IS TO TRUNCATE IT AS 

            7    COMPARED TO ROUND IT, AND I'D BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING 

            8    YOUR VIEWS ON THAT.  

            9        PHILIP HARBER, M.D.:  WELL, FROM A STATISTICAL 

           10    STANDPOINT, LOOKING AT APPLICATIONS OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL 

           11    DATA, TRUNCATION ESSENTIALLY CENSORS DATA.  IN OTHER 

           12    WORDS, IT INHERENTLY INTRODUCED A BIAS IN A STUDY WHEN 

           13    YOU ROUND UP OR DOWN OR TRUNCATE RATHER THAN USE THE 

           14    MEAN ESTIMATOR.  

           15             AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE INSTRUMENTATION THAT 

           16    IS AVAILABLE AND WILL BE AVAILABLE SHOULD ALSO SUPPORT 

           17    THAT LEVEL OF MEASUREMENT.  THIS ISN'T THE OLD DAYS WHEN 

           18    OZONE WAS MEASURED AS THE CO-EFFICIENT OF THE HAZE.  YOU 

           19    KNOW, THE INSTRUMENTATION IS OUT THERE TO MEASURE 

           20    ACCURATELY, AND IT SEEMS INACCURATE TO SORT OF THROW 

           21    AWAY THE PRECISION OF TODAY'S MEASURING INSTRUMENTS AND 

           22    SIMPLY TRUNCATE OR GO TO THE HIGHER LEVEL.  

           23        MR. HANNON:  THERE IS A DISCUSSION OF THAT IN THE 

           24    PREAMBLE, SO PERHAPS, ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS WOULD BE 

           25    USEFUL TO ADDRESS EPA'S DISCUSSION ON THAT.

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       144


                                                                          

            1        PHILIP HARBER, M.D.:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  WE WILL 

            2    DO THAT.  

            3        MS. WEGMAN:  JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION, DR. HARBER.  

            4    THE LOW BIRTH WEIGHT STUDIES, IF YOU CAN MAKE SURE YOU 

            5    CITE TO THOSE IN THE RECORD WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR 

            6    COMMENTS BECAUSE THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE 

            7    FOCUSED ON IN OUR PROPOSAL, SO THAT ADDITIONAL 

            8    INFORMATION WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

            9        PHILIP HARBER, M.D.:  OKAY.  ONE OF THE STUDIES WAS 

           10    ACTUALLY A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STUDY, SO WE'LL PUT IT IN 

           11    THE REFERENCES.

           12        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  THANK YOU.  THANK YOU BOTH VERY 

           13    MUCH.  

           14             OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE BOB -- BART OSTRO AND 

           15    MIKE WANG.  I'M AFRAID YOU HAVE TO HOLD IT DOWN WHILE 

           16    YOU SPEAK.  

           17        DR. BART OSTRO:  THANK YOU.  I'M DR. BART OSTRO FROM 

           18    THE -- I'M CHIEF OF THE AIR POLLUTION EPIDEMIOLOGY 

           19    SECTION OF THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD 

           20    ASSESSMENT, PART OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL 

           21    PROTECTION AGENCY, AND THAT'S A MOUTHFUL.  MY OFFICE IS 

           22    RESPONSIBLE FOR RECOMMENDING THE CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY 

           23    STANDARDS.  

           24             I THOUGHT THAT SOME OF OUR DELIBERATIONS AND 

           25    DECISIONS ON THIS STANDARD ARE VERY RELEVANT TO EPA'S 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       145


                                                                          

            1    UPCOMING DECISION ON THE STANDARD, AND I THOUGHT I WOULD 

            2    REVIEW SOME OF OUR MAJOR FINDINGS.  WE SET A ONE-HOUR -- 

            3    SORRY, A EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD OF .070 NOT TO BE EXCEEDED.  

            4    OUR STANDARD WAS APPROVED BY THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD TWO 

            5    YEARS AGO IN APRIL OF 2005.  OUR STANDARD WAS REVIEWED 

            6    BY AN AIR QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, A COMMITTEE 

            7    SIMILAR TO YOUR CASAC COMMITTEE.  THIS PEER-REVIEW 

            8    COMMITTEE IS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 

            9    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.  

           10             OZONE IS UNIQUE IN THAT THERE ARE MANY 

           11    DIFFERENT TYPES OF STUDIES THAT SUPPORT EACH OTHER IN 

           12    TERMS OF THE HEALTH EFFECTS.  THERE'S NOT ONLY THESE 

           13    HUMAN CLINICAL STUDIES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND 

           14    EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES, BUT ALSO THE ANIMAL TOXICOLOGY 

           15    ALL SUPPORT THE TYPES OF EFFECTS THAT WE OBSERVE IN THE 

           16    EPI STUDIES.  

           17             SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE BASIS FOR THE 

           18    EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD OF .070, WE FIRST FOCUSED ON THESE 

           19    CHAMBER STUDIES BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT PURE OZONE IS 

           20    COMING OUT OF THOSE.  OF COURSE, THOSE STUDIES SHOWED 

           21    THAT AT .08, AFTER VERY CAREFUL CONTROL FOR THE 

           22    SUBJECTS, THAT THERE WAS CHANGES OR INCREASES IN 

           23    RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS, CHANGES IN LUNG FUNCTION INCREASES 

           24    IN AIRWAY REACTIVITY AND INFLAMMATION.  THERE'S ALSO 

           25    SUGGESTED EFFECTS AT .06 PARTS PER MILLION.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       146


                                                                          

            1             IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE 

            2    STUDIES THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCE VERY LARGE 

            3    CHANGES.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN LONG FUNCTION.  FOR EXAMPLE, 

            4    ONE OF THE STUDIES, 10 PERCENT OF THE SUBJECTS 

            5    EXPERIENCED A 30 PERCENT ADECREMENT IN LUNG FUNCTION, 

            6    VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.  IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO KNOW 

            7    THAT THESE STUDIES ONLY INVOLVE BASICALLY HEALTHY 

            8    INDIVIDUALS OR VERY MILD ASTHMATICS, SO WHEN YOU 

            9    EXTRAPOLATE THIS, THE POPULATION AS A WHOLE, WE WOULD 

           10    EXPECT MUCH MORE SEVERE OUTCOMES AND PROBABLY EFFECTS AT 

           11    LOWER LEVELS.  

           12             ALSO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT CHILDREN, OF 

           13    COURSE, ARE GOING TO BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE.  NOT ONLY DO 

           14    THEY SPEND MORE TIME OUTDOORS, BUT THEY HAVE A GREATER 

           15    EXPOSURE PER UNIT OF LUNG SURFACE AND WE'RE ALSO 

           16    CONCERNED ABOUT EARLY EXPOSURES TO CHILDREN WHICH WILL 

           17    AFFECT LUNG DEVELOPMENT.  THESE HUMAN CHAMBER STUDIES 

           18    ARE SUPPORTED BY THE ANIMAL TOX STUDIES IN THAT THESE 

           19    TOXICOLOGY STUDIES SHOW INCREASED AIRWAY INFLAMMATION 

           20    AND RESTRUCTURING OF THE AIRWAYS UPON CHRONIC EXPOSURE, 

           21    SORT OF A PRECONDITION FOR ASTHMA, WHICH THE 

           22    EPIDEMIOLOGY HAS SHOWN.  

           23             MOVING ON TO THE EPI STUDY, THESE STUDIES SHOW 

           24    A WIDE RANGE OF HEALTH EFFECTS AMONG THE GENERAL FREE 

           25    LIVING POPULATION.  MANY OF THESE STUDIES FOUND EFFECTS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       147


                                                                          

            1    BELOW CONCENTRATIONS OF 08 AND PART -- PARTS PER 

            2    MILLION, AND AMONG THE MORE IMPORTANT STUDIES ARE THINGS 

            3    LIKE EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS FOR ASTHMA, WHICH FITS INTO 

            4    THE GENERAL PICTURE WE SEE WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CHAMBER 

            5    STUDIES AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TOX STUDIES.  SO WE SEE 

            6    EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS FOR ASTHMA.  WE SEE WITH EXERCISE, 

            7    ACTUALLY, NEW CASES OF ASTHMA.  

            8             SOME OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA STUDIES, WE SEE 

            9    HOSPITAL ADMISSION STUDIES, SCHOOL ABSENTEE WORK, AND 

           10    FINALLY STUDIES ON PREMATURE MORTALITY.  THESE STUDIES 

           11    HAVE COME OUT RECENTLY.  THERE'S BEEN MORE AND MORE OF 

           12    THEM OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS.  THE STUDIES ARE 

           13    GETTING BETTER AND BETTER.  AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THESE 

           14    STUDIES NOW CONTROL VERY CAREFULLY FOR A PM 10.  THEY 

           15    CONTROLLED VERY CAREFULLY FOR TEMPERATURE.  TYPICALLY, 

           16    CONFOUNDERS IN THESE EPI STUDIES.  

           17             SO NOW WE'RE ABLE TO SAY THAT AFTER CAREFULLY 

           18    CONTROLLING FOR OTHER THINGS THAT AFFECT MORTALITY, 

           19    OZONE CLEARLY HAS AN EFFECT.  

           20             FINALLY, AS PART OF OUR EXERCISE IN OUR 

           21    STANDARD DEVELOPMENT, WE DID A HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT.  

           22    WE TRIED TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF GOING 

           23    FROM CURRENT LEVELS OF AIR QUALITY IN CALIFORNIA TO THE 

           24    .070, AND OUR ESTIMATES, WHICH ARE NOW PUBLISHED IN THE 

           25    JOURNAL OF AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, SHOW 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       148


                                                                          

            1    THAT WE ARE EXPECTING AROUND 630 LESS PREMATURE DEATHS 

            2    BECAUSE OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDARD AND OVER THREE 

            3    AND A HALF MILLION FEWER SCHOOL LOSS DAYS.  SO CLEARLY 

            4    IMPACTS OF OZONE ARE SEVERE AND WIDESPREAD.  

            5             THEREFORE, I URGE EPA TO SET A STANDARD NO 

            6    GREATER THAN 070, THE CALIFORNIA STANDARD, AND POSSIBLY 

            7    CONSIDER A MUCH LOWER STANDARD.  THANK YOU.  

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  I HOPE THAT YOU 

            9    OR THE AGENCY WILL SUBMIT COMMENTS THAT WILL PROVIDE THE 

           10    EXPLANATION IN WRITING THAT YOU OFFERED.

           11        DR. BART OSTRO:  WE WILL BE SUBMITTING WRITTEN 

           12    COMMENT.  

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  VERY GOOD.  THANK YOU.  WOULD YOU MIND 

           14    JUST WAITING UNTIL MR. WANG IS DONE?  

           15        DR. BART OSTRO:  I HAVE TEN SECONDS LEFT ON MY 

           16    COMMENTS.  

           17             THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT CONTROLS 

           18    FOR OZONE ARE ALSO GOING TO BE CONTROLLING SOME OF THE 

           19    PARTICLES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT.  SO 

           20    WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEALTH IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL 

           21    BENEFITS.  WE KNOW THAT THE BENEFITS OF CONTROLLING 

           22    PARTICULATE MATTER ARE HUGE AND THAT'S ANOTHER INCENTIVE 

           23    FOR THE AGENCY TO REALLY TIGHTLY CONTROL OZONE AND ITS 

           24    PRECURSORS.  

           25        MR. HANNON:  EXCUSE ME, MR. WANG, IF I COULD JUST 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       149


                                                                          

            1    ASK A QUESTION OF DR. OSTRO.  

            2             DID THE CALIFORNIA EPA CONSIDER GOING BELOW 

            3    .070?  AND CLEARLY, YOU DID NOT.  

            4             COULD YOU GIVE SOME SUGGESTION AS TO HOW THE 

            5    DECISION WAS MADE TO STOP AT 70?  

            6        DR. BART OSTRO:  YEAH, INITIALLY WE CONSIDERED A 

            7    WIDE RANGE, INCLUDING LEVELS BELOW.  THE 08 STANDARD 

            8    THAT WE SET WAS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD SET AN 08 

            9    STANDARD, SO IN A WAY IT WAS AN ENTREE INTO THAT WHOLE 

           10    THING.  BY SETTING THE STANDARD LOWER THAN EPA'S CURRENT 

           11    LEVEL, WE WERE, I THINK, MAKING AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT 

           12    THAT CLEARLY THAT LEVEL WAS NOT PROTECTIVE.  

           13             OUR CUTOFF DATE FOR PUBLICATIONS WAS BASICALLY 

           14    LATE '04, AND SINCE THAT TIME THERE'S BEEN A LOT MORE 

           15    STUDIES, PARTICULARLY MORTALITY STUDIES, THAT HAVE COME 

           16    OUT, AND ALSO ADAMS WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF OUR ADVISORS ON 

           17    THE HEALTH REVIEW GROUP, THE GUY WHO PUBLISHED THIS 

           18    THING, THE STUDIES OF .06.  WHEN HE WAS REVIEWING OUR 

           19    OWN STUDIES AND OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, HIS OWN PAPER WAS 

           20    NOT PUBLISHED AT THAT POINT IN TIME, SO WE DIDN'T 

           21    INCLUDE IT AS STRONGLY AS WE MIGHT HAVE IF IT WAS 

           22    PUBLISHED.  SO WE ACTUALLY URGED HIM TO PUBLISH IT.  HE 

           23    DID, AND NOW WITH MORE OF THAT EVIDENCE, I'M SURE WE 

           24    WOULD GO TO A LOWER NUMBER.  

           25        MICHAEL WANG:  GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS MICHAEL 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       150


                                                                          

            1    WANG.  I'M A SENIOR ADVISOR WITH THE WESTERN STATES 

            2    PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS A TRADE ASSOCIATION THAT 

            3    REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY TWO DOZEN COMPANIES WHO EXPLORE 

            4    FOR, PRODUCE, TRANSPORT, REFINE, MARKET -- AND MARKET 

            5    PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN THE SIX WESTERN 

            6    STATES.  WE APPRECIATE EPA ALLOWING US TO PROVIDE -- THE 

            7    OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL AND TO 

            8    REBUT ON BOTH THE CHANGE IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY 

            9    NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE.  

           10             FIRST, I'D LIKE TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THE 

           11    U.S. EPA EFFORTS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING AND CONTINUE TO 

           12    GO FORWARD TO IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THROUGHOUT THE NATION, 

           13    AND I AM PROUD TO SAY THAT THE WSPA MEMBER COMPANIES 

           14    HAVE BEEN DOING THEIR PART TO PROVIDE CLEANER AIR NOW 

           15    AND TO THE FUTURE.  I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES 

           16    OF THAT.  

           17             FOR EXAMPLE, LAST YEAR WE SUCCESSFULLY 

           18    COLLABORATED WITH US EPA REGION 9 AND THE AIR RESOURCES 

           19    BOARD AND OTHER STATE AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS DURING THE 

           20    CALIFORNIA'S ROLL OUT OF THE ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL 

           21    PROGRAM.  THE AIR QUALITY BENEFITS OF ULTRA LOW SULFUR 

           22    DIESEL IS EQUIVALENT TO REMOVING POLLUTION FROM 90 

           23    PERCENT OF TODAY'S TRUCKS AND BUSSES WHEN THE CURRENT 

           24    HEAVY-DUTY FLEET HAS BEEN TURNED OVER BY THE YEAR 2030.  

           25    OUR INDUSTRY HAS ALSO WORKED WITH THE STATE IN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       151


                                                                          

            1    REFORMULATING GASOLINE THREE TIMES SINCE THE 1970'S, AND 

            2    THE STATE IS WORKING ON, PERHAPS, A FOURTH 

            3    REFORMULATION.  

            4             WE'VE REDUCED OUR VP AROMATICS CONTENT, 

            5    INCLUDING BENZENE, AND ACCOMPLISHED THESE CHANGES WHILE 

            6    SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM REFINERIES AND 

            7    RETAIL GAS OUTLETS.  WE ALSO HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF 

            8    WORKING WITH THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

            9    DISTRICT TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGE AND REDUCE EMISSIONS 

           10    TO IMPROVE AIR QUALITY IN THE REGION AND, AGAIN, A 

           11    LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.  

           12             IN 1975, THE ONE HOUR OZONE STANDARD WAS 38 

           13    PPHM.  38 PARTS PER HUNDRED MILLION, COMPARED TO A 

           14    FEDERAL STANDARD OF 12 THAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME.  THAT 

           15    WAS THREE TIMES THE PREVAILING STANDARD.  THAT SAME 

           16    YEAR, 1975, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUFFERED THROUGH 102 

           17    STAGE ONE EPISODES AND 166 HEALTH ADVISORIES.  TO PUT 

           18    THIS IN CONTEXT, AGAIN, IN 1975 FOR L.A. COUNTY ALONE, 

           19    THAT MEANT THAT DURING THOSE EPISODES, ABOUT 3 MILLION 

           20    PEOPLE BREATHED AIR THAT WAS CONSIDERED UNHEALTHFUL AND 

           21    I WAS ONE OF THEM.  I LIVED THERE AT THAT TIME.  

           22             NOW, WHAT HAPPENED?  IN RESPONSE LOCAL AND 

           23    STATE GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS AND THE AQMD 

           24    EMBARKED ON VERY VIGOROUS PROGRAMS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS 

           25    AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       152


                                                                          

            1             FAST FORWARD TO 2006 AND SEE HOW WE'VE DONE.  

            2    IN 2006, THE LAST FULL YEAR OF DATA THAT'S AVAILABLE, 

            3    THOSE LIVING IN THE ENTIRE FOUR-COUNTY REGION, LOS 

            4    ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, RIVERSIDE, AND ORANGE COUNTY 

            5    EXPERIENCED ZERO STAGE ONE EPISODES AND ONLY FIVE HEALTH 

            6    ADVISORIES.  THE PEEK OZONE CONCENTRATION WHERE MOST OF 

            7    THOSE -- MOST OF THE DISTRICT MEASURED 12.5 PPHM, 

            8    TANTALIZINGLY CLOSE TO ACHIEVING THE OLD FEDERAL 

            9    ONE-HOUR STANDARD.  THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT OZONE 

           10    LEVELS EXCEEDED STANDARD WAS REDUCED BY MORE THAN 85 

           11    PERCENT.  AGAIN, COMPARED TO 1975.  WE DID THIS WITH A 

           12    CURRENT ESTIMATED POPULATION IN L.A. COUNTY OF 10 

           13    MILLION PEOPLE.  

           14             SO WHAT THIS MEANS OVER 30 YEARS, THE REGION 

           15    IMPROVED AIR QUALITY BY REDUCING THE HIGHEST OZONE 

           16    CONCENTRATIONS BY OVER 80 PERCENT AND NEARLY MET THE 

           17    APPLICABLE FEDERAL STANDARD, AND AT THE SAME TIME DID 

           18    THIS IN SPITE OF HUGE GROWTH IN POPULATION AND VEHICLE 

           19    USE.  

           20             REMEMBER THE DIFFERENCE IN L.A. COUNTY ALONE 

           21    WENT FROM 3 TO 10 MILLION PEOPLE.  

           22             NOW, CLEARLY, WE NEED TO IMPROVE AIR QUALITY, 

           23    AND MUCH PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, AND WE RECOGNIZE THIS 

           24    PROGRESS.  WE SHARE MANY OF THE SAME CONCERNS AND 

           25    COMMENTS MADE BY OTHERS WITH RESPECT TO THE SCIENCE AND 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       153


                                                                          

            1    THE INFORMATION EPA IS USING TO ESTABLISH THE NEW LOWER 

            2    STANDARD.  WE URGE EPA TO REEXAMINE HOW THEY ANALYZE THE 

            3    HEALTH IMPACTS DONE BY DR. ADAMS.  WE RECOMMEND THE EPA 

            4    REEXAMINE THE METHODOLOGIES THEY USE TO DETERMINE 

            5    BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS AND HOW EPA USED THAT 

            6    METHODOLOGY IN ESTIMATING RISK IMPACTS OF LOWER OZONE 

            7    CONCENTRATIONS.  

            8             FINALLY, ON A POLICY BASIS AND IN VIEW OF THE 

            9    GREAT PROGRESS MADE IN THE REGION IN THIS PRUDENT -- IS 

           10    IT PRUDENT NOW TO MOVE THE GOALPOST AS ALL OF THE 

           11    REGIONS IN THE U.S. ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE OZONE 

           12    STANDARD THAT WAS MOST RECENTLY PROMULGATED AND TIGHTEN 

           13    OUR ALREADY HEALTH-PROTECTIVE STANDARD?  THEREFORE YOU 

           14    SHOULD MOVE FORWARD IN DELIBERATING ON WHETHER TO CHANGE 

           15    THE OZONE STANDARD AS DESCRIBED IN PROPOSAL RULE.  WE 

           16    ASK EPA CAREFULLY EXAMINE AND EVALUATE ALL AVAILABLE 

           17    DATA STUDIES AND INFORMATION CAREFULLY PRIOR TO THEIR 

           18    FINAL DECISION.  THANK YOU.  

           19        MR. HANNON:  I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE COMMENT 

           20    ON MOVING THE GOALPOST.  I ASKED THIS EARLIER TODAY AS 

           21    WELL.  

           22             CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED US TO REVIEW AND REVISE 

           23    EVERY FIVE YEARS.  COULD YOU EITHER NOW OR IN YOUR 

           24    WRITTEN COMMENTS RECONCILE THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE 

           25    WITH YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE NOT MOVE THE GOALPOST?  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       154


                                                                          

            1        MICHAEL WANG:  I CERTAINLY -- WE WILL DO THAT AND IT 

            2    CERTAINLY IS A DIFFICULT CONUNDRUM YOU ALL FACE.  

            3             ON ONE HAND, YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ONGOING 

            4    PROGRESS TO ACHIEVE THE CURRENT STANDARD; AND YET, YOU 

            5    HAVE A MANDATE TO REVIEW IT EVERY FIVE YEARS.  SO THAT 

            6    IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM.  WE WILL ADDRESS THAT 

            7    QUESTION.  IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ANSWERED IN 

            8    FIVE OR TEN SECONDS.  THANK YOU.  

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION, I TAKE IT YOU 

           10    DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION YOU WANT TO OFFER 

           11    AS FAR AS THE STANDARD GOES?  

           12        MICHAEL WANG:  I PERSONALLY HAVE A WHOLE RAFT OF 

           13    SUGGESTIONS, BUT OUR ASSOCIATION DOESN'T.  WE'RE STILL 

           14    WORKING ON TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT EXACTLY WE WILL PUT 

           15    IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY, AND WE'LL SUBMIT AT THAT TIME.

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  

           17             OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE LUIS CABRALES AND 

           18    BILL DALE.  

           19             IS MR. DALE HERE?  

           20        BILL DALE:  THAT'S ME.

           21        MS. WEGMAN:  OH, THAT'S YOU.  OKAY.  

           22        BILL DALE:  AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT MY MOTHER TOLD ME 

           23    BUT SHE WAS PROBABLY LYING.  SMILE FOR THE CAMERA.  

           24        LUIS CABRALES:  GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS LUIS 

           25    CABRALES.  I REPRESENT COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR, A 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       155


                                                                          

            1    STATE-WIDE ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION WORKING TO CLEAN AIR IN 

            2    THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  I APPRECIATE THIS 

            3    OPPORTUNITY -- THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU AND 

            4    ENCOURAGE YOU TO HOLD MORE MEETINGS AND ALLOW OTHER 

            5    AMERICANS THROUGHOUT THE NATION TO SPEAK AS WELL.  

            6             OBVIOUSLY, THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS IS SLIGHTLY 

            7    LIMITED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, AND SO THIS 

            8    OPPORTUNITY IS VERY EMPOWERING AND OTHER AMERICANS 

            9    DESERVE THIS RIGHT.  

           10             AS YOU HAVE HEARD FROM EXPERTS THROUGHOUT THE 

           11    DAY, OZONE POLLUTION IS A SERIOUS HEALTH THREAT.  IT 

           12    BURNS OUR LUNGS AND AIRWAYS, CAUSING THEM TO BECOME 

           13    INFLAMED.  IT BURNS CHILDREN AND TEENS, SENIOR CITIZENS 

           14    AND PEOPLE WITH LUNG DISEASE, LIKE ASTHMA, CHRONIC 

           15    BRONCHITIS, EMPHYSEMA, AND OTHERS ARE PARTICULARLY 

           16    VULNERABLE TO HEALTH RISKS OF THOSE.  

           17             OZONE POLLUTION HAS A NEGATIVE -- HAS NEGATIVE 

           18    IMPACTS, SPECIFICALLY IN THE MILLIONS OF UNINSURED 

           19    AMERICANS WHO LIVE IN THE MOST POLLUTED AREAS.  THIS IS 

           20    PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN THE LATINO, AFRICAN AMERICAN, 

           21    AND OTHER COMMUNITIES OF COLOR NATIONWIDE.  THESE 

           22    WORKING-CLASS COMMUNITIES NOT ONLY LACK ACCESS TO HEALTH 

           23    SERVICES OR LACK THE RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH HEALTH 

           24    PROBLEMS CAUSED BY POLLUTION, MANY THOUSANDS OF 

           25    PEOPLE -- MILLIONS ARE ALSO DISPROPORTIONATELY EXPOSED 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       156


                                                                          

            1    TO THIS POLLUTION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU MOST 

            2    OF THAT RIGHT NOW, AND ALSO REMIND THE AUDIENCE THAT 

            3    WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT OZONE RIGHT NOW.  

            4             WE MUST REMEMBER THAT ON A DAILY BASIS WE ARE 

            5    ALSO EXPOSED TO CANCER-CAUSING DIESEL DUE TO TRUCK 

            6    INDUSTRY OR THE MOVEMENT INDUSTRY.  WE ARE -- AND I SAY 

            7    "WE" BECAUSE I LIVE IN A DISPROPORTIONAL POLLUTED AREA.  

            8    WE ARE ALSO EXPOSED TO AIR TOXICS FROM OTHER INDUSTRIES, 

            9    SUCH AS BODY SHOPS LOCATED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, 

           10    DRY-CLEANERS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO SCHOOLS, RESTAURANTS, 

           11    ET CETERA, ET CETERA.  

           12             SO MOVING ON, ALL AMERICANS DESERVE TO BREATHE 

           13    CLEAN AIR AND ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO DELIVER THIS CLEAN 

           14    AIR TO THE COMMUNITIES.  YOUR PROPOSED STANDARD, 

           15    HOWEVER, IN THE RANGE OF .07 PARTS PER MILLION AND .075 

           16    PARTS PER MILLION DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THE 

           17    ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH REQUIRED 

           18    UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  EPA SHOULD FINALIZE AN OZONE 

           19    STANDARD OF .06 PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH IS CONSISTENT 

           20    WITH THE RANGE RECOMMENDED BY ITS OWN INDEPENDENT 

           21    SCIENCE ADVISORS IN 2006.  

           22             THE VISIONARY STAFF AT EPA MUST STAND STRONG 

           23    AND REJECT PRESSURE FROM BIG OIL AND OTHER INDUSTRIES.  

           24    ALTHOUGH THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS LEFT THE DOOR OPEN TO 

           25    RETAINING THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD AS A RESULT OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       157


                                                                          

            1    CALLS BY BIG OIL, ELECTRIC UTILITIES, AND OTHER 

            2    POLLUTERS TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO, CONSCIENTIOUS STAFF 

            3    MUST REMEMBER THAT RETAINING THE CURRENT STANDARD WOULD 

            4    IGNORE A DECADE OF SCIENCE AND REGULARLY SUBJECT 

            5    MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TO UNSAFE LEVELS OF OZONE 

            6    POLLUTION.  YOU MUST LISTEN TO THE VOICES OF REASON.  

            7             THE RANGE OF .07 PARTS PER MILLION TO .075 

            8    PARTS PER MILLION DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.  WE CANNOT 

            9    STRESS THAT ENOUGH.  YOU MUST ACT NOW AND FINALIZE AN 

           10    OZONE STANDARD OF .06 PARTS PER MILLION.  AMERICANS, 

           11    ESPECIALLY THOSE IN LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITIES 

           12    OF COLOR, WORKING-CLASS COMMUNITIES ARE COUNTING ON YOU 

           13    TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

           15        BILL DALE:  HELLO, MY NAME IS BILL DALE.

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  COULD YOU PULL DOWN THE --

           17        BILL DALE:  OH, SORRY.  MY NAME IS BILL DALE.  I'M A 

           18    PRIVATE CITIZEN OF LOS ANGELES.  I AM GRATEFUL FOR THIS 

           19    OPPORTUNITY.  I'M GOING TO CUT OUT A LOT OF WHAT I WAS 

           20    PLANNING ON SAYING BECAUSE A LOT OF THAT HAS ALREADY 

           21    BEEN SAID TODAY, AND I'M SO IN AGREEMENT WITH SO MUCH OF 

           22    WHAT'S BEEN SAID HERE.  

           23             ONE OF THE COMMENT -- ONE OF THE POINTS I WOULD 

           24    LIKE TO MAKE IS WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT EFFECTS 

           25    WE WILL HAVE IF WE ACHIEVE OZONE LEVELS -- OZONE LEVELS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       158


                                                                          

            1    BELOW .06.  WE MIGHT FIND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF -- OF 

            2    HEALTH BENEFITS TO BE HAD DOWN IN THOSE LOWER LEVELS, 

            3    AND ALSO, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FIND ANY TESTIMONY HERE 

            4    TODAY BY ANYONE SAYING, "OH, YOU KNOW WE REALLY CAN GET 

            5    BY WITHOUT LOWER LEVELS."  YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THOSE 

            6    TESTIMONIES FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS.  THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT 

            7    ARE GOING TO BE SAYING THAT IS SOMEBODY THAT'S GOT A 

            8    BUCK IN IT.  

            9             ALL RIGHT.  MY MAIN THRUST TODAY IS ELECTRIC 

           10    VEHICLES.  IT WILL NOT BE A HARDSHIP TO CHANGE TO EVU'S.  

           11    ON THE CONTRARY, REDUCTIONS IN OZONE AND OTHER 

           12    POLLUTANTS ARE JUST PART OF THE INCENTIVES WE HAVE TO 

           13    CHANGE TO EV'S.  EV'S ARE QUIET, MORE POWERFUL, REQUIRE 

           14    LESS MAINTENANCE, AND ARE FAR LESS EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE.  

           15    EVEN IF ALL VEHICLES IN OUR CARPOOLS AND FLEETS WERE 

           16    ELECTRIC, THEY WOULD NOT INCREASE THE NET USE OF 

           17    ELECTRICITY LOAD BUT WOULD ACTUALLY DECREASE IF DUE -- 

           18    DECREASE IT DUE TO A PROGRAM CALLED V TO G, WHICH I WILL 

           19    COMMENT ON LATER.  

           20             EV'S ARE TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY AND ARE ALREADY 

           21    BEING BUILT IN SEVERAL CALIFORNIA CITIES.  THE PHOENIX 

           22    MOTOR CAR, FOR INSTANCE, IS BUILT JUST A FEW MILES AWAY 

           23    IN ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA.  IT IS A ROOMY FIVE-PASSENGER 

           24    VEHICLE THAT IS AS BIG AS MANY SUV'S TODAY, HAS LOTS OF 

           25    CARGO SPACES, FREEWAY CAPABLE, AND POWERFUL; YET BECAUSE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       159


                                                                          

            1    OF THE SUPERIOR EFFICIENCY OF ELECTRIC DRIVE TRAINS, IT 

            2    COSTS LESS THAN $0.03 PER MILE TO OPERATE, WHICH IS MORE 

            3    THAN TWICE AS EFFICIENT AS A PRIUS.  

            4             ANOTHER EV THAT WOULD BE GREAT FOR MOTOR POOLS 

            5    IS THE EBOX MADE BY AC PROPULSIONS IN SAN DIMAS, WHICH 

            6    IS A CONVERSION OF THE SCION XB.  IT, TOO, IS A ROOMY 

            7    FIVE-PASSENGER WITH PLENTY OF CARGO SPACE; AND AGAIN, 

            8    LIKE THE PHOENIX, THE EBOX COSTS LESS THAN $0.03 PER 

            9    MILE FOR ELECTRICITY.  THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT TO MORE 

           10    THAN 130 MILLS PER GALLON.  

           11             THE MORE OF THESE CARS WE HAVE IN OUR MOTOR 

           12    POOLS, THE LESS OZONE WE PRODUCE AND THE HEALTHIER WE 

           13    WILL ALL BE.  THE PHOENIX AND THE EBOX ARE TYPICAL OF 

           14    WHAT IS POSSIBLE WITH EV'S.  TESLA, ZAP, ZEN, AND OTHER 

           15    EV STARTUP COMPANIES ARE ALSO GEARING UP TO PRODUCE 

           16    THOUSANDS OF EV'S PER YEAR WITH STUNNING PERFORMANCE AND 

           17    EFFICIENCY AND ZERO POLLUTION.  

           18             WE CAN EVENTUALLY RUN VEHICLES OF EVERY SIZE 

           19    AND DESCRIPTION ON OZONE-FREE ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS WELL 

           20    FROM THE TINIEST TRAFFIC CONTROL MINI CARS RIGHT UP TO 

           21    GARBAGE TRUCKS AND BUSSES.  ANYTHING THAT CAN BE RUN ON 

           22    GASOLINE CAN BE POWERED WITH OZONE-FREE BATTERIES.  AND 

           23    THE MORE A VEHICLE IS DRIVEN, THE MORE ECONOMIC AND 

           24    ENVIRONMENTAL INCENTIVE WE HAVE FOR IT TO BE AN EV.  

           25             GETTING BACK TO OZONE.  SOLUTION IS NOT TO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       160


                                                                          

            1    PRETEND IT IS NOT A PROBLEM.  AS THE EPA IS DOING BY 

            2    IGNORING THE PROBLEM, WE CANNOT -- WE CONTINUE TO PAY 

            3    THE PRICE IN INCREASED HEALTHCARE AND IN DECREASED LIFE 

            4    EXPECTANCY.  ACCORDING TO A RECENT STUDY, THE CLOSER WE 

            5    LIVE TO A FREEWAY, THE MORE HEALTHCARE WE WILL NEED.  

            6             DARE I HOPE FOR A DAY WHEN ALL CARS ON EVERY 

            7    STREET AND HIGHWAY PRODUCE NO OZONE AT ALL?  CONVERTING 

            8    TO EV USE WILL NOT BE AN ECONOMIC BURDEN SINCE ELECTRIC 

            9    VEHICLES PAY FOR THEMSELVES, LOWER MAINTENANCE AND 

           10    OPERATING COSTS, AND THEY -- THEY LAST MUCH LONGER AS 

           11    WELL.  WE WILL EVEN NOTICE A DIFFERENCE IN HOW MUCH 

           12    QUIETER OUR CITIES ARE AND WILL NOTICE THAT ORANGE HAZE 

           13    ON THE HORIZON -- OKAY.  

           14             AS TO THE V TO G THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, AS 

           15    YOU NOTICED THIS WEEK, THE UTILITY COMPANIES HAVE WARNED 

           16    US OF ROLLING BLACKOUTS.  IRONICALLY, AS WE BEGIN TO 

           17    SWITCH TO ELECTRIC VEHICLE FLEETS, THIS PROBLEM WILL NOT 

           18    GET WORSE, BUT BETTER.  EV'S ARE CHARGED AT NIGHT WHEN 

           19    DEMAND IS LOW.  DURING THE AFTERNOON HOURS, WHEN THE 

           20    ENERGY DEMAND IS AT ITS GREATEST, EV'S CAN BE PLUGGED 

           21    INTO THE GRID AND FEED ENERGY BACK DIVERTING ENERGY 

           22    SHORTAGES.  THUS THE VEHICLE TO GRID PROBLEM, V TO G.  

           23             I AM HUMBLY GRATEFUL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.  

           24    THANK YOU.  

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       161


                                                                          

            1        BILL DALE:  ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE INFORMATION ON 

            2    THE V TO G OR OTHER -- OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT ELECTRIC 

            3    VEHICLES, I'D BE HAPPY TO -- TO SHARE.  THANK YOU.  

            4        MS. WEGMAN:  I HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING THIS RIGHT.  

            5             OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS BEFORE LUNCH ARE JIM 

            6    PASRACK AND DONNA BARNETT.  

            7        DONNA BARNETT:  I DECIDED TO DO A SHOW AND TELL.  

            8    I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, BUT I'VE BEEN COLLECTING 

            9    PICTURES OF SMOG.  THIS PARTICULAR ONE WAS --

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  MS. BARNETT, COULD YOU START BY STATING 

           11    YOUR NAME FOR THE COURT REPORTER?  

           12        DONNA BARNETT:  OH, I'M SORRY.

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  YES, AND ALSO YOU NEED TO HOLD DOWN THE 

           14    BUTTON FOR THE MICROPHONE.

           15        DONNA BARNETT:  OH, I'M SORRY.  YOU WANT TO DO -- MY 

           16    NAME IS DONNA BARNETT, SORRY.

           17        MS. WEGMAN:  THAT'S OKAY.  THAT'S GOOD.  

           18        DONNA BARNETT:  MY NAME IS DONNA BARNETT.  I'VE BEEN 

           19    LIVING IN LOS ANGELES ALMOST 20 YEARS.  I WORK IN PUBLIC 

           20    RELATIONS, AND I HAVE A PASSION FOR SPEAKING OUT TO 

           21    PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.  

           22             ALL RIGHT.  TODAY I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF 

           23    MYSELF AND OTHERS SUFFERING WITH LUNG DISEASE.  OKAY.  

           24    SO THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN WHILE HIKING LAST SUMMER.  

           25    MOST OF THE PICTURES YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TODAY ARE TAKEN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       162


                                                                          

            1    FROM A PLANE FLYING INTO L.A. TWO WEEKS AGO.  OKAY.  ALL 

            2    RIGHT.  

            3             WE NEED YOUR LEADERSHIP TO SET STRONGER OZONE 

            4    AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE 

            5    GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.  I'D 

            6    LIKE TO SHARE A FEW PIVOTAL MOMENTS IN MY LIFE THAT HAVE 

            7    LED ME TO SIT BEFORE YOU TODAY.  

            8             WHEN I WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD AND LIVING IN SAN 

            9    FRANCISCO, MY BEST FRIEND AUDREY CAME OVER, AS SHE 

           10    ALWAYS DID, TO LAUGH AND PLAY.  ON ONE OCCASION SHE 

           11    BROUGHT A GAS MASK, SO WE MADE UP A SURVIVAL GAME CALLED 

           12    "HELP, I CAN'T BREATHE," AND WE PRETENDED TO LIVE IN LOS 

           13    ANGELES AS WE PLACED THE GAS MASK OVER ONE ANOTHER'S 

           14    HEAD, BUT THIS GAME WASN'T ANY FUN.  WE NEVER LAUGHED.  

           15    "HELP, I CAN'T BREATHE" WAS A REAL DUD.  THEREFORE, WE 

           16    STOPPED PLAYING AND AGREED THAT LIVING IN LOS ANGELES 

           17    WAS SURELY INSANE AND ONLY FOR INSANE PEOPLE.  

           18             20 YEARS LATER, AT AGE 27, I LIVED IN 

           19    WASHINGTON DC AND WAS WORKING AS A NEWS REPORTER.  ONE 

           20    FATEFUL SATURDAY NIGHT, I WENT OUT DANCING.  AND UNDER A 

           21    FULL MOON, I FELL IN LOVE WITH A HANDSOME STRANGER WHO 

           22    HAPPENED TO LIVE IN LOS ANGELES.  BY MY OWN DEFINITION, 

           23    INSANITY SET IN AND I MOVED TO L.A.  NOW, 20 YEARS 

           24    LATER, I'M 47 AND STRUGGLING WITH THE REAL LIFE GAME I 

           25    INVENTED WHEN I WAS SEVEN, "HELP, I CAN'T BREATHE."  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       163


                                                                          

            1             ONLY MY DOCTOR RECENTLY GAVE IT A NEW NAME.  

            2    ASTHMA.  HE TOLD ME WHAT HAPPENS TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL 

            3    WHO'S DON'T TREAT ASTHMA.  EMPHYSEMA.  AND I SAY TO YOU 

            4    TODAY, HELP, I CAN'T BREATHE.  

            5             THIS IS A PHOTO FROM LAST SUMMER HIKING, AND IT 

            6    WAS HORRIBLE.  I COULDN'T BREATHE.  I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS 

            7    DEVELOPING ASTHMA.  I'M VERY ATHLETIC.  I THOUGHT, OH, I 

            8    CAN BE STRONG.  THERE'S PEOPLE HERE THAT THINK, OH, MIND 

            9    OVER MATTER.  IT'S NOT WORKING FOR ME.  

           10             OKAY.  YOU MUST SET STRONGER OZONE AIR 

           11    STANDARDS.  ENCOURAGE INDUSTRY TO STEP UP TO THE 

           12    INNOVATION PLATE AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MODIFY THEIR 

           13    BEHAVIOR.  IT'S POSSIBLE.  HOW DO I TREAT ASTHMA WITH 

           14    OZONE?  OZONE BURNS MY THROAT AND LUNGS, MAKES ME COUGH 

           15    ALL NIGHT, HURTS MY CHEST.  AT TIMES IT'S REALLY HARD TO 

           16    BREATHE.  A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, I WOKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF 

           17    THE NIGHT.  I SWEAR I WAS TRYING SO HARD TO GET THE 

           18    BREATH ALL OF THE WAY DOWN, AND I WENT TO THE BATHROOM 

           19    WINDOW TO TRY TO GET MORE AIR.  I MEAN, OF COURSE, WHAT 

           20    AIR WAS I BREATHING IN?  I DON'T KNOW.  

           21             HOW DO EMPHYSEMA SUFFERERS TREAT THEIR ILLNESS 

           22    WITH LOS ANGELES SMOG THAT, ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC 

           23    STUDIES, IS KILLING PEOPLE, AS I SPEAK, KILLING LIKE A 

           24    SLOW BULLET TO THE LUNGS.  

           25             MY BEST FRIEND'S MOTHER RECENTLY DIED A PAINFUL 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       164


                                                                          

            1    LUNG CANCER, DEATH AND LUNG CANCER IS VERY PAINFUL.  SHE 

            2    NEVER SMOKED, AND I THOUGHT FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, WHAT 

            3    AM I DOING LIVING IN THIS INSANE CITY?  I MOVED TO L.A. 

            4    WITH STRONG LUNGS, A STRONG BODY, AND DREAMS.  I FORGOT 

            5    IN THE WISDOM OF MY YOUTH.  AS A RESULT, I CREATED A 

            6    LIFE, A PR BUSINESS, FRIENDS, AND BREATHING PROBLEMS.  

            7    IT'S HARD TO START OVER, BUT OZONE, SMOG, AND TRAFFIC 

            8    HAVE CRUSHED MY DREAMS AND COMPROMISED MY HEALTH AND MY 

            9    LIFESTYLE.  I COULDN'T DO A LOT OF WHAT I USED TO DO.  

           10             I USED TO LIKE GOING TO THE SYMPHONY FRIDAY 

           11    NIGHT.  TOO MUCH TRAFFIC.  YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST -- THIS 

           12    CITY IS SOMETHING ELSE.  

           13             ANYWAY, ALL RIGHT.  THIS PAST YEAR I STARTED 

           14    TRAVELING TO OTHER STATES SEEKING CLEAN AIR IN WHICH TO 

           15    BREATHE AND HOPEFULLY TO MOVE TO.  I STARTED A BLOG 

           16    CALLED "CHASING CLEAN AIR" TO DOCUMENT MY SEARCH AND TO 

           17    SERVE AS A FORUM WHERE OTHERS CAN SHARE IDEAS.  I 

           18    STARTED MY JOURNEY IN NEW MEXICO, AND I GOT ALTITUDE 

           19    SICKNESS.  I DIDN'T KNOW THEN THAT ALTITUDE SICKNESS 

           20    OCCURS TO THOSE WHO HAVE LUNG DISEASE.  I DIDN'T KNOW I 

           21    HAD IT.  

           22             I RETURN -- I RECENTLY RETURNED FROM THE VERY 

           23    GREEN STATE OF WASHINGTON WHERE THERE IS SEVERAL CLEAN 

           24    AIR AREAS, AS WELL AS DIRTY WATER, BUT THAT'S A 

           25    DIFFERENT STORY.  BUT IN WASHINGTON, WITH THAT CLEAN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       165


                                                                          

            1    AIR, I EXPERIENCED A VERY SPECIAL MOMENT THAT WAS LIKE 

            2    AN EPIPHANY.  I WAS ON AN ISOLATED ISLAND SURROUNDED BY 

            3    THE TALL DOUGLAS FIR TREES, EXPANSIVE WATER, AND A 

            4    NEVER-ENDING BLUE SKY.  THE ONLY SOUND WAS A BIRD 

            5    CHIRPING ITS CONTENTMENT -- DOES THAT MEAN I'M DONE?  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER MINUTE.  

            7        DONNA BARNETT:  OKAY.  THE ONLY SOUND WAS A BIRD 

            8    CHIRPING ITS CONTENTMENT, AND I BECAME AWARE THAT THERE 

            9    WERE NO HONKING CARS, NO SOUNDS OF INDUSTRY, NO 

           10    VIBRATION OF A HUMMING CITY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THERE 

           11    WAS NO SMOG.  I COULD BREATHE EASILY.  THE AIR WENT ALL 

           12    THE WAY DOWN MY LUNGS, CIRCULATED THROUGHOUT MY BODY, 

           13    AND CAME OUT JUST AS EASILY AS IT HAD GONE IN.  THERE 

           14    WAS NOTHING TO DEFEND AGAINST.  I FELT SAFE.  IN THAT 

           15    MOMENT, I REALIZED HOW MUCH ENERGY I WASTED OVER THE 

           16    YEARS RESPONDING TO L.A.'S DIRTY AIR, WHETHER HAVING 

           17    DIFFICULTY BREATHING, CRINGING AT THE SITE OF SMOG 

           18    COVERED BUILDINGS, OR WONDERING HOW MUCH DAMAGE SMOG HAD 

           19    ALREADY DONE TO MY LUNGS.  

           20             THIS IS A PICTURE FROM TWO WEEKS AGO SAN 

           21    FRANCISCO FROM THE PLANE, L.A., ABOUT TO LAND AT LAX.  

           22    THAT'S WHAT YOU AND I ARE BREATHING RIGHT NOW.  ALL 

           23    RIGHT.  WHEN YOU LIVE HERE, YOU HEAR FRIGHTENING STORIES 

           24    ABOUT SMOG'S EFFECT ON YOUR HEALTH, AND THEN YOU LIVE IT 

           25    TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       166


                                                                          

            1             YOU WANT ME TO STOP?  

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  IF YOU COULD WRAP IT UP.

            3        DONNA BARNETT:  ALL RIGHT.  I HIGHLIGHTED -- THERE'S 

            4    BEEN A FEW STUDIES THAT HAVE COME OUT RECENTLY.  PEOPLE 

            5    LIVING IN L.A. COUNTY HAVE A 30 PERCENT GREATER CHANCE 

            6    OF GETTING CANCER THAN PEOPLE LIVING IN OTHER PARTS OF 

            7    THE COUNTRY OUTSIDE OF NEW WORK.  I ALSO HIGHLIGHT 

            8    WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS RECENTLY CAME OUT WITH 

            9    A STUDY.  SAME RESEARCHERS THAT FOUND THAT -- EXCUSE ME, 

           10    HORMONE REPLACEMENT IN WOMEN CAUSED BREAST CANCER.  THEY 

           11    HAVE RECENTLY COME OUT AND SAID THAT SMOG, ESPECIALLY 

           12    FOR WOMEN OVER 50 AFTER MENOPAUSE, HAVE A MUCH GREATER 

           13    RISK FOR PREMATURE DEATH.  

           14             SO I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY SAYING, PLEASE HELP ME 

           15    BREATHE.  HELP THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.  MAKE INDUSTRY 

           16    STEP UP TO THE INNOVATION PLATE AND WATCH THEM HIT A 

           17    HOME RUN INTO THE CLEAN AIR BECAUSE WE NEED IT, AND WE 

           18    NEED IT NOW.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

           20        JIM PASRACK:  MY NAME IS JIM PASRACK.  I'M A PRIVATE 

           21    CITIZEN.  I FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE SITTING BY A 

           22    FELLOW LAYMAN THAN I WOULD A SCIENTIST, BUT I THANK YOU 

           23    FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT UP HERE AND ADDRESS THIS.  

           24    IT'S JUST A REAL SYMBOL OF WHAT A FINE, FINE COUNTRY 

           25    THAT THIS IS THAT WE LIVE IN WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF THAT.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       167


                                                                          

            1             I AM BY ALL DEFINITIONS A TRANSPLANTED REDNECK 

            2    FROM TEXAS.  I GREW UP IN WHAT USED TO BE THE RURAL 

            3    AREAS OUTSIDE OF DALLAS.  MY FAMILY IS A MILITARY, 

            4    CATTLE, AND OIL FAMILY.  SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THE IDEOLOGY 

            5    INGRAINED INTO ME FROM GROWING UP THAT WAY.  

            6             BUT I TELL YOU, EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN 

            7    INGRAINED HAS BEEN UNDONE BY JUST DAY-TO-DAY 

            8    OBSERVATIONS OF LIVING IN THIS CITY, THE CITY OF LOS 

            9    ANGELES.  YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S SUCH -- THERE'S SUCH 

           10    VALUE IN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.  THERE'S SO MANY WONDERFUL 

           11    THINGS THAT SCIENCE CAN DO FOR US; BUT I THINK WHETHER 

           12    YOU'RE A SCIENTIST OR POLITICIAN OR A CLERGYMAN, I THINK 

           13    A GOOD GIANT DOSE OF COMMON SENSE DOES EVERYBODY A WHOLE 

           14    LOT OF GOOD.  

           15             I'M GLAD THAT ILLUSTRATION IS UP THERE BECAUSE 

           16    I DON'T HAVE PERFECT VISION, BUT I DON'T NEED TO TAKE A 

           17    LOOK AND SEE THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE, AND I'M GLAD 

           18    THAT IT'S BEING ADDRESSED.  I LOOK AT THE CHANGES THAT 

           19    THIS COUNTRY HAS MADE WHEN THE TIME FOR THE CHANGES 

           20    COMES, AND I DON'T THINK SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAS EVER 

           21    REALLY BEEN THE PREVALENT FACTOR.  I DON'T THINK THERE 

           22    WAS A LOT OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS TIME FOR 

           23    SLAVERY TO COME TO AN END, BUT I THINK THERE WAS A 

           24    TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF HUMAN EVIDENCE.  AND I THINK THAT'S 

           25    THE CONVERGENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE'RE AT NOW.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       168


                                                                          

            1             SCIENCE CAN DO A LOT FOR US, BUT OUR OWN EYES, 

            2    OUR OWN EARS, AND ESPECIALLY OUR OWN HEARTS, I THINK, 

            3    CAN DO QUITE A BIT MORE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S REALLY 

            4    HAPPENING.  I LOOK AROUND, AND I SIT NEXT TO A KIND 

            5    WOMAN WHO SUFFERS BECAUSE THE AIR SHE BREATHES IS 

            6    POLLUTED, AND I DON'T NEED A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR 

            7    THAT.  I LOOK AT THAT PICTURE, AND I KNOW THAT IT AIN'T 

            8    RIGHT COMPARED TO THE WAY THE SKIES HERE USED TO LOOK 

            9    LIKE.  

           10             PARTS PER MILLION IS AN ISSUE THAT'S BEING 

           11    ADDRESSED, AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT'S 

           12    BEING ADDRESSED; BUT I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE IS 

           13    BEING IN THE POSITION OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE ARE 

           14    PERSONALLY VERY GRATEFUL FOR BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE 

           15    CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT WHAT YOU GUYS DO.  WE CAN ONLY 

           16    SUPPORT IT.  I JUST WANT TO SAY IS, THE QUESTION THAT 

           17    WE'RE ASKING OURSELVES OR THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE 

           18    ASKING YOURSELVES IS, WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE IT LOOK 

           19    LIKE WE'RE INVOLVED IN MAKING A CHANGE OR WHAT CAN WE 

           20    TRULY DO THAT WILL BE THE MOST BENEFICIAL FOR THE MOST 

           21    NUMBER OF PEOPLE?  

           22             I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK 

           23    IN YOUR HEARTS, AND I THINK, AGAIN, THAT SCIENCE WON'T 

           24    TAKE YOU THERE, BUT I CERTAINLY THINK YOU CAN 

           25    PARTICIPATE IN THE SOLUTION.  IF THE ANSWER IS WE'D LIKE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       169


                                                                          

            1    TO CALM EVERYBODY DOWN BY SAYING CHANGES ARE BEING MADE 

            2    BUT THE BIGGEST AND THE BEST CHANGES FOR THE LIVING, 

            3    BREATHING HUMAN BEING ON EARTH IS NOT BEING MADE, I 

            4    THINK WE'VE GOT TO ASK OURSELVES WHY AND THEN HOW CAN WE 

            5    MAKE THAT CHANGE?  

            6             AND HERE'S THE OTHER THING:  LIKE I SAID, I'M 

            7    STUBBORN, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT AS SCHOOLED AS MANY 

            8    PEOPLE, AND I WOULD THINK TO SAY IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT 

            9    I'VE BEEN STUCK IN MY WAYS FOR A LONG TIME; BUT IF YOU 

           10    ASK US TO DO SOMETHING, WE'LL DO IT.  AS PEOPLE.  AS 

           11    PRIVATE CITIZENS.  IF YOU SAY IT'S IMPORTANT TO US THAT 

           12    THIS STOPS IF WE MAKE THE CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO 

           13    BENEFIT EVERYBODY AND YOU MANDATE IT HOWEVER YOU GOT TO 

           14    OR YOU ENCOURAGE IT WITH INCENTIVES, HOWEVER YOU GOT TO, 

           15    WE'LL DO IT.  THAT'S THE WAY THIS COUNTRY'S WORKED FOR A 

           16    LONG TIME.  A VERY LONG TIME.  

           17             SO I JUST -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU FACE IN 

           18    TERMS OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO PRESENT TO A LEGISLATIVE BODY 

           19    TO GET CHANGE, BUT I DO KNOW THERE IS VERY HUMAN 

           20    EVIDENCE ALL AROUND US, AND NONE OF YOU GUYS GOT HERE BY 

           21    BEING FOOLISH.  COMMON SENSE IS, I WOULD IMAGINE, A HUGE 

           22    PART OF YOUR JOURNEY TO BEING ABLE TO SIT IN THOSE 

           23    COVETED CHAIRS THAT YOU SIT IN NOW.  AND I JUST WANT TO 

           24    SAY THAT TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S THE MOST WE 

           25    CAN DO INSTEAD OF THE LEAST THAT WE CAN DO, ASK HOW AND 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       170


                                                                          

            1    THEN TELL US WHAT TO DO AND WE'LL DO IT.  PERIOD.  

            2             I THINK THIS IS WONDERFUL, AND I APPRECIATE 

            3    YALL'S TIME, JUST TO BE HERE FOR US TO COME, AND A 

            4    GOOFBALL LIKE ME TO COME UP HERE AND SAY A COUPLE 

            5    THINGS.  I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU AND YOUR 

            7    CONTRIBUTING AND ALL OF THE FOLKS THAT HAVE SPOKEN TODAY 

            8    ARE CONTRIBUTING TO OUR EFFORTS TO TRY TO SORT THROUGH 

            9    WHAT WE CAN DO NEXT.  SO WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL THE 

           10    TIME YOU'VE TAKEN TO COME SPEAK TO US.  IT MEANS A GREAT 

           11    DEAL TO US.  

           12             AT THIS POINT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A LUNCH 

           13    BREAK UNTIL ABOUT AN HOUR FROM NOW.  2:15.  

           14             (WHEREUPON A 75-MINUTE LUNCH WAS TAKEN.)

           15             

           16             

           17             

           18             

           19             

           20             

           21             

           22             

           23             

           24             

           25             

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       171


                                                                          

            1       LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2007

            2                           2:25 P.M.

            3                             * * *

            4    

            5             MS. WEGMAN:  I THINK WE'RE READY TO START.  

            6    I'LL START OUT BY THANKING EVERYBODY FOR COMING.  WE 

            7    VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE EFFORT YOU'VE MADE TO COME AND 

            8    SPEAK TO US TODAY ABOUT OUR OZONE PROPOSAL.  MY NAME IS 

            9    LYDIA WEGMAN.  I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH AND 

           10    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DIVISION IN THE OFFICE OF AIR AND 

           11    RADIATION IN EPA.  AND WITH ME IS MATT HABER, WHO IS THE 

           12    DEPUTY DIVISION DIRECTOR IN OUR AIR DIVISION IN REGION 

           13    9, AND JOHN HANNON, WHO'S THE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL 

           14    FOR OUR OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL.  

           15             WE ARE VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING 

           16    YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.  AS I THINK YOU ALL KNOW, WE 

           17    PROPOSED A CHANGE TO OUR OZONE STANDARD ON JULY 11TH, 

           18    AND WE ARE TAKING COMMENT FOR 90 DAYS ON THAT PROPOSAL.  

           19    AND THE COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES ON OCTOBER 9TH, AND YOU 

           20    ARE WELCOME TO SUBMIT COMMENTS UNTIL THAT TIME.  WRITTEN 

           21    COMMENTS, OF COURSE, ARE WELCOME AFTER THE HEARING 

           22    TODAY.  

           23             WE WILL BE GOING FINAL WITH OUR RULE BY MARCH 

           24    12TH.  WE HAVE A CONSENT DECREE THAT REQUIRES US TO GO 

           25    FINAL WITH THE RULE BY MARCH 12TH, AND WE HAVE PROPOSED 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       172


                                                                          

            1    CHANGES TO BOTH THE PRIMARY AND THE SECONDARY STANDARD, 

            2    AS I'M SURE YOU ARE ALL AWARE SINCE YOU ARE HERE TODAY.  

            3             THIS IS ONE OF FIVE HEARINGS THAT WE'RE HAVING 

            4    ON THIS PROPOSAL.  THERE'S ONE GOING ON TODAY IN 

            5    PHILADELPHIAROTH, THEN THERE WILL BE THREE NEXT WEEK IN 

            6    ATLANTA, CHICAGO, AND HOUSTON.  AND I THINK THOSE ARE 

            7    THE MAIN OVERVIEW POINTS I'LL MAKE.  

            8             AND THEN JUST ABOUT THE HEARING PROCEDURE.  

            9    WHAT I WILL DO IS CALL THE SCHEDULED SPEAKERS FIRST.  

           10    THEY'LL COME UP TOGETHER, AND THEY'LL BOTH STAY AT THE 

           11    TABLE UNTIL EACH OF YOU HAS FINISHED SPEAKING.  WE'D 

           12    APPRECIATE THAT.  IF YOU CAN, PLEASE, STATE YOUR NAME 

           13    AND AFFILIATION WHEN YOU START SPEAKING, THAT WILL HELP 

           14    OUR COURT REPORTER.  THE TESTIMONY IS LIMITED TO FIVE 

           15    MINUTES EACH, AND THERE IS A TIMER THERE THAT WILL BE 

           16    GREEN WHEN YOU START, AND WHEN YOU'VE GOT ONE MINUTE 

           17    REMAINING, THE YELLOW LIGHT WILL COME ON, AND THEN THE 

           18    RED LIGHT WILL COME ON WHEN FIVE MINUTES IS UP.  IF YOU 

           19    ARE NOT QUITE FINISHED SPEAKING, WE ASK YOU TO KIND OF 

           20    WRAP UP YOUR TESTIMONY AT THAT POINT SO WE CAN ALLOW 

           21    EVERYBODY AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF TIME.  

           22             I THINK THOSE ARE THE MAIN POINTS.  WE HAD A 

           23    LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE MIKE THIS MORNING, BUT WE NOW 

           24    HAVE A MIKE, WHICH I THINK WORKS CONSTANTLY.  SO I THINK 

           25    WITH THAT OVERVIEW, WE'LL START UP AGAIN.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       173


                                                                          

            1             THE FIRST TWO SPEAKERS ARE COLLEEN CALLAHAN AND 

            2    JOAN DAVIDSON.  AND, PLEASE, SPEAK IN THE MIKE.  WE HAVE 

            3    A COURT REPORTER HERE, SO --

            4        COLLEEN CALLAHAN:  IF I HAVE A CD --

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  GIVE IT TO DARREN.  

            6        COLLEEN CALLAHAN:  GOOD AFTERNOON.  I HOPE EVERYONE 

            7    HAD A GOOD LUNCH.  MY NAME IS COLLEEN CALLAHAN, AND I 

            8    THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY AS A MEMBER 

            9    OF THE ASTHMA COALITION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  

           10             WE REQUEST THAT EPA STRENGTHEN THE EIGHT-HOUR 

           11    OZONE STANDARD TO .006 PARTS PER MILLION.  THE SCIENCE 

           12    IS CLEAR.  YOUR ONLY SCIENTIFIC REVIEW COMMITTEE AGREES 

           13    THAT THE CURRENT OZONE STANDARD DOES NOT PROTECT PUBLIC 

           14    HEALTH FROM THIS DANGEROUS AND WIDE-SPREAD POLLUTANT.  

           15    OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, INCLUDING REVIEWS BY 

           16    DISTINGUISHED AND INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS, CONFIRM THAT 

           17    PUBLIC HEALTH IS SERIOUSLY AT RISK AND THAT AMERICANS 

           18    NEED MORE PROTECTION FROM OZONE.  

           19             MEMBERS OF THE ASTHMA COALITION OF LOS ANGELES 

           20    COUNTY WORK WITH ASTHMATIC CHILDREN ON A DAILY BASIS IN 

           21    A SCHOOL SETTING, IN A CLINIC SETTING, AND IN THE HOME 

           22    SETTING.  WE KNOW NOT JUST FROM THE OVERWHELMING 

           23    SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE BUT ALSO FROM FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCES 

           24    THAT OZONE, EVEN AT RELATIVELY LOW LEVELS, CAN TRIGGER 

           25    LIFE-THREATENING ASTHMA ATTACKS.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       174


                                                                          

            1             THE NUMBER OF HOSPITALIZATIONS FOR PEOPLE 

            2    LIVING WITH LUNG DISEASE INCREASES WHEN OZONE LEVELS 

            3    INCREASE.  ADDITIONALLY, CHILDREN ARE AFFECTED, 

            4    PARTICULARLY WHEN OZONE LEVELS GO UP.  WHEN THEY GO UP, 

            5    CHILDREN DEVELOP MORE ACUTE RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS CAUSING 

            6    THEM TO MISS SCHOOL.  THESE ABSENCES CREATE AN ADDED 

            7    ECONOMIC BURDEN FOR CAREGIVERS AND ALSO FOR SCHOOL 

            8    DISTRICTS WHICH WILL LOSE MONEY BECAUSE THEY RECEIVE 

            9    MONEY ON A PER-PUPIL FUNDING SYSTEM.  THEY ALSO 

           10    INTERFERE WITH THE CHILDREN'S EDUCATION.  SO CHILDREN 

           11    AND PEOPLE LIVING WITH RESPIRATORY DISEASES, LIKE 

           12    ASTHMA, ARE AT PARTICULAR RISK.  

           13             BUT I WILL ALSO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT OZONE IS 

           14    DANGEROUS FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE.  OZONE NOT ONLY 

           15    AFFECTS THE MILLIONS OF ASTHMATIC CHILDREN BUT THE 

           16    HEALTHIEST AND MOST ACTIVE PEOPLE.  THE ATHLETES ARE 

           17    ALSO PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE.  RESEARCH FROM THE 

           18    CHILDREN'S HEALTH STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF 

           19    SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FINDS THAT OZONE CAN ACTUALLY CAUSE 

           20    ASTHMA IN OTHERWISE HEALTHY CHILDREN.  THIS RESEARCH 

           21    PROVES THAT ACTIVE CHILDREN WHO PLAY GAMES OR SPORTS 

           22    OUTDOORS IN COMMUNITIES WITH HIGH LEVELS OF OZONE 

           23    DEVELOP ASTHMA MORE OFTEN THAN APPEARS IN LESS POLLUTED 

           24    COMMUNITIES.  EVERYONE, INCLUDING ADULTS WHO EXERCISE 

           25    OUTSIDE, IS AT RISK.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       175


                                                                          

            1             TO ADDRESS THE HEALTHCARE CRISIS CAUSED BY THE 

            2    NATION'S OBESITY EPIDEMIC, SURELY WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE 

            3    PEOPLE TO BE ACTIVE AND EXERCISE OUTDOORS; BUT 

            4    UNFORTUNATELY WHEN OZONE LEVELS ARE HIGH, WE HAVE TO 

            5    TELL PEOPLE TO STAY IN DOORS.  THIS IS TOO OFTEN THE 

            6    CASE IN LOS ANGELES AND IN OTHER AREAS OF THE COUNTRY 

            7    WHERE OZONE LEVELS ARE HIGH ON TOO MANY DAYS.  SO 

            8    CLEARLY OZONE CAUSES HIGH HEALTH AND SOCIAL COSTS ON A 

            9    LARGE SCALE.  

           10             THE PROPOSED .07 PARTS PER MILLION TO .075 

           11    PARTS PER MILLION STANDARD DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH TO 

           12    MAINTAIN THE ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH 

           13    AS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN AIR ACT.  AMERICANS ARE 

           14    COUNTING ON THE EPA TO DELIVER CLEAN HEALTHY AIR AND TO 

           15    REJECT PRESSURE FROM BIG OIL AND OTHER INDUSTRIES 

           16    WANTING THE WEAK STATUS QUO STANDARD.  THE STATUS QUO 

           17    MEANS MORE LIVES WILL BE LOST.  

           18             ON THE OTHER HAND, A STRONGER STANDARD MEANS 

           19    THAT REAL PEOPLE WILL LIVE HEALTHIER LIVES BECAUSE THE 

           20    EPA MADE THE CORRECT DECISION AND SET THE STANDARD AT 

           21    .06 PARTS PER MILLION.  SO WHILE OUR SKIES MAY NOT BE 

           22    CLEAR, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE VERY CLEAR.  THE 

           23    PUBLIC IS CLEAR WITH YOU TODAY, THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR, 

           24    AND THE LAW IS CLEAR.  NOW THE EPA HAS THE MORAL AND 

           25    LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO STRENGTHEN THE OZONE STANDARD 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       176


                                                                          

            1    AND SET THAT BAR HIGH.  

            2             CLEAN HEALTHY AIR IS NOT A LUXURY.  IT'S NOT AN 

            3    OPTION.  IT'S NOT A PRIVILEGE FOR A SELECT FEW.  CLEAN 

            4    HEALTHY AIR IS A RIGHT, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO EPA 

            5    MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION AND PROTECTING THE AIR FOR 

            6    YOUR FAMILY, FOR OUR FAMILIES, AND FOR EVERYONE IN 

            7    AMERICA.  THANK YOU.  

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

            9        JOAN DAVIDSON:  HI, MY NAME IS JOAN DAVIDSON.  I'M 

           10    PAST FORMER PRESIDENT OF PALOS VERDES UNIFIED SCHOOL 

           11    DISTRICT AND A PRESENT TEACHER IN SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL, AND 

           12    I'M HERE TODAY REPRESENTING THE SIERRA CLUB AND THE 

           13    SOUTH BAY OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE.  

           14             WE HAVE TWO GOALS FOR OUR TASK FORCE, BUT THEY 

           15    BOTH ARE TO RESTORE GLIDED AND UNUTILIZED SITES FOR 

           16    PUBLIC USE.  THE PUBLIC SPACE IS NO GOOD IF YOU CAN'T 

           17    BREATHE.  

           18             ON THE LEFT YOU SEE THE PALOS VERDES LANDFILL.  

           19    I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY TODAY.  

           20    THIS LAND AND THE COMMUNITY IS IN DANGER RIGHT NOW 

           21    BECAUSE THE OWNERS, THE L.A. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, 

           22    WANT TO CLOSE THE GUEST ENERGY CENTER, WHICH WILL HAVE 

           23    DEVASTATING EFFECTS ON THE COMMUNITY.  THE LANDFILL IS A 

           24    CLASS 1 TOXIC 1 LANDFILL, CONTAINS 47 BILLION POUNDS OF 

           25    HAZARDOUS WASTE.  IT ACCEPTED 40 PERCENT OF THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       177


                                                                          

            1    HAZARDOUS WASTE FOR THE L.A. REGION.  IT WAS A 

            2    CO-DISPOSAL SITE EJECTING TOXIC LIQUIDS INTO SOLID WASTE 

            3    ON A DAILY BASIS FROM '52 TO 1980.  IT'S IN A VERY 

            4    DENSELY POPULATED AREA.  

            5             THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE HISTORY.  YOU 

            6    CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT THAT GETTY OPENED THE FIRST 

            7    RECOVERY PLANT FOR GASES IN THE MID '70S BECAUSE THE 

            8    GASES WERE MIGRATING INTO THE AIR.  THIS SITE WAS 

            9    UNFORTUNATELY A BEAUTIFUL SITE CALLED TEN HILLS AND THIS 

           10    IS WHAT HAPPENED TO IT.  THIS IS MARCH 1966.  YOU CAN 

           11    SEE THE WASTE SLUDGE PITS.  UNFORTUNATELY, TODAY 

           12    EVERYTHING THAT WAS DUMPED INTO THAT LANDFILL IS COMING 

           13    OUT OF STACKS, THAT YOU'LL SEE IN A MOMENT, INTO THE 

           14    AIR.  

           15             THIS IS PARCELS THAT MAKE UP THE LANDFILL.  

           16    THEY ALL WERE DUMPING TOXIC CLASS 1, THE MOST HAZARDOUS 

           17    WASTE, ALTHOUGH ONLY ONE, PARCEL 6, WHICH IS AT THE 

           18    NORTH END BOUNDARY.  SO IT WAS MIGRATING OFF SITE.  

           19    HERE'S WHERE YOU SEE GETTY WAS THE FIRST METHANE GAS 

           20    RECOVERY PLANT.  HERE'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS BUILT 

           21    UP, BELOW, AND NORTH.  

           22             UNFORTUNATELY THESE PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING 

           23    GREATLY IN THE LEFT-HAND -- LET'S SEE.  RIGHT THERE IS 

           24    THE GAS TO ENERGY FACILITY AND GASES ARE SPEWING OUT 

           25    DAILY 24/7.  BY 1995 THEY HAD PUT UP FACT SHEETS TO THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       178


                                                                          

            1    COMMUNITY TO SEE WHERE THE CONTAMINATION IS GOING OFF 

            2    SITE.  THESE ARE PLUMES.  

            3             THIS IS THE TITLE 5 GAS TO ENERGY CENTER.  

            4    TITLE 5 IS A PERMIT GIVEN BY THE HMD IDENTIFYING US AS A 

            5    MAJOR SOURCE POLLUTER.  THIS IS THE DENSELY POPULATED 

            6    NEIGHBORHOOD.  WE HAVE VISIONS TO MAKE IT SAFE AND HAVE 

            7    SOME FUTURE PLANS, BUT NOT UNTIL IT IS SAFE.  THEY WANT 

            8    TO CLOSE DOWN THIS CENTER.  MORE POLLUTION WILL MAKE 

            9    MORE OZONE.  WE DON'T WANT THAT IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND 

           10    WE'RE COUNTING ON THE EPA.  

           11             THE EPA HAS CALCULATIONS THAT SHOW THE BENEFITS 

           12    TO KEEP THIS GOING.  THIS IS THE GAS TO ENERGY CENTER.  

           13    JANUARY 30TH THEY GOT A TITLE 5 PERMIT.  DECISIONS HAVE 

           14    BEEN MADE WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT AND NOTIFICATION.  WE DO 

           15    NOT BELIEVE THIS MEETS THE INTENT OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, 

           16    AND WE'RE HOPING THAT THE EPA WILL FORCE THE CLEAN AIR 

           17    ACT AND NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.  IF THEIR PLAN GOES 

           18    THROUGH, IT WILL TRIPLE THE CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS 

           19    FROM 46 POUNDS A YEAR TO ALMOST TRIPLE TO 114 POUNDS A 

           20    DAY OR 21 TONS A YEAR.  WE ALREADY KNOW THE EFFECTS OF 

           21    CARBON MONOXIDE WHEN IT ENTERS THE BLOOD STREAM.  

           22             THERE ARE 16 SCHOOLS THAT SURROUND US.  AS A 

           23    SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, I'M ADVOCATING FOR CHILDREN.  

           24    THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY.  THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN WILL 

           25    BE AFFECTED.  THE EFFECTS OF THESE EMISSIONS ON CHILDREN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       179


                                                                          

            1    HAVE NOT BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY STUDIED.  THERE'S BEEN NO 

            2    STUDY TO SHOW THE EFFECTS OF THE VOC'S AND THE NOX 

            3    EMISSIONS THROUGH THE GAS STACKS THAT WILL FORM 

            4    ADDITIONAL OZONE INTO THIS ATMOSPHERE.  THE PROJECT 

            5    SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT AN AIR QUALITY E.I.R., 

            6    AND THE L.A. COUNTY SANITATION IS REFUSING TO DO THIS.  

            7    THE QUESTION IS WHY.  

            8             THE SURROUNDING CITIES, SCHOOL BOARDS, 

            9    ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND STATE NEED TO TAKE ACTION TO 

           10    STOP THIS PROJECT THAT WILL AFFECT THE HEALTH OF THE 

           11    COMMUNITY.  THIS IS MY CONTACT INFORMATION, AND WHAT I 

           12    ASK THE EPA TODAY IS TO PUT INTO EFFECT THE MOST 

           13    STRINGENT RULES POSSIBLE.  I'M ASKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

           14    JUSTICE FOR ALL.  NOT FOR ONE COMMUNITY.  FOR ALL.  

           15    EVERY CITY.  EVERY TOWN.  EVERY CHILD IN THE UNITED 

           16    STATES.  WE HAVE LAWS.  WE HAVE REGULATIONS.  WE HAVE 

           17    STANDARDS.  WE NEED TO ENFORCE THEM, AND I AM HOPING 

           18    THAT YOU WILL FORCE THE LOWEST POSSIBLE EMISSIONS 

           19    STANDARDS FOR OZONE.  THANK YOU.  

           20        MR. HABER:  I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, PLEASE.

           21        JOAN DAVIDSON:  YES, I'M SORRY.  

           22        MR. HABER:  WHEN YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT WHAT'S DONE IN 

           23    THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS -- WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY, I 

           24    THINK, IS THAT THERE'S A PLAN FOR GAS TO ENERGY FACILITY 

           25    TO BE CLOSED AND THAT A PROJECT, WHICH I DON'T THINK YOU 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       180


                                                                          

            1    SPECIFIED, AS A RESULT WOULD INCREASE A CERTAIN AMOUNT 

            2    OF EMISSIONS.  

            3             I'M WONDERING, PERHAPS, IF THERE ARE FLARES 

            4    THAT ARE BEING INSTALLED INSTEAD?  

            5        JOAN DAVIDSON:  THANK YOU, YES.  I WAS TRYING TO 

            6    STAY UNDER FIVE MINUTES.  THEY -- BECAUSE OF OUR 

            7    INSISTENCE, THEY HAVE AGREED TO PUT IN SOME TURBINES, 

            8    BUT THEY WILL FLARE 75 PERCENT OF THE GAS.  AND I HAVE 

            9    STATED TO THEM THAT A FLARE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A 

           10    FLARE, AND THIS WILL NOT LOWER ANY OF THE EMISSIONS.  IT 

           11    WILL STAY THE SAME, WHICH IS A TITLE 5 PERMIT, WHICH 

           12    MEANS IT'S OVER THE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS, BUT IT'S BEEN 

           13    GRANTED.  SO THE TITLE 5 PERMIT IN LOS ANGELES JUST 

           14    IDENTIFIES THAT IT'S A MAJOR SOURCE POLLUTER, BUT IT 

           15    DOESN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.  

           16             NOW THEY WANT TO MAKE IT WORSE, AND WHAT I'M 

           17    ASKING FOR IS SOME HELP IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE WE DON'T 

           18    WANT TO HAVE 46 POUNDS A DAY OF CARBON MONOXIDE TURN TO 

           19    114.  THAT'S MUCH WORSE FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND SOME OF 

           20    THE HOMES ARE SIX FEET AWAY.  THERE ARE TWO CHURCH 

           21    PRESCHOOLS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY.  THE GAS 

           22    MIST OR POLLUTANTS ARE LITERALLY RAINING ON TOP OF 

           23    PEOPLE'S HOMES AND ON TOP OF THE CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND 

           24    AND THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE.  AND TO MAKE IT WORSE IS 

           25    UNCONSCIONABLE.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       181


                                                                          

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH.  

            2             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE THEODORE POLYCHRONIS AND 

            3    FELICIA WILLIAMS.  

            4        THEODORE POLYCHRONIS:  THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY 

            5    TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU.  MY NAME IS THEODORE POLYCHRONIS.  

            6    I'M AN ENGINEER, AND I HAVE DEVOTED ALMOST 40 YEARS IN 

            7    MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE IN THE CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION.  

            8    I'M HERE TODAY BOTH AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND AS AN 

            9    AFFILIATE WITH THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS.  

           10             I'M DISTRESSED TO NOTE THAT OVER THE LAST FEW 

           11    YEARS THE EPA HAS POLITICIZED ITS ACTIVITIES AND 

           12    DECISIONS TO A DEGREE THAT IT HAS UNDERMINED AND UNDONE 

           13    THE WORK THAT MY COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE DONE, PUSHING US 

           14    BACK ALMOST 40 YEARS.  I'M HERE TO DEMAND ON BEHALF OF 

           15    MY FAMILY, FRIENDS, COLLEAGUES, AND PRESENT AND FUTURE 

           16    CHILDREN THAT THE EPA CHANGE ITS COURSE AND ADOPT, 

           17    IMPLEMENT, AND ENFORCE THE STRICTEST POSSIBLE POLLUTION 

           18    LIMITS BASED ON SCIENCE AND NOT ON IDEOLOGICAL OR 

           19    POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS.  

           20             IN THE PRESENT MATTER, I SHALL NOT DISCUSS THE 

           21    ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE HIGH OZONE CONCENTRATION ON THE 

           22    POPULATION, WHICH ARE WELL DOCUMENTED BY OTHERS.  

           23             I ASK THAT THE EPA ADOPT, IMPLEMENT, AND 

           24    ENFORCE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY 

           25    AND THE CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       182


                                                                          

            1    BRING THE OZONE STANDARD TO THE .06 TO .07 PARTS PER 

            2    MILLION LEVEL WITH NO LOOPHOLES OR GIMMICKS, SUCH AS THE 

            3    PRESENT ROUNDING DOWN OF THE GLOBALS, ET CETERA.  

            4             I ALSO ASK THAT THE EPA ADMINISTRATION REFRESH 

            5    ITS COLLECTIVE MEMORY BY REREADING ITS ORIGINAL 

            6    DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE 

            7    AGENCY AND ACCORDINGLY IN THE FUTURE.  

            8             THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            9        FELICIA WILLIAMS:  HI, MY NAME IS FELICIA WILLIAMS.  

           10    I'M A MEMBER OF PASADENA GLOBAL WARMING ACTION GROUP, 

           11    AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  

           12             FIRST, I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE EPA ON THE 

           13    PROGRESS IT HAS MADE IN THE PAST.  WHEN I WAS A KID, WE 

           14    HAD SMOG DAYS, AND MY EAST COAST FRIENDS MADE FUN OF ME 

           15    BECAUSE THEY HAD SNOW DAYS.  SO THE AIR IS CLEANER NOW, 

           16    BUT I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE THE EPA TO KEEP MOVING IN 

           17    THAT DIRECTION AND CAPITALIZE ON THE EFFORTS THAT HAVE 

           18    BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.  

           19             SO THE FIRST COMMENT I HAD IS TO ELIMINATE THE 

           20    OPTION TO KEEP THE CURRENT STANDARD OF .08 AS THE 

           21    PRIMARY AND SECONDARY.  I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE AN 

           22    OPTION GIVEN THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AND I THINK WE 

           23    SHOULD MOVE IN A FORWARD DIRECTION.  

           24             SECONDLY, I WOULD PROPOSE TO FURTHER TIGHTEN 

           25    THE STANDARDS TO A LEVEL THAT IS LESS THAN .07, AND I 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       183


                                                                          

            1    WOULD RECOMMEND BETWEEN .06 AND .07, AND I THINK THAT 

            2    WOULD BE A GOOD STANDARD THAT WOULD PROMOTE HEALTH AND 

            3    ALSO ENCOURAGE COMPLIANCE.  SO THANK YOU.  

            4        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  OUR NEXT SPEAKERS 

            5    ARE TRISHA ROTH AND DEANN MCEWEN.  

            6        TRICIA ROTH, M.D.:  MY NAME IS TRISHA ROTH, AND I AM 

            7    A PHYSICIAN VOLUNTEERING WITH THE AMERICAN LUNG 

            8    ASSOCIATION, AND I'M A PEDIATRICIAN REPRESENTING THE 

            9    AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS IN CALIFORNIA.  

           10             I HAVE WORKED ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE SINCE 1998 AND 

           11    WAS WORKING ON ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE ISSUES AND 

           12    GOT INVOLVED WITH EPA HEARINGS ON THAT.  I'VE BEEN 

           13    INVOLVED WITH ACQUIRED HEARINGS AND EPA MATTERS.  

           14             I HAVE PRACTICED PEDIATRICS IN CALIFORNIA SINCE 

           15    1973, AND I'VE BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE IN LOS ANGELES 

           16    COUNTY SINCE 1983.  I'VE TAUGHT FOR THE UC SYSTEM, WAS A 

           17    VOLUNTEER CLINICAL INSTRUCTOR SINCE '73, AND CURRENTLY 

           18    AN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AT CEDAR SINAI MEDICAL CENTER.  

           19    IN MY 25 YEARS OF PRACTICE IN LOS ANGELES, I'VE TREATED 

           20    INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND ADOLESCENTS WITH ASTHMA AND OTHER 

           21    FORMS OF LUNG DISEASE.  I'M CURRENTLY INVOLVED WITH SOME 

           22    OF THE NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT GRADUATES WHERE I 

           23    SEE PREMATURE BABIES WITH CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE, AND THEY 

           24    NEED ALL THE HELP THAT THEY CAN GET.  ALL THE HELP THAT 

           25    WE CAN GIVE THEM.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       184


                                                                          

            1             OF THE CURRENT PROBLEM CONTINUES IN LOS 

            2    ANGELES, WE WILL BE EXPOSING THEM TO HEAVY AIR POLLUTION 

            3    EXACERBATING AN ALREADY FRAGILE LUNG CONDITION.  THE 

            4    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF THE AIR 

            5    REPORT INDICATES THAT LOS ANGELES COUNTY HAS RECEIVED AN 

            6    F FOR A VERY HIGH NUMBER OF OZONE POLLUTION DAYS THAT 

            7    TRANSLATE INTO APPROXIMATELY 244,000 CHILDREN SUFFERING 

            8    FROM ASTHMA.  OZONE CAN TRIGGER ASTHMA, AND THIS IS THE 

            9    LEADING CAUSE OF -- THE LEADING CAUSE IN ABSENTEEISM IN 

           10    SCHOOL IS ASTHMA, WHICH AS YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE KEEPS 

           11    CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL, KEEPS PARENTS FROM WORKING, 

           12    KEEPS SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM GETTING INCOME.  

           13             THE POOR AIR QUALITY PROHIBITS CHILDREN FROM 

           14    PLAYING OUTDOORS AND ADVANCE TO OUR ALREADY EPIDEMIC 

           15    PROPORTION OF YOUNG PEOPLE WITH OBESITY.  OZONE REDUCES 

           16    PHYSICAL FITNESS IN LITTLE PEOPLE AND BIG PEOPLE.  I'M 

           17    AN AMATEUR ATHLETE, AND I'VE DONE THE L.A. MARATHON.  

           18    I'VE PARTICIPATED FOUR TIMES, FINISHED TWICE, AND I 

           19    WON'T TELL YOU MY TIME, BUT OUTSIDE EXERCISE IS 

           20    REVISED -- ADVISED AGAINST ON ALL OUTDOOR VENUES WHEN 

           21    THE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS RISE TO UNHEALTHY 

           22    LEVELS FOR BOTH CHILDREN AND ADULTS.  

           23             CHILDREN, ALONG WITH SENIOR CITIZENS AND PEOPLE 

           24    WHO ALREADY SUFFER FROM LUNG DISEASE, ARE OUR MOST 

           25    VULNERABLE POPULATION BECAUSE THEIR LUNGS ARE STILL 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       185


                                                                          

            1    DEVELOPING AND BECAUSE THEY, HOPEFULLY, SPEND SO MUCH 

            2    TIME OUTDOORS.  THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH STUDY CONDUCTED 

            3    HERE AT USC, THE OTHER SCHOOL, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT 

            4    HEAVY AIR POLLUTION CAN DECREASE LUNG FUNCTION IN 

            5    CHILDREN.  

            6             IF WE DON'T SET STANDARDS THAT IS PROTECTIVE OF 

            7    PUBLIC HEALTH, WE WILL BE CONDEMNING FUTURE GENERATIONS 

            8    OF CHILDREN TO BREATHING PROBLEMS.  OZONE IS A POWERFUL 

            9    IRRITANT TO THE AIRWAYS OF LUNGS LEADING TO THE 

           10    INFLAMMATION OF LUNG TISSUE.  SOME HAVE DESCRIBED IT AS 

           11    A SIGN -- A SUNBURN ON LUNGS.  BUT IT'S MORE LIKE 

           12    RUBBING STAND PAPER ACROSS AN OPEN WOUND, IRRITATING AND 

           13    INFLAMING THE TISSUES.  

           14             BREATHING OZONE CAN CAUSE HEALTH EFFECTS 

           15    RANGING FROM COUGHING AND WHEEZING TO FULL BLOWN ASTHMA 

           16    ATTACKS, AND EVEN, WE NOW KNOW, PREMATURE DEATH.  

           17    BREATHING OZONE IS DANGEROUS EVEN AT LOWER LEVELS THAN 

           18    THE CURRENT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD.  NEW 

           19    EPIDEMIOLOGIC AND CLINICAL STUDIES PROVIDE CLEAR 

           20    EVIDENCE OF HARM AT LEVELS LOWER -- AT LEVELS CURRENTLY 

           21    CONSIDERED SAFE.  IN FACT, CLINICAL STUDIES SHOW THAT 

           22    EVEN HEALTHY ADULTS DEVELOP BREATHING PROBLEMS 

           23    ASSOCIATED WITH OZONE LEVELS AT AND BELOW -- WOW.  

           24    MOVING RIGHT ALONG.  

           25             AS A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       186


                                                                          

            1    PEDIATRICS, I URGE THE EPA TO SET STANDARDS AT THE 

            2    LOWEST END OF THE RANGE TO THE .060 PARTS PER MILLION.  

            3    AS A MOTHER OF A SON WITH ASTHMA, AS A GRANDMOTHER OF A 

            4    RECENT GRADUATE OF THE NICU, WHICH IS THE NEONATAL 

            5    INTENSIVE CARE UNIT, I REALLY PLEAD WITH YOU PERSONALLY 

            6    AND PROFESSIONALLY TO SET THE STANDARD AS LOW A LEVEL AS 

            7    POSSIBLE.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  AND I'LL SUBMIT MY 

            8    COMMENTS -- THE REST OF MY COMMENTS.

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  IF YOU COULD JUST STAY.

           10        TRICIA ROTH, M.D.:  OH, SORRY.

           11        MS. WEGMAN:  ANY QUESTIONS?  I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M 

           12    VERY IMPRESSED THAT YOU ACTUALLY RAN A FULL MARATHON.

           13        TRICIA ROTH, M.D.:  WALKED.

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  WELL.  

           15        DEANN MCEWEN, R.N.:  GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS 

           16    DEANN MCEWEN.  I'M A REGISTERED NURSE, AND I'M CHAIR OF 

           17    THE JOINT NURSING PRACTICE COMMISSION OF THE CALIFORNIA 

           18    NURSES ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL NURSES ORGANIZING 

           19    COMMITTEE.  I CURRENTLY WORK AS A DIRECT CARE R.N. IN 

           20    THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT FOR A MAJOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM 

           21    AND TRAUMA CENTER BASED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  

           22             MY CAREER INCLUDES OVER 33 YEARS OF EXTENSIVE 

           23    EXPERIENCE TREATING INFANT, PEDIATRIC, AND ADULT 

           24    PULMONARY DISEASES, SUCH AS ASTHMA AND BRONCHITIS AND 

           25    THE SEQUELAE OF THOSE DISEASES, WHICH INCLUDE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       187


                                                                          

            1    RESPIRATORY INSUFFICIENCY, ACUTE PULMONARY FAILURE, AND 

            2    DEATH.  

            3             MY VERY FIRST CODE BLUE PATIENT AS A NEWLY 

            4    MINTED R.N. WAS A YOUNG WOMAN WITH ASTHMA WHO HAD 

            5    REQUIRED EMERGENCY ARTIFICIAL VENTILATOR SUPPORT IN THE 

            6    ICU AFTER BECOMING ACUTELY ILL WITH PNEUMONIA.  SHE WAS 

            7    PROGRESSED TO THE MEDICAL SURGICAL WARD AND WAS GETTING 

            8    OUT OF BED TO USE THE RESTROOM.  I'LL NEVER FORGET THE 

            9    LOOK OF PANIC ON HER FACE.  THE SOUNDS OF GASPING AND 

           10    WHEEZING.  THE EXTREME AIR HUNGER.  HER BODY WEAKENING 

           11    FROM THE BUILD-UP OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND LACK OF 

           12    DESPERATELY NEEDED OXYGEN.  THE SUPREME EFFORT AS HER 

           13    THROAT TIGHTENED, HER CHEST BEGAN HEAVING AS EVERY 

           14    MUSCLE IN HER BODY TRIED TO FORCE AIR IN AND OUT THAT 

           15    SHE DESPERATELY NEEDED.  HER SKIN BECAME PALE AND TOOK 

           16    ON A BLUISH HUE.  SHE BECAME DRENCHED WITH PERSPIRATION 

           17    FROM THE EFFORT, AND I CAUGHT HER AS SHE COLLAPSED, AND 

           18    I EASED HER TO THE FLOOR AS THE TIGHT, HIGH-PITCHED 

           19    WHEEZING NOISES SUDDENLY STOPPED AND I BEGAN CPR.  SHE 

           20    DID NOT SURVIVE.  

           21             TONIGHT I WILL BE ATTENDING A MEMORIAL SERVICE 

           22    FOR ANOTHER OF MY PATIENTS.  A 26-YEAR-OLD WHO SUFFERED 

           23    SURVIVABLE INJURIES FOLLOWING A TRAGIC TRAFFIC ACCIDENT 

           24    ONLY TO SUCCUMB TO RESPIRATORY FAILURE.  IN MY 

           25    EXPERIENCE UNDERLYING CHRONIC PULMONARY DISEASE IS THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       188


                                                                          

            1    MOST SIGNIFICANT MORBIDITY THAT IS THE ULTIMATE 

            2    PREDICTOR OF MORTALITY IN MEDICALLY FRAGILE PATIENTS WHO 

            3    MAY HAVE MULTI-ORGAN SYSTEM DISEASES AND THOSE WHO 

            4    REQUIRE RESTORATIVE THERAPEUTIC SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS.  

            5             FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE AND SUBSEQUENT NURSE 

            6    SCHOLARS HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENT ON 

            7    HUMAN HEALTH.  NIGHTINGALE'S ATTENTION TO AIR QUALITY 

            8    REPRESENTED SOME OF THE FIRST MODERN THINKING ABOUT THE 

            9    RELATIONSHIP OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS TO HUMAN HEALTH 

           10    STATUS.  IN HER NOTES ON NURSING PUBLISHED IN 1946, SHE 

           11    DISCUSSED HOW IN THE 1800'S ENGLAND WAS PLAGUED WITH 

           12    POOR AIR QUALITY FROM THE HEAVY USE OF COAL FOR FUEL OF 

           13    HOME HEATING.  SHE WAS CONCERNED WITH INDOOR AS WELL AS 

           14    OUTDOOR AIR QUALITY.  NIGHTINGALE WAS SO ADAMANT ABOUT 

           15    THE IMPORTANCE OF AIR QUALITY AND VENTILATION THAT SHE 

           16    PRIORITIZED IT IN HER NOTES AS THE FIRST CANNON OF 

           17    NURSING.  

           18             TODAY, POOR AIR QUALITY IS STILL A 

           19    HEALTH-RELATED CONCERN.  IN WORKPLACES AND SCHOOLS POOR 

           20    AIR QUALITY HAS BEEN CITED AS A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR 

           21    TO THE INCREASE IN ASTHMA, A DISEASE THAT IS THE LEADING 

           22    CAUSE OF ABSENTEEISM ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 

           23    OF ALLERGY, ASTHMA, AND IMMUNOLOGY IN 2004.  

           24             TRUE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTING THE 

           25    HEALTHCARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT LIES WITHIN EACH ONE OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       189


                                                                          

            1    US.  WHILE THERE ARE MANY FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE 

            2    UPS AND DOWNS OF SMOG, SUCH AS WEATHER, HEAT, AND 

            3    GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES, THE ONE FACTOR WE CAN CONTROL IS 

            4    THE AMOUNT OF SMOG FORMING POLLUTION THAT WE PUT INTO 

            5    THE AIR.  WE MAY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE HEAT AND THE 

            6    GEOGRAPHY GIVEN, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE 

            7    SMOG CRISIS BECAUSE WE HAVE POLLUTION CONTROL 

            8    TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN CUT EMISSIONS TO A TINY FRACTION 

            9    OF CURRENT LEVELS IF THE POLITICAL WILL IS THERE TO 

           10    ENFORCE THE LAW.  

           11             IN THIS ERA OF GLOBAL WARMING, PRESERVATION, 

           12    AND CONSERVATION, IT'S TIME WE BEGAN TO CONSERVE AND 

           13    RESTORE THE PLANET'S MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE OF ALL, THE 

           14    HEALTH OF ITS PEOPLE.  AS ADVOCATES FOR THE PUBLIC 

           15    HEALTH, OUR PRIMARY FOCUS SHOULD BE PREVENTION.  WHILE 

           16    NOT EVERY EVENT IS PREVENTABLE, EVERY EVENT HAS A 

           17    PREVENTABLE COMPONENT.  

           18             OZONE BURNS OUR LUNGS AND AIRWAYS CAUSING THEM 

           19    TO BECOME INFLAMED, REDDENED, AND SWOLLEN.  WHEN 

           20    INHALED, EVEN AT LOW LEVELS, OZONE CAN CAUSE CHEST PAIN 

           21    AND COUGH, REDUCED LUNG FUNCTION AND INCREASE EMERGENCY 

           22    ROOM VISITS AND HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS AND LEAD TO 

           23    IRREVERSIBLE LUNG DAMAGE.  WE KNOW THAT BREATHING OZONE 

           24    CAN SHORTEN HUMAN LIFE AT LEVELS CURRENTLY CONSIDERED 

           25    SAFE.  I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I HAVE ASTHMA AND MY DAUGHTER 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       190


                                                                          

            1    HAS ASTHMA.  MY MOTHER SUFFERED FROM CHRONIC BRONCHITIS, 

            2    AND AT AGE 63 SHE SUFFERED AN ACUTE EPISODE OF 

            3    RESPIRATORY FAILURE AND DIED.  HER LAST GASPING, BARELY 

            4    AUDIBLE WORDS WERE, "THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET HERE IN 

            5    TIME," AFTER MY SISTER CALLED THE PARAMEDICS.  

            6             LILLIAN WALD, THE FOUNDER OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

            7    NURSING, HAD A VISION OF NURSING IN THE COMMUNITY OF 

            8    MEETING PEOPLE WHERE THEIR NEED IS BASED ON THE IDEA OF 

            9    SERVICE TO HUMANITY.  SHE OBSERVED, AND I QUOTE, 

           10    "WITHOUT CLAIMING THE GIFT OF PROFICY, ONE CAN FORESEE 

           11    THAT OUR SINS, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL, MUST RECOIL UPON 

           12    THE HEADS OF OUR DESCENDENTS."  WE COMMIT OURSELVES TO 

           13    ANY WRONG OR DEGRADATION OR INJURY WHEN WE DO NOT 

           14    PROTEST AGAINST IT.  OZONE POLLUTION IS BOTH DANGEROUS 

           15    AND PERVASIVE.  

           16             DO NOT SENTENCE OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN 

           17    TO A FUTURE OF PAIN AND SUFFERING AND THE TERROR OF 

           18    SUFFOCATION AS THE RESULT OF PREVENTABLE ENVIRONMENTAL 

           19    CONTAMINATION.  

           20             IN 2002 THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULED 

           21    THAT PROTECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, INCLUDING THAT OF 

           22    SENSITIVE POPULATIONS, IS THE SOLE FACT THAT THE EPA 

           23    SHOULD CONSIDER IN SETTING THE STANDARDS.  AS A 

           24    CERTIFIED PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

           25    75,000 DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSES WHO ADVOCATE IN THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       191


                                                                          

            1    EXCLUSIVE INTEREST OF PATIENTS, AS MEMBERS OF THE 

            2    CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION, WE CONCUR WITH THE 

            3    CONSENSUS OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL COMMUNITIES THAT 

            4    THE EPA SHOULD STRENGTHEN THE OZONE STANDARDS TO 

            5    MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  

            6             THE EPA SHOULD FINALIZE AN OZONE STANDARD OF 

            7    .060 PARTS PER MILLION, ELIMINATE THE ROUNDING LOOPHOLE 

            8    CONSISTENT WITH THE RANGE RECOMMENDED BY ITS OWN 

            9    SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE 

           11    TIME TO TALK TO US TODAY.  

           12             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE STACY KATZ AND DAVID 

           13    PETTIT.  

           14        STACY KATZ:  GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS STACY KATZ, 

           15    AND I'M A PRE-MED STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN 

           16    CALIFORNIA.  THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY 

           17    TO TESTIFY TODAY ON THE EPA'S PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE 

           18    NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE.  

           19             I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING THAT I'M THANKFUL 

           20    THAT THE EPA IS TAKING A STEP TOWARDS CLEANER AIR; 

           21    HOWEVER, I AM INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR AIR.  I'M 

           22    URGING YOU TO TIGHTEN THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

           23    STANDARD FOR OZONE AND SMOG BY ENCOURAGING YOU TO ADOPT 

           24    A STRONG OZONE STANDARD OF .060 PARTS PER MILLION AND 

           25    ELIMINATE THE ROUNDING LOOPHOLE.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       192


                                                                          

            1             AS A STUDENT WHOSE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO PRACTICE 

            2    MEDICINE, I HAVE DIGESTED PLENTY OF SCIENCE.  I'VE 

            3    STUDIED BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS.  I'VE READ PLENTY 

            4    OF TEXTBOOKS, LISTENED TO RESEARCH PROFESSORS, EVALUATED 

            5    SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, AND WRAPPED MY HEAD AROUND 

            6    EVERYTHING, INCLUDING OZONE.  WHILE I'VE LEARNED A GREAT 

            7    DEAL, THE MOST IMPORTANT LESSON THAT I'VE LEARNED IS 

            8    THAT CAREFULLY COLLECTED SCIENTIFIC DATA CANNOT BE 

            9    IGNORED.  

           10             OUR SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE DANGEROUS 

           11    HEALTH EFFECTS OF OZONE POLLUTION HAS GROWN CONSIDERABLY 

           12    STRONGER DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS.  MORE THAN 1700 

           13    STUDIES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE THE EPA LAST REVIEWED 

           14    THE STANDARD IN '97.  THIS NEW BODY OF RESEARCH PROVIDES 

           15    OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT EXPOSURE TO OZONE BELOW THE 

           16    CURRENT STANDARD IS DANGEROUS TO OUR HEALTH.  MILLIONS 

           17    OF PEOPLE IN THE U.S. LIVE IN AREAS THAT EXCEED THE 

           18    CURRENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE.  RAPIDLY 

           19    DEVELOPING NATIONS WITH RAPIDLY EXPANDING TRANSPORTATION 

           20    NETWORKS, OZONE LEVELS ARE RISING, AND THEY'RE BLOWING 

           21    OUR WAY.  

           22             GROUND LEVEL OZONE IS A POWERFUL POLLUTANT.  

           23    IT'S CONSIDERED TOXIC TO OUR BLOOD, LIVER, AND SKIN.  IT 

           24    IMPAIRS OUR IMMUNE, NEUROLOGICAL, AND RESPIRATORY 

           25    SYSTEMS AND MANIFESTS ITS UGLY HEAD BY EXACERBATING 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       193


                                                                          

            1    ASTHMA, INCREASING HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS, AND EVEN LEADING 

            2    TO PREMATURE DEATH.  

            3             THE CLEAN AIR ACT'S FIRST AND FOREMOST GOAL IS 

            4    THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH FROM POLLUTANTS THAT 

            5    FIND THEIR WAY INTO THE AIR.  SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE 

            6    CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS INADEQUATE.  

            7    THE EPA'S OWN INDEPENDENT CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

            8    COMMITTEE HAS UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CURRENT 

            9    OZONE STANDARD IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT OUR HEALTH AND 

           10    IT'S RECOMMENDED SETTING THE NEW STANDARD IN A RANGE 

           11    OF .060 TO .070 PARTS PER MILLION.  THE EPA'S PROPOSAL 

           12    OF .070 TO .075 PARTS PER MILLION, BARELY TOUCHES THE 

           13    TOP OF THIS RANGE.  

           14             THE NATION NATIONAL AMBIENT QUALITY STANDARDS 

           15    ARE INTENDED TO BE PRECAUTIONARY STANDARDS THAT EXIST TO 

           16    PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH FROM SUCH ADVERSE EFFECTS WITHIN 

           17    AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY.  FOR THIS REASON, THE 

           18    STANDARDS THAT ARE SET NEED TO SET LIMITS ON AIR 

           19    POLLUTION THAT SHIELD EVERYONE, INCLUDING THOSE WITH 

           20    LUNGS THAT ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE.  THE EPA'S PROPOSED 

           21    REVISION TO THE OZONE STANDARD IGNORES THE 

           22    RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SCIENCE ADVISORS AND DOES NOT GO 

           23    FAR ENOUGH TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           24             WHEN YOU ASK SOMEONE WHAT THEY LIKE ABOUT 

           25    CALIFORNIA, THEIR FIRST RESPONSE IS ALWAYS THE WEATHER.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       194


                                                                          

            1    IT'S TRUE.  WE HAVE GREAT WEATHER, BUT WE HAVE TERRIBLE 

            2    AIR.  TERRIBLE AIR THAT LITTLE CHILDREN SPEND LOTS OF 

            3    TIME PLAYING IN, LOTS OF PEOPLE FIND PLEASURE BEING 

            4    OUTDOORS, WORKERS SPEND ENTIRE DAYS TOILING IN.  I AM 

            5    FRIGHTENED, I AM WORRIED, AND I AM SAD.  I KNOW IT'S IN 

            6    THE AIR, AND I DON'T LIKE IT.  I DON'T LIKE SEEING A 

            7    THICK LINE OF GRAY IN THE SKY WHEN I WALK AROUND OR 

            8    DRIVE.  I DON'T LIKE FLYING INTO LAX AND SEEING THAT I'M 

            9    DESCENDING INTO A POLLUTED CITY.  I DON'T LIKE LOOKING 

           10    AT MY CAR AND SEEING A CAR THAT I JUST WASHED BUT 

           11    HAVEN'T DRIVEN FOR TWO WEEKS COVERED IN A FILM OF 

           12    SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE DIRT BUT I KNOW IT'S FAR WORSE 

           13    THAN THAT.  

           14             I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO STOP RUNNING OUTSIDE 

           15    BECAUSE THE AIR OUT THERE IS ACTUALLY WHAT MIGHT END UP 

           16    KILLING ME; BUT MOST OF ALL, I DON'T LIKE KNOWING THAT I 

           17    HAVE TO GET UP AND EVENTUALLY LEAVE L.A.  I'LL HAVE TO 

           18    LEAVE MY FRIENDS, MY FAMILY, AND THE LIFE I'VE BUILT 

           19    HERE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IF SOMEONE DOESN'T START 

           20    CLEANING UP THE AIR, IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE 

           21    HABITABLE.  IT'S NOT JUST ME, MY CAR, AND MY LOVED ONES 

           22    THAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT.  EVERY LIVING THING DESERVES TO 

           23    BREATHE CLEAN AIR.  NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO POLLUTE AIR 

           24    WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE CONSEQUENCES.  

           25             IF THE FEDERAL ENFORCES THE AGENCY, WHOSE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       195


                                                                          

            1    RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO PROTECT THE HUMAN HEALTH?  IT'S 

            2    THE DUTY OF THE EPA TO ALLOW THIS NOT TO HAPPEN.  I URGE 

            3    YOU AGAIN, ADOPT A STRONG OZONE STANDARD OF .060 PARTS 

            4    PER MILLION.  THANK YOU.  

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  IF YOU COULD JUST STAY AT 

            6    THE TABLE UNTIL MR. PETTIT HAS GONE.  THANK YOU.

            7        DAVID PETTIT:  THANK YOU.  GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME 

            8    IS DAVID PETTIT.  I'M A LAWYER WITH THE NRDC, NATURAL 

            9    RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNSEL, HERE IN LOS ANGELES.  

           10             I WANT TO TALK FOR A MOMENT ON A SLIGHTLY 

           11    DIFFERENT ISSUE AND THAT IS THE LEGAL SITUATION I THINK 

           12    EPA FINDS ITSELF IN GIVEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITS OWN 

           13    PANEL OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS.  BY THE WAY, I'VE SUBMITTED 

           14    SOME WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS.  MR. HANNON YOU MAY BE 

           15    INTERESTED.  I HAVE A COPY IF YOU'D LIKE ONE.  

           16             WE -- THE CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

           17    COMMITTEE, AS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED, THEY 

           18    MADE A UNANIMOUS FINDING, AND I'M QUOTING FROM ONE OF 

           19    YOUR LETTERS.  "THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION 

           20    FOR RETAINING THE CURRENT PRIMARY EIGHT-HOUR NAAQS OF 

           21    0.08 PARTS PER MILLION."  THEY ALSO UNANIMOUSLY 

           22    RECOMMENDED A RANGE OF 0.60 TO 0.070 PARTS PER MILLION 

           23    FOR THE PRIMARY OZONE NAAQS.  

           24             HERE IS A POSITION THAT I THINK YOU ALL ARE 

           25    GOING TO FIND YOURSELF IN IF YOU GO OVER, AND CERTAINLY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       196


                                                                          

            1    IF YOU GO OVER 0.070.  AS MR. HANNON DEFINITELY KNOWS, 

            2    ORDINARILY AGENCIES, SUCH AS EPA, ARE GIVEN GREAT 

            3    DEFERENCE BY THE COURTS IN ANALYZING AND USING THEIR 

            4    EXPERT JUDGMENT IN LOOKING AT VARIOUS STUDIES AND 

            5    FIGURING OUT WHICH ONES REALLY YOU OUGHT TO GO FOR.  BUT 

            6    WHEN THERE IS UNANIMOUS EXPERT OPINION THAT COMES OUT 

            7    THE SAME WAY, I THINK THE EPA IGNORES THAT AT ITS PERIL.  

            8             I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE AND PARSE CASES.  WHEN 

            9    PEOPLE DO THAT IN COURT, I JUST GO TO SLEEP, SO I WON'T 

           10    DO THAT.  IT IS IN MY WRITTEN STUFF.  BUT I THINK GIVEN 

           11    WHAT THE CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS 

           12    COME UP WITH, THEY HAVE SET THE BAR VERY, VERY HIGH FOR 

           13    EPA, SUCH THAT, IN MY VIEW, IF THE FINAL RULE COMES OUT 

           14    ANY HIGHER THAN 0.070, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE REAL 

           15    PROBLEMS DEFENDING IT IN COURT.  

           16             SECONDLY, THE ONE OTHER POINT I WANT TO ADDRESS 

           17    IS THE MARGIN OF SAFETY POINT.  THE CASAC, I'M NOT SURE 

           18    HOW YOU SAY THAT, CASAC OR WHATEVER --

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  CASAC.

           20        DAVID PETTIT:  CASAC, THEY -- ALSO IN REVIEWING THE 

           21    LITERATURE, THEY FOUND AT LEAST ONE STUDY WHERE ADVERSE 

           22    LUNG FUNCTION EFFECTS WERE OBSERVED IN SOME INDIVIDUALS 

           23    AT A LEVEL OF 0.060 PARTS PER MILLION.  AND I KNOW THAT 

           24    UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND MR. HANNON KNOWS THIS, 

           25    THERE NEEDS TO BE A MARGIN OF SAFETY THAT TAKES INTO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       197


                                                                          

            1    ACCOUNT OF WHAT WE MIGHT NOT KNOW IN THE FUTURE -- I'M 

            2    SORRY, WHAT WE MIGHT NOT KNOW NOW TO PROTECT PEOPLE, 

            3    INCLUDING VERY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.  

            4             GIVEN THE FINDINGS OF YOUR OWN EXPERTS THAT 

            5    THERE IS A STUDY OUT THERE INDICATING HARM AT 0.060, 

            6    I -- I THINK THAT THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF SIGNIFICANT 

            7    PROBLEMS, EVEN IF THE EPA COMES OUT AT 0.070, GIVEN THE 

            8    CASES THAT ARE INTERPRETING THE MARGIN OF SAFETY RULE.  

            9             I -- JUST AS A SMALL PERSONAL ANECDOTE, I GREW 

           10    UP HERE IN L.A.  I USED TO PLAY LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL A 

           11    LONG TIME AGO, AND I REMEMBER COMING HOME AFTER PLAYING 

           12    IN THE SUMMER AND FEELING LIKE MY LUNGS HAD A KNIFE IN 

           13    THEM.  I COULD JUST BARELY BREATHE.  THAT WAS 45 YEARS 

           14    AGO, AND IT'S KIND OF DISTRESSING TO SEE THAT WE HAVE 

           15    SOME OF THOSE SAME ISSUES HERE IN LOS ANGELES THAT WERE 

           16    HERE WHEN I WAS A KID.  

           17             I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT EPA GO, CERTAINLY, NO 

           18    HIGHER THAN 0.70, AND I THINK VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION 

           19    OUGHT TO BE GIVEN TO GOING DOWN TO THE 0.060 STANDARD 

           20    THAT CAN ALREADY BE SEEN AND MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS 

           21    HAVE ADVOCATED FOR.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

           22        MS. WEGMAN:  I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU ONE QUESTION.  

           23    YOU TALKED ABOUT ADVERSE LUNG FUNCTION BEING SHOWN AT 

           24    .060 IN ONE STUDY; IS THAT THE ADAMS STUDY THAT YOU'RE 

           25    TALKING ABOUT?  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       198


                                                                          

            1        DAVID PETTIT:  I BELIEVE IT IS, YES.

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  THANK YOU.  MR. HANNON HAS A 

            3    QUESTION.

            4        DAVID PETTIT:  SURE.

            5        MR. HANNON:  ALONG THE SAME LINES, WITH THE STUDY AT 

            6    60, AND LET'S ASSUME THAT IT'S A VALID STUDY THAT SHOWS 

            7    THAT THERE IS ADVERSE EFFECT AT 60, HOW DO YOU RECONCILE 

            8    THAT WITH NOT RECOMMENDING LOWER THAN 60 

            9    ORGANIZATIONALLY AND RECONCILE IT WITH CASAC 

           10    RECOMMENDING UP TO 70?  

           11             I THINK WHAT MY QUESTION THEN LEADS TO IS, 

           12    WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO EVALUATE A STUDY AT 

           13    THAT -- A SINGLE STUDY AT THAT LEVEL IN LIGHT OF ALL OF 

           14    THE OTHER EVIDENCE AROUND IT, BOTH THE EPI STUDIES ABOVE 

           15    AND BELOW IT, THE OTHER CLINICAL STUDIES, IN COMING TO A 

           16    RECOMMENDATION OF 60 OR WITHIN 60 TO 70?  

           17        DAVID PETTIT:  WELL, YOU KNOW, I HAD THAT SAME 

           18    THOUGHT, AT LEAST THE FIRST THOUGHT YOU EXPRESSED, WHEN 

           19    I READ THAT 0.60 FIGURE AND THE CASAC STUDY IS -- SO WHY 

           20    ARE THEY AT 70 IF THEY HAVE THIS RESULT AT 60?  

           21             YOU KNOW, IN DEALING WITH EXPERT WITNESSES OF 

           22    ALL KINDS FOR MANY YEARS, SORT OF MY GENERAL TAKE IS ONE 

           23    DAY A POINT DOESN'T TELL YOU MUCH OF ANYTHING THAT YOU'D 

           24    BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING.  UNLIKE MANY OF THE SPEAKERS, 

           25    I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THE SCIENCE OF THIS FIELD.  I'M NOT 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       199


                                                                          

            1    A PHYSICIAN OR A SCIENTIST OR AN EPIDEMIOLOGIST, AND I 

            2    DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STUDIES OUT THERE AT 

            3    60 OR NOT.  

            4             I THINK IF THE STATE OF THE SCIENTIFIC RECORD 

            5    IS -- IT'S MY OWN OPINION, IF THERE'S ONE STUDY AT 60, 

            6    I'M REALLY NOT SURE THAT YOU'RE LOCKED IN SUCH THAT YOU 

            7    HAVE TO GO TO 60 OR LOWER; BUT I THINK THAT IF THERE'S A 

            8    RANGE OF STUDIES AND A TREND DOWNWARDS OF 70, THAT IF 

            9    EPA COMES OUT AT 70, YOU DO HAVE A PROBLEM UNDER THE 

           10    MARGIN OF SAFETY.  AND WHETHER A COURT AT SOME POINT IS 

           11    GOING TO SAY, "YOU'VE ABUSED YOUR DISCRETION BECAUSE 

           12    IT'S, YOU KNOW, 68 RATHER THAN -- OR IT'S, YOU KNOW, 69 

           13    RATHER THAN 65," I DON'T KNOW.  I CAN'T READ WHAT THE 

           14    COURTS ARE GOING TO DO.  BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH ONE DATA 

           15    POINT, THAT'S NOT THE END OF THE STORY.  

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH.  

           17             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE POLLY CHU AND RON MC 

           18    GILL.  

           19             IS MS. CHU HERE?  

           20        RON MC GILL:  HELLO, MY NAME IS RON MC GILL, AND I'M 

           21    HERE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE BECAUSE I THINK THE CURRENT 

           22    STANDARD IS TOO HIGH AND DOESN'T PROTECT OUR HEALTH.  

           23             I WANT TO START WITH A LITTLE STORY.  MY FRIEND 

           24    SEAN, HE WAS RECENTLY DIAGNOSED WITH ASTHMA.  HE NOW HAS 

           25    TO USE HIS INHALER FIVE TO TEN TIMES A DAY, AND HE IS MY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       200


                                                                          

            1    AGE, 28 YEARS OLD.  I JUST THINK THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE.  

            2    HE'S AN OTHERWISE HEALTHY PERSON, EXERCISES A LOT, AND 

            3    THIS IS WHAT HE ENDS UP WITH THE AIR HE'S BREATHING.  

            4             SO I LIVED IN SEATTLE, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEY 

            5    HAVE CLEAN AIR LEGISLATION AND CLEAN AIR VEHICLES FOR 

            6    COMMUTER NEEDS AND, LIKE, ELECTRIC VEHICLES, AND I WOULD 

            7    HOPE THAT WE COULD GET SOMETHING CLOSE TO THAT HERE.  

            8             TO START WITH THE SCIENCE, I PROPOSE, ACTUALLY, 

            9    LIKE THE GENTLEMAN EARLIER THAT CAME UP, THAT WE SHOOT 

           10    FOR A HIGHER BAR HERE AND MAYBE A .050 PARTS PER 

           11    MILLION.  AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE, CORPORATIONS IN THE 

           12    PAST HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO TAKE THE FINE.  SO IF WE SHOOT 

           13    FOR .050, WE'LL PROBABLY GET POINT 060.  

           14             SO ANYWAY, I'M BRINGING UP THE ASTHMA BECAUSE 

           15    IT'S JUST ONE OF THE LIGHTER EFFECTS OF THIS POLLUTION 

           16    DESCRIBED AS A SUNBURN IN THE LUNGS, AS PEOPLE HAVE 

           17    POINTED OUT EARLIER.  BUT OZONE, ALSO, HAS BEEN KNOWN TO 

           18    YOU KNOW CAUSE PREMATURE DEATH IN INFANTS AND LONG-TERM 

           19    REPEATED EXPOSURE OF HIGH LEVELS CAN LEAD TO REDUCED 

           20    LUNG CAPACITY, HOSPITALIZATION, AND DEATH IN SENIOR 

           21    CITIZENS.  CHILDREN ARE HIGHLY AT RISK AND THAT'S A 

           22    TERRIBLE THING.  THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE BORN INTO 

           23    THIS.  

           24             THE PRESSURE FROM BIG OIL AND OTHER 

           25    CORPORATIONS SEEMS TO BE THE DRIVING FACTOR IN THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       201


                                                                          

            1    CURRENT LEVELS.  AND WITH THAT SAID, I MEAN, IN THE PAST 

            2    THEY GOT US AT PUTTING SEATBELTS IN CARS THAT IT WOULD 

            3    SHUT DOWN BIG AUTO, BUT IT DIDN'T.  IT JUST PROTECTED A 

            4    WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.  I THINK OVER AND ABOVE ALL OF 

            5    THIS, THE REASON I'M HERE TODAY, I MEAN, I DON'T WORK 

            6    FOR THE EPA.  YOUR MIDDLE NAME IS PROTECTION AND I WOULD 

            7    HOPE YOU LIVE UP TO THAT.  

            8             I TOOK A DAY OFF WORK, AND I'M PAYING PARKING 

            9    TO BE HERE TO ARGUE FOR WHAT YOUR OWN ADMINISTRATOR HAS 

           10    SAID, STEVEN JOHNSON, THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD DOES 

           11    NOT, IN FACT, PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AT ALL.  

           12             SO TO FINISH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, 

           13    IN THE WORDS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, "THE TIME IS 

           14    RIGHT" -- "IT'S ALWAYS RIGHT TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT."  SO 

           15    PLEASE MAKE THAT TIME NOW.  THANK YOU.  

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME 

           17    TO COME TODAY.  WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.

           18        RON MC GILL:  THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  IS POLLY CHU HERE?  

           20             NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE MELONIE MAGRUDER AND JANE 

           21    AFFONSO.  

           22        MELONIE MAGRUDER:  I'LL GO FIRST SINCE JANE HASN'T 

           23    SHOWN UP.  

           24             HELLO, THANK YOU.  MY NAME IS MELONIE MAGRUDER.  

           25    I LIVE HERE IN L.A.  I'M, I GUESS, WHAT YOU WOULD CALL 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       202


                                                                          

            1    ONE OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS.  I WANTED TO SPEAK TO 

            2    YOU.  MS. WEGMAN, MR. HANNON, MR. HABER, THANK YOU SO 

            3    MUCH FOR BEING AVAILABLE TO US.  

            4             WELL, I CAME HERE TODAY WITH A BUNCH OF TALKING 

            5    POINTS THAT THEY GAVE TO US ALL OF WHICH I'M PRETTY SURE 

            6    YOU'VE HEARD AT INFINITUM.  SO BASICALLY, THE REASON I 

            7    AM HERE TODAY IS FOR THESE PEOPLE.  THEY'RE MY CHILDREN.  

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  BEAUTIFUL.

            9        MELONIE MAGRUDER:  THANK YOU.  THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL.  

           10    THEY'RE NOT ONLY BEAUTIFUL.  THEY'RE VERY BRIGHT, 

           11    THEY'RE PASSIONATE, AND THEY'RE, SOME DAY, GOING TO BE 

           12    LEADERS OF OUR COMMUNITY, IF THEY GET THE CHANCE; BUT 

           13    THEIR FUTURE HEALTH DOES CONCERN ME.  

           14             THIS SUMMER ALONE, YOU CAN SEE MY SON DUTCH, HE 

           15    LIKES TO PLAY BASKETBALL.  ALLEN IVERSON IS HIS HERO.  

           16    HE WANTS TO GO INTO THE NBA, SO HE'S OUT PRACTICING 

           17    EVERY DAY.  AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF DAYS THIS SUMMER 

           18    WHEN HE CAME IN AND HE SAID, "YOU KNOW, MOM, IT KIND OF 

           19    HURTS TO BREATHE."  AND SURE ENOUGH, IF YOU'RE OUT ON 

           20    THE HIGH OZONE DAYS RUNNING AROUND, LIVING YOUR LIFE, AT 

           21    THE END OF THE DAY, YOU CAN'T TAKE A DEEP BREATH HERE.  

           22    YOU GET ABOUT THIS FAR, AND THEN IT STARTS TO FEEL LIKE 

           23    YOU'RE DROWNING, BUT YOU KNOW THAT.  YOU'VE HAD ALL OF 

           24    THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.  

           25             YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE HERE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       203


                                                                          

            1    TODAY, I CAN IMAGINE.  IF YOU DRIVE UP HIGHWAY 101, YOU 

            2    DON'T SEE A BLUE SKY.  YOU SEE A BROWN SKY.  IF YOU 

            3    STAND UP AT, SAY, GRIFFITH PARK OBSERVATORY AND LOOK OUT 

            4    OVER THIS WONDERFUL CITY, IT'S LIKE THERE'S A LAYER OF 

            5    BRAWN COTTON SITTING OVER EVERYTHING.  

            6             SO THE SCIENCE IS IN.  THE EVIDENCE IS IN.  THE 

            7    ANECDOTAL STORIES ARE ALL IN.  IT'S TIME TO DO SOMETHING 

            8    ABOUT IT BECAUSE IF THIS IS WHAT IT'S LIKE NOW WHEN YOU 

            9    HAVE THIS EXPLOSION OF KIDS SEEING RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS, 

           10    INCLUDING MY CHILDREN, THEN WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE LIKE 

           11    IN THE YEAR 2035 WHEN THE POPULATION OF CALIFORNIA IS 

           12    EXPECTED TO DOUBLE TO 65 MILLION PEOPLE?  AND THE COST 

           13    THAT THAT IS GOING TO EXERT ON OUR SOCIETY IN 

           14    HEALTHCARE, IN EVERY OTHER WAY, IS GOING TO BE 

           15    INSURMOUNTABLE.  

           16             SO WHEREAS YOU PROBABLY HAVE RESISTANCE FROM 

           17    CERTAIN CORPORATE INTERESTS TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IT 

           18    AFFECTS THEIR BOTTOM LINE, IT'S GOING TO AFFECT IT 

           19    ANYWAY, AND PROBABLY IN A MUCH WORSE WAY BY THEN.  

           20             SO THE TIME TO CHANGE THINGS IS NOW BECAUSE 

           21    THE -- THE SCIENCE EXISTS TO REVERSE THIS THING THAT IS 

           22    HAPPENING TO THE AIR THAT WE BREATHE.  IT WILL TAKE 

           23    COURAGE TO IMPLEMENT IT, BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS A 

           24    HUGE, HUGE POPULOUS THAT WILL SUPPORT YOU IN DOING THAT.  

           25    AND THEY ARE THE PEOPLE THAT, LIKE MY FUTURE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       204


                                                                          

            1    GRANDCHILDREN, AND I WANT GRANDCHILDREN, SO LET'S TRY 

            2    AND MAKE A WORLD THAT THEY CAN COME INTO AND PLAY 

            3    BASKETBALL OUTSIDE ON A SUMMER DAY AND BE ABLE TO 

            4    BREATHE.  

            5             SO THAT'S BASICALLY ALL I HAD TO SAY.  THANK 

            6    YOU.  

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            8        JANE AFFONSO:  SO I'M JANE AFFONSO, AND I'D ALSO 

            9    LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS TIME.  I COME TO YOU 

           10    AS A PERSON, AS A CITIZEN, AND ALSO I HAPPEN TO SERVE AS 

           11    CO-CHAIR OF THE SOCIALIST CONCERNS COMMITTEE OF THE 

           12    SOUTH COAST INTERFAITH COUNSEL, NON-PAID POSITION.  SO I 

           13    TOOK THE BUS HERE TODAY, TOOK OFF WORK.  I'M ALSO 

           14    INVOLVED IN AN ORGANIZATION CALLED ENVIRONMENTAL 

           15    PRIORITIES NETWORK, WHICH IS RELATED TO THIS INTERFAITH 

           16    GROUP.  

           17             WE -- AS AN INTERFAITH GROUP, THIS IS MADE UP 

           18    OF 250 CONGREGATIONS AND OTHER PLACES OF WORSHIP IN THE 

           19    LONG BEACH, SAN PEDRO, AND SOUTH BAY AREA.  SO AMONG THE 

           20    AREAS THAT ARE MOST AFFECTED BY THAT AIR FROM THE PORT 

           21    AND FROM TRUCKS.  AND WE SUPPORT THE COALITION FOR CLEAN 

           22    AND SAFE PORTS, AND WE'RE VERY AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING 

           23    TO THE WEAKEST AMONG US.  SO I COME TO YOU FROM A FAITH 

           24    TRADITION.  

           25             SOME OF THE UNIVERSAL THEME TRAITS OF FAITH 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       205


                                                                          

            1    TENANTS OF LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AND CREATION CARE AND 

            2    JUSTICE AND CARING FOR THE WEAKEST AMONG US.  AND I WAS 

            3    IN A MEETING LAST MONTH WHERE WE WERE HEARING AN UPDATE 

            4    ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE PORTS, AND I WAS SO 

            5    DISTURBED TO HEAR THAT, FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT, 

            6    THE EPA WAS BEHIND BOTH THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES 

            7    BOARD AND THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT.  I THINK OF THE 

            8    GRAND LEGACY OF THE EPA AS BEING AN INTERNATIONAL LEADER 

            9    FOR SETTING STANDARDS FOR CLEAN AIR, AND I WAS JUST SO 

           10    FRUSTRATED AND I'M SURE YOU ARE TOO.  

           11             SO I URGE YOU TO TAKE THE COURAGE AND BE BOLD 

           12    AND SET A WONDERFUL STANDARD.  AND I ALSO WANT TO REMIND 

           13    YOU THAT THIS IS ALL A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND THAT 

           14    YOUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL ASK YOU WHAT YOU DID IN ORDER TO 

           15    STOP THIS GENERATION OF CHILDREN WITH DAMAGED LUNGS AND 

           16    THE PREMATURE DEATHS.  I MEAN, IT JUST BREAKS MY HEART.  

           17             AND I WANT TO SAY THAT MY GRANDFATHER WAS THE 

           18    HEAD OF THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY IN PENNSYLVANIA WHEN 

           19    I HAPPENED TO BE GOING TO SCHOOL THERE, AND I CAN 

           20    REMEMBER HAVING A LONG -- SEVERAL LONG DISCUSSIONS WITH 

           21    HIM.  YOU KNOW, HE WAS A STOCKHOLDER OF PETROLEUM 

           22    STOCKS, AND HE WAS SURE THAT POLLUTION DID NOT CAUSE 

           23    CANCER.  AND YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT SAME ANSWER AND WHEN 

           24    YOUR GRANDCHILDREN COME TO YOU AND ASK WHAT YOU DID TO 

           25    BE A LEADER.  I HOPE THAT YOU CAN BE PROUD.  THANK YOU.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       206


                                                                          

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  

            2             OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE POLLY CHU AND KELLY 

            3    DAVIS.  

            4        KELLY DAVIS:  POLLY IS STILL NOT HERE.

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  THERE SHE IS.  

            6        POLLY CHU:  HI.

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  HI.

            8        POLLY CHU:  MY NAME IS POLLY CHU, AND I'M A MOTHER, 

            9    ARTIST, AND TEACHER, AND I THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE 

           10    TODAY TO LISTEN TO COMMENTS ON THE EPA'S PROPOSAL TO 

           11    REVISE THE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARD FOR OZONE.  

           12    THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.  

           13             I AM HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO TIGHTEN THE 

           14    POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR OZONE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.  I 

           15    WAS FORTUNATE THIS SUMMER TO SPEND A MONTH IN IRELAND 

           16    WITH MY FAMILY.  I WAS FORTUNATE BECAUSE, NOT ONLY WAS 

           17    IT BEAUTIFUL THERE, BUT THE AIR IS STRIKINGLY CLEAN AND 

           18    CLEAR THERE.  IT'S AMAZING.  THE SKY IS, LIKE, SO 

           19    INCREDIBLY REAL, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE IT.  

           20             MY HUSBAND, DAUGHTER, AND I WERE FORTUNATE TO 

           21    BREATHE TRULY CLEAN AIR FOR A MONTH, AND WE COULD ALL 

           22    FEEL THE PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF THIS.  WE DID NOT 

           23    EXPERIENCE THAT FEELING OF WELL-BEING WHEN WE SPENT A 

           24    MONTH IN CHINA.  WE DON'T EXPERIENCE IT HERE.  

           25             CLEAN AIR SHOULD NOT BE A PRIVILEGE OR A 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       207


                                                                          

            1    LUXURY.  PLEASE TIGHTEN THE POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR 

            2    OZONE TO THE STANDARD OF BETWEEN .06 AND .07 PARTS PER 

            3    MILLION RECOMMENDED BY THE EPA CLEAN AIR SCIENCE 

            4    ADVISORY COMMITTEE.  BETTER YET, MAKE THE STANDARD EVEN 

            5    SMALLER THAN RECOMMENDED.  PLEASE ALSO ELIMINATE THE 

            6    ROUNDING LOOPHOLE.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            8        KELLY DAVIS:  MY NAME IS KELLY DAVIS.  I AM A MEMBER 

            9    OF A FEW ONLINE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, BUT MY REAL -- MY 

           10    ONLY REAL AFFILIATION IS WITH CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL 

           11    OF LAW.  I'M A STUDENT THERE, AND I ACTUALLY AM MISSING 

           12    MY LAND USE CLASS FOR THIS.  I DON'T HAVE ANY KIDS.  I 

           13    WASN'T BORN IN L.A.  LUCKILY, I GREW UP IN NORTHERN 

           14    CALIFORNIA WHERE I COULD BREATHE FRESH AIR.  

           15             I DON'T HAVE ASTHMA, BUT I'VE LIVED IN SOUTHERN 

           16    CALIFORNIA FOR THE LAST 7 YEARS.  I CAN TELL YOU I DROVE 

           17    IN FROM CORONA TODAY, AND I HATE, HATE DRIVING INTO L.A. 

           18    BECAUSE I SEE THAT BROWN AND I ROLL UP ALL MY WINDOWS, 

           19    WHICH, BY THE WAY, I LIKE TO DRIVE WITH THE WINDOWS 

           20    OPEN, BECAUSE I THINK, OH, MY GOSH, IT'S GOING GET IN 

           21    HERE.  AS SOON AS I OPEN THE DOOR, IT'S GOING TO JUST 

           22    FILL MY LUNGS AND I DON'T WANT THAT.  

           23             AND THE REASON I CAME HERE, I -- I DIDN'T EVEN 

           24    KNOW WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY WHEN I SAT DOWN, BUT THE 

           25    MAIN POINT OF ME BEING HERE IS THAT I'M ANGRY.  I AM 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       208


                                                                          

            1    FURIOUS THAT THE LAST TIME THAT THE EPA CHANGED ANY 

            2    REGULATIONS WAS TEN YEARS AGO.  NOW, LOOKING AT THIS 

            3    FACT SHEET, NOTHING'S EVEN GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL WHAT, 

            4    2013?  SO ANYTHING FIGURED OUT WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR OR 

            5    SO, ISN'T EVEN GOING TO GO INTO PLACE UNTIL 2013?  

            6    THAT'S SIX YEARS.  AND EVEN THEN THERE'S A -- I THOUGHT 

            7    THAT THERE WAS A RANGE FROM 2013 TO 2030 WHERE PEOPLE 

            8    WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.  THAT'S HUGE.  

            9             BY THEN, .060 ISN'T GOING TO BE GOOD ENOUGH ANY 

           10    MORE.  BY THEN, .060 IS GOING TO BE THE .085 OR WHATEVER 

           11    IT IS TODAY.  IT'S GOING TO BE BAD AT THAT POINT, 

           12    ESPECIALLY WITH L.A. AND ALL OF THE OTHER CITIES IN 

           13    CALIFORNIA GROWING AS QUICKLY AS THEY ARE.  BLESS YOU.  

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.

           15        KELLY DAVIS:  AND YOU ARE IN A REAL POSITION TO MAKE 

           16    HUGE CHANGES AT THIS POINT.  I MEAN, THE STANDARDS THAT 

           17    WERE IN 1997 WERE GREAT FOR THAT POINT, BUT IT'S BEEN 

           18    TEN YEARS AND A LOT HAS CHANGED.  

           19             THERE'S NOW A NEW PASSAGE BETWEEN THE PACIFIC 

           20    OCEAN AND THE ATLANTIC.  HELLO, DOES THAT NOT SCARE 

           21    ANYBODY ELSE THAT THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE BUT IT'S 

           22    THERE NOW?  THIS IS -- I MEAN, THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING 

           23    SO FAST THAT WE CAN'T EVEN COMPREHEND IT.  SO I DON'T 

           24    KNOW ALL OF THE FACTS.  YOU'VE HEARD ALL OF THE 

           25    INFORMATION.  YOU HAVE ALL OF THE DATA.  YOU HAVE ALL OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       209


                                                                          

            1    THE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.  

            2             WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS FOR ALL OF YOU, 

            3    EVERYBODY IN THE EPA, TO GET ANGRY THAT WE HAVE TO LIVE 

            4    AND BREATHE IN THIS AIR IN THIS ENVIRONMENT.  WE SHOULD 

            5    BE SETTING STANDARDS FOR BREATHABLE LIMITS BY THE TIME 

            6    2013 DOES COME AROUND; AND IF IT DOES HAPPEN TO BE .060, 

            7    WHICH I'VE HEARD EVERYBODY SAY, THEN GREAT.  MAYBE THAT 

            8    SHOULD BE THE HIGH MARK.  AND MAYBE INSTEAD OF HAVING 

            9    THE LIMITS GO FROM .060 UP TO .070, HAVE THE HIGH LIMIT 

           10    BE .060.  

           11             WE HAVE ZERO EMISSION CARS NOW AT THIS POINT.  

           12    CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SIX YEARS FROM 

           13    NOW?  TEN YEARS FROM NOW?  WE WILL HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY.  

           14    SO I IMPLORE YOU ON MY SELFISH BEHALF AS A BREATHING 

           15    CALIFORNIAN TO PLEASE SET THE STANDARDS AS LOW AS 

           16    POSSIBLE.  THANK YOU.  

           17        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT 

           18    WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE CHANGE THE STANDARDS IS THAT PEOPLE 

           19    START THINKING ABOUT EXACTLY THE ISSUES YOU'RE TALKING 

           20    ABOUT IN TRYING TO IMPROVE TECHNOLOGY.  SO EVEN THOUGH 

           21    IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A LONG WAY IN THE FUTURE, THINGS DO 

           22    START HAPPENING ONCE STANDARDS CHANGE.  SO --

           23        KELLY DAVIS:  I HOPE SO.

           24        MS. WEGMAN:  -- IT'S NOT THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT 

           25    UNTIL 2030 SOMETHING TO IMPROVE.

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       210


                                                                          

            1        KELLY DAVIS:  THAT'S GOOD.  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU.

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU FOR COMING.  

            3             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE NICOLE LUCAS-HAIMES AND 

            4    TAMARA WATKINS; ARE EITHER OF THEM HERE?  

            5        TAMARA WATKINS:  I'M HERE.  OKAY.  EXCELLENT.  

            6             MY NAME IS TAMARA WATKINS, AND I WANT TO FIRST 

            7    THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT 

            8    THE CONCERNS OF THIS OZONE PROBLEM.  

            9             IT REALLY UPSETS ME AND SADDENS ME WHEN I LOOK 

           10    OUT MY WINDOW AND I JUST SEE ALL OF THE THICK SMOG IN 

           11    THE HORIZON.  I'M LOOKING OVER THERE, AND I'M THINKING, 

           12    WOW, IT'S SO DIRTY IN OUR AIR.  I SEE IT ON THE HORIZON, 

           13    AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 

           14    THAT MOUNTAIN IS LOOKING BACK IN MY DIRECTION THINKING 

           15    THE SAME THING.  SO I REALIZE THAT I'M ENGULFED IN IT AS 

           16    WELL.  

           17             I'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH 

           18    AND LOOKING AT FACTS FOR THE AIR QUALITY IN CALIFORNIA 

           19    BECAUSE I WAS UNDER -- BECAUSE I WAS MADE AWARE OF THE 

           20    SITUATION, HOW BAD IT REALLY IS, AND IT REALLY SCARES ME 

           21    THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GETTING SICK AND DYING FROM AIR 

           22    POLLUTION.  IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY DO 

           23    SOMETHING ABOUT.  THESE STEPS ARE PREVENTABLE AND 

           24    UNNECESSARY.  

           25             I HAVE ALLERGIES MYSELF, AND MY EYES BURN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       211


                                                                          

            1    REALLY BAD.  SOMETIMES WHEN I'M OUTSIDE AND I'M DOING 

            2    PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES, THE AIR IS SO HEAVY THAT I GET 

            3    EXHAUSTED.  I'M A JOGGER.  I CAN COMPLETELY FEEL THE 

            4    DIFFERENCE WHEN I'M JOGGING ON THE TREADMILL AND WHEN 

            5    I'M JOGGING OUTSIDE.  WHEN I'M OUTSIDE, I CAN'T JOG FOR 

            6    A LONG LENGTH OF TIME.  I COUGH WHEN I COME BACK INSIDE.  

            7    I FEEL EXASPERATED AND THAT I DON'T EVEN WANT TO DO 

            8    ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE ENTIRE AFTERNOON.  WHEN I JOG ON 

            9    THE TREADMILL, I DON'T HAVE THOSE TYPE OF SYMPTOMS 

           10    AFTERWARDS, SO I KNOW IT'S THE DIRTY AIR.  

           11             I ALSO -- I MOVED HERE FROM CHICAGO, AND I 

           12    THOUGHT IT WAS NO BIG DEAL TO MOVE FROM ONE BIG CITY TO 

           13    THE NEXT; BUT IN DOING SO, I DEVELOPED ACNE.  I NEVER 

           14    HAD ANY SKIN PROBLEMS BEFORE THIS, AND I ATTRIBUTE THAT 

           15    FOR THE POOR QUALITY OF OUR AIR HERE.  IT'S FILTHY.  

           16    THOSE CHANGES WERE, LIKE, VERY INSTANT.  I -- I FELT 

           17    THEM WITHIN THE THREE YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE, AND I JUST 

           18    CAN'T IMAGINE LIVING HERE FOR A LONG LENGTH OF TIME AND 

           19    NOT BEING AFFECTED MORE DRAMATICALLY, OTHER THAN JUST 

           20    GETTING A FEW PIMPLES HERE AND THERE AND HAVING A SLIGHT 

           21    COUGH.  

           22             I'M SCARED I'M LITERALLY GOING TO GET LUNG 

           23    CANCER OR SOME TYPE OF LUNG DISEASE BECAUSE I LIVE IN A 

           24    CITY THAT THE AIR QUALITY IS SO POOR.  SOME PEOPLE MIGHT 

           25    BE THINKING, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU JUST LIVE SOMEWHERE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       212


                                                                          

            1    ELSE?  WELL, THAT'S NOT AN OPTION FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.  

            2    YOU KNOW, THEY JUST CAN'T LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.  YOU 

            3    KNOW, MY JOB IS HERE.  I HAVE FAMILY HERE AND FRIENDS, 

            4    AND IT'S NOT FEASIBLE FOR ME, AT THIS TIME, TO CHANGE 

            5    EMPLOYMENT AND CHANGE CAREERS BECAUSE THE AIR QUALITY IS 

            6    DIRTY.  

            7             IT'S UP TO THE EPA TO, YOU KNOW, UPHOLD THE LAW 

            8    AND INFLICT STRONGER AIR POLLUTION STANDARDS.  IT'S NOT 

            9    TO BE BEHOLDEN TO THE CORPORATIONS.  IT'S TO WORK FOR 

           10    THE PEOPLE.  AND RIGHT NOW I JUST FEEL THAT WE'RE KIND 

           11    OF GETTING SLIGHTED BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE A 

           12    PROFIT.  BUT THERE'S NO PROFIT IF YOUR CONSUMERS ARE 

           13    DROPPING OFF LIKE FLIES BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BREATHE.  

           14             SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE AIR 

           15    QUALITY, AND I REALLY DO HOPE YOU DO THE RIGHT THING AND 

           16    ENFORCE STRICTER OZONE RESTRICTIONS.  EVEN THE FACT OF 

           17    HAVING THIS HEARING IS KIND OF APPALLING TO ME TO BEGIN 

           18    WITH BECAUSE THERE SHOULD BE NO ARGUMENT, NOR DEBATE, ON 

           19    HAVING CLEAN HEALTHY AIR FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN THE UNITED 

           20    STATES.  THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF THE BEST NATIONS 

           21    IN THE WORLD, AND WE NEED TO SET AN EXAMPLE FOR EVERYONE 

           22    ELSE AND LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SIT 

           23    HERE AND LET OUR CITIZENS SUFFER BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT 

           24    TO CLEAN UP OUR AIR AND WE WANT TO BE BEHOLDEN TO 

           25    CORPORATIONS.  IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.  THANK YOU.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       213


                                                                          

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND 

            2    SPEAKING TO US.  

            3             AND I'LL JUST SAY THAT WE DO WANT TO HAVE 

            4    PUBLIC HEARINGS TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND THAT IS 

            5    PART OF OUR RULE MAKING PROCESS, AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT 

            6    PART OF IT FOR US, SO THANK YOU.  

            7        TAMARA WATKINS:  THANK YOU.

            8        NICOLE LUCAS-HAIMES:  HI, MY NAME IS NICOLE 

            9    LUCAS-HAIMES, AND I'M A MOTHER OF TWO CHILDREN.  LUKE IS 

           10    SEVEN ALMOST EIGHT, AND MAX IS THREE.  AND THEY'RE 

           11    ENERGETIC HEALTHY ACTIVE GREAT KIDS, AND I'M VERY 

           12    GRATEFUL.  I'M ALSO VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU TODAY FOR 

           13    HOLDING THIS HEARING BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT 

           14    THAT AN AVERAGE CITIZEN, LIKE ME, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO 

           15    SPEAK TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO HOLD A LOT OF POWER OVER 

           16    THE DAY-TO-DAY QUALITY OF OUR LIVES.  

           17             I KNOW THAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM MANY EXPERTS ON 

           18    OZONE POLLUTION, AND SCIENTISTS AND MEDICAL 

           19    PROFESSIONALS, I KNOW, HAVE TALKED TO YOU TODAY WHO KNOW 

           20    MUCH MORE ABOUT THIS PROBLEM THAN I.  SO I'M, INSTEAD, 

           21    JUST GOING TO SPEAK TO YOU AS A PARENT FROM MY HEART.  I 

           22    SUSPECT THAT YOU HAVE CHILDREN OR CHILDREN IN YOUR 

           23    FAMILY, RELATIVES AND THAT, LIKE ME, YOU WANT THE BEST 

           24    FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND YOU PROBABLY SPEND COUNTLESS HOURS 

           25    THINKING ABOUT HOW TO EDUCATE THEM AND HELPING THEM WITH 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       214


                                                                          

            1    THEIR HOMEWORK AND HELPING PICK THE BEST SCHOOL FOR 

            2    THEM, AND YOU DO IT BECAUSE YOU CARE.  

            3             I IMAGINE YOU PROBABLY SPEND A LOT OF TIME 

            4    FINDING THE RIGHT DOCTOR FOR YOUR KID AND SPEND A LOT OF 

            5    TIME THINKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE BEST COURSE OF CARE IN 

            6    CASE THEY GET SICK.  AND I ALSO IMAGINE THAT IF YOU'RE 

            7    LIKE ME, YOU THINK A LOT ABOUT WHAT GOES INTO YOUR KID'S 

            8    BODY.  YOU PICK YOUR MEALS CAREFULLY AND THAT'S WHY I'M 

            9    HERE TODAY.  BECAUSE YOU PLAN YOUR KID'S DIET CAREFULLY, 

           10    AND I, TOO, CLEARLY DEEPLY CARE ABOUT WHAT GOES INTO THE 

           11    BODIES OF MY CHILDREN.  

           12             HERE IN LOS ANGELES, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 

           13    DANGEROUSLY HIGH LEVELS OF OZONE.  209 DAYS A YEAR.  209 

           14    DAYS A YEAR, AND THIS DATA IS FROM THE AMERICAN LUNG 

           15    ASSOCIATION.  SO IMAGINE THAT MORE THAN HALF THE TIME 

           16    THE AIR GOING INTO THIS LITTLE GUY'S BODY IS 

           17    UNACCEPTABLE.  SO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS TO MY 

           18    CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND ALL OF THE ENSUING IRONIES WHEN I 

           19    SAY TO THEM, "HEY, LET'S GO OUTSIDE AND PLAY."  

           20             SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO IMAGINE RIGHT NOW 

           21    THE BEAUTIFUL FACES OF YOUR OWN CHILDREN AND TO ENVISION 

           22    A SCENARIO WHERE THE EPA DOES NOT STRENGTHEN THE OZONE 

           23    STANDARDS -- THE OZONE SMOG STANDARDS.  WHAT ARE YOU 

           24    GOING TO SAY TO THEM WHEN THEY SAY, "HOW COME?"  

           25             ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO SAY, "WE DIDN'T HAVE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       215


                                                                          

            1    THE POLITICAL WILL"?  "THE INDUSTRY FORCES WERE JUST TOO 

            2    POWERFUL.  WE DIDN'T BELIEVE THE CLEAN AIR ADVOCATES.  

            3    THE BATTLE WAS TOO HARD TO FIGHT."  I DON'T THINK THOSE 

            4    ARE THINGS YOU WANT TO COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.  

            5             NOW IMAGINE THOSE FACES AGAIN AND ENVISION A 

            6    SCENARIO WHERE EACH ONE OF YOU HAS WORKED HARD TO PASS 

            7    THE TOUGH OZONE SMOG MEASURES WE NEED INSURING THAT ALL 

            8    OF THE CHILDREN OF THE COUNTRY CAN BREATHE CLEAN AIR.  

            9    WHAT MIGHT YOU SAY TO THEIR LITTLE FACES NOW SHINING 

           10    WITH ADORATION, "HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO GET THIS DONE?"  

           11    THINK OF THOSE WORDS.  

           12             AND YOU'D SAY, "WELL, WE WORKED HARD, AND WE 

           13    FOUGHT HARD BECAUSE WE LOVE YOU AND WE CARE AND WE CARE 

           14    THAT EVERYONE'S GOOD, AND WE FOUND THE WILL TO FIGHT."  

           15    AND I TRUST YOU GUYS WILL DO THAT.  THANK YOU FOR YOUR 

           16    TIME.  

           17        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING, AND THANKS 

           18    TO MAX ALSO.  

           19             OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE SERGIO MONTEIRO AND 

           20    SAMEERAH SIDDIQUI.  

           21        SERGIO MONTEIRO:  OKAY.  SO THERE ARE A FEW POINTS 

           22    THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IN HERE, TECHNICAL ASPECTS, 

           23    POLITICAL ONES, AND ALSO AS HUMAN BEINGS.  

           24             THE TECHNICAL ASPECT IS --

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  WOULD YOU JUST MIND STATING YOUR NAME 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       216


                                                                          

            1    FOR THE --

            2        SERGIO MONTEIRO:  SORRY.  I THOUGHT I SAID IT 

            3    BEFORE.  

            4             MY NAME IS SERGIO MONTEIRO.  I AM A RETIRED 

            5    PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS.  

            6             SO THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS ARE VERY SIMPLE, 

            7    EXTREMELY SIMPLE ACTUALLY.  THE GROUPS THAT WANT TO 

            8    OBFUSCATE ON THE ISSUE, THEY CON ME WITH A LOT OF WORDS 

            9    TO MAKE IT VERY COMPLEX THINGS.  THEY DO THE SAME THING 

           10    WITH THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ, WHETHER OR 

           11    NOT THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING, WHETHER OR NOT WE DAMAGE 

           12    OUR LUNGS WITH THE CIGARETTES, AND SO ON.  AND YOU CAN 

           13    PUT A LOT OF WORDS TO THAT, BUT THEY'RE ALL GARBAGE.  

           14             WE CAN'T VERY EASILY SEE THE TRUTH, AND IT'S 

           15    VERY SIMPLE DATA WHICH PROBABLY YOU HAVE.  OZONE IS AN 

           16    UNSTABLE MOLECULE.  IT HAS TOO MANY OXYGENS.  IT WOULD 

           17    BE LIKE IF YOU HAVE -- ANY MOLECULE HAS A NUMBER OF 

           18    ATOMS THAT IT FEELS GOOD.  LIKE A SHOE THAT IS TOO 

           19    LARGE, IT DOES NOT FEEL GOOD.  A SHOE THAT IS TOO SMALL, 

           20    IT DOES NOT FEEL GOOD EITHER.  THERE IS A CORRECT SIZE.  

           21             THERE IS NO (INAUDIBLE), BUT THE O2 IS A 

           22    MOLECULE THAT WHEN IT BREAKS, IT WILL REACT WITH 

           23    WHATEVER IS AROUND.  IT WILL REACT WITH THE TISSUE IN 

           24    THE LUNG OR IN THE EYES OR ON THE SKIN.  THE LUNG AND 

           25    THE EYES ARE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       217


                                                                          

            1    WET.  

            2             THE NUMBER, YOU CAN PUT IT DIFFERENT WAYS.  

            3    APPROXIMATELY TEN TO THE POWER OF TEN ATOMS IN A CUBIC 

            4    CENTIMETER.  WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE PART PER 

            5    MILLION, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 TO 13 ATOMS.  WHEN YOU 

            6    GO TO ONE PART PER MILLION, THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 

            7    TO 12 ATOMS.  WELL, THERE IS ONE BILLION OR 10 TO THE 9 

            8    PEOPLE ON EARTH.  SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1,000 TIMES 

            9    MORE ATOMS IN ONE CC THAT YOU PUT IN YOUR LUNG IF YOU GO 

           10    TO PUT ONE PART PER MILLION.  SO THIS IS NOT A SMALL 

           11    NUMBER.  

           12             MOREOVER, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS REACTING 

           13    WITH A SURFACE WHICH HAS MUCH LESS ATOMS THAN IN THE 

           14    VOLUME.  WHEN IT GOES TO THE LUNG, AND THE LUNG WAS MADE 

           15    TO HAVE AS LARGE A SURFACE AREA TO REACT AS READILY WITH 

           16    THE AIR AS POSSIBLE, AND THERE IS 500 MILLION YEARS OF 

           17    EVOLUTION BETWEEN PROVING THAT AND THE SYSTEM ARE 

           18    EFFICIENT.  SO MOST OF THIS OZONE THAT WE BREATHE WILL 

           19    REACT.  I GOING TO DIE OF THAT?  WELL, I'M NOT CREATING 

           20    THIS.  THIS IS ME BECAUSE I LIVE HERE.  WHEN I TRAVEL, 

           21    IT DISAPPEARS, REALLY, WHEN I LEAVE THE CITY.  STILL 

           22    VERY HEALTHY, SO I'M GOING TO KEEP LIVING, BUT IT'S NOT 

           23    GOOD.  

           24             SO THEN I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE POLITICAL 

           25    ISSUES, THOUGH I COULDN'T FINISH THE TECHNICAL ARGUMENTS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       218


                                                                          

            1    IN HERE.  THE THING IS, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE 

            2    INTERESTS IN COMPANIES AND SO ON THAT WANT TO MAKE 

            3    MONEY.  BUT THE QUESTION THAT WE AS HUMAN BEINGS HAVE TO 

            4    ASK IS THE FOLLOWING:  ARE WE GOING URGE TO MAKE MONEY 

            5    FOR SOME COMPANIES OR WE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST?  

            6    AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A RIGHT TO 

            7    (INAUDIBLE) TO EXIST AND IT IS CRAZY.  IT IS LUNACY TO 

            8    MAKE A COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT.  THERE IS NO COST 

            9    BENEFIT.  PEOPLE SHOULD NOT DIE SO THAT SOMEBODY ELSE 

           10    MAKE MONEY.  

           11             SIMPLY FINISH IT UP.  THAT'S A WARNING.  

           12        MS. WEGMAN:  YEAH, WARNING, ONE MINUTE.

           13        SERGIO MONTEIRO:  SO THEN TO FINISH, I'D LIKE TO ASK 

           14    YOU WHAT SHOULD YOU DO AS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE?  I'M A 

           15    RETIRED PROFESSOR NOW, BUT WHEN I WAS A PROFESSOR I 

           16    NEVER THOUGHT THAT MY DUTY.  I WAS PAID BY THE STATE.  I 

           17    NEVER ASSUMED THAT MY DUTY WAS TO GO TO THE CLASS AND 

           18    JUST TALK, TALK, TALK TO THE STUDENTS.  MY DUTY WAS FAR 

           19    MORE THAN THAT.  I HAD A MORAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE 

           20    THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS GOOD.  IN SOME WAYS YOU PEOPLE -- 

           21    FINISH, OKAY.  

           22             SO YOU SHOULD DO YOUR BEST TO MAKE THIS AFTER 

           23    THE POINT OF 06 IS TOO LARGE.  YOU SHOULD MAKE IT .05 OR 

           24    .04.  

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  THANK YOU FOR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       219


                                                                          

            1    COMING.  

            2             THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MILAN, AND I DON'T KNOW THE 

            3    LAST NAME.  OKAY.  AND IGOR KAGAN.  

            4        IGOR KAGAN:  MY NAME IGOR KAGAN.  I'M HERE AS A 

            5    CITIZEN THAT LIVES AND BREATHES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  

            6             A FEW WEEKS AGO, I WAS IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM AT 

            7    KAISER.  I'M OKAY.  IT WAS LATE AT NIGHT, AND I WAS 

            8    STRUCK -- I STRUCK UP A CONVERSATION WITH ANOTHER 

            9    PATIENT WHO HAD BEEN WAITING THERE A WHILE.  IT TURNS 

           10    OUT THAT THE GIRLS I WAS SPEAKING WITH HAD ASTHMA.  SHE 

           11    HAD COME TO THE E.R. BECAUSE SHE WAS HAVING TROUBLE 

           12    BREATHING DUE IN TO THE POLLUTED AIR AROUND HER HOME IN 

           13    THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF 

           14    HERE.  

           15             WHAT REALLY STRUCK ME ABOUT OUR CONVERSATION 

           16    WAS NOT SO MUCH HER WORDS BUT THE FEAR IN HER EYES AS 

           17    SHE SPOKE ABOUT STRUGGLING TO BREATHE.  I HAD DERIVED 

           18    TWO THINGS FROM OUR ENCOUNTER.  I REALIZED HOW LUCKY I 

           19    WAS NOT TO SUFFER FROM LUNG DISEASE, AND TWO, HOW SCARY 

           20    IT IS TO WORRY ABOUT EVERY BREATH THAT YOU TAKE.  

           21             WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE REASON I'M HERE TODAY, 

           22    TO SHARE WITH YOU MY PERSPECTIVE AS A RECENT COLLEGE 

           23    GRADUATE AND SOMEONE WHO WILL BE FORCED TO LIVE WITH THE 

           24    DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE WAY, WAY INTO THE FUTURE, 

           25    HOPEFULLY.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       220


                                                                          

            1             TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THIS ENTIRE PROCESS 

            2    SEEMS PRETTY ABSURD TO ME.  WE KNOW THAT OZONE IN THE 

            3    AIR IS HARMFUL AT ANY LEVEL AND THAT IT CAUSES MANY 

            4    NEGATIVE IMPACTS, SUCH AS IRRITATION TO THE LUNGS, 

            5    INCREASED RISK OF ASTHMA, AND EVEN PREMATURE DEATH.  WE 

            6    KNOW THAT THEY'RE CONSISTENTLY HIGH LEVELS OF OZONE IN 

            7    THE AIR.  I GET THE AIR QUALITY REPORTS EVERY DAY IN MY 

            8    E-MAIL, AND IT'S ALWAYS MODERATE TO UNHEALTHY.  IF I 

            9    RECEIVED MODERATE TO UNHEALTHY GRADES IN SCHOOL, I 

           10    WOULDN'T BE SPEAKING TO YOU AS A COLLEGE GRADUATE.  

           11             WE KNOW THAT THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIRES ALL 

           12    SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION TO BE PROTECTED, NOT JUST THE 

           13    HEALTHIEST PEOPLE.  WE KNOW THAT STUDY AFTER STUDY HAS 

           14    DEMONSTRATED THE HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS OZONE HAS ON 

           15    OUR HEALTH.  EVEN YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS HAVE 

           16    RECOMMENDED STRONGER STANDARDS.  WITH ALL THESE SMART 

           17    PEOPLE CALLING FOR YOU TO LOWER THE STANDARDS, IT JUST 

           18    SEEMS LIKE A NO-BRAINER.  

           19             SO WHAT'S STOPPING YOU?  IT'S NOT THE ECONOMIC 

           20    COSTS BECAUSE YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT THOSE CANNOT BE PART 

           21    OF YOUR CONSIDERATIONS; AND EVEN IF THEY COULD, THE 

           22    ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF COMPLIANCE FAR OUTWEIGH THE COSTS.  

           23    IF IT'S THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT 100 PERCENT SURE THAT A 

           24    STRONGER STANDARD WOULD BE BETTER, THEN HAVE YOUR FUTURE 

           25    GENERATIONS TO BE SAFE RATHER THAN SORRY.  THERE CAN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       221


                                                                          

            1    ONLY BE A BENEFIT TO LESS OZONE.  

            2             SO, PLEASE, DO THE RIGHT THING.  PROTECT OUR 

            3    RIGHT TO CLEAN HEALTHY AIR FOR TODAY AND FOR THE FUTURE.  

            4        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            5        MILAN:  MY NAME IS MILAN, M-I-L-A-N, OF QUANTUM 

            6    Q-U-A-N-T-U-M, WIZDOM.ORG.  I AM A RESEARCHER 

            7    SPECIALIZED IN UNDERSTANDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ORIGINS 

            8    OF BOTH CANCER AND AUTISM.  THE RESEARCH I'VE CONDUCTED 

            9    HAS LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY IDENTICAL.  

           10             SO WITH REGARD TO WHAT YOU'VE ASKED US TO DO 

           11    TODAY, WITH RESPECT TO THE MARGINS OF SAFETY DESIRED BY 

           12    THE PROPOSED OZONE STANDARD, I WOULD AGREE WITH THE 

           13    REVIEW OF SOME COMMENTS TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT NAAQS 

           14    REVIEW WHEN A MORE COMPLETE BODY OF EVIDENCE IS EXPECTED 

           15    TO BE AVAILABLE.  I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT ON DISCLOSED 

           16    FACTORS, SUCH AS THE EFFECT OF INDOOR AIR QUALITY FROM 

           17    OZONE, YOU ADDITIONALLY CONSIDER THIS IN DETERMINING THE 

           18    APPLICABILITY OF ANY ONE MONITORING LEVEL WITHIN A SET 

           19    OF STANDARDS, AND I UNDERSTAND THERE IS NO INDOOR AIR 

           20    QUALITY RULE.  

           21             THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF MY RESEARCH WOULD 

           22    INDICATE THAT THE CAUSE OF BOTH CANCER IN HUMANS AND 

           23    AUTISM OCCURRING IN THE MOTHER'S FETUS DURING THE 

           24    NINE-MONTH GESTATIONAL PERIOD ARE BOTH CREATED BY 

           25    INTERACTIONS COMING FROM SO2 IN OZONE AS WELL AS MERCURY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       222


                                                                          

            1    AND PM.  I BELIEVE THAT UNTIL A STANDARD IS SET FOR 

            2    LEVELS OF INDOOR HOME AIR POLLUTION, WE WILL NOT 

            3    COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE OUTDOOR 

            4    TO INDOOR INFILTRATION RATES THAT ARE OCCURRING.  

            5             MY RESEARCH INDICATES HIGHLY SUSPECT INDOOR AIR 

            6    POLLUTION AND THE LEVEL OF OZONE, SPECIFICALLY SO2, 

            7    OXYGEN ROBBING POLLUTANT, MAY REQUIRE A FURTHER 

            8    ADJUSTMENT ONCE A LEVEL OF SICKNESS ORIGINATING INSIDE 

            9    OF THE HOME CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THIS.  

           10             I'M BRINGING THIS UP BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE 

           11    BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE COLLECTIVE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF 

           12    AT THIS POINT REALLY ONLY GOES TO LUNGS AND A LITTLE BIT 

           13    TO HEART.  SO I UNDERSTAND I'M BRINGING YOU FRESH NEW 

           14    EVIDENCE.  

           15             I QUESTION THE MONITORING SYSTEM FOR OZONE TO 

           16    SELECTIVELY IDENTIFY POSSIBLE AMOUNTS OF MERCURY IN THE 

           17    AIR AT GROUND LEVELS AS THE CAMERA RULE HAS NOT BEEN 

           18    ADEQUATELY ENFORCED.  IT MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANT TO 

           19    SEQUESTER TOXIC MERCURY VAPOR INFLUENCE WITHIN THE OZONE 

           20    VAPORS.  I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THAT ENOUGH BECAUSE ALTHOUGH 

           21    PUBLIC DOCUMENTS STATE THAT THERE'S ONLY TEN PING PONG 

           22    BALLS OF MERCURY PER FOOTBALL FIELD SUPPOSEDLY, AS 

           23    PRINTED IN "BAKER CENTER PUBLICATION, PUBLIC POLICY 

           24    SERIES VOLUME 1," I STRONGLY BELIEVE FROM MY STUDY 

           25    THERE'S A LOT MORE MERCURY IN THE AIR.  AND ALTHOUGH WE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       223


                                                                          

            1    HAVE A CAMERA RULE, I BELIEVE WE CAN DO MORE WORK, EVEN 

            2    WITHIN OZONE, TO IDENTIFY THAT MERCURY.  

            3             SO MY STUDIES INDICATE HIGH SUSCEPTIBILITY TO 

            4    BOTH INDOOR MERCURY AND SO2 COMING FROM OUTDOOR OZONE.  

            5    THE RESULTS OF MY RESEARCH CONDUCTED WITHIN 120-MILE 

            6    RADIUS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THROUGHOUT 2005, 2006, AND 

            7    2007 INDICATE A HIGH LEVEL OF INDOOR AIR POLLUTION 

            8    GATHERING IN A SPECIFIC AREAS OF HOMES AT SPECIFIC 

            9    TIMES.  I WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC PATTERNS OF 

           10    TOXIC INFLUENCE AT 100 PERCENT CONSISTENCY TO BOTH 

           11    CANCER PATIENTS AND TO BACKDATE IT OVER 15 YEARS TO 

           12    WHERE PREGNANT MOTHERS OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN SLEPT AT THE 

           13    TIME OF THEIR PREGNANCY.  THE PATTERNS FORMING AUTISM IN 

           14    UTERO WERE IDENTICAL TO THOSE FORMING CANCER IN HUMANS.  

           15        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  EXCUSE ME.  THANK YOU VERY 

           16    MUCH.  

           17             IF YOU HAVE STUDIES -- PUBLISHED STUDIES THAT 

           18    SUPPORT YOUR POSITIONS, WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THOSE FOR THE 

           19    RECORD.  

           20        MILAN:  I HAVE THE SUBMITTING INFORMATION.  

           21        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  IF YOU COULD.  THANK YOU BOTH 

           22    VERY MUCH.  

           23             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE STEPHANIE MOLAN AND 

           24    SAMEERAH SIDDIQUE.  

           25        STEPHANIE MOLAN:  HI, I'M STEPHANIE MOLAN.  I'M A 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       224


                                                                          

            1    SENIOR FIELD REP FOR ASSEMBLYMAN TED LIEU, AND HE'S 

            2    PREPARED A STATEMENT THAT I'M GOING TO READ FOR YOU 

            3    TODAY.  

            4             SO FIRST, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING THIS 

            5    OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SHARE OUR THOUGHTS HERE TODAY.  

            6             AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A DISTRICT WITH SOME OF 

            7    THE POOREST AIR QUALITY IN CALIFORNIA, I DEEPLY CARE 

            8    ABOUT OUR AIR QUALITY.  IN THE 2006, 2007 CENSUSES IT 

            9    WAS DETERMINED THAT FOUR OF THE MOST POLLUTED ZIP CODES 

           10    AND FOUR OF THE MOST POLLUTING FACILITIES EMITTING TRI 

           11    CHEMICALS ARE LOCATED IN THE 53RD ASSEMBLY DISTRICT.  

           12    ASTHMA RATES ARE VERY HIGH AMONG MY CONSTITUENCY AND 

           13    CONTINUE TO RAISE IF WE DO NOT RESERVE THESE TRENDS.  

           14             IT IS FOR THIS REASON AND MANY OTHERS THAT I AM 

           15    PROMOTING LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REDUCE POLLUTION AND 

           16    ENCOURAGE A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT FOR MY CONSTITUENCY AND 

           17    CALIFORNIANS AS A WHOLE.  LAST YEAR THE GOVERNOR SIGNED 

           18    LAND MARK LEGISLATION, AB32 AUTHORED BY NUNEZ AND 

           19    PAVLEY, WHICH ESTABLISHED AGGRESSIVE GOALS TO REDUCE 

           20    CALIFORNIA'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.  

           21             MY ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AGENDA SUPPORTS 

           22    AB32'S EFFORTS BY ADDRESSING AREAS OF TRANSPORTATION AND 

           23    CONSTRUCTION.  THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR IS RESPONSIBLE 

           24    FOR MORE THAN 40 PERCENT OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, 

           25    WHICH IS MORE THAN ANY OTHER SECTOR.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       225


                                                                          

            1             THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S VEHICLE FLEET IS ONE 

            2    OF THE LARGEST PUBLIC FLEETS IN THE WORLD.  STATE 

            3    AGENCIES OPERATE NEARLY 73,000 VEHICLES USING 

            4    APPROXIMATELY 46 MILLION GALLONS OF GASOLINE AND 9 

            5    MILLION GALLONS OF DIESEL PER YEAR.  I'VE AUTHORED 

            6    AB236, WHICH WOULD DEMONSTRATE CALIFORNIA'S LEADERSHIP 

            7    AND COMMITMENT TO THE REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS 

            8    EMISSIONS AND DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL BY REFORMING ITS 

            9    VEHICLE PRACTICES TO ACHIEVE A GREENER STATE FLEET OF 

           10    VEHICLES FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND WOULD ALLOW 

           11    CALIFORNIA TO BE A SHOWCASE FOR THE USE OF CLEAN LOW 

           12    CARBON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES AND FUELS.  IT WOULD 

           13    DEMONSTRATE TO AUTO MAKERS AND FUEL PROVIDERS THAT 

           14    THERE'S A STRONG AND STEADY MARKET FOR CLEANER VEHICLES.  

           15             ANOTHER AREA WHERE I FEEL WE CAN GREATLY REDUCE 

           16    OUR IMPACT ON OUR AIR IS THROUGH GREEN BUILDINGS.  

           17    BUILDINGS HAVE A STAGGERING IMPACT ON THE NATURAL 

           18    ENVIRONMENT AND ON GLOBAL WARMING.  NATIONALLY, 

           19    BUILDINGS ACCOUNT FOR NEARLY 40 PERCENT OF TOTAL 

           20    GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ACCOUNTING FOR THE RELEASE OF 

           21    600 TIMES OF CARBON DIOXIDE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE ANNUALLY 

           22    AND EACH YEAR RESULT IN ALMOST 30 MILLIONS TONS OF 

           23    WASTE.  

           24             WE CANNOT EXPECT TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN MITIGATING 

           25    CLIMATE CHANGES AND MEETING THE AB32 GOALS UNLESS WE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       226


                                                                          

            1    MAKE GREEN BUILDINGS COMMONPLACE.  THE AVERAGE GREEN 

            2    BUILDING USES 32 PERCENT LESS ELECTRICITY, SAVES 359 

            3    METRIC TONS OF CO2 EMISSIONS ANNUALLY, AND USES 30 

            4    PERCENT LESS WATER AND THAT IS JUST THE TIP OF THE 

            5    ICEBERG.  IN SAVING IN CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM ONE BUILDING 

            6    ALONE EQUATES TO 70 PASSENGER CARS DRIVEN OVER A YEAR.  

            7    THIS IS WHY I'VE AUTHORED FOUR GREEN BUILDINGS OVER THE 

            8    PAST TWO YEARS.  

            9             AB888 REQUIRES THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 

           10    PROTECTION AGENCY TO COORDINATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SET 

           11    OF COMMERCIAL GREEN BUILDING GUIDELINES WHICH MUST BE AT 

           12    LEAST AS STRONG AS THE UNITED STATES GREEN BUILDING 

           13    COUNSEL'S LEAD COLD STANDARDS.  COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 

           14    CONSTRUCTED AFTER JULY 1, 2012 WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET 

           15    THESE GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS.  

           16             I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE EPA TO INCREASE THEIR 

           17    STANDARDS OF AIR QUALITY.  WE CANNOT AFFORD TO KEEP 

           18    ABUSING OUR EARTH AND OUR HEALTH.  THIS GENERATION IS 

           19    SEEING A SHIFT IN THE WAY OF BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUAL 

           20    PEOPLE CHOSE TO WORK AND LIVE IN THE WORLD.  I THINK THE 

           21    EPA NEEDS TO LISTEN TO THEIR OWN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS AND 

           22    SET THE BAR HIGHER IN REGARDS TO OUR AIR QUALITY.  

           23             THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY THOUGHTS.  

           24    SINCERELY, ASSEMBLYMAN TED LIEU AND HIS STAFF.  

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU, AND PLEASE, THANK THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       227


                                                                          

            1    ASSEMBLYMAN FOR HAVING YOU COME TODAY.  

            2        MR. HABER:  JUST ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION, PLEASE.  

            3             COULD YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT 

            4    CITIES THE 53RD DISTRICT INCLUDES?  

            5        STEPHANIE MOLAN:  THE 53RD DISTRICT IS WEST OF THE 

            6    405 AND ABOUT SOUTH OF THE 10.  SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT 

            7    OF WEST L.A., SOUTH OF SANTA MONICA THROUGH THE BEACH 

            8    CITIES, VENICE, HERMOSA BEACH, REDONDO BEACH; AND THEN 

            9    AS THE 405 KIND OF CURVES, WE CURVE WITH IT.  SO WE HAVE 

           10    TORRANCE AND LOMITA AS OUR BOTTOM END.  SO WE GO ALL THE 

           11    WAY UP TO THE PV HILLS.  SO WE HAVE A LOT OF COASTLINE.  

           12    WE HAVE THE 405 FREEWAY AS WELL AS LAX AND PRETTY MUCH 

           13    SANTA MONICA AIRPORT IN THERE AND THE TRACKS THAT GO 

           14    DOWN TO GO TO THE PORTS.  WE GET ALL OF THAT POLLUTION 

           15    TOO, SO IT'S SCARY.  

           16        SAMEERAH SIDDIQUI:  GOOD AFTERNOON, REPRESENTATIVES 

           17    OF EPA.  MY NAME IS SAMEERAH SIDDIQUI, AND I'M HERE ON 

           18    BEHALF OF CLERGY AND LADY UNITED FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE, 

           19    AN ASSOCIATION OF INTERFAITH RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND 

           20    CONGREGATIONS DEDICATED TO SUPPORT THE STRUGGLES OF THE 

           21    WORKING POOR AS WELL AS SUPPORTING COMMUNITY BENEFICIAL 

           22    PUBLIC POLICIES.  I THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS PUBLIC 

           23    HEARING ON THE OZONE STANDARD AS IT IS AN ISSUE OF DIRE 

           24    CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES HERE IN SOUTHERN 

           25    CALIFORNIA.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       228


                                                                          

            1             AMONGST THE MANY ISSUES RELIGIOUS LEADERS HELP 

            2    THEIR MEMBERS COPE WITH, ONE ISSUE OF PARTICULAR AND 

            3    GROWING CONCERN IS THE INCIDENTS OF RESPIRATORY DISEASES 

            4    IN OUR COMMUNITIES.  WHAT IS MORE DISCONCERTING TO US 

            5    ABOUT THIS TREND IS THE RATE OF NEW ASTHMA CASES 

            6    DIAGNOSED EACH YEAR AMONG OUR CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY 

            7    AMONGST CHILDREN WHO RESIDE NEAR OUR PORT COMPLEXES OF 

            8    LONG BEACH AND LOS ANGELES WHERE NOX EMISSIONS FROM 

            9    SHIPS AND DIESEL TRUCKS CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE 

           10    PROBLEM OF AIR POLLUTION.  HOSPITAL CHAPLAINS IN THESE 

           11    AREAS LAMENT THE INCREASING NUMBER OF CHILDREN THEY 

           12    VISIT EVERY WEEK WHO ARE HOSPITALIZED FOR DAYS AT A TIME 

           13    DUE TO SEVERE AND PROLONGED ASTHMA ATTACKS.  

           14             MOTHERS IN SOME OF OUR CONGREGATIONS ARE FORCED 

           15    TO SPEND MANY HOURS AWAY FROM WORK TO CARE FOR THEIR 

           16    ASTHMATIC CHILD WHO MISSES SCHOOL BECAUSE -- WHO MISSES 

           17    SCHOOL JUST BECAUSE TAKING THEM OUTSIDE COULD TRIGGER 

           18    ANOTHER ASTHMA ATTACK.  FURTHER STILL, SOME AREA SCHOOLS 

           19    ARE CONSIDERING INSTALLING ALARM SYSTEMS TO ALERT 

           20    TEACHERS AS TO WHEN AIR POLLUTION LEVELS ARE TOO HIGH 

           21    AND, THEREFORE, TOO TOXIC FOR CHILDREN TO SPEND THEIR 

           22    RECESSES OUTSIDE ON PLAYGROUNDS.  

           23             BUT BOTH YOU AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS SIMPLY A 

           24    PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE TO POSSIBLY PREVENT ASTHMA ATTACKS 

           25    DURING SCHOOL HOURS, BUT IT DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS OR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       229


                                                                          

            1    REDUCE THE SOURCE THAT WOULD SET THESE ALARMS OFF IN THE 

            2    FIRST PLACE.  ONCE THE BELL RINGS FOR CLASSES TO BE 

            3    DISMISSED, OUR CHILDREN WALK HOME INHALING AIR THAT IS 

            4    DAMAGING TO THEIR LUNGS, AND AS STUDIES HAVE SHOWN, WILL 

            5    REDUCE THEIR LUNG FUNCTION.  

            6             AS PEOPLE OF FAITH, WE UNDOUBTEDLY CRAVE THE 

            7    WELL-BEING AND PHYSICAL HEALTH OF OUR FAMILIES, FRIENDS, 

            8    AND NEIGHBORS.  AT THE SAME TIME WE RECOGNIZE OURSELVES 

            9    AS RATIONAL BEINGS WITH THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHOICES AND 

           10    THE CAPACITY TO EFFECT POSITIVE CHANGE IN OUR 

           11    COMMUNITIES AND THE NATION.  WE AT CLUE, THEREFORE, ASK 

           12    THE EPA TO ACT IN A MANDATED CAPACITY TO PROTECT OUR 

           13    HEALTH AND REVISE THE PROPOSED OZONE STANDARD TO 0.06 

           14    PARTS PER MILLION.  

           15             OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH ALLIES 

           16    ADVISE THAT LOWERING THE OZONE STANDARD TO A LEVEL JUST 

           17    SUGGESTED WOULD DO MUCH MORE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF 

           18    THE MOST SENSITIVE MEMBERS IN OUR COMMUNITIES, SUCH AS 

           19    CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY WHO SUFFER THE GREATEST HARM 

           20    FROM AIR POLLUTION.  

           21             IN CLOSING, WE SINCERELY REQUEST THE EPA TO 

           22    HEED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ACCUMULATED OVER THE PAST TEN 

           23    YEARS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY PRESENTED HERE TODAY AND SET 

           24    THE OZONE STANDARD AT THE RECOMMENDED 0.06 PARTS PER 

           25    MILLION.  THANK YOU.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       230


                                                                          

            1        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING.  

            2             WE'RE GOING TO HAVE COMMENTS READ -- COMMENTS 

            3    OF JONAH RAMIREZ, WHO WAS GOING TO BE HERE TODAY BUT WAS 

            4    UNABLE TO BE HERE.  LINDA WYRE WILL EXPLAIN TO US THE 

            5    SITUATION.  

            6        LINDA WYRE:  THANK YOU.  JONAH DESPERATELY WANTED TO 

            7    TESTIFY TODAY, BUT HIS MOTHER DEVELOPED A SERIOUS 

            8    MEDICAL CONDITION YESTERDAY; AND THEREFORE, BECAUSE THEY 

            9    LIVE IN SAN BERNARDINO, NO ONE IN THE FAMILY COULD DRIVE 

           10    HIM HERE.  HIS SCHOOL WAS ALL PREPARED.  IT WAS A VERY 

           11    BIG EVENT, SO THEY FAXED THEIR TESTIMONY TO US TODAY.  

           12    SO I WOULD BEG YOUR INDULGENCE TO STRETCH YOUR 

           13    IMAGINATION THAT I'M NOT A WOMAN OVER 60.  I'M AN 

           14    11-YEAR-OLD VERY CUTE, ARTICULATE BOY.  

           15                 "TODAY I SIT HERE AND TESTIFY TO YOU NOT AS 

           16             AN 11-YEAR-OLD BOY BUT AS A VICTIM, A VICTIM OF 

           17             POLLUTION, A VICTIM OF THE AIR THAT I BREATHE."  

           18             I SHOULD SAY THESE ARE INDEED JONAH'S WORDS.  

           19    NO ONE WROTE THIS FOR HIM.  

           20                 "I AM A YOUNG BOY WHO'S BEEN FORCED TO GROW 

           21             UP WAY TOO FAST.  I HAVE ASTHMA.  I WAS NOT 

           22             BORN WITH ASTHMA.  I DEVELOPED IT BY LIVING IN 

           23             SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA.  YOU SEE, THE PLACE 

           24             I CALL HOME IN SAN BERNARDINO, THE PLACE WHERE 

           25             I HAVE ALWAYS FELT SAFE, FELT FREE TO RUN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       231


                                                                          

            1             AROUND, PLAY, AND BE MYSELF RECEIVED FAILING 

            2             GRADES THIS YEAR IN ALMOST ALL CATEGORIES FROM 

            3             THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION STATE OF THE AIR 

            4             REPORT.  

            5                 "WITH THIS SAID, I BELIEVE IT IS FAIR TO 

            6             SAY THAT I FEEL AS IF MY GOVERNMENT IS 

            7             RESPONSIBLE FOR MY DEVELOPING LUNG DISEASE.  

            8             THE LAWS SEEM WAY TOO LENIENT TO ME.  OUR 

            9             CURRENT LAWS PERMIT HEAVY EXHAUST, SMOKE, AND 

           10             DEBRIS TO BE CONSIDERED SAFE.  SAFE?  IF THESE 

           11             PARTICLES THAT I BREATHE EVERY DAY ARE SO SAFE, 

           12             THEN WHY DO I DEPEND ON DAILY MEDICATION AND A 

           13             FAST RELIEF OF MY INHALER TO DO SOMETHING THAT 

           14             EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO, SIMPLY TO 

           15             BREATHE.  

           16                 "I AM BEGGING YOU TO MAKE CHANGES.  NOT 

           17             LITTLE CHANGES AND CERTAINLY NOT OVER THE NEXT 

           18             20 YEARS.  BUT BIG CHANGES.  BIG CHANGES TODAY.  

           19             I AM SURE YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE REFERRED TO AS 

           20             THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS TOO CONCERNED WITH 

           21             ISSUES THAT REQUIRE A COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION 

           22             TO TAKE A STEP, A LEAP, IF YOU WILL, FORWARD IN 

           23             THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO MAKE WHAT I KNOW THAT 

           24             YOU KNOW IS THE IS THE RIGHT CHOICE.  LET'S 

           25             STAND UP FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN.  LET'S MAKE MY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       232


                                                                          

            1             DREAM OF BREATHING CLEAN, POLLUTANT-FREE AIR A 

            2             REALITY.  

            3                 "I THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY LUNGS.  

            4             JONAH RAMIREZ."  

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU, AND PLEASE, CONVEY TO JONAH 

            6    HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE HIS TESTIMONY.  OKAY.  

            7             ARE YOU MARK GERAGHTY?  

            8        MARK GERAGHTY:  YEAH.  GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M MARK 

            9    GERAGHTY.  I'M AN ATTORNEY HERE IN LOS ANGELES.  THIS IS 

           10    ACTUALLY THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE 

           11    THIS, THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER APPEARED BEFORE ANY 

           12    AGENCY, AND I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT CONSIDER MYSELF AN 

           13    ACTIVIST.  BUT LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE, I'VE BECOME MORE 

           14    AND MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, GLOBAL 

           15    WARMING, AND IN PARTICULAR LIVING IN LOS ANGELES, THE 

           16    AIR IN THE L.A. BASIN.  

           17             IN TRYING TO KIND OF DECIDE ON THESE TYPES OF 

           18    ISSUES.  I HAD TO LOOK BACK TO WHAT I DO AS A LAWYER, 

           19    AND I LOOKED TO SEE IF I CAN FIND SOME OBJECTIVE 

           20    INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP THAT HAS KIND OF LOOKED AT THE ISSUE 

           21    AND TRIED TO DECIDE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO 

           22    WHATEVER THE PROBLEM MAY BE.  WHAT THE APPROPRIATE 

           23    RESPONSE SHOULD BE.  

           24             I CAME ACROSS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE EPA 

           25    BY YOUR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHICH APPEARS TO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       233


                                                                          

            1    BE, FRANKLY, VERY CRITICAL OF THE EPA'S APPARENT 

            2    INTENTION NOT TO FOLLOW THE VERY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT 

            3    THEY GOT.  SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF OBJECTIVE 

            4    SCIENTISTS -- I ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO KNOW SOME OF THESE 

            5    SCIENTISTS FROM MY FIELD OF PRACTICE, AND THESE ARE NOT 

            6    LIBERAL GUYS.  THESE ARE DOWN-THE-MIDDLE KIND OF GUYS, 

            7    AND TO IGNORE -- AS APPARENTLY THE INTENT MAY BE, TO 

            8    IGNORE WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING TO YOU, TO ME, IT'S 

            9    JUST UNCONSCIONABLE, AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RECONSIDER 

           10    AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL PUT PUBLIC HEALTH FIRST.  THANKS.  

           11        MS. WEGMAN:  IF I COULD JUST LET YOU KNOW ONE THING.

           12        MARK GERAGHTY:  SURE.

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  OUR PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE PRIMARY 

           14    HEALTH STANDARD IS -- DOES INCLUDE PART OF THE 

           15    RECOMMENDATION WE GOT FROM THE CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC 

           16    ADVISORY COMMITTEE.  SO I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW, WE 

           17    HAVEN'T IGNORED IT.

           18        MARK GERAGHTY:  COMPLETELY.

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  WE HAVEN'T.  WE HAVEN'T.  THE LOW END 

           20    DOES INCLUDE THEIR UPPER END.

           21        MARK GERAGHTY:  THANK YOU.

           22        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY.  WE 

           23    APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.  

           24             AT THIS POINT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS 

           25    SCHEDULED UNTIL 4:30, SO WE'LL TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 4:30 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       234


                                                                          

            1    UNLESS THERE IS SOMEBODY HERE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK WHO 

            2    WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW RATHER THAN LATER.  

            3             SEEING NO ONE IN THAT CATEGORY, WE'LL TAKE A 

            4    BREAK UNTIL 4:30.  

            5             (WHEREUPON A 45-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN.)  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR NEXT WITNESS 

            7    NOW, IF SHE IS READY.  VERONICA ZENDEJAS.  

            8        VERONICA ZENDEJAS:  MY NAME IS VERONICA ZENDEJAS, 

            9    AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR JENNY 

           10    OROPEZA, WHICH REPRESENTS THE 28TH SENATE DISTRICT, AND 

           11    I HAVE A BRIEF STATEMENT ON HER BEHALF.  SHE'S IN 

           12    SACRAMENTO IN SESSION, SO SHE COULD NOT COME, SO IT'S A 

           13    BRIEF STATEMENT.  

           14             BASED ON CURRENT SCIENTIFIC DATA, AS WELL AS 

           15    THE BACKING OF NUMEROUS PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY GROUPS 

           16    AND ORGANIZATIONS, SENATOR OROPEZA SUPPORTS YOUR REVISED 

           17    OZONE STANDARD OF .60 PPM.  AS WE ARE AWARE, OZONE 

           18    EXPOSURE CAN HARM EVEN THE HEALTHIEST LUNGS CAUSING 

           19    SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS.  STUDY AFTER STUDY HAS PROVEN 

           20    THAT THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN HIGHER 

           21    CONCENTRATIONS OF OZONE IN OUR ENVIRONMENT AND INCREASED 

           22    RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, AILMENTS SUCH AS CHILDHOOD ASTHMA 

           23    AND SENIOR RESPIRATORY DISTRESS.  

           24             THE 28TH SENATE DISTRICT INCLUDES COMMUNITIES 

           25    THAT EACH AND EVERY DAY ARE AFFECTED BY CANCER-CAUSING 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       235


                                                                          

            1    EMISSIONS FROM THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH, 

            2    LAX, THE RAIL YARDS THAT RUN THROUGH, AND ARE ADJACENT 

            3    TO THE CITIES OF LONG BEACH, CARSON, AND THE COMMUNITY 

            4    OF WILMINGTON.  THERE ARE SCHOOLS IN LONG BEACH LOCATED 

            5    NEXT TO FREEWAY ON-RAMPS THAT HAVE PLAYGROUNDS OFTEN NOT 

            6    USED BY CHILDREN BECAUSE OF POOR AIR QUALITY.  SOME OF 

            7    THESE COMMUNITIES HAVE THE HIGHEST ASTHMA RATES IN THE 

            8    COUNTRY.  

            9             IN 2005, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY HEALTH 

           10    DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A HEALTH SURVEY AND FOUND THAT IN 

           11    THE LONG BEACH HEALTH DISTRICT 20 PERCENT OF CHILDREN 

           12    YOUNGER THAN 18 HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH ASTHMA.  

           13    COMPARE THAT TO 13 PERCENT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

           14    AND TEN PERCENT NATIONWIDE.  

           15             EPA DO YOUR JOB.  BE RESPONSIBLE AND PROTECT 

           16    OUR LUNGS AND OUR AIR.  I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO ADOPT THE 

           17    RECOMMENDED STANDARD OF .6 -- I'M SORRY, 060 PPM SO THAT 

           18    WE CAN ALL BREATHE A BIT EASIER.  THANK YOU.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  QUESTION?  

           20        MR. HANNON:  JUST ONE QUESTION.  THERE'S BEEN QUITE 

           21    A BIT OF TESTIMONY BY VARIOUS PEOPLE TODAY ABOUT THE 

           22    PORTS AND THE AREAS AROUND THE PORTS.  

           23             DO YOU HAVE ANY -- DOES YOUR SENATOR HAVE ANY 

           24    THOUGHTS ON WAYS TO ADDRESS THE POLLUTION?  A LOT OF THE 

           25    TESTIMONY HAS BEEN ABOUT NOT JUST OZONE BUT PM, TOXICS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       236


                                                                          

            1    LIKE YOU MENTIONED, CANCER, AND THE GROWTH IN THE PORTS.  

            2    THE RECOGNITION THAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT AREA 

            3    ARE PAYING FOR THE GROWTH AND TRADE FOR THE REST OF THE 

            4    COUNTRY, A MATTER OF BEING -- GROWING SIGNIFICANT LEVELS 

            5    OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DECADES EASILY.  

            6             DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE ON WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT 

            7    IN ADDITION TO, OBVIOUSLY, YOUR COMMENTS TODAY ON THE 

            8    STANDARD?  

            9        VERONICA ZENDEJAS:  SENATOR OROPEZA'S SUPPORT OF THE 

           10    PORT OF LONG BEACH AND LOS ANGELES -- PORTS OF LONG 

           11    BEACH AND LOS ANGELES HAVE DOCUMENTED THE CLEAN AIR 

           12    ACTION PLAN.  SHE'S VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.  SHE'S ALSO 

           13    SUPPORTIVE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS TO BE USED ON TRUCKS 

           14    THAT BRING PRODUCT IN AND OUT OF THE PORTS OF LONG BEACH 

           15    AND LOS ANGELES.  SO SHE IS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE 

           16    TYPES OF MEASURES.  

           17             BUT IT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO SOLVE BECAUSE AS 

           18    YOU SOLVE SOMETHING, AN ASPECT OR AN AREA OF IT, A GROUP 

           19    OR AN INDUSTRY WILL COME OUT AND TRY AND -- TRY AND -- I 

           20    DON'T WANT TO SAY TRY AND KILL IT, BUT TRY AND KILL IT.  

           21    SO IT'S -- SHE BELIEVES IN BALANCE.  

           22             SHE LIVES EIGHT BLOCKS AWAY -- EIGHT OR NINE 

           23    BLOCKS AWAY FROM THE PORT OF LONG BEACH.  SHE'S A CANCER 

           24    SURVIVOR, AND SHE BELIEVES THAT SOME OF IT CAME FROM 

           25    EMISSIONS.  SHE'S VERY CLOSE TO THE 710 FREEWAY, SO SHE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       237


                                                                          

            1    LIVES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.  SHE LIVES IN 90813, WHICH IS 

            2    ONE OF THE POOREST OF ZIP CODES IN THE COUNTRY, IF NOT 

            3    THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  SO SHE SEES THE 710 WHEN SHE'S 

            4    DOWN FROM SACRAMENTO.  SHE SEES THE TRUCKS GOING IN AND 

            5    OUT.  SO SHE IS WORKING WITH THE PORTS TO TRY AND, YOU 

            6    KNOW, CREATE A BALANCE BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT 40 

            7    PERCENT OF THE NATION'S GOODS COME INTO OUR PORTS, INTO 

            8    THOSE TWO PORTS, AND WE SHOULDN'T BEAR THE BRUNT OF ALL 

            9    OF THE RAIL YARDS AND THE TRUCKS AND THE SHIPS AND THE 

           10    BUNKER FUELS AND ALL THAT.  SO SHE BELIEVES IN THE 

           11    BALANCE.  

           12        MR. HANNON:  THANK YOU.  

           13        VERONICA ZENDEJAS:  THANK YOU.

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU FOR COMING.  

           15        VERONICA ZENDEJAS:  AND YOU'LL BE HERE UNTIL 9:00 

           16    O'CLOCK?  

           17        MS. WEGMAN:  WE WILL.  

           18             (WHEREUPON A 30-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN.)  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE COME UP AT THE SAME 

           20    TIME AND SPEAK TOGETHER, BUT ONE AFTER THE OTHER.  

           21             SO IS CAITLIN PARKER HERE?  

           22        TOM POLITEO:  WELL, IF YOU PREFER TO SPEAK FIRST.

           23        CAITLIN PARKER:  OH, NO, GO AHEAD.

           24        TOM POLITEO:  OKAY.  

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  WHEN YOU SPEAK, IF YOU WOULD JUST STATE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       238


                                                                          

            1    YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION FOR OUR COURT REPORTER HERE.

            2        TOM POLITEO:  MY NAME IS TOM POLITEO.  I'M WITH THE 

            3    SIERRA CLUB LOS ANGELES CHAPTER HARBOR VISION TASK FORCE 

            4    AND WITH THE LIVABLE CITIES COMMITTEE.  

            5             DO I NEED TO SPELL MY NAME FOR YOU?  

            6    P-O-L-I-T-E-O.  

            7             PLEASE, CAN WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE CLEAN AIR?  

            8    I'M KIND OF TIRED OF ASKING THAT OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS 

            9    AND WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE US GET TO THE BUSINESS OF 

           10    HELPING CLEAN UP THE AIR.  WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE OUR 

           11    CIVILIZATION HAS FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THE CHALLENGES 

           12    FACING IT.  WE'VE FAILED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR PUBLIC 

           13    HEALTH AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND PRIVATE PROPERTY.  

           14    INSTEAD, WE'VE MADE EXCUSES ABOUT POLLUTION ON BEHALF 

           15    THE OPPORTUNISTIC INTERESTS, AND AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 

           16    GREATER GOOD, OUR MORAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE WELL-BEING 

           17    OF FUTURE GENERATIONS.  

           18             AT THE SAME TIME WE'VE NOT LIVED UP TO THE 

           19    SYSTEMATIC -- TO SIGNIFICANT SYSTEMIC AND REGIONAL 

           20    CHALLENGES IN DEALING WITH OZONE AND VARIOUS TYPES OF 

           21    POLLUTION CONNECTED TO OZONE SOURCES.  TO SOLVE OUR 

           22    PROBLEMS, WE NEED TO DO MORE THAN JUST RETROFIT WITH 

           23    PATCHES AND BANDAGES.  WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR US TO STAND 

           24    UP TO THE CHALLENGES WE FACE?  HOW WILL WE BE ABLE TO 

           25    LOOK AT SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS THROUGH THE EYES OF 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       239


                                                                          

            1    HISTORY AND SAY THAT WE BEHAVED RESPONSIBLY?  THAT WE 

            2    DID WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO LEAVE THE WORLD AT LEAST IN 

            3    AS GOOD AS CONDITION AS WE FOUND IT?  

            4             WE ARE HERE BECAUSE UNDER THE LINE THAT SAYS 

            5    "OZONE," OUR REPORT CARDS HAVE A D MINUS AND WANT TO GET 

            6    AN A.  THE IMPACTS OF OZONE, INCLUDING HARM TO PUBLIC 

            7    HEALTH, PHYSICAL PROPERTY, AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND 

            8    THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ADD UP.  HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE 

            9    BOTTOM LINE COSTS FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS?  

           10             OZONE HELPS TURN OUR BLUE SKIES BROWN AND BLOTS 

           11    OUT THE MAJESTIC MOUNTAINS THAT RING THE L.A. BASIN.  

           12    SOMETHING INTANGIBLE BUT VERY HUMAN IS LOST WHEN THIS 

           13    BEAUTY IS DEFACED.  

           14             IF WE WANT TO MAKE THE GRADE, OUR ASSESSMENT OF 

           15    THE IMPACTS OF OZONE MUST BE COMPREHENSIVE, INCLUDING 

           16    PUBLIC HEALTH, AESTHETICS, NATURAL BEAUTY, PHYSICAL 

           17    PROPERTY, AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND THE NATURAL 

           18    ENVIRONMENT.  IT ALSO NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE DAMAGE DONE 

           19    TO THOSE CHEERFUL OUTLOOKS ON SMOGGY DAYS.  WE ARE NOT 

           20    BACTERIA.  WE DON'T LIKE LIVING IN A CESSPOOL.  WE MUST 

           21    CONSIDER THE INTERACTION BETWEEN OZONE AND OTHER 

           22    ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS.  

           23             FOR EXAMPLE, OZONE IS MORE HARMFUL AS 

           24    TEMPERATURES RISE.  URBAN HEAT ARGUMENTS, WHICH CAN 

           25    EXCEED FIVE DEGREES, AGGRAVATE OZONE EFFECTS.  SO DOES 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       240


                                                                          

            1    GLOBAL WARMING.  AND ALTHOUGH ITS EFFECTS WON'T BE AS 

            2    PRONOUNCED IN OUR AREAS, IT WILL BE WATCHED FURTHER.  

            3             TO GET A C, WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THE 

            4    NON-LINEAR RESPONSES, THRESHOLDS, OR GIVING POINTS WHERE 

            5    AN EFFECT BECOMES MORE PRONOUNCED AND CAN BECOME RUNAWAY 

            6    COMPOUNDED BY POSITIVE FEEDBACK.  OUR FORESTS ARE 

            7    STRESSED BY DROUGHT, RISES IN TEMPERATURE, AND BY AIR 

            8    POLLUTANTS LIKE OZONE.  AS THESE IMPACTS COMBINE, THEY 

            9    MAKE OUR TREES WEAKER AND MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO 

           10    INFESTATIONS BY BARK BEETLES.  OZONE'S EFFECTS ARE MORE 

           11    PRONOUNCED WHEN THE FOREST IS ALREADY WEAKENED.  WE 

           12    ALREADY HAVE MORE FREQUENT FOREST FIRES AND MORE SEVERE 

           13    FIRES FROM THESE COMBINED EFFECTS.  IN TURN THE FIRES 

           14    RELEASE MORE COT -- CO2, AND THAT COMPOUNDS GLOBAL 

           15    WARMING.  

           16             TO GET A B, WE NEED TO CONNECT OUR CONCERNS 

           17    ABOUT OZONE TO THOSE OTHER IMPACTS, LIKE GREENHOUSE 

           18    GASES, OTHER TOXIC POLLUTANTS, NOISE, URBAN DECAY, AND 

           19    INDUSTRIAL BLIGHT AND SPRAWL.  OZONE IS NOT AN ISOLATED 

           20    PROBLEM.  THE SAME TAILPIPES AND SMOKE STACKS THAT EMIT 

           21    OZONE CONTRIBUTE TO ALL THESE OTHER PROBLEMS.  IF WE 

           22    APPROACH THESE SEPARATELY, WE'LL BE BARRING THE SYSTEMIC 

           23    SOLUTIONS WE NEED TO FIND AND THE SOLUTIONS WE NEED TO 

           24    ADOPT WILL BE PENNY-WISE BUT, PERHAPS, POUND FOOLISH.  

           25             EVERY NEW CAR COULD BE A PLUG-IN HYBRID THAT 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       241


                                                                          

            1    RUNS ON PURE ELECTRICITY FOR THE FIRST 20 MILES OR SO.  

            2    THOUGH NEW CARS MIGHT COST A BIT MORE -- THOUGH THESE 

            3    CARS MIGHT COST A BIT MORE, THEY'D SAVE CONSUMERS WITH 

            4    LOW MAINTENANCE COSTS IN THE LONG RUN.  YOU'D THINK THIS 

            5    FORMULA WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY ATTRACTIVE, BUT NOT IF 

            6    YOU'RE A CAR DEALER BECAUSE DEALERS MAKE THEIR MONEY ON 

            7    REPAIR, NOT THE SALES.  A PLUG-IN CAR THAT RUNS ALMOST 

            8    ENTIRELY ON ELECTRIC POWER IS A NIGHTMARE.  MAINTENANCE 

            9    WOULD DROP AND THE DRIVE TRAINS COULD LAST FOR A LONG 

           10    TIME.  SO THE CAR LOBBY IS PART OF THE REASON WE 

           11    CONTINUE TO GET A D MINUS IN AIR POLLUTION, BUT THEY'RE 

           12    NOT THE ONLY CAUSE.  

           13             OUR AILING SCHOOL SYSTEMS -- ONE MINUTE.  

           14    TROUBLED INNER CITY SCHOOLS -- TROUBLED INNER CITIES, 

           15    BIG BUCKS RETAILERS, INDEPENDENCE ON IMPORTED GOODS ALSO 

           16    CONTRIBUTE TO THE OZONE PROBLEM.  SOMETIMES DIRECTLY, 

           17    SOMETIMES INDIRECTLY.  IF THE COMMUNITIES PEOPLE WANT TO 

           18    LIVE IN WITH NICE HOMES AND GOOD SCHOOLS ARE 30 MILES OR 

           19    MORE FROM THEIR WORKPLACE, WE'VE CREATED A 

           20    TRANSPORTATION NIGHTMARE.  WE INCREASE THE AVERAGE 

           21    COMMUTING DISTANCE BY HALF, AND WE INCREASE AIR -- 

           22    COMMUTER-PRODUCED AIR POLLUTION LIKEWISE AND ALL OF THE 

           23    BURDENS THAT GO WITH IT.  

           24             WE ARE REPEATING THE SAME MISTAKE WITH OUR 

           25    GOODS MOVEMENT SYSTEM SINCE OUR CAPACITY TO MOVE CARGO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       242


                                                                          

            1    THROUGH THE L.A. AREA IS BEING PUSHED PAST THE LIMITS OF 

            2    19TH CENTURY TECHNOLOGY AND POOR URBAN PLANNING.  WE ARE 

            3    BUILDING INLAND PORTS IN SAN BERNARDINO, RIVERSIDE, AND 

            4    VICTORVILLE TO HANDLE OVERFLOW CARGO LOGISTICS THAT 

            5    CAN'T BE HANDLED IN OUR PORTS.  MUCH OF THE CARGO WE 

            6    RECEIVE IN OUR SEA PORTS WILL TRAVEL 4200 MILES TO AN 

            7    INLAND DESTINATION BY TRAIN AND THEN BE BROUGHT BACK TO 

            8    L.A. BY TRUCK.  THE TRUCKS AND TRAINS WILL MAKE THE 

            9    RESPECTIVE RETURN TRIPS.  

           10             WHEREAS THIS PLAN MAY GET AN A FOR EFFORT -- 

           11    I'VE GOT ABOUT A HALF A MINUTE TO GO HERE.

           12        MS. WEGMAN:  THAT'S FINE.  GO AHEAD.

           13        TOM POLITEO:  WHEREAS THIS PLAN MAY GET AN A FOR 

           14    EFFORT, IT GETS AN F FOR THRIFTINESS IN POLLUTION 

           15    MANAGEMENT.  IF YOU SLASH OZONE BUT DON'T MODERNIZE THE 

           16    INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE BALANCE OF TRADE, WE WILL NEVER 

           17    SOLVE THIS OZONE PROBLEM.  WE'LL NEVER REACH ATTAINMENT.  

           18             SO THE COMPLETE ANSWER TO OUR OZONE PROBLEM 

           19    DOESN'T LIE IN JUST LOOKING UP OUR TAILPIPES AND DOWN 

           20    OUR SMOKE STACKS.  WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE WAY WE RUN OUR 

           21    CITIES AND CLEAN UP OUR FAILURES HEAD ON.  IF YOU WANT 

           22    TO REDUCE OZONE AND IMPROVE OUR INNER CITY SCHOOLS, 

           23    REVITALIZE OUR FAILED NEIGHBORHOODS, MAKE SURE SHOPPING 

           24    AND JOBS ARE CLOSE TO HOME FOR EVERYONE, AND MODERNIZE 

           25    OUR GOODS MOVEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE, HELP PLANT AN URBAN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       243


                                                                          

            1    FOREST, IMPROVE BUILDING INSULATION, MAKE 

            2    AIR-CONDITIONING MORE EFFICIENT, INSTALL ROOF-TOP SOLAR, 

            3    AND GET US PLUG-IN HYBRIDS TO BUY.  

            4             LET'S NOT WASTE OUR TIME MAKING EXCUSES.  IF 

            5    YOU LISTEN TO INDUSTRY EXCUSE MAKING, WE'LL CONTINUE TO 

            6    BE POOR STUDENTS.  A STUDENTS DON'T GIVE EXCUSES.  THEY 

            7    DO THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.  IT'S TIME TO QUIT 

            8    MAKING EXCUSES AND TO BECOME A STUDENTS.  THANK YOU.  

            9        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC 

           10    RECOMMENDATIONS TO OFFER US ON THE OZONE STANDARD THAT 

           11    HAS BEEN PROPOSED?  

           12        TOM POLITEO:  WELL, IT WOULD SEEM THAT I'M IN FAVOR 

           13    OF THE LOWEST STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.  OKAY.  

           14    IS IT -- I DIDN'T SAY THAT EXPLICITLY, BUT IT WOULD 

           15    STAND TO REASON BASED ON WHAT I SAY.

           16        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  I JUST WANTED TO CHECK.  

           17        TOM POLITEO:  OKAY.  SURE.  ANYTHING ELSE?  

           18        MR. HANNON:  I HAVE ONE QUESTION.  I THINK YOU -- IN 

           19    THE BEGINNING OF YOUR STATEMENT, I THINK YOU MENTIONED 

           20    THAT HIGHER TEMPERATURES EXACERBATE THE EFFECTS OF 

           21    OZONE?  

           22        TOM POLITEO:  UH-HUH.

           23        MR. HANNON:  I HAD NOT HEARD THAT BEFORE.  DO YOU 

           24    HAVE -- I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.  

           25             DO YOU HAVE REFERENCES FOR THAT?  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       244


                                                                          

            1        TOM POLITEO:  NO, BUT I CAN PROVIDE THEM TO YOU 

            2    BEFORE THE DEADLINE.

            3        MR. HANNON:  OKAY.  THANK YOU.  

            4        TOM POLITEO:  ANYTHING ELSE?  

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  NO.

            6        TOM POLITEO:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND JUST 

            8    WAITING UNTIL --

            9        CAITLIN PARKER:  CAN I GO?  OKAY.  MY NAME IS 

           10    CAITLIN PARKER.  I'M HERE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND I 

           11    WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE EPA TO STRENGTHEN THE OZONE 

           12    STANDARD TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT OF OZONE POLLUTION TO 

           13    PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           14             I WORKED AS A CAMP COUNSELOR FOR FOUR SUMMERS 

           15    IN A ROW AT A CAMP IN THE SUBURB OUTSIDE WASHINGTON DC.  

           16    IT WAS RIGHT BY A MAJOR HIGHWAY, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF 

           17    PROBLEMS WITH POLLUTION COMING FROM THE URBAN -- THE 

           18    CITY INTO THE SUBURB.  EACH SUMMER IT SEEMED LIKE EVERY 

           19    YEAR WE WOULD HAVE MORE AND MORE CODE RED DAYS WHERE WE 

           20    WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO LET THE KIDS GO OUTSIDE.  IT'S 

           21    REALLY HARD TO EXPLAIN TO A GROUP OF EIGHT-YEAR-OLDS WHY 

           22    PLAYING OUTSIDE, PLAYING SOCCER IS ACTUALLY DANGEROUS TO 

           23    THEM.  BECAUSE OF POOR AIR QUALITY IT COULD ACTUALLY 

           24    HURT THEIR LUNGS.  

           25             RISING OZONE LEVELS ARE A SERIOUS HEALTH THREAT 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       245


                                                                          

            1    AGGRAVATING ASTHMA, CAUSING CHEST PAIN AND COUGH, AND 

            2    LEADING TO POSSIBLY IRREVERSIBLE LUNG DAMAGE.  SO 

            3    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS 

            4    REALLY INSUFFICIENT TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SO I WOULD 

            5    URGE THE EPA TO ADOPT THE STRONGEST LEVEL STANDARD TO 

            6    PROTECT OUR CITIZENS.  THANKS.  

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.  

            8    APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT TODAY.  

            9             OUR NEXT TWO SPEAKERS ARE SEAN CARROLL AND TARA 

           10    STAFFORD.  

           11        SEAN CARROLL:  HELLO, MY NAME IS SEAN CARROLL, AND 

           12    I'M HERE TO SPEAK AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  I ALSO WORK FOR 

           13    CALPERT AS A CAMPUS ORGANIZER.  

           14             TO ME, I'M HERE TO URGE FOR THE STRONGEST 

           15    PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON OUR OZONE EMISSIONS.  TO ME, 

           16    THIS IS AN ISSUE OF PROTECTING OUR PUBLIC HEALTH VERSUS 

           17    LISTENING TO SMALL SPECIAL INTERESTS.  WHEN WE LOOK AT 

           18    OUR GOVERNMENT TODAY, I THINK WE'VE SEEN IN A LOT OF 

           19    INSTANCES WHERE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION LISTENS TO 

           20    SPECIAL INTERESTS AND BIG OIL COMPANIES.  PUBLIC HEALTH 

           21    AND CLEAN AIR IS, TO ME, A RIGHT.  A RIGHT FOR EVERY 

           22    INDIVIDUAL.  THERE'S NO MORE BASIC RIGHT THAN BEING ABLE 

           23    TO LIVE YOUR LIFE HEALTHY AND BE SAFE AND BE CLEAN AND 

           24    BE ABLE TO GO OUTSIDE.  

           25             WE LIVE IN THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       246


                                                                          

            1    WE LIVE IN ONE OF THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC COUNTRIES 

            2    IN THE WORLD.  WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH 

            3    OF OUR PEOPLE, AND THERE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE A HIGHER 

            4    STANDARD TO ME.  WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST HOW POLICIES 

            5    HAVE INFLUENCED OUR GOVERNMENT IN THE OPPOSITE WAYS.  

            6    WE'VE SEEN IT IN ENERGY BILLS IN THE PAST WHERE THE 

            7    WHITE HOUSE HAS MET WITH LOBBYISTS FOR OIL COMPANIES, 

            8    AND IT'S COME OUT THAT THERE WERE MEETINGS LIKE THAT 

            9    GOING ON BACK IN JUNE BEFORE THESE REGULATIONS WERE 

           10    PROPOSED.  SO TO ME, I SEE NO REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T 

           11    PROPOSED THE STRONGEST STANDARDS THAT WE ABSOLUTELY 

           12    COULD TO PROTECT THE NATURAL RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE IN THIS 

           13    COUNTRY TO BE ABLE TO LIVE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE.  THANKS.  

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

           15        TARA STAFFORD:  MY NAME IS TARA STAFFORD.  I AM AN 

           16    ORGANIZER WITH CALPERT AS WELL, BUT I'M HERE SPEAKING AS 

           17    A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  

           18             I'M HERE TO ADVOCATE THAT THE OZONE STANDARD BE 

           19    STRENGTHENED TO 06 PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH I BELIEVE IS 

           20    THE STRONGEST THING THAT'S BEEN SUGGESTED.  THE REASON 

           21    THAT I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT IS, YOU KNOW, I'VE 

           22    LIVED HERE IN LOS ANGELES FOR A FEW YEARS AND STUFF, AND 

           23    IT'S A PRETTY POLLUTED CITY.  

           24             I KNOW WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE TO GO TO 

           25    COLLEGE, A LOT OF MY FRIENDS WHO WERE MORE ATHLETIC THAN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       247


                                                                          

            1    ME AND WERE FROM CLEANER CITIES WERE DEFINITELY ALWAYS 

            2    COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW MUCH THEIR LUNGS HURT BECAUSE THE 

            3    AIR POLLUTION HERE IS JUST SO MUCH WORSE THAN WHEREVER 

            4    THEY WERE FROM.  AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S DEFINITELY 

            5    OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF DEVASTATING EFFECTS THAT OZONE 

            6    HAS AT LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT STANDARDS.  AND THERE'S 

            7    DEFINITELY -- YOU KNOW, THE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN CLEAR 

            8    CORRELATION BETWEEN OZONE LEVELS AND HEALTH PROBLEMS 

            9    RELATING TO CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND RESPIRATORY 

           10    DISEASE.  

           11             AND UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT, THE LAW SAYS THAT 

           12    THE EPA SHOULD SOLELY BASE THEIR DECISION OFF THE 

           13    PUBLIC'S HEALTH, AND THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THAT 

           14    STANDARD IN 2002.  SO JUST GOING OFF A LITTLE BIT WHAT 

           15    SEAN SAID, IF IT'S NOT BEING LOWERED TO .06, IT SEEMS 

           16    THE ONLY REASON FOR THAT WOULD BE THE INFLUENCE OF 

           17    SPECIAL INTERESTS.  SO I DEFINITELY THINK THE EPA SHOULD 

           18    KEEP THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH IN MIND AND HAVE A GOOD MARGIN 

           19    OF SAFETY, AND .06 PARTS PER MILLION SEEMS LIKE THE BEST 

           20    WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.  SO WE SHOULD DO THAT.  THAT'S 

           21    IT.  

           22        MR. HANNON:  JUST ONE QUESTION, AND IT'S JUST ON THE 

           23    LAST COMMENT YOU MADE ABOUT THE ONLY REASON IT MIGHT NOT 

           24    BE AT .06 BECAUSE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS.  

           25             THE SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ITSELF DIDN'T 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       248


                                                                          

            1    RECOMMEND AUTOMATICALLY .060.  IT WAS A RANGE OF .070 TO 

            2    .060, AND ALL OF THE INDUSTRY GROUPS THAT HAVE TESTIFIED 

            3    TODAY, TESTIFIED AT NO CHANGE TO THE STANDARD AT ALL.  

            4    AND IN THE PREDOMINANT TESTIMONY AND WRITTEN -- PUBLIC 

            5    FORUMS WRITTEN AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN OTHER FORMS 

            6    PREVIOUSLY IN REVIEW BY INDUSTRY GROUPS HAVE ROUTINELY 

            7    BEEN TO NOT CHANGE THE STANDARD AT ALL.  

            8             SO JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS 

            9    PROPOSED THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS INADEQUATE, THAT 

           10    THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT THE STANDARD IS INADEQUATE, IT 

           11    NEEDS TO BE REVISED.  AND THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF HIM IS 

           12    HOW MUCH, AND THERE'S SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT ABOUT HOW 

           13    MUCH.  

           14             TODAY, PREDOMINANTLY, THE VAST MAJORITY OF 

           15    PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED, JUST AS YOU FOLKS HAVE, .060 

           16    LARGELY BECAUSE OF A JUDGMENT THAT THAT'S WHAT'S NEEDED.  

           17    THAT IS -- AS SEAN MENTIONED, THAT IS A PUBLIC RIGHT TO 

           18    HAVE CLEAN AIR AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT VALUE.  THAT'S 

           19    THE PREDOMINANT THREAD OF ALL OF THE TESTIMONY TODAY.  

           20             BUT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE -- IT'S -- IT 

           21    IS -- IN ANY SITUATION LIKE THIS, THERE IS ALWAYS STRONG 

           22    INTERESTS ON BOTH SIDES, BUT I WOULD NOT ASSUME THAT AT 

           23    THIS POINT AT ALL THAT THE AGENCY'S VIEW HAS BEEN DRIVEN 

           24    BY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF SUPPORTING INDUSTRY.  

           25    THAT'S NOT A QUESTION.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       249


                                                                          

            1        CAITLIN PARKER:  I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE ISSUE, BUT 

            2    YOU KNOW, I JUST THREW THAT IN THERE.  

            3        SEAN CARROLL:  TO ME, I JUST THINK WE SHOULD DO THE 

            4    MOST THAT WE ABSOLUTELY CAN.  WE'RE TOO FAR BEHIND.  SO 

            5    ANYTHING LESS THAN THE MOST THAT IS POSSIBLE DOESN'T 

            6    SEEM LIKE IT'S REALLY GOOD ENOUGH BECAUSE WE LOOK AT LOS 

            7    ANGELES AND WE LOOK AT CITIES ALL AROUND THIS COUNTRY 

            8    AND WE SEE THE EFFECTS OF IT, AND THERE'S NOT REALLY A 

            9    GOOD REASON.  

           10             YOU CAN LOOK AT ASTHMA AFFECTS, FREEWAYS IN LOS 

           11    ANGELES, AND YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM NEAR THE COAST.  YOU 

           12    CAN SPEND A YEAR LIVING NEAR THE FREEWAYS IN LOS ANGELES 

           13    AND SPEND A LIVING NEAR THE COAST, AND YOU CAN JUST TELL 

           14    EVERY SINGLE DAY.  

           15             SO TO ME, IT'S -- IF WE'RE NOT DOING THE MOST 

           16    THAT WE ABSOLUTELY CAN, WE'RE REALLY NOT DOING ENOUGH.  

           17    AND IF WE'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH, IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE 

           18    LISTENING TO THE WRONG PEOPLE.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  I JUST WANT TO SAY IF YOU DO CHOSE TO 

           20    SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY, 

           21    MS. STAFFORD, YOU TALKED ABOUT STUDIES, YOU KNOW, 

           22    DRAWING CLEAR LINKS AS TO CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS AND 

           23    RESPIRATORY EFFECTS AT LEVELS BELOW THE CURRENT 

           24    STANDARD, IF YOU DO SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY, IF YOU 

           25    COULD POINT TO THOSE SPECIFIC STUDIES BECAUSE ONE OF THE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       250


                                                                          

            1    BIG ISSUES HERE IS IF WE DO GO BELOW THE CURRENT 

            2    STANDARD, HOW LOW SHOULD IT GO.  AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR 

            3    VIEW THAT IT SHOULD GO AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, BUT THAT'S AN 

            4    ISSUE IN THIS RULE MAKING.  

            5        CAITLIN PARKER:  THANK YOU.  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU.  

            7             OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE STEPHANIE HANSEN AND 

            8    JENNIFER KIM.  

            9        STEPHANIE HANSEN:  MY NAME STEPHANIE HANSEN, AND I'M 

           10    HERE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE 

           11    EPA'S RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  

           12             PEOPLE LIKE ME TRUST THAT A GOVERNMENT 

           13    ORGANIZATION, SUCH AS THE EPA, ARE LOOKING AFTER OUR 

           14    WELL-BEING BECAUSE, FRANKLY, WHAT ELSE WOULD THEY, YOU 

           15    KNOW, BE THERE FOR?  WHAT ELSE WOULD THEY BE FOCUSING 

           16    ON?  AND I'M SEMI-SCARED OF THAT ANSWER.  I'M SURE YOU 

           17    KNOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE COME IN TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE 

           18    CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OZONE AND THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND 

           19    YOU KNOW THOSE LINKS ARE VERY CLEAR, BUT THERE SHOULD BE 

           20    NO QUESTION THAT THE OZONE STANDARD SHOULD BE 

           21    STRENGTHENED TO .06 PARTS PER MILLION.  

           22             I'M CURIOUS WHY YOU WOULD EVEN CHOSE A STANDARD 

           23    THAT'S LOWER -- THAT'S WEAKER THAN THAT.  WHY AREN'T WE 

           24    LISTENING TO THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISEMENT?  THEY ADVISED 

           25    .06 TO .07, AND YET THE ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO MAKE IT 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       251


                                                                          

            1    .07 TO .075.  I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY THAT WOULD EVEN BE 

            2    AN OPTION IF THE EPA'S INTEREST IS THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND 

            3    THE ENVIRONMENT.  IN MY EYES THERE IS NO, EVEN, REASONS 

            4    TO BE HAVING THESE HEARINGS WHEN THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS 

            5    THAT IT SHOULD BE AT .06.  WE SHOULD BE PROTECTING 

            6    PEOPLE'S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND WE SHOULD -- IT 

            7    SHOULD BE AT THE STRONGEST STANDARD THAT WE COULD 

            8    POSSIBLY HAVE BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE A LEADER, AND WE 

            9    NEED TO BE ON TOP OF THIS.  IT'S JUST GETTING WORSE AND 

           10    WORSE EVERY DAY.  THANK YOU.  

           11        MS. WEGMAN:  I'LL JUST NOTE, WE ARE HAVING THE 

           12    HEARINGS BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE 

           13    LIKE YOU AND OTHERS, AND THERE ARE, BELIEVE ME, VARYING 

           14    VIEWS ON WHAT THE STANDARD SHOULD BE SET AT.  SO PEOPLE 

           15    INTERPRET THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN DIFFERENT WAYS.  SO 

           16    IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THESE HEARINGS AND TO HEAR FROM 

           17    PEOPLE.  

           18        JENNIFER KIM:  HI, MY NAME IS JENNIFER KIM.  I'M 

           19    HERE TODAY AS A CITIZEN.  FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK 

           20    THE EPA FOR HOLDING THESE HEARINGS, INVITING PUBLIC 

           21    CITIZENS TO TESTIFY.  

           22             I'M HERE TODAY TO URGE TO YOU ADOPT A STANDARD 

           23    OF .06 PARTS PER MILLION BECAUSE I DON'T SMOKE, I CLEAN 

           24    MY APARTMENT AND GET RID OF THE DUST EVERY ONCE IN A 

           25    WHILE, I DON'T HAVE ASBESTOS IN MY BUILDING ACCORDING TO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       252


                                                                          

            1    MY LANDLORD, AND I DON'T ROUTINELY EXPOSE MYSELF TO 

            2    TOXIC FUMES, BUT I DO BREATHE OFTEN.  ONE MIGHT SAY ON A 

            3    REGULAR BASIS.  AND ACCORDING TO THE EPA, ACCORDING TO 

            4    RIGHT NOW, THE STANDARDS FOR THE OZONE LAYER OR FOR 

            5    OZONE, IT'S HAZARDOUS TO MY HEALTH.  

            6             I, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T DO TOO WELL IN ORGANIC 

            7    CHEMISTRY IN COLLEGE, AND I, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN, DON'T 

            8    REALLY KNOW A LOT ABOUT, I GUESS, WHY THERE IS SMOG 

            9    NECESSARILY, OTHER THAN, WELL, I HAPPEN TO LIVE RIGHT 

           10    NEXT -- RIGHT UP THE STREET -- ACTUALLY RIGHT NEXT TO 

           11    THE HIGHWAY WHERE THE 110, 101 KIND OF MEET AND FORM 

           12    THIS GIANT HIGHWAY MONSTER RIGHT NEXT TO MY HOUSE.  

           13             SO YOU'VE ACTUALLY SAID THAT THE CURRENT 

           14    STANDARD IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH AND THANKS FOR THE HEADS UP 

           15    ON THAT.  BUT SINCE THE -- YOU KNOW, HERE'S WHAT I DO 

           16    KNOW:  I DON'T KNOW ABOUT NITROGEN OXIDES AND VOLATILE 

           17    ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, BUT I KNOW THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE 

           18    SAID THE CURRENT STANDARD IS NOT ENOUGH AND THAT YOUR 

           19    OWN SCIENTISTS HAVE SAID THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS 

           20    .06 TO .07.  

           21             SO YOUR PROPOSAL, I THINK RIGHT NOW, IS FOR .07 

           22    TO .075, WHICH TO ME, AVERAGE CITIZEN, I THINK THAT'S 

           23    NOT WITHIN .06 TO .07, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE 

           24    SHOULD BE NO OTHER STANDARD THAN ONE -- YOU KNOW, NOT 

           25    ONE THAT COMES CLOSE TO PROTECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       253


                                                                          

            1    ALMOST PROTECTS THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR JUST BARELY 

            2    PROTECTS THE PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT ONE THAT GOES ABOVE AND 

            3    BEYOND OF PROTECTING OF HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC, FOR YOU 

            4    AND ME AND MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND YOUR FRIENDS AND 

            5    FAMILY TOO.  

            6             SO I URGE YOU TO, YOU KNOW, ADOPT WHAT IS THE 

            7    STRONGEST MEASURE THAT YOUR OWN SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING 

            8    WILL ACTUALLY PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC.  SO 

            9    THANK YOU.  

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING.  WE VERY 

           11    MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.  

           12             OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KAY AUSTIN.  

           13        KAY AUSTIN:  HELLO.  MY NAME IS DR. KAY AUSTIN.  

           14    THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.  

           15    I'M A RESIDENT OF LOS ANGELES AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF 

           16    OF THREE MEMBERS OF MY EXTENDED FAMILY, TWO FRIENDS, AND 

           17    BY EXTENSION THE PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES WHOSE HEALTH WILL 

           18    MATERIALLY SUFFER IF CLEAN AIR STANDARDS ARE NOT 

           19    STRENGTHENED.  

           20             I LIVE IN MALIBU, 1800 FEET HIGH IN THE SANTA 

           21    MONICA MOUNTAINS WHICH DIVIDE THE COAST FROM THE SAN 

           22    FERNANDO VALLEY.  FROM THERE, I LOOK OUT ON SANTA MONICA 

           23    BAY AND THE SHORELINE FROM SANTA MONICA SOUTH TO THE 

           24    PALOS VERDE PENINSULA.  ALSO, I OFTEN LOOK DOWN ON A 

           25    THICK BROWN SLAB OF SMOG OZONE THAT LAYS OVER LOS 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       254


                                                                          

            1    ANGELES LIKE A TOMB AND EXTENDS OUT OVER SANTA MONICA 

            2    BAY TOO THICK TO BE DISPERSED BY COASTAL BREEZES.  

            3             THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION REPORTS THAT IN 

            4    2007 LOS ANGELES IS THE NUMBER ONE METROPOLITAN AREA 

            5    MOST POLLUTED BY YEAR-ROUND PARTICLE POLLUTION AND MOST 

            6    POLLUTED BY SHORT-TERM PARTICLE PRODUCTION.  OF THE 25 

            7    MOST OZONE-POLLUTED CITIES IN THE COUNTY, LOS ANGELES, 

            8    AGAIN, IS NUMBER ONE.  THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION 

            9    ESTIMATES THAT THERE ARE -- I'M GOING TO ROUND THESE 

           10    NUMBERS UP, 243 -- 244,000 ASTHMATIC CHILDREN AT RISK IN 

           11    LOS ANGELES.  HALF A MILLION ADULTS, 288,000 -- 289,000 

           12    ADULTS WITH CHRONIC BRONCHITIS, 114,000 ADULTS WITH 

           13    EMPHYSEMA, ALMOST TWO AND A HALF MILLION ADULTS WITH 

           14    CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, AND A HALF MILLION DIABETICS.  

           15             I AM ONE OF THOSE ADULTS WITH CHRONIC 

           16    BRONCHITIS.  THE INSTANT I GET A COLD, I GET BRONCHITIS, 

           17    AND ANTIBIOTICS CANNOT ENTIRELY ELIMINATE IT AND IT 

           18    HANGS ON FOR WEEKS.  I CAME HERE TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF 

           19    MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS.  IT WASN'T UNTIL I BEGAN 

           20    RESEARCHING FOR THEM THAT I LEARNED THAT MY CHRONIC 

           21    BRONCHITIS CAN ALSO BE A RESULT OF AIR POLLUTION.  THREE 

           22    MEMBERS OF MY EXTENDED FAMILY ARE ASTHMATIC, TWO 

           23    TEENAGERS AND A SENIOR, AND I ALSO HAVE ONE FRIEND, A 

           24    SENIOR, WHO MUST STAY INSIDE ON BAD DAYS.  

           25             ANOTHER FRIEND HAD A HEART ATTACK AT AGE 41.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       255


                                                                          

            1    HE WAS TOLD TO EXERCISE EVERY DAY, YET THE AIR POLLUTION 

            2    MADE THAT A DEFINITE RISK FOR HIM.  NEVERTHELESS, HE 

            3    BECAME A RUNNER, LOST 60 POUNDS, AND BECAME THIN AND 

            4    FIT.  HIS HEART STOPPED AT AGE 44.  ACCORDING TO THE 

            5    AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, THE CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC 

            6    ADVISORY COMMITTEE TOLD THE EPA THAT THE 1997 OZONE 

            7    STANDARD QUOTE "NEEDS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED TO 

            8    PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH, PARTICULARLY IN SENSITIVE 

            9    SUBPOPULATIONS, SUCH AS CHILDREN, PEOPLE WITH LUNG 

           10    DISEASE, AND SENIORS."  

           11             THE A.L.A. STATES THAT EPA'S CAREER STAFF 

           12    SCIENTISTS AGREED WITH THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

           13    COMMITTEE.  MOREOVER, IN 2002, THE SUPREME COURT RULED 

           14    UNANIMOUSLY THAT PUBLIC HEALTH WAS THE SOLE BASIS FOR 

           15    SETTING THAT STANDARD.  WHY, THEN, DOES THE NEW EPA 

           16    PROPOSAL LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN TO RETAINING THE CURRENT 

           17    OZONE STANDARD?  AND AGAIN, THE FEAR IS THAT 

           18    REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OIL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND 

           19    OTHERS MET WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO DISCUSS THE 

           20    NEW OZONE STANDARDS JUST IN THE WEEKS BEFORE THE RELEASE 

           21    OF THE EPA'S PROPOSAL.  DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO 

           22    WITH THE DECISION TO CONSIDER KEEPING THE CURRENT 

           23    INADEQUATE STANDARD?  

           24             THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER OIL LOOPHOLE THAT LETS 

           25    MANY COMMUNITIES CLAIM THEY ARE MEETING THE STANDARD FOR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       256


                                                                          

            1    OZONE WHEN THEY WEREN'T BY ROUNDING DOWN TO THE NEAREST 

            2    TWO DECIMAL PLACES.  THIS MAKES THE REAL STANDARD MUCH 

            3    WEAKER THAN THE OFFICIAL ONE.  THIS LOOPHOLE MUST BE 

            4    CLOSED.  IT'S NO SECRET THAT THE EPA, LIKE THE JUSTICE 

            5    DEPARTMENT AND EVERY OTHER FORMERLY NON-PARTISAN AGENCY 

            6    IN THE GOVERNMENT, HAS BEEN POLITICIZED BY THE BUSH 

            7    ADMINISTRATION.  THIS IS REPREHENSIBLE WHEN IT HAPPENED 

            8    ESPECIALLY WHERE SCIENCE, I.E. TRUTH AND OBJECTIVITY, IS 

            9    SUPPOSED TO PREVAIL.  

           10             IGNORANT POLITICAL APPOINTEES AT THE EPA HAVE 

           11    MANIPULATED, DISTORTED, AND SUPPRESSED THE SCIENCE ON 

           12    SUCH ISSUES AS TOXIC MERCURY POLLUTION, PLANT POLLUTION, 

           13    MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL OF MINING, FUEL EFFICIENCY, OIL 

           14    DRILLING, AND PESTICIDES.  

           15             ONE PARAGRAPH SHORT.  I, MY FAMILY, FRIENDS, 

           16    AND THE PEOPLE OF LOS ANGELES DESERVE TO BREATHE CLEAN 

           17    AIR.  WE DO NOT DESERVE TO HAVE CHRONIC DISEASES AND TWO 

           18    TO THREE YEARS TAKEN OFF OUR LIVES BECAUSE THE EPA IS A 

           19    TOOL OF INDUSTRY RATHER THAN A PROTECTOR OF THE AMERICAN 

           20    PEOPLE.  PLEASE, ADOPT AN OZONE STANDARD OF 0.060 PARTS 

           21    PER MILLION CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF YOUR 

           22    CAREER STAFF AND INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC ADVISORS.  

           23    PLEASE PROTECT US.  THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 

           24    SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.  THANK YOU.  

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  I DO JUST WANT TO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       257


                                                                          

            1    NOTE THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS .070 TO .075 AND .070 WAS 

            2    CONSISTENT WITH THE UPPER END OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF 

            3    OUR ADVISORS.  WE ARE TAKING COMMENT ON RETAINING THE 

            4    CURRENT STANDARD, BUT THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE PROPOSAL.  

            5    SO THIS IS AN OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.  THE 

            6    ADMINISTRATOR FELT HE NEEDED TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHO 

            7    MIGHT HAVE THAT VIEW AS WELL.  SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH 

            8    FOR TAKING THE TIME TO TALK TO US.  

            9        KAY AUSTEN:  THANK YOU.  

           10        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  WE'LL HAVE A SHORT BREAK WHILE 

           11    WE WAIT FOR OUR NEXT SPEAKER.  

           12             (WHEREUPON 20-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN.)  

           13        MS. WEGMAN:  I THINK WE'RE READY FOR OUR NEXT 

           14    SPEAKERS.  

           15             SAM VOORHEES AND EMILY SCOTT.  WE ASK FOLKS TO 

           16    COME UP TWO AT A TIME, SO --

           17        SAM VOORHEES:  SHOULD I GO AHEAD?  

           18        MS. WEGMAN:  GO AHEAD.

           19        SAM VOORHEES:  GREAT.  WELL, MY NAME IS SAM 

           20    VOORHEES.  I'M A RESIDENT OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA.  

           21    THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO SPEAK TO YOU 

           22    TODAY.  I JUST -- I CAME HERE TODAY BECAUSE, AS AN 

           23    ENVIRONMENTALIST, I'M OBVIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT 

           24    PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT ALSO AS A RESIDENT OF 

           25    THE LOS ANGELES AREA, I'M PRETTY CONCERNED ABOUT AIR 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       258


                                                                          

            1    QUALITY ISSUES PARTICULARLY.  

            2             ALMOST EVERY TIME I LEAVE THE CITY AND COME 

            3    BACK IN, I GUESS TO SEE THIS SORT OF VISTA OF LOS 

            4    ANGELES WITH THE HAZE OVER IT, AND I KNOW AIR QUALITY 

            5    ISSUES ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND 

            6    THE AREA.  I'VE SPOKEN TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO LEAVE TOWN 

            7    AND FLY INTO L.A.  YOU DON'T QUITE NOTICE UNTIL YOU'RE 

            8    GONE THE DIFFERENCE THAT AIR QUALITY CAN MAKE IN YOUR 

            9    LIFE, BUT I KNOW IT'S A REALLY SIGNIFICANT CAUSE OF 

           10    ASTHMA AND OTHER AILMENTS AND LUNG DISEASE.  SO I'M HERE 

           11    TODAY TO ENCOURAGE THE EPA TO STRENGTHEN THE OZONE 

           12    STANDARDS TO .06 PARTS PER BILLION SO THAT WE CAN HAVE 

           13    THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE PROTECTIONS TO PROTECT THE 

           14    QUALITY OF OUR AIR AND THE HEALTH OF OUR CITIZENS.  

           15             IT SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD BE NOTHING MORE 

           16    IMPORTANT THAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A HEALTHY 

           17    ENVIRONMENT FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN AND FUTURE 

           18    GENERATIONS.  SO I'VE JUST COME HERE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO 

           19    DO THAT.  

           20             SO ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.  

           21        MS. WEGMAN:  WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING.  

           22        EMILY SCOTT:  HI, I'M EMILY SCOTT.  I'M AN L.A. 

           23    RESIDENT, SO OBVIOUSLY I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT L.A.'S 

           24    AIR QUALITY.  

           25             WE -- AT THE OFFICE WHERE I WORK, WE'RE ALL 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       259


                                                                          

            1    REALLY EXCITED WHEN WE CAN SEE THE HOLLYWOOD SIGN 

            2    THROUGH THE SMOG, WHICH WE USUALLY CAN'T EVEN THOUGH WE 

            3    SHOULD BE ABLE TO.  AND OBVIOUSLY, OZONE POLLUTION IS A 

            4    SERIOUS HEALTH THREAT.  IT CAUSES ALL SORTS OF HEALTH 

            5    PROBLEMS.  I MEAN, I'M A RUNNER, AND I WANT TO KNOW THAT 

            6    I CAN BE ABLE TO GO FOR A RUN IN MY OWN CITY AND NOT 

            7    RISK DAMAGE TO MY LUNGS.  

            8             I'M ORIGINALLY FROM WASHINGTON STATE.  WHEN I 

            9    GO BACK UP THERE TO VISIT AND, LIKE, GO FOR MY MORNING 

           10    RUN, IT'S SO REFRESHING TO NOT, LIKE, BE BREATHING THE 

           11    SMOG.  IT'S NOTICEABLY DIFFERENT.  

           12             SO I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE EPA TO FINALIZE 

           13    THE OZONE STANDARD TO .060 PARTS PER MILLION, WHICH IS 

           14    CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC HEALTH, WHICH IS WHAT IT'S 

           15    SUPPOSED TO BE DOING SO THAT OUR COUNTRY IS SAFE TO LIVE 

           16    AND BREATHE IN.  THANKS.  

           17        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING.  

           18        EMILY SCOTT:  THANK YOU.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  IS HOLLY MURDAUGH HERE?  

           20        HOLLY MURDAUGH:  HI, MY NAME IS HOLLY MURDAUGH, AND 

           21    I --

           22        MS. WEGMAN:  CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE?  

           23        HOLLY MURDAUGH:  SURE.  MY NAME IS HOLLY MURDAUGH, 

           24    AND I JUST MOVED TO LOS ANGELES FROM THE MIDWEST.  SO 

           25    HAVING BREATHED AIR IN THE MIDWEST AND BREATHED AIR IN 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       260


                                                                          

            1    LOS ANGELES, CERTAINLY I CAN -- I KNOW THAT THERE'S 

            2    CHANGES THAT CAN BE MADE AND THE AIR NEEDS TO BE 

            3    PROTECTED.  

            4             AS A CITIZEN, NOT JUST OF THIS CITY AND STATE, 

            5    BUT OF THE NATION, I THINK THAT -- I MEAN, I'M HERE 

            6    TODAY TO ENCOURAGE THE EPA TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF ITS 

            7    NATION, OF OUR PEOPLE.  AND THE CURRENT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL 

            8    AND CLINICAL EVIDENCE SHOW ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS TO 

            9    BREATHING OZONE AT LEVELS LOWER THAN THE AMBIENT AIR 

           10    QUALITY STANDARD.  IT'S EVERY CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO BREATHE 

           11    CLEAN AIR AND TO BE HEALTHY, AND IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S 

           12    JOB TO PROTECT THOSE RIGHTS.  

           13             SO THE CURRENT CHANGES, THE WEAK CHANGES THAT 

           14    ARE BEING PROPOSED, IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.  IT'S 

           15    UNACCEPTABLE, AND IT NEEDS TO BE ABSOLUTELY IN THE 

           16    INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS, SO -- THAT IT NEEDS TO BE 

           17    CHANGED.  THANK YOU.  

           18        MS. WEGMAN:  THANK YOU FOR COMING.  THAT'S IT.  

           19             (WHEREUPON A 15-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN.)

           20        MS. WEGMAN:  IS KARIN PETROVICH HERE?  

           21        KARIN PETROVICH:  THAT'S ME.  IT'S EITHER KAREN 

           22    PETROVICH OR KAREN PETROVICH, EITHER/OR.

           23        MR. HANNON:  WHICH ONE IS RIGHT?  

           24        KARIN PETROVICH:  YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW.  

           25    YEAH, THE ONLY PERSON THAT DOES KNOW IS MY GRANDFATHER, 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       261


                                                                          

            1    AND HE'S PASSED AWAY.  SO IT'S RUSSIAN, SO HOWEVER THE 

            2    RUSSIAN'S PRONOUNCE IT.

            3        MS. WEGMAN:  PETROVICH.

            4        KARIN PETROVICH:  PROBABLY.  OKAY.  

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  YEAH.

            6        KARIN PETROVICH:  I'M KARIN PETROVICH.  I WAS 

            7    ACTUALLY INFORMED ABOUT THIS THROUGH ENVIRONMENT 

            8    CALIFORNIA.  THEY CONTACTED ME TO SEE IF I WANTED TO 

            9    SPEAK, AND I'M HERE AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  

           10             MY BIGGEST CONCERN ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT I'VE 

           11    READ SO FAR OVERALL IS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT.  THEY SAY 

           12    NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION.  THROUGHOUT THE 

           13    YEARS, WE'VE HAD NECESSITIES TO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE TO 

           14    GROW, ADVANCE FURTHER TECHNOLOGY, AND WE'VE DONE THAT TO 

           15    AN ENORMOUS DEGREE FROM CARS TO THE INTERNET TO THE 

           16    INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT, TO PLASTICS, TO HELP TO FIND A 

           17    BETTER, CHEAPER WAY COMPARED TO METALS AND WOODS.  SO 

           18    MANY DIFFERENT THINGS ALL OUT OF NECESSITY.  

           19             BUT UNFORTUNATELY THIS NECESSITY HAS STARTED TO 

           20    DESTROY OUR WORLD AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST OUR NATION, AND I 

           21    FEEL THAT THE NECESSITY IS GOING TO BE CLEANING UP THIS 

           22    ENVIRONMENT.  AND THE EPA HAS A WHOLE LOT TO DO WITH 

           23    THAT, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.  

           24             CURRENTLY, THE .08 STANDARD, WE ALL KNOW IS NOT 

           25    STRONG ENOUGH TO GO AHEAD AND HOLD OUT THIS WORLD.  AND 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       262


                                                                          

            1    THEY DO SAY THAT .06 SCIENTIFICALLY IS WHAT WOULD BE 

            2    GOOD FOR HUMAN WELFARE; BUT QUITE HONESTLY, I'M OKAY 

            3    WITH .07 TO .075 JUST BECAUSE EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS.  

            4    IT IS A NECESSITY TO CONTINUE TO HELP.  I HONESTLY DON'T 

            5    EVEN SEE WHY THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION IF .08 IS NOT 

            6    HEALTHY FOR PEOPLE OVERALL.  EVERY LITTLE BIT WILL 

            7    COUNT.  NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.  

            8             SO I FEEL THAT I REALLY HOPE THAT THE PROPOSAL 

            9    PASSES FOR .07 TO .075.  AND IF YOU GUYS CAN PUSH IT, 

           10    .06, NOT DOUBT ABOUT IT.  WE'VE CREATED SO MUCH 

           11    TECHNOLOGY IN THIS WORLD THAT PEOPLE CAN'T SAY THAT THEY 

           12    CAN'T DO .06.  I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.  I MEAN, WE'VE GONE 

           13    TO THE MOON.  THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.  

           14        MS. WEGMAN:  WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING 

           15    OUT.  APPRECIATE IT.  OKAY.  

           16             IT'S TIME FOR OUR DINNER BREAK.  

           17             (WHEREUPON A 75-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAKEN.)  

           18        

           19             

           20             

           21             

           22             

           23             

           24             

           25             

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       263


                                                                          

            1       LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, AUGUST 30, 2007

            2                           7:30 P.M.

            3                             * * *

            4             

            5        MS. WEGMAN:  OKAY.  I THINK WE'RE READY TO RESUME 

            6    THE PUBLIC HEARING.  

            7             MY NAME IS LYDIA WEGMAN.  I'M WITH THE 

            8    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  I WORK WITH THE OFFICE 

            9    OF AIR AND RADIATION.  THIS IS JOHN HANNON.  HE IS WITH 

           10    OUR OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL AT EPA, AND WE ARE HAPPY 

           11    TO WELCOME YOU HERE TO THE EVENING SESSION OF OUR 

           12    HEARING ON OUR PROPOSED OZONE STANDARD.  

           13             THE STANDARD WAS PUBLISHED ON JULY 11TH, AND WE 

           14    HAVE PROPOSED TO CHANGE BOTH THE PRIMARY HEALTH STANDARD 

           15    AND THE SECONDARY WELFARE STANDARD FOR OZONE AND TO MAKE 

           16    BOTH THE PRIMARY MORE HEALTH PROTECTIVE AND THE 

           17    SECONDARY STANDARD EITHER A CUMULATIVE STANDARD OR 

           18    IDENTICAL TO THE PRIMARY STANDARD.  WE ARE TAKING PUBLIC 

           19    COMMENTS HERE TODAY AND ALSO IN PHILADELPHIA.  ALSO, 

           20    NEXT WEEK WE HAVE THREE OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS IN 

           21    HOUSTON, ATLANTA, AND CHICAGO.  

           22             WE WILL BE COMPLETING THIS ACTION BY MARCH 12TH 

           23    OF 2008 BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONSENT DECREE THAT REQUIRES 

           24    US TO DO SO BY THEN.  THE COMMENT PERIOD ON THIS 

           25    STANDARD WILL CLOSE ON OCTOBER 9TH, SO IF YOU HAVE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       264


                                                                          

            1    ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT YOU WANT TO OFFER BEYOND THOSE 

            2    THAT YOU OFFER ORALLY TODAY, PLEASE DO INSURE THAT YOU 

            3    SUBMIT THEM BY OCTOBER 9TH.  THERE ARE INSTRUCTIONS OUT 

            4    AT THE REGISTRATION DESK FOR HOW YOU CAN SUBMIT THOSE 

            5    COMMENTS.  YOU CAN DO SO BY E-MAIL, IF THAT'S EASIER FOR 

            6    YOU TO DO.  

            7             SO WITH THAT BRIEF INTRODUCTION, LET ME JUST 

            8    TELL YOU HOW THE HEARING WORKS:  WE ASK TWO PEOPLE TO 

            9    COME UP AT THE SAME TIME.  THE FIRST TWO PEOPLE WILL BE 

           10    MIKE STANLEY AND JOSEPH BONETTI.  WE HAVE A TIMER 

           11    SYSTEM.  EACH PERSON IS LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES, AND THE 

           12    YELLOW LIGHT WILL COME ON AT ONE MINUTE LETTING YOU KNOW 

           13    YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT TO SPEAK, AND THEN THE RED 

           14    LIGHT WILL COME ON AT THE END OF THE FIVE MINUTES.  

           15             SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE'LL MOVE FORWARD IF 

           16    MIKE STANLEY AND JOSEPH BONETTI WILL COME UP.  

           17             WE DO HAVE A COURT REPORTER IF YOU HAVE 

           18    ANYTHING IN WRITING THAT YOU WANT TO GIVE HER.  

           19             PLEASE, DO STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION FOR 

           20    HER.  

           21        MIKE STANLEY:  MY NAME IS MIKE STANLEY, 

           22    S-T-A-N-L-E-Y, MIKE, AND I HAVE NO AFFILIATION.  

           23        MS. WEGMAN:  YOU CAN GO AHEAD.  

           24        MIKE STANLEY:  I'M GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME.

           25        MS. WEGMAN:  TAKE YOUR TIME.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       265


                                                                          

            1        MIKE STANLEY:  THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE 

            2    MEDICATIONS I HAVE TO TAKE SINCE I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH 

            3    ASTHMA AND SINUSITIS.  I'M A HEALTHY 37-YEAR-OLD.  I 

            4    MOVED HERE TEN YEARS AGO.  I LIVED IN A RURAL 

            5    ENVIRONMENT.  I'D NEVER HAD ANY MEDICAL PROBLEMS BEFORE 

            6    MOVING HERE.  

            7             I REALIZE MY PROBLEMS ARE ANECDOTAL AND NOT 

            8    SCIENTIFIC, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO PUT THIS AWAY 

            9    AND LIVE IN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT WHERE MEDICATION WOULD 

           10    BE NOT NECESSARY TO BASICALLY SURVIVE.  SPEAKING OF 

           11    ANECDOTAL, THERE ARE -- I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS 

           12    TOWN, AND A LOT OF ALLERGIST DOCTORS, AND THEY SAY THEY 

           13    HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A HIGH RATE OF ALLERGIES AND ASTHMA 

           14    THAN WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT 

           15    THAT'S COMING FROM.  

           16             YOU CAN TALK ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING OR GRAND 

           17    SCHEMES LIKE THAT, BUT THIS IS A VERY POLLUTED PLACE BY 

           18    NATURE, LOS ANGELES, AND I'M VERY PLEASED THAT WE DON'T 

           19    LIVE HERE IN THE '70S WHERE IT WAS AWFUL POLLUTION.  BUT 

           20    I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER.  

           21             MY WIFE IS FROM GERMANY AND WHEN I GO THERE, 

           22    SHE TALKS ABOUT THE OZONE LEVELS.  SHE'S TALKED ABOUT 

           23    THAT SINCE THE EARLY '90S, AND I NEVER KNEW WHAT THAT 

           24    WAS; BUT THEY HAVE OZONE ALERTS THERE, AND I BELIEVE 

           25    THEIR PART PER MILLION IS .06, BUT I'M NOT SURE.  I KNOW 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       266


                                                                          

            1    THAT WHEN THEY HAVE A HIGH OZONE, MY ASTHMA GETS WORSE.  

            2    I'VE EXPERIENCED THAT.  I DON'T SEE IN THE MEDIA HERE 

            3    ANY TALK OF OZONE.  IT'S NOT A COMMON THING.  IT'S 

            4    USUALLY ABOUT SMOG OR JUST GENERALLY THE WEATHER, BUT 

            5    I'M HERE TO SAY THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED A HIGH OZONE AND 

            6    THAT RELATES TO MY PERSONAL HEALTH IN A VERY DIRECT WAY.  

            7             SO YOU KNOW, I -- I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL ABOUT 

            8    THE PARTS PER MILLION.  THERE IS SOME DEBATE ON HOW LOW 

            9    THEY SHOULD GO, SO I AM HERE TO SAY I THINK THEY SHOULD 

           10    GO AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.  I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HURT 

           11    ANYTHING, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT INDUSTRY CAN DO.  

           12    THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO MAKE MONEY OFF THE ENVIRONMENT, 

           13    AS WE'RE SEEING THESE DAYS, AND I URGE YOU TO GO AS LOW 

           14    AS YOU CAN GO AND TRY TO HELP PEOPLE LIKE ME OUT.  

           15             I DON'T WANT TO BE ON THIS ANY MORE.  I'M A 

           16    HEALTHY PERSON.  I EXERCISE, I RUN, AND I SWIM.  I DON'T 

           17    WANT TO BE INFLICTED WITH THE POLLUTION ANYMORE.  

           18    THANKS.  

           19        MS. WEGMAN:  I JUST DO WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WHEN 

           20    YOU HEAR ABOUT SMOG ALERTS, THAT IS OZONE, SO THAT YOU 

           21    ARE, IN FACT, GETTING OZONE ALERTS HERE IN L.A.  THOSE 

           22    ARE -- YOU SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THEM, AND I CERTAINLY 

           23    UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE AN END TO THE AIR 

           24    POLLUTION THAT IS EXACERBATING YOUR HEALTH PROBLEM, BUT 

           25    DO BE MINDFUL OF THE SMOG ALERTS BECAUSE THAT IS OZONE.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       267


                                                                          

            1        JOSEPH BONETTI:  MY NAME IS JOSEPH BONETTI.  MY 

            2    AFFILIATION IS CAL TECH, WHICH IS HERE IN PASADENA.  SO 

            3    I, TOO, HAVE SOME PERSONAL STORIES TO SHARE BUT LUCKILY 

            4    THEY'RE NOT NEARLY AS EXTREME AS MIKE'S.  

            5             ANYWAY, SO MY BACKGROUND IS ACTUALLY -- I SAID 

            6    FROM CAL TECH.  I SHOULD SPECIFY THAT I'M NOT AN 

            7    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST OR AN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST OR 

            8    MEDICAL RESEARCHER.  MY BACKGROUND IS IN EXPERIMENTAL 

            9    PHYSICS; HOWEVER, JUST THE GENERAL TRAINING IN SCIENCE 

           10    GIVES ME AN ABILITY TO RESEARCH THE DATA OR, YOU KNOW, 

           11    RESEARCH PAPERS AND UNDERSTAND DATA AND ANALYZE DATA AND 

           12    BE SKEPTICAL.  

           13             BUT BEFORE I GET INTO THAT, I'M GOING TO SHARE 

           14    SOME PERSONAL STORIES.  WHENEVER -- MY MOM SUFFERS FROM 

           15    ASTHMA.  IT'S NOT A SEVERE CASE, BUT ANYWAY, SHE HAS 

           16    ASTHMATIC SYMPTOMS.  WHENEVER MY PARENTS COME TO LOS 

           17    ANGELES TO VISIT ME, SHE NOTICES A DRASTIC CHANGE IN HER 

           18    SYMPTOMS AND SHE HAS DIFFICULTY BREATHING AND GETTING 

           19    AROUND IN LOS ANGELES.  SO THAT'S ONE PERSONAL WAY THAT 

           20    IT AFFECTS ME.  

           21             SIMILAR, ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER, MY GRANDFATHER 

           22    WAS HERE TWO SUMMERS AGO.  AS YOU KNOW SMOG AND OZONE 

           23    ARE WORSE IN THE SUMMER.  MY GRANDFATHER SUFFERED A 

           24    MINOR STROKE IN LOS ANGELES.  I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT 

           25    THE OZONE CAUSED THE STROKE.  I MEAN, I'M SURE HE WOULD 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       268


                                                                          

            1    HAVE HAD ONE ANYWAY, BUT I THINK IT WAS SORT OF THE 

            2    BUTTERFLY THAT LANDED ON THE BALANCE SCALE THAT TIPPED 

            3    IT AND MADE IT HAPPEN WHILE HE WAS HERE.  

            4             THE OTHER PERSONAL STORY IS ME.  YOU KNOW, SOME 

            5    OF THE RESEARCH REPORTS LIST PEOPLE WHO EXERCISE 

            6    VIGOROUSLY AND FREQUENTLY OUTDOORS AS BEING AT RISK AND 

            7    IN A SENSITIVE GROUP.  SO I'M AN AVID HIKER.  I'M AN 

            8    AVID RUNNER.  I ALSO BIKE BACK AND FORTH TO WORK.  SO I, 

            9    MYSELF, AM IN A SENSITIVE GROUP, AND I REALLY DON'T WANT 

           10    TO BE PUTTING MY HEALTH AT RISK.  

           11             SO I'VE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT SOME OF THE 

           12    RESEARCH, AND AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN OVERWHELMING 

           13    AMOUNT OF RESEARCH THAT SUGGESTS THAT THERE REALLY IS NO 

           14    SAFE LEVEL OF OZONE.  I MEAN, THERE IS SOME NATURAL 

           15    BACKGROUND LEVEL WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, SO THAT YOU CAN'T 

           16    GET RID OF.  BUT EVEN AT LOW VALUES, THE MOST CONVINCING 

           17    PAPER I FOUND WAS BY MICHELLE BELL FROM YALE UNIVERSITY.  

           18    I ACTUALLY READ THIS PAPER.  IT WAS QUITE CONVINCING.  

           19             WHAT HER RESEARCH SHOWED IS THAT FOR EVERY TEN 

           20    PARTS PER BILLION INCREASE IN OZONE -- AND I SHOULD SAY 

           21    THAT'S -- I USE TEN PARTS PER BILLION INSTEAD OF PARTS 

           22    PER MILLION BECAUSE THE NUMBERS MAKE MORE SENSE.  SO 

           23    ANYWAY, FOR EVERY TEN PARTS PER BILLION INCREASE IN 

           24    OZONE, THERE'S A .3 INCREASE IN THE MORTALITY RATE.  

           25             SO TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT MEANS WITH 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       269


                                                                          

            1    NORMAL NUMBERS, CURRENTLY THE SAFE GUIDELINE IS LIKE 84 

            2    PARTS PER BILLION.  SO LET'S ASSUME IF IT WERE 50 PARTS 

            3    PER BILLION, AND THEN YOU INCREASED TO 90, THAT'S A 40 

            4    PART PER BILLION CHANGE OR FOUR 10 PARTS PER BILLION 

            5    CHANGES.  SO THEN YOU MULTIPLE .3 PERCENT TIMES 4, YOU 

            6    GET 1.2 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE MORTALITY RATE JUST FROM 

            7    JUMPING FROM 50 TO 90.  SO CHANGING FROM 84 DOWN TO 

            8    SOMETHING LIKE 50, WHICH IS -- OR 50 OR 60, WHICH IS 

            9    ABOUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO, THAT WOULD ROUGHLY 

           10    DECREASE THE MORTALITY RATE BY 1 PERCENT.  

           11             A 1 PERCENT CHANGE DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MUCH, BUT 

           12    YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN LIVES.  IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE 

           13    TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF RAINY DAYS OR SOMETHING.  SO 

           14    THAT'S -- THAT'S SIGNIFICANT IN MY OPINION.  

           15             ON THE OTHER ISSUE, JUST A LEGAL ISSUE.  

           16    BECAUSE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, THE EPA IS REQUIRED BY LAW 

           17    UNDER ONE INTERPRETATION, WHICH MIGHT BE THE ONLY 

           18    REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, OF THE LAW TO SET LEVELS THAT 

           19    MAKE PEOPLE NOT AT RISK.  AND THE PEOPLE ALSO INCLUDES 

           20    PEOPLE AT RISK, PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM ASTHMA, THE 

           21    ELDERLY, AND CHILDREN.  SO IN MY OPINION, I THINK 

           22    THERE'S A VERY UNEQUIVOCAL PRESSING NEED TO LOWER THE 

           23    STANDARD.  I THINK IT SHOULD BE LOWERED EVEN LOWER THAN 

           24    60.  

           25             SO ONE BIG QUESTION IS, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       270


                                                                          

            1    THIS.  I MEAN, YOU CAN MAKE ALL OF THE RULES AND ALL OF 

            2    THE REGULATIONS YOU CAN WANT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, 

            3    IF YOU DON'T ACTUALLY DECREASE THE AMOUNT, THEN SOMEONE 

            4    JUST GETS FINED AND WE KEEP ON GOING THE WAY WE HAVE 

            5    BEEN.  BUT INTERESTINGLY, THE WAYS TO DECREASE OZONE ARE 

            6    THE SAME AS TO DECREASE OIL USE IN GENERAL, AND I THINK 

            7    THAT'S THE MAIN CULPRIT; RIGHT?  FOSSIL FUEL AND OIL 

            8    USE.  

            9             THERE'S AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF REASONS TO 

           10    DECREASE OUR USE OF FOSSIL FUELS IN GENERAL, SO I THINK 

           11    THERE'S AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF THINGS YOU CAN DO.  ANY 

           12    SORT OF INCENTIVES THAT WOULD CONVINCE PEOPLE TO USE 

           13    LESS OIL.  LIKE, PRESIDENT BUSH GAVE EVERYONE A $300 

           14    REFUND A FEW YEARS AGO DURING HIS FIRST TERM, SO WHY NOT 

           15    GIVE A $300 REFUND FOR PEOPLE THAT PURCHASE SCOOTERS OR 

           16    BICYCLES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.  

           17             ALSO, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE REAL FUEL 

           18    EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CARS WITH NO LOOPHOLES AND THIS 

           19    IS NO -- IT'S NO FUN, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD DECREASE THE 

           20    SPEED LIMIT, PERHAPS.  I'M NOT SURE I WOULD AGREE WITH 

           21    THAT ONE QUITE YET, BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY HELP.  AND 

           22    PHASE OUT INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS.  ALLOW PEOPLE TO 

           23    DRESS CASUALLY AT WORK SO THEY WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO 

           24    RIDE THEIR BIKES.  IF THEY HAVE TO WEAR A SUIT AND TIE, 

           25    NO ONE'S GOING TO RIDE A BIKE.  

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       271


                                                                          

            1             SO THERE'S AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF THINGS YOU CAN 

            2    DO, BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE COUNTRY 

            3    NEEDS TO REALIZE WE NEED TO SPEND THE ORDER OF TRILLIONS 

            4    OF DOLLARS TO BUILD A NEW ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON 

            5    RENEWABLES.  YOU KNOW, POLITICIANS GIVE LIP SERVICE AND 

            6    THEY SAY, "OH, WE'RE GOING TO INVEST A BILLION DOLLARS 

            7    IN THIS AND TWO BILLION DOLLARS IN THAT."  BUT YOU 

            8    REALLY NEED ON THE ORDER OF TENS OF TRILLIONS OR ON THE 

            9    ORDER OF TRILLIONS.  BUT IT COULD BE DONE IF IT'S 

           10    FINANCED, YOU KNOW, OVER TWO DECADES; RIGHT?  THANK YOU.  

           11        MR. HANNON:  I JUST HAVE A QUESTION BUT ALSO MORE OF 

           12    A COMMENT.  

           13             YOU REFER TO THE BELL STUDY.  THAT'S ONE OF 

           14    EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES THAT ACTUALLY CAME OUT OF THE 

           15    SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH ON PARTICULATE MATTER SINCE THE 

           16    LAST REVIEW.  AND WHILE THEY'RE RESEARCHING THE HEALTH 

           17    EFFECTS OF PARTICULATE MATTER, THEY'RE MEASURING ALL OF 

           18    THE OTHER POLLUTANTS IN THE AIR AT THE SAME TIME, SO THE 

           19    SAME GROUP OF EPI STUDIES RELEVANT FOR OZONE AS WELL.  

           20    BUT THAT STUDY AND OTHERS, IT TALKS ABOUT THE PERCENT 

           21    CHANGE IN MORTALITY EFFECT OR HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS OR 

           22    INCREMENT OF TEN PARTS PER BILLION GOES DOWN ALMOST TO 

           23    ZERO.  IT DOESN'T CHANGE.  IT'S A RELATIVELY LINEAR 

           24    RELATIONSHIP.  

           25             SO THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       272


                                                                          

            1    IS HOW FAR DOWN DO YOU TRUST THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A 

            2    CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT YOU'RE FINDING IN THE 

            3    STATISTICS AND WHETHER IT'S REALLY OCCURRING IN THE REAL 

            4    WORLD, WHETHER OZONE IS REALLY CAUSING IT.  

            5             SO CASAC, FOR EXAMPLE, RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO 

            6    NO LOWER THAN 60 PARTS PER MILLION EVEN THOUGH THE --

            7        MS. WEGMAN:  TELL HIM WHAT CASAC IS.

            8        MR. HANNON:  CLEAN AIR SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

            9    RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO NO LOWER THAN 60 AND NO HIGHER 

           10    THAN 70 PARTS PER BILLION LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE 

           11    COMBINATION OF CLINICAL STUDIES, EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES.  

           12    SO I'M NOT REALLY ASKING YOU A QUESTION.  I JUST REALLY 

           13    WANTED TO REACT TO THE RESPONSE.

           14        JOSEPH BONETTI:  AT SOME POINT YOU GET DOWN INTO THE 

           15    NOISE, AND IT BECOMES HARD TO TELL WHETHER YOU'RE HAVING 

           16    AN EFFECT.

           17        MR. HANNON:  AND THAT'S A PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY 

           18    JUDGMENT THAT EPA'S SUPPOSED TO MAKE, HOW FAR DOWN DO WE 

           19    GO IN BALANCING WHETHER THERE REALLY IS A PUBLIC HEALTH 

           20    ISSUE.

           21        JOSEPH BONETTI:  THE BEST ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT 

           22    OR -- NOT AGAINST IT, BUT JUST SOMETHING TO SAY IN 

           23    OPPOSITION IS THAT IT MAY NOT BE OZONE, BUT MAYBE 

           24    EVEN -- OZONE IS A FACTOR, BUT YOU'RE SAYING OTHER 

           25    STUDIES THAT STUDY ALL SORTS OF POLLUTION PARTICULATE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       273


                                                                          

            1    MATTER AND OTHER GASES; BUT TO REDUCE THOSE OTHER GASES 

            2    AND PARTICULATES AND POLLUTION IN GENERAL, THE WAY TO 

            3    REDUCE THOSE IS ALL THE SAME WAY.  SO IF YOU DECREASE 

            4    FOSSIL FUEL USE IN GENERAL, YOU REDUCE ALL THAT ACROSS 

            5    THE BOARD; RIGHT?  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  

            7        JOSEPH BONETTI:  THANKS FOR LISTENING TO US.  

            8        MS. WEGMAN:  LUIS SUAREZ.  

            9        LUIS SUAREZ:  GOOD EVENING.  ALL RIGHT.  SO I'M HERE 

           10    TO INFORM YOU GUYS ABOUT MY STORY AND MY DAILY 

           11    INTERACTION WITH SMOG.  

           12             I DON'T HAVE A CAR, SO I TAKE THE BUS AND 

           13    BICYCLE WHEREVER I GO.  EVERY MORNING BEGINNING AT 7:00 

           14    IN THE MORNING I CAN SEE ON THE L.A. SKYLINE WHEN I GOT 

           15    OUT OF MY APARTMENT BUILDING, WHEN I'M RIDING TO GO TO 

           16    THE BUS TO TAKE THE BUS TO SANTA MONICA COLLEGE, WHERE I 

           17    AM A STUDENT AT, I CAN SEE AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING THE 

           18    SMOG.  YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW DURING THE SUMMER.  

           19             THIS PAST COUPLE MONTHS I'VE SEEN SMOG PRETTY 

           20    MUCH AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, SOMETIMES EVEN 6:00 IN THE 

           21    MORNING, AND IT REMAINS THERE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DAY.  

           22             I CYCLE EVERY DAY AROUND THE CITY BREATHING IN, 

           23    YOU KNOW, CARCINOGENIC AND NITROGEN MONOXIDE AS I HEAD 

           24    TO SANTA COLLEGE, WHICH IS TEN MILES AWAY.  SO EVERY 

           25    MORNING I WAKE UP AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, RIDE MY 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       274


                                                                          

            1    BICYCLE TO THE BUS, AND IN BETWEEN THAT I HAVE TO RIDE 

            2    BEHIND CARS, RIDE IN FRONT OF THE BUS.  LIKE PRETTY MUCH 

            3    FROM HERE TO THE END OF THE TABLE, THERE'S A BUS IN 

            4    FRONT OF ME.  AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH EVERY DAY AND 

            5    THAT'S -- WHEN I GO -- THAT'S RUSH HOUR IN THE MORNING.  

            6    AND THEN AT THE END WHEN I GET OUT OF SCHOOL, IT'S RUSH 

            7    HOUR, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN 4:00 TO 7:00.  

            8             COMING HERE I HAD TO TAKE MY BIKE.  SO I HAD TO 

            9    COME INTO DOWNTOWN L.A.  THE SMOG IS WORSE, SO I HAVE TO 

           10    BREATHE IT IN.  

           11             I KNOW THE EPA IS A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT 

           12    ESTABLISHED BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC 

           13    AND THE PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF SOLELY -- I SOLELY -- YOU 

           14    HAVE TO SOLELY BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE PUBLIC'S 

           15    HEALTH.  BY SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING AND REGULATING SMOG 

           16    REMISSIONS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, YOU WILL NOT ONLY BE 

           17    PROTECTING MY HEALTH, MY MOM'S HEALTH, MY SIBLINGS, BUT 

           18    YOU WILL ALSO BE PROTECTING YOUR HEALTH.  YOU KNOW, WE 

           19    ARE -- THE SMOG IS EVERYWHERE.  YOU CAN TAKE YOUR 

           20    FAMILY'S HEALTH AS WELL, YOUR SIBLING'S HEALTH, YOUR 

           21    NEPHEWS, YOUR UNCLES.  SO WE ALL WANT THAT.  

           22             SO THAT'S MY SHORT STORY.  AND I DON'T WANT TO, 

           23    YOU KNOW, BE NEGATIVE, BUT BE POSITIVE, AND IT ALL HELPS 

           24    OUT.  IT HELPS YOU.  YOU COME HERE, AND YOU CAME HERE TO 

           25    BREATHE THE SMOG, THE L.A. SMOG.  PEOPLE WOULD LIVE 

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       275


                                                                          

            1    LONGER IF THERE WAS HEALTHY AIR.  

            2        MS. WEGMAN:  WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING 

            3    THE TIME TO COME AND OFFER YOUR PERSONAL TESTIMONY.  WE 

            4    APPRECIATE IT.

            5        LUIS SUAREZ:  YOU'RE WELCOME.  

            6        MS. WEGMAN:  I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE HERE 

            7    WHO WANTS TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.  

            8             WE ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HERE UNTIL 9:00, SO IF 

            9    ANYBODY ELSE SHOWS UP, SOMEONE WILL BE HERE.  I THANK 

           10    YOU ALL FOR COMING AND TAKING THE TIME.  

           11             (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 9:00 P.M.)

           12             

           13             

           14             

           15             

           16             

           17             

           18             

           19             

           20             

           21             

           22             

           23             

           24             

           25             

                 
                 
                 
                                                                       276