Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172-3937
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-10-03T04:00Z

0001
 1         US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         - - -
 2   
     In Re:
 3   
     ----------------------------:
 4   EPA'S PROPOSAL TO           :
     REVISE THE NATIONAL         :
 5   AMBIENT AIR QUALITY         :
     STANDARDS FOR OZONE         :
 6                               :
     Docket No.                  :
 7   EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172        :
     ----------------------------:
 8   
 9                                Philadelphia, PA
10                        Thursday, August 30, 2007
11   
12   
13   Whereupon, the Public Hearing of the
14   above-referenced matter, before the Panel of
15            STEPHEN D. PAGE, Chairperson
16                 ROSALINA RODRIGUEZ
17                     JUDY KATZ
18                    MARCIA SPINK
19   was held, pursuant to notice, at the Radisson
20   Plaza - Warwick, 1701 Locust Street,
21   Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, before M. Kathleen
22   Muino of Bell Reporting, a Notary Public in
23   and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
24   beginning at 9:04 a.m.
25   
0002
 1               MR. PAGE:  Good morning.  I'd
 2   like to get started here.  That's the quickest
 3   call to order that's ever happened.  That's
 4   record speed here.
 5               If you're not supposed to be
 6   attending the hearing, the EPA hearing on
 7   ozone, you're in the wrong room.  This is the
 8   ozone hearing, the public hearing that we'll
 9   be conducting today from nine in the morning
10   to nine in the evening, and we've got several
11   speakers signed up.
12               One of the advantages of coming
13   early, at 9:00, is you get to hear the
14   statement of the EPA, where we go through all
15   the highlights of the ozone proposal, so I
16   will do that, and then I'll introduce my
17   fellow panelists.  I intend to talk a little
18   bit about the ground rules for the public
19   hearing, so let me start in.
20               My name is Steve Page, and I'm
21   the director of the Office of Air Quality
22   Planning and Standards, which is part of the
23   EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.  I'm the
24   chairman of the hearing today.  We're here to
25   listen to your comments on the EPA's proposed
0003
 1   revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
 2   Standards for Ozone.  As a reminder, this is a
 3   hearing, and we are interested in your
 4   comments on the proposed rule.  The panel
 5   members may answer questions that seek to
 6   clarify what we've proposed, but the purpose
 7   of the hearing is, again, to listen to your
 8   comments.  We are not here to discuss or
 9   debate the proposals.  We won't have time to
10   do that and get through all the different
11   speakers.  We really want your input on that.
12   The EPA has made its statement on what the
13   proposal should be, and now it's time to hear
14   your reactions to it.
15               Before I begin the comment
16   period, I'd like to briefly describe the
17   proposed rule and the subject of today's
18   hearing.  The proposed rule was published, as
19   many of you know, in the Federal Register on
20   July 11th, 2007.
21               Ground-level ozone is the primary
22   component of smog.  It is formed through the
23   reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile
24   organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of
25   sunlight.  Exposure to ozone is associated
0004
 1   with an array of respiratory problems,
 2   including aggravated asthma, increased
 3   susceptibility to respiratory infection,
 4   increased doctors' visits, increased emergency
 5   department visits and hospital admissions, and
 6   premature death.
 7               In addition, ground-level ozone
 8   can have harmful effects on sensitive plant
 9   species -- including trees and crops -- and on
10   the ecosystems they inhabit.  It has been
11   shown that both the level of ozone to which
12   plants are exposed and the duration of the
13   exposure are important factors in determining
14   plant response.  The most important effects,
15   including biomass loss and yield reductions,
16   result from the accumulation of ozone
17   exposures throughout the growing season, with
18   higher concentrations of ozone producing
19   greater impacts.
20               Based on careful review of the
21   large body of scientific evidence now
22   available regarding the health and welfare
23   effects associated with exposure to ozone, the
24   administrator of the EPA has concluded that
25   the current ozone standards are not adequate
0005
 1   to protect public health and welfare.  A
 2   number of new health studies have been
 3   conducted indicating that adverse effects
 4   occur following exposure to ozone at levels
 5   below the EPA's current standard.
 6   Furthermore, these studies indicate that
 7   people with respiratory illness such as asthma
 8   are particularly sensitive to these adverse
 9   impacts.  In addition, new scientific studies
10   confirm that exposure to ozone adversely
11   affects the growth of sensitive plant species
12   and may increase their susceptibility to
13   disease and pests.
14               After careful consideration of
15   this scientific evidence, advice from EPA's
16   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and
17   public comments, the administrator has
18   proposed to revise both the primary ozone
19   standard, designed to protect human health,
20   and the secondary ozone standard, designed to
21   protect welfare (such as vegetation and
22   crops).  Currently the primary and secondary
23   ozone standards are identical:  an 8-hour
24   ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million,
25   which is effectively 0.084 parts per million
0006
 1   with the current rounding convention.  Under
 2   EPA's proposal, each of these standards would
 3   be revised, and the form of the secondary
 4   standard might change so that it is no longer
 5   identical to the primary standard.  EPA has
 6   requested comments on all aspects of this
 7   proposal and on alternatives to the proposed
 8   revisions.  Specifically:
 9               With respect to the primary
10   standard to protect public health, the
11   proposal included:  (1) Revising the level of
12   the standard to within the range of 0.070 to
13   0.075 parts per million.  The agency has also
14   requested comment on alternative levels down
15   to 0.060 parts per million and up to and
16   including retention of the current standard of
17   0.084 parts per million; (2) Specifying the
18   level of the primary standard to the third
19   decimal place, because today's monitors can
20   detect ozone that accurately.
21               With respect to the secondary
22   standard to protect public welfare, EPA has
23   proposed two alternatives:  (1) One option
24   would be to establish a new form of the
25   standard called the W126 that is designed
0007
 1   specifically to cumulate ozone exposures and
 2   give more weight to higher concentrations.
 3   This form of the standard would add together
 4   weighted hourly ozone concentrations measured
 5   during the 12-hour daylight window from 8 a.m.
 6   to 8 p.m. across the consecutive three-month
 7   period with the highest ozone levels.  EPA is
 8   proposing to set the level of this cumulative
 9   standard within the range of 7 to 21 parts per
10   million-hours; (2) Another option would be to
11   revise the secondary standard so that it is
12   identical to the proposed primary 8-hour
13   standard.
14               We're interested in your comments
15   on this issue as well.  Additional information
16   on the rule can be found in the fact sheet
17   available in the registration area.
18   Publication of the rule on July 11th, 2007
19   marked the beginning of the 90-day public
20   comment period, which closes on October 9th,
21   2007.  We have a handout available in the
22   registration area with detailed information
23   for submitting written comments.  In addition,
24   we have prepared a list of all of the topics
25   in the proposed rule that the agency is
0008
 1   seeking comment on.  This handout is also
 2   available in the registration area.  EPA will
 3   issue a final rule by March 12th, 2008.
 4               Now let me turn to the comment
 5   portion of today's hearing.  This hearing is
 6   one of five public hearings we're holding
 7   across the country.  Today hearings are being
 8   held in Los Angeles, California, and here in
 9   Philadelphia.  Next Wednesday, September 5th,
10   additional hearings will be held in Houston,
11   Chicago, and Atlanta.  We will be preparing a
12   transcript of each hearing.  The transcripts
13   will be available as part of the official
14   record for each rule.
15               Today's hearing will work as
16   follows:  I'll call the scheduled speakers to
17   the microphone in pairs.  Please state your
18   name and your affiliation.  It will help our
19   court reporter if you also spell your name.
20               In order to be fair to everyone,
21   we're asking that you limit your testimony to
22   five minutes each and to remain at the
23   microphone until both speakers in a pair have
24   finished.  After you finish your testimony, a
25   panel member may ask you clarifying questions.
0009
 1   As I mentioned, we are transcribing today's
 2   hearing, and each speaker's oral testimony
 3   will become part of the official record.
 4   Please be sure to give a copy of any written
 5   comments to our staff at the registration
 6   table out front.  We will put the full text of
 7   your written comments into the docket for you.
 8               We have a timekeeping system of
 9   green, yellow, and red lights.  When you begin
10   speaking, the green light will come on; you
11   will have five minutes to speak.  The yellow
12   light will signal that you will have two
13   minutes left to speak.  We will ask you to
14   stop speaking when the red light comes on.
15               We will try to ensure everyone
16   has an opportunity to comment.  If necessary,
17   we'll stay into the evening.  If you would
18   like to testify but have not yet registered to
19   do so, please sign up at the registration
20   table.  We will take breaks periodically
21   throughout the day.
22               For those who have already
23   registered to speak, we have tried to
24   accommodate your requests for specific time
25   slots.  We ask for your patience as we proceed
0010
 1   through the list.  We may need to make some
 2   minor adjustments as the day progresses.
 3               Now I'd like to introduce the EPA
 4   representatives on our panel.  To my right,
 5   your left, is Rosalina Rodriguez, the
 6   associate director of the Health and
 7   Environmental Impacts Division within the
 8   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
 9   To my left, Judy Katz, the director of the Air
10   Protection Division here in Region 3, our
11   EPA's Region 3 office.
12               I would like to thank you all for
13   coming today.  I know many of you traveled
14   some distances to be here, took some trouble
15   out of your schedule to be here, so without
16   any further ado, I'd like to get started.
17               The first two speakers to come to
18   the table, please, will be Kevin Stewart and
19   Nathan Willcox.
20               MR. PAGE:  Mr. Stewart?
21               MR. STEWART:  Just for the
22   reporter, my name is Kevin Stewart,
23   S-T-E-W-A-R-T.
24               Good morning.  I thank the
25   hearing panel for your work here today.  I am
0011
 1   Director of Environmental Health for the
 2   American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic.
 3   I am representing not only over two million
 4   people in our four-state service area who
 5   suffer from chronic lung disease, but also the
 6   millions more who desire to breathe clean air
 7   and so protect their good health.
 8               A truly immense body of evidence
 9   demonstrates that ambient ozone pollution
10   significantly harms people's health and that
11   it does so at levels commonly found in the
12   United States.  Adverse outcomes of this
13   exposure range from acute symptoms and chronic
14   inflammation to hospitalization and premature
15   death.  Each year, ozone causes millions of
16   lost school and work days, hundreds of
17   thousands of asthma attacks, and thousands of
18   premature deaths.  Simply put, ozone "smog"
19   worsens and causes disease and even death for
20   real people.
21               In our service territory of
22   Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West
23   Virginia, we estimate that at least 80 percent
24   of our population lives in nearly 60 counties
25   where ozone frequently occurs at levels 15
0012
 1   parts per billion below what is effectively
 2   the current standard.  Yet even these are not
 3   the smallest exposures that science
 4   convincingly shows produce significant adverse
 5   health responses.  This means that populations
 6   at risk in these four states and known to be
 7   living with such ozone levels include at least
 8   the following:
 9               4.4 million infants, children,
10   and teens; 2.7 million persons aged 65 and
11   above; 390,000 children with asthma; 1.1
12   million adults with asthma; 600,000 persons
13   with chronic bronchitis; 270,000 with
14   emphysema; and some 4.8 million persons with
15   cardiovascular disease.
16               Every one of these millions is a
17   real person, not a nameless statistic.  As you
18   will see exemplified in testimony today, every
19   one of these people is a family member, a
20   neighbor, a coworker, a friend.
21               You will hear today about the
22   findings of the world's foremost experts on
23   the science pertaining to the health effects
24   of ozone pollution that prove that the
25   standard should be made more stringent than
0013
 1   proposed.  You will hear from public
 2   officials.  You will hear from physicians,
 3   nurses, and other healthcare providers.  You
 4   will hear from real people who will tell you
 5   what it is like to live with air pollution,
 6   what it does to their health, what it does to
 7   their quality of life, how even on nominally
 8   moderate days the levels of air pollution
 9   deemed acceptable still adversely affect them.
10               Although we commend the
11   Environmental Protection Agency for
12   recognizing in its own presentation that a
13   standard level above 0.075 parts per million
14   would not be appropriate, we nevertheless have
15   several serious concerns:
16               Despite the fact that the Ozone
17   Review Panel of CASAC unanimously recommended,
18   and over a hundred nationally and
19   internationally respected scientists and
20   physicians agreed, that the primary ozone
21   standard should be set within the range
22   between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million, the
23   EPA's proposal only grudgingly touches the
24   review panel's weakest recommendation, and
25   even worse, the EPA contemplates retaining the
0014
 1   current inadequate standard.
 2               To underscore this point, the
 3   American Lung Association and the American
 4   thoracic Society believe that only the CASAC's
 5   strongest recommendation of 0.060 parts per
 6   million is sufficient to provide the margin of
 7   safety the law demands.
 8               Given that over the past decade
 9   many studies have been done showing persistent
10   adverse effects due to ozone exposure in even
11   the 40 to 60 parts per billion range, and
12   heeding the CASAC's concern that the Final
13   Ozone Staff Paper does not address the issue
14   of a margin of safety, we again find that the
15   0.060 part per million level helps to secure
16   the mandatory needed buffer zone for the
17   health of the public.
18               Therefore, the American Lung
19   Association of the Mid-Atlantic urges EPA to
20   do the following:
21               Adopt as the primary standard the
22   strongest value in the range of the unanimous
23   recommendation given by the CASAC's Ozone
24   Review Panel and set the standard for the
25   daily maximum 8-hour average at 0.060 parts
0015
 1   per million; adopt the strongest form of this
 2   standard under consideration by the EPA and
 3   base attainment on the third highest daily
 4   maximum 8-hour average, averaged over three
 5   consecutive years.
 6               Our recommendation to the EPA is
 7   simple:  Follow the science.  Follow the law.
 8   Issue standards that actually protect public
 9   health; that provide a real margin of safety;
10   and don't lie to people about the quality of
11   the air they breathe.
12               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Right on
13   time.  Thank you.
14               Any questions?
15               PANEL MEMBERS:  (Indicating.)
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
17   Stewart.
18               MR. STEWART:  My pleasure.
19                       - - -
20               MR. WILLCOX:  Good morning.  My
21   name is Nathan Willcox, and I am the Energy &
22   Clean Air Advocate with PennEnvironment.
23   PennEnvironment is a non-profit and
24   non-partisan environmental advocacy
25   organization with roughly 15,000 citizen
0016
 1   members across Pennsylvania.  Thank you for
 2   giving me the opportunity to testify today on
 3   the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal
 4   to revise the national air quality standard
 5   for ozone "smog" pollution.
 6               PennEnvironment is pleased that
 7   EPA is taking a step toward cleaner air for
 8   Pennsylvania and the entire country by
 9   proposing to strengthen the national air
10   quality standard for ozone.  Unfortunately,
11   EPA's proposal falls short of the ozone
12   standard its own scientific advisors said is
13   necessary to protect public health, and its
14   proposal leaves open the possibility of not
15   strengthening the ozone standards at all.
16               Ozone is a powerful pollutant
17   that can burn our lungs and airways, causing
18   health effects ranging from coughing and
19   wheezing to asthma attacks and even premature
20   death.  Children, teenagers, senior citizens,
21   and people with lung disease are particularly
22   vulnerable to the health effects of ozone.
23   New epidemiological and clinical studies show
24   the health impacts of breathing ozone at
25   levels lower than the current ambient air
0017
 1   quality standard.  In fact, clinical studies
 2   of otherwise healthy adults have found
 3   decreased lung function, increased respiratory
 4   symptoms, inflammation, and increased
 5   susceptibility to respiratory infection at or
 6   below the current standard of 0.08 parts per
 7   million.
 8               Locally, ozone pollution is a
 9   problem that Philadelphia knows all too well.
10   Most recently, the American Lung Association
11   ranked the Philadelphia metropolitan area as
12   being the 12th worst nationwide for ozone
13   pollution in its 2007 State of the Air report.
14   The report also gave grades of "F" for ozone
15   pollution levels to Philadelphia, Bucks,
16   Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties, as
17   well as nine other counties across
18   Pennsylvania.  Clearly, this is a problem that
19   hits too close to home for Philadelphia.
20               The independent Clean Air
21   Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed a 2,000
22   page summary of the scientific research of the
23   health impacts of ozone and unanimously
24   concluded that the current ozone standard is
25   not adequate to protect public health.  Under
0018
 1   the Clean Air Act, air quality standards must
 2   be set at levels that protect public health,
 3   including that of sensitive populations, with
 4   an adequate margin of safety.  As a result,
 5   the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
 6   recommended setting a new ozone standard in
 7   the range of 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million.
 8               EPA's proposal to strengthen the
 9   standard to within a range of 0.070 parts per
10   million to 0.075 is therefore weaker than what
11   the agency's scientific advisors say is
12   necessary to protect public health.  While
13   stronger than the current ozone standard, the
14   proposal fails to protect public health with
15   an adequate margin of safety.  In effect,
16   EPA's proposed standards would protect
17   millions of Americans, but would continue to
18   leave millions more -- particularly those with
19   lung disease or who are otherwise sensitive to
20   air pollution -- exposed to the harmful
21   effects of dirty air.
22               Alarmingly, the new EPA proposal
23   also leaves the door open to retain the
24   current ozone standard.  Scientists and even
25   EPA Administrator Johnson have said that the
0019
 1   current standard is not good enough to protect
 2   public health.  One has to wonder why the
 3   option is still even on the table.  One
 4   possible factor is that in the weeks leading
 5   up to the release of EPA's proposal,
 6   representatives for the electric utilities,
 7   chemical industry, oil companies, and the
 8   automakers organized high-level meetings with
 9   Bush administration officials to discuss the
10   new ozone standards.
11               Every American -- and every
12   Pennsylvanian -- deserves to breathe clean
13   air.  EPA should reject industry pressure to
14   retain the current standard and instead adopt
15   an ozone standard of 0.060 parts per million,
16   consistent with the recommendations of its
17   scientific advisors.
18               Thank you again for the
19   opportunity to speak today.
20               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
21   Willcox.
22               PANEL MEMBERS:  (Indicating.)
23               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
24               Would the next pair of speakers
25   please come up, Mr. John Rutkowski and Mr. Mel
0020
 1   Peffers.
 2               Oh!
 3               MS. PEFFERS:  Mel is short for
 4   Melissa.
 5               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  You get a
 6   chance to correct all kinds of mistakes,
 7   mispronunciations and...
 8               Mr. Rutkowski?
 9               MR. RUTKOWSKI:  Good morning.  My
10   name is John Rutkowski.  That's
11   R-U-T-K-O-W-S-K-I.  I'm the chairman of the
12   American Lung Association's Healthy Air
13   Committee, I'm also a registered respiratory
14   therapist, and an asthmatic first diagnosed in
15   1958.
16               The average person breathes over
17   2,000 gallons of air each day.  Most of us do
18   not fully understand the potential health
19   effects of this seemingly simple but
20   absolutely necessary act which generally
21   occurs without awareness -- unless you suffer
22   from an acute or chronic pulmonary impairment.
23               Scientists have studied the
24   effects of ozone on health for decades.
25   Research has confirmed that ozone harms people
0021
 1   at concentrations well below the current
 2   standard.
 3               Five groups of people are
 4   especially vulnerable to the effects of
 5   breathing ozone:  children, senior citizens,
 6   people who work or exercise outdoors, people
 7   with respiratory disease, and additionally
 8   those who have an enhanced reaction to ozone
 9   even though their normal lung conditions are
10   acceptable.
11               Studies confirm that
12   relationships between ozone and illness,
13   hospitalization, and premature death.
14   Researchers are constantly producing new
15   information on the health effects of all air
16   pollutants and the mechanism by which
17   pollutants damage the lungs, heart, and
18   contribute to asthma attacks and premature
19   deaths.
20               The science is clear.  Millions
21   are at risk from ozone smog at the levels that
22   the EPA has previously considered safe.  Ozone
23   smog can cause asthma attacks, exacerbation of
24   coughing and wheezing, and shortness of
25   breath.  Children with asthma are particularly
0022
 1   vulnerable to ozone, even at the levels below
 2   EPA's current 8-hour ozone standard.  Recent
 3   studies suggest year-round exposure to ozone
 4   may be associated with an increased risk of
 5   the development of asthma and increased school
 6   absences.  Breathing ozone smog threatens
 7   serious health risks, including premature
 8   death.
 9               Scientific studies clearly show
10   that the current standards for ozone pollution
11   are far too weak to protect public health.
12   Based on this evidence, EPA staff scientists
13   and CASAC recommended that the administration
14   substantially strengthen these standards to
15   protect public health.  Many scientists, the
16   American Lung Association, and other health
17   environmental groups recommend a more
18   protective level under EPA consideration.
19               Even very low concentrations of
20   ozone can be harmful to the upper respiratory
21   tract and the lungs.  The severity of injury
22   depends on both the concentration of ozone and
23   the duration of exposure.
24               Health effects of ground-level
25   ozone in the air we breath include:  bronchial
0023
 1   hyperresponsiveness, an increased reactivity
 2   to other inhaled substances; inflammatory
 3   responses in bronchi and lungs; aggravated
 4   asthma; shortness of breath; chest pain when
 5   inhaling deeply; increased susceptibility to
 6   respiratory infection; increased respiratory
 7   and cardiovascular hospitalizations -- there's
 8   some scientific information that indicates
 9   that 10 to 20 percent of all summertime
10   respiratory-related hospital visits in the
11   northern US are associated with ozone
12   pollution; and additionally, there are
13   premature deaths.
14               Ozone is capable of causing
15   inflammation in the lungs at lower
16   concentrations than any other gas.  A number
17   of studies indicate that at concentrations of
18   around 60 parts per billion adverse effects
19   ranging from respiratory symptoms to
20   hospitalizations and even premature death.
21   Repeated exposure to ozone can produce
22   permanent structural damage in the lung.
23   Millions are at risk from ozone smog at levels
24   that the EPA has previously considered safe.
25   One-third of the US population lives in areas
0024
 1   with unhealthy levels of ozone.
 2               The science is clear.  Ozone
 3   pollution is causing unnecessary illness and
 4   death in America.  The evidence clearly shows
 5   that the proposed standards for ozone
 6   pollution are too weak to protect the public
 7   health.  The standard proposed by the EPA
 8   falls far short of the standard of 0.060 parts
 9   per million over eight hours supported by the
10   American Lung Association, American Thoracic
11   Society, and others in the scientific
12   community.
13               The Clean Air Act requires the
14   EPA to base this decision on health
15   considerations only.  Economic factors cannot
16   be considered.
17               There is no excuse to set the new
18   standards at levels that still do not meet the
19   basic legal requirement outlined in the Clean
20   Air Act -- to protect the lives and health of
21   the public with an adequate margin of safety.
22               Thank you.
23               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
24   Rutkowski.
25               Ms. Peffers?
0025
 1               MS. PEFFERS:  My name is Mel
 2   Peffers, P-E-F-F-E-R-S, and I am representing
 3   Environmental Defense, a non-profit,
 4   non-governmental, and non-partisan
 5   environmental organization who represents over
 6   a half a million members nationwide.
 7               Today we respectfully and
 8   strongly request that EPA set the National
 9   Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone at
10   0.060 parts per million.  The reasons being is
11   the EPA really needs to do the right thing on
12   this measure.  Both legally, economically, and
13   morally, they have the obligation to set it at
14   this standard, 0.060 parts per million.
15               Legally, since I'm not a lawyer,
16   I'm going to actually use -- we do have some
17   very smart lawyers at Environmental Defense,
18   so I'm just going to use their notes and their
19   analysis.  It's very important to remember
20   that the 1970 Clean Air Act that establishes
21   and gives the EPA the right to set these
22   standards, and the National Ambient Air
23   Quality Standards are key to the air quality
24   we enjoy today, and we need to set those
25   standards to the best settings we can.
0026
 1               Also, in a unanimous decision by
 2   the Supreme Court, it was clearly stated that
 3   you have to set health as the point at which
 4   you set those standards.  That's the primary
 5   reason you're setting the standards.  So the
 6   decrease -- and this is from Scalia:  Decrease
 7   the concentration to provide an adequate
 8   margin of safety and set the standard at that
 9   level.  Nowhere are the costs of achieving
10   such a standard made part of that initial
11   calculation.  You first must set the standard
12   on a health-based level.
13               And with that regard, I'll go on
14   to the second reason to do the right thing,
15   and it's the economically smart thing to do.
16   There'll be protests saying, this is going to
17   cost money, but since 1970 -- and, again, I'm
18   not an economist, so I'm going to use our --
19   we do have great economists as well, so I'm
20   going to use their analysis, and the GEP since
21   1970 has grown by 174 percent, and every time
22   somebody's thrown up the economic argument,
23   it's been proven wrong, and we've been able to
24   meet and achieve the standards based on health
25   standards.
0027
 1               Another key point is somebody's
 2   done studies to show the societal benefits.
 3   For every dollar invested in reaching these
 4   standards is met by $40 worth of benefits in
 5   an -- avoided healthcare costs and worker loss
 6   days, so the economics also show that this is
 7   a smart thing.
 8               But now I will go into my realm
 9   of expertise, and I graduated from Harvard
10   School of Public Health, and I really care
11   about preserving and protecting public health,
12   and I'd like to think that it was just
13   yesterday I graduated, but it was before the
14   last standard had been set in 1997, so it's
15   ten years or more since I've graduated, and we
16   need better standards.
17               The new epidemiology shows it.
18   Toxicologists, biostatisticians, people in the
19   profession are here today to explain why it's
20   important to set that standard lower.  And
21   most importantly, as other people have
22   expressed, I want to reiterate the importance
23   of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
24   Committee, the unanimous decision, and I'll
25   quote them here:  There is no scientific
0028
 1   justification for retaining the current
 2   primary 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality
 3   Standard of 0.08 parts per million, and (2)
 4   the primary 8-hour National Ambient Air
 5   Quality Standard needs to be substantially
 6   reduced to protect human health, particularly
 7   insensitive populations.  Therefore, the Clean
 8   Air Scientific Advisory Committee unanimously
 9   recommends a range of 0.060 to 0.070 parts per
10   million for the primary ozone National Ambient
11   Air Quality Standard.
12               And one last piece is we were
13   very concerned that in -- OMB requested that
14   mortality data be removed from some of the
15   analysis and documentation, and so here I'm
16   showing a graph showing back here in 1997,
17   based on 2004 data, the mortality rate at the
18   1997 levels were these high orange bars.
19               You can see we need to set the
20   standard lower.  Over tens of millions of
21   people really need this standard.
22               Thank you very much.  Appreciate
23   the time to comment.
24               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
25               The next speakers are Dr. Kevin
0029
 1   Osterhoudt -- you can correct that
 2   pronunciation, please -- and Cinda Waldbuesser
 3   -- and you can correct that one too, please,
 4   in your introduction.
 5               Dr. Osterhoudt, you're first.
 6               DR. OSTERHOUDT:  Good morning.
 7   Thank you for allowing me to come and speak
 8   today.  It's an honor, and I must say it's a
 9   real pleasure to see children in the audience
10   at this event of democracy here in the United
11   States.
12               My name is Kevin Osterhoudt,
13   that's O-S-T-E-R-H-O-U-D-T, and I'm a
14   physician toxicologist and the medical
15   director of the Poison Control Center here in
16   Philadelphia, representing Philadelphia,
17   eastern Pennsylvania, and the state of
18   Delaware.  I'm a pediatrician at the
19   Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, I'm an
20   associate professor of pediatrics at the
21   University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
22   but I am also an environmental health expert
23   to the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American
24   Academy of Pediatrics.
25               The air we breathe, the water we
0030
 1   drink, and the ground we walk on, there can be
 2   nothing more fundamental to safeguard than the
 3   air we breathe or the water we drink or the
 4   ground that we walk on.  And today, I am here
 5   to speak about ozone, notorious for being one
 6   of the six so-called criteria pollutants
 7   defined as endangering public health and
 8   welfare, and how it must be more stringently
 9   regulated within the air that we breathe.
10               To that regard, I fully endorse
11   Physician Seth, the trusted name of the
12   American Academy of Pediatrics, which calls
13   upon the Environmental Protection Agency to
14   strengthen primary ozone standards to a level
15   at or preferably below 0.070 parts per million
16   for an 8-hour.
17               I take care of children in the
18   emergency department of the Children's
19   Hospital of Philadelphia.  An acute
20   respiratory illness is the most common reason
21   for children to seek care in my emergency
22   department.  During the summer, when I wake
23   up, I watch the local television broadcast,
24   and the newscasters will often show that day's
25   ozone levels, and from that I can predict how
0031
 1   busy my workday will be in the emergency
 2   department.
 3               And it turns out that my simple
 4   observation has science on its side.  Indeed,
 5   children are particularly susceptible to the
 6   respiratory effects of ozone.  The lungs of
 7   young children are vulnerably undeveloped and
 8   not fully matured, and children spend a
 9   relatively higher proportion of time in the
10   outdoor environment and also breathe a
11   proportionately more ozone-laden air in and
12   out of their lungs than adults.
13               Inside the lungs, ozone provides
14   oxidative stress to the lungs, interacts with
15   soft membranes and the sulfhydryl groups of
16   proteins, and leads to inflammation.
17               Many medical studies have shown
18   that high-ozone days lead to decreased lung
19   function, increased asthma attacks, increased
20   hospitalizations, increased school absence,
21   and increased ER visits.  Numerous scientific
22   studies have demonstrated that these adverse
23   health effects often occur at ambient ozone
24   levels below the current National Ambient Air
25   Quality Standard for ozone.
0032
 1               I am sure that commercial
 2   interests will lobby that lowering ozone
 3   standards will cost too much.  I am also sure
 4   that they won't want the public to understand
 5   that improving ozone standards will increase
 6   productivity, decrease healthcare costs, and
 7   improve the quality of life for countless
 8   children and adults.
 9               The Clean Air Act instructs the
10   EPA to take vulnerable populations, such as
11   the ever-growing number of children with
12   asthma or other lung diseases, into account
13   when evaluating National Ambient Air Quality
14   Standards, and the Clean Air Scientific
15   Advisory Committee has stated that there is no
16   scientific justification for retaining the
17   current primary standard for ozone.
18               The EPA is charged with setting a
19   primary ozone ambient air standard for which
20   the attainment and maintenance of such a level
21   is requisite for protecting the public health
22   and an adequate margin of safety.  The science
23   is straightforward.  Ozone is harmful to the
24   lungs and contributes to illness.
25               I and the Pennsylvania Chapter of
0033
 1   the American Academy of Pediatrics call upon
 2   the EPA to lower the primary ambient air ozone
 3   standard to at least 0.070 parts per million
 4   on an 8-hour average.  Such a move will
 5   undoubtedly have regulatory impact, but it is
 6   an investment to ensure a healthy future for
 7   our children, our grandchildren, and our
 8   great-grandchildren, and such a move is an
 9   investment in protecting the air that we
10   breathe.
11               Thank you.
12               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Dr.
13   Osterhoudt.
14               MS. WALDBUESSER:  Hi.  My name is
15   Cinda Waldbuesser, and that's
16   W-A-L-D-B-U-E-S-S-E-R, and I'm here on behalf
17   of the non-partisan, non-profit National Parks
18   Conservation Association and its 337,000
19   members.  NPCA will be submitting formal
20   comments in coordination with Appalachian
21   Mountain Club and other conservation
22   organizations in the coming months.
23               For the record, I would first
24   like to note that NPCA supports the American
25   Lung Association's recommendation regarding
0034
 1   EPA's proposed changes to the primary standard
 2   for ozone.  In order to protect the general
 3   health and the health of visitors to our
 4   nation's national parks, a primary standard of
 5   60 parts per million is appropriate.
 6               As our formal, written comments
 7   will point out, NPS, National Parks Service,
 8   now has 25 years of data showing that the
 9   ozone is having an extremely negative effect
10   on the flora and fauna of our national parks.
11   It is time we act to protect the national
12   integrity of our national parks from the harms
13   of ozone.  This is why we have chosen to
14   concentrate our formal, written comments and
15   our comments today on the proposed changes to
16   the secondary standard.
17               I would like to note that we
18   applaud EPA's move to consider a meaningful
19   secondary standard for ozone.  However, as
20   with the primary, EPA's proposed changes would
21   not go far enough to be truthful protective.
22   NPCA recommends the following regarding EPA's
23   proposed changes to the secondary standard:
24               The secondary standard National
25   Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone should
0035
 1   be an annual cumulative weighted index.  We
 2   oppose EPA's proposal to average over multiple
 3   years, which would result in high-ozone years
 4   being averaged out.
 5               We agree there is sufficient
 6   evidence that the W126-based standard is
 7   appropriate.  However, we disagree on the
 8   12-hour and 3-month summation period.  We
 9   prefer the more protective level proposed, 7
10   parts per million-hours, especially if the
11   12-hour/3-months are instated.  However, our
12   ultimate preference is a tiered approach that
13   considers varying levels of plant
14   sensitivities similar to the National Park
15   Service threshold of 6 parts per million-hours
16   for highly sensitive species and 24 parts per
17   million-hours for moderately sensitive
18   species.
19               In classroom areas, the more
20   protective approach should be used to ensure
21   the Federal Land Managers Mandate is
22   supported.
23               The standard should include May
24   through September to reflect the full growing
25   season.  Growing seasons are expanding due to
0036
 1   the climate change.  To be truly protective
 2   for vegetation, the secondary standard should
 3   not replicate the implementation methods
 4   established for the primary standard which are
 5   based on human population standards.
 6               Federally protected and large
 7   contiguous national areas with zone-sensitive
 8   species should receive additional funding for
 9   ozone monitoring with a focus on higher
10   elevations.
11               It is time we take seriously into
12   account the existing data on the effects of
13   ozone pollution on park visitors and park
14   resources and lower both the primary and
15   secondary standards for ozone to protective
16   levels.  It is time we protect our resources
17   and our citizens.
18               Thank you.
19               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
20   time.  Thank you both.
21               Our next speakers are the
22   McCloskey family, if they could come up.
23               MS. McCLOSKEY:  Hi.  We're the
24   McCloskey family.  I'm Natalie.  The last name
25   is spelled M-c-C-L-O-S-K-E-Y.  This here is
0037
 1   Kaylyn; she's nine.  This is Brendan; he's
 2   seven.  This is Dacey; she's five, one of my
 3   asthmatics.  This is Erin; she's 13, one of
 4   our asthmatics.  This is Sean with Annalivia,
 5   and she's three, and she is one of my
 6   asthmatics.  This is my oldest son, Sean; he's
 7   15.
 8               Most families look forward to the
 9   summer with a great sense of anticipation.
10   Not our family.  While my children's
11   classmates chat eagerly about their summer
12   plans, my children are quiet.  We can't plan
13   anything in advance, especially anything
14   outside.  Too many times we've had to miss out
15   on events because of an ozone alert.
16               Summers are never easy for us,
17   but this one was extremely difficult,
18   especially for our 13-year-old daughter, Erin.
19   Erin had only one care-free week this summer,
20   and that week was at Camp Super Kids, a camp
21   for asthmatic children.  When that week came
22   to an end, our hopes of a care-free summer
23   came to an end too.
24               Within days of returning home
25   from camp, and after several trips to the
0038
 1   doctors' and breathing treatments too numerous
 2   to count, Erin was hospitalized.  This was her
 3   11th hospitalization for asthma and the 16th
 4   we have faced as a family.  The doctor had
 5   anticipated that Erin would be hospitalized
 6   for 24 to 48 hours.  Instead, she was in for
 7   five seemingly endless days.  What was so
 8   frightening this time around was the amount of
 9   time it took to break the attack.  48 hours
10   into her stay, she was nowhere near being
11   discharged as predicted.  With breathing
12   treatments every two hours, with twice the
13   medication of a typical treatment, she was no
14   better.  The doctors had surmised that Erin
15   had become resistant to Albuterol, the most
16   widely used rescue medication.  Words can't
17   describe how frightened I was to hear this.
18   What happens if she becomes resistant to the
19   rescue medication she now takes?  It scares me
20   to even think that that possibility lies in
21   our future.
22               While Erin may be the one
23   physically suffering from the attack, it
24   affects us all.  I still have children at home
25   whose lives have also been turned upside-down
0039
 1   by the attacks and resulting hospitalizations.
 2   Visits and phone calls always ended in tears.
 3   When was I coming home?  What about Erin?
 4   When would she be coming home?  Our
 5   nine-year-old daughter, Kaylyn is well versed
 6   on the criteria that must be met before an
 7   asthmatic can be discharged.
 8               We do what's within our power to
 9   control our asthma.  On a good day, we have to
10   stop what we are doing at least four times to
11   administer the medications here in these bags.
12   That's not including the times that we have to
13   stop to take the preventative inhaler before
14   all outdoor activities.  This bag here, this
15   is just a nebulizer that we keep in the car.
16               Now we need your help in what we
17   have no control over, but you do:  The air
18   that we must breathe.  We are asking you to
19   adopt a strictest standards possible, not just
20   for our family, but for everyone.
21               Thank you.
22               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
23   We appreciate the time and effort you took to
24   bring your family down here and for the very
25   personal reminder of the seriousness of this
0040
 1   issue.
 2               MS. McCLOSKEY:  Thank you.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Our next two speakers
 4   are Deputy Secretary Thomas Fidler and Matthew
 5   Himmelein.
 6               Deputy Secretary Fidler.
 7               MR. FIDLER:  Thank you very much
 8   and good morning.  My name is Tom Fidler.  I'm
 9   the deputy secretary for Waste, Air, and
10   Radiation Management for the Pennsylvania
11   Department of Environmental Protection.  On
12   behalf of Governor Rendell and Secretary
13   Kathleen McGinty, I'd like to thank the US EPA
14   for hosting this hearing in Philadelphia to
15   review the changes to the 8-hour ozone
16   standard that was published in the Federal
17   Register on July 11th of this year.  I'd also
18   like to thank all the interested persons that
19   are here today to express their position on
20   this very important issue.
21               I am pleased to provide testimony
22   on EPA's proposed revisions of the primary and
23   secondary 8-hour ozone standards.
24   Pennsylvania has already made great progress
25   in reducing the precursors of ground-level
0041
 1   ozone.  Of the 37 counties originally
 2   designated as 8-hour ozone non-attainment
 3   areas in June 2004, requests for redesignation
 4   to attainment have been submitted to the EPA
 5   for 32 of these counties, improving the lives
 6   of almost 7 million Pennsylvania residents and
 7   those living downwind.
 8               Meeting more protective 8-hour
 9   ozone standards will be challenging, but we
10   strongly support and believe, based on the
11   science, that revisions of the standards are
12   necessary to protect public health and
13   welfare.  In collaboration with EPA,
14   neighboring states, and stakeholders, we will
15   continue to develop and implement voluntary
16   and mandatory control strategies to achieve
17   greater reduction in ozone precursor.
18               EPA has proposed a primary
19   standard range of 0.070 ppm to 0.075 ppm,
20   which coincides with the high end of CASAC's
21   adjusted range of 0.060 ppm to 0.070 ppm.  Not
22   only has EPA proposed a standard above the
23   range recommended by the independent
24   scientific review committee, but the proposal
25   solicits comment on retaining the current
0042
 1   standard of 0.08 ppm, when in the proposed
 2   rule-making, the EPA states that that very
 3   level would not fit the science.
 4               The science clearly shows that
 5   the current 8-hour ozone standard is not set
 6   at a level to sufficiently protect human
 7   health with an adequate margin of safety.
 8   After reviewing over 1,700 scientific studies,
 9   the congressionally mandated CASAC ozone panel
10   members were unanimous in recommending that
11   the level of the current primary ozone
12   standard would be lowered from 0.08 ppm to no
13   greater than 0.07 ppm.  EPA's own staff
14   concluded that the scientific data available
15   since the last revision supports the need for
16   revision of the standard.
17               Ozone exposure is a threat to
18   healthy adults as well as at-risk groups such
19   as asthmatics and children, as we've just
20   seen.  While ozone exposure has been
21   previously linked to both minor and serious
22   respiratory illness, recent research has
23   indicated a correlation between exposure and
24   cardiac-related deaths.  These findings
25   indicate as never before the seriousness of
0043
 1   exposure and its effect on public health and
 2   welfare.
 3               Uncertainties of science is
 4   emphasized repeatedly in proposed rule-making.
 5   EPA states one of these reasons for deviating
 6   from CASAC's recommendations is the level of
 7   uncertainty below the range that EPA has
 8   proposed for the standard.  CASAC, on the
 9   other hand, indicated that there is enough
10   scientific certainty to suggest a standard as
11   low as 0.06 ppm.  Again, the EPA should not
12   disregard the advice of CASAC.
13               The CASAC members were also
14   unanimous in supporting the recommendation
15   that protection of agricultural crops and
16   ecosystems requires a secondary welfare-based
17   ozone standard substantially different from
18   the primary ozone standard.  CASAC agreed that
19   the lowest found of the range that should be
20   considered is 7.5 ppm-hours and the upper
21   bound no higher than 15 ppm-hours, yet EPA's
22   proposal has an upper bound of 21 ppm-hours.
23   We support the CASAC recommendations for a
24   revised secondary standard, a new cumulative
25   seasonal standard method that uses the W126
0044
 1   form which reflects more accurately when crops
 2   and foliage would be most affected by ozone
 3   exposure.  The recommendations of independent
 4   scientific advisory committee should not be
 5   dismissed.  EPA must promulgate a revised
 6   secondary 8-hour ozone standard that is
 7   consistent with CASAC's recommendations.
 8               Finally, CASAC recommended that
 9   EPA has proposed changing the level of ozone
10   standard to -- changing the level of the ozone
11   standard to the nearest one-thousandth.  We
12   concur with that.
13               In conclusion, if EPA is
14   following the statutory obligation to base
15   revision of this standard on science without
16   regard to cost, we question why then EPA
17   ignored its own scientific advisory committee
18   in so many instances.  EPA, states,
19   localities, analyze benefits, costs.
20               Thank you very much.
21               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr. Fidler.
22   Appreciate it.  As with everybody else, we'll
23   add all of your written comments into the
24   record.
25               MR. FIDLER:  I have extra copies.
0045
 1   Thank you.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Mr. Himmelein, is it?
 3               MR. HIMMELEIN:  Yes, that's
 4   correct.
 5               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Great.
 6               MR. HIMMELEIN:  Good morning.  My
 7   name is Matthew Himmelein.  For the record,
 8   that's H-I-M-M-E-L-E-I-N.  I come to you today
 9   as a representative of Temple University
10   Students For Environmental Action, but more
11   importantly, as a citizen of the United States
12   and here in Philadelphia, where I've resided
13   my entire life.
14               I'm pleased that I am able to sit
15   before you and voice my outrage over the new
16   ground-level ozone standards that are
17   proposed.  It's my duty as a citizen of this
18   country to stand up and criticize my
19   government for what I feel is wrong.  This is
20   an outrage, an injustice, and most
21   importantly, a disgraceful standard we are
22   talking about today.
23               Every day we spew pollution into
24   the air, and every day there are thousands who
25   are diagnosed with some form of lung disease.
0046
 1   I grew up in west Philadelphia.  Right around
 2   the corner from me lived my best friend, Ester
 3   Massey (ph).  We used to play together in our
 4   backyard and ride our bikes in the street, you
 5   know, all day, more than eight hours, until
 6   one day she fell from her bike, clutching her
 7   throat.  I had no idea what was wrong, and I
 8   ran to her family to help.  A few days later,
 9   when she returned from the hospital, I found
10   out that she had asthma.  She and I never got
11   to ride bikes anymore or play outside.  Her
12   family was too concerned that she might die.
13   We continued to hang out pretty much every day
14   until we parted ways in middle school.  Every
15   couple of weeks or so, she would come back to
16   me and tell me how she almost died from an
17   asthma attack.
18               Not until I went to college did I
19   really find out the true causes of the
20   disease, nor did I realize how easy it would
21   be for you and the EPA and the federal
22   government to decrease these air pollutants.
23               Well, just last week, my best
24   friend, Ester Massey, had a little boy named
25   Jonah.  I told her I was going to testify
0047
 1   today and share my desire for her to be here
 2   with me because she has always given me
 3   strength.  She lives in Omaha now, so
 4   unfortunately she wasn't able to be with us,
 5   but she did have a few words of encouragement
 6   for me.  She assured me that I'd do great and
 7   that she'd be with me in spirit and that she
 8   was very proud, along with my family, friends,
 9   and colleagues at Temple University.  But the
10   one thing that really stuck out in our talk
11   was her insistence that Jonah, her new baby,
12   would be harmed even more if these new
13   regulations were made into law.  She told me
14   to do it for him and all the other newborn
15   babies that face the risk of asthma and other
16   lung diseases.
17               So I sit here today to plead with
18   you.  Don't change the regulation for
19   ground-level ozone to this new level.  In
20   fact, reduce them even further.  The EPA's own
21   scientists urged that these new standards were
22   higher than what's allowed for our exposure,
23   and I pose a few questions for you:  Why are
24   we adjusting these standards now, 18 months
25   before the administration leaves office?
0048
 1   Who's to benefit, or worse, profit from these
 2   changes?  Not me, but I have a clear idea who,
 3   and I'm sure the audience does as well.
 4               There is already too much
 5   pollution in the air, and there's no reason we
 6   need to poison ourselves or our planet any
 7   longer.  The EPA must reduce ground-level
 8   ozone levels to a safe level, at or below 6
 9   parts per million.
10               I urge you, do not let these new
11   standards become law.  Take what I and the
12   rest of us say here today back to the review
13   boards and do your jobs.  Protect our health
14   and the health of the American people.
15               Thank you very much for your
16   time.
17               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
18               The next speakers are Nancy
19   Wittenberg and Joseph Minott.
20               Nancy, you're the first speaker
21   this morning.
22               MS. WITTENBERG:  Good morning.
23   My name is Nancy Wittenberg,
24   W-I-T-T-E-N-B-E-R-G.  I'm the assistant
25   commissioner of Environmental Regulation for
0049
 1   the New Jersey Department of Environmental
 2   Protection.  Thank you for the opportunity to
 3   comment today.
 4               I'm here today as a regulator and
 5   a policymaker.  Ozone is a significant problem
 6   in the state of New Jersey, and it's one that
 7   we take very seriously.  You will hear from
 8   many individuals today talking about the
 9   health effects and documentation of the
10   overwhelming health effects and costs related
11   to ozone.  I'm not a doctor, I'm not an
12   epidemiologist, you don't need to hear it from
13   me, but as a policymaker in New Jersey, these
14   things are very important to us.
15               It's clear that the health
16   effects and the associated costs are not
17   debatable.  In response, our path to address
18   the serious health risks should also not be
19   debatable.  Health must be considered first
20   and foremost.  Cost should not be used to
21   justify less protection.  I understand the
22   significance of that as a state regulator,
23   dealing with the regulated industry, but with
24   such pronounced and clear health effects, we
25   really have no choice.
0050
 1               Ozone is a very serious issue for
 2   New Jersey.  We have taken many actions within
 3   our state and with our regional partners to
 4   reduce ozone levels, yet it continues to be
 5   our most persistent and pervasive air-quality
 6   problem.  The EPA has the luxury of having the
 7   science advisory board and CASAC, who has made
 8   independent review and recommendations to
 9   them.  We don't have that luxury in New
10   Jersey.  I'm jealous of it, and I think you
11   should take advantage of it.  They have made a
12   recommendation that the primary ozone standard
13   should be changed to one that is in the range
14   of 0.06 to 0.07 parts per million.  New Jersey
15   supports that recommendation, and we urge the
16   EPA to adopt a value within that range.
17               CASAC has also made a
18   recommendation regarding establishing a
19   secondary standard for ozone.  New Jersey is
20   the garden state.  Protecting our economic
21   interest and our crops are crucially important
22   to us.  The CASAC recommendation is that the
23   secondary standard should be different from
24   the primary standard.  New Jersey is strongly
25   supportive of that recommendation.
0051
 1               As important as those
 2   recommendations are, how these standards get
 3   achieved is equally important.  Ozone is a
 4   pollutant where any one state's efforts cannot
 5   be enough, and any effort that does not
 6   address all sources of ozone will not be
 7   enough.  This is an issue that requires
 8   regional and multi-sector action, and because
 9   of that, a strong federal standard is clearly
10   needed to give the framework to address all
11   the sources in all geographic areas.  The
12   standard will serve to reinvigorate regional
13   initiatives which are essential if all the
14   states are to come into compliance and provide
15   for the health of their population.
16               Another element to be considered
17   is one that recently became known to New
18   Jersey.  Air quality in New Jersey independent
19   of any air pollution control strategies we do
20   for ozone is expected to worsen.  The driving
21   factor, the global warming.  A 2007 Union of
22   Concerned Sciences report done for the
23   northeast region found that in the absence of
24   more stringent ozone control, the number of
25   days with poor air quality is projected to
0052
 1   quadruple in New Jersey cities.  This, along
 2   with our understanding of transport and the
 3   localized weather factors, should serve to
 4   remind us that ozone formation is the function
 5   of many things, some of which are outside of
 6   any state or my state's control, but the
 7   framework to set the bar for reducing ozone
 8   levels nationally is clearly needed.
 9               It's clear that EPA and the
10   states will need to take coordinated action to
11   reduce both ozone and greenhouse gases over
12   the short and long term.  Establishing ozone
13   standards that are based in science and
14   establish what's needed to protect both health
15   and vegetation is a necessary piece of the
16   strategy and one that needs to be taken now.
17               New Jersey is supportive of the
18   CASAC recommendations and urges EPA to accept
19   these recommendations in establishing new laws
20   on the ambient air quality standard.
21               Thanks.
22               MR. PAGE:  Thanks.  Joseph?
23               MR. MINOTT:  My name is Joe
24   Minott, M-I-N-O-T-T.  What she said, it was
25   great.  I am an attorney, I am an
0053
 1   environmentalist, I am a soccer coach, I am a
 2   community activist.  I'm also the executive
 3   director of the Clean Air Council.  There will
 4   be -- the senior attorney of the Clean Air
 5   Council will be giving testimony this
 6   afternoon.
 7               My most important role is that of
 8   a father.  My son is an active 17-year-old.
 9   He loves to play soccer and track.  He is an
10   asthmatic.  I do not know how many of you in
11   this room have had to deal with a child that
12   has had to be rushed to the hospital because
13   he cannot breathe or even a child that needs
14   to skip a soccer game because the air
15   pollution is making him wheeze.  If you have
16   an asthmatic member of your family, you will
17   understand the passion of my testimony.
18               I don't really like this process,
19   and I wonder if the rules allow me, as a
20   concerned parent and environmentalist, to ask
21   you, as representatives of the EPA, specific
22   questions on why the EPA is proposing such a
23   weak standard?  Why are we even, for instance,
24   considering the option of keeping the present
25   standards?  Can you explain that to me?  Do I
0054
 1   have a right to ask you these questions?  And
 2   if the answer is no, then when do we have the
 3   opportunity to ask the decision-maker on why
 4   he or she is making these decisions?
 5               MR. PAGE:  In response to your
 6   questions, the justification for the proposal
 7   of the particular levels is in the proposed
 8   rule, as to how the administrator came to his
 9   thinking, as well as recognizing the other
10   viewpoints that others have held both through
11   our -- those who have supported the lower
12   standard or a higher standard, so it's in that
13   document.
14               MR. MINOTT:  Believe me, I've
15   read the document carefully, and it seemed to
16   me pretty clear that even the administrator
17   acknowledges that the present standard is too
18   week.  If that is the case and he is the
19   decision-maker, then why would the proposal
20   even suggest keeping the present standard?
21               MR. PAGE:  A brief response to
22   that is that the administrator made his
23   proposal, indicating that the level -- the
24   current standard was not scientifically
25   justifiable.  He acknowledged, though, that
0055
 1   others, in the comment period and in the
 2   development of the proposal, had different
 3   views, both higher and lower.  He invited, in
 4   the proposal, for those folks who disagree
 5   with the proposal that the EPA came out with
 6   to come forward with their scientific
 7   justification on why they thought those levels
 8   were warranted.  That's the administrator's
 9   proposal.
10               So he's looking for scientific
11   evidence for justification of both higher and
12   lower.
13               MR. MINOTT:  Okay.  The Clean Air
14   Act mandates that the United States
15   Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, set
16   National Ambient Air Quality Standards that
17   will protect public health.  There is no doubt
18   that the air in this region is not protective
19   of public health.  I think we can all agree,
20   even the administrator, that the present
21   standard is certainly not protective of the
22   health of people with respiratory disease.
23               I hope the EPA will truly listen
24   to the health experts and worried parents,
25   such as myself, and that the ozone standards
0056
 1   will be tightened based on sound science.  It
 2   is, I understand, ironic that a progressive
 3   politically would be using the term most
 4   preferred by conservatives in terms of sound
 5   science, but in this case, we really mean
 6   sound science.
 7               In order to adequately protect
 8   public health, EPA must adopt a standard at
 9   the low end of the range proposed by its own
10   ozone scientific advisory committee.  I
11   strongly urge the EPA to tighten the ozone
12   standard so that, one, the new standard truly
13   protects public health, especially those
14   residents and workers that are most
15   susceptible to the devastation of air
16   pollution, the old, the young, and those with
17   respiratory and heart disease.
18               Furthermore, if the new standard
19   is to truly protect the health of children,
20   the elderly, and other sensitive groups, the
21   EPA must set the standard at the low end of
22   the CASAC's recommended range.  The standard
23   should be 0.060 parts per million.
24               Finally, I strongly urge the EPA
25   to eliminate the rounding loophole and set a
0057
 1   standard in terms of three significant digits.
 2   The rounding loophole simply acts to weaken
 3   the standard.
 4               Thank you.
 5               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr. Minott.
 6               The next speakers are Mr. Paul
 7   Billings and Mr. Jeff Holmstead.
 8               Mr. Billings, you're first.
 9               MR. BILLINGS:  Good morning.  I'm
10   pleased to speak today in support of
11   strengthening the National Ambient Air Quality
12   Standard for ozone.  My name is Paul Billings.
13   That's B-I-L-L-I-N-G-S.  I'm the Vice
14   President of National Policy & Advocacy for
15   the American Lung Association.  Our mission is
16   to prevent lung disease and promote lung
17   health.  In essence, my job is to be an
18   advocate, a lobbyist for the lung and for the
19   breathers.  My work is personal.
20               Fortunately, I have two lungs,
21   and my doctor says they work just fine.  My
22   wife and I are blessed to have two active and
23   healthy daughters.  Like every parent, every
24   individual who breathes, I care deeply about
25   the quality of the air that my family and I
0058
 1   breathe.  As a soccer dad, I have seen
 2   firsthand my daughter's teammates struggle
 3   with asthma attacks on smoggy days.  In my
 4   wife's third-grade class, there are far too
 5   many children with asthma.  We must protect
 6   all children whose lungs are still developing
 7   and all the vulnerable populations from air
 8   pollution.
 9               The Clean Air Act is a promise to
10   the American people for clean and healthy air,
11   a covenant to take the steps to remove the
12   poisons from the air to levels that no longer
13   harm health within an adequate margin of
14   safety.  The US Supreme Court affirmed this
15   contract when it rejected the polluters who
16   sued to block the implementation of the 1997
17   standard revision.
18               Fighting for clean air -- healthy
19   air -- is central to the American Lung
20   Association's mission.  We are here today
21   because five years ago EPA again broke the
22   law, failing in its legal obligation to review
23   the standard by 2002.  So the American Lung
24   Association, in our continued commitment to
25   clean air, took legal action to require this
0059
 1   review.  We sued EPA to make EPA follow the
 2   law.  The last time the EPA reviewed the
 3   standard my youngest was a newborn.  The law
 4   required the review of this standard when she
 5   was in kindergarten.  This week she started
 6   fifth grade.  It should not take EPA a decade
 7   to complete the review and updating of these
 8   health standards.  The Clean Air Act requires
 9   reviews every five years because Congress
10   understood that new science would inform this
11   process and states would write plans to meet
12   these standards.  EPA's foot-dragging harms
13   people and it must stop.  Frankly, 37 years
14   after the passage of the Clean Air Act, there
15   is no risk of the air being too clean or the
16   breathers being too protected.
17               The Clean Air Act requires EPA to
18   set standards that protect public health with
19   an adequate margin of safety.  The Supreme
20   Court ruled unanimously that EPA must only
21   consider public health in setting these
22   standards -- nothing else.  So what does it
23   mean to protect public health with an adequate
24   margin of safety?  How does EPA provide that
25   protection?
0060
 1               First, it means that EPA should
 2   follow the advice of 23 distinguished and
 3   independent air pollution experts who form
 4   EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
 5   They unanimously recommended much stronger
 6   standards than EPA has proposed.
 7               Last October, the scientists on
 8   the committee sent its official
 9   recommendations to EPA in a letter that was
10   both explicit and pointed.  The committee
11   warned the ozone standard needs to be
12   substantially reduced and that there was no
13   scientific justification for retaining the
14   current weaker standard.  The committee
15   recommended a range of 0.060 to 0.070 parts
16   per million, a range that would provide more
17   protection than the EPA recommendations.
18   Unfortunately, the tightest new standard
19   proposed by EPA barely touches the levels the
20   scientists recommended.  The administrator
21   arbitrarily cites as a defense of his proposal
22   the uncertainty of a public health benefit
23   provided by the more protective standard.  Yet
24   clearly, the Clean Air Act requires, and the
25   American public expects, such uncertainty to
0061
 1   be addressed in favor of more public health
 2   protection -- not less.
 3               The American Lung Association
 4   calls on EPA to adopt a primary National
 5   Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone of
 6   0.060 parts per million averaged over eight
 7   hours.  While the range EPA has proposed is an
 8   improvement over the existing standard, it
 9   falls short of what is needed.  It falls short
10   of the recommendations by the experts.  It
11   falls short of providing an adequate margin of
12   safety.  It falls short of what the Clean Air
13   Act requires.  The health -- indeed the lives
14   -- of too many people are at stake.
15               The proposal leaves open the
16   option of a completely unacceptable and
17   unlawful option -- making no improvements to
18   the standards.  In doing so, EPA would ignore
19   its legal obligation and a decade of
20   compelling research that points to even more
21   harm from ozone pollution.  We cannot wait
22   until another decade passes to provide this
23   protection.
24               Ozone pollution poses health
25   risks for infants, children, seniors, and
0062
 1   people with asthma and other lung diseases.
 2   For these people, smog-polluted air means more
 3   breathing problems, aggravated asthma,
 4   hospital visits, and even premature death.
 5   Even healthy adults who work or exercise
 6   outdoors are at risk.  In our written
 7   comments, we will detail the scientific
 8   evidence.
 9               There is a scientific consensus.
10                       - - -
11               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
12                       - - -
13               MR. BILLINGS:  The law is
14   unambiguous.  EPA must set a standard that
15   protects public health -- including the most
16   vulnerable, like 12-year-old soccer players
17   with asthma -- with an adequate margin of
18   safety.
19               Thank you.
20               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
21   Billings.
22               Mr. Holmstead?
23               MR. HOLMSTEAD:  Good morning.  My
24   name's Jeff Holmstead, and I'm a partner at
25   the law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani and head
0063
 1   of the firm's environmental strategy group,
 2   but this morning I'm not here on behalf of any
 3   clients, no one has looked at my testimony
 4   because I didn't write it until I was on the
 5   way up on the train.  I just wanted to offer
 6   my views as someone who has worked on
 7   air-quality issues for many years and who
 8   cares really very deeply about these issues.
 9               I start out by saying I have
10   enormous respect for the many scientists and
11   public policy experts at EPA who have worked
12   to look at the best available science on the
13   health effects of ozone and have developed
14   this proposal.  And that's not a throw-away
15   line.  I do have enormous respect for all the
16   people who've worked on this for -- now for
17   many years, and it's not quite as easy as Paul
18   would have you suggest.
19               But I think the proposal is a
20   mistake.  I think, as a matter of law, I don't
21   believe that the agency is required to change
22   the current 8-hour standard, and as a matter
23   of good public policy, it is clear, I think,
24   that the agency should leave the current
25   standard in place.  And let me just offer my
0064
 1   perspective as someone who's worked on these
 2   issues for many years.  Any change in the
 3   ozone standard will force states and EPA,
 4   especially regional staff and local
 5   governments and private citizens, to spend
 6   enormous amounts of time and money on
 7   (inaudible), developing new SIPs that will
 8   provide little or no public benefit.  Even
 9   worse, in my view, and the thing I think that
10   is of most concern to many of us is that a
11   change in the ozone standard is going to
12   divert attention away from a much more
13   important problem, which is reducing
14   fine-particle pollution throughout the US, and
15   that's just as a practical matter.  There are
16   a limited number of resources, and that's
17   something we can actually do something about.
18               Now, if you don't mind, I'm going
19   to speak in terms of ppb rather than ppm
20   because I have a hard time with the decimal
21   places, and I prefer to use whole numbers.
22               Based on everything that I have
23   seen in the criteria document and the staff
24   paper, I agree that if we could somehow
25   magically reduce 8-hour average concentrations
0065
 1   on the worst days from 85 to 60, that would be
 2   a good thing.  That would almost certainly
 3   provide some public health benefits.  But I
 4   don't think that's the end of the matter.
 5   That doesn't mean that setting the standard at
 6   60 or 70 is the level that's requisite to
 7   protect public health.
 8               You know, I know that the record
 9   is full of a lot of things about the
10   uncertainties in health effects below 85,
11   about the fact that they're not as serious or
12   as widespread.  Those are factors that the
13   agency clearly is allowed to consider.  It's
14   happened most recently in the SO2 standard,
15   when the agency declined to set a standard for
16   protecting exercising asthmatics because the
17   effects were not serious enough or widespread
18   enough to justify the supporting of the NAAQS.
19               But here's, I think, the thing I
20   haven't seen very much, and that is there's
21   nothing in the Clean Air Act or in any of the
22   court decisions that says in considering what
23   is requisite to protect public health with an
24   adequate margin of safety, the EPA has to
25   ignore what actually happens under the law if
0066
 1   they choose one standard over the other.
 2               I agree with the fellow who
 3   testified a little while ago, who said air
 4   quality is unacceptable in Philadelphia.  It
 5   clearly is.  That's because it doesn't meet
 6   the current standard.  And if people continue
 7   to do what they have been doing, the air
 8   quality is going to continue to get better.
 9   If you change the standard, it's not going to
10   have any impact whatsoever on the actions that
11   are taken in the Philadelphia area to reduce
12   ozone formation.
13               The air quality throughout the
14   country is getting much better.  It will
15   continue to get much better regardless of
16   whether the standard is changed, and I don't
17   think the agency has to ignore that.  Areas
18   that are above 85 will continue to do
19   everything they can.  Areas that are below 85
20   will continue to get better because of all the
21   things the EPA has done, all of the things
22   that other areas have done, especially on
23   mobile source leaks.
24               Finally, and I'm realizing five
25   minutes isn't a very long time, I think
0067
 1   regardless of what you do, you've got to be
 2   honest with people about what this means.  I
 3   look around this room, and there are people
 4   here who will tell you, if you lowered the
 5   standard even to 75, there will be a number of
 6   places that cannot meet it in our lifetime.  I
 7   mean, California air quality is much better
 8   than it was 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5
 9   years ago.  It will continue to get better.
10   Right now the design value is 121 after
11   billions and billions of dollars and very
12   aggressive efforts.  If you set it at 75, much
13   less 70 or 65 --
14                       - - -
15               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
16                       - - -
17               MR. HOLMSTEAD:  -- Philadelphia
18   won't be able to meet it, and even meeting 85
19   is going to be challenge.  And I think the
20   public needs to understand that it's not
21   magical that you set a new standard and all of
22   a sudden air quality improves.
23               Thank you.
24               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
25               The next speakers will be Barbara
0068
 1   Rosenzweig and Zareef Ahmed.
 2               Good morning.  Ms. Rosenzweig?
 3               MS. ROSENZWEIG:  Good morning.
 4   I'm Barbara Rosenzweig, R-O-S-E-N-Z-W-E-I-G.
 5   I am a retired science teacher, specializing
 6   in biology, in the Upper Moreland School
 7   District of Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.
 8               As someone who cares deeply about
 9   our environment and has instilled that
10   stewardship in my students for 36 years, I
11   feel strongly that we need to do more, not
12   less, to improve our air quality.
13               According to the American Lung
14   Association, overwhelming scientific evidence
15   confirms that the ozone standard must be much
16   stronger than the EPA has proposed to protect
17   public health from serious harm.
18               Our current standards fail to do
19   this, particularly for those with lung
20   diseases like asthma or emphysema.
21               Breathing ozone can kill.
22   Short-term increases in ozone were found to
23   increase deaths from cardiovascular and
24   respiratory causes in a large, 14-year study
25   in 95 US cities.  The relationship between
0069
 1   mortality and ozone was evident.  Even on days
 2   when pollution levels were below
 3   concentrations of 0.06 parts per million.
 4               Due to a loophole, communities
 5   can round down their measurements and still
 6   meet the ozone standard.  This means that some
 7   large metropolitan areas, like Philadelphia,
 8   which has been already mentioned, do not have
 9   to clean up their air.  Newer monitoring
10   technology has eliminated the original reason
11   for this practice.
12               According to information this
13   year from the Houston Chronicle, utilities and
14   automakers, industries whose leaders met with
15   the administration just before the EPA
16   announced its review in June, prefer to make
17   no changes at all.  They argue that tightening
18   the ozone standards would cost too much and
19   chill economic growth.
20               However, the non-profit group,
21   Environmental Defense, notes that automakers
22   in 1994 complained that new emissions rules
23   would increase costs by $1,500 per vehicle,
24   but within a year, Honda had figured out how
25   to exceed California's requirements for just
0070
 1   $100 per car.  Individuals, businesses, and
 2   city governments can also limit the emissions
 3   they produce.
 4               This is where the law comes in.
 5   The EPA must weigh one factor alone when
 6   setting the air-quality standards, and that is
 7   public safety.  Cost and technology may not
 8   sway its decision.  A 2002 Supreme Court
 9   ruling made this requirement unambiguous.
10               Given the science and given the
11   law, the EPA is duty-bound to listen to its
12   scientists and tighten ozone standards to a
13   medically safe level for all of our cities.
14               I appreciate the opportunity to
15   share my serious concerns and hope that the
16   EPA will eliminate that loophole, enhancing
17   air quality for all of us.
18               Thank you again.
19               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
20               Mr. Ahmet?
21               MR. AHMET:  My name is Zareef
22   Ahmed.  I'm from Clean Water Action in
23   Philadelphia.  Clean Water Action is a
24   national non-profit organization that works to
25   empower citizens to improve their environment
0071
 1   and safeguard public health.  Clean Water
 2   Action's mission is to empower citizens to
 3   address environmental problems affecting them,
 4   while at the same time protecting the local
 5   environment and helping safeguard public
 6   health.
 7               We have operated in Philadelphia
 8   since 1986 and have a history of dealing with
 9   air-quality issues both in Philadelphia,
10   Pittsburgh, and around the rest of the state.
11   I am here on behalf of our 100,000 members in
12   Pennsylvania.  Clean Water Action urges EPA to
13   adopt the lowest possible primary ozone
14   standard.  Based on studies done by the Clean
15   Air Scientific Advisory Committee, we
16   recommend that the primary ozone standard be
17   lowered to 60 parts per billion.
18               This issue hits home, especially
19   for Clean Water Action, because Philadelphia
20   has one of the highest ozone rates in
21   Pennsylvania.  We feel this is a problem on
22   two fronts, both health and environmental
23   justice.
24               In terms of health, I think we
25   all know that exposure to unhealthy levels of
0072
 1   ozone has been shown to lead to health
 2   problems such as increased asthma attacks,
 3   reduced lung function, inflammation and damage
 4   to the lining of the lung, and increased
 5   susceptibility to respiratory infections.
 6               Just as important as the health
 7   issues, ozone pollution is also an
 8   environmental-justice issue.  Ground-level
 9   ozone, the type that is regulated by the
10   primary ozone standard, is formed by a
11   chemical reaction between nitrogen oxides and
12   volatile organic compounds, or VOCs.  These
13   two types of chemicals are man-made and are
14   emitted from pollution sources such as car
15   exhausts, factories, and refineries.  Areas
16   that have the most pollution in turn have the
17   most ground-level ozone.  Unfortunately, major
18   polluters tend to be situated in or near
19   low-income or mostly minority communities.
20   These communities suffer a disproportionate
21   amount of the consequences from high levels of
22   ground-level ozone.
23               I don't want to repeat too much
24   what's already been said, so I'll stop there.
25   Thank you very much for your time.
0073
 1               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 2               The next speakers are Sister Mary
 3   Hamilton and Deborah Brown.  If you would step
 4   forward to the table, please.
 5               Sister Mary Hamilton is our next
 6   speaker.
 7               SISTER HAMILTON:  I'm not on the
 8   level of your former speakers, but what moved
 9   me to come, with fifty years experience as a
10   nurse, I hope none of the people who won't
11   have the courage to demand a really protective
12   quality air standard ever have to watch a
13   child have an asthma attack or an old person
14   gasping for a breath.
15               And I was going to fax this
16   article from the Philadelphia Inquirer -- I
17   don't know if you saw it yesterday -- Nathan
18   Willcox and Robert Tweel.  I'll let you have
19   it.
20               And then also, the recent issue
21   of Newsweek talks about the deniers and the
22   people who spend money to make people doubt
23   that the best air quality or the best
24   standards are necessary.
25               And I have written here, EPA's
0074
 1   staff of scientists recommend new standards,
 2   and they are required to protect the health of
 3   the public.  Our law requires the EPA to do
 4   that.
 5               Technology is available to
 6   diminish, if not eliminate, pollutants.  Let
 7   us require Exxon, American Oil, electric,
 8   steel and all these other companies to invest
 9   in a future of clean air instead of asthma and
10   choking for lack of oxygen, lung disease and
11   suffering.
12               And so that article in Newsweek
13   is August 13th, Page 25.
14               Thank you.
15               MR. PAGE:  Are you going to leave
16   those copies with us?
17               SISTER HAMILTON:  I'll leave
18   this, what I said --
19               MR. PAGE:  Very good.
20               SISTER HAMILTON:  -- but I'll get
21   a copy machine.  This is the community's
22   Newsweek.  I'll have to bring it back.
23               MR. PAGE:  All right.
24               SISTER HAMILTON:  We don't have
25   personal property.
0075
 1               MR. PAGE:  And I certainly don't
 2   want to be caught holding it either.  All
 3   right.  Well, we'll dig up our own Newsweek
 4   article.  Judy mentioned she'd seen it.  Thank
 5   you.
 6               Ms. Brown?
 7               MS. BROWN:  Hi.  My name is
 8   Jennifer Brown, and I'm reading testimony on
 9   behalf of Dr. Albert Rizzo, R-I-Z-Z-O, who was
10   called out of town.
11               My name is Albert Rizzo, and I am
12   a pulmonologist in Wilmington, Delaware.  I am
13   also a volunteer with the American Lung
14   Association of the Mid-Atlantic, representing
15   the states of Delaware, New Jersey,
16   Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.  I also serve
17   as the chairman of the national American Lung
18   Association's advocacy committee.
19               In my practice, I treat people
20   with lung diseases like asthma, chronic
21   bronchitis, and emphysema every day.  And
22   every day, these individuals have their
23   quality of life affected by the air they
24   breathe.  Curtailing activities with friends
25   and loved ones happens all too often because
0076
 1   of the poor summer air quality that can exist.
 2   I know the difficulties they have breathing
 3   when we have a high-ozone day, how they cough
 4   and wheeze and need to take more medication.
 5   I sometimes end up admitting them to the
 6   hospital when the air pollution makes it so
 7   difficult for them to breathe, and,
 8   unfortunately, this happens all too often.
 9               I am pleased the Environmental
10   Protection Agency is taking a step towards
11   cleaner air by proposing to strengthen the
12   national air quality standards for ozone.
13   Unfortunately, EPA's proposal fails to protect
14   public health adequately from this widespread
15   and dangerous air pollutant.  Overwhelming
16   scientific evidence, including reviews by in
17   dependant scientists, confirm that public
18   health is seriously at risk.  We urge you to
19   set a much more protective health-based
20   standard for ozone.
21               Breathing ozone is dangerous even
22   at lower levels than the current ambient air
23   quality standard.  New epidemiological and
24   clinical studies provide clear evidence of
25   harm at levels currently considered safe.  In
0077
 1   fact, clinical studies show that even
 2   otherwise healthy adults develop decreased
 3   lung function, increased respiratory symptoms,
 4   inflammation, and increased susceptibility to
 5   respiratory infection breathing ozone at
 6   levels at or even below the current standard.
 7               The US Environmental Protection
 8   Agency's independent science reviewers, the
 9   Clean air Scientific Advisory Committee,
10   reviewed a 2,000-page summary of the
11   scientific research of the health impacts of
12   ozone.  They unanimously concluded that there
13   is no scientific justification to keep the
14   current ozone standard, as it does not protect
15   human health.
16               EPA's science advisors
17   recommended providing much more protection in
18   the standard by tightening it to the range of
19   0.060 to 0.070 parts per million.  So EPA's
20   proposal -- while a big improvement -- is
21   still much weaker than what the agency's
22   scientific advisors say is necessary to
23   protect public health.  In effect, EPA's
24   proposed standards would protect millions of
25   Americans but fall dangerously short of what
0078
 1   is needed.  It would continue to leave
 2   millions more -- particularly those with lung
 3   disease or who otherwise are sensitive to air
 4   pollution -- exposed to the harmful effects of
 5   ozone.
 6               The existing standard fails to
 7   protect public health, so the EPA must
 8   strengthen it.  I urge you to protect my
 9   patients and their families, follow the
10   recommendations of the scientists, follow the
11   requirements of the law.  The EPA should set
12   an 8-hour primary standard for ozone of 0.060
13   parts per million.  That's what it takes to
14   protect public health with a margin of safety.
15   We should accept nothing less.
16               Thank you.
17               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
18   comments.
19               Our next speakers are Mr. Dennis
20   winters and Joyce Epps.
21               Mr. Winters, you're our next
22   speaker.
23               MR. WINTERS:  Good morning.  I'm
24   Dennis R. Winters.  I am the Conservation
25   Chair of the 10,000-member Southeastern
0079
 1   Pennsylvania Group of the Sierra Club.  Thank
 2   you for the opportunity to participate in
 3   these important public hearings.  The US EPA
 4   is to be commended for almost forty years of
 5   involving the public in regulations and
 6   rule-makings on important environmental and
 7   health issues.
 8               While these hearings will
 9   undoubtedly receive testimony from entities of
10   the Sierra Club across the country in support
11   for the strongest possible ozone standard, the
12   60 parts per billion recommended by scientists
13   in the public health community, the local
14   Southeastern Group, the Sierra Club presence
15   in Philadelphia, would like to focus its brief
16   remarks on the continuing federal practice of
17   understating, and in some cases ignoring, the
18   best available scientific evidence in
19   establishing public health and environmental
20   policy.  It is the opinion of our members that
21   this politicization of public health
22   protection must come to an end.
23               The EPA's own experts, those
24   independent scientists that make up the Clean
25   Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC,
0080
 1   unanimously declared that the ozone, or smog,
 2   standard, quote, needs to be substantially
 3   reduced to protect human health, particularly
 4   in sensitive subpopulations, unquote, and
 5   that, quote, there is no scientific
 6   justification, unquote, for retaining the
 7   current standard.  Twenty-three of EPA's own
 8   scientific advisors call for an eight-hour
 9   average ozone standard of 60 to 70 parts per
10   billion.  Despite the advice of these experts,
11   Administrator Johnson has proposed a standard
12   for ozone anywhere from 70 to 75 parts per
13   billion and has even offered to consider
14   keeping the current 80 parts per billion
15   standard.  Who is he listening to if not his
16   own scientific advisors?
17               A strong ozone rule would
18   encourage implementation of policies that will
19   have energy, economic, and national security
20   benefits.  The US can reduce smog by making
21   automobiles go farther on a gallon of gas,
22   making homes and businesses more
23   energy-efficient, and switching to cleaner
24   fuels like wind, solar, and sustainable
25   biofuels.  In addition, reducing smog and the
0081
 1   healthcare costs associated with pollution,
 2   these win-win solutions will save consumers
 3   money, create jobs, address global warming,
 4   and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
 5               Unfortunately, a disregard for
 6   the best scientific evidence in determining
 7   public policy has become a hallmark of the
 8   current federal administration.  Politics has
 9   prevailed over forestry experts when it came
10   to managing our national forests, over climate
11   scientists when it came to global warming and
12   climate change, and over wildlife experts when
13   it came to protecting endangered species.
14   While not all of this was under the purview of
15   EPA, many believe the agency has a peculiar
16   habit of determining policy based on
17   information provided by industry lobbyists
18   rather than the scientific community.  In this
19   instance, it is truly tragic because of the
20   thousands put at increased risk of respiratory
21   disease.  Unless the EPA's own scientific
22   experts are listened to in setting this ozone
23   standard, seniors, children, and people
24   already suffering from respiratory illness
25   will not be protected, and the margin of
0082
 1   safety called for in the Clean Air Act will
 2   not be there to protect healthy lungs from
 3   future damage from the effects of smog.
 4               Ozone pollution threatens the
 5   health of almost 2 million Pennsylvanians who
 6   suffer from asthma and other respiratory
 7   illnesses.  Air pollution causes the premature
 8   death of more than 5,000 people in
 9   Pennsylvania every year.  Pennsylvania's air
10   is unhealthy to breathe on a number of
11   occasions each summer largely due to elevated
12   ozone levels.  The situation is even worse in
13   the Philadelphia tri-state area.
14               Despite efforts to combat air
15   pollution over the past 35 years, serious
16   air-quality problems remain throughout the
17   nation.  While air quality has improved in
18   some areas of the country, it remains poor or
19   is even declining in others.  The EPA
20   estimates that over a hundred million
21   Americans still live and breathe in areas with
22   unhealthy air.
23               In summary, erring on the side of
24   industrial lobbyists continues to kill tens of
25   thousands of Americans every year.  The
0083
 1   politicization of public health protection
 2   must come to an end immediately with the
 3   adoption of an ozone standard of 60 parts per
 4   billion.
 5               Thank you.  I have copies.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 7               Ms. Epps?
 8               MS. EPPS:  Good morning.  Ms.
 9   Katz, Mr. Page, Ms. Rodriguez, my name is
10   Joyce E. Epps, and I am the director of the
11   Bureau of Air Quality for the Pennsylvania
12   Department of Environmental Protection.  I'm
13   also a member of the board of director for the
14   National Association of Clean Air Agencies,
15   hereinafter referred to as NACAA.  On behalf
16   of NACAA -- which is an association of air
17   pollution control agencies in 54 states and
18   territories and over 165 metropolitan areas
19   across the country -- I'm testifying today on
20   EPA's proposed revisions to the ozone National
21   Ambient Air Quality Standards.
22               NACAA commends EPA for proposing
23   to set a more stringent primary ozone NAAQS to
24   protect public health.  Ozone exposure is
25   linked, as you know, to a myriad of adverse
0084
 1   health effects, including premature mortality
 2   in people with heart and lung disease, and
 3   recent evidence shows that the adverse health
 4   effects occur at concentrations lower than the
 5   current standard.  Although we appreciate
 6   EPA's proposed action because it recognizes
 7   the importance of tightening the standard, we
 8   have some significant concerns with this
 9   proposal.
10               EPA's congressionally chartered
11   body of independent scientific advisors, the
12   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,
13   hereinafter CASAC, unanimously concluded,
14   based on several significant epidemiological
15   and clinical studies, that the primary ozone
16   standard needs to be substantially reduced and
17   recommended strengthening the primary ozone
18   NAAQS to a level within the range of 0.060 to
19   0.070 parts per million.
20               The EPA's proposed range of
21   levels -- 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million --
22   falls outside range recommended unanimously by
23   CASAC, coinciding only with the upper bound
24   level of CASAC's recommendation, which was
25   0.075 ppm.
0085
 1               In determining the requisite
 2   concentrations to protect public health and
 3   welfare, NACAA strongly believes that EPA
 4   should follow the science, the learned and
 5   informed advise of CASAC.  Given CASAC's
 6   statutorily defined role in the NAAQS review
 7   process, EPA needs to specifically indicate
 8   why it chose to disregard the advise of these
 9   independent scientific advisors.  In addition,
10   we question why EPA is considering retaining
11   the current 8-hour ozone standard of 0.084 ppm
12   when, as CASAC points out, a large body of
13   scientific evidence clearly demonstrates
14   adverse health effects at the current
15   standards.  CASAC said it best.  There is no
16   scientific basis, justification for retaining
17   the current primary 8-hour NAAQS.
18               Turning now to the secondary
19   ozone standard to protect public welfare,
20   we're also pleased that EPA has proposed a
21   distinct cumulative seasonal standard.  Ozone
22   inhibits photosynthesis, cause visible damage
23   to leaves, and reduces agricultural crop
24   yields.  A cumulative seasonal standard more
25   directly correlates with the exposure of
0086
 1   plants to ozone, since plants are exposed to
 2   this pollutant during the entire ozone season.
 3               NACAA believes that EPA's
 4   proposal for the secondary standard is a step
 5   in the right direction.  However, the proposal
 6   falls short once again of what science
 7   indicates is needed to protect public welfare.
 8   While EPA did propose promulgating a distinct
 9   cumulative seasonal secondary standard called
10   W126, the agency's proposed range extends
11   outside of the CASAC range.
12               In addition, we are troubled that
13   EPA has proposed as an alternative making the
14   secondary standard identical to the primary
15   standard, despite consensus among CASAC,
16   ecological experts convened at a 1997
17   workshop, and EPA staff on the need for a
18   distinct cumulative seasonal secondary
19   standard to protect vegetation.
20               Finally, with respect to both the
21   primary and secondary standards, to the extent
22   that new peer-reviewed scientific studies have
23   been published in scientific journals since
24   EPA proposed this rule, we encourage the
25   agency to review those studies.
0087
 1               We are further concerned that
 2   EPA's proposal, as was the case in the
 3   particulate matter NAAQS, is mixing in
 4   implementation issues in a rule setting a
 5   health-based standard.  The EPA needs to erect
 6   a strong firewall between standard-setting and
 7   implementation issues.
 8                       - - -
 9               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
10                       - - -
11               MS. EPPS:  The EPA needs to erect
12   -- based on the Supreme Court decision in
13   Whitman versus American Trucking Associations,
14   it was clear that the EPA may not consider the
15   cost of implementation in the NAAQS.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
17   Ms. Epps.
18               MS. EPPS:  Thank you.
19               MR. PAGE:  We'll take your entire
20   statement and include it --
21               MS. EPPS:  You have my statement.
22               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
23   Appreciate you coming today.
24               I think we're going to take a
25   break for a couple of minutes, and we will
0088
 1   resume at that time.
 2                       - - -
 3               (Whereupon, a recess was taken
 4   from 10:42 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.)
 5                       - - -
 6               MR. PAGE:  I think we're ready to
 7   come back to order, please.  Our next speakers
 8   are Bryan Brendle and Amey Marrella.
 9               Mr. Brendle, you're next on the
10   speaker's list.
11               MR. BRENDLE:  Okay.  Thank you.
12   Good morning.  My name is Bryan Brendle, and
13   I'm the director of Energy and Resources
14   Policy for the National Association of
15   Manufacturers.  Thank you very much for the
16   opportunity to comment on the EPA's proposed
17   revisions in the maximum for ozone.
18               By way of background, the NAM is
19   the nation's largest and oldest industrial
20   trade association, representing approximately
21   11,000 small, medium, and large manufacturers
22   in all fifty states and all industrial
23   sectors.  The manufacturing sector employs
24   more than 14 million workers in the United
25   States, and we generated approximately $1.5
0089
 1   trillion of various domestic products.  To put
 2   that figure in regional perspective, that's
 3   even more than three times the Pennsylvania
 4   GEP have estimated.  It's also $489 billion
 5   per year.
 6               As a general matter, the NAM very
 7   much supports EPA regulations and their desire
 8   to find real "X" benefits to environmental
 9   quality and to public health, including the
10   health of manufacturer workers and their
11   families.
12               Conversely, the NAM opposes
13   regulations that impose overly burdensome
14   compliance costs on the manufacturing sector,
15   jeopardizing very high paying manufacturer
16   jobs while providing very uncertain
17   environmental health benefit.
18               After analyzing the EPA's latest
19   proposal, the NAM have concluded that any
20   recommendation that provides -- to revise for
21   an ozone standard will provide uncertain
22   benefits while definitely burdening the
23   nation's economy.  We, therefore, absolutely
24   support preservation of the existing ozone
25   standards.
0090
 1               Not only is the current standard
 2   working to reduce the condition of ozone in
 3   the country, but ironically, it's not even
 4   been fully implemented, and the many
 5   jurisdictions of the United States have until
 6   June of 2013 to actually implement the current
 7   standard.  We don't believe -- we believe that
 8   it defies logic to actually change the rule in
 9   the middle of the game here.
10               According to EPA's own studies,
11   average ozone concentrations have been widely
12   decreased by 21 percent between 1980 and 2006.
13   Furthermore, emissions from six key air
14   pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act
15   dropped by 154 percent since the Clean Air Act
16   passed in 1976.  These emissions will continue
17   to fall without revising the current standard.
18               According to EPA's Clean Air
19   Trend Report, current regulation will
20   significantly reduce ground-level ozone,
21   causing emissions to drop over the next two
22   decades.  Power plant emissions will drop by
23   50 percent by 2015, and mobile source
24   emissions will drop by more than 70 percent by
25   2030.  All of this within the context of the
0091
 1   current standard.
 2               Also, these air pollution
 3   emission reductions have taken place in the
 4   context of a growing economy, with energy
 5   consumption in the United States having
 6   increased by more than 176 percent since
 7   passage of the Clean Air Act.
 8               There are many questions
 9   regarding the state of the science and
10   especially whether there have been any
11   significant developments during the past
12   decade that would warrant further revision of
13   the standard.  Recent studies present
14   inconsistent or conflicting data.  They do not
15   point or (inaudible) change of the current
16   standard.
17               Of additional concern, in fact,
18   EPA's own analysis showed huge costs without
19   corresponding benefits.  There was great
20   uncertainty regarding benefits through
21   cost-tightening standards, resulting in
22   (inaudible) being able to draw no conclusions
23   at all about whether the nation would gain or
24   lose as a result of this regulation.
25               EPA's own regulatory impact
0092
 1   analysis shows a range of anywhere between a
 2   $23 billion burden on the economy to, I
 3   believe, a $20 billion benefit, and we believe
 4   that underscores the doubts trying to
 5   (inaudible).  EPA also estimates that ten
 6   counties in California and four other states
 7   will not meet the current ozone standard until
 8   2020, but the agency is proposing
 9   significantly tighter standards when it's not
10   at all clear how specific regions of the
11   country are going to attain the current
12   standard.
13               In (inaudible) EPA also concedes
14   that the technology necessary to reach the
15   lower (inaudible) standard or the low range
16   doesn't even exist yet.  And at the NAM, this
17   would be characterized more as a science
18   fiction than a science.
19               A 2006 cost study conducted by
20   the NAM showed that US industry paid the
21   equivalent of 5.2 percent tax or (inaudible)
22   structural costs in order to comply with
23   pollution abatement regulation.  This cost
24   differential or de facto tax undermines US
25   competitiveness.  It has contributed to the
0093
 1   loss of more than 3.1 million manufacturing
 2   jobs --
 3                       - - -
 4               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
 5                       - - -
 6               MR. BRENDLE:  -- since energy
 7   costs began to skyrocket in 2000.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
 9   Brendle.
10               MR. BRENDLE:  Thank you very
11   much.
12               MR. PAGE:  Ms. Marrella?
13               MS. MARRELLA:  Good morning.  My
14   name is Amey Marrella, and I serve as deputy
15   commissioner of the Connecticut Department of
16   Environmental Protection.  I'm speaking today
17   on behalf of NESCAUM -- the Clean Air
18   Association of the eight northeast states --
19   regarding EPA's proposal to revise the primary
20   NAAQS for ozone.
21               Ground-level ozone is a
22   respiratory irritant that adversely affects
23   both people with respiratory disease and
24   healthy children and adults.  Since the last
25   ozone NAAQS review, a new, robust, and more
0094
 1   sophisticated body of health studies has
 2   clearly shown that the current primary ozone
 3   NAAQS does not adequately protect public
 4   health from the adverse health effects of
 5   ozone.  In light of this evidence, the EPA
 6   administrator, the EPA staff, and the Clean
 7   Air Scientific Advisory Committee, known as
 8   CASAC, have all recognized the need for a more
 9   stringent ozone standard.
10               While NESCAUM commends the EPA
11   for proposing a more stringent ozone level, we
12   note that EPA's proposed range exceeds the
13   range unanimously recommended by CASAC, the
14   agency's independent scientific advisory
15   board.  All eight of the NESCAUM member states
16   join together in urging EPA to set the primary
17   ozone NAAQS within the range of 0.060 to 0.070
18   parts per million, as recommended by CASAC.
19               The last time EPA revised the
20   primary ozone NAAQS, in the 1990s, the health
21   effects information was less clear.  CASAC
22   members were divided in the recommendations
23   they offered EPA regarding the appropriate
24   level of ozone.  Now CASAC's membership is
25   making a unanimous recommendation to the EPA
0095
 1   to revise the primary ozone NAAQS level within
 2   the 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million range.
 3   NESCAUM strongly believes that EPA should
 4   follow the advise of its independent
 5   scientific advisory committee when that
 6   committee speaks with such a clear and united
 7   voice.  Both public policy and the statutory
 8   prominence of CASAC as an independent advisory
 9   body call on EPA to heed the advice of CASAC
10   when CASAC speaks unanimously.  Indeed, in the
11   1990s, when all of CASAC's members recommended
12   changing the ozone NAAQS averaging time from
13   one hour to eight hours, the EPA followed that
14   recommendation.
15               Further, CASAC's recommendation
16   for a more stringent standard makes a very
17   substantial difference for the residents of
18   our eight states.  For example, NESCAUM looked
19   at the potential public health differences
20   between a 0.075 parts per million standard,
21   EPA's upper range proposal, and a 0.070 parts
22   per million standard, the point where EPA's
23   lower range and CASAC's upper range intersect.
24   Using 2001 census data and assuming that many
25   ozone reduction strategies will be implemented
0096
 1   by 2009, NESCAUM looked at the number of
 2   people within our region who will breathe air
 3   meeting a 0.075 ppm NAAQS and the number of
 4   people within our region who will breathe air
 5   meeting a 0.070 ppm NAAQS.  In the eight-state
 6   NESCAUM region alone, some 4.5 million people
 7   live in areas that are expected in 2009 to
 8   achieve 0.075 parts per million but not 0.070
 9   parts per million.  This means that should EPA
10   finalize the primary ozone NAAQS at the upper
11   limit of its proposed range, some 4.5 million
12   people would remain exposed indefinitely to
13   the adverse health effects that caused CASAC
14   to recommend a level of 0.070 parts per
15   million of less.  Surely this large exposure
16   population within the NESCAUM region qualifies
17   as a matter of public health concern.  To
18   protect public health, EPA must finalize the
19   primary ozone NAAQS within the more protective
20   CASAC range.
21               Finally, we urge EPA to clearly
22   distinguish its standard-setting obligations
23   from attainment challenges.  The EPA has an
24   obligation under the Clean Air Act, as
25   underscored by the Supreme Court itself in
0097
 1   2001, to set NAAQS based solely on what is
 2   requisite to protect public health without
 3   consideration of the costs of attainment.  We
 4   expect EPA to uphold its obligation and set
 5   the ozone NAAQS within the recommended CASAC
 6   range in order to protect public health with
 7   an adequate margin of safety.
 8               NESCAUM will be submitting into
 9   the docket more detailed written comments
10   regarding the primary ozone NAAQS.  Thank you
11   for the opportunity to testify.
12               MR. PAGE:  We look forward to
13   receiving those comments.  Thank you, both of
14   you.
15               Our next speakers are Michael
16   Fiorentino and Ted Lacki.
17               Thank you for joining us.  Mr.
18   Fiorentino?
19               MR. FIORENTINO:  Thank you.  Good
20   morning.  My name is Michael D. Fiorentino,
21   and I will spell my name for the record.  The
22   last name is F-I-O-R-E-N-T-I-N-O.  I hope that
23   won't be taken against my time.  I am the
24   executive director of the Mid-Atlantic
25   Environmental Law Center.  We are a non-profit
0098
 1   organization that advocates for the
 2   advancement and enforcement of environmental
 3   laws and regulations.  We appreciate the
 4   opportunity to testify in these matters of
 5   great importance to the health and welfare of
 6   the nation, and particularly, the heavily
 7   impacted population centers of the
 8   mid-atlantic region.
 9               I'm also a member of the
10   Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
11   Protection's Air Quality Technical Advisory
12   Committee.  As such, I have seen up close the
13   efforts being made in that state over a number
14   of years to keep up with the regulations and
15   to perform the implementation needed in order
16   to attain the National Ambient Air Quality
17   Standards for ozone; things such as the small
18   boiler NOx controls, the cement kiln NOx
19   controls, consumer product, (inaudible),
20   solvent degreasing, Phase II NOx Budget
21   Trading Rules, the NOx SIP COL Rule, consumer
22   products redux and -- just to name a few.
23               Now, I have seen safe regulators
24   carefully planning these various pieces of
25   their state implementation plan, seeking to
0099
 1   predict the adequacy of these measures in
 2   order to reach attainment.  To my mind, the
 3   process has moved exceedingly slowly, even
 4   allowing for the industry core challenges that
 5   took place after the 8-hour standard was
 6   promulgated.  But it is distressing that ten
 7   years from that date we are still talking
 8   about implementation.  Yet it is appropriate
 9   now that a revised standard should outstrip
10   the original 8-hour, and that is because, as
11   we have seen, scientific analysis and the
12   medical data from robust health studies are
13   beginning to show quite clearly that a
14   standard of 0.084 parts per billion
15   effectively was not adequate to protect the
16   public health.
17               Now, it is a shame that EPA's
18   hand needed to be forced by legal means from
19   health and environmental advocates in order to
20   initiate this revision process under the Clean
21   Air Act to bring this proposal forward, but it
22   is also a shame with regard to this proposal
23   itself, and I cannot stand before you now and
24   say emphatically well done, and that is
25   because the EPA has proposed a revision that
0100
 1   has slim chance of addressing the health risks
 2   of ozone, even though the advice and clear
 3   recommendations of its own Clean Air
 4   Scientific Advisory Committee has provided a
 5   rationale for more protective levels.
 6               Although they have urged 0.060 to
 7   0.070, your proposal is for significantly
 8   higher, 0.070 to 0.075, and even contemplates
 9   maintaining the current standard, a result
10   that flies in the face of the expensive
11   analysis that has been done.  Now, indeed,
12   given the 100 or more studies that have been
13   performed, maintaining the current standard or
14   anything close to it would surely be found
15   without scientific basis and thus not be
16   legally supportable under the Clean Air Act.
17   The act directs the agency to provide a
18   National Ambient Air Quality Standard that is
19   protective of human health and the environment
20   with an adequate margin of safety.
21   Furthermore, as the Supreme Court has
22   reaffirmed, that must be done without
23   consideration of the economic cost of the
24   standard.
25               Now, given these instructions and
0101
 1   the finding of CASAC, the center believes that
 2   this can be satisfied only by setting the
 3   level on the lower end of the 0.060 - 0.070
 4   range that CASAC recommended.
 5               You have had or will have today
 6   compelling testimony from health professionals
 7   about what they see in their practice as to
 8   ozone impacts on respiratory function.  You
 9   will also hear compelling testimony, I
10   imagine, from individuals who are suffering
11   from respiratory conditions for whom a heavy
12   ozone action day is not just a day to hold off
13   from filling the gas tank, but it's a day to
14   be feared, feared for the acute or chronic
15   damage that they may suffer on such a day.
16               Briefly let me note that I have a
17   good friend with asthma, she has a young
18   daughter also with asthma, and they live in
19   Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, one of those
20   areas where the difference between 0.060 up to
21   0.075 or higher could result in the area
22   having or not having a non-attainment status
23   that would make it tougher for emissions to be
24   allowed to increase in that area.
25               Now, for their sake and for the
0102
 1   sake of my father, who succumbed just this May
 2   to emphysema, and he had suffered especially
 3   on high-ozone days, I strongly urge you to
 4   follow the sound advice of your committee,
 5   your independent committee, CASAC, and revise
 6   the standard to 0.060, and the center reserves
 7   --
 8                       - - -
 9               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
10                       - - -
11               MR. FIORENTINO:  -- the right to
12   provide additional comment before the comment
13   period closes.  Thank you.
14               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
15               Mr. Lacki?
16               MR. LACKI:  Hi.  My name is Ted
17   Lacki, and I'm a private citizen, a resident
18   of Philadelphia, and I'm also active in the
19   outdoors.  I don't have asthma or any other
20   respiratory ailment, but I do suffer from the
21   effects of pollution.
22               I enjoy bicycling and
23   occasionally participate in races.  Some days
24   when I go out for rides I have a harder time
25   breathing because my throat gets irritated,
0103
 1   and I wind up coughing a lot, and that affects
 2   my enjoyment and performance.
 3               Exercisers might be considered a
 4   sensitive group because it's been said that
 5   they take in 10 to 20 times as much air as
 6   people who aren't exercising.  So if you're
 7   outdoors, that means 10 to 20 times as much
 8   pollution as well.  And, in fact, a 2004
 9   review of pollution studies worldwide found
10   that during exercise, low concentrations of
11   pollutants caused lung damage similar to that
12   caused by high concentrations in people not
13   working out.
14               I'm very health-conscious and I
15   value good health, and so the negative
16   physical effects I experience when I'm outside
17   exercising are compounded by the psychological
18   effect of knowing pollution is not good for my
19   body and wondering why people who can
20   influence this are letting it happen.
21               I ask you to just think of the
22   days when you're feeling a little weak and a
23   little off compared to days when you're on top
24   of the world.  You're physically not as
25   productive when you're sick.  Imagine helping
0104
 1   to lift that veil of sickness for the people
 2   who suffer from the effects of pollution,
 3   which really is all of us to varying degrees.
 4               I urge you to protect the
 5   public's health by following the
 6   recommendations of your science advisors and
 7   other public health and environmental experts
 8   and finalize an ozone standard of 0.060 ppm.
 9               Thank you.
10               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
11               Our next speakers are Christine
12   Knapp and Anna Garcia.
13               Thank you all for joining us.
14   Ms. Knapp, you're the first speaker.
15               MS. KNAPP:  Good morning.  My
16   name is Christine Knapp.  I'm the Eastern
17   Pennsylvania Outreach Coordinator for Citizens
18   for Pennsylvania's Future, also known as Penn
19   Future.  Penn Future is a statewide
20   environmental advocacy organization.  Our
21   mission is to create a just future where
22   nature, communities, and the economy thrive.
23   Thank you for the opportunity to speak this
24   morning.
25               On behalf of thousands of Penn
0105
 1   Future members statewide and on behalf of the
 2   one million Pennsylvanians that suffer from
 3   respiratory illness, I'm urging you today to
 4   set the strongest possible standards for ozone
 5   to protect every citizen.  We applaud the EPA
 6   for attempting to strengthen the standard on
 7   ground-level ozone, smog.  However, the
 8   proposed changes do not go far enough in
 9   adequately protecting children, the elderly,
10   and other vulnerable populations.
11               The National Ambient Air Quality
12   Standards were created by Congress with the
13   intention of preventing unhealthy exposures to
14   pollutants.  Ozone has a strong negative
15   impact on the lungs, and exposure to it may
16   lead to reduced lung capacity, increased
17   asthma attacks and other respiratory problems,
18   and even premature death.
19               New research shows that exposure
20   to ozone at levels below the current standard
21   can result in adverse health effects.  The
22   ozone standard must be strong enough to
23   include a margin for safety so that everyone,
24   not just healthy people, are protected.
25   Currently one-third of all Americans live in
0106
 1   areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, a
 2   statistic that is staggering.  In
 3   Philadelphia, one in three households have
 4   someone living with asthma.  Reducing ozone in
 5   Philadelphia would not just make a difference
 6   in the health of our residents, but also the
 7   city would benefit economically from having
 8   less school absenteeism and fewer emergency
 9   room visits.
10               As an asthma sufferer and
11   somebody who frequently exercises outdoors,
12   this issue is important to me especially.  On
13   high-ozone days, asthma sufferers are
14   cautioned to stay inside and limit activities.
15   Ozone interrupts our lives and limits our
16   ability to work, learn, play, and interact
17   with others.
18               The EPA has a responsibility to
19   me and to the people of this country to use
20   the best possible science to set a meaningful
21   standard that protects the health of all
22   citizens.
23               In addition to ozone's role in
24   health problems, ozone is also a potent
25   greenhouse gas, contributing to our growing
0107
 1   global warming problems.  Setting a stronger
 2   standard for ozone should be just one part of
 3   a larger national plan aimed to combat the
 4   global warming.  A new standard between 0.060
 5   and 0.070 parts per million should be pursued
 6   by the EPA.  The loopholes allowing
 7   communities to round down the standard must
 8   also be eliminated to ensure that the new
 9   standard is upheld and fully implemented.
10               I strongly urge the EPA to stand
11   up to power plants, the auto industry, and
12   other polluters who would urge them to do
13   nothing on this issue and to instead act in
14   the best interest of the health and well-being
15   of our citizens by enacting the strongest
16   possible standards.
17               Thank you for your time.
18               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
19               Ms. Garcia?
20               MS. GARCIA:  Good morning, and
21   thank you for the opportunity to testify on
22   the EPA's proposed rule to revise the National
23   Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.  My
24   name is Anna Garcia, and I'm the acting
25   executive director of the Ozone Transport
0108
 1   Commission.  OTC was created by Congress under
 2   the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to
 3   coordinate ground-level ozone pollution
 4   control planning in the northeast and
 5   mid-atlantic regions of the US.  In addition
 6   to today's oral testimony, we will be
 7   providing written comments by the October 9th
 8   deadline.
 9               OTC is following EPA's progress
10   toward establishing a new ozone National
11   Ambient Air Quality Standard with great
12   interest and concern.  As an ozone-centric
13   organization, we have a profound understanding
14   of its importance and are conducting a careful
15   review of the proposed rule with our member
16   states.  As the EPA moves forward with a new
17   primary and secondary ozone NAAQS, EPA must
18   recognize that ozone is a regional problem,
19   it's not a local one, particularly in the
20   northeast and mid-atlantic states.  Transport
21   of pollutants across large geographic areas
22   must be considered in order for downwind areas
23   to have any possibility of coming into
24   attainment.  The ozone in the air our citizens
25   breathe is formed in the atmosphere, downwind
0109
 1   from the emission sources.  As a result, the
 2   citizens of the OTC states not only suffer
 3   from the pollution created in the OTC region,
 4   but also from precursor emissions and ozone
 5   transported from upwind states.
 6               OTC is concerned that EPA has
 7   subverted the standard-setting process that
 8   the Clean Air Act lays out for proposing a new
 9   NAAQS.  Rather than proposing a specific limit
10   for the primary standard within the
11   scientifically supported, health-protective
12   range identified by the Clean Air Scientific
13   Advisory Committee, the EPA's proposal fails
14   to follow the strictly science-based and
15   unanimous recommendations of this independent
16   body of scientific advisors and proposes a
17   range between 0.070 and 0.075 parts per
18   million instead of a precise value.  The
19   CASAC's recommendation, however, indicates
20   that to protect public health with an adequate
21   margin of safety and in accordance with the
22   latest scientific studies, the NAAQS would
23   need to be within the range of 0.060 and 0.070
24   parts per million.  In setting a range that
25   has only one point of intersection with the
0110
 1   upper bound of CASAC's recommendation, the EPA
 2   is largely ignoring the science.  In its
 3   review, CASAC cited recent single-city and
 4   multi-city studies that show significant
 5   health impacts, including morbidity and
 6   mortality, from ozone concentrations much
 7   lower than the current standard and recent
 8   clinical studies that show adverse lung
 9   function impacts in individuals at ozone
10   levels as low as 0.060 parts per million.
11   Additionally, EPA left the door open for
12   retaining the current standard, clearly above
13   a health-protective level, by asking for
14   comments on that option.
15               In establishing the ozone NAAQS,
16   OTC advises the EPA to follow the provision of
17   the Clean Air Act, which calls on EPA to rely
18   heavily on the science and CASAC
19   recommendations in setting both the primary
20   and secondary NAAQS.  OTC supports the work of
21   the CASAC and urges EPA to give great weight
22   to its recommendations.
23               The Clean Air Act also sets
24   forth, and the US Supreme Court affirmed in
25   Whitman versus American Trucking Associations,
0111
 1   Inc., that the NAAQS shall be set at a level
 2   necessary to protect public health and welfare
 3   with an adequate margin of safety and without
 4   consideration of economic impacts.  Economic
 5   issues are important, but are to be taken into
 6   consideration as part of the implementation of
 7   a new NAAQS rather than in the
 8   standard-setting stage.  Cost considerations
 9   only apply after the new ozone standard is set
10   and then are considered in selecting among
11   various strategies to meet the primary and
12   secondary standards.
13               However, shortly after EPA
14   announced its proposed new ozone standard, the
15   agency issued its associated regulatory impact
16   analysis, which includes cost information.
17   Although EPA reiterated that it did not use
18   the cost analysis in selecting the proposed
19   ozone standards, we think the publication of
20   such cost calculations during the comment
21   period is a distraction to the key issue of
22   public health.  Nevertheless, we note from the
23   RIA that in a comparison of the average of the
24   range of EPA's estimated benefits with the
25   average of the range of estimated costs, the
0112
 1   benefits of a revised NAAQS would
 2   significantly outweigh the costs.  We also
 3   note that while the RIA purports to assess the
 4   overall societal costs of new controls
 5   required to achieve a new standard balanced
 6   against the health benefits of the standard,
 7   the EPA has seriously undermined that
 8   assessment by eliminating from consideration
 9   any reductions that go beyond EPA's Clean Air
10   Interstate Rule.  The RIA already excludes, as
11   a matter of policy, any additional controls
12   from the electric-generating sector, which are
13   highly cost-effective compared to many other
14   control options.
15               As we prepare for these new
16   requirements, a critical issue in the
17   implementation of any new ozone standard that
18   addresses the regional nature of the ozone
19   problem is the designation of regional
20   non-attainment areas.  In designating ozone
21   non-attainment areas, it is critical that EPA
22   look at ozone air sheds in the largest
23   geographic area.  The boundaries of the
24   non-attainment areas should not be limited by
25   Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas
0113
 1   and state lines.  An appropriate
 2   non-attainment area designation scheme should
 3   allow for a broad enough area to be designated
 4   such that most, if not all, sources
 5   contributing to the non-attainment status of
 6   the area are included.  Another critical
 7   consideration in the implementation of a new
 8   ozone standard is to identify --
 9                       - - -
10               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
11                       - - -
12               MS. GARCIA:  -- and implement
13   cost-effect controls on a regional basis,
14   since the local controls do not achieve
15   attainment.
16               I'll submit the rest.
17               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
18   and thank you for coming here today.
19               MS. GARCIA:  Thank you.
20               MR. PAGE:  Our next speakers are
21   Elizabeth Haney and Deborah Shprentz.
22               Welcome.  Elizabeth, you're
23   first.
24               MS. HANEY:  Hello, my name is Liz
25   Haney and I'm here today representing the
0114
 1   board of directors for the Annapolis Center
 2   for Science-Based Public Policy.  We are a
 3   501(c)3 non-profit organization that supports
 4   and promotes peer-reviewed science in public
 5   policy decision-making.
 6               In my submitted written
 7   testimony, I have included a copy of the
 8   center's newest publication, "The science and
 9   Health Effects of Ground Level Ozone."  This
10   was also submitted to the EPA as comments.
11   This report was peer-reviewed by highly
12   qualified scientists and medical doctors and
13   reviewed by the board of directors of the
14   Annapolis Center.  I will quickly review the
15   following major summary points from the
16   report.
17               Since EPA last reviewed the
18   national ozone air quality standards in 1997,
19   there have been limited, if any, developments
20   in epidemiology, toxicology, or the background
21   science that would support a revision of the
22   standards.
23               The recommendations regarding
24   primary and secondary standards in the EPA's
25   final Ozone Staff Paper and the CASAC's
0115
 1   October 24th of 2006 letter to the
 2   administrator are premised on estimates of
 3   health risks from exposure to concentrations
 4   of ambient ozone.  However, the estimates
 5   considered were based on an incomplete
 6   assessment of the uncontrollable background
 7   levels of ozone.  EPA assumes that there will
 8   be zero emissions from human activities in
 9   North America.  This results in an
10   overstatement of health risks.
11               EPA and CASAC have overestimated
12   the magnitude and consistency of -- and
13   underestimated the uncertainty in -- the
14   results of acute epidemiologic studies,
15   especially for emergency room visits and
16   hospitalizations for asthma and other
17   respiratory disorders, school absences, and
18   mortality.  In addition, EPA overstates the
19   likelihood of causality, particularly in the
20   more serious endpoints and at lower ozone
21   concentrations.
22               With respect to the primary
23   standard, the Annapolis Center's reports found
24   that:  Ozone is a respiratory irritant, but
25   the risk of respiratory effects is now lower
0116
 1   than thought in 1997; the EPA and its science
 2   advisors have recommended a tightening of the
 3   standard relying on an inappropriate computer
 4   model to estimate the uncontrollable
 5   background of ozone; the EPA has
 6   misrepresented the Adams 2006 clinical study,
 7   the only controlled study that allegedly
 8   supports making the existing primary standard
 9   more stringent.  These studies are
10   inconsistent, provide a biologically
11   implausible range of results, and do not
12   establish cause and effect.
13               With respect to the secondary or
14   welfare standard, the report found:  The staff
15   recommendation to consider the addition of a
16   unique seasonal standard to protect vegetation
17   does not sufficiently address the
18   uncertainties and the limitation of such a
19   standard; since no new data has been presented
20   since 1997 to reduce the uncertainties and
21   limitations of a cumulative seasonal standard,
22   there is no compelling reason to change the
23   current secondary standard.
24               I ask you to not only review the
25   science in this report, but truly consider its
0117
 1   findings when making your decision.  A hasty
 2   decision to impose more stringent ozone
 3   standards based upon a flawed review will
 4   serve no one and will have unforeseen
 5   implications and staggering costs.
 6               Thank you.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 8   comments.
 9               Ms. Shprentz?
10               MS. SHPRENTZ:  Good morning.  I'm
11   Deborah Shprentz, and I serve as a technical
12   consultant to the American Lung Association on
13   the review of the ozone standard.  My time is
14   limited, so with apologies to David Letterman,
15   I've drawn up a list of just the top ten
16   studies demonstrating adverse effects of ozone
17   at low concentrations.
18               Number 10.  Koken (2003):  This
19   study tracked cardiovascular hospital
20   admissions of seniors at 11 Denver county
21   hospitals over a four-year period.
22   Researchers found that ozone increased the
23   risk of hospitalization even at levels that
24   meet federal air quality standards.  Daily
25   average ozone concentrations were 25 parts per
0118
 1   billion, and the maximum concentrations in
 2   this study were 40 parts per billion.
 3               Number 9.  Brunekreef (1994):
 4   This study looked at the effects of ozone in
 5   amateur bicyclists.  Researchers collected
 6   lung function measurements before and after
 7   summer training sessions or competitive races.
 8   Ozone concentrations were low on most
 9   occasions, with an average of 43 parts per
10   billion.  These low concentrations were
11   significantly associated with a decline in
12   lung function and an increase in respiratory
13   symptoms, especially shortness of breath.  The
14   effect persisted even after removing all
15   observations with hourly ozone concentrations
16   greater than 60 parts per billion.
17               Number 8.  Medina-Ramon (2006):
18   A very large study of Medicare recipients in
19   36 US cities evaluated the effect of ozone on
20   respiratory hospital admissions in the elderly
21   over a 13-year period.  The analysis found
22   that the risk of daily hospital admissions for
23   COPD and pneumonia increased with short-term
24   increases in ozone concentrations.  The 8-hour
25   mean ozone concentrations ranged from 15 parts
0119
 1   per billion to 63 parts per billion, with most
 2   cities in the 40 to 55 part per billion range.
 3               Number 7.  Dales (2006):  This
 4   study examined 15 years of data on newborns in
 5   11 large Canadian cities to determine the
 6   influence of gaseous air pollutants on daily
 7   hospitalizations for respiratory causes.
 8   Ozone concentrations were extremely low,
 9   ranging from a 24-hour mean of 13 to 23 parts
10   per billion.  Although hospital admissions for
11   respiratory diseases are relatively uncommon
12   in newborns compared with adults, this study
13   found a strong association with ozone.  In
14   fact, the study suggests that air pollution at
15   ambient levels seen in Canada could account
16   for 15 percent of hospital admissions in
17   newborns.
18               Number 6.  Naeher (1999):
19   Scientists examined the relationship between
20   air pollution and daily changes of lung
21   function in 500 non-smoking women in Roanoke,
22   Virginia.  A 30 part per billion increment in
23   daily average ozone was associated with a
24   decrease in respiratory function.  Ozone
25   concentrations in this study were well below
0120
 1   the current 8-hour standard.  The daily mean
 2   maximum 8-hour concentration was 54 parts per
 3   billion, and concentrations never exceeded 88
 4   parts per billion.
 5               Number 5.  Brauer (1996):  A
 6   study of the effect of ozone exposure on lung
 7   function of outdoor farm workers was
 8   undertaken in British Columbia.  The mean
 9   workshift concentrations were low, just 26
10   parts per billion, with a maximum of 54 parts
11   per billion.  The study found that exposures
12   were associated with decreased lung function
13   over the day, which persisted to the following
14   day.  Even after excluding all days when the
15   ozone was greater than just 40 parts per
16   billion, investigators still observed reduced
17   lung function.
18               Number 4.  Chan (2005):  This
19   study reported acute lung function decline in
20   mail carriers exposed to ozone concentrations
21   below the current standard.  The average
22   8-hour concentrations of ozone in this study
23   was 36 parts per billion, and the maximum
24   concentration was 65 parts per billion.  Each
25   10 part per billion increase in the 8-hour
0121
 1   concentration decreased the respiratory peak
 2   flow rate in the evening hours.
 3               Number 3.  Mortimer (2002):  The
 4   effect of daily air pollution was examined in
 5   a cohort of asthmatic children in eight urban
 6   areas in a long-term study.  The 8-hour
 7   average daytime ozone concentrations were 48
 8   parts per billion, with a range across cities
 9   of 34 to 58 parts per billion.  Adverse
10   effects were observed in all cities.
11                       - - -
12               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
13                       - - -
14               MS. SHPRENTZ:  The summertime
15   ozone at levels below the current standards
16   was significantly related to respiratory
17   symptoms and decreased pulmonary function in
18   children with asthma.
19               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
20   for your comments, and we'll obviously enter
21   the rest of your testimony into the record, as
22   we will with all others.  Thank you very much.
23               The next speakers Walter Tsou and
24   Lorraine Krupa-Gershman.
25               Mr. Tsou, you are our next
0122
 1   speaker.
 2               MR. TSOU:  Thank you.  I'm Dr.
 3   Walter Tsou, past president of the American
 4   Public Health Association and currently a
 5   public health consultant.  I will be speaking
 6   today on behalf of APHA.
 7               We strongly support the goal of a
 8   0.060 parts per million 8-hour ozone standard
 9   and the reinstatement of the one-hour primary
10   ozone standards for peak emissions.  These
11   standards are consistent with the margin of
12   safety needed to protect sensitive populations
13   as required by the Clean Air Act.
14               Ground-level ozone is a main
15   ingredient of smog and is created by the
16   chemical reactions between the oxides of
17   nitrogen and volatile organic compounds under
18   sunlight.  Its harmful medical effects are
19   well-documented and include chest pain,
20   coughing, throat irritation, and congestion,
21   even in healthy individuals.  According to the
22   EPA, it can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and
23   asthma and also can reduce lung function and
24   inflame the lining of the lungs.  Repeated
25   exposure may permanently scar lung tissue.
0123
 1               Multiple studies have examined
 2   the effect of our current ozone standard of
 3   0.080 parts per million on healthy individuals
 4   and have found evidence of reactive airway
 5   disease, inflammation of the lung, and reduced
 6   lung function.  For ethical reasons, these
 7   experiments are not done on people with known
 8   compromised lung function or children, but we
 9   can anticipate that an even lower threshold is
10   needed to protect these sensitive populations.
11               Your own Clear Air Scientific
12   Advisory Council ozone panel came to a similar
13   conclusion to support tighter standards below
14   0.070, as expressed in October 24th, 2006
15   letter to your agency and reaffirmed in a
16   March 26th, 2007 letter.
17               Several other organizations have
18   also examined public studies and have
19   recommended lowering the ozone standard, most
20   notably, the World Health Organization to
21   0.051 parts per million, and the California
22   Air Resources Board, which has recommended a
23   level of 0.070 parts per million.
24               We believe that the current
25   standard of 0.080 parts per million fails to
0124
 1   protect the public's health.  As you are
 2   aware, the rounding loophole means that the
 3   0.080 parts per million standard is treated in
 4   practice as 0.085.  The American Lung
 5   Association, as you have heard just a few
 6   minutes ago, their extensive review of the
 7   health effects of the current standard
 8   concludes that harmful lung effects can be
 9   found at the 0.080 parts per million level and
10   even lower and that we need to reduce the
11   NAAQS ozone level to ensure an adequate margin
12   of safety, especially for seniors, children,
13   outdoor workers, asthmatics, and those with
14   other lung diseases.
15               We also support a reinstatement
16   of the one-hour primary standard for areas
17   that may meet the 8-hour standard but have
18   high peak emissions.  This ensures a level of
19   expected protection for the public.
20               Thank you for the opportunity to
21   express our strong support of stronger ozone
22   standards for our country and your efforts to
23   protect the health of the public from
24   environmental pollution.
25               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
0125
 1   comments.
 2               Ms. Krupa-Gershman?
 3               MS. KRUPA-GERSHMAN:  Good
 4   morning.  My name is Lorraine Krupa-Gershman,
 5   and my statement is on behalf of the American
 6   Chemistry Council, herein referred to as ACC.
 7               ACC represents the leading
 8   companies engaged in the business of
 9   chemistry.  We believe that EPA's existing
10   ozone standard, through a series of
11   significant emission control programs, will
12   continue to provide ample protection of public
13   health.
14               ACC believes in appropriately
15   peer-reviewed sound science and would support
16   a new standard if the science demonstrated
17   that it is justified.  We do not believe that
18   the current scientific evidence clearly
19   supports lowering of the ozone standard at
20   this time.  Thus, EPA and states should focus
21   on fully implementing the existing ozone
22   standard before adopting any lower standard,
23   such as those proposed on June 20th, 2007.
24               ACC members understand and value
25   the importance of clean air, and we support
0126
 1   protecting public health and the environment,
 2   as demonstrated by the industries significant
 3   and continued progress in reducing our
 4   emissions through our responsible air program.
 5   More broadly, the nation's air quality has
 6   significantly improved and continues to
 7   improve with new voluntary and regulatory
 8   programs being implemented, as documented in
 9   EPA's own Air Trends Report.
10               I'm here to focus on the science
11   used to evaluate the ozone standard.  An
12   ongoing and thorough review of the science
13   evidence does not support the EPA's conclusion
14   that the existing standard needs to be made
15   stricter to protect public health.  There are
16   numerous questions regarding the state of the
17   science, and in particular, whether or not
18   there have been any significant developments
19   in the past ten years that would warrant
20   further tightening of the standard.  Recent
21   studies contain inconsistent or conflicting
22   data and consequently do not support a
23   particular numeric change in the current
24   standard.
25               I'll briefly touch on some of
0127
 1   these concerns with the science.  With respect
 2   to mortality, the evidence presented does not
 3   confirm that ozone exposure causes premature
 4   death.  There are inconsistent findings and
 5   weaknesses in some studies, different lag
 6   times were used in the analyses, and
 7   co-pollutants were inadequately addressed in
 8   many studies and overall not adequately
 9   addressed by the EPA in the analysis.  This is
10   not sound science.  It's inconclusive with
11   respect to proving cause and effect.
12               For Adams Chamber Studies, the
13   Adams' publication show no specifically
14   significant difference at 60 or 40 ppb.  EPA
15   mischaracterizes the Adams' results in the
16   staff paper and uses them to provide support
17   for a (inaudible) that significant lung
18   function effects are found at concentrations
19   less than 80 ppb.  This is an erroneous
20   misinterpretation by the EPA and poor
21   characterization of the science.
22               Dr. Adams himself clearly
23   disagreed with EPA, as evidenced by his
24   statement at the March 2007 CASAC meeting.
25   Neither the individual studies nor EPA's
0128
 1   analysis adequately takes into account
 2   possible confounding by pollutants other than
 3   ozone.  Sound scientific analysis requires
 4   adequate consideration of confounders in order
 5   to identify the true cause/effect
 6   relationship.
 7               Sound scientific analysis also
 8   requires consideration and quantification of
 9   all major sources of uncertainty.  EPA has not
10   adequately evaluated the uncertainty of the
11   quantitative estimates.  The agency included
12   only one source of uncertainty in its
13   calculations and ignored many others, such as
14   differences in (inaudible), the time period,
15   and a lot of uncertainties.
16               Revising the ozone standard would
17   have significant consequences for the country.
18   These consequences should be borne if there
19   were truly a public health benefit, which the
20   science has not shown, if the standard is
21   lowered.  If the standard is revised to the
22   lower end of the CASAC recommended range, the
23   numbers of counties designated as being
24   non-attainment would triple from today's
25   number and would include both rural and urban
0129
 1   counties.  Being designated as non-attainment
 2   can adversely impact communities, making it
 3   more difficult to attract and retain industry
 4   and sustain economic growth and vitality.  For
 5   industry, being located in a non-attainment
 6   area often results in increased operating
 7   costs, permitting delays, and restrictions on
 8   expansion.
 9               EPA's RIA indicates that 27
10   states will have regions projected by the EPA
11   to be unable to achieve the lower range of the
12   proposed 70 ppb standard even with application
13   of all known control measures.  Adopting a new
14   lower standard for ozone, which EPA projects
15   would be unattainable using presently
16   available controls, would be detrimental to
17   states as a struggle to implement and achieve
18   the current standard.
19               Finally, I want to mention the
20   increased energy costs of lowering the
21   standards.  We've already seen firsthand the
22   skyrocketing costs of energy in the country,
23   both for automotive fuel as well as natural
24   gas, which is increasingly used to heat our
25   homes and fuel our electrical-generating
0130
 1   capacity.  Revising the ozone standard as
 2   proposed would increase the demands on our
 3   nation's already burdened natural gas supply.
 4               In conclusion, our review of the
 5   science does not support changing the current
 6   ozone standard.  ACC recommends that EPA
 7   retain the current standard and not
 8   significantly lower the standard further as
 9   proposed.  Implementation of the current
10   standard will continue to provide necessary
11   health protection.  As the science develops
12   further, EPA will once again have the
13   opportunity to determine if any additional
14   actions would be warranted in the future.
15               Thank you very much.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
17   statement.
18               Our next speakers are Dr. Gregory
19   Kane and Ben Dunham.
20               Dr. Kane, you're our next
21   speaker.
22               DR. KANE:  Thank you very much.
23               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
24               DR. KANE:  I appreciate the
25   opportunity to be here and to address you on
0131
 1   this very important topic.  I have some
 2   comments which I would like to read, and then
 3   I would like to tell you a personal story
 4   about a patient or two who have been adversely
 5   affected by ozone pollution right here in our
 6   beloved city of Philadelphia.
 7               As we know, ozone pollution
 8   threatens public health.  It's a powerful
 9   oxidant which can burn the lungs, burn the
10   airways, and affects seniors, adults, and
11   children all across the nation.  The more we
12   have learned about ozone pollution, the more
13   we understand about how dangerous it is.
14               The Clean Air Scientific Advisory
15   Committee, the EPA's own independent science
16   advisors, reviewed a 2,000-page summary of the
17   scientific research and the health impacts of
18   ozone and unanimously concluded that the
19   current ozone standard is not adequate to
20   protect human health.
21               The WHO, the American Academy of
22   Pediatrics, the State of California's EPA, and
23   others have called for stricter ozone
24   standards, particularly, bringing the standard
25   from the current 0.080 parts per million down
0132
 1   to at least 0.060 parts per million.  We have
 2   devastating evidence that there is an effect
 3   of ozone at the current standards that is
 4   harmful for our patients.
 5               I want to tell you just about a
 6   couple patients that I treat in my own
 7   practice that I believe are adversely affected
 8   by ozone.  To protect the patient's
 9   confidentiality, I won't use their complete
10   name.  But Jennifer is a mother of four.  She
11   lives in South Philadelphia, some 10 to 15
12   blocks from where we are right now.  She has
13   severe asthma, and since relocating to
14   Philadelphia with her husband for his
15   professional activities, she has seen an
16   increasing frequency of flare-ups.  When she
17   has a flair, she has sometimes had to ask her
18   young son to call 911 to get the fire rescue
19   squad so she can come to the hospital.  During
20   the last three years, despite good medical
21   care, she has visited our emergency room on
22   three separate occasions.  She does not have
23   pets in her home.  She has taken all of the
24   measurable steps that a patient with asthma
25   could take to protect herself, and yet she
0133
 1   continues to suffer with frequent
 2   exacerbations that have increased since she
 3   has moved into the heart of the city, where
 4   levels of ozone pollution, particularly in the
 5   summer months, are at increased levels.  It's
 6   because of vulnerable patients like Jennifer
 7   that we have to adopt a stricter standard to
 8   protect the public health.
 9               Elizabeth is an African-American
10   woman with bad COPD who is also in my
11   practice.  She is no longer smoking
12   cigarettes.  She requires home oxygen because
13   of the severity of her lung disease.  And
14   while the majority of her lung disease was
15   probably created by exposure to cigarette
16   smoke, her exacerbations and flares vary
17   precipitously depending on the ambient
18   pollutant levels in Philadelphia and, in
19   particular, the high levels of ozone during
20   the summer months.
21               When I see these patients suffer
22   and I look at the scientific evidence that's
23   accumulated, I believe that it's the duty of
24   the EPA to take a stronger step to protect the
25   citizens of this country, and I believe that
0134
 1   they should adopt a 0.060 parts per million
 2   threshold, as one that gives us a safe margin
 3   for error to ensure that we protect our
 4   patients and our citizens.
 5               Thank you very much for allowing
 6   me to come today.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 8   comments.
 9               Mr. Dunham?
10               MR. DUNHAM:  Good afternoon.  My
11   name is Ben Dunham, and I'm probably on your
12   schedule for the 2:20 slot, but I just
13   couldn't wait to get up here.
14               I'm the associate legislative
15   counsel for the Earth Justice Legal Defense
16   Fund.  We're associated to the national
17   non-profit law firm founded in 1971 as the
18   Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.  Earth Justice
19   represents, without charge, hundreds of public
20   interest clients, large and small, in order to
21   reduce water and air pollution, prevent toxic
22   contamination, safeguard public lands, and
23   preserve the endangered species and wildlife
24   habitat.
25               I'm here today to urge the EPA to
0135
 1   fulfill the mandate of the Clean Air Act to
 2   protect the public health with an adequate
 3   margin of safety by strengthening the 8-hour
 4   ozone standard to no greater than 0.060 parts
 5   per million.
 6               Breathing ozone-polluted air has
 7   been compared to rubbing sandpaper in the
 8   lungs.  Ozone is a powerful respiratory
 9   irritant associated with increased risk of
10   asthma attacks, inflammation of the lung
11   lining, wheezing, coughing, shortness of
12   breath, and chest pain.  There's now even
13   evidence that ozone pollution can kill.
14               A 14-year study of 95 US cities
15   linked short-term increases in ozone pollution
16   to increased deaths from heart and lung
17   problems.  Even at levels below the current
18   standard, the relationship between smog and
19   early death was evident.
20               Ozone also contributes to global
21   warming.  EPA has concluded that ozone is a
22   potent greenhouse gas, and new research shows
23   that by blinding leaves (ph) and reducing the
24   rate of photosynthesis, ozone can stunt plant
25   growth, thus reducing plant facilities that
0136
 1   act as a sink for greenhouse gas.
 2               The Clean Air Act, when used as
 3   its framers intended, is one of the most
 4   effective environmental laws ever written.
 5   Each year the Clean Air Act prevents well over
 6   a few hundred thousand premature deaths, more
 7   than 650,000 cases chronic bronchitis, over
 8   200,000 hospital admissions, more than 200
 9   million respiratory ailments, and over 22
10   million lost work days.
11               Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is
12   responsible for promulgating National Ambient
13   Air Quality Standards to protect public health
14   with an adequate margin of safety.  The
15   Supreme Court has held that in setting or
16   advising air pollution standards, EPA cannot
17   consider implementation costs.  Only health
18   impacts.  Courts have also found that NAAQS
19   must be set at levels that protect not just
20   healthy adults, but also sensitive populations
21   like elderly and children.
22               In short, the Clean Air Act was
23   intended to make the air safe for all
24   Americans to breathe.  The current standard of
25   0.080 parts per million does not fulfill that
0137
 1   mandate, nor would the proposed standard of
 2   0.070 to 0.075 parts per million.  The most
 3   recent science shows that a standard of 0.060
 4   parts per billion is necessary to protect
 5   public health with an adequate margin of
 6   safety.
 7               EPA's Clean Air Scientific
 8   Advisory Committee, an independent board of 23
 9   scientists that advise the EPA on the latest
10   research and scientific findings, found that
11   the current standard for ozone is not strong
12   enough to protect public health.  The
13   committee specifically found that, quote,
14   retaining the current standard would continue
15   to put large numbers of individuals at risk
16   for mortality.  The science studied a broad
17   range of studies that found, quote, an
18   increase in mortality reported at exposure
19   levels well below the current standard.  As a
20   result, the committee unanimously recommended
21   that EPA set the ozone standard at 0.060 to
22   0.070 parts per million.
23               The EPA's Children's Health
24   Advisory Committee went a step farther and
25   recommended setting the standards at 0.060
0138
 1   parts per billion, citing children's
 2   sensitivity to ozone.  Experts from public
 3   health, including the American Thoracic
 4   Society, the American Lung Association, and
 5   the American Public Health Association have
 6   also called for a standard of 0.060 parts per
 7   million.
 8               In this day and in this country,
 9   we ought to be able to provide an environment
10   where it's safe for kids to play outside
11   without parents having to worry that they'll
12   end up in a hospital just from breathing the
13   air.  The same goes for senior citizens that
14   want to take a walk in the park.
15               The Clean Air Act provides all of
16   us with a right to air that is safe to
17   breathe, and it is EPA's job to adopt
18   standards that make that right a reality.  In
19   light of the recommendations of dozens of
20   public health groups and scientific studies
21   showing adverse health effects at levels below
22   0.060 parts per million, Earth Justice urges
23   the EPA to put an 8-hour ozone standard no
24   greater than 0.060 parts per million.
25               Thank you.
0139
 1               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 2   comments.
 3               Our next speakers are Janet
 4   MacNeille and Michael Seilback.
 5               It occurs to me I may have messed
 6   up both of those names, so if I did, please
 7   correct me.
 8               Janet, you're our first speaker.
 9               MS. MACNEILLE:  Yes.  And my name
10   is Jeanette MacNeille.
11               MR. PAGE:  Jeanette, all right.
12               MS. MACNEILLE:  I'd like to thank
13   Dr. Kane for coming.  He's one of my former
14   doctors.  I live in this area -- a very good
15   one, I might add.  I live in this area, and,
16   you know, some years ago, I heard on the radio
17   a talk by a man who came from a think tank out
18   in St. Louis.  He said that if you had asthma
19   and wanted to walk, the trick was to readjust
20   your schedule so that you would walk at 5:30
21   in the morning, when the ozone level's just a
22   little bit lower, instead of 8:30 in the
23   morning, when it's higher.
24               He had it wrong.  It's not a
25   question of scheduling.  It's a question of
0140
 1   being able to walk.  I want to walk.  If the
 2   phone rings in my house, I want to be able to
 3   get up and walk and go pick it up.  If the
 4   doorbell rings, the same thing.  I would like
 5   to be able to walk to work.  If I can't do
 6   that and I have to drive, I'd like to be able
 7   to walk up the front steps -- there's a total
 8   of ten at my old office -- and I want to be
 9   able to do it without having to rest for 45
10   minutes before I walk to the second floor.
11               If go to 8th Street on the
12   subway, because I have to get down to
13   Jefferson, to the hospital, I do not want a
14   crisis if the elevator isn't working.  I want
15   to be able to walk up the steps, and I do not
16   want to have an elderly lady with white hair
17   and a cane stop to offer me help because I
18   appear to be so sick.
19               I can go on like this.  You know,
20   if I come to a crosswalk and I want to cross
21   the street, I am perfectly willing to press
22   the button and wait for the light to change so
23   it's clear it's my turn to walk, but I'd like
24   to be able to get to the other side before the
25   light changes again, and I do not want to be
0141
 1   honked at by drivers who do not understand
 2   that I am walking at my maximum speed.
 3               If I go to the emergency room,
 4   quite frankly, I would prefer to walk in.  I'd
 5   like to walk.  And if I'm in the hospital, I
 6   do not want to be pushed by a person, a
 7   volunteer, who is twice my age.  It's
 8   humiliating and unwelcome.
 9               I could give you lots and lots
10   and lots of examples.  Quite frankly, in
11   addition to the ability -- now I'm getting
12   greedy.  In addition to the ability to be able
13   to walk, I would like to be able to run.  On a
14   good day, I'd like to be able to run.  I'd
15   love to play basketball.  I'd like to bicycle.
16   I'd like to go cross-country skiing.  I like
17   ultimate Frisbee.
18               I like all these things, and I'd
19   like to be able to do them too, but I'd give
20   up every one of them if you would yield me the
21   right to walk, the ability simply to walk.
22   And, therefore, for that reason, I'd like to
23   ask on my own behalf and that of millions of
24   other Americans that you lower the ozone
25   standard to 0.060 parts per million, as
0142
 1   requested by the EPA scientists.
 2               Thank you.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 4   comments.
 5               Michael?
 6               MR. SEILBACK:  Good morning.  My
 7   name is Michael Seilback, S-E-I-L-B-A-C-K,
 8   senior director of Public Policy and Advocacy
 9   for the American Lung Association of New York
10   State.  I'm also speaking on behalf of the
11   American Lung Association of the City of New
12   York.  Thank you to the EPA for giving us the
13   opportunity to speak today about proposed
14   strengthening of the National Ambient Air
15   Quality Standard for ozone.
16               While we're pleased that the EPA
17   is taking a step towards cleaner air, this
18   proposal fails to adequately protect public
19   health from this widespread and dangerous air
20   pollutant.  We urge you to set a much more
21   protective health-based standard for ozone.
22               Ozone is a serious lung irritant
23   that burns our lungs and airways, causing them
24   to become inflamed, reddened and swollen, can
25   trigger asthma attacks, cause coughing and
0143
 1   chest pain, reduce lung function, and increase
 2   emergency room visits.  Breathing ozone can
 3   lead to premature death, even at levels which
 4   are considered safe today.
 5               New research has shown us the
 6   devastating effects of ozone even at levels
 7   below EPA's current standard, which indicates
 8   that the current standards are far too weak to
 9   protect public health.  According to the Clean
10   Air Act, air quality standards must be set at
11   levels that protect public health with an
12   adequate margin of safety.  The standards must
13   be based solely on the health effects of
14   ozone.
15               Currently within my state of New
16   York, larger regions are in non-attainment for
17   ozone.  Additionally, the American Lung
18   Association's 2007 State of the Air Report
19   found that of the counties in New York which
20   had ozone monitors, almost 40 percent received
21   a grade of an "F."  From the top of Niagara
22   Falls to the tip of Long Island, far too many
23   New Yorkers are being exposed to unhealthy
24   levels of ozone pollution, and we must do even
25   more to protect them.
0144
 1               As you know, in October 2006, the
 2   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
 3   gathered to review the most up-to-date
 4   research on ozone science.  This committee was
 5   unanimous that there's no scientific basis to
 6   keep the current ozone standard.  They
 7   recommended tightening the range to 0.060 to
 8   0.070 parts per million.  EPA's current
 9   proposal, while certainly a vast improvement,
10   is much less productive than what EPA's own
11   advisory committee recommended is necessary to
12   adequately protect health.  While the proposed
13   standard would certainly improve air quality,
14   it would still leave millions -- it certainly
15   leaves millions of individuals forced to
16   breathe unhealthy levels of ozone.
17               The largest problem with the
18   EPA's proposal is that it leaves the option to
19   retain the current standards.  Overwhelmingly,
20   scientists have said that the current standard
21   doesn't protect public health.  According to
22   EPA Administrator Johnson's own words, and I
23   quote, the impact of ozone is much more
24   significant than we previously thought, end
25   quote.
0145
 1               We urge the EPA to stand up to
 2   the pressure being put on them from polluters
 3   or politicians who'd like to keep the status
 4   quo.  In response to critics today, there's
 5   question that we could both continue to
 6   decrease ozone pollution and fine particle
 7   pollution at the same time.  We must also rely
 8   on sound science, not on public policy centers
 9   who receive vast amounts of funding from the
10   very polluters who are going to benefit from
11   the status quo.
12               The health effects of ozone
13   pollution are clear, and the existing ozone
14   standard fails to protect public health.  The
15   American Lung Associations of New York State
16   and the City of New York urge the EPA to
17   strengthen the standards, follow the
18   recommendations of your advisory committee,
19   and follow the requirements of the Clean Air
20   Act.  Set the 8-hour primary standard for
21   ozone at 0.060 parts per million.  This
22   standard will protect public health with an
23   appropriate margin of safety.  We must not
24   accept anything else.
25               Thank you again for the
0146
 1   opportunity to speak today.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
 3   both for coming today.
 4               Our next speakers are John Sherry
 5   and Paul Miller.
 6               Welcome both of you.  Thank you
 7   for coming today.
 8               MR. SHERRY:  My name is John
 9   Sherry, and I am the environmental policy
10   representative to Allyson Schwartz of
11   Pennsylvania, and I am here to submit
12   testimony on her behalf today.
13               Mr. Chairman and members of the
14   panel, I am pleased to submit this testimony
15   on the need to strengthen the Environmental
16   Protection Agency's standards for ozone
17   pollution.
18               As one of the City of
19   Philadelphia's Representatives to the United
20   States House of Representatives, I have been a
21   constant advocate for policies to clean our
22   air and create new sources of home-grown
23   energy, and generally improve our environment.
24               I believe that the United States,
25   as one of the world's leading industrialized
0147
 1   nations, has a responsibility to set a strong
 2   example for the rest of the world when it
 3   comes to environmental protection.  The
 4   proposed rule that we are considering today
 5   should be an excellent chance to set such an
 6   example.
 7               Instead, the Environmental
 8   Protection Agency's June 20th proposal to set
 9   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
10   ozone pollution between 0.070 parts per
11   million to 0.075 parts per million
12   unfortunately misses this important
13   opportunity.  This proposal ignores the
14   unanimous recommendation of the EPA's own
15   scientists, who have concluded that a standard
16   of 0.060 parts per million is needed to
17   protect human health.
18               Scientific studies show that
19   ozone can lead to shortness of breath, chest
20   pains, inflammation of the lung lining,
21   wheezing and coughing, increased risks of
22   asthma attacks, and chronic obstructive
23   pulmonary disease.  In the long term, it can
24   lead to a reduced lung capacity and
25   potentially result in premature death.
0148
 1   Breathing ozone is particularly harmful for
 2   the most vulnerable in our society:  children,
 3   senior citizens, and people with preexisting
 4   respiratory disease.
 5               One-third of the United States'
 6   population resides in counties that have
 7   unhealthful levels of ozone.  Unfortunately,
 8   Southeastern Pennsylvania is one of those
 9   regions where ozone poses a threat to human
10   health.  The American Lung Association
11   recently gave Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester,
12   Delaware, and Montgomery counties "F" grades
13   for their exposure to ozone.  This is simply
14   unacceptable.  Our communities need the EPA to
15   step in and set a standard that will help
16   protect lives and the health of my
17   constituents.
18               That is why I am asking you today
19   on behalf of my constituents and citizens of
20   Pennsylvania to set the standard for ozone
21   pollution at the level recommended by the
22   EPA's scientific advisors.  This action will
23   save lives and ensure cleaner air for our
24   future generations.
25               I appreciate the opportunity to
0149
 1   present my views to you today.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
 3               Mr. Miller?
 4               DR. MILLER:  Good morning.  My
 5   name is Paul Miller.  I am the deputy director
 6   of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
 7   Use Management.  As a change of pace, my
 8   comments will focus entirely on the secondary
 9   ozone NAAQS.
10               Our organization, NESCAUM,
11   spelled N-E-S-C-A-U-M, is an association of
12   state air quality agencies in the six New
13   England states, New Jersey, and New York.  I
14   am speaking today on behalf of NESCAUM's
15   member states on EPA's proposal to revise the
16   secondary National Ambient Air Quality
17   Standard.
18               The secondary NAAQS is a
19   potentially useful air quality management tool
20   that the agency has neglected in recent years,
21   but which is clearly needed in this case to
22   protect vegetation from adverse effects of
23   cumulative seasonal ozone exposures that are
24   not addressed by a shorter term primary ozone
25   NAAQS.
0150
 1               Of the two options proposed by
 2   EPA, NESCAUM supports the option of
 3   establishing a secondary NAAQS in a different
 4   form than the primary.  The secondary NAAQS
 5   based on cumulative seasonal ozone exposure is
 6   much more relevant to protecting economically
 7   or ecologically important crops, forests, and
 8   other sensitive vegetation.  The Clean Air
 9   Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC,
10   strongly endorsed the EPA Staff Paper
11   recommendation that protection of crops and
12   ecosystems, quote, requires a secondary ozone
13   NAAQS that is substantially different from the
14   primary ozone standard in averaging time,
15   level, and form.  In light of the EPA staff
16   and CASAC recommendations and the extensive
17   body of historical and recent monitoring and
18   research data upon which they are based, the
19   option of equating the ozone secondary NAAQS
20   with the 8-hour primary is inappropriate and
21   clearly not supportable by the weight of
22   scientific evidence.
23               We strongly encourage the agency
24   to avoid the flawed rationale employed in the
25   previous 1997 ozone NAAQS review -- that many
0151
 1   of the benefits of a secondary NAAQS would be
 2   achieved if the primary NAAQS were obtained.
 3   This logic is flawed in at least two ways:
 4   First, ozone damage to vegetation persists in
 5   areas that attain the primary NAAQS; and
 6   second, the relationship between short-term
 7   8-hour peak concentrations and longer-term
 8   seasonal aggregation is not constant, but
 9   varies over space and time.
10               Scientific research shows that
11   long-term cumulative exposure to ozone reduces
12   forest productivity.  Recent estimates of
13   seasonal reductions in stem growth for many
14   important eastern US tree species exceeded 30
15   percent in average ozone years, with
16   additional growth decrements of 50 percent in
17   a high-ozone year.  A recent study also finds
18   that increased water transpiration from forest
19   canopies due to chronic exposure to current
20   ambient ozone levels in the eastern United
21   States is linked to decreased stream flow.
22   This indicates that ozone pollution exposure
23   aggregated over the summer growing season not
24   only exacerbates the effects of drought upon
25   forest growth, but upon stream health as well.
0152
 1   In the eastern US, chronically high ozone
 2   occurs across large areas that are important
 3   for agriculture, with crop yield reductions of
 4   5 to 10 percent as ozone level reach 0.050 to
 5   0.070 parts per million, depending on a crop's
 6   sensitivity, and the crop losses continue to
 7   increase with higher ozone concentrations.
 8               For the ozone secondary NAAQS,
 9   NESCAUM supports the concentration-weighted
10   form proposed by EPA, commonly called W126.
11   Furthermore, NESCAUM supports the secondary
12   NAAQS that is within the CASAC recommended
13   range of 7 to 15 parts per million-hours.
14   Adverse effects on forests and crops have been
15   observed with seasonal ozone exposures below
16   the upper end of the range proposed by EPA.
17   For example, trained observers in the national
18   Forest Health Monitoring program routinely
19   observe foliar ozone damage symptoms in
20   sensitive tree species in areas of the NESCAUM
21   region and elsewhere in the eastern US that
22   are in attainment of the current ozone primary
23   and secondary NAAQS and that do not typically
24   experience W126 levels as high as 21 parts per
25   million-hours, which is the upper end of EPA's
0153
 1   proposed range.
 2               As noted by CASAC, and I quote,
 3   the absence of clear-cut lower effects
 4   thresholds for sensitive vegetation combined
 5   with the lower recent estimates of
 6   policy-relevant background emphasizes the
 7   importance of efforts to reduce low- to
 8   mid-range environmental exposures below 0.060
 9   parts per million.  Based on Figures 7B-1 and
10   7B-2 in the Appendices to the EPA Staff Paper,
11   ozone concentrations in this range correspond
12   most closely to the lower end of the proposed
13   EPA and CASAC recommended ranges for the W126
14   form.  The upper end of EPA's proposed range
15   is simply not protective.  Because there could
16   be vegetation effects from ozone exposures
17   occurring at night and during months of the
18   growing season that fall outside of EPA's
19   assumed three-month window, NESCAUM encourages
20   the agency to consider a secondary NAAQS
21   toward the lower end of the CASAC recommended
22   range.
23               NESCAUM will be submitting more
24   detailed written into the docket, and we thank
25   you for your attention to our oral testimony
0154
 1   today.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
 3   comments and thank you for coming today.
 4               Our next speakers are Dr. James
 5   Plumb and Peter Javsicas.
 6               Thank you all for coming.  Dr.
 7   Plumb you're next in the order.
 8               DR. PLUMB:  Thank you.  My name
 9   is Dr. James Plumb.  That's P-L-U-M-B.  I'm
10   associate professor of Family and Community
11   Medicine at Jefferson, and I am currently
12   president of Philadelphia Physicians for
13   Social Responsibility.
14               As a practicing physician here in
15   Philadelphia, I am deeply concerned about the
16   health of the public and the impact that the
17   environment has on my patients, and I'm
18   chronically and sadly perplexed why our
19   government supports policies that affect the
20   health and well-being of so many citizens,
21   citizens who I see who have little to no idea
22   about the environmental impact of laws and
23   regulations promulgated by the EPA.
24               I have patients that I saw this
25   morning, both adults and children, who feel
0155
 1   that they are in charge of their health.
 2   They've immunized their children, they've
 3   stopped smoking, they're using their inhalers,
 4   following their diets, taking their
 5   medications, and yet they do not know that
 6   they remain at risk for symptom exacerbation,
 7   more frequent hospitalizations, and premature
 8   death because of the quality of the air they
 9   breathe.
10               I'm working on two major projects
11   in Philadelphia, one of them related to
12   childhood obesity, another in stroke
13   prevention in African-American men.  We are
14   teaching the value of exercise and screening.
15   People are listening.  They're trying to do
16   the right thing.  But walking in this city --
17   the best, most affordable, the most
18   sustainable form of exercise -- may, in fact,
19   be harmful.  Folks are taking their medicines,
20   but the ozone levels may be interfering with
21   optimal control.  Mothers and mothers-to-be
22   are trying their best to ensure healthy
23   children, but their medication use rises, the
24   costs rise, and more side effects of the
25   medication occurs, and this is unacceptable.
0156
 1               Folks in my practice must go
 2   outside to play, to work, and to worship.  It
 3   is our responsibility to protect the lives of
 4   our citizens, and it is my responsibility to
 5   speak up for my patients and my neighbors.  I
 6   teach medical and public health students.
 7   They challenge me to be scientific and
 8   prepared to give them the best information
 9   available.  The evidence of the negative
10   effects of ozone and the health of future
11   patients and clients is mounting.  I tell my
12   students to look at the studies and
13   peer-reviewed publications to learn the
14   physiological and biochemical consequences of
15   ozone.  I tell them that under the Clean Air
16   Act, the EPA must set air quality standards
17   that protect the public health, review these
18   standards every five years, and update them as
19   needed.  I show them that there exists a
20   consensus among medical, nursing, scientific,
21   and public health communities that the current
22   daily and average standards for ozone are not
23   protective of the public's health.
24               It is my responsibility as a
25   physician to ask for myself, my patients, and
0157
 1   my students that the EPA strengthen the 8-hour
 2   ozone standard to 0.060 parts per million.
 3   For the administration and the Environmental
 4   Protection Agency not to do this is an
 5   injustice.
 6               Thank you.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 8               MR. JAVSICAS:  Good morning.  My
 9   name is Peter Javsicas.  I'm the executive
10   director of Pennsylvanians for Transportation
11   Solutions, a statewide advocacy group, and I
12   would like to speak to the issue of airborne
13   pollution, including ozone, from vehicles --
14   trucks and cars -- in Pennsylvania and how
15   this applies nationwide.  I think it's quite
16   relevant to the actions that EPA has under
17   consideration.
18               The costs associated with vehicle
19   emissions are very large.  A growing body of
20   research confirms that exposure to several
21   pollutants produced by cars and trucks have
22   negative health effects, including increases
23   in premature mortality.  Because the amount of
24   emissions generated is not fully justified by
25   the private benefits attributable to the
0158
 1   transportation that caused it, the result is
 2   what economists call a deadweight loss for the
 3   overall economy.  The deadweight loss is the
 4   loss to American consumers resulting from the
 5   misallocation of resources associated with
 6   failure to charge for the cost of vehicular
 7   pollution.  The deadweight loss associated
 8   with failing to price vehicle emissions in
 9   Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania alone, is estimated
10   to be over $70 million, while the total amount
11   of health costs attributable to emissions in
12   Pennsylvania alone is estimated to exceed $1.8
13   billion annually.
14               Currently these vehicle emissions
15   costs are not borne by drivers.  Existing
16   highway user fees -- primarily gasoline and
17   registration fees -- currently collected do
18   not cover the full costs of highway
19   infrastructure, and thus cannot be viewed as
20   taxes that pay for the health costs of
21   emissions.  Charging a user fee on vehicles
22   that reflects the external cost of their
23   emissions would lead to a reduction in driving
24   to a level that more closely reflects the
25   social costs imposed.
0159
 1               Besides reducing the social costs
 2   associated with these unpriced emissions, an
 3   emissions fee could be used to enhance
 4   transportation choices; in particular, the fee
 5   could provide a new, relatively stable source
 6   of funding for public transportation, not only
 7   in cities but in rural areas and small towns
 8   as well.
 9               Proceeds of such a vehicle
10   emission fee in Pennsylvania could exceed
11   $1.67 billion annually.  Of particular
12   significance for Pennsylvania is that a
13   vehicle emissions fee could be expended for
14   non-highway purposes without violating the
15   Pennsylvania constitutional restriction that
16   applies to motor fuels taxes, and that's true
17   of 29 other states as well that have that kind
18   of restriction.  Implementing such a fee
19   apparently could be accomplished without
20   adding a new layer of bureaucracy associated
21   with additional testing of individual cars and
22   trucks.
23               Charging users an emissions fee
24   that reflects the health costs imposed on all
25   Pennsylvanians would generate $1.67 billion --
0160
 1   close to current State revenues derived from
 2   gas taxes.  In this way, a virtuous cycle
 3   could be engendered -- that's a term
 4   economists gave me -- whereby emissions fee
 5   revenues are used to increase transportation
 6   alternations whose pollution impacts are
 7   lower.  Further, the transportation
 8   alternatives would be provided in primarily
 9   urban areas served by transit, precisely the
10   areas where emissions costs are most
11   significant.
12               Although improvements in
13   technology are reducing emissions per mile of
14   travel, this positive development must be
15   weighed against the continued upward trend in
16   vehicle miles traveled leading to increased
17   emissions and associated emissions tax
18   revenues.
19               Our estimate of health costs in
20   Pennsylvania focuses exclusively on emissions
21   generated in urban areas.  In the year 2000,
22   total urban vehicle miles in Pennsylvania were
23   estimated to reach over 66 billion miles, of
24   which 57 billion are attributable to passenger
25   cars, 2.5 billion to heavy trucks, and 5
0161
 1   billion to light trucks.  Given our estimate
 2   of health costs per mile for cars and trucks,
 3   the implied health cost is $1,869,000,000.
 4   The Surface Transportation Policy Project in
 5   Washington, a national advocacy group,
 6   estimates costs for metropolitan areas in
 7   Pennsylvania of roughly 1.1 billion.
 8                       - - -
 9               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
10                       - - -
11               MR. JAVSICAS:  If we base the
12   analysis on the lower STTP health costs, the
13   deadweight would be 42 million and the
14   emission fee revenues would be $980 million
15   instead of 1.67 billion.
16               Is that my bell?
17               MR. PAGE:  Yes, but we'd like to
18   have your whole testimony and enter it into
19   the document.
20               MR. JAVSICAS:  I will submit
21   that, and I want to point out that this is
22   derived from a paper published called "Vehicle
23   Emissions:  the Cost and the Opportunity," by
24   Pierre Vilain.
25               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Thank you very
0162
 1   much, sir.
 2               Our next speakers are Dr. Henry
 3   Weis and Dr. Allen Lefohn.
 4               Good morning, gentlemen.  Dr.
 5   Weis, you're our next speaker.
 6               DR. WEIS:  Thank you.  I am
 7   speaking for myself and do not represent any
 8   group or organization.
 9               The EPA should develop strict
10   rules and measures to reduce and prevent air
11   pollution and should have the cooperation of
12   other parts of our government to enforce them.
13   Relaxing the rules and/or enforcement will
14   sicken more people, and the profit from
15   relaxation will be shared primarily among a
16   few executives and directors of the polluters
17   and some pharmaceutical corporation.
18               Also, the spurt in growth of
19   ethanol is a bad way to reduce pollution.  How
20   much additional energy is used to grow and
21   process ethanol, with all the energy used to
22   grow and process the corn?  I believe we have
23   a negative result here.  More pollutants are
24   created, and less usable energy created than
25   is made available in the ethanol.
0163
 1   Additionally, the cultivation of corn or other
 2   grains for ethanol reduces the food supply and
 3   will increase starvation and malnutrition
 4   worldwide.
 5               The EPA should be encouraged to
 6   stimulate research in energy from molecular,
 7   solar, wind, and geothermal sources.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much,
 9   sir.  Appreciate your coming here today.
10               MR. LEFOHN:  Thank you very much.
11   My name is Allen S. Lefohn.  I received a
12   Ph.D. in 1969 at the University of California
13   at Berkeley.  I perform research in the areas
14   of air quality characterization and exposure-
15   and dose-response on both human health and
16   vegetation effects.  I have published over 100
17   papers in the peer-review literature.
18   Government, industry, and environmental groups
19   support and rely on the research I perform.  I
20   was a senior author for the EPA's Ozone
21   Criteria Document and am the scientist who
22   developed the W126 exposure index, which, as
23   you know, the EPA is currently proposing as
24   one form of the vegetation ozone standard.
25               I'm testifying today on the
0164
 1   application of science and its use in the
 2   current national debate on ozone standards.
 3   Many times in the political and policy arena,
 4   science is applied in inappropriate ways.  I
 5   believe such has occurred in the area of the
 6   human health risk that was performed by the
 7   agency.
 8               The unfortunate decision by the
 9   EPA not to utilize the available ozone
10   background monitoring data has resulted in
11   large overestimates of the number of
12   individuals who suffer sickness and even
13   premature deaths from ozone exposures.  In
14   addition, at this time there is insufficient
15   evidence to draw conclusions about the effects
16   of ozone below 0.080 using the human
17   laboratory experiments.  Given the current
18   information available, it is my opinion that
19   the EPA cannot rely on either the community
20   time-series results or the human laboratory
21   experimental studies for assessing the effects
22   of ozone on human health below 0.080.
23               You have heard and will continue
24   hear in the news about the number of
25   individuals who suffer sickness and even
0165
 1   premature deaths from ozone exposures.  The
 2   generation of the numbers is mostly associated
 3   with health risk analyses to utilize, one,
 4   community epidemiological time-series and,
 5   two, human laboratory experimental studies.
 6   One of the key inputs into the risk analysis
 7   is the range of background ozone
 8   concentration.  On the left, if EPA
 9   underestimates background ozone, then, in a
10   reverse way, the agency overestimates; in
11   other words, the background needs to go higher
12   because of an underestimate, the effects go
13   down in prediction.
14               Starting in 2005, evidence was
15   presented to EPA's CASAC that monitoring data
16   existed for identifying background ozone
17   (Oltmans and Lefohn, 2005) and that EPA's
18   modeled estimates were too low.  In February
19   2006, in its Ozone Criteria Document, EPA
20   concluded that no background monitoring sites
21   existed in North America, and, therefore, the
22   agency had no choice but to use a model to
23   estimate background ozone levels.  In January
24   2007, EPA changed its opinion and reported in
25   its Staff Paper that background ozone
0166
 1   monitoring data do exist.  In its March 26,
 2   2000 letter to the EPA administrator, CASAC
 3   concluded that EPA did not provide sufficient
 4   evidence to support its estimates of
 5   background ozone.
 6               EPA's model underestimated
 7   background ozone, and as a result, the agency
 8   overestimated the number of sick individuals
 9   and premature deaths associated with ozone
10   pollution.  Using EPA's criterion for its
11   sensitivity analysis using different
12   background levels, I estimated that by
13   modifying EPA's estimated ozone background
14   levels by 5 ppb -- in other words, increasing
15   it -- for Los Angeles there would be as much
16   as 86 percent reduction in the estimates for
17   non-accidental mortality for the agency's
18   various alternative proposed standards.  If
19   the agency had used actual background data
20   which shows observed actual background at
21   Trinidad Head, California, the top curve, at
22   levels as much as 22 ppb higher than modeled
23   background, it is my opinion that the 86
24   percent reduction for non-accidental mortality
25   would have been even greater.
0167
 1               This figure represents the
 2   exposure-response curve used in estimating the
 3   number of individuals exhibiting lung function
 4   decrements.  The EPA, to assess the effects on
 5   school age children and asthmatic school age
 6   children, use this curve.  Focus, please, on
 7   the green line, that is the line at 0.080.
 8   For the 0.060 ppm level, only one subject out
 9   of 30 experienced and FEV-1 greater than/equal
10   to 10 percent for the constant 0.060
11   concentration, while two subjects out of 30
12   responded to FEV-1 greater than 10 percent for
13   the variable 0.060.  By the way, I designed
14   these exposures for Bill Adams.
15               Research results published by
16   Bill Adams, a colleague of mine, formed the
17   basis for these data points.  Adams 2002 and
18   2006 reported no statistically significant
19   effects for lung function decrements at either
20   0.040 or 0.060.
21               Adams reported no subjects who
22   experienced and FEV-1 greater than 10 --
23                       - - -
24               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
25                       - - -
0168
 1               MR. LEFOHN:  -- percent at the
 2   0.040 in 2006, but he did -- there was one
 3   reported, but rare data.
 4               I will report the rest of this
 5   testimony for you.  Thank you.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 7               Our next speakers are John
 8   Kinsman and Howard Feldman.
 9               Thank you for coming today.  Mr.
10   Kinsman, you're next.
11               MR. KINSMAN:  My name is John
12   Kinsman, and I am director, Air Quality
13   Programs at the Edison Electric Institute.  It
14   is the association of US shareholder-owned
15   electric companies.  Our members represent
16   about 70 percent of US electric power
17   industry.
18               The electric power sector emits
19   about 10 percent of the combined national
20   emissions of nitrogen oxides, NOx, and
21   volatile organic compounds, VOCs, the two
22   primary precursors to the formation of ozone.
23               Numerous Clean Air Act programs
24   have reduced eastern US summer ozone-season
25   NOx emissions by 70 percent since 1990 from
0169
 1   power plants.  The EPA's Clean Air Interstate
 2   Rule, CAIR, will reduce annual NOx emissions
 3   further starting in 2009 and again in 2015.
 4               Our testimony today highlights
 5   our concerns with the EPA's proposed revisions
 6   to the primary standard which would cause
 7   hundreds of counties to become non-attainment
 8   or fail the standard.
 9               While public health is paramount,
10   EPA needs to be sure that any additional
11   regulations imposed on the states will produce
12   real health benefits.  Dr. Roger McClellan,
13   past Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
14   chair, testified before the US Senate in July
15   and stated:  In my professional judgment, the
16   administrator's proposed decision to revise
17   the existing 8-hour ozone primary standard by
18   lowering the level to within the range of
19   0.070 to 0.075 ppm is a policy judgment based
20   on a flawed and inaccurate presentation of the
21   science.
22               In 1997, EPA established the
23   current 8-hour standard which it defined has
24   requisite to protect public health.  There
25   have been no significant developments since
0170
 1   1997 that support changing the standard.
 2   Claims supporting significant effects of ozone
 3   on healthy adults below the current standard
 4   and linking ozone to premature mortality have
 5   significant limitations.
 6               The EPA is misinterpreting the
 7   only clinical study that allegedly supports
 8   lowering the existing standard.  A 2006
 9   peer-reviewed study conducted by Dr. William
10   Adams, of the University of California at
11   Davis, which found no statistically
12   significant impact on lung functions from
13   exposure to ozone at levels below the current
14   standard.  However, EPA, over the objections
15   of Dr. Adams, used a different analytical
16   methodology to reach a different conclusion.
17               And the EPA downplays the large
18   uncertainty associated with epidemiological
19   studies.  Almost all of these studies on which
20   the EPA relies in recommending a more
21   stringent ozone standard are based on data
22   from ambient monitors from which there is a
23   poor correlation to actual ozone exposure.
24   And further, the health effects of ozone often
25   are not statistically significant when these
0171
 1   studies consider the effects of multiple air
 2   pollutants.
 3               In fact, the EPA's own draft
 4   Regulatory Impact Analysis concludes that most
 5   of the benefits from reducing ozone actually
 6   are attributable to reducing fine particles, a
 7   totally different air quality issue.
 8               While the science and benefits
 9   are uncertain, the other impacts of tightening
10   the standard are certain and dramatic.
11   Currently, over 400 counties will fail the
12   standard.  Hundreds of counties that finally
13   achieve ozone attainment status in the
14   2007-2009 period are likely to be thrown back
15   into non-attainment in 2010, and hundreds more
16   would join them in non-attainment for the
17   first time ever.
18               In order to meet tighter
19   standards, state and local officials from each
20   of the new non-attainment counties will have
21   to seek emission cuts, not just from large
22   industrial sources, but from a wide range of
23   smaller sources, such as factories, gas
24   stations, small businesses.  Even sources far
25   away from non-attainment areas could be swept
0172
 1   into new regional programs of states and EPA.
 2   The total cost, billions to tens of billions
 3   of dollars.  In fact, EPA's draft Regulatory
 4   Impact Analysis finds that annual costs in
 5   2020 may outweigh benefits by as much as $20
 6   billion.
 7               There are other substantial
 8   penalties on facilities in states that fail
 9   the standard.  New and modified sources in a
10   non-attainment area must offset all of their
11   emissions, plus some, which will discourage
12   existing businesses from expanding and new
13   businesses from investing in hundreds of
14   counties.  To illustrate just how scarce and
15   prohibitively expensive offsets can be, an
16   air-quality agency in California recently
17   decided that sulfur dioxide allowances would
18   cost $34,000 per pound for new electric
19   generators.  A tighter standard will result in
20   higher energy and consumer product costs,
21   which would be especially burdensome for
22   people with low or fixed incomes.
23               Finally, the power sector is
24   concerned about the impacts that a revised
25   ozone standard would have on current NOx
0173
 1   emission control activities under EPA's NOx
 2   SIP call and CAIR programs for the power
 3   generators.  EPA, state environmental and
 4   energy regulators, state legislatures, and our
 5   industry has spent years planning and
 6   implementing strategies for how best to
 7   cost-effectively implement the NOx reductions
 8   in a manner that maintains a reliable power
 9   supply.
10                       - - -
11               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
12                       - - -
13               MR. KINSMAN:  A revised strategy
14   could undo much of that planning, unraveling
15   plans related to trading and controls in small
16   sources.  In conclusion...
17               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
18   Kinsman.  We'll read your conclusion in the
19   record.  Appreciate your comments today.
20               Mr. Feldman?
21               MR. FELDMAN:  Thank you.  Good
22   afternoon.  I'm Howard Feldman, director of
23   Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at API.  API
24   is the primary trade association for the oil
25   and gas industry, with more than 400 members,
0174
 1   and as you all know, we've been very active in
 2   the ozone processes through the years.  See
 3   any lawsuits that you want to find.
 4               I want to make three points
 5   today:  First, the oil and gas industry is
 6   helping the air get cleaner today and in the
 7   future; second, there's actually far more
 8   debate on the science than what EPA is
 9   representing in this rule-making; and third,
10   the proposed new standards will impose real
11   costs that will not have necessarily
12   commensurate benefits.
13               So API wants to thank -- so far,
14   we're doing a bang-up job, all of us
15   societally, improving the air quality.  Since
16   1990, the oil and gas industry has invested
17   more than $148 billion -- that's billion, with
18   a "B," over there, okay -- towards improving
19   the environmental performance of its products,
20   facilities, and operations.  We've put in
21   place cleaner gasoline and cleaner diesel, and
22   these fuels, along with cleaner equipment,
23   cleaner cars, trucks, and buses are really
24   leading to and will continue to lead to
25   cleaner air quality.  We've also worked with
0175
 1   local and state governments to reduce the
 2   emissions from our facilities.
 3               As you can see from EPA's
 4   figures, my favorite of EPA's figures, which
 5   shows that the emissions from six criteria air
 6   pollutants dropped by 54 percent between 1970
 7   and 2006, while VMTs went up 177 percent.  So
 8   we're seeing real progress, real growth, and
 9   we see how pollution moves, so that's very
10   good.
11               According to TRI, EPA's
12   inventory, shows that since 1998 releases and
13   transfers of toxic chemicals from the
14   petroleum industry has decreased by 66
15   percent.  So all this progress is going to
16   continue.  EPA has already put in place
17   programs that will lead to power plant
18   reduction in the eastern US of 60 percent in
19   the reduction in emissions.  Cleaner gasoline
20   in cars and trucks will lead to 77 to 95
21   percent cleaner products, including lower
22   emissions going forward.  And reductions will
23   come into place as the engines turn to Ultra
24   Low Sulfur Diesel; that will effectively be a
25   90 percent reduction due to Ultra Low Sulfur
0176
 1   Diesel.  So we see progress will continue.
 2               On to my second point, on the
 3   science.  We know that the science is
 4   uncertain and variable.  We've already heard
 5   from Dr. Lefohn very clearly about the issue
 6   of background pollution, so that's out there,
 7   and EPA has not taken that into account
 8   properly.
 9               With respect to health effects,
10   it is -- there's really been only one
11   significant toxicological study since the last
12   rule-making.  This study found no
13   statistically significant lung function
14   impairment at levels below the existing
15   standard.  Nonetheless, EPA staff went on and
16   reanalyzed selected portions of the data,
17   reported finding significant lung functions
18   below the standard.  So EPA appears to be
19   relying on this unpublished, unreviewed staff
20   analysis, one that contradicts the original
21   author's paper, to help support a call for the
22   tighter standard.
23               There's also a lot of
24   inconsistencies within the epidemiology, and
25   Bell, et al. found statistically significant
0177
 1   associations between ozone and mortality in
 2   only 6 of 95 studies.  So this is like going
 3   forward -- it's like analogous to having an
 4   exit poll that shows one candidate leading
 5   with 50 percent, one with 49 percent, plus or
 6   minus, and you're trying to figure out, what
 7   do we know and what don't we now.  But EPA in
 8   this context -- EPA is professing that there's
 9   sufficient scientific certainty to establish
10   the ozone-mortality link, when there's really
11   a lot of uncertainty.
12               Moving on to my third point, a
13   more stringent ozone standard will burden
14   states with new and difficult targets.  Fuels,
15   as I already indicated, we're making
16   tremendous progress with cleaning our air, but
17   at the same time VMT increases and our economy
18   expands.  Many local communities will be
19   saddled with new costs that will hurt both
20   large and small businesses and prevent
21   expansion and growth in many urban and rural
22   counties.  Hurting local economies and
23   citizens without a clear scientific basis for
24   selecting a different numeric standard is not
25   a prudent use of resources.
0178
 1               In closing, API wishes to once
 2   again acknowledge the efforts of EPA, the
 3   states and local communities in providing
 4   cleaner air.  Looking forward, further
 5   improvements will come through current
 6   regulations designed to meet the existing
 7   standards, such as cleaner fuels described
 8   above.  Of course, we all know that the Clean
 9   Air Act mandates that the ozone NAAQS be
10   established based solely on science.
11   Nevertheless, the significant economic impacts
12   of tightening this standard should highlight
13   the importance of getting the science, and the
14   inherent uncertainty in the current science
15   does not support imposing further costs for
16   the uncertain benefits proposed.
17               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for your
18   comments, Mr. Feldman.  Thank you all for
19   coming in today.
20               Our next two speakers are
21   Reverend Sandra Strauss and David Friedman.
22               Welcome both of you.  Reverend
23   Strauss, you will be first.  Thank you.
24               REVEREND STRAUSS:  I'm Reverend
25   Sandra L. Strauss, director of Public Advocacy
0179
 1   for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches.  As
 2   an organization made up of 43 member bodies
 3   representing a number of Protestant
 4   communions, we represent thousands of persons
 5   of faith throughout the Commonwealth.  I'm
 6   here to testify today with respect to an issue
 7   that is of significant concern to our
 8   constituents.
 9               As stated in the council's
10   Principles for Public Advocacy, we believe
11   that in a health society, the well-being of
12   all is a priority.  To this end, we join with
13   colleagues like the American Lung Association,
14   the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
15   American Thoracic Society, Public Health
16   Association, and others in calling for an
17   ozone standard of at least 0.060 parts per
18   million as the best means of protecting public
19   health.
20               I understand that the EPA's own
21   scientific advisors have called for a more
22   stringent ozone pollution standard than that
23   which is currently proposed.  Many other
24   medical and consumer interest organizations
25   believe the level must be reduced to at least
0180
 1   a standard of 0.060 parts per million in order
 2   to protect public health.  Therefore, we
 3   believe the current EPA proposal to move to a
 4   range of 0.070 to 0.075 ppms does not do
 5   enough to truly protect the health of all our
 6   citizens.  For us, making the well-being of
 7   all a priority means that the current ozone
 8   standard of 0.080 ppm must be reduced to a
 9   level that scientific and medical experts and
10   even EPA's own experts agree is sufficient to
11   protect citizens from the negative impacts of
12   elevated ozone pollution.
13               We know that ozone pollution is
14   known to present a serious health threat to
15   tens of thousands, if not millions, of
16   Americans.  The American Lung Association
17   estimates that one-third of the country's
18   population lives in areas where ozone
19   concentration reaches levels that threaten the
20   health of many persons.  Certain populations,
21   including children and youth, senior citizens,
22   and those with health problems, especially
23   lung disease, are particularly vulnerable to
24   the negative health effects of ozone.  Most
25   obvious among the dangerous health impacts is
0181
 1   that ozone acts as an irritant to the lungs
 2   and airways -- causing inflammation,
 3   reddening, and swelling.  This alone is more
 4   than enough to endanger those whose health
 5   status is less than perfect and increase the
 6   chance of premature death among those
 7   affected.
 8               However, healthy persons are not
 9   immune from the harmful effects of ozone
10   pollution.  Studies show that at the current
11   level of 0.080 ppm, and even below, healthy
12   persons exhibit negative health outcomes,
13   including decreased lung function and
14   respiratory symptoms ranging from inflammation
15   to infection.
16               The bottom line is that we are
17   concerned that the proposed standard ignores
18   the vulnerability of Americans by failing to
19   strengthen the standard to a level that will
20   do a much better job protecting public health,
21   and we wonder about how the value of lives can
22   be weighed in truly meaningful ways against
23   industry revenues and cost-benefit analyses
24   that claim that the costs are too high.
25               We're concerned that the EPA,
0182
 1   despite its own research and recommendations
 2   to the contrary, would consider bowing to the
 3   demands of certain groups and special
 4   interests.  We believe that this kind of
 5   catering is indicative of a brand of politics
 6   that places the interests of business and
 7   profits over the health and welfare of
 8   individuals.  We believe we have a strong
 9   moral obligation to set standards that protect
10   all people, and we believe that the proposed
11   ozone standard does not.
12               From the perspective of a faith
13   community, those who live in the wrong places,
14   those who work in environments where they are
15   made vulnerable to the impacts of ozone
16   pollution are -- that it's simply wrong to
17   sacrifice their health for a lesser standard.
18   We have the legal obligation as well.  We
19   believe our own Clean Air Act requires that
20   air quality standards be set at levels that
21   protect public health.  Ignoring this
22   obligation in light of our greater knowledge
23   concerning the health effects of ozone
24   pollution violates the law and is immoral.
25               We believe in a society that
0183
 1   works for the wholeness of all people.  We
 2   believe that wholeness is achieved when those
 3   persons know themselves to be worthy of
 4   respect simply because they are, each one,
 5   made in the image of God.  This proposed
 6   standard does not respect the worth of all
 7   Americans and places greater value on some
 8   than others.  Value should not be based on
 9   monetary worth or power of position, upon
10   abilities or disabilities, or upon particular
11   demographic characteristics, but rather upon
12   each person being a part of the human family.
13               We respectfully call upon the EPA
14   to follow the recommendations of its own
15   scientists.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much,
17   Reverend Strauss.
18               David?
19               MR. FRIEDMAN:  Thank you.  I'm
20   David Friedman, director of Environmental
21   Affairs for the National Petrochemical &
22   Refiners Association.  We are a national trade
23   association comprised of about 450 companies,
24   including virtually all of US refiners and
25   petrochemical manufacturers.  The proposed
0184
 1   NAAQS for ozone will have a great impact on
 2   our members, and I thank the EPA for the
 3   opportunity to present our views today.
 4               First of all, my first point is
 5   to reiterate what we've heard earlier this
 6   morning, and that is that air quality is
 7   improving.  According to the EPA, between 1970
 8   and 2006, total emissions for the six
 9   principal air pollutants dropped by 54
10   percent.  Also according to the EPA, between
11   1980 and 2006, the national average for ozone
12   levels decreased by 21 percent.  These
13   accomplishments indicate that the current
14   ozone NAAQS standard is working and that air
15   quality is steadily improving.
16               Our members have significantly
17   reinvested in efforts to improve air quality
18   in the US over the past two decades.  The
19   petrochemical and refining industries have
20   invested billions of dollars to reduce
21   emissions from their facilities.  The refining
22   industry alone spent nearly 50 billion -- as
23   Howard said, that's with a "B" -- to remove
24   sulfur from gasoline and diesel fuels and in
25   providing reformulated gasoline that has
0185
 1   contributed to national air quality benefits.
 2               The cleaner fuels brought to
 3   market and continuing in the future will
 4   result in cleaner air for decades to come as
 5   cleaner engines are put in place.  This
 6   progress will continue.  According to the EPA,
 7   current federal regulations will significantly
 8   reduce ground-level ozone-causing emissions
 9   over the next two decades.  Emissions from
10   power plants will be cut in half by 2015, and
11   emissions from cars and trucks will be reduced
12   by more than 70 percent by 2030.  The current
13   standard is working and will continue to
14   protect public health in the future.
15               However, the science behind
16   lowering the standard is uncertain and
17   variable, and, therefore, this is not the
18   right time to change it.  There are many
19   questions regarding the state of the science,
20   and in particular, whether or not there have
21   been any significant developments over the
22   past decade that would warrant further
23   revision to the standard.  Recent studies
24   present inconsistent or conflicting data, and
25   they do not point to a particular numeric
0186
 1   change to the current standards.
 2               For example, EPA's modifications
 3   in the way it calculated naturally occurring
 4   and other existing ground ozone inflates the
 5   benefits of a new standard by as much as 90
 6   percent.  Even the agency's CASAC, Clean Air
 7   Scientific Advisory Committee, indicated that
 8   EPA did not provide a sufficient base of
 9   evidence to provide that this new method was
10   the best choice.
11               In addition, EPA is relying on
12   highly uncertain epidemiological studies and
13   information as a basis for lowering the
14   standard.  Given the large uncertainty, the
15   evidence the agency is relying upon should not
16   be used to lower the current standard.
17               The EPA's Regulatory Impact
18   Analysis indicates the proposed standard to be
19   unachievable with application of all known
20   measures in many areas of the US.  EPA then
21   extrapolates the application of unknown
22   measures in an attempt to achieve the proposed
23   standard.  In addition, the agency admits that
24   existing technologies are insufficient to meet
25   the proposed standard and simply assumes that
0187
 1   new technologies will become available that
 2   can double emission reductions.
 3               The EPA's own analysis for
 4   revision of this standard shows huge costs
 5   without corresponding benefits.  There is
 6   great uncertainty regarding both benefits and
 7   costs of tightening the standard, with the
 8   agency unable to draw conclusions about
 9   whether the nation would gain or lose as a
10   result of the proposed revision.  EPA's
11   benefits estimates range from $2.5-$33 billion
12   per year, and the cost estimates range from
13   $10-$22 billion per year.  EPA's estimated
14   costs for the proposed rule would make it
15   among the most expensive federal regulations
16   ever issued, environmental or otherwise.
17               For these reasons, NPRA supports
18   retention of the primary standard.  At this
19   time, based on the state of the science,
20   replacing EPA's current NAAQS for ground-level
21   ozone to 0.080 ppm is unnecessary.  Many
22   states have not yet completed plans to attain
23   the current standard, so EPA should focus on
24   helping communities meet the current standard.
25   In other words, don't move the goal posts in
0188
 1   the middle of a football game.
 2               Results from mobile and
 3   stationary source emission reductions that are
 4   already on the books must be allowed to come
 5   into effect before a new standard is
 6   considered.  New non-attainment area
 7   designations will hurt both large and small
 8   businesses and prevent expansion and growth in
 9   many urban, suburban, and rural communities.
10   Hurting local economies without a clear
11   scientific basis for selecting a different
12   standard really makes little sense.
13               With the extremely uncertain
14   health benefits, no identification of
15   reasonable prospects to attain the proposed
16   standard changes, and the excessive costs
17   identified in the RIA, we weigh the evidence
18   presented and conclude the proposal is an
19   unacceptable policy recommendation.
20               Again, we're grateful for the
21   opportunity to present our views, and we will
22   be providing written comments further outlying
23   our positions in October.
24               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
25   very much.  Thank you for coming today, both
0189
 1   of you.  Appreciate your comments.
 2               At this time, we're going to take
 3   a break until 2:00 and resume the public
 4   hearing.  For those of you who are in the room
 5   who have testified and came here today, thank
 6   you again.  We appreciate the trouble you've
 7   gone to.  As we said in our opening remarks,
 8   we will take all of this testimony, both the
 9   oral and the submitted written testimony, and
10   it will be a part of the record and it will be
11   reviewed at EPA thoroughly before final
12   decisions are made.
13               We will resume then at 2:00.
14   Thank you.
15                       - - -
16               (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was
17   taken from 12:42 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.)
18                       - - -
19               MR. PAGE:  Good afternoon.  Thank
20   you for being here.  You're at the public
21   hearing on the EPA's proposed rule regarding
22   revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
23   Standards for ozone.  If you're in the wrong
24   room, you ought to run, because it's going to
25   be an afternoon of testimony by the public,
0190
 1   and we're here to listen.
 2               For those of you who were not at
 3   the first part of this, you are going to be
 4   treated to a special reading of EPA's proposal
 5   and the ground rules for the hearing, and then
 6   after that, we'll start hearing our first
 7   speakers.  So if you will indulge me a couple
 8   of minutes, we're required to do a reading
 9   here, and then we'll get right to you.
10               I'm Steve Page, and I am the
11   director of the Office of Air Quality,
12   Planning, and Standards, which is part of
13   EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.  I
14   appreciate the fact that you all have come and
15   taken the trouble to be here.  Some of you
16   have come from great distances.  We had
17   speakers almost every five minutes this
18   morning representing a variety of views, and
19   we appreciate the effort that people have made
20   coming to this.  We at the EPA consider this
21   to be a very important part of our process.
22   We're here today to listen to your comments on
23   the proposed NAAQS for ozone, and it's your
24   chance, as I said, for you to comment on the
25   EPA's proposed rules.
0191
 1               The panel members, who I'll
 2   introduce in a minute, may answer a question
 3   that seeks to clarify what we have proposed
 4   from you, but we're really here to listen to
 5   your comments, not to discuss or debate the
 6   proposals.  The EPA's proposal is out in the
 7   form of the Federal Register notice that was
 8   issued on July 11th, 2007.  In that regard,
 9   I'd like to kind of summarize that proposal,
10   and then we'll start in with the speakers.
11               Ground-level ozone is the primary
12   component of smog.  It's formed through the
13   reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile
14   organic compounds in the presence of sunlight.
15   Exposure to ozone is associated with an array
16   of respiratory problems, including aggravated
17   asthma, increased susceptibility to
18   respiratory infection, increased doctors'
19   visits, increased emergency department visits
20   and hospital admissions, and premature death.
21               In addition, ground-level ozone
22   can have harmful effects on sensitive plant
23   species -- including trees and crops -- and on
24   the ecosystems they inhabit.  It has been
25   shown that both the level of ozone to which
0192
 1   plants are exposed and the duration of
 2   exposure are important factors in determining
 3   plant response.  The most significant effects,
 4   including biomass loss and yield reductions,
 5   result from the accumulation of ozone
 6   exposures throughout the growing season, with
 7   higher concentrations of ozone producing
 8   greater impacts.
 9               Based on careful review of the
10   large body of scientific evidence now
11   available regarding the health and welfare
12   effects associated with exposure to ozone, the
13   administrator of the EPA has concluded that
14   the current ozone standards are not adequate
15   to protect public health and welfare.  A
16   number of new health studies have been
17   conducted indicating that adverse effects
18   occur following exposure to ozone at levels
19   below the current standard.  Furthermore,
20   these studies indicate that people with
21   respiratory illnesses such as asthma are
22   particularly sensitive to these adverse
23   impacts.  In addition, new scientific studies
24   confirm that exposure to ozone adversely
25   affects the growth of sensitive plant species
0193
 1   and may increase their susceptibility to
 2   disease and pests.
 3               After careful consideration of
 4   this scientific evidence, advice for EPA's
 5   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, known
 6   as CASAC, and public comments, the
 7   administrator has proposed to revise both the
 8   primary ozone standard, designed to protect
 9   human health, and the secondary standard,
10   designed to protect welfare, such as
11   vegetation and crops.  Currently, the primary
12   and secondary ozone standards are identical.
13   An 8-hour standard of 0.080 parts per million,
14   which is effectively 0.084 when you do your
15   rounding, that's primary standard.  Under
16   EPA's proposal, each of these standards would
17   be revised, and the form of a secondary
18   standard might change so that it is no longer
19   identical to the primary.  EPA has requested
20   comments on all aspects of its proposal and on
21   alternatives to the proposed revisions.
22   Specifically:
23               With respect to the primary
24   standard to protect public health, the
25   administrator's proposal included:
0194
 1               1.  Revising the level of the
 2   standard to within the range of 0.070 to 0.075
 3   parts per million.  The agency has also
 4   requested comment on alternative levels down
 5   to 0.060 ppm and up to and including retention
 6   of the current standard of 0.084 ppm.
 7               2.  Specifying the level of the
 8   primary standard to the third decimal place is
 9   something we're proposing as well because
10   today's monitors can detect ozone that
11   accurately.
12               With respect to the secondary
13   standard to protect public welfare, EPA
14   proposed two alternations:
15               1.  One option would be to
16   establish a new form of the standard called
17   the W126 that is designed specifically to
18   cumulate ozone exposures and give more weight
19   to higher concentrations.  This form of the
20   standard would add together weighted hourly
21   ozone concentrations measured during the
22   12-hour daylight window from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
23   across the consecutive 3-month period with the
24   highest ozone levels.  EPA is moving to set
25   the level of this cumulative standard within
0195
 1   the range of 7 to 21 parts per million-hours.
 2               2.  Another option that we're
 3   taking comment on would be to revise the
 4   secondary standard so that it is identical to
 5   the proposed primary 8-hour standard the way
 6   it is now.
 7               Additional information on the
 8   proposed rule can be found in the fact sheet
 9   available in the registration area.
10   Publication of the rule, as I mentioned
11   earlier, was on July 11th, 2007, and it marked
12   the beginning of the 90-day public comment
13   period, which closes on October 9th, 2007.  We
14   have handouts available in the registration
15   area with detailed information for how to
16   submit written comments, and we welcome your
17   comments either today or between now and
18   October 9th.  In addition, we have prepared a
19   list of all the topics in the proposed rule
20   that agency is seeking comment on, and this
21   handout is also available in the registration
22   area.  We expect to issue the final rule March
23   12th, 2008.
24               Now let me turn to the comment
25   portion of today's hearing.  This hearing is
0196
 1   one of five public hearings we're holding
 2   across the country.  Today, hearings are being
 3   held in Los Angeles, California, here in
 4   Philadelphia.  Next Wednesday, September 5th,
 5   additional hearings will be held in Houston,
 6   Chicago, and Atlanta.  We will be preparing a
 7   written transcript of each hearing.  The
 8   transcripts will be available as part of the
 9   official record for each rule.
10               Today's hearing will work as
11   follows:  I will call the scheduled speakers
12   to the microphone in pairs.  Please state your
13   name and your affiliation, and it helps the
14   court reporter out a lot if you also spell
15   your name.
16               In order to be fair to everyone,
17   we're asking that you limit your testimony to
18   five minute each and to remain at the
19   microphone until both speakers in a pair have
20   finished.  After you finish your testimony, a
21   panel member may ask clarifying questions.  As
22   I mentioned, we're transcribing today's
23   hearing, and each speaker's oral testimony
24   will become part of the official record.
25   Please be sure to give a copy of any written
0197
 1   comments to our staff at the registration
 2   table, and we'll put the full text of your
 3   written remarks into the docket for you, in
 4   case you don't finish in your oral statement.
 5               We have a timekeeping system
 6   consisting of green, yellow, and red lights.
 7   When you begin speaking -- they're the lights
 8   over here on the corner of this table.  When
 9   you begin speaking, the green light will come
10   on.  You will have five minutes to speak, as I
11   mentioned.  The yellow light will signal that
12   you have two minutes left.  We'll ask you to
13   stop speaking when the red light comes on.
14               We will try to ensure that
15   everyone has an opportunity to comment, and if
16   necessary, we'll stay well into the evening to
17   listen to public comments.  If you would like
18   to testify but have not registered to do so,
19   please sign up at the registration table.  We
20   will take periodic breaks, maybe one this
21   afternoon and then around dinner time.
22               For those of you who have already
23   registered to speak, we've tried to
24   accommodate your requests for specific time
25   slots.  We ask for your patience as we proceed
0198
 1   through the list.  We may need to make some
 2   minor adjustments as the day progresses.
 3               At this point I'd like to
 4   introduce the EPA representatives on our
 5   panel.  To my right and your left is Rosalina
 6   Rodriguez.  She is the associate director of
 7   the Health and Environmental Impacts Division
 8   within the Office of Air Quality Planning and
 9   Standards.  It's Rosalina's office that
10   actually does the drafting and the compiling
11   of the work to present to the administrator.
12               On my left and your right is Judy
13   Katz, the director of the Air Protection
14   Division here in EPA's Region 3.  Judy is a
15   well-known person in the Philadelphia area, as
16   well as through the mid-atlantic; perhaps even
17   nationally and internationally.  She's been a
18   while, just like I have myself.  I've been in
19   the air business for a long time.
20               I'd like to again thank you all
21   for coming today, and at this point I'd like
22   to get started.  Thank you for indulging me in
23   reading the statement.
24               So if the first pair would come
25   up, it's Thomas Au and Mr. Charles Hooker.
0199
 1   And as I said this morning, if I've
 2   mispronounced your name, please feel free to
 3   correct me.  I think the court reporter would
 4   like the spelling as well as the
 5   pronunciation.
 6               Mr. Au, you're our first speaker,
 7   please, sir.
 8               MR. AU:  Thank you for the
 9   opportunity to appear.  I am Thomas Au --
10   that's spelled A-U -- representing the Clean
11   Air Board of Central Pennsylvania, 528 Garland
12   Drive, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
13               The Clean Air Board was formed in
14   the fall of 2005, after over a hundred
15   Cumberland County physicians signed and
16   published in a newspaper an open letter
17   informing community of the growing danger of
18   ozone and particulate pollution.  Initially a
19   small group of people gathered for the
20   position of educating the community and
21   advocating for cleaner air.  We have grown to
22   include not only that base community, but also
23   people in the transportation business,
24   teachers, lawyers, parents, and the medical
25   community.  Our members include people who
0200
 1   suffer ailments from breathing polluted air.
 2               (Inaudible) Valley is in the
 3   receiving end of an ozone-transport corridor
 4   which originates several hundred miles away.
 5   Even on days when an ozone alert has not been
 6   declared, people suffer respiratory problems.
 7   You will hear from two of our members, Charles
 8   Hooker, Jr. and Dee Delp.
 9               The Clean Air Board agrees with
10   the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
11   that the primary ozone standard should be
12   between 0.060 ppm and 0.070 ppm and should
13   include an adequate margin of safety to
14   protect the public health.
15               This summer, the ozone monitoring
16   station closest with (inaudible) valley in
17   Harrisburg recorded only two instances when
18   the 8-hour ozone measurement was above 0.080
19   ppm, but recorded 46 instances when the 8-hour
20   ozone measurement was above 0.060.  Now,
21   Cumberland County itself does not have an
22   ozone monitoring station.
23               The EPA needs to adopt a standard
24   that is truly protective for public health.
25   And the Clean Air Board will submit additional
0201
 1   written comments before the closing of the
 2   comment period.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 4               Mr. Hooker?
 5               MR. HOOKER:  I'm Charles Hooker,
 6   Jr.  My son also lives in the area, and he's
 7   Charles Hooker, III, so we have to make the
 8   distinction.  I'm a retired Presbyterian
 9   minister.  I moved down to Mechanicsburg three
10   years ago to be nearer my son and found to my
11   dismay that the air quality in our area was
12   dismal.  That's why I joined the Clean Air
13   Board and have been active in helping them
14   promote their agenda.
15               As Tom says, we live in
16   Cumberland County.  There is no monitor there
17   for ozone, so the nearest is Harrisburg, of
18   course, and I generally check the ozone and
19   the other particular matter before exercising
20   or doing anything -- making any particular
21   exertion.
22               I have had asthma since
23   childhood, chronic obstructive pulmonary
24   disease for probably around 50 years, an
25   aortic valve replacement 12 years ago, and I'm
0202
 1   on medication of Advair, Singulair, and
 2   Albuterol when necessary, and, of course,
 3   aspirin for the heart condition.  I need to
 4   exercise, and if I can't do it outside, I do
 5   have to do it inside.  The pollution does
 6   aggravate the asthma, and as I have said, we
 7   hope that this particular standard may be
 8   adopted.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming.
10   We appreciate it.
11               Oh, and I guess Dee is also --
12   okay.  Very good.
13               MS. DELP:  I'm Dee Delp, and I've
14   been a school crossing guard for 38 years, and
15   I live in Cumberland County, Carlisle, and I
16   have asthma, and I've had it for eleven years,
17   I have diabetes for seven, and cancer for
18   seven, and I'm on Albuterol and Prednisone for
19   my asthma, and Glucophage and so forth for
20   diabetic.
21               I think the trucks and cars
22   emissions is so bad.  We need to go lower.
23   And on days -- I know it's bad trying to stay
24   in.  I'm trying to cross the children, and
25   cars and trucks get too much; I have to put my
0203
 1   hand up over my nose and face, you know,
 2   because I enjoy the children.  And if you have
 3   to stay in, I do.  But there's a few days that
 4   it's not -- you know, the ozone's not too bad,
 5   but you still have a little congestion.  My
 6   chest gets heavy and I can't breathe, and, you
 7   know, it's really bad.
 8               Thank you.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
10   we appreciate it.
11               Our next speakers are Josephine
12   Faass and Leighanne DiCicco.
13               And Leighanne, I guess you're
14   first in the order I was given here, so we'll
15   stick to an orderly process here.
16               MS. DICICCO:  Good afternoon.  My
17   name is Leighanne DiCicco, and that's
18   L-E-I-G-H-A-N-N-E, D-I-C-I-C-C-O.  I am here
19   on behalf of Temple University School of
20   Medicine.  I'm a second-year medical student.
21   I will first, I guess, testify on behalf of my
22   status as a medical student.
23               With the time that I've spent at
24   Temple, Children's Hospital, in the outpatient
25   pediatric clinic, we've seen numerous children
0204
 1   come in with respiratory illnesses that are
 2   exacerbated by smog.  And while I can't give
 3   you any figures or any cost statistics or
 4   anything like that, I can ask for stricter
 5   standards from the EPA, especially with the
 6   0.060 parts per million standard, because
 7   every part per million that you bring it down
 8   translates into one less inhaler, one less
 9   interrupted football game, one more day
10   outside that one of these little guys or girls
11   can play.
12               Secondly, I'll testify on behalf
13   of somebody who has a pair of lungs and enjoys
14   their usage.  I've been running long distance
15   for ten years now, and I've always had to
16   train in a major city, and when I was younger
17   than I am and even more naive, I always
18   thought, oh, well, if I train in a situation
19   that has a lot of smog, then that's only
20   making my lungs better.  So I have wizened up
21   a little bit with my schooling, and,
22   obviously, the more that you run in an
23   environment that is polluted, it doesn't
24   really help your lungs at all, it just really
25   hurts it.
0205
 1               So I do ask that the EPA follow
 2   their scientists' recommendations with
 3   stronger standards.
 4               Thank you.
 5               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 6               MS. FAASS:  Hi.  My name is
 7   Josephine Faass.  That's F-A-A-S-S.  I'm a
 8   Ph.D. student.  I study environmental policy
 9   at Rutgers, at the Edward J. Bloustein School
10   of Planning and Public Policy.  I also work as
11   a research assistant at the National Center
12   For Neighborhood and Brownfields
13   Redevelopment.  I want to start by thanking
14   you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
15               Basically, my reasons for being
16   here right now are twofold.  First, I want to
17   express my distress at the proposed standard,
18   which sets the allowable level of ozone at the
19   highest level found sufficiently protective of
20   public health.  More alarmingly, this proposal
21   leaves open the possibility of allowing the
22   current standard to remain in place, despite
23   the fact that it's been proven unsatisfactory.
24               Second, I'd like to encourage the
25   EPA to do away with the fudge factor that's
0206
 1   built into the current monitoring in which
 2   communities are permitted to round their
 3   reported ozone levels down by as much as 0.040
 4   parts per million.
 5               I'll start by speaking to the
 6   current issue of setting the NAAQS for ozone.
 7   However, I'm not going to delve too deeply
 8   into any particular studies because I believe
 9   you guys know all that science.  I'm here
10   today only to ask that you would heed the
11   advice of independent scientists and select
12   the course of action that will be sufficiently
13   protective of public health.
14               As everyone gathered here today
15   is aware, ozone is a dangerous compound which
16   negatively impacts the health and welfare of
17   American families.  For this reason, ozone was
18   named among the seven criteria pollutants in
19   the Clean Air Act, a law whose enforcement has
20   allowed the EPA to bring about substantial
21   improvements in the nation's air quality, as
22   well as considerable reductions in
23   trans-boundary pollution, including acid rain.
24               Since the current standard of
25   0.080 parts per million was set in 1997, some
0207
 1   1,700 peer-reviewed studies have been
 2   published, all of which point to the
 3   inescapable conclusion that this permissible
 4   ozone level should be reduced from the current
 5   standard to between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per
 6   million, as we've all been saying.  This range
 7   has been identified as appropriate, given that
 8   prevention of deaths and respiratory illnesses
 9   caused by ozone exposure is the primary goal
10   of this regulatory effort.  Although there's
11   evidence that a reduction to 0.070 to 0.750
12   parts per million would result in an
13   appreciable decrease in ozone-related
14   mortality and morbidity, setting the standard
15   equal to the lower amount of this range, 0.060
16   parts per million, would yield even greater
17   benefits in this regard.
18               In its standard setting, the EPA
19   must historically assume a conservative stance
20   so as to ensure that the maximum protections
21   are afforded to the United States' citizenry.
22   It seems only appropriate, therefore, that
23   this approach, while undoubtedly unpopular
24   among polluters, has proven a Godsend to the
25   people of this nation, be adopted in
0208
 1   determining the current standard.
 2               Unfortunately, the proposal we're
 3   here to consider today is for a primary ozone
 4   standard of 0.070 parts per million.  Apart
 5   from the possibility of cost savings, this
 6   decision makes little sense.  However, the
 7   Clean Air Act is notable in that it's one of
 8   the few and (inaudible) laws for which
 9   Congress has specifically forbade
10   consideration of cost in its enforcement;
11   rather, the legislative intent was for
12   standards to be set conservatively.  Levels
13   sufficient for the protection of the average
14   American's health were not deemed sufficient.
15   Instead, (inaudible) takes its most vulnerable
16   members of society -- children and the elderly
17   -- were to be embraced.  I, therefore, urge
18   the EPA to set the new ozone standard at 0.060
19   parts per million, the level identified as
20   ideal by independent scientific investigation.
21               The second point I'd like to make
22   is that the rounding loophole which is now
23   afforded to communities in monitoring their
24   ozone levels should be done away with.  At the
25   present time, communities are permitted to
0209
 1   round down their reported ozone levels by as
 2   much as 0.004 parts per million from the level
 3   registered on their monitoring equipment, as
 4   we were saying before.  While this may have
 5   been an adequate solution for the lack of
 6   precision which characterized early
 7   technology, there is no place in today's
 8   environmental regulation, given the accuracy
 9   of today's equipment.  This provision merely
10   acts to endanger the health and welfare of the
11   many Americans who live and work in
12   communities where ozone levels are
13   consistently above the current standard, which
14   as I mentioned before has been shown to be
15   insufficient to protect health.
16               Since its inception in 1970, the
17   EPA, more than any other organization, has
18   been instrumental in protecting the nation's
19   environment for citizens' health and in
20   punishing those who would act to harm either
21   one.  I sincerely hope that you will heed the
22   advice of independent scientists and the
23   desires of the people who have come today to
24   urge you to set the -- to set and reliably
25   enforce an ozone level that will be truly
0210
 1   protective of public health and to do away
 2   with the loophole which has for so long
 3   permitted unsafe amounts of ozone to remain in
 4   our nation's air.
 5               Thank you for you time.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Wow.  You were right
 7   on the button.
 8               Thank you all very much.
 9   Appreciate your comments, and thank you for
10   coming today.
11               Our next speakers are Dr. Arthur
12   Frank and John Harmon.
13               Good afternoon, gentlemen.  Thank
14   you for coming.  Dr. Frank, you're next on the
15   list here.
16               DR. FRANK:  Thank you.  I am
17   Arthur L. Frank, and that's F-R-A-N-K, MD,
18   PhD, and serve as a professor at the Drexel
19   University School of Public Health, and I
20   chair the Department of Environmental and
21   Occupational Health.  Today I am representing
22   and presenting comments on behalf of the
23   American Thoracic Society, of which I am a
24   member.
25               The American Thoracic Society is
0211
 1   an international medical professional society
 2   dedicated to respiratory health.  As such, the
 3   American Thoracic Society is deeply committed
 4   to protecting the public from the danger of
 5   air pollution.  The American Thoracic Society
 6   strongly recommends that the EPA administrator
 7   issue the following National Ambient Air
 8   Quality Standard for ozone:
 9               First, that the level of the
10   primary standard should be established at
11   0.060 parts per million; secondly, the degree
12   of precision for the standard should be
13   expressed at the thousandth part per million;
14   and thirdly, the form of the standard should
15   be constructed as a three-year average of the
16   annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
17   average ozone concentration.
18               The American Thoracic Society
19   believes that EPA Administrator Johnson has
20   correctly stated that, beyond any degree of
21   scientific uncertainty, convincing and
22   compelling evidence has demonstrated that
23   exposure to ozone at levels below the current
24   standard is responsible for measurable
25   significant adverse health effects in terms of
0212
 1   both morbidity and mortality.  We strongly
 2   support the administrator in his efforts to
 3   issue a more stringent standard and absolutely
 4   reject any efforts to maintain the current
 5   standard.
 6               However, in proposing a revised
 7   standard between 0.075 and 0.070 parts per
 8   million, EPA Administrator Johnson has failed
 9   to truly appreciate the dangers of ozone posed
10   to our nation's health.  Furthermore, EPA
11   appears to be using scientific uncertainty as
12   a justification for not establishing a more
13   stringent standard.
14               The ATS is concerned that
15   throughout the public process of evaluating
16   the available science, EPA has consistently
17   overemphasized any scientific uncertainty
18   surrounding the known health effects of ozone
19   exposure.  EPA senior appointees adopted a
20   similar approach during the rule-making for
21   particulate matter, and ultimately EPA
22   Administrator Johnson cited scientific
23   uncertainty as a reason for EPA not issuing a
24   more protective particulate matter standard.
25   It appears EPA may once again use scientific
0213
 1   uncertainty as an excuse for failing to act
 2   decisively.  We need to be more protective of
 3   the health of our populations.
 4               In drafting the Clean Air Act,
 5   Congress realized that perfect information
 6   about exposure-response relationships would
 7   not be available in setting National Ambient
 8   Air Quality Standards.  The Clean Air Act is
 9   founded on the precautionary principle and
10   directs EPA, in cases of scientific
11   uncertainty, to err in favor of protecting the
12   public health.  EPA again seems to be turning
13   the precautionary principle on its head and
14   using scientific uncertainty as justification
15   for inaction.  Any uncertainty should be
16   weighed towards protecting health, not risk
17   excessive numbers of people becoming ill.
18               There is overwhelming scientific
19   certainty regarding the adverse health effects
20   of ozone air pollution and health.  Ozone
21   worses symptoms for people with respiratory
22   diseases like asthma and COPD, as we've just
23   heard.  Ozone cause premature mortality
24   through respiratory and cardiovascular
25   illness.  It leads to lower birth weight in
0214
 1   infants, and ozone causes lung inflammation in
 2   health adults.  All of these effects have been
 3   observed at levels below the current standard
 4   and at levels below that now recommended by
 5   EPA.
 6               Based on the strength of the
 7   scientific knowledge base regarding the
 8   adverse health effects of ozone air pollution
 9   and the magnitude of public health impact such
10   pollution has on the US population, the
11   American Thoracic Society has recommended that
12   the EPA take action now to issue a stricter
13   ozone standard of 0.060 ppm for 8 hours.  This
14   recommendation is consistent with that of a
15   number of other prominent expert scientific
16   panels, including the EPA's own Children's
17   Health Protection Advisory Committee and Clean
18   Air Scientific Advisory Committee.  Any less
19   stringent action is a failure to adequately
20   protect the health of the public.
21               Thank you.
22               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
23               Mr. Harmon?
24               MR. HARMON:  Thank you and good
25   afternoon.  I'm John Harmon, H-A-R-M-O-N.  I'm
0215
 1   president and CEO of the Metropolitan Trenton
 2   African-American Chamber of Commerce, also
 3   know as MTAACC, and a member of the board of
 4   directors of the National Black Chamber of
 5   Commerce.  I appreciate the opportunity to
 6   appear today to set forth on behalf of over
 7   200 businesses and members of MTAACC and as a
 8   board member on behalf of the National Black
 9   Chamber of Commerce our views and concerns
10   regarding the EPA's recently announced notice
11   of proposed rule-making to review the National
12   Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.
13               MTAACC supports the EPA
14   regulatory policies that are intended to
15   improve our nation's air quality in a manner
16   that is cost-effective for our communities and
17   based on sound science.
18               Because of such EPA policies and
19   the coordinated efforts of state and local
20   governments, industry and the business
21   community, substantial progress has been made
22   over the past 25 years in meeting the Clean
23   Air Act's air quality goals.  While more
24   progress is needed in selected areas in New
25   Jersey and other communities across the
0216
 1   country, we should make no mistake that the
 2   Clean Air Act is working as it was intended.
 3   EPA's own data shows that between 1970 and
 4   2006, total emissions of the six principal air
 5   pollutants dropped by 54 percent.
 6               While MTAACC supports the EPA's
 7   continuing efforts to ensure clean air for all
 8   Americans through policy decisions that are
 9   based on sound science and which reflect a
10   realistic assessment of the nation's air
11   quality needs, we are also concerned with the
12   unintended consequences of federal policies
13   that can adversely impact the welfare of the
14   communities its members represent and those
15   small and minority and black-owned businesses
16   that are operating within them.  In
17   particular, we are concerned about the
18   potential adverse impact on the communities in
19   which our members operate should EPA decide in
20   its final ruling to adopt a more stringent
21   NAAQS standard for ozone.
22               My understanding is that
23   currently there are 21 counties in the state
24   of New Jersey classified as non-attainment for
25   ozone.  Each is working diligently to reach
0217
 1   full compliance.  Under EPA's preferred range
 2   of 0.070 to 0.075 ppm, the number of counties
 3   designated as non-attainment for ozone could
 4   substantially increase.  Many communities
 5   will, for the first time, experience the
 6   stigma and compliance challenges of being
 7   designated as non-attainment for ozone.
 8   Moreover, the 21 counties that are currently
 9   designated as ozone non-attainment will be
10   faced with identifying and implementing more
11   demanding compliance strategies even before
12   they've had an opportunity to fully implement
13   the plans to comply with the present 0.080 ppm
14   standard, on which they are now working.
15               The designation of a county as
16   non-attainment for ozone triggers a second
17   process in which affected states must develop
18   and submit to the EPA a state implementation
19   plan that demonstrates compliance with the new
20   standard within a certain time frame.  The
21   emission control strategies required to make
22   such a demonstration will significantly impact
23   the economies of local communities, including
24   jobs and future growth.
25               Such impacts manifest themselves
0218
 1   in the form of increased costs to industry,
 2   permitting delays, restrictions in industrial
 3   expansion within an area, impacts on
 4   transportation planning, and increased costs
 5   to communities for commercial and consumer
 6   products.  In addition, each community will
 7   face continuing oversight by the EPA until the
 8   area has met and maintained this standard for
 9   the required period of years.  These aspects
10   have very real impacts of communities.
11               In closing, MTAACC is committed
12   to a clean environment and improved air
13   quality for our communities.  However, air
14   quality is not the only thing that impacts the
15   health of the people of New Jersey.  The
16   health and welfare of communities our members
17   operate in depend on the economic stability
18   and the business expansion and investment that
19   provides good jobs and economic growth and the
20   quality of life that goes with it.
21               MTAACC believes that the current
22   NAAQS for ozone should not be more stringent
23   at this time.  MTAACC encourages the EPA to
24   make a realistic assessment of our air quality
25   needs and give careful consideration to the
0219
 1   potential adverse impact of a lower standard
 2   on our local communities and the welfare of
 3   those who work and live there, including the
 4   small and minority and black-owned businesses
 5   that operate and provide services in these
 6   areas.
 7               Thank you.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
 9   today.  We appreciate it.
10               The next two speakers are Francis
11   McKee and Marvin Lewis.
12               I guess Mr. McKee will try to do
13   a PowerPoint presentation and break a land
14   speed record for a five-minute PowerPoint
15   presentation.  We won't start your time until
16   the presentation is ready to go.
17               MR. McKEE:  Thank you.
18               MR. PAGE:  Mr. Lewis, we won't
19   start your time until you get a seat at the
20   table.
21               MR. LEWIS:  I can speak standing
22   up.  I have no problem about that.
23               May I?
24               MR. McKEE:  Please, sir.
25               MR. LEWIS:  My name is Marvin
0220
 1   Lewis, L-E-W-I-S.  Look, I've been around for
 2   quite a while.
 3               MR. PAGE:  You can move the
 4   microphone down -- there you go.  Okay.
 5               MR. LEWIS:  Okay.  Marvin Lewis,
 6   L-E-W-I-S.  I've been around for quite a while
 7   and wish to thank the EPA and Specialist
 8   Tricia Crabtree for scheduling a time slot
 9   that I could make.
10               I've been a commenter for EPA
11   ozone standards for many years.  I still have
12   the schedule for the NOx budget hearing from
13   September 4, 1997.  That allows me an aside to
14   point out that ozone does not do its damage
15   alone, and all other contaminants must be
16   considered synergistically:  The sum often
17   outstrips the harm caused by any one of its
18   parts.  Auto exhaust and ozone are obnoxious
19   individually, but together in sunlight, they
20   are smog.  Smog endangers COPD sufferers and
21   may kill.
22               I agree with many of the
23   commenters that ozone levels need to be
24   controlled.  I agree that controlling ozone
25   can lead to cost savings in health care and in
0221
 1   reducing our dependence on foreign oil.  I do
 2   have a bone to pick on certain approaches of
 3   the EPA and the environmental community.
 4   Nobody gets away.
 5               Back decades ago,
 6   environmentalists and the EPA found a compound
 7   which looked really good at controlling ozone.
 8   I was called MTBE, or methyl tert butyl
 9   alcohol.  MTBE soon was to found to poison our
10   water and was banned, as Canada sued us
11   through NAFTA and GATT for not honoring our
12   contracts to buy MTBE.  I hope that we listen
13   a little more carefully to the people in
14   Alaska when they complain about the future
15   cure-alls.  Alaska tried MTBE and told the
16   lower 48 how offensive it was.  Alaska and my
17   letters were ignored.
18               Looking at the concentration of
19   ozone to tell how to handle the ozone problem
20   is a dead end.  I have previously pointed out
21   that the ozone measured in Philadelphia, at
22   the Northeast Airport, peaks at 2 a.m.  There
23   are very few cars on the road at 2 a.m. and
24   very little sunlight in Philadelphia.  Our
25   peak in ozone is often blown in from the 5
0222
 1   p.m. traffic in Chicago.  Philadelphia has
 2   very little control over Chicago's 5 p.m.
 3   traffic.  The EPA seems oblivious to
 4   geography.
 5               Many ozone sensors have been
 6   placed at 9 to 30 feet above the ground,
 7   according to their own specifications, EPA's
 8   specifications.  Very few people have noses 9
 9   feet above the ground.
10               The EPA hears a lot of testimony
11   on sources but little testimony on solutions
12   other than higher fuel mileage.  One possible
13   control is trees.  Street trees interact with
14   ozone, reducing the ozone concentration.  If
15   you ever run under a street tree, you'll find
16   it much pleasanter than runner along the
17   highway.  A simple effort to increase the
18   abundance of street trees would provide some
19   ozone reduction and make for a pleasanter
20   urban venue.  I'm not saying that's the only
21   solution that is possible.  There are many
22   other things that we should be doing.  There
23   are many possibilities that are just being
24   ignored.
25               I am attaching pages to back up
0223
 1   my statements, but will not read into the
 2   record -- but I won't read them into the
 3   record.  With the Panel's permission, I just
 4   want to attach these pages.
 5               MR. PAGE:  We'll put those in the
 6   record.
 7               MR. LEWIS:  Okay.  Thank you for
 8   listening to my tirades, and I do appreciate
 9   the way you read your statement.  It was more
10   interesting than the way most administrators
11   do it.
12               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, sir, and
13   thank you for your information.
14               MR. LEWIS:  Thank you.
15               Mr. McKee?
16               MR. LEWIS:  Can I give Mr. --
17               MR. PAGE:  McKee.
18               MR. LEWIS:  -- McKee some of my
19   time I didn't use?
20               MR. PAGE:  This wasn't rehearsed,
21   was it?
22               MR. McKEE:  Good afternoon.
23   Thank you for allowing me to be here.  My name
24   is Frank McKee.  I'm a private citizen from
25   York, Pennsylvania.  Today I'd like to talk
0224
 1   about the situation kind of microscopically in
 2   York; specifically, having to do with days
 3   that I go out to try to work out or run and I
 4   can't, and I'm calling this "The View from My
 5   Bicycle."  I'm here today representing no
 6   particular organization, but I -- in view of
 7   40,000 people in York County who suffer from
 8   COPD.
 9               I am asthmatic, on three
10   medications, father of four.  I'm an avid
11   athlete.  I've done about, I think at last
12   count, 55 triathlons in my day.  I'm a small
13   business owner and have 16 years of
14   participation in what I'd like to call
15   reasoned environmental reform.
16               Today I'd like to talk -- first
17   off, urge that the EPA reverse their current
18   position of proposing standards for levels of
19   ozone that will continue to harm our health,
20   specifically (inaudible).  I'd like to also
21   draw attention to the 40,000 people in York
22   County, and suggest that air quality indices
23   be based on multiple components, not just a
24   few -- or singular components, as they
25   currently are.
0225
 1               York County, for those of you who
 2   don't know, is located in south central
 3   Pennsylvania.  It is a very, very wonderful
 4   community.  At first glance, it appears to be
 5   agrarian-based, but it's got a strong business
 6   and waning industrial infrastructure.  The
 7   business mantra is driven by a "pollute for
 8   profit" mentality.  I anonymously quote a
 9   senior scientist at one of our major polluters
10   who said, we only do what we have to do, and
11   then only when we get caught.  Hardly
12   comforting.
13               The air quality in York is
14   consistently among one of the worst in the
15   state.  In July 2007, only 6 out of 31 days
16   were considered healthful.  But even on good
17   days, I and others find vigorous exercise
18   difficult from a respiratory standpoint.
19               York County is 902 square miles.
20   We have approximately 2.2 miles -- 2 percent
21   of our county is about a 20 square mile
22   smokestack that comes from five majors
23   pollutants.  I'd just like to briefly talk
24   about a few of these.  I'll bypass Lehigh,
25   York County Solid Waste Authority, and, yes, I
0226
 1   do put my trash out to curb, and I think these
 2   guys are doing a reasonably good job here.
 3               But LWB Refractories puts out
 4   about 6 million pounds of NOx, 348,000 pounds
 5   of VOCs, which are ozone components.
 6               PH Glatfelter, environmentally,
 7   by many, are considered to be Public Enemy
 8   Number One.  4 million pounds of NOx, 752,000
 9   of volatiles, ozone components.
10               And Bruner Island, which is right
11   on the border of York and Lancaster County.
12               What this comes down to is that
13   we have 21 -- about 48 million pounds of
14   emissions on an annual basis that come out of
15   an extremely concentrated area in York County
16   that directly impacts the health of our
17   residents.
18               If I could just direct your
19   attention, in closing moments, to looking at
20   basing the air quality index on multiple
21   components.  We can have days where we're
22   right on the threshold of having a bad air
23   quality day from an ozone standpoint, from a
24   VOC standpoint, and the others, but it's
25   considered a green day, when, in fact, when
0227
 1   you look at the aggregation of these
 2   components, such is simply not the case.
 3               So I'd like to request that you
 4   consider evaluating multiple elements in
 5   determining your ambient air quality index and
 6   your report findings.
 7               The Pennsylvania Constitution
 8   says that the people have a right to clean
 9   air, pure water, and to the preservation of
10   the natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic
11   values of the environment.
12               I'd like to call on the EPA to
13   act on your mission.  Your stated mission is
14   to protect human health and to safeguard the
15   natural environment -- air, water, and land --
16   upon which life depends.
17               Pay attention to York.  We're in
18   big trouble out there, and we really need to
19   be put under your microscope a little bit more
20   closely.  I'd like you to apply your policy
21   based on scientific fact, tempered not solely
22   by special business interests.  I'm a
23   businessman, I'm in the profit mode as well,
24   but I think it's important that we really
25   become an advocate for the weak.  And,
0228
 1   finally, adopt the most stringent standard for
 2   ozone, and in doing so, help protect our
 3   health.
 4               Thank you for your time, and I
 5   appreciate your attention and wish you well.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
 7   both for appearing today.  I'll take it over
 8   here.  Thank you for appearing.
 9               Is that going to be in the
10   record, your presentation?
11               MR. McKEE:  I'd like it to be,
12   yeah.
13               MR. PAGE:  Great.  We can perhaps
14   take your disk or something there or...
15               MR. McKEE:  Sure.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you again.
17               Clifton Burt is our next speaker.
18   Now, that's the last registered speaker.  If
19   you want to speak and you're not registered,
20   you can sign up at the table out there.  But
21   this is the last registered speaker we have
22   for a little while, so...
23               You still only get five minutes.
24               MR. BURT:  Oh, okay.  Hopefully
25   that will be enough.  I'm honored to be the
0229
 1   last one.
 2               My name is Clifton Burt -- first
 3   name C-L-I-F-T-O-N, last name B-U-R-T -- and I
 4   am a second year student at Drexel University
 5   College of Medicine.  I'm studying to be a
 6   doctor.  I want to say, first of all, that I'm
 7   very happy that the EPA is addressing this
 8   issue.  I feel it's very important.
 9               And I'd just like to start by --
10   I have some -- I'll just briefly cite some
11   journal articles that I have.  First of all,
12   I've got one here from the New England Journal
13   of Medicine.  It basically says that chronic
14   air pollution leads to stunted lung growth in
15   kids.
16               Here's one from the American
17   Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
18   Medicine.  It basically says that lung
19   function is decreased by exposure to ozone and
20   to nitrous oxide, and basically what happens,
21   you decrease in force vital capacity, how much
22   air they can breathe in -- you know, breathe
23   out, I should say, that's exhale and the
24   forced expiratory volume at one second.  These
25   are markers.  That specifically is at least in
0230
 1   one second, how much they can breathe out.
 2   That's also decreased.
 3               Another article says about
 4   there's an increased risk of arrythmia,
 5   supraventricular arrythmia in elderly when
 6   we're exposed to ozone.  This is the
 7   Occupational & Environmental Medical Journal,
 8   and that basically means it sets them up for
 9   an increased risk of heart attack.
10               Another one has decreased lung
11   function in kids closer to freeways.  This is
12   basically to the ozone air pollutants.  That's
13   from Lancet.
14               Increase of ozone occurs during
15   thunderstorms, and they found that ruling out
16   other factors, there are increased admissions
17   of asthma in the hospitals, and that -- so it
18   shows that that's bad; that ozone,
19   quantitatively saying it's bad.
20               Here, influence of air pollution,
21   specifically ozone, there's a high correlation
22   of ozone.  This is a Brazilian study, but they
23   found that there's increased risk of lung
24   cancer and larynx cancer with increased ozone
25   levels.  They said they can't find exact
0231
 1   causality, but what we're talking about is --
 2   you know, for this hearing is levels that the
 3   EPA -- what they found were areas with higher
 4   ozone had a higher risk of lung -- and
 5   especially larynx cancer.  Lung cancer was a
 6   77 percent, I believe, correlation and 99
 7   percent -- or 72 percent.  99 percent's for
 8   larynx cancer.
 9               And, finally, I wanted to say --
10   oh, I ran through this probably a little
11   faster than I needed to.  But at Drexel, at
12   least as a med student, I feel like I'm
13   getting an extremely good education, and one
14   of the main things that they teach to us is
15   the importance of preventative medicine and
16   it's a lot easier and much better to keep the
17   problem from occurring in the first place to
18   prevent the disease from occurring than it is
19   to treat the disease.  And I have a feeling,
20   in the long run, that the human costs and the
21   economic costs will be far greater if we allow
22   the standards to stay where they are than if
23   we make them a little tighter.  Lower that
24   ozone level.
25               And that's -- oh.  And I also
0232
 1   have a list of -- I have a bunch of signatures
 2   from my school and people who wanted to
 3   support lowering the emission level -- or the
 4   ozone levels.
 5               That's it.  If you're interested,
 6   I can also hand you the articles that I have
 7   here.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Yes, please leave the
 9   articles here.  We'd like to put those in the
10   docket as well.
11               MR. BURT:  Okay.
12               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
13   today.  We appreciate it.
14               All right.  I guess we don't have
15   any more registered speakers at this time, so
16   we'll take a break, and as other people come
17   in, we'll reconvene and continue the public
18   hearing.  We're going to be here late tonight
19   because we expect people to be coming after
20   work and things like that.  For those of you
21   who wish to stay, you're obviously welcome.
22   We appreciate those who did make the effort to
23   come here this afternoon.  Thank you very
24   much.
25                       - - -
0233
 1               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
 2   2:51 p.m. through 3:11 p.m.)
 3                       - - -
 4               MR. PAGE:  We will continue our
 5   public hearing for revision of the ozone act.
 6   We're ready to go here.  This hearing should
 7   come to order.  It's nice to see everybody.
 8               We worked through a full morning
 9   of hearings and then started back after lunch,
10   and I want to thank you all for coming.  We
11   have a couple people who are signed up now,
12   but before we jump into that, I do want to say
13   that this is the public hearing for the
14   revision of the ozone NAAQS, so if you are
15   into higher education or crocheting or
16   something, you're in the wrong meeting.
17               Audience Member:  That worries me
18   that higher education seems to not fit in
19   here.
20               MR. PAGE:  Education always has a
21   role.  Anyway --
22               Audience Member:  Let's work for
23   higher intelligence.  Okay.
24               MR. PAGE:  Higher intelligence,
25   very well said, yes.
0234
 1               I'm not going to read the
 2   statement that I read this morning.  You all
 3   have been briefed about the five-minute limit
 4   and what the EPA's proposal is.
 5               Audience Member:  I just walked
 6   in here.
 7               Audience Member:  So did I.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Oh, you haven't.
 9   Okay.  Well, I don't mind going back and
10   repeating the highlights of the statement from
11   this morning.  And then we'll hear from our
12   two registered speakers and anybody else who
13   comes in in the meantime.
14               First let me introduce a couple
15   of the panelists that you may not have been
16   introduced to.  Rosalina Rodriguez, she works
17   at the Office of Air Quality Planning &
18   Standards, the same office that I do, at the
19   Environmental Protection Agency.  Her office
20   is the one that's responsible for pulling the
21   science together and developing policy options
22   for the administrator to consider in making
23   the ozone proposal and then the ozone final.
24               This is Marcia Spink, who has
25   been working on the air issues in Pennsylvania
0235
 1   since there were air issues in Pennsylvania.
 2   How about that?  She is well-known in this
 3   area and well-respected across the agency as
 4   one of our folks that we go to in terms of how
 5   we can implement programs successfully, and
 6   she has always had a keen interest in the
 7   public hearing process, which is why she's
 8   here today, to hear the comments and the
 9   recommendations from people in her home area
10   but also comments from other places.
11               My name is Steve Page, and I'm
12   the director of the Office of Quality Planning
13   & Standards for EPA.  Let me just go through
14   and give you some highlights that I've given
15   in the morning and that we started this
16   afternoon's session on.
17               This is a hearing, and so we're
18   here to listen to your comments.  EPA has made
19   its proposal, and we provided rationale for
20   that in July 11th, 2007 Federal Register
21   statement.  We do have some literature out on
22   the desk out front that gives some highlights
23   of the key questions or key areas that we're
24   asking for comment on, although the whole
25   proposal is up for comment, but specific
0236
 1   questions that were asked of the public, if
 2   you want to answer those.  But any comments,
 3   like I say, are welcome.  We at EPA value this
 4   process greatly.  We feel like it's one of the
 5   most important aspects of our jobs, to come
 6   and hear what the public thinks about the
 7   policies and programs that we're putting out
 8   to protect the environment and public health.
 9               The topic of today is the
10   ground-level ozone, which is the primary
11   component of smog, and we have heard from a
12   variety of experts this morning, information
13   which EPA, of course, included in its proposal
14   about health effects, including aggravated
15   asthma, increased susceptibility to
16   respiratory infections, increased doctor
17   visits, increased emergency department visits,
18   hospital admissions, and premature deaths as a
19   result of exposure to elevated levels of
20   ozone, sensitive populations especially.
21   There were comments this morning that it's not
22   only the sensitive populations, but the
23   healthy populations who also suffer from
24   elevated levels of ozone, which, of course, we
25   agree with.
0237
 1               In addition to the health
 2   effects, high levels of ozone can have harmful
 3   effects on sensitive plant species.  There's
 4   more information now than there ever has been
 5   on the effects on trees and crops and the
 6   ecosystems that they inhabit.
 7               Based on a careful review of the
 8   science that EPA has done regarding the health
 9   and welfare effects of exposure to ozone, the
10   EPA administrator has concluded that the
11   current standards that we have in place today
12   are not adequate to protect health and
13   welfare.  A new number of studies are in, and
14   we've taken a look at those studies, and they
15   indicate that people with respiratory illness,
16   such as asthma that we talked about, are
17   particularly sensitive to adverse impacts and
18   that the ecosystem is showing effects from
19   exposure to high levels of ozone.
20               So after careful consideration,
21   the administrator has proposed to revise both
22   the primary ozone standard, which is the
23   health standard, and the secondary ozone
24   standard, which is designed to protect the
25   ecosystem and protect welfare such as
0238
 1   vegetation and crops.  The current standard
 2   that we have in place is an 8-hour standard of
 3   0.080 parts per million, which is effectively
 4   0.084 if you use rounding.  Under the EPA's
 5   proposal, each of the standards, the primary
 6   and secondary, would be revised, and the form
 7   of the secondary standard might change so that
 8   it's no longer identical to the primary
 9   standard.  Our current secondary standard,
10   which protects the ecosystem, is identical to
11   the primary standard because that was the best
12   science we had at the time, when we set the
13   primary and secondary standards years ago.
14               So EPA, based on the new science,
15   is proposing that we revise the level of the
16   secondary standard to -- let's see exactly
17   where we are here -- to revise the level of
18   the secondary standard to establish a new form
19   called W126, which is basically an
20   abbreviation for counting when the highest
21   levels of ozone occur during the highest
22   concentrations of ozone throughout the year;
23   in other words, taking measurements on
24   ecosystems during the highest ozone days of
25   the year, which is the growing, which is
0239
 1   summer, and no longer making it identical to
 2   the primary standard.  We feel like we have
 3   enough information to do that now.
 4               Another option, though, that
 5   we're asking comment for, that a number of
 6   people have raised is, should we just go ahead
 7   and make it identical to the primary standard,
 8   the way we did it the first time.  There are
 9   some people who feel like that's what we
10   should do and that there isn't enough
11   information --
12               Audience Member:  Primary?
13               MR. PAGE:  Primary standard is
14   the health standard, protecting people.  The
15   secondary standard is the standard for the
16   ecosystem, and we're proposing two different
17   standards.
18               Audience Member:  Well, it also
19   assumes we're not part of the ecosystem.
20               MR. PAGE:  Well, non-human
21   health.  We're talking about crops and trees
22   and stuff.  I tried to make that clear.  This
23   is what I get for talking short here.
24               Audience Member:  What is the
25   difference?  What's the numbers?
0240
 1               MR. PAGE:  The proposal for the
 2   primary standard -- remember, I told you a
 3   minute ago the current one is 0.080.  The
 4   administrator is proposing to lower that to
 5   0.070 to a range of 0.075.  He's saying he
 6   thinks the number's in there somewhere, but
 7   he's inviting comments on that range, he's
 8   inviting comments above that range for people
 9   who think we shouldn't go lower or tighter,
10   and for levels below that range as well.
11               Audience Member:  And the
12   secondary standard is?
13               MR. PAGE:  Now, the numbers for
14   your secondary standard, and that's a little
15   bit more complicated, the form of the standard
16   would be weighted hourly ozone concentrations
17   measured during the 12 daylight hours, 8 a.m.
18   to 8 p.m., during a consecutive three-month
19   period, in the highest ozone levels, we're
20   proposing to set this cumulative standard
21   within the range of 7 to 21 parts per
22   million-hours.
23               Audience Member:  Okay.  Now, how
24   does this translate?  Because it sounds like
25   we're using two different sets of numbers, and
0241
 1   that is very confusing.  Can you alter this
 2   for me so it's -- like we're not doing feet
 3   and millimeters.
 4               MR. PAGE:  The easiest way I can
 5   explain it, and, in fact, I can follow up and
 6   get you some technical explanation on it,
 7   because this is outlined in the proposal.
 8               Audience Member:  Okay.  This is
 9   part of what I have to do to -- what I'm going
10   to say.
11               MR. PAGE:  The easiest way --
12               And, Marcia, you can feel free to
13   help me here.
14               Marcia is versed in the technical
15   aspects of this, but the easy way, I think, to
16   think about this is the health standard is
17   measured in terms of exposure to ozone
18   throughout a period of three years, and
19   there's a formula that you use for picking the
20   high days in those three years.
21               The secondary standard is a
22   measurement of, in the summertime, what is the
23   highest concentrations that your ecosystems
24   are being exposed to in terms of ozone
25   concentration per the daylight hours.
0242
 1               So you're right, there are two
 2   different measures, but it's the same
 3   principal, which is how much ozone are you
 4   getting exposed to over a period of time.  For
 5   the plants and vegetation, it's the highest
 6   concentrations in the year, through the
 7   summer.  For human beings, we're counting it
 8   year-round.
 9               Audience Member:  Year-round,
10   okay.  Now, as a human being who's a
11   layperson, how do I compare this?
12               MS. SPINK:  Maybe one thing that
13   will help is this:  In all the years that I've
14   been working for EPA and I've taught classes
15   and I've addressed the public, I think the
16   terms "primary" and "secondary" can be a bit
17   misleading, because wouldn't you assume that
18   primary would be the more stringent of a
19   standard instead of --
20               Audience Member:  Well, people
21   want to be the first -- no.  Actually, for
22   me --
23               MS. SPINK:  You know that --
24               Audience Member:  -- because I'm
25   a very literate person, primary to me would be
0243
 1   the one of first concern.
 2               MS. SPINK:  Okay.  But in terms
 3   of their stringency, the primary National
 4   Ambient Air Quality Standard is set to protect
 5   human health, so the public health.  The
 6   secondary standard is set to protect other
 7   living organisms -- and by the way, also raw
 8   materials, like rubber, monuments, et cetera.
 9               And what we're seeing here is
10   that when it comes to setting the standard to
11   protect human health, it's the numbers that
12   you've been hearing about, the range of 70
13   parts per billion to 75 parts per billion, but
14   still taking comment as low as 60 and as high
15   as the current standard.
16               The secondary standard we're
17   looking at a little bit differently
18   potentially because there are arguments that
19   are made that other organisms, aside from
20   human beings, are actually more sensitive to
21   zone, and because of that reason --
22               Audience Member:  So the
23   secondary --
24               Audience Member:  Then is that
25   the actual --
0244
 1               Audience Member:  -- is that the
 2   --
 3               THE COURT REPORTER:  Excuse me.
 4               Audience Member:  -- be a more
 5   stringent?
 6               MS. SPINK:  Potentially.
 7   Potentially, yes.
 8               Audience Member:  Okay.  Because
 9   one thing I know, for several reasons
10   (inaudible) -- one, I haven't got a lot of
11   formal education, but I'm extremely
12   knowledgeable and excruciatingly intelligent.
13   I've been a Mensa member.  I also have gifts
14   of the right side of my brain, that I have
15   seen things, I have seen the future, and it is
16   bleak.  And I know what's happened to my own
17   body, and that is bleak.
18               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  We're --
19               Audience Member:  And we are an
20   animal, we are a species, the most destructive
21   on this planet, and our canaries are
22   everything else in our environment.  Where do
23   you think we live?  And we are part of it, and
24   we need to protect it to the maximum level or
25   we will die too.  So my question is --
0245
 1               MR. PAGE:  Ma'am --
 2               Audience Member:  I think my
 3   answer is here, the secondary without concern.
 4               MR. PAGE:  We're doing a public
 5   hearing, and people have signed up to speak.
 6   We are anxious to hear from you --
 7               Audience Member:  I understand
 8   that.
 9               MR. PAGE:  -- as we are other
10   people.
11               Audience Member:  Where are the
12   people to speak?
13               MR. PAGE:  Well, I need to be
14   able to call them up.  They're registered, and
15   hopefully you're registered so we can call you
16   up.
17               Audience Member:  I'm scheduled
18   for 5:00.  They wanted me to go earlier.
19               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Great.
20               Audience Member:  But I want to
21   know what's going on so I can have -- say
22   something great on that.
23               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Well, I hope
24   this has been helpful, this little exchange,
25   and --
0246
 1               Audience Member:  That's what I
 2   wanted to figure out here.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  And, by the
 4   way, if we can't answer your questions in this
 5   short time today, we can follow up.  Marcia
 6   works right here in town.  She can --
 7               Audience Member:  Okay.  So today
 8   is our only chance to speak?
 9               MR. PAGE:  Oh, no.  The end of
10   the public comment period -- in fact, I failed
11   to mention that, but thank you for mentioning
12   it.  The public comment period closes October
13   9th, and we will be making final decisions by
14   March of 2008.  Sorry.  No.  There is plenty
15   of time, and like I say, Marcia's not leaving
16   town.  We will leave town, but Marcia's here.
17   Okay.  Again, thank you, I appreciate the
18   questions.
19               Let me call up the next two
20   speakers that are registered, and then I'll
21   probably get another jolt of other speakers,
22   and then anybody else who wants to talk,
23   please register, and we're looking forward to
24   hearing from you.  That's what we're doing
25   here today, from 9:00 in the morning until
0247
 1   9:00 at night.
 2               Mr. Jason Marmon (ph) and Tony
 3   Payton, Jr. are registered to speak.
 4               We're calling you up in pairs
 5   just for efficiency, and the first one on the
 6   list I have is Mr. Marmon.
 7               MR. MARMON:  Hello.  I'm here on
 8   behalf of Congressman Joseph Sestak,
 9   Pennsylvania's 7th district.  I'll be reading
10   a statement that he has to be entered into the
11   record.
12               While my schedule prevented me
13   from attending today's hearing on the ozone
14   "smog" pollution in person, I wanted to weigh
15   in on this important public health and
16   environmental issue.  Ozone pollution is both
17   dangerous and pervasive, posing a serious and
18   costly public health problem for my district,
19   the entire state of Pennsylvania, and the
20   entire country.  Ozone exposure can cause
21   chest pain and coughing, aggravate asthma, and
22   reduce lung function, all of which can
23   increase emergency room visits and hospital
24   admissions.
25               Strong national standards for
0248
 1   ozone are crucial to fighting this problem in
 2   Pennsylvania and across the country.  Since
 3   ozone forms from pollution that may travel
 4   across state boundaries, state and local
 5   governments cannot solve this problem on their
 6   own.  Rather, the national air quality
 7   standards set by the EPA drive the work done
 8   at the state and local levels to reduce air
 9   pollution.  Weak standards handicap public
10   officials' ability to fulfill our
11   responsibility to reduce air pollution and
12   protect the health of Pennsylvanians.
13               The Clean Air Act requires the
14   EPA to base its decisions solely on the need
15   to protect public health, including that of
16   sensitive populations, with an adequate margin
17   of safety.  In 2002, the Supreme Court
18   unanimously ruled that protecting public
19   health was the sole factor EPA should consider
20   in setting this standard.
21               In keeping with this
22   responsibility, the EPA should strengthen its
23   proposal to the ozone standard recommended by
24   the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a
25   group of expert scientists who advise the EPA
0249
 1   administrator on air quality standards.  The
 2   committee, who reviewed a 2,000-page summary
 3   of the scientific research on the health
 4   effects of ozone in 2006 unanimously concluded
 5   there is no scientific justification for the
 6   retention of the current ozone standard of
 7   0.080 parts per million; two, the ozone
 8   standard must explicitly include the margin of
 9   safety required by the Clean Air Act; and,
10   three, the 8-hour ozone standard should be set
11   in a range of 0.060 to 0.070 parts per
12   million.
13               In addition, leading national
14   public health advocacy groups, such as the
15   American Lung Association, American Academy of
16   Pediatrics, American Thoracic Society,
17   American Public Health Society, Asthma and
18   Allergy Foundation of America, and many others
19   have recommended a standard of 0.060 parts per
20   million.
21               The EPA's proposal to strengthen
22   the standard to somewhere in the range of
23   0.070 parts per million to 0.075 parts per
24   mill will not protect the public enough.  The
25   EPA should finalize an ozone standard of 0.060
0250
 1   parts per million, consistent with the
 2   recommendations of its science advisors.
 3   Under the Clean Air Act, communities will have
 4   plenty of time to plan, adopt, and put into
 5   place measures to meet these new standards.
 6               I thank the EPA for holding
 7   today's important hearing in Philadelphia.  My
 8   staff and I look forward to working with the
 9   agency in the future on this and other issues
10   to work toward protecting Pennsylvania's
11   environment and public health.
12               Thank you.
13               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for
14   comments, Mr. Marmon.
15               Mr. Payton?
16               MR. PAYTON:  Good afternoon,
17   Members of the EPA.  My name is Tony Payton,
18   Jr.  I'm the state representative from the
19   179th district, which is the Hunting Park,
20   Frankford, and Feltonville.  I'd like to thank
21   you for the opportunity to come here and
22   speak.  I believe you just heard my testimony,
23   though, before me, but I'll go ahead and
24   repeat the same thing for the sake of having
25   it on the record.
0251
 1               The issue, of course, is ozone
 2   pollution, and as we all know, lack of clean
 3   air can cause chest pain, cough, aggravate
 4   asthma, and reduce lung function.  This
 5   inevitably leads to increased emergency room
 6   visits and hospital admissions.  Living in a
 7   metropolitan area, such as Philadelphia, only
 8   increases one's chances of these conditions.
 9   As an individual who suffers from asthma, I
10   can personally attest to this situation.
11               Under the Clean Air Act, air
12   quality standards must be set at levels to
13   protect the public health, including that of
14   sensitive populations, with an adequate margin
15   of safety.
16               Thus, the national air quality
17   standards set by the EPA drive the work that
18   we do here at the state level, and the weak
19   standards will only handicap us here of our
20   ability to fulfill our responsibility to
21   reduce air pollution and protect the health of
22   our citizens.
23               My hope is that you would take
24   the responsibility of enacting stronger, the
25   most strong, that has been recommended by your
0252
 1   own scientists.  Those standards should be
 2   adopted so that we can ultimately ensure
 3   public safety and the well-being of the
 4   citizens of our state.
 5               I thank you very much for your
 6   time.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
 8   Appreciate you coming in.
 9               The next speaker that is
10   registered is Dr. Rosalie Bertell.
11               Welcome, Dr. Bertell.  Thank you
12   for joining us today.
13               DR. BERTELL:  I did provide a
14   written report to your staff.
15               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
16               DR. BERTELL:  But I would like to
17   be clear on what you just said about the
18   recommendations, because it sounded to me
19   like, if I put it in parts per billion, you're
20   recommending 70 for people?
21               MR. PAGE:  Yes.
22               DR. BERTELL:  And 7,000 to 21,000
23   parts per billion for the ecosystem?  You said
24   parts per million.
25               MR. PAGE:  Yes, I did.
0253
 1               DR. BERTELL:  Okay.  That's
 2   higher.  That's a much higher standard than
 3   for people.  It looks like you're looking at
 4   people as urban areas, and there are people in
 5   the country, so I find that standard is very
 6   peculiar for many reasons.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Okay.
 8               DR. BERTELL:  Now, I looked at a
 9   document that was written by the clean air
10   science advisory committee 20 years ago, in
11   which they pointed out that you're setting a
12   standard for ozone and other photochemical
13   oxidants.  You seem to have dropped the second
14   part of that, and all photochemical oxidants
15   are important for respiratory problems.  They
16   cause inflammation of the lung, and this is a
17   serious concern for plants, animals, and
18   people.
19               Now, 20 years ago, they also
20   advised you of the very wide variability of
21   response of subjects, and normally we drop the
22   defensible, scientifically defensible
23   standard, which is 60 parts per billion, by a
24   factor of ten; in other words, in one order of
25   magnitude, down to six parts per billion, in
0254
 1   order to allow for this variation, and I would
 2   recommend that you look at that.
 3               Now, the protection of sensitive
 4   animals, plants, and crops, that's our
 5   life-support system, and it's rather
 6   ridiculous to protect human health and not
 7   protect the plants that we depend on for our
 8   survival.  And not just cash crops, but we
 9   need to protect everything that's contributing
10   to the health and the bio diversity of our
11   natural ecosystem.
12               These photochemical oxidants
13   depend on the nitrous oxides and the volatile
14   organic compounds, so they're secondary to
15   sunlight NOxs and VOCs.  The mandate is for
16   public health, and it should not reflect any
17   accomodation to industry, but it should also
18   limit the NOxs and VOCs, otherwise it's a
19   useless attempt to stop the smog.
20               I think it should be taken into
21   consideration that over the last 20 years, we
22   have seen an increase of about double in
23   asthma, we've also seen that the population
24   over 65 has an increased rate of chronic
25   obstructive pulmonary disease; moreover, the
0255
 1   surgeon general has just expressed concern
 2   about the obesity crisis and has been
 3   encouraging people to do more outdoor
 4   exercise, like jogging.  This would make it a
 5   very high risk group for ozone pollution.  So
 6   you can't recommend outdoor activity at the
 7   same time that you're careless about your smog
 8   levels, and I think the protective
 9   ground-level ozone is very important, if
10   you're going to be promoting outdoor
11   exercises.
12               Now, I would add, as a
13   mathematician, that that business of rounding
14   to the nearest ten is done in order to
15   randomize your errors, but when you're dealing
16   with public health, you don't want to
17   randomize your errors; you would like to make
18   your regulations, by setting an upper limit,
19   and say below, say, 0.060, and then 0.061
20   would be breaking the regulation.  So I
21   wouldn't leave it so lose, as it seems to be
22   currently.
23               Thank you very much for your
24   time.
25               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Dr.
0256
 1   Bertell.  Let me make one clarification.  The
 2   rounding that you just finished --
 3               DR. BERTELL:  Yes.
 4               MR. PAGE:  -- that is being
 5   proposed to be eliminated, just so --
 6               DR. BERTELL:  That should be
 7   eliminated, yes.
 8               MR. PAGE:  Well, the equipment is
 9   in much better technical shape now than --
10               DR. BERTELL:  Well, it's
11   inappropriate for public health.
12               MR. PAGE:  So we are proposing
13   and taking comment on it, but we are also
14   proposing to eliminate the rounding, as you've
15   mentioned.
16               DR. BERTELL:  But your proposal
17   for the ecosystem is very much out of bounds.
18               MR. PAGE:  And I hear that and I
19   hear you want it to be straightened out.
20               DR. BERTELL:  Yeah.
21               MR. PAGE:  Yes, ma'am.  Thank you
22   very much for coming today.  I appreciate it.
23               The next two speakers that we
24   have, and we're asking the speakers to come up
25   two at a time, please, is Mr. Al Taubenberger
0257
 1   and Rachael Truchil.
 2               Mr. Taubenberger, I've got you
 3   registered as the next speaker, and then,
 4   Rachael, you'll follow him.
 5               MR. TAUBENBERGER:  Thank you.
 6   I'll be brief and won't take up much time of
 7   the commission, but I do thank you very much
 8   even for the opportunity to say a few words.
 9               I'm the republican nominee for
10   mayor of the city of Philadelphia.  I'm not
11   going to speak about a lot of scientific
12   matters.  I'll leave that for other experts.
13   But I'll tell you a little bit of a philosophy
14   that I think is being done and I think needs
15   to be done as well.
16               The quality of air in a big city
17   is most important.  It makes a difference in
18   people's lives, their health, their
19   well-being, and how much they like to be in
20   the city or not.  I think the mayor is limited
21   in what he or she can do just because of the
22   position of a municipality as opposed to the
23   federal government, but there are things that
24   they can do, one of which is to use hybrid
25   cars whenever possible or cars that run on
0258
 1   batteries, using the most modern technology to
 2   stay away from fossil fuels, urging and being
 3   very supportive of mass transit to go back to
 4   trolleys, to go back and use the subway
 5   system.  I, for one, plan to set an example by
 6   doing what Mayor James H.J. Tate did years
 7   ago, which is taking the subway to work, and I
 8   think that sets the tone for a lot of things.
 9               The one thing the mayor of the
10   city of Philadelphia has is a great pulpit,
11   which I intend to use.  Also, getting back to
12   mass transit, I think that an emphasis has to
13   be put back on trolley cars, electrical
14   trolley cars.  They're retro in appeal and so
15   on, and I think will go a great deal, and
16   people would like to ride them because it
17   might be perceived as fun and also not only
18   just functional as far as getting them to
19   work, but stylish, and maybe stepping back in
20   time as well.
21               I'm also going to try to convince
22   my staff, my campaign manager who's here
23   today, to stop smoking.  That will clean up
24   the air in my immediate vicinity.  I think
25   that's very important as well.  Doing the best
0259
 1   that we all can do to keep the air as clean as
 2   possible will make a great deal of difference,
 3   and educating the public, as well, on the
 4   dangers of those pollutants is also very
 5   important, so we all stand up together,
 6   because our lives are all at stake.  It's a
 7   better place and a better city and a better
 8   country if we can breathe cleaner air.
 9               Thank you very much.
10               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
11   today.
12               Rachael?
13               MS. TRUCHIL:  My name is Rachael
14   Truchil.  I'm a third-year medical student at
15   the University of Pennsylvania, and I'm a
16   student leader at the (inaudible) for social
17   responsibility.  I am studying to be a
18   pediatrician, and I believe that air pollution
19   is a public health problem.
20               We know that ozone is an oxidant
21   and when you breathe it in, it affects the
22   airway and causes a inflammatory response that
23   increases the risk of kids having
24   exacerbations of their asthma.  And so in my
25   pediatric rotation at Children's Hospital,
0260
 1   which I finished a few months ago, when I was
 2   on the inpatient service, I saw there was
 3   always multiple patients suffering from asthma
 4   attacks in our service, and when I was on my
 5   outpatient rotation, I mean, that was a large
 6   majority of the patients that I saw, were kids
 7   with asthma.  And ozone levels, when they're
 8   elevated, really increased the number of
 9   asthma exacerbations that kids have.  And for
10   those of you who have seen a child have a
11   serious asthma attack, you know how scary it
12   is for the patient, the patient's family, and
13   also all the healthcare providers caring for
14   the child.  That patient is basically fighting
15   to breathe, and every breath that they take is
16   one that requires a lot of effort and it feels
17   that they can't get enough air and that
18   they're breathing through a straw, and it's
19   very scary.  You know, sometimes patients have
20   to go to the emergency room for asthma
21   exacerbations.  Sometimes they have to be
22   admitted.  Sometimes they need a breathing
23   tube.  Sometimes they need time in the
24   intensive care unit.  And there's a risk of a
25   whole bunch of things.  And people do die of
0261
 1   asthma attack, so it's a very serious issue,
 2   one that I've seen a lot of here in
 3   Philadelphia.
 4               And there also is a huge strain
 5   on the healthcare system as well.  I remember
 6   this one 14-year-old girl who was on my
 7   service and this was her fourth admission just
 8   in the past half a year.  It's really very
 9   upsetting when you see these kids come in and
10   they're just unable to really get their
11   breath.
12               Basically, I just want to
13   emphasize that the current standards don't
14   adequately protect the health and that there's
15   overwhelming evidence of the deleterious
16   effects of ozone, even at levels below the
17   current standard.  So I would really urge the
18   EPA to finally have a lower ozone standard so
19   that we can maintain an adequate margin of
20   safety for public health, and that's
21   consistent with recommendations that have been
22   made from scientific advisors.
23               Thank you.
24               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
25   very much for coming by today.
0262
 1               Our next two speakers are Eric
 2   Cheung and Ruth Lachman-Sueker.
 3               If I've mispronounced either of
 4   your names, please help me correct that.
 5   Eric, you're the first speaker I have here.
 6               MR. CHEUNG:  My name is Eric
 7   Cheung.  I am the senior attorney at the Clean
 8   Air Council.  Clean Air Council was founded in
 9   1967 as a citizen-based non-profit
10   organization to address the growing
11   environmental problems in the greater
12   Philadelphia region, especially their impact
13   on air quality.  Today the council has
14   approximately 8,000 members throughout
15   Pennsylvania and Delaware.
16               The council works through a
17   combination of public education, community
18   advocacy, and oversight of government
19   enforcement of environmental laws to ensure
20   that all residents of Pennsylvania and
21   Delaware live in a healthy environment.
22   Responses to our comments can be sent back to
23   us at our address.
24               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
25               MR. CHEUNG:  Despite steady
0263
 1   progress over the last 30 years, the air
 2   quality in the Philadelphia Metropolitan
 3   Statistical Area and other major areas of
 4   Pennsylvania remain a major public health
 5   threat to people of Pennsylvania and Delaware.
 6   Elevated ozone levels translate into direct
 7   health costs to the citizens of Pennsylvania
 8   and Delaware.  It is imperative, therefore,
 9   that the US EPA take seriously its duty to
10   establish and National Ambient Air Quality
11   Standard for ozone that is truly protective of
12   public health.  In fact, the Clean Air Act
13   requires EPA to not only establish a health
14   standard that will protect our most vulnerable
15   citizens, including the elderly, the young,
16   and people with heart and respiratory
17   problems, but the standard must additionally
18   provide for an adequate margin of safety.
19               The EPA last revised the ozone
20   standard in 1997, when the agency established
21   a new 8-hour average air quality standard for
22   ozone.  The CASAC, EPA's own science advisory
23   committee, was unanimous in concluding that
24   the present standard was protective of public
25   health.  Indeed, the EPA's own science
0264
 1   advisors, after reviewing the latest study,
 2   has concluded that the standards should be
 3   tightened to a range of 0.070 ppm to 0.060
 4   parts per million.  If the new standard is to
 5   truly protect the health of children, the
 6   elderly, and other sensitive groups, we
 7   believe the standard should be 0.060 parts per
 8   million.
 9               The council is also particularly
10   concerned with the issue of rounding.  The
11   present 8-hour average standard of 0.080 ppm
12   has effectively become a weaker standard of
13   0.085 ppm due to the rounding convention.
14   Monitored concentrations up to 0.084 ppm are
15   rounded down to 0.080 ppm.  In other words,
16   violations of the standard are not measured
17   until concentrations reach 0.085 ppm for more
18   than several days each year in a three-year
19   period.
20               Under the present policy,
21   exceedences are not reported until the fourth
22   highest maximum concentration averaged over
23   three years reaches 0.085 ppm or above, and
24   this effectively results in a weaker standard
25   and less protection of public health.
0265
 1               According to the CASAC panel,
 2   ozone monitoring instrumentation is now
 3   precise enough to allow ozone concentrations
 4   to be measured to a third significant digit.
 5   Adding a significant digit to the standard, as
 6   unanimously endorsed by the CASAC ozone panel,
 7   will eliminate the rounding problem, and,
 8   therefore, the council strongly supports EPA's
 9   proposal to eliminate the rounding loophole
10   and to set a standard in terms of three
11   significant digits.
12               We do reserve the right to submit
13   additional comments in writing during the
14   comment period.
15               Thank you very much for the
16   opportunity to comment on the proposed NAAQS
17   revisions.
18               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you,
19   Eric.
20               Ruth?
21               MS. LACHMAN-SUEKER:  My name is
22   Ruth Lachman-Sueker.  This is my first public
23   hearing of my life.  I'm here as a citizen, as
24   a mother, and as an educator.
25               My 17-year-old son, who's been an
0266
 1   athlete his whole life, developed
 2   exercise-induced asthma this spring.  He
 3   called me from the school, said he had played
 4   basketball, and he could not breathe.  He
 5   never had a history of asthma before.  He has
 6   to carry around an inhaler with him all the
 7   time.  He's still playing sports.  He's
 8   feeling a little bit better.  There was no
 9   question in my mind that the pollution in the
10   city of Philadelphia and in this country
11   caused this to my son.  That's my personal
12   experience.
13               As an educator and as a citizen,
14   I have become involved over the past year in a
15   program called Focus the Nation that works on
16   global warming solutions.  I would like to
17   read briefly a little bit of history having to
18   do with EPA and I'd like to make a comment.
19               In July 2003, it was discovered
20   that for months the EPA had been withholding
21   from Congress its own analysis showing the
22   proposal by moderate Senator Thomas Carper,
23   democrat of Delaware, would be more effective
24   than criticizing reducing pollutants and only
25   marginally more expensive.  The Washington
0267
 1   Post said it would result in 17,800 fewer
 2   premature deaths from (inaudible) air
 3   pollution, clear skies, saving 140 billion a
 4   year in health benefits.  In November 2003,
 5   the EPA announced that it was going to drop
 6   investigation of 60 power plants for past
 7   violations of Clean Air Act.  The EPA
 8   discouraged its staff from discussing this
 9   unprecedented decision to grant power plants a
10   retroactive waiver of the law on the same day
11   the agency also warned employees not to
12   communicate with members of congress, the
13   press, or the public about this change.
14               I have concerns about the EPA and
15   political pressure and industry pressures on
16   the EPA.  I feel very strongly that the EPA is
17   responsible for human health, for the health
18   of the ecosystem in which we live, and I
19   strongly urge the EPA to make an even lower
20   standard.  I feel that we are visibly seeing
21   the effects of pollution on the health of
22   humans and on the health of the ecosystems.
23   They are visible in ways they weren't visible
24   even five years ago.
25               I feel that to make the margin of
0268
 1   safety even larger, I propose it should be
 2   between 0.050 and 0.060 and it should go
 3   further than the recommendation, because I
 4   think that we will all regret it if we don't.
 5   And, again, I feel strongly that the EPA's
 6   primary commitment should be to human and
 7   ecosystem health and not to political pressure
 8   and not to industry pressure.
 9               Thank you very much.
10               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
11   for coming today.  I appreciate your comments.
12               The last speaker for this
13   particular time segment is Michael Parker.
14               Welcome, Michael.
15               MR. PARKER:  Thank you.  Good
16   afternoon.  My name is Michael Parker, and I'm
17   here to give testimony on behalf of the Group
18   Against Smog and Pollution, also known as
19   GASP.  We are an environmental non-profit
20   corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
21   and our mission is to work for the stable
22   environment to which we are entitled.  We
23   thank the Environmental Protection Agency for
24   the opportunity to testify here today.
25               Ozone is a potent oxidant that
0269
 1   can burn our lungs and airways, and its health
 2   effects include reduced lung capacity,
 3   shortness of breath, coughing, wheezing, chest
 4   pain, inflammation and damage to the lining of
 5   the lungs, increased asthma attacks, increased
 6   medication use, increased hospitalizations,
 7   and even premature death.
 8               We are all affected by ozone
 9   pollution.  Numerous studies show that the
10   populations most at risk include children, the
11   elderly, people who work outdoors, people who
12   exercise outdoors, and those with chronic lung
13   disease.  The vast majority of Americans
14   either fall into one of these categories or
15   knows someone who does.
16               Also, ozone pollutants affect
17   vegetation, damaging our crops, our parks, and
18   our green spaces.  Furthermore, the EPA has
19   characterized ozone as a potent greenhouse
20   gas, and climate change affects us all.
21               For all of these reasons, we at
22   GASP feel quite confident in saying that the
23   ozone pollution is a detriment to every
24   American, and we are here today because the
25   EPA has proposed to strengthen the National
0270
 1   Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level
 2   ozone.  GASP strongly urges that the ozone
 3   standard be changed to 0.060 parts per
 4   million, which we believe complies with the
 5   Clean Air Act standards requiring the
 6   protection of public health within an adequate
 7   margin of safety.
 8               We also urge that the rounding
 9   loophole, which change the current standard to
10   0.084 parts per million, be abandoned.
11   Furthermore, GASP also recommends that the
12   secondary National Ambient Air Quality
13   Standard be set in the range recommended by
14   the Clean Air Scientific Committee; that range
15   being 7 ppm-hours to 15 ppm-hours.
16               GASP further requests that EPA
17   reject comments calling for the retention of
18   the current standard of 0.080 parts per
19   million.
20               GASP joins the numerous other
21   environmental public health and government
22   organizations in calling for these stricter
23   standards.
24               We make all these recommendations
25   based upon the findings of the EPA's own Clean
0271
 1   Air Scientific Advisory Committee.  That
 2   committee specifically found that, one, there
 3   was no scientific justification for retaining
 4   the current standard; two, that allowing
 5   states to round monitor readings between 0.081
 6   and 0.084 down to 0.080 is no longer necessary
 7   because of advances in the precision of ozone
 8   monitors; and, that the current standard does
 9   not provide an adequate margin of safety
10   required by the Clean Air Act.
11               Why does th Clean Air Scientific
12   Advisory Committee make these recommendations?
13   There are numerous clinical and
14   epidemiological studies showing that ozone
15   reduces lung function even in healthy adults;
16   that low levels of ozone cause respiratory
17   symptoms in infants; that the ozone can change
18   lung structure; that large populations are
19   sensitive to ozone; that ozone worsens
20   existing asthma and may cause asthma; that
21   ozone causes hospital admissions and emergency
22   room trips; and that ozone can increase the
23   risk of premature death.  For all these
24   reasons, GASP strongly urges that the ozone
25   National Ambient Air Quality Standard be
0272
 1   changed in accordance with the recommendations
 2   of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
 3   Committee, and specifically, that the lower
 4   end of the committee's range for the primary
 5   standard, that is, 0.060 parts per million, be
 6   chosen as the new standard.
 7               Thank you for the opportunity to
 8   be here today.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
10   here today.
11               We'll take a break and wait for
12   more people to come in and register and
13   continue with the hearing here shortly.
14                       - - -
15               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
16   from 3:58 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.)
17                      - - -
18               MR. PAGE:  Nancy, you're ready to
19   go?  Very good.  Thank you for coming by, and
20   we gather you're ready to present your
21   remarks?
22               MS. HIP (PH):  Okay.
23               MR. PAGE:  If you could spell
24   your name, also, for the court reporter.
25   We're doing a transcript of this, and all of
0273
 1   your comments will be entered into the record,
 2   as well as any written materials you want to
 3   leave with us.
 4               MS. HIP:  My name is Nancy Hip,
 5   and I'm a senior citizen.  I'm a retired
 6   school psychologist and coordinator of special
 7   education.  The group that I am here to lobby
 8   for are Oxygen Dependent Beings.  So far I
 9   believe I'm the only lobbyist with this
10   particular name.  Now, the particular cohort
11   of the group that I am representing are the
12   children, the little people, the
13   oxygen-dependent little people.
14               When I first began my career,
15   there would be a small number of children who
16   brought inhalers to school with their school
17   books, and those children would, during the
18   course of the day, if they needed to use the
19   inhaler, would use it.  By the time I had
20   finished my career, seven years ago, children
21   were no longer allowed to carry them around
22   with them in the school setting because
23   there's a drug inside, and they needed to have
24   them administered by someone, the school
25   nurse.
0274
 1               When I retired, at that time,
 2   those drugs were being brought in and given to
 3   the school nurse, and then at multiple times
 4   in the course of the day, children would be
 5   lining up at the nurse's office -- actually
 6   there were two lines:  one for the inhalers
 7   and one for the Ritalin.  My concern is the
 8   number of children.  When I saw these sad
 9   little lines lining up, I thought, what is the
10   problem?  What are we doing to theses kids?
11   There only used to be a few of them.  The air
12   feels as nice as it used to be.  Well, it's
13   not as nice as it used to be in 1997, when the
14   controls were not good then, and it definitely
15   was not that good seven years ago, and it's
16   worse.  And I'm sure that the sad little lines
17   are longer.
18               So the reason I am here
19   representing my people is because I want you,
20   when you return to Washington, to be the
21   people's voice on this issue of air quality
22   and what is needed.  I want you to speak for
23   people.  But first, before you do that, I want
24   you to visit your child's school, or if don't
25   have a child of your own, visit someone else's
0275
 1   child's school and watch the sad little lines,
 2   the sad little parades and ask yourself what
 3   we're doing to our future, our children, and
 4   that's the message that I would like to have
 5   taken back to Washington.
 6               Thank you.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
 8   for your comments.
 9               Audience Member:  What do we do
10   if no one else?
11               MR. PAGE:  Off the record.
12                       - - -
13               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
14   from 4:39 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.)
15                       - - -
16               MR. PAGE:  Mr. Lourdan?
17               MR. LOURDAN:  My name is Denny
18   Lourdan, and I'm from the Boston area.  I used
19   to work for Greenpeace, so I know all about,
20   you know, what's going on with the
21   environment, the ecology, you know, and -- but
22   I'm here to talk about two people.  My
23   brother, Bob Lourden, he was a teacher.  He
24   just retired from the Muldoon (ph) School
25   District, after, you know, teaching for 40
0276
 1   years.  But I grew up with him wheezing, you
 2   know, and going for that Albuterol all the
 3   time, so I'm here to talk for him.  You know,
 4   I know how desperately we need to reduce the
 5   ozone so that he can breathe easier.  When I
 6   got married to my wife, Lisa Weinberg (ph),
 7   her brother, Jeff, is also an asthmatic, so
 8   I'm here to speak for him as well.  I love
 9   these two men very dearly, and that's why I'm
10   here today.
11               I want to thank Penn
12   Environmental for setting this up.  It's the
13   most important thing and it's really the
14   greatest that they exist.  They're as good as
15   Greenpeace at getting it done.  I have signed
16   up for everything they do online, but I also
17   told my daughter, Leona (ph), about you and
18   told her I was going to be here today -- and
19   my son too, Jeremy.  Jeremy also is borderline
20   asthmatic, so I'm also here for him.
21               It's really sad, last year when
22   Jeff got a present from his dad, Kenny
23   Weinberg, of a breathing machine, you know,
24   so...
25               I guess that's all I have to say.
0277
 1               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Thank you for
 2   coming by.  We appreciate you making the
 3   effort.
 4               MR. LOURDAN:  Thank you very much
 5   for having this.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.
 7               MR. LOURDAN:  The pleasure is all
 8   mine.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Any more speakers or
10   are we...
11                       - - -
12               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
13   from 4:48 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.)
14                       - - -
15               MR. PAGE:  I don't believe I got
16   your name.
17               MS. LAVELLE:  It's Alice.  My
18   name is Alice-Eve LaVelle, and Alice-Eve is a
19   hyphenated first name.
20               MR. PAGE:  How do you spell your
21   last name?
22               MS. LAVELLE:  L-A-capital V, as
23   in victory-E-L-L-E.  And believe it or not,
24   it's Irish.  We're Bell Telephone Bells.
25   That's why we capitalized it.  One of my aunts
0278
 1   decided she wanted to put on airs and make it
 2   look French.  But there are no French
 3   LaVelles.
 4               MR. PAGE:  All right.
 5               MS. LAVELLE:  Okay.  Well, I'm a
 6   native Philadelphian and a naturalized Texan,
 7   and I lived here for most of 40 years of my
 8   life.  I began life as a very active, skinny
 9   kid, who could, because I loved horses, leap
10   over two picnic benches, one on top of the
11   other, like it was nothing.  They didn't let
12   girls go and run for track in my day, so, you
13   know, all of that.
14               But I began to, as I became an
15   adult, have less and less ability to breathe.
16   Part of that was due to my father's smoking,
17   but not all of it.  The climate here is crappy
18   anyway, and then with the smog and so forth,
19   it gets worse and worse.  I have, according to
20   one doctor, the lung capacity of an
21   80-year-old.  And as time came, I could not
22   move around as much, so I got heavier and
23   heavier and could move around less.
24               At 40, I moved down to Texas,
25   into Austin, which was a wonderful place.
0279
 1   Then George Bush became governor and the place
 2   became incredibly crowded.  It went from
 3   350,000 people to over a million almost
 4   overnight.  It's a constant traffic jam down
 5   there.  It takes hours to get from one end to
 6   the other; it used to take 20 minutes.  And I
 7   began to not be able to breathe even more, and
 8   I have now the little Albuterol thing to carry
 9   around.
10               This is pretty upsetting.  When I
11   moved back up here, it was because of -- we
12   all got too poor to be able to stay there,
13   unless you were very well off.  And I moved to
14   a couple of places, and then I was living in
15   Holmesdale, Pennsylvania, in the Poconos.  I
16   lived at the top of a hill.  It took me 20
17   minutes to walk from my house to the town part
18   to where the shopping area was, but it took me
19   an hour and a half to walk back up the hill
20   home because I can't breathe.  This is insane.
21               And I love my cars as much as
22   anybody.  Texans are -- first we creep, then
23   we crawl, then we drive.  But this is getting
24   crazy.  And all of this nonsense about keeping
25   the levels higher so the oil companies and
0280
 1   power companies and so forth can continue to
 2   pollute is crazy.  The rest of the world and
 3   those people like us, we're your canaries, and
 4   when we're dying, you are too.  You know, I
 5   read about how they're trying to leave it
 6   until 2050 for these companies to come to
 7   compliance with various things.  We don't have
 8   that kind of time.  This earth doesn't have
 9   that kind of time.  And I can buy my cars from
10   Europe and Japan, where they're actually
11   paying attention to getting better gas mileage
12   and using less fossil fuels.  I think that
13   once I can afford again to have a car, that's
14   what I'll do.
15               And if we don't strengthen this
16   up and we -- we don't have much time.  We have
17   maybe 10 years, 20 at tops, to get this
18   straightened out.  And if 0.060 is a goal, I
19   think it needs to be the actual absolute
20   maximum and you need to even bring it down
21   further than that.  And it can be done.  I
22   have no doubt that Detroit already has all the
23   things on the books to start with cars that
24   are better now, and that oil companies can
25   straighten up.  They can change and they can
0281
 1   use -- they can put their money into something
 2   different.
 3               The other day, I heard that five
 4   nations are trying now to go up and claim the
 5   Arctic ice cap and the petroleum that's
 6   underneath it.  At the same time, the next
 7   thing on 60 Minutes two weeks ago was what is
 8   happening to the Arctic and the Antarctic and
 9   how desperate this situation is.  We don't
10   have time.  We need to do this as strictly as
11   possible.
12               I'm tired of the EPA having to
13   become the IPA, the industrial protection
14   agency.  And I'm not talking about you or
15   talking you all down, but I know that you've
16   been given some really rotten people to work
17   for by this administration.  They don't care
18   about us.  They don't care about whether we
19   breathe.  And enough is enough.  We need to
20   have a clean world because everybody is going
21   to die with this, not just the poor, not just
22   the middle class.  There's not an amount of
23   money in the world that's going to save us if
24   we keep destroying the environment we live in.
25                       - - -
0282
 1               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
 2                       - - -
 3               MS. LAVELLE:  Can I get one more
 4   second?
 5               MR. PAGE:  (Indicating.)
 6               MS. LAVELLE:  I talked to a woman
 7   one day who was talking about "the
 8   environment," "the environment," like it was
 9   something nasty.  It's where we live.  We're
10   part of it.  We have got to protect it.
11               Thank you.
12               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
13   for coming by.  Appreciate it.
14               MS. LAVELLE:  Oh.  Just one more
15   thing I wanted just to note generally.  I was
16   born and raised here, on the Main Line,
17   upper-middle class, plenty of money.  I am now
18   living in a rooming house that is rat-infested
19   on $657 a month disability, SSI.  I cannot go
20   up and down the stairs in my building very
21   easily.  I was not raised to live like this.
22   Think about it.  If it can happen to me, it
23   can happen to anybody.
24                       - - -
25               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
0283
 1   from 5:12 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.)
 2                       - - -
 3               MR. PAGE:  Kate, thank you for
 4   coming by.  Have you been given material out
 5   at the front?
 6               MS. HAWK:  I have.
 7               MR. PAGE:  You're properly
 8   registered and all?
 9               MS. HAWK:  I am.
10               MR. PAGE:  Good.  All right.
11   We'll look forward to your comments then.
12   Thank you.
13               MS. HAWK:  Thank you.  My name is
14   Kate Hawk, and I'm a second-year medical
15   student at Drexel University of Medicine and a
16   student leader with Physicians for Social
17   Responsibility and the American Medical
18   Student Association.
19               I urge the EPA to follow the
20   recommendations of their Clean Air Scientific
21   Advisory Committee and set the 8-hour ozone
22   limit for 0.060 parts per million.  As a
23   medical student, I feel it's an important part
24   of my responsibility to advocate for the
25   health of future patients and the overall
0284
 1   health of our country.  Current standards do
 2   not adequately protect the health of our
 3   county and scientific evidence shows that smog
 4   is a powerful lung irritant, leads to reactive
 5   airway disease, asthma -- I mean, I know you
 6   guys have been hearing this all day.  I'm
 7   sorry.
 8               MR. PAGE:  That's all right.
 9               MS. HAWK:  But I guess my point
10   is that this isn't just -- it's not even
11   amongst our most vulnerable populations.  This
12   is one of the things that seems to strewn
13   about.  I am currently -- almost 29.  I moved
14   to Philadelphia three years ago.  I had no
15   problems with respiratory illnesses at all.
16   In less than four months of living in downtown
17   Philadelphia, I developed asthma.  So this is
18   something that I both, you know, I see in
19   clinic, certainly with kids, older
20   populations, but I also have experienced it
21   myself.
22               So I guess to sum up, I don't
23   feel like the current recommendations really
24   satisfy the margin of safety, and I really
25   urge the EPA to uphold its obligation to
0285
 1   protect public health.
 2               Thank you very much.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming
 4   by.  I know you have a busy schedule, and we
 5   appreciate your comments.
 6               MS. HAWK:  Thank you so much.
 7                       - - -
 8               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
 9   from 5:26 p.m. to 5:52 p.m.)
10                       - - -
11               MR. PAGE:  Claudia, are you
12   ready?
13               MS. CRANE:  Yes.
14               MR. PAGE:  Registered and
15   everything?
16               MS. CRANE:  Yes.
17               MR. PAGE:  For the sake of our
18   court reporter, would you spell your last
19   name?
20               MS. CRANE:  Crane is my last
21   name, C-R-A-N-E.  Claudia is my first,
22   C-L-A-U-D-I-A.
23               I'm an asthma sufferer, but so
24   what?  Don't we all have the right to breathe
25   clean air?  This hearing is sort of
0286
 1   ridiculous.  Why do we even have to keep on
 2   being here at these things over and over
 3   again, talking about, you know, what right do
 4   we have -- the rights we have to breathe clean
 5   air?  No amount of ozone is good; everybody
 6   knows that.  No amount of particulate is good;
 7   everybody knows that.
 8               I call upon the EPA -- I am, of
 9   course, in support of these new smog
10   standards.  But I call upon the EPA, if not in
11   this administration, in the next, to -- this
12   administration, I don't think, is going to
13   support anything -- to do all that it can to
14   -- any process that uses energy causes air
15   pollution of some kind.  Even windmills create
16   air pollution, if only by their construction.
17               So the EPA needs to promote
18   policies that take a global look at the energy
19   inputs into any kind of process and promote
20   those policies that use the least amount of
21   energy cradle to grave.  I mean, obviously,
22   windmills are one end and burning dirty coal
23   is at the other end.
24               I am a bicyclist, that's how I
25   get around, so I'm very aware of the air I
0287
 1   breathe all the time.  I'm confronted with it
 2   all the time.  I live in the city, but some
 3   suburbanites are just as much confronted; they
 4   just don't realize it.  I'm a member of the
 5   Clean Air Council, Penn Environment.  I'm a
 6   nurse, a registered nurse, so I have some
 7   modicum of scientific literacy.  And I'm so
 8   annoyed that this stuff has to keep getting
 9   repeated over and over again.  You know, I've
10   been an activist, as much as I can be in the
11   time I have, for all kinds of environmental
12   stuff for many years.
13               Let the EPA do whatever it can --
14   let it make -- make environmentalism
15   patriotic.  We need to wrap the flag around
16   it.  EPA should come up with an environmental
17   quotient, you know, as opposed to IQ and EQ,
18   and have some sort of checklist that
19   individuals and corporations can score
20   themselves on and make it -- you know, it's
21   just -- the (inaudible) is just missing
22   because we really need the government to take
23   the lead on it, and it's not.  And I hope it
24   happens soon.  If not, again, in this
25   administration, but in the next.
0288
 1               Thank you very much.
 2               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
 3   for coming by and sharing your comments.  If
 4   you want to give your written comments so we
 5   can put them in the docket --
 6               MS. HAWK:  I'll mail them later.
 7               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  You have until
 8   October 9th.
 9               MS. HAWK:  Okay.
10               MR. PAGE:  Terrific.
11                       - - -
12               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
13   from 5:56 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)
14                       - - -
15               MR. PAGE:  Just for the record, I
16   want to let people know that we're now going
17   to take our scheduled break.  We'll be back at
18   7:30 and start the meeting portion.
19                       - - -
20               (Whereupon, a dinner recess was
21   taken, from 6:00 p.m. to 7:43 p.m.)
22                       - - -
23                MR. PAGE:  Welcome, Dr. Emmett.
24   You'll be our first speaker of the evening.
25   During different segments of the day, we've
0289
 1   stopped to kind of go over the EPA's proposal,
 2   et cetera.  I have been told that you're very
 3   familiar with the EPA's proposal and you don't
 4   need the three-minute intro, that kind of
 5   stuff; that you came ready to fire away.  So
 6   we are ready to hear you.
 7               DR. EMMETT:  Okay.  And I will
 8   apologize because I'm getting a migraine, so
 9   reading's going to be real exciting right now.
10               MR. PAGE:  Well, then you sure
11   don't need me yammering at you for 20 minutes,
12   so let's call a truce and you dive in.
13               DR. EMMETT:  My name is Gary
14   Emmett.  I a professor of pediatrics at Thomas
15   Jefferson University, one of the founding
16   members of Philadelphia Allies Against Asthma,
17   I'm chair of Providers Committee that produced
18   the Philadelphia State Asthma Action Plan, and
19   I'm also a member of the Board of Health for
20   the City of Philadelphia.  Maybe a little bit
21   more relevant, I am the pediatric consultant
22   for the Region 3 EPA, in terms of asthma.
23               One out of every six children in
24   Philadelphia has an asthma attack during
25   childhood.  Asthma is the number one medical
0290
 1   cause of school absenteeism in Philadelphia.
 2   A major cause of childhood asthma
 3   exacerbations is air pollution.
 4               According to a May 2007 EPA
 5   handout:  Asthma prevalence is inversely
 6   related to wealth, so that the poorest people
 7   with the least resources are the ones most
 8   affected by this often life-threatening
 9   disease; asthma is the most prevalent chronic
10   disease of childhood; indoor air pollution --
11   secondhand smoke, dust mites, cockroaches --
12   and outdoor pollution -- ozone and particulate
13   matter -- contribute to asthma attacks.
14               When ozone levels are high, more
15   people with asthma have attacks that require a
16   doctor's care.  Indoor causes of asthma are
17   more likely to set off an attack when the
18   outdoor levels are raised.
19               Internationally, increased ozone
20   levels, particularly from truck exhaust, are
21   major promoters of asthma.  Children living
22   along busy truck routes are found in multiple
23   countries to have 60 percent or more chances
24   of having an asthma attack.  In southern
25   California, communities with high ozone
0291
 1   concentrations, children who played outside
 2   had three times higher chance of developing
 3   asthma than those who played in less
 4   concentrated ozone environments.
 5               According to Joel Schwartz, a
 6   professor at the Harvard School of Public
 7   Health, a number of papers have reported that
 8   prenatal exposure to air pollution results in
 9   early fetal loss, premature delivery, and
10   lower birth weight.  In short, maternal
11   exposure to air pollution during pregnancy is
12   associated with adverse birth outcomes and
13   adverse perinatal outcomes.  At the same time,
14   multiple papers have shown that raised ozone
15   and particulate levels can cause predominance
16   of the TH-2 hormonal immunity over the TH-1
17   cellular immunity, and we know this
18   displacement of TH-1 by TH-2 is associated
19   with increased levels of asthma.  Significant
20   air pollution is associated with increased
21   childhood deaths, especially among
22   adolescents.
23               Ozone levels are high in the
24   summer when the sun is shining and lower at
25   night and in the winter.  Unfortunately, ozone
0292
 1   is highest when children are outdoors and most
 2   likely to be affected by it.  High ozone
 3   levels in Paris, France are strongly
 4   associated with increased physician house
 5   calls for asthma treatment.
 6               During the Atlanta Olympic ban on
 7   trucks and cars, asthma emergency visits to
 8   regional hospitals to Atlanta went down by
 9   more than 50 percent.
10               College freshman have their lung
11   functions go down as the ozone levels of their
12   surroundings increase.  Ozone and/or
13   particulate material, especially that produced
14   by trucks, are associated at all ages of
15   childhood with increased asthma exacerbation.
16               I'm a primary caregiver for over
17   3,000 children in the city of Philadelphia.
18   One of my patients is a multiply handicapped
19   young man with congenital heart disease,
20   congenital lung disease, and the residua of a
21   stroke that has left him partially paralyzed.
22   He is 13 years old and would like to do
23   nothing better than go outside and enjoy the
24   summer sun, and within his limited abilities,
25   he loves to hit, throw, and hobble around the
0293
 1   baseball fields, just as any other 13-year-old
 2   boy would like to.  Unfortunately, on a day
 3   when pollution is higher, especially late in
 4   the afternoon in the summer, he literally
 5   cannot step out of his house and breathe
 6   without developing an asthma exacerbation and
 7   the need for more oxygen.  He is trapped in
 8   the house if the ozone level goes up from its
 9   Philadelphia baseline.  He doesn't have much
10   he can do with his ravaged body other than
11   play carefully outside, and even then, his
12   play is very limited.  Ozone makes it
13   impossible.
14               In short, we know ozone hates
15   children -- hurts children.  We know ozone
16   specifically affects children like my young
17   friend.  Driving down the average level of
18   ozone, and more importantly, driving down the
19   peak levels of ozone, will enable all our
20   children to enjoy the warmth of every summer
21   afternoon.
22               Thank you.
23               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
24   for coming by.
25                       - - -
0294
 1               (Whereupon, the timer went off.)
 2                       - - -
 3               DR. EMMETT:  I guess I was done.
 4   Do you have any questions?
 5               MR. PAGE:  No.  No.  Thank you
 6   very much, sir.
 7               DR. EMMETT:  Do you want a copy?
 8               MR. PAGE:  Absolutely, yes.  They
 9   usually take a copy of it right when you get
10   in the doorway.
11               DR. EMMETT:  Okay.  No one asked
12   me when I came in.
13               MR. PAGE:  We'll put it in the
14   record, actually in the docket.  Thank you.
15                       - - -
16               (Whereupon, a recess was taken
17   from 7:50 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
18                      - - -
19               MR. PAGE:  Whenever you're ready,
20   Mr. White.  I guess spelling your name won't
21   be too difficult for the court reporter, Ron
22   White, as far as names go.  Welcome.
23               MR. WHITE:  My name is Ronald
24   White.  For identification purposes, I'm
25   employed as an associate scientist in the
0295
 1   Department of Epidemiology at the Johns
 2   Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
 3   However, I'm presenting my testimony at public
 4   hearing as a private citizen, and I am not
 5   representing Johns Hopkins University.
 6               EPA Administrator Johnson's
 7   forthcoming decision regarding whether to
 8   revise the current ozone standard, and if so
 9   to what level, has enormous potential
10   consequences for the health and welfare of
11   this nation's population.  As I will discuss,
12   the scientific evidence is overwhelming that
13   the current ozone NAAQS is inadequate to
14   protect the health of Americans, particularly
15   the young, the elderly, people with
16   preexisting respiratory disease, and those
17   most exposed to ozone, such as outdoor workers
18   and exercisers.
19               As early as 1990 evidence emerged
20   from human clinical studies conducted in EPA's
21   own laboratories indicating that some healthy
22   young adults exposed to ozone levels of 80
23   parts per billion, which is below the
24   effective 8-hour ozone standard of 84 parts
25   per billion, while exercising for 6.6 hours
0296
 1   responded with clinically relevant reductions
 2   in lung function, respiratory symptoms, and
 3   biochemical evidence of injurious respiratory
 4   inflammation.  By the mid 1990s evidence had
 5   emerged indicating that respiratory tract
 6   inflammation and injury in healthy subjects
 7   persisted beyond initial exposure to ozone and
 8   were not correlated to decrements in lung
 9   function or symptoms, raising concerns that
10   individuals incurring lung injury would not
11   necessarily have exercise-limiting lung
12   decrements or respiratory symptoms and could
13   potentially continue to expose themselves to
14   injurious levels of ozone.
15               Of particular concern was the
16   finding that asthmatics responded with greater
17   respiratory tract inflammation and injury than
18   healthy subjects.  Consistent with this
19   clinical evidence was information from
20   epidemiological studies indicating that mean
21   daily ozone levels as low as 60 parts per
22   billion and above were associated with a 26
23   percent increase in hospital emergency
24   department visits for asthma.  My point in
25   highlighting these older studies is to note
0297
 1   relatively early evidence that exposure to
 2   ozone levels below the effective current ozone
 3   standard is associated with various adverse
 4   respiratory health outcomes, suggesting that
 5   the ozone NAAQS adopted in 1997 was not
 6   sufficient to protect public health let alone
 7   providing an adequate margin of safety as,
 8   required by the Clean Air Act.
 9               The 2006 EPA Ozone Criteria
10   Document does an excellent job of summarizing
11   the massive amount of health study data that
12   has emerged over the past decade, much of
13   which supports and extends the earlier
14   evidence of acute adverse respiratory health
15   effects from ozone exposures below the current
16   NAAQS.  For example, the clinical study by
17   Adams of lung function in healthy adult
18   subjects extends the range of ozone exposures
19   down to 40 parts per billion, and the EPA
20   Ozone Criteria Document notes that lung
21   function decrements of greater than 10
22   percent, which were clinically significant,
23   were found in 7 percent of the subjects
24   undergoing 6.6 hours of moderate exercise at
25   both the 40 and 60 ppb exposure concentrations
0298
 1   when results are corrected for comparison with
 2   filtered air, that is, the ozone-induced
 3   changes.  As previously mentioned, asthmatics
 4   are particularly at risk to the acute effects
 5   of ozone.  Of the four major air pollutants --
 6   ozone, PM10, SO2, and NO2 -- studied by
 7   Mortimer, et al. in eight US cities, multi-day
 8   ozone levels had a small but significant
 9   impact on morning peak expiratory flow lung
10   function in asthmatic children exposed to mean
11   8-hour ozone averaged levels of approximately
12   50 ppb, and an association of ozone levels
13   with increases in respiratory symptoms was
14   found even when excluding days with levels
15   above 80 ppm.  Consistent with the evidence of
16   increased impact of ozone on respiratory
17   symptoms and medication use in asthmatics, the
18   Ozone Criteria Document notes that most of the
19   studies of respiratory hospital admissions in
20   the US and Canada have found associations
21   during the warm seasons with ozone levels as
22   low as 50 ppb.
23               Of particular concern from a
24   public health perspective is the evidence that
25   exposure to ozone levels well below the
0299
 1   current standard is associated with increased
 2   risk of premature death.  Several
 3   well-designed and analyzed US multi-city
 4   epidemiologic studies, which avoid the issues
 5   of limited statistical power and publication
 6   bias potentially associated with single-city
 7   studies, have found robust associations with
 8   increases in ozone levels and all-cause and
 9   cardiovascular death.  Of particular relevance
10   to consideration of the adequacy of the
11   current ozone NAAQS were findings indicating
12   that the association between ozone and
13   mortality was preserved even when data was
14   restricted to 24-hour ozone levels of 60 ppb
15   or less.  In addition, associations between
16   ambient ozone and mortality were found in
17   meta-analyses of time-series studies conducted
18   independently by three different research
19   groups.  A recent study by Bell, et al. found
20   that the relationship between ambient ozone
21   and mortality in 98 US communities was not
22   confounded by PM10 and PM2.5 and that this
23   relationship persisted even when only
24   extremely low ozone levels, less than 10 ppb,
25   were considered, suggesting there are benefits
0300
 1   to reducing ozone concentrations to the lowest
 2   possible levels.
 3               Time limitations prevent further
 4   review of the compelling scientific evidence
 5   that levels of ozone allowed under the current
 6   primary air quality standard are not
 7   protective of public health.  As summarized by
 8   CASAC in their own ozone staff paper review
 9   letter, the health effects associated with
10   ozone levels below the current NAAQS include
11   the following in addition to lung function
12   decrements... "an increase in school
13   absenteeism, increases in hospital emergency
14   department visits among asthmatics and
15   patients with other respiratory diseases, an
16   increase in the hospitalizations for
17   respiratory illness, an increase in
18   respiratory symptoms associated with adverse
19   effects, including chest tightness and
20   medication use, and an increase in mortality
21   reported at levels well below the current
22   standard."  I agree with CASAC's finding that
23   the scientific evidence is compelling that the
24   current ozone standard is not adequate to
25   protect public health.
0301
 1               EPA's risk assessment document
 2   provides documentation of substantial
 3   reductions in premature total, respiratory and
 4   cardiorespiratory deaths, hospital admissions
 5   for respiratory admissions, asthmatic symptoms
 6   in moderate and severe asthmatic children, and
 7   lung function decrements in children at a
 8   level of -- ozone NAAQS level of 64 ppb, the
 9   lowest alternative NAAQS level considered in
10   the risk assessment analysis, when compared
11   with higher alternative standards.  Given both
12   the evidence that low levels of ozone down to
13   and including the range of background
14   concentrations can result in serious adverse
15   health effects, and the substantial
16   interindividual variability in human response
17   to ozone pollution, there are likely to be
18   some sensitive individuals who will not be
19   fully protected from the health effects of
20   ozone even at 60 ppb, the lowest level
21   recommended by CASAC.  In fact, the World
22   Health Organization recently identified an
23   8-hour ozone guideline level equivalent to 51
24   parts per billion as providing adequate
25   protection of public health, though noting
0302
 1   that some health effects may occur below even
 2   this level.  While I concur with CASAC's
 3   finding that the scientific evidence for
 4   adverse effects at levels below 60 ppb are
 5   less certain, I also support their finding
 6   that there are substantial and achievable
 7   gains in public health that can be achieved by
 8   significantly lowering the ozone NAAQS level.
 9               In conclusion, I strongly urge
10   EPA Administrator Johnson to adopt a revised
11   primary ozone standard no higher than 60 ppb
12   averaged over eight hours in order to provide
13   improved public health protection from this
14   pollutant.
15               Thank you.  I'll be happy to
16   answer any questions.
17               MR. PAGE:  No questions.  Thank
18   you for your statement, and we appreciate the
19   effort that you took in coming here.
20               We are calling up our speakers
21   two at a time to save a little bit of time
22   here.  So if Dr. Gwen DuBois and Dr. Richard
23   Humphrey are ready to talk.
24               Have each of you and you all been
25   registered at the front, I gather, and been
0303
 1   told about the five minute limit and...
 2               (Indicating.)
 3               MR. PAGE:  Okay.  Very good.
 4               DR. HUMPHREY:  Is it five total
 5   or five for each?
 6               MR. PAGE:  Five for each.
 7               MS. DUBOIS:  And how do you let
 8   us know?
 9               MR. PAGE:  Good question.  The
10   lights here.  So you've got green, you've got
11   three minutes.  I think at two minutes left,
12   you've got yellow.  And then you're going to
13   hear this really annoying alarm, and it will
14   give you the same reaction that you get from
15   your alarm clock.  It will make you cringe,
16   and that's when your time is up.
17               By the way, I do want to tell you
18   that if you don't get through your statements,
19   the commentary is open until October 9th and
20   we will accept written statements and we'll
21   make it a part of the original record.
22               MS. DUBOIS:  I am Dr. Gwen
23   DuBois, and I'm a busy internist at Sinai
24   Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland and instructor
25   of medical students at Johns Hopkins School of
0304
 1   Medicine.  I'm also the mother of four
 2   children, two whom have asthma despite the
 3   fact that neither in my husband or my family
 4   is there any history of asthma.  The
 5   occurrence of asthma in two of our four
 6   children, despite the lack of family history
 7   puzzled me until I read studies in the
 8   respected journal Lancet, which found that
 9   physically active children who play in
10   communities where there's a high level of
11   ozone pollution were likely to develop
12   new-onset asthma than active children in less
13   ozone polluted environments.
14               I've come to testify in favor of
15   stronger air quality standards for ozone
16   pollution that is consistent with the growing
17   body of evidence that ozone pollution harms
18   and ozone pollution kills.
19               A recent study in the District of
20   Columbia found a statistically significant
21   relationship between pediatric ER visits for
22   asthma, hospital admissions and ozone
23   pollution.  The strongest relationship was
24   seen in five to twelve-year-olds.  And in
25   addition, the higher the level of poverty, the
0305
 1   more likely the risk of the asthma admissions.
 2               Another study from Belgium found
 3   inflammatory changes in the airways of
 4   children at ambient ozone levels below current
 5   air quality standards for that country, and
 6   I'm quite certain that Belgium has lower
 7   standards than the US if they conform with the
 8   World Health Organization standards.
 9               A study from the Harvard School
10   of Public Health that was conducted in 36
11   cities found that a 5 parts per billion
12   cumulative two day increase in ozone was
13   associated with significant increase in COPD
14   and pneumonia admissions.
15               Another study looking at the
16   relationship between serious cardiac
17   arrhythmias and air pollution using data from
18   patients with implantable cardiovert
19   defibrillators, ICDs, found a significant
20   increase in atrial fibrillation associated
21   with ozone concentrations, and, of course,
22   atrial fibrillation is a major cause of
23   stroke, so that means that there is likely
24   more strokes on days when there are higher
25   ozone levels.
0306
 1               A Spanish study found a
 2   correlation between ozone levels and hospital
 3   admissions for cardiovascular and heart
 4   diseases.
 5               The World Health Organization
 6   currently recommends 60 parts per billion
 7   average 8-hour standards.
 8               Canada's standards are 50 parts
 9   per billion, or I guess that's 0.050 parts per
10   million.
11               As we know, EPA's own Clean Air
12   Advisory Committee recommended the standard
13   should be reduced between 0.060 and 0.070
14   parts per million.
15               Dr. Ingbar, president of the
16   American Thoracic Society, called for the EPA
17   -- there's a typo there -- to reduce standards
18   to 0.060 parts per million, and he called the
19   proposed standards of 0.075 unhealthy for
20   America's kids, unhealthy for American
21   seniors, and unhealthy for America.
22               On August 25th -- I don't know
23   how many people here heard -- NPR reported a
24   study about Arvin, California, a city where
25   there are more ozone violations than any other
0307
 1   community in the country.  The reporter
 2   interviewed one of the doctors in the clinic
 3   there.  Of the doctors, 50 percent have
 4   asthma -- and I think the incidence -- I
 5   looked on the Internet and found the incidence
 6   of asthma was 17.5 percent -- and some
 7   children have such severe disease that he
 8   discussed children who couldn't even eat and
 9   read at the same without difficulty.  Looking
10   at Arvin, California, is that the future we're
11   looking at?  Will we need to tell our children
12   to stay inside and play cards rather than swim
13   or play baseball outside, as we used to do?
14               The stockholders not here today
15   are the children or our children's children
16   yet to be born.  Who will speak for them?  Not
17   the lobbyists from trucking or fossil fuel
18   industry, nor the federal administration who
19   has little interest -- not you guys -- in the
20   air we breathe if there are profits to be lost
21   to the fossil fuel industry in cleaning up the
22   air.
23               What about the EPA?  Will you
24   protect from environmental degradation and the
25   loss of life and quality of life that we risk
0308
 1   without the protection, or should we compete
 2   with China to be one of the nations with the
 3   dirtiest air on the planet?  The answer rests
 4   with you.
 5               Thank you.
 6               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
 7   for your statement.
 8               DR. HUMPHREY:  My name is Richard
 9   L. Humphrey.  I am in my 48th year at Johns
10   Hopkins University School of Medicine,
11   enjoying appointments over the years in
12   internal medicine, oncology, pathology, and in
13   the school of public health policy and
14   management.
15               When I began my career in
16   oncology, one of the drugs that we were
17   looking at -- this was a long time ago, of
18   course, but one of the drugs that we were
19   looking at was nitrogen mustard.  And nitrogen
20   mustard was developed during World War I by
21   the Germans for use in the battlefield.  It
22   had a lot of problems because once you
23   released it into the air, it was heavy and it
24   clung to the ground, but change in wind would
25   blow it back on you.  And the purpose of this
0309
 1   nitrogen mustard was to cook the interior
 2   lining of the lungs.  And as it was breathed,
 3   the chemical reaction going on inside the
 4   lungs caused fluids from the body to come into
 5   the lungs, and the person would drown in their
 6   own body fluids.
 7               We were using it because it's
 8   also very effective and helpful in
 9   chemotherapy and was one of the drugs that led
10   to the solution of and cure of Hodgkin's
11   disease when used in combination with other
12   drugs.  But dramatic effects of this drug,
13   when you tried to give it intravenously, if --
14   and it had to be given intravenously -- if it
15   leaked out of a blood vessel at all, the toxic
16   effects of this drug were remarkable.  It
17   would cause extraordinary pain, and as it
18   leaked out, it destroyed the tissues around
19   the vein, in muscle, tendon, bone, skin, and
20   so on, and the patient was left with huge
21   ulcerations, difficult to heal.
22               And as I prepared for my
23   testimony here about this ozone, I don't know
24   why this keeps coming back into my head, but
25   the ozone seemed to me to be very much like a
0310
 1   slow low-level nitrogen mustard that is
 2   exposing children and the elderly people who
 3   go outside to exercise and -- and all of us,
 4   in fact; the air belongs to all of us.  As a
 5   sort of slow-acting nitrogen mustard or a
 6   mustard gas in which we all breathe and that
 7   have the demonstrated toxic effects on the
 8   lungs that are well-documented and -- as
 9   you'll be hearing about from the testimony as
10   you go across the country -- leading to
11   premature deaths, leading to disability,
12   triggering asthma.
13               Asthma is one of the largest
14   costs of chronic illness in the country.
15   Billions of dollars are spent by people who
16   come to the emergency room, have to take
17   medications chronically, are unable to climb
18   and go up and down stairs, loss of employment
19   time, disability, and so on.  The ozone does
20   this, and I encourage you and hope that you
21   will report back to the other folks in the EPA
22   that we need as stringent as possible -- not
23   practical, not economic; those are not the
24   considerations, public health is the thing
25   that is most important -- but that we need to
0311
 1   get our levels down consistent with what's
 2   been published and adopted by other leading
 3   industrial nations in the world -- Canada the
 4   European Union, and so on -- to see if we
 5   can't get rid of some of this chronic nitrogen
 6   mustard gas exposure that we're all exposed
 7   to.
 8               And I appreciate you're being
 9   here and your efforts in this regard, and I
10   know you're going to hear additional similar
11   testimony across the country, but I thought my
12   perspective might be helpful.
13               MR. PAGE:  It is helpful, and we
14   appreciate you being here.
15               MR. HUMPHREY:  Any questions?
16               MR. PAGE:  No.  Thank you.  Thank
17   you very much.  We appreciate you making the
18   effort to be up here to --
19               DR. HUMPHREY:  Sorry we were
20   late.
21               MR. PAGE:  No problem.  No
22   problem at all.
23               The next two speakers we'll call
24   up are Dr. Cindy Parker and Dr. Steven
25   Shapiro.
0312
 1               Welcome.
 2               DR. SHAPIRO:  Thank you.
 3               MR. PAGE:  Dr. Parker, you're the
 4   next one listed here.
 5               DR. PARKER:  Okay.  I am Cindy
 6   Parker.  I'm a preventive medicine physician
 7   at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
 8   Health.  I specialize in environmental health
 9   issues, in particular, climate change and how
10   that interacts with air and water and
11   ecosystems, et cetera.
12               I figured you probably have
13   already heard a lot of information about the
14   direct effects of ozone on human health, so I
15   thought that perhaps I would talk more about
16   the indirect effects of ozone on human health,
17   and that that might be something new.  Who
18   knows.
19               There's truckloads of evidence
20   that ozone causes damage to human lung tissue
21   and such, but it turns out that plants aren't
22   any happier about, quote, breathing ozone,
23   than we are, and it's actually quite damaging
24   to plants, and it actually the whole plant,
25   from the roots to the leaves; it really
0313
 1   affects every life function of the plant; it
 2   reduces growth; it reduces their ability to
 3   reproduce; it reduces their ability to take in
 4   nutrients and to metabolize.  And this is an
 5   important thing for humans because, obviously,
 6   our food system is plant-based, and so
 7   anything that affects the base of our food
 8   chain will also affect our health.  It's not
 9   very reasonable to think about or to talk
10   about a healthy population if we don't have
11   enough to eat.
12               In addition to food crops, ozone
13   also has the same effect on forests and
14   wetlands, for example, that help to filter our
15   water.  It also, then, is intimately involved
16   with how much water availability we have.
17   And, again, without sufficient water, the
18   current health is somewhat meaningless to a
19   population.  So I'd like for you to think
20   about the effects of ozone not just on humans,
21   but then on the other things that we
22   absolutely rely on for our health and for our
23   very well-being.
24               And then how ozone interacts with
25   climate changes is sort of another ballpark
0314
 1   altogether.  It does so in a variety of ways.
 2   One is that climate change is its own separate
 3   stressor for plants and ecosystems, already
 4   causing them to be stressed and to not produce
 5   as well; and then we know that climate change,
 6   warmer temperatures are going to make ozone
 7   concentrations higher, and so there is a real
 8   sort of snowball effect there.
 9               One of the other things is that
10   the summer ozone produces season -- or the
11   warm -- or the warm summer is apt to get quite
12   a bit longer in a warmer world as well.  So
13   even though the dates on the calendar may not
14   change, a functional spring will come earlier,
15   fall will come later, and we'll have a lot
16   more sort of ozone alert time period in there
17   to damage both humans and plants and
18   compromise the ecosystems on which we live.
19               Heat waves in a warmer world are
20   expected to come more frequently, last longer,
21   be more severe, and ozone was actually thought
22   to play a major role in the 45,000-plus deaths
23   in western Europe that occurred during the
24   summer heat wave of 2003.  They're still
25   trying to tease out sort of how many of those
0315
 1   deaths could be directly attributed to ozone
 2   and how many to heat alone.  We may never be
 3   able to split that out completely.  But the
 4   two of them working together, which is what
 5   we're going to have in a warmer world, is a
 6   really deadly combination both for humans and
 7   for the ecosystems.
 8               And in thinking about all the
 9   things together, the direct and the indirect
10   effects to humans, I would urge the EPA and
11   Administrator Johnson to adopt the 8-hour
12   ozone standards that your own CASAC
13   recommended, the lower end of the range of
14   0.060, getting rid of the rounding factor, to
15   0.070 parts per million.  For the secondary
16   standard, I would also recommend that you go
17   with what CASAC has recommended; that the
18   3-month 12-hour W126 parts per million-hours
19   method, with a level no higher than 15 parts
20   per million-hours, which is what CASAC
21   recommended, and, again, preferably much lower
22   than that.
23               Do I still have some time?  If
24   so, one other thing is that there's some
25   complex chemistry involved with whether ozone
0316
 1   is actually adding to climate change or not,
 2   and there's some very new evidence from Jim
 3   Hansen and his group out of the NASA Goddard
 4   Institute of Space Studies showing that
 5   actually with increasing concentrations of
 6   methane forming ozone and then so that the NOx
 7   and the VOCs that we're used to thinking about
 8   as holding ozone and sort of on top of that
 9   background effort, and so we've got sort of
10   double concentrations of ozone and greenhouse
11   gases, again, forming this major snowball
12   effect of climate change.
13               MR. PAGE:  Great.  Thank you for
14   comments.
15               MR. SHAPIRO:  Thank you for
16   allowing us to come talk this evening.  I'm a
17   child psychologist in Baltimore.  I'm
18   community-based.  I work for Johns Hopkins as
19   well.  I'm going to offer a slightly different
20   perspective this evening from the public
21   health perspective.  I talk from a public
22   mental health perspective, which we don't
23   often hear about.  I work with indigent,
24   mult-ethnic families in Baltimore City that
25   are by in large very poor, live in communities
0317
 1   where they're facing pollution from industry
 2   and have limited access to resources.  So
 3   ozone is one of the factors in their life that
 4   we don't often hear about, and I'll talk
 5   briefly in a moment about the data about how
 6   ozone, in particular, affects behavior.
 7               But I'm concerned about children
 8   in part because of some of their physiological
 9   differences from adults.  They have higher
10   breathing rates, greater activity and greater
11   play outdoors, more mouth breathing, more apt
12   to have respiratory tract infections.  All
13   those impact them differently when they're
14   subjected to ozone.
15               And then a case history, an
16   example, might be, I have a client I'll call
17   Vicky.  She lives in intercity subsidized
18   housing.  She has a history of health
19   problems, including asthma, fatigue, high
20   blood pressure.  On high-ozone days,
21   interestingly, she tends to be less
22   functional, she doesn't attend school, she has
23   more difficulty breathing, she tends to be
24   more anxious and so she stays home, and it
25   prevents her from actually doing well
0318
 1   academically, and that's created other
 2   behavioral problems for her.
 3               That's a common case history with
 4   some of the kids we work with.  There is some
 5   mental health research, interestingly, that
 6   looks at ozone.  It looks at ozone apart from
 7   other pollutants, other air pollutants and
 8   also looks at ozone in particular, so I'll go
 9   through some of them.  Importantly, there's an
10   increase in visits to emergency rooms when
11   there are ozone-alert days.  As you probably
12   know, the cost to our kids and families is
13   high because they end up going and spending
14   quite some time in emergency rooms.  There are
15   all kinds of stressors related to sitting in
16   emergency rooms when you experience that.
17               There are several studies,
18   interestingly, that indicate that
19   schizophrenia is associated with higher air
20   pollution and possibly ozone, so it appears
21   that there is a correlation between high rates
22   of schizophrenia that is triggered by ozone
23   and other air pollutants, and that's something
24   to be taken into consideration when we talk
25   about air quality.
0319
 1               There's also risk for
 2   developmental delays in children who have
 3   higher exposure to pollution, including ozone,
 4   and several studies point that out, and
 5   there's also a risk for increased learning
 6   disabilities.
 7               There are a couple of rat studies
 8   and mouse studies that are probably worth
 9   knowing about.  When rats and mice are exposed
10   to ozone in relatively low concentrations,
11   they show greater demonstrations of anxiety,
12   memory deficits, and motor activity losses.
13   And so some of the researchers associate that
14   with humans and say it's possible that they
15   have the same effects in human beings.  We
16   certainly see the increased anxiety and the
17   lowered motor activity when they're exposed to
18   ozone, when our kids are.
19               And there's also this lose
20   connection with increased risk for behavioral
21   disorders when exposed to pollution, including
22   ozone.
23               So as you examine the federal
24   limits for ozone, I hope you'll take into
25   account the public mental health perspective,
0320
 1   which is that our kids are subject to ozone
 2   red-alert days just like everybody else, and
 3   the possible repercussions are quite serious,
 4   and they go beyond just the typical lung
 5   damage that you might hear about, breathing
 6   problems you might hear about and include all
 7   kinds of stressors that actually affect their
 8   lives, their functioning.
 9               Thank us.
10               MR. PAGE:  Thank you for coming.
11   Did you leave your statements of any papers
12   that you wanted that refer to that at the
13   front desk?
14               MR. SHAPIRO:  (Indicating.)
15               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much.
16   Appreciate you coming.
17               Our next speaker is Doug
18   O'Malley.
19               MR. O'MALLEY:  Good evening.  My
20   name is Doug O'Malley.  I'm the field director
21   for Environment New Jersey.  And before I
22   begin, I just wanted to thank the previous
23   testifiers for coming here all the way from
24   Baltimore and for talking on, obviously, a
25   late August night about an issue that everyone
0321
 1   gets, but certainly if you were to say CASAC
 2   on the street, people would think you're
 3   talking about some odd Polish slur.
 4               Environment New Jersey is the new
 5   home for New Jersey NJPIRG, founded in 1972,
 6   the same year of the passage of so many
 7   landmark environmental laws in Washington.
 8   And really since our founding, we've worked to
 9   help enforce the Clean Air Act in New Jersey,
10   bringing lawsuits against some of the state's
11   largest power plants, and then our state
12   government has a strong record of just
13   recently, two years ago, using the Clean Air
14   Act to sue the pants off Martin's Creek, right
15   across the river, in Delaware, which provided
16   more pollution from power plants than all of
17   our facilities.
18               And, really, the reason we're
19   here today is because -- and, obviously, this
20   is not a big crowd, but in a place like
21   Philadelphia, you don't have to go very far --
22   actually, just go across the river, to a
23   neighborhood like Waterfront South in Camden,
24   New Jersey, which has had a long record of
25   environmental justice issues, namely, of
0322
 1   facilities that are violating the Clean Air
 2   Act.  But, really, all of New Jersey and
 3   really all of the northeast is a hazard area.
 4   It is dangerous to be in and to live in,
 5   especially for those who are most vulnerable.
 6               And, really, that's the intent of
 7   the Clean Air Act.  It was passed with the
 8   idea of actually getting a health-protective
 9   standard in our air quality by the late '70s,
10   and that's something that we should not
11   forget.  And I think it's important to
12   understand exactly the magnitude that we're
13   facing, just in one state, for research we
14   help to conduct using the EPA's own documents
15   in a late in 2003 -- or issued in late 2003,
16   using the EPA data, including DP data,
17   (inaudible) data, data from Department of
18   Health.
19               The impacts of ozone,
20   ground-level ozone in New Jersey is intense,
21   and I just want to -- you've heard a lot of
22   stats today, but I just want to read a couple
23   of them.  Respiratory hospital admissions up
24   to 5,900; asthma ER visits, 12,000; asthma
25   attacks up to 30 -- actually, well, not 30 --
0323
 1   300,000; and then restricted activity days, to
 2   adopt the very vague category, is up to 1.7
 3   million.  Those are numbers that should not be
 4   dismissed because, obviously, behind all of
 5   those numbers that we started to hear are our
 6   personal stories, and I'll be submitting some
 7   of the stories that we have heard.
 8               I think it's critical, though, at
 9   the end of the day not only to be talking
10   about who, you know, ideally here and helping
11   to testify on behalf of this rules, which
12   would be a vast majority of the public, but
13   also to talk about who is not here:  folks
14   like the American Electric Power, folks like
15   Edison Electric, folks like GM and Ford, who
16   obviously have a vested interest in not seeing
17   this stronger protections.
18               And that's why at the end of the
19   day, I urge the EPA to listen to their own
20   scientists, to listen to the review, and to do
21   what everyone else has testified to here
22   today, which is to have a health-protective
23   standard that is stronger than what's on the
24   books right now, and it's 0.060 parts per
25   million.
0324
 1               And I want to finish by reading
 2   just a few of the testimonies from people that
 3   we have talked to across the state, and I
 4   think that it brings home why that we have to
 5   listen to the public, we have to listen to the
 6   science, and not to folks like Edison
 7   Electric.
 8               This is from AnneMarie Bomhoff
 9   from Toms River, New Jersey:  My husband has
10   been recently diagnosed with asthma.  He's a
11   police officer who at the beginning of his
12   career seven years ago was running five miles
13   a day at the beach and the police academy.
14   Since then he has served his community as a
15   officer at the Lincoln Tunnel and Newark
16   Liberty Airport -- mainly in the street as a
17   traffic officer.  Obviously, that's some of
18   the highest places you're able to get, you
19   know ground-level ozone.  A year ago he
20   returned home after a shift not feeling well.
21   A few moments later he was gasping for air and
22   falling on the floor.  If I pass out before
23   they come, roll me onto my side, he said.
24   After that, I could not recognize no words,
25   just gurgling.  I called 911 that day and one
0325
 1   other occasion since.  He is currently on two
 2   medications and takes his inhaler several
 3   times a day.  He has no stamina and engages in
 4   few activities.  Consequently, he has gained
 5   weight, unable to cut the lawn, and carry
 6   storage in and out of the attic.  Please clean
 7   up our air so my husband can have the quality
 8   of life that he so deserves, as he happily
 9   serves others.
10               The other are testimony about our
11   children who cannot play outside because of
12   air quality.  They talk about elderly who are
13   affected by this.  They talk about people who
14   pass out because of asthma attacks.  It is
15   clear, and in this situation, the story that I
16   read, a healthy male in his early thirties
17   should not be passing out.  This is clearly
18   being aggravated by the situation and where
19   his job takes him.
20               But I want to again remind the
21   EPA, as you've heard so far so much today,
22   this issue comes down to listening to the
23   science, and we ultimately depend upon the EPA
24   issuing those science-based standards so that
25   at the state level we have a chance to fight
0326
 1   for strong protective measures to ensure that
 2   everyone, not just healthy males, will be able
 3   to breathe the air each and every day.
 4               Thank you.
 5               MR. PAGE:  Thank you, Mr.
 6   O'Malley.  Did you submit your written paper
 7   for the record?
 8               MR. O'MALLEY:  Yes.
 9               MR. PAGE:  Great.  Thank you.
10   Thank you for coming here so late in the
11   evening.  We appreciate it.
12               We have one more registered
13   speaker, and that person's not here right now.
14   If anyone else would like to speak that's not
15   here, we would ask you to register there at
16   the desk right outside in the hall.  We're
17   going to be here until 9:00, waiting on the
18   registered speaker or anybody else who wants
19   to talk, so if you feel so moved, we'll be
20   here.
21                       - - -
22               (Whereupon, a recess was taken,
23   from 8:34 p.m. to 8:36 p.m.)
24                       - - -
25               MR. PAGE:  Welcome, Mr. Benson.
0327
 1               MR. BENSON:  Thank you.  I didn't
 2   have anything necessarily prepared.  This is
 3   rather impromptu.  I just got here about maybe
 4   an hour ago, and I've been listening to a
 5   number -- first of all, my name is Reginald
 6   Benson.  I've been listening to a number of
 7   the comments, and I'm a concerned citizen, of
 8   course, about the environment.  Not only am I
 9   concerned citizen, but I've been seeking out
10   solutions to not only pollution but also
11   environmental issues.  I'm an investment
12   banker, and along the way, I have discovered a
13   number of solutions.
14               We hear a lot of talk about the
15   various problems that we have with the
16   environment as far as pollution is concerned,
17   ozone, various environmental issues.  I
18   happened to be privileged enough to stumble
19   upon one of the solutions, if not the only
20   solution known to mankind right now,
21   literally, for pollution control as well as
22   exhaust and things of that sort.  It's a
23   product that's actually patented.  It has been
24   in existence for about 14 to 15 years.  It is
25   used all over the world.  It's approved by the
0328
 1   US EPA as well as equivalent EPAs around the
 2   world for oil spills, remediation, cleanup,
 3   things of that sort.  It's a product called
 4   Petrotech, or PTI25, which is used to clean up
 5   oil spills and things of that sort, and in
 6   fact, has been, as I've said, used all over
 7   the world.
 8               It's also being used for fire
 9   extinguishing.  It not only extinguishes
10   fires -- let's say a jet fuel fire is burning,
11   let's say 660 gallons of jet fuel is burning
12   for a couple minutes.  Petrotech literally
13   puts that fire out in 50 seconds -- not 50
14   minutes, 50 seconds -- and you can literally
15   take a blow torch to the area and it would not
16   reignite.
17               It's completely environmentally
18   safe, environmentally friendly.  Not only is
19   it environmentally friendly, it literally
20   helps the environment.  It turns the product
21   into fertilizer.  Not only does it put out
22   that 660-gallon jet fuel fire in 50 seconds,
23   it does it with just 80 gallons of water -- a
24   half a gallon of our solution mixed with the
25   water, and the solution itself is never used
0329
 1   in a 100 percent concentrate.  That's how
 2   strong it is.  To put out a jet fuel fire, we
 3   only use a 1 percent solution; so in other
 4   words, 1 percent verses 99 percent form, and
 5   in some cases up to 10 percent.  The only
 6   thing for which we would use a 10 percent
 7   solution is for something heavy, like crude
 8   oil.  As you know, crude oil takes about 22
 9   years for nature to biodegrade it naturally.
10   This stuff is in 22 days.  And as I've said,
11   it's completely environmentally safe.
12               We're proposing to use this -- in
13   fact, I'll be going to China next mouth for
14   about a mouth -- to implement it in China and
15   use it for the Beijing Olympics.  What we're
16   going to be doing is actually taking planes,
17   dust croppers, and literally layering the city
18   overnight, while people are sleeping.  It's
19   completely that safe.  And it will completely
20   eliminate the pollution and the smog.  I don't
21   know if anybody here has been to China, but
22   it's notorious.  This will completely
23   eliminate the pollution.  It
24   microencapsulates, so it doesn't just mask it.
25   It's completely gone.  It doesn't exist.
0330
 1   Gone, period.
 2               We're also proposing to introduce
 3   here in the United States a device called
 4   BEAD, which is B-E-A-D, Bayless Exhaust
 5   Arrestive Device.  What that device does, it's
 6   a device that's installed on smokestacks as
 7   well as exhaust pipes of automobiles.  So if
 8   you have an automobile that's an older
 9   automobile that has the catalytic converter
10   that's burning all kinds of emissions and
11   fumes and what have you, what this particular
12   device does is it acts as a sensor and it
13   detects the pollutant emissions or fumes and
14   then it emits the petromist and it micro
15   capsulates the pollution, the fumes, and turns
16   it into water, literally, and so it's safe to
17   just run off into the street and just go into
18   the systems.
19               So I'm here, I'm actually from
20   southern California, and I know there's a
21   similar meeting in Los Angeles, in Orange
22   County, but I had to be here on business, so I
23   figured I'd come here and hear what the folks
24   were saying, just to see whether there are
25   other solutions that are being offered as
0331
 1   opposed to problems, because we can talk about
 2   problems from now until infinity, but the idea
 3   is to try to develop some solution that would
 4   actually help this problem.
 5               And just one more thing.  There
 6   are a number of Superfund sites here in the
 7   States that we're also going to tackle.  Not
 8   only the one in -- I'm sure you're familiar
 9   with the one in Ringwood, New Jersey, but also
10   the site that's supposed to be remediated in
11   Ecuador.  It's an Ecuador versus Chevron case.
12   It's probably the biggest case in the world at
13   this point.  So we'll be very instrumental, if
14   you will, to say the least, in cleaning up
15   those sites.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you.  Thank you
17   for coming by.
18               MS. SPINK:  Can you tell me what
19   the "A" in BEAD stands for?  I think you said
20   Bayless exhaust something device.
21               MR. BENSON:  Arrestive, arrestive
22   device.  The Bayless -- and I'll tell you what
23   that acronym's for.  Dr. Robert G. Bayless
24   actually -- you're familiar with Dr. Bayless?
25               MS. SPINK:  Yes.  B-A-Y-L-I-S-S?
0332
 1               MR. BENSON:  L-E-S-S.  Dr. Robert
 2   Bayless is an internationally renowned
 3   microencapsulation specialist.  He has a
 4   number of -- like 30, 40, 50 patents to his
 5   credit.  Over the years, he's developed a
 6   microencapsulated fertilizer for CertainTeed,
 7   he invented the mood ring, a carbonless paper
 8   you know, you write on a piece of paper and it
 9   goes to the other side, well, he invented
10   that.  Most important, he co-invented
11   Petrotech, this product that I just spoke
12   about.  He actually brought it home, so to
13   speak, with the microencapsulation process.
14   He's actually a client of mine.  I have an
15   interest in the company.
16               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much
17   thank for coming by.
18               MR. BENSON:  Thank you.
19                       - - -
20               (Whereupon, a recess was taken
21   from 8:43 p.m. to 8:51 p.m.)
22                       - - -
23               MR. PAGE:  Mr. Weir.  When you're
24   ready, we're ready.  Thank you for coming,
25   sir.
0333
 1               MR. WEIR:  My name is Thomas
 2   Weir, and I have been a resident of
 3   Philadelphia since 1970.  I have six children,
 4   three grandchildren, and a wife, whose
 5   profession is education, so I'm testifying as
 6   a private citizen of Philadelphia.
 7               I thank the United States
 8   Environmental Protection Agency for holding a
 9   public hearing in Philadelphia and for
10   proposing more stringent threshold in NAAQS
11   for ozone.
12               It is commonly known that ozone
13   poses a serious and costly health problem both
14   in acute effects of causing chest pain,
15   coughing and aggravating asthma and in a
16   longer term of stressing our health and
17   shortening our lives.
18               The technical work of the Clean
19   Air Scientific Advisory Committee ozone panel
20   members is the best information that we have
21   right now with regards to ozone exposure, and
22   we need to look closely at their
23   recommendations.  It is not right for EPA to
24   propose levels that are not supported by their
25   assessment.  Comments and reasons why the EPA
0334
 1   administrator recommends setting the standard
 2   should be included but not against the
 3   scientific review that has already been
 4   performed by CASAC.
 5               Ground-level ozone is the
 6   pollutant most often responsible for unhealthy
 7   air quality in Philadelphia.  Philadelphia was
 8   rated the second worst city for asthma
 9   sufferers in 2007 by the Asthma and Allergy
10   Foundation of America.  It is my opinion that
11   the current 8-hour standard of 0.080 parts per
12   million is insufficient to protect the public
13   health, especially of children, seniors, and
14   those with cardiovascular or respiratory
15   disease.
16               National standards that are
17   supported by our best scientific knowledge are
18   crucial to fighting this problem.  Since ozone
19   forms from organic vapors and nitrogen oxides
20   that travel across state boundaries,
21   Philadelphia cannot solve this problem on its
22   own.  The national air quality standards set
23   by EPA are vital for reducing air pollution
24   and protecting the health of our citizens.
25               Moreover, under the Clean Air
0335
 1   Act, air quality standards must be set at
 2   levels that protect public health, including
 3   the sensitive populations, with an adequate
 4   margin of safety.  In 2002, the Supreme Court
 5   unanimously ruled that protecting public
 6   health was the sole factor EPA should use in
 7   considering setting primary standards.  Cost
 8   and the methods of control are not to be
 9   considered.  Therefore, I believe EPA should
10   strengthen the ozone standard to 0.060 parts
11   per million, and this recommendation is based
12   on materials and guidance provided by the EPA
13   Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
14               I also support a new form of the
15   secondary standard called W126 to account for
16   the cumulative effects of ozone on vegetation
17   during the months of the year when ozone
18   concentrations are high.  Vegetation, because
19   it's always exposed to the outside air, is a
20   unique indicator of the impact of ozone and
21   other pollutants on our ecosystem and is
22   relevant to our public health.
23               Many years ago, pollutants were
24   addressed separately.  For example, to bring
25   the city into compliance with the sulfur
0336
 1   dioxide standard, it was necessary to regulate
 2   the sulfur content of fuels being burned.
 3   Secondarily, this policy change helped to
 4   improve particulate emissions even though this
 5   was not the primary outcome of concern.
 6               But now we face a new situation.
 7   The formation of ozone, fine particulate, and
 8   toxic materials are closely related, and it is
 9   important to consider how strategies impact
10   all of these.  Increasing congestion in urban
11   areas and growing concerns about climate
12   change underscore the importance of
13   understanding and examining the
14   interrelationships of various pollutants and
15   what strategies will be needed to reduce the
16   impact on our health and lifestyle.
17               Thank you for the opportunity to
18   testify.
19               MR. PAGE:  Thank you very much,
20   Mr. Weir.  That may have been the last word
21   for the evening.  We thank you for coming by.
22               MR. WEIR:  I'm always last word.
23               MR. PAGE:  With six children, I
24   hope you're not the last to the table.  Thank
25   you very much for coming by.
0337
 1                       - - -
 2               (Whereupon, a recess was taken
 3   from 8:56 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.)
 4                       - - -
 5               MR. PAGE:  It's 9:00, and I think
 6   we've gone through all the speakers here for
 7   the evening, and there were no more registered
 8   speakers to show up, so I think we'll adjourn
 9   the hearing.  Thank you.
10                       - - -
11               (Whereupon, the hearing adjourned
12   at 9:00 p.m.)
13                       - - -
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
25   
0338
 1            CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
 2   
 3     I, M. KATHLEEN MUINO, the officer before
 4   whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do
 5   hereby certify that the witness whose
 6   testimony appears in the foregoing deposition
 7   was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of
 8   said witness was taken by me in stenotype and
 9   thereafter reduced to typewriting under my
10   direction; that said deposition is a true
11   record of the testimony given by said witness;
12   that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor
13   employed by any of the parties to the action
14   in which this deposition was taken; and,
15   further, that I am not a relative or employee
16   of any counsel or attorney employed by the
17   parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
18   interested in the outcome of this action.
19   
20   
21                        M. KATHLEEN MUINO
22                    Notary Public in and for the
                      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
23   
24   
     My commission expires:
25   March 3, 2009