293
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
1
2
Transcript
of
Hearing
to
Take
Comment
on
3
Two
Proposed
Rules
4
5
1.
Revisions
to
the
National
ambient
Air
Quality
6
Standards
for
Marticulate
Matter
7
and
8
2.
Revisions
to
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Regulations
9
10
March
8,
2006
11
12
HEARING
held
at
Hyatt
Regency
Chicago
13
151
East
Wacker
Drive,
Chicago,
14
Illinois,
commencing
at
5:
12
p.
m.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
294
CONTENTS
1
PAGE
2
3
MS.
GENEVA
LANIER,
PEOPLE
FOR
COMMUNITY
RECOVERY
4
4
MR.
CHESTER
KOS,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
5
MS.
CHRISTINE
WILLIAMSON,
SIERRA
CLUB
.
.
.
.
9
6
MS.
THERESA
ROWLEY,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
7
MR.
DICK
GLENNIE,
PIRG
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
8
DR.
PETER
DRAPER,
PHYSICIAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
9
MS.
BEVERLY
BRADLEY,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
10
MR.
JOHN
FITZGERALD,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
11
DR.
MYRTIS
SULLIVAN,
MD,
12
UIC
SCHOOL
OF
PUBLIC
HEALTH
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
13
MR.
JOHN
SHAPIRO,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
14
MR.
IRA
SHAKMAN,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
15
MS.
LEILA
CEPEDA,
PERRO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
16
MS.
ANITA
GIGLIOTTI,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
17
MR.
JOEY
SANTIAGO,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
18
MS.
REBECCA
WIGG,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
19
MR.
DENNIS
NELSON,
PIRG
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
20
MR.
E.
JASON
GREMLEY,
CITIZEN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
21
22
23
24
25
295
PUBLIC
HEARING
1
Mr.
Burnett:
Good
afternoon,
we're
going
to
2
start
the
hearing
back
up.
I'd
like
to
thank
for
3
attending
this
hearing.
My
name
is
Jason
Burnett,
4
I'm
the
Senior
Policy
Advisor,
to
the
Assistant
5
Administrator
of
EPA's
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation.
6
I'll
be
chairing
this
afternoon's
and
today's
7
hearing.
8
I'm
going
to
skip
over
the
summary
of
the
9
proposal.
We
have
fact
sheets
in
the
back,
and
I
10
encourage
you
to
pick
up
those
fact
sheets
if
11
you're
so
inclined,
and
just
get
into
the
12
logistics.
To
be
fair,
we're
asking
throughout
the
13
day
that
you
limit
your
testimony
to
five
minutes,
14
and
after
you've
finished
your
testimony,
we
may
15
have
some
clarifying
questions,
and
ask
that
you
16
give
a
copy
of
any
briefing
materials
you
have
to
17
the
court
reporter
here
and
they'll
be
put
into
the
18
official
record
[
inaudible].
19
There's
a
timekeeping
system
where
we
have
20
these
red,
green,
and
yellow
lights
up
from.
When
21
you
begin
speaking
the
green
light
will
come
on
and
22
when
you
have
a
few
minutes
left
the
yellow
light
23
will
come
on,
and
the
red
light
comes
on
at
the
end
24
of
five
minutes.
So
you'll
need
to
wrap
up
your
25
296
remarks.
1
I
think
with
that,
I
will
introduce
the
other
2
people
on
the
panel.
Jay
Bortzer
is
with
Region
5,
3
here.
Erika
Sasser,
is
with
the
Office
of
Air
4
Quality
[
inaudible]
Standards,
Human
Health
and
5
Impacts
Division,
and
Lewis
Weinstock
is
also
with
6
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
[
inaudible]
and
the
Air
7
Quality
Assessment
Division.
And
with
that,
I
8
would
ask
that
Ms.
Lanier,
and
Mr.
Kos
come
up
to
9
the
table
here,
and
when
you
start
I
would
ask
you
10
to
spell
your
last
name
for
the
court
reporter.
I
11
would
ask
if
you
have
any
questions
before
we
get
12
started?
13
TESTIMONY
OF
MS.
GENEVA
LANIER,
PEOPLE
FOR
14
COMMUNITY
RECOVERY
15
Ms.
Lanier:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Geneva
16
Lanier,
and
I'm
with
People
for
Community
Recovery.
17
We
would
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
the
18
United
States
Environment
Protection
Agency
for
19
conducting
this
hearing
on
Air
Quality
Standards
20
for
the
City
of
Chicago.
PCR,
is
located
in
Argyle
21
Gardens,
a
public
housing
development,
surrounded
22
by
hundreds
of
industrial
plants.
23
With
the
current
technology
available,
many
of
24
these
industries
can
reduce
their
emissions
by
25
297
incorporating
carbohydrate
economy
that
has
been
1
written
by
the
Institute
for
Local
Self
Reliance
2
for
the
Auto
Industry.
PCR
supports
the
investment
3
in
companies
that
use
plant
matter,
corn
stocks,
et
4
cetera,
and
other
agriculture
starches
for
the
5
production
of
liquid
fuels,
ethanol
and
bio
diesel,
6
industrial
chemicals
and
construction
fiber
board.
7
These
products
greatly
reduce
the
amount
of
8
petroleum
based
chemicals
that
are
used
in
the
9
industry
and
consumed,
and
therefore
reduces
air
10
pollution.
11
These
new
products
and
production
techniques
12
are
very
important
for
the
auto
industry.
For
13
example,
the
book
Bio
Chemicals
in
the
Auto
14
Industry,
by
the
Institute
for
Local
Self
Reliance,
15
explains
how
products
made
from
plant
matter
are
16
not
only
safer
for
workers
and
their
environment
17
but
are
also
cost
efficient.
In
part
by
18
eliminating
disposal
fees
and
regulations.
The
19
Ford
Motor
Company
is
still
the
number
1
polluter
20
in
my
community
and
they
have
failed
my
community
21
in
numerous
ways.
But
the
most
important
that
they
22
need
to
reduce
their
dependency
on
chemicals
that
23
pollute
our
environment
and
adapt
to
plants
­­
oh
24
oh
can't
read.
Chemicals
that
can
protect
their
25
298
workers
and
my
community.
Chicago
is
on
its
way
to
1
becoming
the
country's
first
green
city,
but
having
2
a
company
like
Ford
Motor
Company
only
inhibit
this
3
status,
and
we
cannot
let
this
happen.
4
Another
area
where
these
building
products
can
5
have
an
immediate
impact
is
in
public
housing.
6
Chicago
is
now
renovating
thousands
of
public
7
housing
units,
plant
based
products
do
not
give
out
8
pollution
and
they
last
longer.
All
CHA
renovation
9
projects
should
use
carbohydrate
based
products.
10
PCR
has
been
advocating
for
the
use
of
these
11
industrial
materials
to
help
the
environment.
We
12
have
also
been
calling
for
training
for
workers
in
13
these
areas,
as
these
skills
are
needed
now,
in
the
14
economy
and
the
demand
for
them
will
grow
in
the
15
immediate
future.
16
If
Chicago
is
to
be
a
green
city,
it
has
to
17
have
a
carbohydrate
base
to
produce
from.
Thank
18
you.
19
Mr.
Burnett:
Thanks
for
you
comments.
I
will
20
mention
that
EPA
has
several
rule
makings
that
may
21
be
of
interest
to
the
particular
issues
that
you
22
raised.
[
inaudible]
the
Energy
Policy
Act,
that
was
23
passed
last
year
and
that
may
also
be
of
interest,
24
I
just
mention
that
in
addition
to
your
comments
25
299
being
[
inaudible].
Do
you
have
a
particular
1
recommendation
for
the
National
[
inaudible]
Quality
2
Standards,
either
the
[
inaudible]
Standards?
3
Ms.
Lanier:
No,
not
at
this
time,
I
don't.
4
TESTIMONY
OF
MR.
CHESTER
KOS,
CITIZEN
5
Mr.
Kos:
Hello
there.
Thank
you
for
the
6
opportunity
to
speak,
or
to
testify
before
the
7
panel.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
your
efforts.
8
My
name
is
Chester
Kos,
I
am
a
resident
of
Chicago.
9
On
the
south
west
side
of
Chicago.
And
I
would
10
like
to
start
by
clarifying
a
common
misperception
11
that
Chicago
does
not
stop
at
the
lake
front.
12
There's
a
lot
of
talk
of
Chicago
being
a
green
13
city.
Chicago
continues
quite
a
bit
west
along
the
14
Stevenson
Expressway,
south
west.
And
the
reason
I
15
say
that
is
because
there's
a
lot
of
talk
of
the
16
greening
of
Chicago,
and
many
pictures
of
the
17
wonderful
lake
front
that
we
have.
However
as
we
18
just
saw
here
with
our
previous
speaker
and
the
19
communities
that
I'm
unofficially
representing,
20
Chicago
does
go
south
west
quite
a
bit.
21
I
ask
the
EPA
in
this
situation,
I'd
like
to
22
make
two
points.
First
I
ask
that
any
standards,
23
any
standards
that
will
apply,
that
they
apply
to
24
existent
coal
fired
power
plants.
In
my
25
300
neighborhood
I
have
two
plants
owned
by
Midwest
1
Generation,
previously
owned
by
Commonwealth
2
Edison,
and
I've
lived
in
this
community
for
at
3
least
35
years,
and
they
are
continuing
to
pollute,
4
visually
pollute
and
it
is
my
understanding,
that
5
they
do
not
have
to
meet
the
standards
specified
in
6
the
existing
Clean
Air
Act.
Something
along
the
7
terms
that
they
were
grandfathered
in.
Well
my
8
concern
now
is
with
any
proposed
standards,
that
9
they
also
apply
to
existing
plants.
10
The
second
point
I'd
like
to
make
is
any
11
standards
that
are
proposed
and
put
into
effect
do
12
not
allow
any
regional
averaging.
What
I've
seen
13
in
my
35
years
in
Chicago
land
is
that
there's
a
14
lot
of
attention
being
spent
on
the
north
and
north
15
west
sides
of
Chicago
and
other
places,
but
16
continually,
the
south
west
side
of
Chicago
has
17
these
plants
that
visually
are
very
disturbing,
and
18
I
have
no
way
of
way
of
giving
you
the
science
19
behind
it
but
I
am
sure
that
they
are
contributing
20
at
least
comfort
wise
to
my
lifestyle
and
the
21
lifestyle
of
my
community.
22
So
thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
would
really
23
appreciate
that
any
proposed
standards
also
apply
24
to
grandfathered
in
plans.
25
301
Thank
you.
1
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
for
your
comments
and
2
we
will
say
that
we
do
[
inaudible]
and
we
will
work
3
with
the
State
of
Illinois,
[
inaudible].
4
Ms.
Sasser:
[
Inaudible].
5
Mr.
Weinstock:
[
Inaudible].
6
Mr.
Kos:
Great
thank
you.
7
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
both
for
you
comments.
8
I'd
like
to
invite
up
to
the
table
Ms.
Williamson
9
and
Ms.
Rowley.
I
would
ask
you
[
inaudible]
court
10
reporter
to
spell
your
last
name.
11
TESTIMONY
OF
MS.
CHRISTINE
WILLIAMSON,
SIERRA
CLUB
12
Ms.
Williamson:
I'm
Christine
Williamson,
my
13
last
name
is
spelled,
W­
i­
l­
l­
i­
a­
m­
s­
o­
n,
and
I'm
14
the
conservation
chair
for
the
Chicago
Group
of
the
15
Sierra
Club.
We
have
about
9,000
members
who
live
16
in
Chicago
and
near
west,
and
near
north
17
communities.
Sierra
Club
is
formally,
you've
heard
18
from
us
before
from
our
Illinois
Chapter
19
Representative,
but
Chicago
Group
is
part
of
our
20
club
and
we're
very
much
in
favor
or
strengthening
21
standards
as
opposed
to
leaving
them
where
they
22
essentially
are
right
now.
And
we're
very
much
in
23
favor
of
seeing
annual
standards
that
are
no
higher
24
than
12
micro
grams
per
cubic
foot
as
well
as
daily
25
302
standards
that
are
no
higher
than
25
micro
grams
1
per
cubic
meter.
And
I
meant
meter
as
well
for
the
2
annual
standards.
Part
of
what
I
wanted
to
talk
3
about
was
my
own
personal
experience.
4
I
was
a
kid
who
grew
up
in
the
suburbs
who
had
5
absolutely
no
allergies
as
a
kid,
absolutely
none
6
whatsoever.
I've
worked
downtown
since
1988,
I
got
7
married
in
'
95,
my
husband
dragged
me
kicking
and
8
screaming
to
the
City
and
I've
lived
on
the
north
9
side
since
1995.
Liked
the
City,
decided
I
would
10
try
cycling
and
in
1998
I
started
cycling
downtown
11
6
miles
every
workday,
and
often
at
the
weekends.
12
In
1999
and
year
2000,
virtually
on
the
same
13
date
I
went
to
the
doctor
with
really
bad
ear
14
infections.
And
the
doctor
said
you
know
what,
15
you've
got
seasonal
allergies.
You
know,
let's
16
start
you
on
the
drugs.
So
I
started
on
some
17
really
heavy
duty
allergy
drugs
that
have
­­
only
18
had
to
go
up
over
time.
So
I
started
in
2000,
and
19
now
I'm
on
$
100
a
month
of
allergy
drugs
just
to
20
live
in
my
City
and
to
do
what
I
like
to
do,
which
21
is
commute
by
bike,
and
not
contribute
to
22
pollution.
23
I
went
to
Costa
Rica
this
summer
a
place
24
that's
filled
with
all
sorts
of
biological
25
303
materials.
I'm
a
bird
watcher,
my
face
was
inches
1
from
the
forest
floor,
and
low
and
behold
all
my
2
allergy
symptoms
completely
disappeared.
I
went
3
off
the
drugs.
I
had
absolutely
no
problems
4
whatsoever.
Came
back
to
Chicago,
got
in
a
cab
to
5
my
north
side
home
where
we
don't
have
quite
as
6
much
impact
from
industrial
pollution,
like
coal
7
fired
power
plants,
and
low
and
behold
I'm
back
on
8
the
drugs
again.
9
Went
into
my
doctor,
we
tested
me
more
10
specifically
for
seasonal
allergies
and
my
symptoms
11
really
aren't
allergy
related.
They're
related
to
12
particulates.
So
in
my
case,
if
­­
I
went
on
the
13
drugs
at
the
age
of
41,
if
I
live
to
be
81
I'll
14
have
spent
almost
$
50,000
dollars
and
that's
15
because
I
have
insurance.
I
mean
if
I
didn't
have
16
insurance
and
I
didn't
have
a
good
job,
and
I
17
didn't
have
health
care
that
you
know
at
least
18
covered
part
of
my
symptoms.
It's
a
lot
of
money
19
over
time.
And
so
I
just
think
for
people
like
me
20
who
like
to
bird
watch
in
the
City
and
recreate
in
21
the
City
and
not
contribute
to
pollution.
It's
22
really
important
to
me
and
to
many
Sierra
Club
23
members,
to
my
family
and
to
my
friends
that
24
particulate
pollution,
particularly
fine
25
304
particulates
are
brought
under
control.
1
That's
all
I
have
to
say.
2
Mr.
Burnett:
I
appreciate
your
comments.
3
TESTIMONY
OF
MS.
THERESA
ROWLEY,
CITIZEN
4
Ms.
Rowley:
My
name
is
Theresa
Rowley,
the
5
last
name
is
spelled
R­
o­
w­
l­
e­
y.
I'm
a
resident
6
of
Chicago
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
7
speak
briefly.
Having
just
heard
that
story,
I
8
have
to
say
that
the
reason
that
I'm
here
is
9
because
I
understand
that
even
though
these
10
particulates
are
translated
scientifically
through
11
thousands
of
pages
of
research,
they
essentially
12
translate
into
values.
And
the
values
have
to
do
13
with
whether
or
not
you
value
the
health
of
14
individuals,
families,
cities,
whether
you
think
15
that
that
has
anything
to
do
with
responsibility
16
for
other
cities,
and
even
global
realities
and
how
17
about
generations
after
us.
18
There
is
not
just
this
particulate
matter
that
19
is
affecting
people's
health.
This
is
but
one
of
20
many.
And
the
fact
is
that
this
­­
if
it
is
21
brought
under
the
strictest
control
can
only
22
contribute
to
something
that's
going
to
be
in
the
23
future,
overwhelmingly
challenging.
The
more
that
24
politically
the
corporations
have
power
the
EPA
25
305
standards
to
lower
them
in
order
to
increase
their
1
profits
the
greater
increase
there
will
be
in
2
health
problems
over
generations.
I
was
brought
up
3
in
Chicago
on
the
south
side
myself
and
had
4
allergies
and
asthma
from
the
time
I
was
very
5
young.
It
took
an
enormous
amount
of
exploration
6
in
the
field
of
alternative
medicine
to
not
go
the
7
route
of
spending
so
much
money
on
allopathic
8
medicine
in
order
to
be
balanced.
I
had
to
move
9
out
of
Chicago
in
the
80s
because
it
was
bad,
and
I
10
actually
ended
up
in
Denver
in
graduate
school,
and
11
had
to
move
from
there
because
of
lung
infections
12
from
particulate
matter.
And
ended
up
in
13
California.
14
So
I'm
back
living
in
Chicago,
I
have
adapted
15
from
China,
and
my
baby
is
now
experiencing
many
of
16
the
things
that
I
started
with.
17
This
is
not
a
question
of
whether
or
not
one
18
particular
matter
or
another
is
going
to
affect
one
19
person.
I
have
a
relative
who
works
in
Exelon
and
20
I
have
been
told
similarly
that
my
particular
21
sensitivities
in
terms
of
statistics
are
irrelevant
22
in
other
words,
I'm
with
the
2
percent
that
would
23
just
not
be
considered
important,
and
if
I
die
24
that's
okay,
because
it's
on
the
2
percent
that
25
306
they
can't
afford
to
cover.
And
that's
true
of
a
1
lot
of
people.
And
that
sensitivity
and
those
2
sensitivities
people
with
those,
who
may
be
the
3
people
who
create
­­
who
are
more
creative,
and
who
4
can
create
out
of
the
box
solutions
to
these
kind
5
of
problems
will
be
the
people
that
will
probably
6
suffer
the
most
from
the
less
stringent
standards.
7
So
I'm
just
encouraging
this
panel
to
consider
8
the
value
systems
about
which
you
are
making
these
9
decisions
and
also
to
translate
what
you're
doing
10
from
the
standpoint
of
your
results
into
human
11
terms.
How
many
more
people
will
die
based
on
what
12
you
determine
and
what
you've
decided
to
do.
And
13
publish
those,
so
that
human
beings
can
see,
the
14
human
results
of
those
decisions.
And
I
thank
you
15
for
the
time.
16
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
for
you
comments.
17
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
microphone].
Thank
you
all
18
for
your
comments.
Mr.
Glennie
and
Dr.
Draper,
if
19
you
would
come
forward
please.
20
Mr.
Glennie
if
you
could
spell
your
last
name
21
for
the
court
reporter.
22
TESTIMONY
OF
MR.
DICK
GLENNIE,
PIRG
23
Mr.
Glennie:
My
name
is
Dick
Glennie,
the
last
24
name
is
spelled,
G­
l­
e­
n­
n­
i­
e.
I
reside
in
the
25
307
community
of
Old
Park,
in
the
immediate
west
of
the
1
City.
What
I
would
like
to
convey
are
just
two
2
anecdotes.
Back
in
the
mid
60s,
when
I
was
fresh
3
out
of
undergrad
school.
I
became
employed
by
4
Union
Carbide
Corporation
here
in
Chicago.
And
5
shortly
thereafter
I
was
transferred
to
Cleveland.
6
I
consider
myself
a
son
of
Lake
Michigan,
I
was
a
7
swimmer,
a
lifeguard,
a
water
polo
player,
a
8
sailor,
and
I've
done
all
sorts
of
things
aquatic
9
on
that
lake
and
love
it.
And
it
was
quite
a
shock
10
to
go
to
Cleveland
and
see
that
there
was
no
11
swimming
on
the
beaches
of
Cleveland.
There
was
no
12
commercial
fishing
in
the
lake
at
Lake
Erie.
13
I
adapted
and
at
one
point
we
were
14
entertaining
some
of
our
customers
at
restaurant
in
15
a
spot
called
short
Vincent
Street
which
is
16
comparable
to
Chicago's
Rush
Street,
it's
a
little
17
nightclub
area.
And
it's
right
where
the
­­
the
18
river
flows
down
around
this
spot.
And
as
we
sat
19
having
dinner,
suddenly
this
huge
flame
burst
forth
20
out
of
the
river
and
all
of
us
non
Clevelanders
21
were
shocked.
What
is
this?
And
the
people
living
22
there
said
oh,
it's
[
inaudible]
it
catches
on
fire
23
periodically,
there's
a
lot
of
chemicals
there.
24
I
mean
somebody
tosses
a
cigarette
butt
in
and
25
308
it
bursts
into
flames.
It
was
an
accepted
fact
of
1
life
to
those
living
in
Cleveland
that
periodically
2
the
Cyhoga
would
explode
in
flames.
This
one
3
happened
to
be
a
particularly
big
fire
and
it
4
damaged
three
bridges
to
the
point
they
had
to
5
close
them
for
a
period.
6
I
do
this
for
the
point
of
perspective.
For
7
them
it
was
­­
that's
the
way
it
is.
For
us,
is
8
was
shocking.
Now
with
the
scientific
knowledge
we
9
have
at
hand,
why
would
we
ever
lessen
the
10
standards
we
have
now.
When
we
know
the
damages.
11
Some
of
our
actions
can
be
excused
by
ignorance.
12
We
don't
have
the
ignorance
now,
we
have
knowledge.
13
And
when
the
scientific
body
brings
the
knowledge
14
to
the
EPA
I
think
that
should
be
listened
to
and
15
accepted.
As
I
understand
it's
the
first
time
from
16
an
article
in
the
Tribune
this
morning.
The
first
17
time
in
35
years
that
this
will
­­
with
the
advice
18
of
the
committee
would
not
be
accepted.
19
Second
is
a
little
bit
slightly
different
but,
20
my
third
son
accepted
a
teaching
position
in
China,
21
in
the
university
in
Shenyang
Province,
which
is
in
22
the
very
north
east
of
China,
it's
­­
in
fact
it's
23
north
of
North
Korea,
so
it's
way
up
there.
He
24
went
over
in
mid
semester,
arriving
in
January,
and
25
309
shortly
thereafter
he
called
us
and
said
it's
very
1
cold
up
here,
and
it's
totally
covered
with
snow,
2
and
all
the
snow
is
black.
3
And
he
said
well
at
least
in
America
with
all
4
of
our
short
comings,
when
we
see
a
problem,
we
do
5
correct
it.
And
I'm
wondering,
is
that
really
the
6
case
as
we
make
this
decision
now.
We
know
the
7
problem,
are
we
really
going
to
correct
it.
The
8
one
comment
I'd
like
to
conclude
with
is,
that
I
­­
9
an
observer
once
said,
I
wonder
what
the
resident
10
of
Easter
Island
said
as
they
chopped
down
their
11
last
tree.
12
Thank
you.
13
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
14
Ms.
Sasser:
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
15
microphone].
16
Mr.
Glennie:
But
not
to
the
degree
that
your
17
committee
recommended.
18
Ms.
Sasser:
That
is
correct.
19
Mr.
Glennie:
Okay.
That's
the
point
I'm
20
making.
So
the
scientific
bodies
recommendation
is
21
being
rejected.
Thank
you.
22
Mr.
Burnett:
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
23
microphone].
24
Mr.
Glennie:
The
Tribune's
article
today
said
25
310
that
they
would
not
even
consider
it
below
a
1
certain
standard.
They
wouldn't
even
discuss
it.
2
Now
that's
an
article
in
this
morning's
Tribune,
so
3
I
don't
know
the
value
­­
but
the
Tribune
has
never
4
been
looked
upon
as
a
left
wing
rag,
so.
5
Mr.
Burnett:
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
6
microphone].
7
TESTIMONY
OF
DR.
PETER
DRAPER,
PHYSICIAN
8
Dr.
Draper:
Good
afternoon,
my
name
is
Peter
9
Draper,
I'm
an
emergency
physician
and
practice
10
here
in
Illinois,
I
live
in
Chicago
and
have
lived
11
here
and
in
another
industrial
community,
Joliet
12
Illinois
for
my
entire
life
of
somewhat
over
50
13
years.
So
I
have
a
lot
of
experience
with
air
14
pollution.
I
­­
without
appearing
to
be
15
argumentative
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
follow
up
16
point
in
regard
to
what
Ms.
Sasser
just
said.
I
do
17
understand
that
the
revised
standard
proposed
by
18
the
Bush
administration
in
December
does
not
19
represent
a
loosening
of
the
current
standard
but
20
my
understanding
is
that
there
are
some
proposed
21
lessening
of
standards
in
regard
to
coarse
22
particles
and
that
that
is
to
be
accomplished
23
through
a
definition
and
that
there
is
a
proposal
24
to
no
longer
test
the
air
for
particulate
25
311
pollutants
in
small
and
medium
size
communities
and
1
also
a
proposal
to
exempt
two
large
industries
that
2
produce
a
lot
of
particle
pollutants,
mining
and
3
agriculture.
So
aside
from
the
standard
in
4
concentrations
allowed
of
fine
particular
matter
5
per
cubic
meter,
either
on
an
annual
or
a
daily
6
basis.
I
believe
that
there
are
so
many
other
7
issues
in
the
file
that
do
represent
a
proposal
to
8
lessen
protections
perhaps
you
could
clarify
that
9
at
the
end
of
my
testimony
if
I
don't
have
it
10
right.
11
Anyway
I'd
like
to
thank
you
all
for
the
12
opportunity
to
testify
briefly
here
today.
I
was
13
asked
to
come
by
the
Chicago
Branch
of
the
American
14
Lung
Association,
I'm
not
their
official
15
spokesperson,
but
I've
worked
with
them
on
a
number
16
of
issues
and
I
support
their
position
on
this
17
matter.
I
most
recently
had
the
opportunity
to
18
work
with
them
in
bringing
a
Clean
Indoor
Air
Act
19
to
Chicago,
banning
tobacco
smoking
in
most
indoor
20
locations,
although
it's
been
delayed
in
some
21
locations
but
eventually
we
hope
to
become
a
22
completely
smoke
free
city
on
an
indoor
basis.
But
23
what
about
the
outdoor
areas,
what
everybody
is
24
asking
now.
And
indeed
it's
a
big
problem.
You've
25
312
all
heard
the
facts
and
figures
and
different
1
opinions
on
it.
I'm
going
to
limit
my
testimony
to
2
my
experience
as
an
emergency
physician
where
on
a
3
daily
basis
I
see
the
effects
of
acute
and
chronic
4
respiratory
disease,
and
cardiovascular,
and
5
cerebral
vascular
disease,
and
as
you're
aware
6
based
on
many
studies,
the
effect
of
particulate
7
matter
is
worse
than
once
thought
it
appears
that
8
certain
particles
actually
penetrate
the
lung
9
barrier
and
enter
the
blood
stream
and
can
cause
10
additional
damage
beyond
the
respiratory
tract
11
including
cancer,
[
inaudible]
disease,
and
12
cardiovascular
disease,
aka
strokes.
And
I
see
the
13
effects
of
these
every
day
in
the
emergency
14
department
and
of
course
I
can't
say
which
person's
15
disease
or
event
was
caused
by
pollution,
or
to
16
what
extent
contribution
of
pollution
was.
But
I
17
can
tell
you
that
I'm
aware
the
utilization
of
18
emergency
departments,
and
acute
care
hospitals
on
19
an
impatient
basis
for
respirator
ailments
is
20
increasing.
21
And
while
we
see
the
number
of
people
visiting
22
in
the
emergency
department
in
the
United
States
23
increasing
over
the
last
few
years,
the
number
of
24
emergency
departments
is
decreasing
so
we're
25
313
boarding
more
and
more
people
in
the
hallways
of
1
emergency
departments.
And
this
is
a
big
problem
2
for
hospitals,
it's
not
just
a
gripe
by
emergency
3
physicians
and
nurses.
You
can
hear
this
from
4
hospital
administrators
and
insurers
and
5
malpractice
attorneys.
It's
a
big
problem.
And
it
6
­­
my
experience
in
practice
as
an
emergency
7
physician
over
the
last
12
years,
if
anything
has
8
taught
me
that
with
all
our
best
curative
efforts
9
and
the
things
we
do
to
intervene
on
an
emergency
10
basis
to
prevent
someone
from
dying
from
a
heart
11
attack
or
to
put
them
on
a
breathing
machine
when
12
they
can
no
longer
breathe
for
themselves,
as
noble
13
and
often
successful
as
those
efforts
are,
we
14
really
need
to
do
more
for
prevention.
It
cannot
15
all
be
done
on
a
curative
basis,
and
certainly
not
16
all
on
an
emergency
basis.
17
And
you
know,
we've
heard
the
statistics,
tens
18
of
thousand
of
premature
deaths
in
this
country
19
from
particulate
matter.
And
it
seems
like
so
many
20
numbers,
but
when
you
have
to
go
tell
the
family
in
21
the
grieving
room
what
happened
to
their
loved
one
22
it
takes
on
a
more
concrete
character.
And
again
23
we
don't
say
well,
even
though
your
loved
one
took
24
care
of
themselves
and
didn't
smoke
tobacco
and
25
314
tried
to
actually
exercise,
they've
died
1
prematurely
of
some
lung
disease,
maybe
it's
2
because
of
the
pollution,
we
don't
say
that,
of
3
course
we
don't
know.
But
health
professionals,
4
public
health
administrators,
do
know.
They
know
5
the
numbers.
It's
been
studied
on
a
statistical
6
and
epidemiologic
basis.
If
it
was
clear
to
the
7
average
citizen
what
pollution
was
doing
to
our
8
health,
I
think
there
would
be
no
question
whether
9
the
standards
should
not
only
be
tweaked,
but
that
10
they
should
be
improved
considerably.
11
But
it's
not
that
clear
to
the
average
person,
12
it
is
clear
to
us
as
health
professionals
and
13
environmental
stewards
what
the
consequences
of
14
particulate
pollution
is,
and
it's
really
incumbent
15
on
us
to
take
a
stand
here.
And
to
do
what
the
16
scientific
community
has
recommended.
I
realize
17
there
are
economic
considerations.
There
are
many
18
sectors
of
the
economy
that
have
different
special
19
interests.
There's
a
time
and
a
place
to
consider
20
those
interests
at
the
Congressional
level.
But
21
when
it
comes
to
setting
the
standard,
it
is
22
supposed
to
be
based,
as
I
understand
it
on
health
23
and
science
and
I
urge
you
too
only
allow
those
to
24
be
your
guiding
lights
in
setting
this
standard.
25
315
Thank
you.
1
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you.
At
the
onset
you
2
asked
us
to
clarify
[
inaudible],
directed
to
the
3
fact
sheets.
I
think
my
colleague
Erika
Sasser
was
4
referring
to
the
fine
particle
standards,
where
5
they're
publishing
a
significant
typing
in
the
6
daily
standard,
and
[
inaudible]
annual
standards.
7
[
inaudible
­
away
from
microphone].
But
we're
8
focusing
on
the
types
of
particles
for
which
there
9
appears
to
be
evidence
of
adverse
effects
and
10
excluding
particles
where
we
don't
have
that
11
evidence,
or
we
have
evidence
of
[
inaudible].
I'll
12
just
leave
it
at
that.
13
Ms.
Sasser:
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
14
microphone].
15
Dr.
Draper:
Thank
you.
16
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
both,
at
this
point
I'd
17
like
to
ask
Ms.
Bradley
and
Mr.
Fitzgerald
to
come
18
forward
please.
Ms.
Bradley
would
you
please
19
spell
your
name
for
the
court
reporter.
20
TESTIMONY
OF
MS.
BEVERLY
BRADLEY,
CITIZEN
21
Ms.
Bradley.
Last
name,
Bradley.
B­
r­
a­
d­
l­
22
e­
y.
First
name
B­
e­
v­
e­
r­
l­
y.
Okay.
I'm
not
a
23
doctor,
I'm
not
a
scientist,
I'm
a
mother.
My
16
24
year
old
has
had
asthma
since
he
was
2.
Every
25
316
morning
he
gets
up
he
takes
his
Zyrtec
for
all
the
1
allergies
that
he
has.
Most
of
them
of
course
2
outside.
We
live
in
Chicago,
we
live
on
the
south
3
side
of
Chicago.
He
takes
Advair
in
the
morning,
4
and
he
has
to
take
Flonase.
We
do
that
seven
days
5
a
week.
He
is
an
athlete,
he
plays
football
and
6
wrestles,
and
plays
baseball
and
half
of
his
team,
7
varsity
team
also
are
asthmatics.
This
makes
no
8
sense
that
my
son
spends
at
least
twice
a
year
in
9
the
hospital
for
three
or
four
days
with
an
asthma
10
attack.
11
It
shouldn't
happen.
You
know
what
needs
to
12
be
done,
the
government
knows
what
needs
to
be
13
done.
I
just
don't
understand
why
it's
not
being
14
done.
I'm
also
a
daughter,
10
years
ago
my
mother
15
was
diagnosed
with
asthma
at
70.
She
also
takes
16
Advair,
she
also
takes
Zyrtec,
and
she
also
has
an
17
Ambuterol
inhaler
for
emergencies.
She's
lived
in
18
Chicago
for
over
50
years.
She
can't
breathe
some
19
days,
and
some
days
she
can't
go
outside.
20
That
again,
makes
no
sense.
I'm
pretty
sure
21
if
some
of
the
lobbyists
like
the
utilities,
or
22
some
of
the
other
interest
groups
that
don't
want
23
things
changed
or
modified
had
siblings
or
children
24
that
couldn't
breathe.
Or
had
allergies
to
the
air
25
317
outside.
Perhaps
something
may
be
done,
I
don't
1
know.
But
I
do
know
that
we
need
something
done
in
2
Chicago
and
we
need
it
sooner
rather
than
later.
3
Thank
you.
4
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
5
[
Inaudible].
6
TESTIMONY
OF
MR.
JOHN
FITZGERALD,
CITIZEN
7
Mr.
Fitzgerald:
Do
you
want
me
to
spell
my
8
name?
F­
i­
t­
z­
g­
e­
r­
a­
l­
d,
first
name
John,
J­
o­
h­
9
n.
I'm
here
actually
on
behalf
of
my
mom
who
is
a
10
doctor,
much
of
this
stuff
is
you
know
kind
of
self
11
evident.
You
mentioned
that
the
new
proposed
12
standards
are
a
decrease
over
the
current
13
standards,
but
as
science
improves
I
feel
that
it's
14
not
fair
to
make
a
comparison
to
previous
15
scientific
standards.
You
know
in
the
Journal
of
16
Epidemiology,
they
just
through
some
study
or
17
whatever,
the
effects
of
fine
particulate
matter
18
are
two
to
three
times
greater,
and
I'm
sure
a
lot
19
of
people
have
mentioned
that
already
than
20
previously
thought.
21
And
let
me
see
what
else
I
have
to
say.
So,
I
22
don't
have
that
much
left
to
say.
It
is
rather
odd
23
that
the
administration
would
choose
to
reject
the
24
findings
of
its
own
scientists
and
I
feel
that
25
318
there
should
be
­­
numbers
should
be
set
at
no
1
greater
than
12,
which
you
said
earlier
for
the
2
annual
micro
grams
per
cubic
meter,
and
for
the
3
daily
at
25
that
should
be
the
maximum
as
opposed
4
to
a
working
floor,
it
should
be
a
working
ceiling.
5
And
then
I'd
also
just
like
to
ring
on
the
coarse
6
particle
matter.
It's
obviously
imperative
that
7
that
also
gets
toned
down,
and
the
decision
to
8
remove
reporting
in
meetings
as
communities
is
kind
9
of
you
know
bothersome
and
strange
to
me.
And
so
10
I'll
leave
it
at
that,
so
everyone
can
break
for
11
dinner
but
thank
you.
12
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
both
for
you
comments.
13
At
this
point
I'd
like
to
invite
Dr.
Sullivan,
and
14
Mr.
Shapiro.
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
microphone]
15
Just
very
briefly,
we
give
each
speaker
five
16
minutes.
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
microphone].
I
17
would
simply
ask
that
you
spell
your
name,
and
then
18
if
you
have
any
written
comments
to
give
them
to
19
the
court
reporter,
so
[
inaudible].
20
TESTIMONY
OF
DR.
MYRTIS
SULLIVAN,
MD,
UIC
SCHOOL
OF
21
PUBLIC
HEALTH
22
Dr.
Sullivan:
Good
evening,
my
name
is
Myrtis
23
Sullivan.
My
first
name
is
spelled
as
Myrtis,
last
24
name
is
Sullivan
S­
u­
l­
l­
i­
v­
a­
n.
And
I'm
a
25
319
pediatrician.
Also
I
have
a
background
in
public
1
health.
I've
been
a
pediatrician
for
a
number
­­
2
since
1978,
and
I've
been
in
the
public
health
3
field
for
over
10
years.
I
have
a
special
interest
4
in
asthma
both
from
a
clinical
standpoint
and
also
5
from
a
public
health
professional
standpoint.
I
6
work
at
­­
I
was
the
Director
of
a
Children's
7
Hospital,
Cook
County,
formally
Cook
County
8
Children's
Emergency
Department
and
where
asthma
9
was
our
primary
diagnosis
of
children
who
came
­­
10
unfortunately
came
to
the
emergency
department.
So
11
I
saw
first
hand
children
­­
how
asthma
effected
12
children's
lives
and
the
lives
of
their
families.
13
Days
missed
from
school.
Parents
taking
time
off
14
from
work.
Hospitalizations,
I
mean,
daily
we
had
15
­­
some
months
we
had
over
30
children
hospitalized
16
for
asthma,
and
in
the
summer
months,
in
months
17
where
and
times
when
air
pollution
was
at
its
18
highest
and
at
peak
levels
with
ozone
alert
days
we
19
saw
even
more
children
suffering
and
therefore
20
coming
to
our
emergency
department.
21
I'm
also
a
parent
of
a
daughter
who
also
has
22
asthma,
she's
an
adult
now,
but
she
also
would
23
suffer
on
those
high
ozone
alert
days.
So
I'm
just
24
coming
to
alert
you
to
­­
if
you
make
any
decisions
25
320
I
urge
the
standards
­­
the
air
quality
standards
1
to
be
tightened
and
that
before
­­
and
I
want
to
2
underscore
the
need
to
listen
to
all
health
3
professionals,
not
just
myself,
but
others
who
work
4
in
environmental
health,
pediatrics
and
also
what
5
other
vulnerable
populations
like
the
elderly.
And
6
especially
people
who
spend
a
lot
­­
a
great
deal
7
of
time
outdoors
playing,
or
working
and
are
8
exposed
at
very
high
levels
of
air
pollution.
It's
9
imperative
to
talk
to
the
officials
almost
anyone
10
that
you
will
speak
to
that
works
in
a
pediatric
11
environmental
health
specialty
unit
like
I
do,
12
that's
part
of
the
Great
Lakes
Centers
at
the
13
University
of
Illinois,
in
a
hospital.
You
ask
14
anybody
in
the
10
or
so
pediatric
health
specialty
15
­­
environmental
health
specialty
units.
They
will
16
all
agree
that
the
standards
have
to
be
lowered
and
17
they
have
to
lowered
drastically
and
adhered
to.
18
You
won't
find
any
health
professional
that
would
19
not
agree
to
that.
So
I
urge
you
to
take
the
time
20
out
if
possible,
individually
or
just
collectively
21
in
groups
to
get
this
information
first
hand
from
22
public
health
and
clinical
specialists.
And
­­
23
because
our
whole
country
has
a
stake
in
this.
Not
24
just
for
families
with
children
with
asthma,
but
25
321
the
whole
country,
because
I
mentioned
before
the
1
consequences
of
exposure
to
these
[
inaudible]
2
particulate
matter
and
other
types
of
pollutants
3
like
this.
You
have
millions
of
children
with
4
asthma
and
so
it
effects
the
children,
it
effects
5
the
workforce
and
it
effects
our
future,
so
now's
6
the
time.
We
have
an
opportunity
to
act.
I
think
7
it's
imperative
that
we
act.
And
I
think
it's
8
totally
negligent
if
we
do
not
act
to
change
these
9
standards.
So
we
want
to
make
our
environment
as
10
safe
as
possible
for
our
children.
We
all
have
11
that
stake
in
the
future.
So
again
the
time
is
now
12
to
act.
13
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
On
14
days
where
you
see
an
increase
in
people
coming
in
15
for
asthma,
you
mentioned
the
ozone
days,
do
you
16
also
see
that
in
the
high
[
inaudible]
particulate
17
matter
base,
or
is
there
a
[
inaudible].
18
Dr.
Fitzgerald:
Both,
yes.
19
Mr.
Burnett:
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
20
Shapiro.
21
TESTIMONY
OF
MR.
JOHN
SHAPIRO,
CITIZEN
22
Mr.
Shapiro:
My
name
is
John
Shapiro.
J­
o­
h­
23
n,
S­
h­
a­
p­
i­
r­
o.
And
I
appear
before
you
today
as
24
a
concerned
citizen.
A
concerned
member
of
the
25
322
Chicago
area
community
and
perhaps
most
of
all
1
concerned
parent.
I'm
here
to
lodge
my
concern
2
about
the
revised
standards
for
particular
matters
3
­­
or
matter
that
the
EPA
proposes
to
issue.
In
4
short
to
me
it
appears
that
the
proposed
standards
5
are
not
sufficiently
stringent
given
the
concerns,
6
the
practical
concerns
and
issues
that
physicians
7
and
others
face
everyday,
which
we
have
heard
about
8
and
which
I'm
sure
you
have
heard
much
more
today
9
in
this
forum
and
other
forums.
10
I'm
here
to
ask
the
panel
and
the
EPA
a
simple
11
question,
why.
Why
aren't
the
standards
that
are
12
being
proposed
more
stringent.
Based
on
my
13
understanding
of
the
situation,
it
appears
that
the
14
standards
are
not
sufficiently
stringent
to
meet
15
the
realities
of
the
situation.
And
I
have
to
16
profess
that
apart
from
being
concerned
about
the
17
environment,
I
come
to
this
particular
issue
of
18
late.
In
fact
somebody
alerted
to
me
­­
alerted
me
19
yesterday
to
this
very
situation,
so
I
did
a
little
20
bit
of
research
and
decided
that
I
should
come
over
21
here
and
express
my
concerns.
Perhaps
I
haven't
22
been
sufficiently
vigilant
in
overseeing
those
in
23
government
who
are
entrusted
to
protect
our
24
environment,
to
protect
our
citizens,
and
our
25
323
protect
our
families
and
children,
and
that's
my
1
fault.
But
I'm
here
now.
So
the
gist
of
my
speech
2
is
to
ask
the
question,
why?
You
probably
have
3
heard
these
issues
previously
today,
and
I'm
not
4
prepared
to
sit
here
today,
nor
are
you
probably
to
5
debate
them,
but
I'm
going
to
throw
out
a
few
6
things
that
I
have
learned
as
a
citizen
by
doing
a
7
little
bit
of
homework
in
the
last
24
hours.
8
And
I
want
to
know
why
the
proposed
standards
9
include
only
what
appears
to
be
a
token
change
in
10
the
fine
particular
exposure
standard,
when
as
I've
11
heard
today
and
as
I've
read,
the
EPA
staff
itself
12
and
the
scientific
advisory
committee
convened
by
13
the
EPA
recommended
much
more
stringent
standards.
14
I
want
to
know
why
the
EPA
is
proposing
what
15
appeared
to
be
token
changes
in
the
standards,
when
16
numerous
physicians
and
leading
medical
groups
have
17
all
said
that
the
standards
must
be
more
18
substantial,
more
stringent
to
protect
the
public
19
health
and
the
public
welfare.
I
want
to
know
why
20
the
standards
have
only
a
token
change
when
the
21
scientific
studies
show
that
this
slight
tightening
22
in
the
exposure
standards
will
have
little
23
beneficial
impact
on
the
public
health.
And
I
want
24
to
know
why
the
standards
haven't
been
­­
aren't
25
324
more
rigorous.
Where
the
wealth
of
scientific
1
studies
­­
what
I've
read,
show
that
these
2
standards
being
proposed
will
leave
millions
of
3
vulnerable
Americans
unprotected
from
these
harmful
4
pollutants.
I
want
to
know
why
there
are
only
5
token
changes
to
these
standards
where
I
understand
6
studies
are
coming
out
now
showing
that
the
effect
7
of
chronic
exposure
to
these
particulate
matters
is
8
much
worse
than
we
ever
previously
believed.
And
I
9
want
to
know
why
what
appeared
to
be
token
changes
10
are
being
made
when
the
Clean
Air
Act
as
I
11
understand
it,
requires
the
EPA
to
promulgate
12
regulations
that
benefit
the
public
regardless
of
13
cost.
14
It
seems
to
me,
the
EPA
is
inviting
15
unnecessary
litigation
over
this
issue
and
more
16
important
it's
inviting
unnecessary
delay
in
17
issuing
regulations
that
will
truly
benefit
the
18
public.
I
also
understand
that
the
EPA
itself
has
19
determined
that
the
cost
benefit
analysis.
The
20
cost
to
reducing
these
particulate
matters
by
a
21
certain
amount.
The
benefit
from
that
far
22
outweighs
the
cost.
And
I
understand
and
I've
23
heard
a
little
bit
about
it
today,
with
respect
to
24
coarse
particles
that
the
regulations
only
cover
25
325
urban
areas.
It
seems
to
me
in
researching
this
1
issue
fairly
quickly
that
it's
somewhat
ironic
to
2
be
appearing
before
an
agency
whose
middle
name
is
3
protection
and
yet
the
regulations
don't
really
4
seem
to
be
protecting
the
public,
and
it
seems
to
5
me
that
these
questions
and
I'm
sure
a
myriad
of
6
other
questions
which
you
have
probably
already
7
faced
then,
will
continue
to
face
in
this
comment
8
process,
require
consideration,
meaningful
and
9
additional
vetting
and
consideration.
All
right.
10
And
all
I
have
to
say
as
a
concerned
citizen
11
is
that
I
hope
my
concern,
does
not
take
the
form
12
of
outrage.
The
outrage
that
comes
from
lip
13
service
rather
than
meaningful
discourse.
And
I
14
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
appear
this
evening.
15
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
for
offering
those
16
comments,
it's
an
important
question
and
we
are
not
17
intending
to
engage
in
a
dialogue
here,
we
just
18
don't
have
the
means.
It's
not
set
up
for
doing
19
[
inaudible]
the
rational
that
Administrator
Johnson
20
has
preliminary
made
is
[
inaudible
­
away
from
21
microphone]
is
spelled
out
in
the
[
inaudible
­
away
22
from
microphone].
And
that's
really
the
best
place
23
to
look
for
answers,
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
24
microphone].
25
326
Mr.
Shapiro:
And
if
he
had
the
citation
handy
1
I'd
be
happy
to
take
it.
2
Ms.
Sasser:
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
3
microphone].
4
Mr.
Shapiro:
List
of
requests
for
comment,
how
5
to
comment,
fact
sheets
regarding
the
ambient
air
6
monitoring
regulations,
so
I
think
the
various
7
forms
that
you
had
out
at
the
front
table.
8
Ms.
Sasser:
The
preambles
are
quite
long.
9
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
microphone].
10
Mr.
Burnett:
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
11
microphone]
Page
26,
20.
12
Mr.
Shapiro:
Thank
you
for
that,
and
thank
you
13
for
the
opportunity
to
engage
you
in
what
I
hope
is
14
meaningful
discourse.
15
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
all
for
your
comments,
16
I
will
now
ask
if
there
is
anyone
who
would
like
to
17
come
up
and
testify.
I
think
we
are
scheduled
to
18
take
a
dinner
break,
and
[
inaudible
­
away
from
19
microphone].
Seeing
no
one,
we
will
suspend
the
20
hearing
until
7:
30.
Thank
you
very
much.
21
THE
REPORTER:
Going
off
the
record
at
6:
08,
22
this
is
the
end
of
tape
one.
23
[
Dinner
break
6:
08
p.
m.]
24
[
After
Dinner
session
7:
33
p.
m.]
25
327
Mr.
Burnett:
I
want
to
thank
you
for
attending
1
this
evening's
portion
of
the
hearing.
My
name
is
2
Jason
Burnett,
I'm
the
Senior
Policy
Advisor
and
3
Assistant
Administrator
of
EPA's
office
of
Air
and
4
Radiation,
and
I'm
going
to
make
abbreviated
5
remarks
about
our
two
proposed
rules
that
we're
6
taking
comment
on,
and
we
have
fact
sheets
for
both
7
rules
[
inaudible]
in
the
back.
And
we
encourage
8
you
to
pick
a
copy
of
those
up.
We're
in
the
9
middle
of
the
public
comment
period
for
the
10
[
inaudible]
revisions
as
well
as
the
[
inaudible]
11
air
quality
regulations.
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
12
microphone]
we
are
proposing
to
revise
downward
and
13
make
it
tighter
or
stringent.
It's
currently
set
14
at
65
micro
grams
per
cubic
meter.
We're
proposing
15
to
revise
that
down
to
35
micro
grams
per
cubic
16
meter.
The
annual
standards
we're
proposing
to
17
retain
that
at
the
current
level
of
[
inaudible]
18
micro
grams
per
cubic
meter.
[
inaudible
­­
off
19
tape].
Panel,
we
have
Erika
Sasser,
office
of
Air
20
Quality
[
inaudible]
Standards,
Human
Health
and
21
Environmental
Impacts
Division.
Jay
Bortzer
with
22
Region
5,
and
Lewis
Weinstock,
with
the
Office
of
23
Air
Quality
[
inaudible]
Standards,
Air
Quality
24
Assessment
Division.
With
that,
I'd
like
to
get
25
328
started,
and
ask
Ms.
Shakman
and
Ms.
Cepeda
to
come
1
forward
please.
I
ask
that
speakers
spell
their
2
names
for
the
court
reporter.
3
TESTIMONY
OF
MR.
IRA
SHAKMAN,
CITIZEN
4
Mr.
Shakman:
My
name
is
Ira
Shakman,
I­
r­
a,
S­
5
h­
a­
k­
m­
a­
n.
I
live
in
Chicago
and
am
most
6
familiar
with
fine
particulate
matter
through
the
7
[
inaudible]
Power
plants.
Grandfathered
power
8
plants
in
Chicago.
And
in
November
of
2004,
I
was
9
part
of
an
effort
to
put
an
advisory
referendum
on
10
the
ballot,
and
in
our
Governor's
precinct.
And
it
11
asked
­­
it
was
an
advisory
referendum
that
asked
12
them
to
reduce
the
emissions
and
Fisk
and
Crawford
13
by
90
percent.
The
[
inaudible]
and
mercury.
And
14
it
passed
by
90
percent
of
the
voters
approved
it.
15
Nonetheless,
our
Governor
did
not
listen
to
the
16
voice
of
the
people
with
regard
to
the
[
inaudible]
17
and
in
2005,
we
in
Chicago
experienced
30
days
of
18
unhealthy
air,
unhealthy
for
people
to
be
active
19
outdoors.
And
Joseph
Stiglitz
from
the
Columbia
20
University.
A
professor
at
Columbia
University,
a
21
Nobel
prize
winner
for
economics,
and
he
along
with
22
a
Harvard
budget
expert
calculated
that
the
cost
of
23
the
Iraq
war
is
going
to
be
between
one
trillion
24
and
two
trillion
dollars.
And
that
doesn't
include
25
329
the
cost
to
rebuild
Iraq.
And
of
course
going
into
1
Iraq
we
were
told
that
Iraqi
oil
would
pay
for
the
2
whole
episode.
We
were
also
told
that
we
were
3
going
to
be
welcomed
with
roses,
and
so
far
over
4
2,000
American
soldiers
have
been
killed
and
5
thousands
more
scared
and
wounded.
6
And
so
to
be
told
now
by
this
EPA
to
doubt
the
7
clear
scientific
consensus
that
your
proposal
on
8
fine
particulate
matter
is
too
weak
to
protect
9
public
health.
To
be
told
to
ignore
the
scientific
10
consensus
and
to
believe
that
it's
not
worth
11
American
industry
dollars,
to
spend
for
Americans
12
to
breath
healthy
air,
is
not
a
surprise
anymore
13
from
this
government
and
this
administration.
14
I
offer
no
special
expertise
on
fine
15
particular
matter.
I
probably
said
it
more
times
16
today
than
the
rest
of
my
life
combined.
But
I'll
17
say
what
strikes
me
most
about
what
I
read,
and
18
it's
that
the
long
term
exposure
to
fine
particular
19
pollution,
increases
the
risk
of
dying
from
lung
20
and
heart
disease.
The
relationship
between
fine
21
particles
and
adverse
health
effects
is
linear
22
without
a
discriminable
lower
safe
threshold.
And
23
that
particle
pollution
takes
an
average
of
14
24
years
off
the
life
of
people
who
die
prematurely
25
330
from
particle
exposure.
1
So
the
consensus
of
scientists
in
this
field,
2
state
that
the
effects
occur,
these
effects
occur
3
at
levels
below
the
current
standards.
And
the
EPA
4
proposal
that
this
hearing
is
about
maintains
that
5
the
current
annual
average
standard
for
fine
6
particles
at
15
micro
grams
per
cubic
meter
is
not
7
going
to
change.
And
I
find
that
troubling
from
an
8
agency
that
calls
themselves
the
Environmental
9
Protection
Agency.
I
support
the
consensus
of
10
scientists
and
health
and
environmental
interest
11
groups
that
lowers
the
annual
average
standard,
12
lowers
the
daily
standard
more
than
what
you
13
propose.
Creates
a
secondary
standard
pursuit,
14
creates
a
daily
standard
for
coarse
particles
and
15
closes
the
various
loopholes
that
weakens
your
16
already
weak
standards.
17
And
I
have
my
own
proposal,
and
to
support
my
18
proposal,
I
offer
five
observations.
One
in
19
February
of
2005,
the
EPA's
own
inspector
general
20
found
that
you
cooked
the
books,
you
cook
the
21
science
to
fit
the
administrations
preference
for
22
weak
limits
on
mercury
emissions
from
power
plants.
23
And
the
Inspector
General
stated
that
your
process
24
failed
to
fully
assess
the
rules
impact
on
25
331
children's
health.
Something
that's
been
echoed
1
today
in
regards
to
your
fine
particle
standards.
2
Two
in
October
of
2005,
the
EPA
proposed
a
3
[
inaudible]
whiteout
of
data
points
tracking
toxic
4
pollution
by
gutting
the
toxic
release
inventory.
5
Three
in
December
non
partisan
Congressional
6
researchers
found
that
the
EPA
was
over
estimating
7
costs
and
under
valuing
benefits
of
cleaner
power
8
plants,
and
the
report
was
issued
by
the
way
the
9
same
week
that
an
American
electric
power
10
corporation
press
release
stated
that
they're
11
modern
pollution
controls
are
working
better
than
12
they
expected
at
the
plants
where
they
installed
13
them.
14
Four
in
support
of
my
proposal
is
that,
your
15
actions,
the
EPA's
actions
helping
gut
the
new
16
source
review
program,
a
major
tool
to
regulate
the
17
raising
levels
of
pollution
from
grandfathered
18
power
plants.
And
five
in
January
of
this
year,
19
six
former
heads
of
the
environmental
protection
20
agency,
five
Republicans
and
one
Democrat
said
the
21
EPA
is
neglecting
global
warming.
22
My
proposal
is
if
the
EPA
continues
on
its
23
course
to
implement
its
weak
standards
for
fine
24
particulates,
is
to
keep
enacting
them,
EPA
to
make
25
332
it
easy
for
you
but
change
the
name
to
better
1
reflect
your
position,
and
I
have
some
suggestions.
2
You
may
call
the
EPA,
the
Environmental
Political
3
Agency,
or
you
may
call
it
the
Energetic
Polluters
4
Agency,
you
may
call
yourselves
Every
Polluter
5
Ambassador,
Everyone
Pollutes
All
right.
6
Environmental
Protection
[
inaudible]
anything.
But
7
please
don't
call
yourselves
the
Environmental
8
Protection
Agency.
9
Mr.
Burnett:
I'm
going
to
have
to
ask
you
to
10
just
close
your
remarks
at
this
point.
Thank
you
11
very
much
for
those
comments.
And
[
inaudible],
12
several
of
the
issues
that
you
addressed
are
the
13
subject
of
[
inaudible]
and
there
may
be
other
14
commentary
in
there
as
well,
but
for
your
comments
15
on
the
[
inaudible]
I
appreciate
those
comments.
16
TESTIMONY
OF
MS.
LEILA
CEPEDA,
PERRO
17
Ms.
Cepeda:
My
name
is
Leila
Cepeda.
L­
e­
i­
l­
18
a,
last
name
is
C
as
in
Cat,
e,
P
as
in
Peter,
e­
d­
19
a.
I
didn't
plan
on
speaking,
I
got
a
call
and
20
said
you
should
go
down
there,
I
didn't
even
know
21
what
was
going
on.
But
I
want
you
to
know
how
I
22
was
effected
by
what
you're
trying
to
keep
from
23
happening,
which
is
to
give
us
clean
air.
24
In
1998,
I
was
diagnosed
with
Floydes
tumor,
25
333
which
is
very
rare
and
aggressive
cancer.
1
Fortunately
I
have
always
thought
outside
of
the
2
box
and
I
did
not
listen
to
the
doctors,
they
said
3
to
come
back
in
six
months.
I
said
no,
I
want
this
4
ball
out
of
me
now.
If
I
had
waited
six
months
I
5
would
have
died.
And
I
couldn't
figure
out
why
I
6
had
gotten
this,
the
doctors
couldn't
figure
it
7
out,
you
know
I
don't
eat
red
meat,
I've
never
8
smoked,
drink
alcohol,
caffeine,
none
of
these
9
things.
Now
I
realize,
I
live
two
blocks
away
from
10
one
of
the
coal
plants
and
Kramer.
It's
effecting
11
me.
I
also
have
an
irregular
heartbeat
which
I
12
didn't
know
why
that
was
going
on
either,
and
now
I
13
realize
that
this
is
the
cause
also.
14
And
there's
also
other
people
in
the
community
15
that
have
been
suffering
from
rare
cancers.
My
16
older
sister
who
is
a
trauma
nurse
is
a
cancer
17
survivor.
She
had
a
thyroid
removed.
That's
18
another
thing
that
happened
because
of
this.
I
19
don't
have
all
the
technical
terms.
But
there's
20
something
is
going
on,
and
I
hope
that
you
take
it
21
within
yourselves,
whatever
you
have
to
do
to
22
really
think
about
it,
there's
peoples
lives
at
23
stake.
Not
money
and
business
which
I
know
the
24
Bush
administration
thinks
about
mostly.
But
there
25
334
are
lives
at
stake
here,
you
need
to
raise
the
1
standards.
It's
not
about
money.
Think
about
the
2
position
that
you
have
now.
And
think
about
the
3
lives
at
stake
there
are
children
dying,
people
4
dying
every
day.
I
am
a
survivor
but
not
because
5
of
what
the
doctor
said.
I
was
fortunate
because
6
I'm
aggressive,
and
I'm
going
to
be
aggressively
7
fighting
you
now.
You
will
be
seeing
me
again,
and
8
I'm
going
to
be
prepared,
but
we
want
higher
9
standards
set.
The
community
of
Pilson
deserves
to
10
have
clean
air.
Just
because
they
are
Hispanic,
11
and
poor,
lower
income,
does
not
mean
they
do
not
12
deserve
clean
air.
The
Bush
administration
is
13
going
to
hear
this
and
he's
going
to
have
to
change
14
this.
It
can't
continue.
And
I
will
be
prepared
15
next
time.
And
I
just
wanted
to
know
one
more
16
thing,
why
is
it
so
difficult
to
raise
the
17
standards.
I'm
asking
you
­­
why
is
it
so
18
difficult
to
raise
the
standards.
19
Mr.
Burnett:
The
proposal
is
tighten
the
daily
20
[
inaudible].
By
that
I
mean
make
it
more
stringent
21
[
inaudible].
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
microphone].
22
Ms.
Cepeda:
Well
that's
what
I'm
saying,
I'm
23
not
prepared,
but
there's
something
that
I
read
24
just
as
I
walked
in
that
­­
what
was
it,
that
some
25
335
science
did
a
study
and
they
were
proposing
one
1
thing,
but
you're
not
agreeing,
you're
not
going
as
2
high
as
what
they're
proposing,
that's
what
I
mean.
3
Mr.
Burnett:
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
4
microphone].
5
Ms.
Cepeda:
Why
don't
you
raise
it,
why
don't
6
you
raise
the
standard,
because
it's
not
working.
7
People
are
still
dying
they're
still
getting
sick.
8
Is
it
just
about
business,
I
think
that's
probably
9
what
it
is,
it's
just
business,
and
if
it's
looking
10
at
it
in
a
business
sense,
these
knuckleheads,
11
these
companies,
they
should
just
go
green,
they
12
could
still
make
money
if
that's
all
their
13
interested
in.
Maybe
you
should
send
somebody
to
14
start
telling
them,
just
go
green
you'll
make
15
money.
I'm
planning
to
make
my
whole
house
go
16
green.
And
I'm
sorry
to
cut
you
off,
but
I
don't
17
have
much
time.
But
I'm
asking
you
please
to
think
18
about
the
people
that
are
dying,
there
are
lives
19
here.
Human
beings,
children.
Mothers,
sisters,
20
brothers,
people
that
could
be
related
to
you.
21
Follow
your
conscience
and
really
really
do
22
something,
don't
do
just
for
political
reasons,
and
23
I
know
I'm
being
naive.
I
don't
know,
try
within
24
you,
if
you
could
just
make
a
difference
just
25
336
within
yourself.
This
is
something
serious,
this
1
world
belongs
to
all
of
us,
you're
all
affected
by
2
these
plans,
it's
not
just
me.
You're
all
3
effected.
You
don't
know
if
you're
going
to
find
a
4
tumor
in
your
breast,
or
in
your
penis,
or
in
your
5
rectum,
or
in
your
throat,
in
your
lung,
you
don't
6
know.
It
could
be
you
next.
You're
all
affected
7
by
it.
And
just
remember
that,
okay?
8
Mr.
Burnett:
I
have
a
question
[
inaudible].
9
Ms.
Cepeda:
The
Pilson
Community
it's
very
10
close
to
here,
it's
just
a
little
bit
south
west
11
and
the
Fisk
plant
is
located
in
the
Pilson
12
community,
and
H.
Kramer
is
also
located
in
the
13
community
and
their
one
of
the
biggest
polluters
in
14
the
country
and
they're
located
there,
and
it's
the
15
highest
population
of
­­
it's
mostly
Latinos,
the
16
community
is
going
through
gentrification
so
I
know
17
once
the
people
come
in
with
the
money
it
will
18
probably
change
you
know,
the
color
changes,
the
19
money
changes,
it
all
changes,
but
still
it's
not
20
right.
There's
still
a
lot
of
people
across
the
21
street
from
these
plants,
they
don't
have
air
22
conditioning,
in
the
summer
they
have
to
open
their
23
windows
to
let
air
in,
what
are
they
letting
in.
24
It's
sad.
I
have
air
conditioning,
I
have
the
best
25
337
air
cleaners
and
stuff,
but
it's
still
not
enough.
1
But
these
poor
people
in
the
heat
and
the
sting
of
2
Chicago
summer
they
can't
­­
but
they're
opening
3
them.
And
just
because
they're
poor
it's
not
4
right.
They
deserve
the
right
to
breathe
clean
5
air.
6
Mr.
Burnett:
I
would
like
to
thank
both
of
you
7
for
your
comments.
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
8
microphone]
and
at
this
point
I
would
like
to
9
request
that
­­
and
I
apologize
[
inaudible].
10
TESTIMONY
OF
MS.
ANITA
GIGLIOTTI,
CITIZEN
11
Ms.
Gigliotti:
Hi
my
name
is
Anita
Gigliotti,
12
G­
i­
g­
l­
o­
t­
t­
i.
I
have
been
a
resident
of
Chicago
13
my
whole
life,
[
inaudible]
suburbs
on
the
first
20
14
years,
and
downtown
area
the
last
half
of
my
life.
15
I'm
not
really
savvy
with
the
proposals
that
are
16
going
on
tonight.
But
I
guess
my
thoughts
are,
we
17
all
live
in
the
world,
I
know
that
the
EPA
is
not
18
exempt
from
­­
I
think
that
you
guys
are
trying
to
19
do,
it's
baby
steps,
and
maybe
I
sound
flowery,
but
20
there's
a
process
to
it.
And
I
think
you're
going
21
in
the
right
direction.
I
know
that
it's
important
22
that
you
guys
are
monitoring
the
lakes.
I
know
in
23
Chicago
here,
it's
come
up
lately
with
you
know
the
24
lakes
are
the
big
buzz
and
all
the
little
25
338
reservoirs
and
how
much
contamination
is
going
on
1
there.
And
I
think
that
that's
always
been
going
2
on,
but
now
it's
just
coming
to
light.
So
I
think
3
the
EPA
is
trying
to
be
proactive
and
their
trying
4
clean
it
up,
it
comes
to
light
and
you're
5
addressing
it.
You
know
and
I
guess
my
other
6
thought
process
is,
if
you're
not
part
of
the
7
solution
then
you're
part
of
the
problem.
And
the
8
only
thing
I
have
to
say,
is
you
know
I'm
not
sure
9
if
there's
any
incentives
for
­­
or
it
was
a
10
thought
that
you
know
the
hybrid
cars
are
coming
11
out
now,
and
I
know
a
lot
of
the
people
want
things
12
to
be
done,
but
a
lot
of
people
talk
a
lot
and
they
13
don't
really
give
any
comments,
or
you
solutions
or
14
suggestions.
They
just
want
it
to
be
fixed.
But
15
my
thought
was
maybe
you
know
if
the
government
or
16
you
know
the
EPA,
if
somebody
gives
incentives
for
17
people
who
drive
hybrid
cars,
where
you're
cutting
18
back
on
you
know,
alternatives
to
gasoline.
19
You
know
that
was
just
one
thought
that
I
had,
20
and
you
know
continue
to
monitor
the
food,
the
21
water,
the
air,
because
I
think
when
you
hear
the
22
numbers
it's
a
little
bit
scary,
but
again
I'm
not
23
real
savvy
with
all
this,
so
the
numbers
that
I'm
24
hearing,
I
you
know
­­
this
is
my
son
Joey
and
he
25
339
has
asthma,
and
so
you
know
I
would
just
like
you
1
guys
to
continue
to
address
the
problems.
And
I
2
honestly
couldn't
tell
you
if
I
think
that
the
3
numbers
that
you're
giving
tonight
are
conducive
to
4
making
a
change,
but
something
is
better
than
5
nothing.
It's
progression.
6
Mr.
Burnett:
Would
you
like
to
make
any
7
comments.
8
TESTIMONY
OF
MR.
JOEY
SANTIAGO,
CITIZEN
9
Mr.
Santiago:
My
name
is
Joey
Santiago,
J­
o­
e­
10
y,
S­
a­
n­
t­
i­
a­
g­
o.
I
lived
in
Chicago
for
all
my
11
life,
and
I
don't
know
much
about
the
EPA,
but
like
12
I
just
think
that
like,
you
should
announce
to
the
13
people
that
the
water
and
the
air,
is
like
­­
isn't
14
doing
any
much
better
as
it
has
in
the
past
few
15
years,
and
about
the
global
warming
and
everything.
16
And
like
try
to
cut
back
on
like
using
your
car
17
every
day,
maybe
you
could
like
walk
or
something.
18
Mr.
Burnett:
Can
you
tell
us
a
little
bit
19
about
your
asthma.
20
Mr.
Santiago:
Well
I
got
my
asthma
when
I
was
21
about
two,
and
ever
since
then
I've
had
it,
and
22
through
my
whole
life,
I've
had
about
three
asthma
23
attacks.
24
Mr.
Burnett:
I'm
sorry
to
hear
that,
and
we'll
25
340
[
inaudible].
Thank
you
all
for
your
comments.
Ms.
1
Wigg.
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
microphone]
2
TESTIMONY
OF
MS.
REBECCA
WIGG,
CITIZEN
3
Ms.
Wigg:
Okay.
Thank
you.
It's
Rebecca
4
Wigg,
R­
e­
b­
e­
c­
c­
a,
W­
i­
g­
g.
I
am
here
as
a
5
concerned
citizen,
and
just
wanted
to
make
a
couple
6
of
statement
about
the
proposed
rules.
Particle
7
pollution
does
pose
a
serious
health
threat
to
8
Americans
and
it's
one
of
the
Nation's
most
9
dangerous
air
pollutants,
it
can
cause
asthma
10
attacks,
heart
attacks,
strokes,
lung
cancer,
and
11
causes
thousands
of
deaths,
each
year
here
in
our
12
country.
And
in
Illinois,
we
actually
suffer
from
13
some
of
the
worse
pollution
in
the
country.
So
14
this
rule
will
have
a
particular
impact
here
in
15
Chicago
and
in
Illinois.
There
are
a
number
of
16
scientific
studies
available
that
show
that
the
17
current
standards
for
particle
pollution
is
too
18
weak
to
protect
public
health,
and
that
the
19
proposed
rules
don't
go
far
enough
to
protect
our
20
public
health.
So
I'm
actually
asking
for
a
21
stronger
standard
than
what
has
been
proposed.
22
A
couple
of
other
things
that
I
wanted
to
23
mention,
is
that
the
Bush
administrations
24
independent
science
advisors
as
well
as
the
EPA's
25
341
own
scientists
have
recommended
a
stronger
standard
1
than
what
has
been
proposed,
and
I
think
that
we
2
need
to
take
that
into
account.
The
rules
that
I
3
would
support,
are
an
annual
standard
no
higher
4
than
12
micro
grams
per
cubic
meter
and
a
daily
5
standard
no
higher
than
25
micro
grams
per
cubic
6
meter.
That's
as
opposed
to
the
current
proposal
7
which
is
15
annual
and
35
I
believe.
The
proposed
8
rules
will
only
protect
an
additional
three
percent
9
of
the
population
versus
going
further
would
have
a
10
much
greater
impact
on
our
population.
11
And
then
the
final
point
that
I
wanted
to
12
address
is
the
proposed
standard
for
coarse
13
particles,
which
would
exempt
certain
parts
of
the
14
country
or
certain
industries
from
meeting
those
15
standards,
and
I
don't
think
that's
appropriate.
I
16
believe
that
we
need
to
have
uniform
standards
17
across
the
country.
Regardless
of
where
the
18
pollution
is
coming
from,
it's
going
to
effect
19
every
one
the
same
way.
And
so
those
kind
of
20
exemptions
for
certain
industries
are
21
inappropriate.
That's
all
I
have
to
say.
Thank
22
you.
23
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
for
your
remarks.
24
Throughout
the
day
people
have
commented
on
25
342
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
microphone].
1
Ms.
Wigg:
I'm
in
the
non
profit
environmental
2
world,
so
I
got
an
email
from
Alissa
[
inaudible]
of
3
the
Illinois
Environmental
Council,
who's
someone
4
that
I
work
with.
Thank
you.
5
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
very
much.
We
will
6
take
a
break,
and
we'll
resume
when
somebody
comes
7
who
would
like
to
testify.
8
[
Break
7:
59]
9
[
Back
on
record
8:
06]
10
Mr.
Burnett:
Mr.
Nelson
and
Mr.
Gremley,
if
11
you'll
both
come
up
to
this
table
here.
I'll
just
12
make
a
few
remarks
about
the
process,
these
are
13
going
to
be
abbreviated
from
what
I've
been
telling
14
all
speakers,
if
you
have
any
questions
let
me
15
know.
We
are
here
to
take
your
comments
on
the
16
[
inaudible]
quality
standards
[
inaudible]
17
monitoring
regulations.
Your
comments
will
be
18
transcribed
and
put
in
the
[
inaudible
­
off
tape]
19
TESTIMONY
OF
MR.
DENNIS
NELSON,
PIRG
20
Mr.
Nelson:
That
is
D­
e­
n­
n­
i­
s,
middle
21
initial
R,
N­
e­
l­
s­
o­
n.
And
I
reside
at
660
North
22
Deerborne
Street,
apartment
306,
Chicago
Illinois,
23
60610.
Being
one
the
original
modern
environmental
24
activists
I've
pro
active
since
around
the
first
25
343
Earth
Day,
April
22nd,
1970
in
supporting
the
1
passage
of
tough
environmental
laws,
like
the
Clean
2
Air
Act.
B,
I
have
a
bachelor
science,
BS
degree
3
in
biology
and
environmental
studies
from
Dana
4
College
Blair,
Nebraska,
although
I
am
a
member
of
5
the
Sierra
Club
and
the
Union
of
Concerned
6
Scientists
the
views
presented
in
this
testimony,
7
are
mine.
My
nearly
36
years
of
experience
has
8
shown
me
that
environmental
activists
are
forced
to
9
always
be
against
something
bad.
But
if
you
are
10
against
something
bad,
you're
also
in
favor
of
11
something
good.
If
I
am
against
an
ecologically
12
destructive,
and
economically
wasteful
pork
barrel
13
water
project
which
I
have
been
in
the
past,
then
I
14
am
in
favor
of
a
free
flowing
river
and
its
15
biological
diversity,
plus
saving
taxpayers
money.
16
If
I'm
opposed
to
Exelon
constructing
a
second
17
nuclear
reactor
near
Clinton
Illinois
which
I
am,
18
then
I'm
in
favor
of
a
statewide
renewable
energy
19
portfolio
standard
to
require
our
electric
20
utilities
to
use
more
renewable
resources
like
21
wind,
solar,
and
biomass
first.
And
now
getting
to
22
the
crux
of
what
this
public
hearing
is
all
about,
23
if
I
am
against
the
Bush/
Chaney
administration's
24
roll
back
of
air
quality
standards,
which
I
am
then
25
344
I
definitely
support
stronger
standards
under
the
1
Clean
Air
Act
to
protect
our
lungs
from
fine
2
particulate
pollution.
We
should
be
reducing
the
3
unnecessary
public
health
risks,
posed
by
fine
4
particulates
being
emitted
by
coal
fired
power
5
plants,
diesel
engines
and
other
human
made
6
sources.
Since
our
air
here
in
the
greater
Chicago
7
metropolitan
area
is
so
polluted
by
these
fine
8
particulates,
it
is
fitting
that
one
of
the
U.
S.
9
EPA's
three
public
hearings
be
held
today
in
the
10
windy
city.
I'll
let
other
speakers
recite
the
11
litany
of
specific
health
problems
caused
by
fine
12
particulate
pollution.
I'm
going
to
mention
the
13
fact
that
the
Bush/
Chaney
administration
has
14
rejected
the
recommendations
of
both
its
15
independent
scientific
advisors
and
U.
S.
EPA
staff
16
scientists
to
set
tougher
fine
particulate
air
17
quality
standards.
To
those
of
us
who
carefully
18
follow
and
analyze
environmental
political
trends
19
this
episode
is
merely
one
more
chapter
of
the
long
20
ongoing
story
of
the
Bush/
Chaney
administration
21
deliberately
ignoring
sound
environmental
science.
22
Instead
this
administration
has
chosen
to
embrace
23
the
anti­
environmental
clap
trap
junk
science
being
24
perpetuated
by
polluting
corporations
such
as
the
25
345
electric
utility
industry
and
the
think
tanks,
1
industry
front
groups
and
PR
firms
that
are
in
2
cahoots
with
them.
3
That
concludes
my
testimony.
Please
include
4
my
comments
in
the
official
hearing
record
as
5
public
input
and
I've
also
submitted
a
set
of
6
written
comments
as
well,
outside.
Thank
you.
7
Mr.
Burnett:
Thank
you
very
much.
8
TESTIMONY
OF
MR.
E.
JASON
GREMLEY,
CITIZEN
9
Mr.
Gremley:
Hi,
I'm
E.
Jason
Gremley,
that's
10
G­
r­
e­
m­
l­
e­
y.
I'm
here,
just
to
testify
11
personally
about
how
I
feel
about
the
subject
of
12
our
environment
of
clean
air.
And
while
it's
13
important
to
get
on
a
large
scale
things
going
in
14
the
right
direction,
and
changing
the
air
quality
15
standards
I
wouldn't
count
on
those
things
16
happening.
I
would
count
on
the
change
happening
17
first
within
each
every
individual
in
making
a
18
conscious
choice
to
do
what
we
can
as
individuals
19
on
our
individual
level.
Recently,
this
summer
I
20
just
have
given
up
my
automobile.
I
didn't
realize
21
what
a
big
step
that
is,
as
an
individual
living
in
22
Chicago
I
have
means
of
public
transportation,
so
23
that
of
course
in
and
of
itself
is
a
big
step
for
24
me.
And
if
my
neighbor
did
that,
and
everyone
in
25
346
my
high
rise
apartment
complex
did
that,
so
1
recently
I've
been
thinking
on
that
level.
2
So
while
it's
important
once
again
to
do
what
3
we
can
on
the
large
scale.
If
we're
not
ourselves
4
practicing
it
individually,
we're
never
going
to
5
reach
the
point
that
we
need
to
reach,
because
the
6
individuals
themselves,
aren't
really
supporting
7
their
own
theory.
Basically,
practice
what
you
8
preach.
So
I
mean
I'm
just
using
the
automobile
9
example,
there
could
be
­­
I
mean,
you
name
it.
10
Recycling,
what
else.
I
can't
think
of
any
off
the
11
top
of
my
head,
but
simple
changes.
Gardening,
12
greening,
personal
choices
in
your
life
not
to
13
maybe
buy
organic
vegetables.
Not
use
cleaning
14
products
that
you
know
emit
too
much
pollutants,
so
15
those
are
just
some
of
the
things
I
think
that
if
16
we
can
just
do
that
as
individuals,
and
also
keep
17
our
sight
on
the
you
know,
federal
standards,
that
18
things
will
turn
around.
But
I
would
count
on
each
19
individual
and
the
people,
the
movement
of
the
20
people,
the
power
of
the
people
to
move
together
as
21
representative
of
the
change.
Who
said
it,
be
the
22
change
you
want
to
see.
That's
pretty
much
it.
23
Mr.
Burnett:
I
thank
you
for
making
the
24
comments,
and
if
you
do
have
any
additional
25
347
comments
you'd
like
to
put
forward,
[
inaudible]
and
1
that
period
is
until
April
17th,
and
[
inaudible].
2
[
Inaudible
­
away
from
microphone],
I'd
like
to
3
thank
you
both
and
seeing
no
other
speakers,
I
4
think
that
we
will
take
a
break
and
we'll
5
[
inaudible].
Thank
you.
6
[
Off
record
8:
25
p.
m.]
7
[
On
record
9:
00
p.
m.]
8
Mr.
Burnett:
Seeing
no
[
inaudible].
9
[
Off
record
9:
00
p.
m.]
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
