1
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PUBLIC
HEARING
PROPOSED
RULE
TO
IMPLEMENT
THE
8­
HOUR
OZONE
NATIONAL
AMBIENT
AIR
QUALITY
STANDARD
HOLIDAY
INN
SELECT
480
KING
STREET
ALEXANDRIA,
VIRGINIA
FRIDAY,
JUNE
27,
2003
2
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
TRANSCRIPT
OF
PROCEEDINGS
A
hearing
was
held
in
the
above­
entitled
matter
at
the
Holiday
Inn
Select,
480
King
Street,
Alexandria,

Virginia,
in
the
Carlyle
1
Meeting
Room,
before
Thomas
Helms,
John
Silvasi
and
Jan
Tierney,
the
Panel,
taken
by
Maureen
S.
Bennie,
Court
Reporter,
beginning
at
8:
33
a.
m.,

and
proceeded
as
follows:
3
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
Opening
comments
by
Thomas
Helms
6
Testimony
of
Ann
Weeks
13
Testimony
of
Norman
Fickthorn
20
Testimony
of
Stephen
Harper
25,
31
Testimony
of
Everett
(
Brownie)
Carson
26
Testimony
of
Erica
Frank
33
Testimony
of
Scott
Gollwitzer
36
Testimony
of
Michael
Meyer
38
Testimony
of
Anthony
Dorsey
40
Testimony
of
Illai
Kenney
41
Testimony
of
Michael
Replogle
44
Testimony
of
Jane
Bright
51
Testimony
of
John
Wilson
55
Testimony
of
Arthur
Stamoulis
65
Testimony
of
John
Kearney
69
Testimony
of
Stephanie
Sanchez
74
Testimony
of
Phil
Compton
81
Testimony
of
Charles
Kleekamp
84
Testimony
of
Kathryn
Kleekamp
88
Testimony
of
Frank
O'Donnell
93
Testimony
of
James
Brooks
96
4
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
CONTENTS
(
CONTINUED)

DESCRIPTION
PAGE
Testimony
of
Melissa
Ladd
102
Testimony
of
Christopher
Recchia
105
Testimony
of
A.
Blakeman
Early
111
Testimony
of
Katy
Hubener
118
Testimony
of
Mark
Mitchell
123
Testimony
of
Colleen
Kiernan
128
Testimony
of
Jill
Stephens
131
Testimony
of
Valerie
True
135
Testimony
of
John
Stanton
139
Testimony
of
Andy
Bauer
145
Testimony
of
Joanna
Schnurman
149
Testimony
of
Zachary
Corrigan
152
Testimony
of
Jennifer
Hicks
161
Testimony
of
Pamela
Irwin
165
Testimony
of
Roger
Diedrich
167
Testimony
of
Jason
Babbie
170
Testimony
of
Nathaniel
Mund
175
Testimony
of
Stephen
Smith
180
Testimony
of
Ulla
Reeves
186
Testimony
of
Ronald
Bert
190
Testimony
of
Brooke
Suter
191
5
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
CONTENTS
(
continued)

DESCRIPTION
PAGE
Testimony
of
Amy
Beck
195
Testimony
of
Lee
Epstein
196
Testimony
of
Melissa
Bernardin
201
Testimony
of
Julie
Crenshaw
206
Testimony
of
Robert
Dalton
211
Testimony
of
Heather
Quinlan
229
Testimony
of
Robert
Sliwinski
233
Testimony
of
Dan
Grace
238
Testimony
of
Bahri
Aliriza
241
Testimony
of
James
Lowenstern
247
Testimony
of
Frederick
Newell
248
6
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
1
MR.
HELMS:
Welcome.
We
appreciate
all
of
you
2
coming
out,
those
that
are
here
and
those
that
will
be
3
here
at
a
later
time.
Welcome
to
the
United
States
4
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
public
hearing
on
a
rule
5
to
implement
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
ambient
air
quality
6
standard.
7
My
name
is
Tom
Helms.
I
am
an
engineer
with
8
EPA's
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards.
I
9
serve
as
a
group
leader
for
the
Ozone
Policies
and
10
Strategies
Group
within
that
office.
I
will
be
your
11
hearing
officer
for
today.
12
I
am
joined
here
by
John
Silvasi,
an
engineer
in
13
our
ozone
program,
the
principal
author
of
the
rule
that
14
we
are
talking
about
today
and
soliciting
comments
on.
15
Jan
Tierney
from
our
Office
of
General
Counsel
will
also
16
serve
on
the
hearing
panel.
And
Natalie
Garrison
over
17
there,
one
of
our
staff,
will
be
taking
notes.
She
will
18
be
sitting
up
here
to
look
you
in
the
eye
as
she
writes
19
notes.
Denise
Gerth
­­
I
don't
see
Denise
now
­­
she
is
20
our
coauthor
with
John
on
this
rule.
She
will
be
floating
21
in
and
out.
What
I
tell
people,
if
you
need
details
or
22
you
want
to
know
where
things
are,
Denise
Gerth
of
our
23
7
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
staff
is
here
and
she
can
line
you
up,
point
you
in
the
1
right
location
on
our
website.
2
We
are
here
to
hear
your
comments
on
our
3
proposed
8­
hour
rule.
I
want
to
remind
you
this
public
4
comment
period
is
for
our
8­
hour
rule.
It
is
not
to
5
receive
comments
on
the
ozone
nonattainment
designation
6
process
that
is
underway
right
now
and
will
culminate
next
7
April
of
2004,
with
EPA
promulgating
ozone
nonattainment
8
designations.
9
Let's
take
a
walk
back
and
look
at
some
history.
10
How
did
we
get
here
today?
EPA
promulgated
this
ozone
11
8­
hour
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
back
in
July
12
of
1997.
Then
all
the
lawyers
came
out,
litigation
13
ensued,
and
we
had
numerous
court
cases,
very
complex
14
decisions,
if
you
will.
The
reason
we
are
proposing
this
15
8­
hour
rule
today
is
because
the
courts
told
us
that
our
16
approach
for
implementing
this
new
8­
hour
standard
by
way
17
of
a
state
implementation
process
was
not
legal,
that
we
18
had
to
make
some
changes.
So
this
rule
attempts
to
make
19
those
changes.
20
Since
the
Supreme
Court
ruling,
we
have
had
21
numerous
interactions
with
interested
parties.
We
had
22
three
public
meetings
­­
one
in
Washington,
another
in
23
8
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Phoenix,
for
example
­­
to
get
input
on
the
direction
that
1
you
think
we
should
go
in
developing
this
rule.
As
a
2
result,
we
proposed
the
rule.
It
was
signed
by
the
3
Administrator
on
May
14th
of
this
year
and
published
in
4
the
Federal
Register
on
June
2nd.
5
In
this
rule,
we
are
obviously
attempting
to
6
comply
with
the
court
mandates.
We
want
to
come
up
with
a
7
rule
that
provides
maximum
flexibility
to
states
and
local
8
agencies
as
they
develop
their
plans
to
meet
this
8­
hour
9
ozone
standard.
We
want
to
maintain
progress
with
the
10
ongoing
1­
hour
ozone
ambient
air
quality
program.
And
11
then
finally,
we
hope
the
rule
will
provide
for
12
anti­
backsliding;
in
other
words,
maintain
the
progress
13
that
you
have
underway
­­
states
have
underway
and
local
14
agencies
have
underway
to
meet
the
1­
hour
standard.
15
Let's
talk
about
time
frame
for
a
minute.
Where
16
are
we
going
and
when
will
we
get
there?
The
proposal
was
17
out
June
2nd.
We
will
take
your
comments
today.
The
18
record
will
remain
open
until
August
1st
of
this
year.
So
19
if
you
are
here
today,
you
comment
and
then
think
of
other
20
items
you
wish
you
had
said,
you
have
the
opportunity
to
21
provide
them
to
us
until
August
1st
of
this
year.
22
We
hope
to
finalize
this
rule.
Our
target
date
23
9
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
for
finalizing
it
will
be
December
of
this
year.
Then,
if
1
our
nonattainment
designation
program
goes
as
planned,
2
designations
are
made
on
time
­­
and
we
intend
to
make
3
them
on
time
­­
state
and
tribal
implementation
plans,
the
4
so­
called
SIPs
from
states,
will
be
due
April
of
2007.
5
Clean
air
attainment
dates
to
meet
this
8­
hour
standard
6
would
range
from
2007
to
2021,
depending
on,
number
one,
7
the
options
chosen
and
the
severity
of
the
air
quality
8
problem.
9
Again,
all
of
you
here
today
are
welcome
to
10
comment.
We
encourage
you
to
comment.
We
thank
you
for
11
coming
out
today
and
showing
your
interest
in
this
12
important
rule.
13
A
transcript
of
the
hearing
will
be
maintained.
14
We
have
a
court
reporter
right
now
that
is
recording
15
verbatim
what
is
going
on.
We
hope
that
transcript
will
16
be
available
in
approximately
30
days.
And,
John,
that
17
would
be
on
the
website,
would
it
not?
18
MR.
SILVASI:
We
will
put
it
on
a
docket
and
19
would
like
to
put
it
on
the
website
too.
But
the
docket
20
is
­­
we
have
an
electronic
docket
system
that
is
on
a
21
website
at
EPA,
an
electronic
docket
system.
22
MR.
HELMS:
Okay.
So
if
you
are
interested,
and
23
10
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
hopefully
you
will
be,
a
transcript
of
this
and
the
other
1
two
hearings
that
we
had
­­
we
had
one
in
Dallas
last
week
2
and
one
in
San
Francisco
last
week
­­
those
transcripts
3
will
be
available
to
you.
4
We
have
a
contractor,
E.
H.
Pechan
and
5
Associates,
helping
us.
Is
Barbara
Bauer
in
here?
6
(
Ms.
Bauer
indicating.)
7
MR.
HELMS:
Barbara
is
here
to
help
us
if
you
8
have
questions
if
you
can't
­­
Denise
raise
your
hand.
9
Denise
Gerth
again.
Denise,
who
is
on
my
staff,
or
10
Barbara,
our
contractor,
will
be
willing
to
help
you.
11
Let's
talk
about
hearing
ground
rules.
This
is
12
always
fun,
but
it
is
absolutely
necessary,
I
assure
you.
13
We
welcome
all
of
your
comments.
Anyone
here
is
free
to
14
comment.
We
ask
that
you
register
outside
to
make
a
15
comment.
If
you
are
sitting
out
here
and
if
you
suddenly
16
feel
the
urge
to
make
a
comment,
raise
your
hand,
get
into
17
the
system,
and
you
can
comment.
You
can
register
18
afterward,
but
it
is
better
to
register
before
you
come
up
19
here
because
they
will
be
handing
me
these
little
yellow
20
slips
of
paper
and
I
will
be
processing
them
in
order.
21
Each
speaker
will
be
called
to
this
stand
right
22
here
(
indicating)
to
make
your
testimony.
We
ask
that
­­
23
11
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
for
the
record,
we
ask
you
to
give
your
name,
your
1
affiliation,
your
address,
e­
mail
address
if
you
have
it,
2
so
the
court
reporter
can
place
it
into
the
system
and
we
3
can
follow
up
with
you
later
on
if
necessary.
4
Because
of
the
number
of
speakers
we
have
5
planned
today
­­
we
have
approximately
50
people
that
have
6
pre­
registered
to
speak
­­
we
will
ask
that
you
limit
your
7
testimony,
your
oral
testimony,
to
no
longer
than
five
8
minutes.
At
the
four­
minute
mark,
Denise
Gerth
will
give
9
you
a
one
minute
sign.
We
ask
that
you
observe
that
sign.
10
At
one
of
our
hearings
we
couldn't
get
an
individual
off.
11
There
is
nothing
wrong
with
that,
except
it
is
totally
12
unfair
to
the
other
48
or
47
people
that
would
like
to
13
give
testimony
and
have
fixed
time
frames.
14
If
you
are
not
through
in
five
minutes,
that
is
15
okay.
We
will
recess
your
testimony
and,
after
everyone
16
has
their
fair
time
going
through
the
system,
we
will
make
17
available
the
mic
again
for
you
to
continue
on
and
we
will
18
ask
the
reporter
to
group
the
testimony
together
so
it
19
looks
as
if
you
gave
it
all
at
once.
20
Please
observe
that,
though,
because
it
is
an
21
adventure
to
try
to,
with
style
and
grace,
ask
someone
to
22
yield
to
the
next
person
who
has
been
diligently
waiting
23
12
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
to
get
up
there.
1
We
on
the
Panel
will
ask
clarifying
questions.
2
We
are
not
here
to
answer
detailed
questions,
we
are
here
3
to
get
your
comments
on
our
proposed
rule.
If,
in
fact,
4
after
the
hearing
recesses
and
you
want
to
ask
Jan
or
John
5
or
Denise,
Natalie
or
me
a
question,
we
will
certainly
do
6
the
best
we
can
to
answer
it.
But
our
purpose
is
to
hear
7
from
you
today.
8
And
again,
I
want
to
remind
you
this
is
not
­­
9
this
hearing
is
not
for
the
purpose
of
commenting
on
10
nonattainment
designations.
That
program
is
running
11
parallel
to
this,
and
there
will
be
ample
time
to
comment
12
on
those.
13
Are
there
any
questions
before
we
start?
14
(
No
response.)
15
MR.
HELMS:
Seeing
none,
we
will
begin.
Denise,
16
John,
do
we
have
a
list
right
here?
All
right.
17
Again,
when
you
come
up,
remember
to
identify
18
yourself
with
all
the
details.
If
you
have
a
copy
of
your
19
testimony,
please
give
it
to
our
court
reporter.
It
will
20
greatly
enhance
her
ability
to
get
word
for
word
what
you
21
want
her
to
record.
22
Our
first
speaker
is
Ann
Weeks.
Ann,
come
23
13
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
forward.
1
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER:
Could
I
ask
that
you
2
announce
the
next
speakers
that
will
be
speaking
so
that
3
we
will
know
who
is
after
Ann?
4
MR.
HELMS:
To
the
extent
that
I
can,
I
will.
5
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
brief
discussion
off
the
6
record.)
7
MR.
HELMS:
The
reason
we
are
looking
back
and
8
forth
at
each
other,
we
have
had
a
number
of
people
sign
9
up
and
we
want
to
give
priority
at
first
to
those
people,
10
except
some
of
them
aren't
here.
So
we
will
do
our
very
11
best
to
tell
you
who
is
next.
And
on
the
list
is
Scott
12
Gollwitzer.
13
And
I
must
admit
to
you
I
am
a
North
Carolinian,
14
so
I
am
going
to
butcher
your
name.
So
smile
and,
with
15
style
and
grace,
correct
me
as
I
pronounce
it.
16
So
Scott
would
be
the
next
individual,
and
then
17
Lenny
Kohm
would
be
the
next
individual.
18
Ann
Weeks,
the
podium
is
yours.
19
TESTIMONY
OF
ANN
WEEKS
20
MS.
WEEKS:
Good
morning.
And
I
get
to
go
21
first,
so
I
am
going
to
try
all
this
technology
out.
So
22
bear
with
me.
23
14
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
My
name
is
Ann
Weeks.
I
am
the
litigation
1
counsel
to
the
Clean
Air
Task
Force.
We
are
in
Boston,
2
Massachusetts
at
77
Summer
Street.
Thank
you
for
the
3
opportunity
to
be
here
and
present
our
views
on
the
4
proposal.
The
Clean
Air
Task
Force
is
a
not­
for­
profit
5
environmental
organization
providing
legal
assistance
and
6
technical
expertise
to
other
nonprofits
around
the
7
country.
8
EPA's
stated
purpose
in
issuing
this
proposal
is
9
to
finally
put
in
place
the
requirements
for
meeting
the
10
1997
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
which
the
Agency
and
the
11
courts
have
recognized
is
essential
to
protect
the
public
12
health.
With
this
proposal,
however,
EPA
seems
to
be
13
deliberately
avoiding
more
stringent
requirements
Congress
14
specifically
added
to
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
Subpart
2
to
15
deal
with
nagging
and
seemingly
intractable
ozone
16
problems.
The
Agency
instead
seems
to
be
universally
17
favoring
more
flexibility,
longer
timelines
to
attain
and
18
new
and
vaguely
defined
offramps
for
nonattainment
areas
19
from
the
process
of
actually
getting
to
attainment
and
20
getting
there
quickly.
21
Now,
I
say
the
Agency
seems
to
be
because,
22
frankly,
there
is
not
really
any
way
of
telling
from
this
23
15
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Federal
Register
notice
exactly
what
EPA
is
going
to
1
require
of
nonattainment
areas.
Indeed,
EPA
has
not
yet
2
modeled
the
health
impacts
of
this
proposal,
and
that
is
3
precisely
because
the
proposal
is
not
yet
well
defined
4
enough
to
model.
The
emperor
has
no
clothes.
5
We
are
all
here.
We
are
participating
in
a
6
public
hearing,
trying
to
predict
what
the
outcome
of
the
7
proposal
will
be
when
EPA
has
not
yet
put
forward
a
8
framework
to
analyze.
Let's
be
clear.
The
proposal
9
consists
of
68
triple­
columned
Federal
Register
pages
10
describing
a
complicated
collection
of
mix­
and­
match
11
options,
but
EPA
hasn't
yet
provided
us
with
a
proposed
12
rule
text.
This
is
highly
irregular.
13
Like
the
courtiers
in
the
famous
Hans
Christian
14
Anderson
fairy
tale,
we
are
being
asked
to
note
on
and
15
evaluate,
define,
weave
and
pattern
in
the
cloth,
even
16
though
there
is
no
actual
cloth
on
the
loom
yet.
I
only
17
have
five
minutes.
I
am
not
going
to
digress
into
the
18
fairy
tale,
and
I
am
not
going
to
comment
on
specific
19
details
about
cloth
I
can't
see.
20
We
are
told
that
EPA
does
plan
to
make
the
rule
21
available
to
us
in
the
coming
weeks
during
the
comment
22
period
while
it
is
still
open.
I
am
very
much
looking
23
16
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
forward
to
that.
So
today
I
would
like
to
provide
some
1
thoughts
about
what
we
will
be
looking
to
see
in
the
2
proposed
rule
language
when
EPA
finally
makes
it
available
3
to
us.
4
First,
EPA,
please
do
not
return
us
to
a
world
5
of
endlessly
extendable
deadlines
for
reaching
attainment
6
and
insufficient
control
measures
in
new
8­
hour
7
nonattainment
areas.
The
EPA
proposal
seems
to
put
this
8
scheme
forward
as
its
preference
when
it
suggests
that
all
9
areas
designated
ozone
nonattainment
for
the
first
time
in
10
2004
will
be
governed
by
the
less
rigorous
requirements
of
11
Subpart
1
of
the
Act.
We
believe
it
would
be
a
mistake
to
12
cavalierly
throw
away
the
greater
structure
and
rigors
of
13
Part
2.
14
Second,
we
view
with
real
concern
the
method
15
that
EPA
proposes
to
use
in
moving
from
the
1­
hour
16
standard
to
the
8­
hour
standard.
The
proposed
rule
17
language
when
it
is
released
to
us
ought
to
include
18
provisions
providing
that
areas
that
are
currently
not
19
attaining
the
1­
hour
standard
­­
such
as
the
one
in
which
20
we
are
sitting
­­
will,
in
fact,
be
required
to
attain
it
21
and
to
continue
with
measures
designed
to
achieve
that
22
goal
until
it
is
attained,
at
the
very
least.
23
17
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
It
is
true
that
the
8­
hour
standard
responds
to
1
the
need
for
protection
from
longer­
term
exposures
to
2
lower
levels
of
ozone,
but
exposure
to
high
levels
of
3
ozone
over
shorter
periods
remains
a
health
problem.
4
Measures
that
have
been
put
in
place
to
guard
against
such
5
events
should
not
simply
disappear
when
the
new
standard
6
is
implemented.
Public
health
requires
protections
from
7
both
kinds
of
exposure.
8
Third,
we
ask
EPA
to
eliminate
the
incentive
9
feature
from
its
Subpart
2
classification
system
for
the
10
dirtiest
areas.
The
preamble
suggests
that
an
area
that
11
is
both
violating
the
1­
hour
standard
and
the
8­
hour
12
standard
could
get
a
lower
8­
hour
classification
rating,
13
and
therefore
be
required
to
do
less
to
combat
ozone
smog
14
on
the
basis
only
of
computer
modeling,
showing
the
area
15
will
attain
the
8­
hour
standard
and
in
a
shorter
period
of
16
time.
17
We
are
concerned
about
the
gaming
that
might
be
18
associated
with
this
kind
of
modeling.
Indeed,
the
19
preamble
does
not
provide
any
detail
about
what
modeling
20
would
be
acceptable
for
this
purpose.
Moreover,
we
are
21
concerned
about
what
happens
when
the
area
doesn't
achieve
22
the
standard
in
the
time
that
it
is
modeled
to
achieve.
23
18
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
What
happens
then?
More
delay.
1
Finally,
we
note
that
the
Bush
Administration's
2
policy
choices
to
provide
additional
flexibility,
allow
3
backsliding,
promote
offramps
from
the
more
stringent
4
provisions
of
Subpart
2
of
the
Act
seem
very
strongly
5
driven
by
an
assumption
that
the
Clear
Skies
Initiative
6
powerplant
legislation
will
become
law.
But
Clear
Skies
7
is
not
law,
nor
are
any
of
the
several
other
stronger,
8
more
health
protective,
competing
legislative
proposals
9
yet
law.
10
Congress
has
not
made
that
choice
yet,
and
the
11
Agency
must
not
assume
it
has
or
will
make
that
choice.
12
This
is
just
one
more
instance
in
which
the
emperor's
13
outfit
is
significantly
lacking.
But,
more
seriously,
it
14
is
an
exceedingly
bad
way
to
make
important
policy
choices
15
that
will
impact
the
health
of
children,
seniors
and
other
16
vulnerable
people
in
society.
17
Thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
share
the
18
Clean
Air
Task
Force
views
on
the
preamble.
We
also
plan
19
to
file
detailed
comments
on
the
August
1st
deadline.
20
Thank
you.
21
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
Ms.
Weeks.
22
Questions?
23
19
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
(
No
response.)
1
MR.
HELMS:
Okay.
Thank
you.
2
MS.
WEEKS:
Thank
you.
3
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Ann
Weeks
was
4
concluded.)
5
MR.
HELMS:
Is
Scott
Gollwitzer
present?
6
(
No
response.)
7
MR.
HELMS:
Lenny
Kohm?
8
(
No
response.)
9
MR.
HELMS:
Matthew
Wasson?
10
(
No
response.)
11
MR.
HELMS:
Michael
Meyer?
12
(
No
response.)
13
MR.
HELMS:
Norm
Fickthorn?
14
MR.
FICKTHORN:
Yes,
sir.
15
MR.
HELMS:
Norm,
come
forward.
The
podium
is
16
yours.
17
MR.
FICKTHORN:
Thank
you.
18
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER:
Who
would
be
next
to
go?
19
Who
is
next
after
Norm
that
is
here?
20
MR.
HELMS:
That
will
be
an
adventure.
I
am
not
21
going
to
be
able
to
help
you
with
that.
Please
don't
ask
22
again.
23
20
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER:
Okay.
1
MR.
HELMS:
I
am
going
down
the
list
as
people
2
sign
up.
I
can
tell
you
who
is
on
the
next
line,
but
that
3
doesn't
seem
to
help
very
much.
4
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER:
A
lot
of
people
are
5
checked
in
and
ready
to
go.
6
MR.
HELMS:
We
are
going
to
run
through
the
list
7
as
people
sign
up
as
best
we
can.
That
is
the
way
we
are
8
going
to
run
here.
9
The
next
one
is
Pauline
Kaltsunis,
and
the
next
10
is
Katy
Hubener.
The
next
is
Steve
Harper.
Steve
is
11
here,
I
know.
12
Okay.
13
TESTIMONY
OF
NORMAN
FICKTHORN
14
MR.
FICKTHORN:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Norman
15
Fickthorn.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
today
to
present
16
the
statement
of
the
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group,
or
17
UARG,
on
EPA's
proposed
rule
to
implement
the
8­
hour
ozone
18
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.
19
The
proposed
rule
seeks
to
comply
with
20
applicable
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
including
the
21
provisions
of
Subpart
2
of
Part
B
of
Title
I
of
the
Act,
22
as
interpreted
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Whitman
versus
23
21
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
American
Trucking
Associations.
At
the
same
time,
the
1
proposed
rule
seeks
to
provide
states,
local
governments
2
and
regulated
parties
with
flexibility
in
meeting
the
3
Act's
requirements.
UARG
supports
EPA's
apparent
goal
of
4
balancing
adherence
to
statutory
requirements
with
an
5
appropriate
degree
of
flexibility,
where
allowed
by
the
6
statute
and
where
consistent
with
sound
public
policy.
7
UARG
recognizes,
however,
that
some
parties,
8
particularly
environmental
organizations,
already
have
9
raised
questions
about
the
consistency
of
parts
of
the
10
proposed
rule
with
Subpart
2,
and
that
implementation
11
rules
that
deviate
from
statutory
mandates
may
trigger
12
renewed
litigation.
Such
litigation
may,
in
turn,
affect
13
the
schedule
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
standard.
UARG
14
expects
to
address
these
and
related
issues
in
written
15
comments
later
in
this
rulemaking.
16
Regarding
the
implementation
schedule,
UARG
is
17
encouraged
that
EPA
in
the
proposed
rule
recognizes
the
18
importance
of
completing
the
present
rulemaking
before
19
designating
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
The
summary
20
section
of
EPA's
proposal
states
that
the
intended
effect
21
of
the
rule
is
to
provide
certainty
to
states
regarding
22
their
planning
obligations,
such
that
states
may
begin
SIP
23
22
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
development
upon
designation
and
classification
for
the
1
8­
hour
standard.
2
As
EPA
recognizes,
however,
it
also
must
provide
3
adequate
opportunity
for
comment
on
proposed
regulatory
4
text,
which
EPA
says
it
will
draft
and
publish
after
5
receiving
and
considering
comments
on
the
present
6
proposal.
It
now
appears
that,
given
delays
in
issuance
7
of
this
proposal
and
the
need
for
a
public
comment
period
8
on
regulatory
text,
EPA
may
be
unable
to
complete
this
9
rulemaking
by
December
2003.
10
As
suggested
by
the
District
Court
consent
11
decree
on
the
designation
schedule
and
Assistant
12
Administrator
Holmstead's
February
27,
2003
memorandum,
13
the
current
April
15,
2004
date
for
designating
14
nonattainment
areas
is
predicated
on
EPA
completing
this
15
implementation
rulemaking
by
the
end
of
this
year.
In
16
addition,
the
Holmstead
memorandum
promises
states
a
17
period
of
at
least
a
month
after
EPA
issues
the
final
rule
18
for
them
to
revise
their
recommended
designations
in
light
19
of
that
rule,
that
implementation
rule,
and
UARG
believes
20
it
is
critically
important
that
EPA
allow
states
to
do
so.
21
Thus,
UARG
believes
EPA
should
be
prepared
to
22
ask
the
Court
to
defer
the
designation
date.
UARG
also
23
23
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
urges
the
Agency
to
complete
any
future
ambient
standard
1
implementation
rulemakings
before
requiring
states
to
2
submit
recommended
designations
so
that
states
have
full
3
knowledge
of
all
implementation
requirements
and
an
4
opportunity
to
factor
those
requirements
into
their
5
designation
determination
processes.
6
UARG
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
provide
this
7
statement
and
looks
forward
to
submitting
full
written
8
comments
on
the
proposed
rule.
Thank
you.
9
MR.
HELMS:
I
have
one
question
I
would
like
you
10
to
clarify,
if
you
would.
You
mentioned
in
your
statement
11
here
that
you
urge
EPA
to
complete
any
future
ambient
12
standard
implementation
rulemakings.
What
do
you
mean
by
13
that,
any
future?
14
MR.
FICKTHORN:
It
is
simply
a
reference
to
15
EPA's
general
policy
with
respect
to
rules
that
govern
16
implementation
of
any
future
ambient
air
quality
17
standards,
not
necessarily
ozone
only,
but
other
standards
18
as
well,
such
as,
for
example,
particulate
matter.
19
MR.
HELMS:
Are
you
asking
us
before
we
move
20
forward
with
the
ozone
rule
to
come
out
with
a
PM
rule?
21
MR.
FICKTHORN:
No,
I
don't
mean
to
suggest
that
22
at
all.
I
mean
that
with
respect
to
implementation
of
any
23
24
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
given
standard,
we
urge
EPA
to
complete
the
rulemaking
1
governing
implementation
of
that
standard
before
going
2
forward
with
the
designation
process,
so
that
states
and
3
all
other
parties
have
full
knowledge
of
what
the
4
implementation
requirements
are
before
getting
to
the
5
point
of
having
to
determine
what
areas
should
be
6
designated
nonattainment.
7
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
That
clarification
8
helps.
9
MR.
FICKTHORN:
Thank
you
very
much.
10
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Norman
Fickthorn
11
was
concluded.)
12
MR.
HELMS:
We
have
gone
to
plan
B
in
the
13
designation
process.
In
the
interest
of
being
efficient
14
and
trying
not
to
frustrate
some
of
the
speakers
that
have
15
come
here
ready
to
roll,
we
are
using
this
magic
yellow
16
pencil
to
mark
you
as
you
come
in
and
indicate
that
you
17
want
to
talk.
If
we
overlook
you,
we
will
get
you,
18
though.
19
The
next
speaker
would
be
Steve
Harper,
followed
20
by
Brownie
Carson.
21
The
podium
is
yours,
Steve.
22
MR.
HARPER:
Thanks,
Tom.
23
25
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
TESTIMONY
OF
STEPHEN
HARPER
1
MR.
HARPER:
My
name
is
Steve
Harper.
I
am
the
2
corporate
environmental
health
safety
and
energy
policy
3
director
for
Intel,
1634
Eye
Street,
D.
C.,
and
I
am
here
4
representing
the
Electronics
Industry
Alliance
Clean
Air
5
Working
Group,
which
I
chair.
My
comments
will
supplement
6
comments
made
at
the
previous
hearings
by
representatives
7
of
EIA
from
A&
D
and
Texas
Instruments.
8
We
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
provide
9
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
to
implement
the
8­
hour
10
standard.
A
copy
has
been
presented,
and
we
intend
to
11
provide
more
detailed
comments
to
the
written
docket
on
12
the
rule.
What
I
want
to
address
here
today
are
a
couple
13
of
options
that
EPA
has
identified
and
present
a
third
14
proposal
or
a
third
alternative
that
we
think
better
15
accords
with
the
Supreme
Court
decision.
16
Let
me
state
at
the
outset
that
we
understand
17
the
difficulty
that
EPA
faces
in
trying
to
square
the
18
decision
­­
we
believe
that
EPA
should
implement
this
rule
19
primarily
under
Subpart
1,
and
take
steps
only
as
20
permitted
under
the
statute
to
preserve
the
textually
21
applicable
provisions
of
Subpart
2,
and
we
think
that
what
22
has
been
proposed
in
option
1
and
option
2
fail
both
23
26
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
tests.
We
think
option
1
is
gives
the
Agency
the
ability
1
to
­­
may
I
just
recess?
2
MR.
HELMS:
Sure.
We
are
going
to
use
the
3
hearing
officer's
discretion
to
delete
everything
that
4
Steve
said
at
this
point.
I
don't
think
he
is
feeling
5
good.
We
will
call
him
back
at
a
later
date.
6
So
all
of
you
out
there
pretend
Steve
wasn't
7
even
up
here.
Okay?
He
will
start
just
as
soon
as
he
8
feels
better.
9
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Stephen
Harper
was
10
adjourned.)
11
MR.
HELMS:
Brownie
Carson,
would
you
come
12
forward?
The
floor
is
yours.
We
will
follow
Mr.
Carson
13
with
Erica
Frank.
14
TESTIMONY
OF
EVERETT
(
BROWNIE)
CARSON
15
MR.
CARSON:
Good
morning,
members
of
the
Panel.
16
My
name
is
Brownie
Carson,
Everett
Carson,
formally,
for
17
the
record.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
Natural
18
Resources
Council
of
Maine.
We
are
located
in
Augusta,
19
our
state
capitol,
and
I
am
here
representing
roughly
20
7,000
members
of
the
Natural
Resources
Council
who
are
21
interested
in
clean
air
for
our
state.
22
I
am
not
a
clean
air
expert,
but
today,
based
23
27
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
upon
conversations
with
my
staff
and
others,
I
am
urging
1
you
to
scrap
your
proposed
rule
preamble
by
drafting
2
something
that
is
much
more
aggressive.
It
needs
to
do
3
two
fundamental
things.
It
needs
to
hold
the
polluters
4
and
states
to
earlier
compliance
deadlines,
and
it
would
5
need
to
require
all
powerplants
to
fully
clean
up
to
6
modern
day
pollution
limits
and
comply
with
new
source
7
review
standards.
8
We
have
got
a
number
of
problems
in
Maine.
We
9
need
you
to
take
steps
that
bring
to
us,
as
the
end
of
the
10
tailpipe
state
in
the
nation,
cleaner
air
that
reduces
the
11
impact
of
dirty
air
creating
asthma
attacks
and
impairing
12
the
lungs
of
nearly
one­
third
of
Maine's
population
­­
13
those
roughly
400,000
Mainers
who
are
asthmatic
are
14
children,
are
elderly,
or
who
have
lung
or
heart
ailments
15
­­
and
secondly
to
reduce
the
haze
and
the
poor
visibility
16
that
clouds
our
coastal
areas
from
Kittery
to
Blue
Hill,
17
Acadia
National
Park
and
the
maritimes.
18
Just
this
past
week,
an
EPA
staffer
briefed
an
19
audience
in
Maine
on
the
EPA's
proposed
implementation
20
standard,
and
he
said
­­
and
I
quote:
Maine
has
not
had
21
much
progress
since
1990
in
reducing
8­
hour
exceedences.
22
Maine
is
probably
going
to
be
out
of
attainment
for
a
long
23
28
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
time.
That
is
purely
and
simply
unacceptable
to
us.
1
Yesterday,
the
first
day
of
our
ozone
season,
2
Kennebunkport,
the
summer
home
of
the
Bush
family,
had
a
3
ground­
level
ozone
reading
of
.93.
Acadia
had
an
alert
4
day
at
.88.
Last
summer
­­
and
I
am
not
sure
how
many
of
5
you
have
been
to
Maine,
and
if
you
have
been
to
Maine
when
6
we
have
bad
air
­­
we,
unfortunately,
have
it
­­
we
had
17
7
days
of
unhealthful
air
quality.
The
highest
reading
was
8
again
at
the
corner
of
the
Bush
family
compound
in
9
Kennebunkport,
where
the
reading
reached
.121.
Acadia
10
National
Park,
one
of
the
gems
in
our
National
Park
11
System,
had
six
days
with
readings
over
.10.
12
If
I
sound
like
I
have
a
little
edge
in
my
voice
13
this
morning,
you
can
understand
that.
This
is
really,
14
really
unacceptable.
I
would
like
to
make
three
points,
15
and
I
am
going
to
try
to
stay
within
my
five
minutes.
16
First,
EPA
must
understand
the
science
of
air
17
pollution
transport
as
it
affects
Maine.
Now,
I
have
18
every
reason
to
believe
that
you
do,
and
so
it
mystifies
19
us
that
you
are
not
being
harder
and
firmer
with
deadlines
20
and
that
you
are
not
being
more
aggressive
with
the
new
21
source
review
program.
It
is
scientifically
impossible
22
for
Maine
to
come
into
compliance
at
any
date
unless
23
29
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
upwind
air
pollution
is
stopped.
Maine
has
bad
air
days
1
that
are
directly
linked
to
high
energy
use
days
when
2
upwind
dirty
powerplants
are
running
at
their
fullest
and
3
dirtiest
capacities.
The
science
is
painfully
and
4
dangerously
clear
when
our
winds
come
from
the
southwest,
5
as
they
typically
do
during
the
ozone
season.
They
bring
6
a
hefty
dose
of
NO
x
and
VOCs
and
other
dangerous
pollution
7
to
down
east
Maine.
We
must
clean
up
all
upwind
air
8
sources,
especially
the
dirty
powerplants,
in
order
for
9
Maine
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
8­
hour
ozone
10
standard.
11
Second,
EPA
should
not
allow
upwind
polluters
12
any
more
time
to
comply
with
requirements
when
they
are
13
already
overdue
and
complying
with
it.
It
is
14
fundamentally
unfair
that
upwind
states
will
be
given
15
another
seven
to
eighteen
years
­­
and
this
rule,
I
agree,
16
is
so
vague
that
it
is
very
hard
to
tell
what
it
will
17
actually
do,
but
we
cannot
afford
these
long
extended
18
deadlines.
It
is
simply
going
to
have
too
great
an
impact
19
on
the
people
of
Maine.
20
Third,
EPA
should
not
let
any
powerplant
off
the
21
hook
from
meeting
the
new
source
review
requirements.
In
22
June
2001,
Maine
took
a
strong
leadership
stand,
requiring
23
30
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
full
on­
site
cleanup
of
NO
x
from
our
only
grandfather
1
powerplant,
the
Wyman
station
on
Cousins
Island
in
Casco
2
Bay.
We
have
attempted
to
do
our
part
to
clean
up
our
3
polluting
powerplant
at
home
and,
in
fairness,
we
would
4
like
to
see
you
take
aggressive
action
to
force
other
5
powerplants
and
other
sources
to
do
the
same
on
an
6
aggressive
schedule.
7
In
conclusion,
time
is
of
the
essence.
8
According
to
the
Maine
DEP,
last
summer
was
man's
worst
9
ozone
season
in
a
decade.
I
mentioned
the
readings
we
had
10
the
day
before
yesterday.
I
don't
know
what
they
were
11
yesterday.
I
am
sure
they
were
likely
higher.
My
message
12
to
you
is
please
do
an
aggressive
plan,
please
deliver
13
clean
air
to
the
people
of
Maine
and
New
England,
and
14
please
do
it
promptly.
15
Thank
you.
16
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
Hold
on
just
a
second.
17
Questions
from
the
Panel?
18
(
No
response.)
19
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
20
come
down.
21
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Everett
Carson
was
22
concluded.)
23
31
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
We
will
again
exercise
the
1
prerogative
of
the
chair.
We
will
re­
call
Steve
Harper.
2
Steve
indicates
he
is
feeling
better
now.
3
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
brief
discussion
off
the
4
record.)
5
TESTIMONY
OF
STEPHEN
HARPER
(
resumed)
6
MR.
HARPER:
I
will
not
repeat
what
I
said
in
7
the
beginning,
except
to
say
that
I
am
here
representing
8
the
Electronics
Industry
Alliance.
We
testified
at
the
9
other
two
hearings.
Basically
our
position
today
is
that
10
EPA's
two
options
that
they
have
laid
out,
the
two
main
11
options
they
have
laid
out
in
the
proposal,
are
both
12
deficient,
we
think,
on
legal
as
well
as
policy
grounds.
13
I
will
talk
a
little
bit
about
why
we
believe
14
that.
We
have
offered
a
third
alternative
that
we
think
15
better
squares
with
the
decision,
which
we
understand
is
16
very
difficult
to
square.
It
is
a
very
confusing
17
decision.
We
also
think
the
alternative
approach
that
we
18
lay
out
is
better
from
a
policy
perspective.
19
The
Whitman
decision,
we
believe,
was
a
20
difficult
one,
as
I
said.
In
the
proposed
rule,
EPA,
in
21
our
belief,
adopts
a
narrow
and,
we
think,
improper
22
reading
of
the
Court's
decision.
We
think
that
the
23
32
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
primary
holding
in
Whitman
was
that
the
simultaneous
1
implementation
approach
originally
proposed
by
the
Agency
2
was
inconsistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act,
because
it
wholly
3
ignored
elements
of
Subpart
2.
4
The
Court's
decision
­­
or
statement,
rather,
5
that
Subpart
2
unquestionably
applies
we
think
has
been
6
taken
too
literally
and
too
broadly
in
EPA's
proposal.
In
7
particular,
we
think
the
proposed
rule
would,
under
option
8
1,
but
also
to
some
extent
under
option
2,
rewrite
the
9
statute,
which
is
impermissible,
by
substituting
design
10
values
in
Subpart
2
and
in
effect
rewriting
it.
11
So
what
we
have
offered
in
terms
of
an
option
3
12
is
a
slightly
different
approach,
which
we
think
does
13
preserve
what
we
think
are
the
textually
applicable
14
provisions
of
Subpart
2,
and
that's
what
the
Court
called
15
for.
Rather
than
going
into
detail
into
option
3,
we
have
16
laid
it
out
in
our
written
testimony.
We
have
presented
17
this
to
you
in
the
past.
I
would
be
glad
to
take
any
18
questions.
We
will
be
submitting
further
written
19
testimony.
20
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
Steve.
21
Any
questions
for
Mr.
Harper?
22
(
No
response.)
23
33
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
1
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Stephen
Harper
was
2
concluded.)
3
MR.
HELMS:
Erica
Frank.
Ms.
Frank
will
be
4
followed
by
Scott
Gollwitzer.
Is
Scott
here?
5
MR.
GOLLWITZER:
Yes,
sir.
6
MR.
HELMS:
Okay.
You
will
follow.
7
The
floor
is
yours.
8
TESTIMONY
OF
ERICA
FRANK
9
MS.
FRANK:
Thank
you.
I
have
copies
of
my
10
testimony
for
all
of
you
as
well.
11
I
am
Erica
Frank.
I
am
the
vice
chair
of
Family
12
and
Preventive
Medicine
at
Emory
University
School
of
13
Medicine
in
Atlanta
and
a
physician
who
specializes
in
14
preventive
medicine,
and
I
speak
as
a
board
member
of
15
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility,
as
a
clinician
16
concerned
about
my
patients,
and
as
a
citizen
who
is
17
concerned
about
my
community.
I
speak
also
as
a
taxpayer
18
who
is
concerned
that
weakening
hard­
won
requirements
for
19
cleaner
air
is
not
a
cost
savings.
It
is
merely
a
cost
20
shifting.
21
Most
air
pollution,
as
you
all
well
know,
comes
22
from
point
sources.
It
comes
from
individual
coal­
fired
23
34
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
powerplants
with
insufficient,
antiquated
scrubber
1
technology,
owned
by
big
companies
that
believe
that
this
2
EPA
will
allow
them
to
pollute
even
more
so
that
they
can
3
increase
their
profits
even
more.
It
comes
from
cities
4
that
believe
that
this
EPA
will
allow
them
to
get
off
the
5
hook
yet
again
so
that
they
don't
have
to
invest
in
public
6
transportation
or
other
alternatives
­­
of
course,
I
feel
7
that
very
strongly,
coming
from
Atlanta
­­
and
air
8
pollution
comes,
of
course,
from
a
thousand
other
smaller
9
sources
that
would
have
to
develop
and
implement
cleaner
10
alternatives
if
EPA
said
they
had
to.
11
Of
course,
all
these
sources
will
save
some
12
money
if
EPA
backs
off,
but
these
costs
don't
disappear,
13
they
are
merely
shifted.
And
these
shifted
costs
are
14
simply
too
high,
from
my
perspective,
and
I
want
to
give
15
you
just
one
example
from
a
medical
perspective
in
Georgia
16
of
these
shifted
costs.
17
According
to
Abt
Associates,
a
southern
company
18
which
is
based
in
Georgia,
of
course,
where
we
had
a
red
19
alert
breathing
day
as
I
prepared
to
come
here,
we
could
20
achieve
a
75
percent
reduction
in
emissions
using
21
off­
the­
shelf
technology.
And
what
would
that
reduction
22
prevent
each
year?
Hundreds
of
asthma
ER
visits
in
23
35
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Georgia
and
even
hundreds
of
deaths,
thousands
of
1
bronchitis
cases,
tens
of
thousands
of
cases
of
2
respiratory
symptoms,
and
hundreds
of
thousands
of
days
of
3
lost
work
due
to
illness.
4
Imagine
the
millions
of
dollars
of
medical
and
5
productivity
costs
that
would
be
saved
in
Georgia
alone
by
6
good
implementation.
As
it
is,
these
costs
are
borne
7
unfairly,
carried
by
unwilling
victims
of
companies
and
8
cities
that
will
continue
to
produce
and
tolerate
at
least
9
as
much
pollution
as
EPA
will
allow.
And
of
course,
the
10
financial
costs
are
really
only
the
beginning.
The
human
11
costs
of
these
diseases
and
deaths
are
enormous.
And,
12
most
importantly,
they
are
unnecessary.
13
We
have
the
technology
that
we
need
for
you
to
14
have
this
resolved.
Please
do
not
fail
your
constituents.
15
Your
real
constituents
are
not
the
handful
of
individuals
16
who
will
make
more
money
if
you
relax
standards.
Your
17
constituents
are
Americans
who
need
and
deserve
to
breathe
18
clean
air,
my
fragile
patients,
our
vulnerable
children
19
and
grandchildren,
our
aging
parents
and
every
one
of
us.
20
Please
fulfill
your
responsibilities
to
those
21
whom
you
have
pledged
to
serve.
Please
be
honorable
and
22
vigilant
and
maintain
high
standards
for
clean
air.
23
36
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Thank
you.
1
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
2
Questions?
3
(
No
response.)
4
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
for
5
taking
the
time
to
come
up
from
Atlanta.
6
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Erica
Frank
was
7
concluded.)
8
MR.
HELMS:
Scott
Gollwitzer.
We
will
follow
9
Scott
with
Michael
Meyer.
10
The
floor
is
yours.
11
TESTIMONY
OF
SCOTT
GOLLWITZER
12
MR.
GOLLWITZER:
My
name
is
Scott
Gollwitzer.
I
13
am
a
citizen
of
North
Carolina,
and
I
have
come
up
for
14
this
hearing
to
testify
in
front
of
the
EPA
about
what
I
15
think
of
their
rules.
16
As
I
was
leaving
to
come
up
here
on
Wednesday
17
from
Asheville,
North
Carolina,
we
were
enveloped
in
Code
18
Orange
skies
across
the
state.
We
were
experiencing
19
similar
problems,
Code
Oranges
and
Code
Reds.
These
are
20
problems,
in
our
state
particularly,
as
well
as
other
21
states.
North
Carolinians
recognized
this
problem
last
22
year
by
passing
our
Clean
Smokestacks
Act,
which
is
going
23
37
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
to
clean
up
our
coal­
fired
powerplants
by
2009
and
2013,
1
roughly
a
70
percent
reduction
of
SO
x
and
NO
x.
2
People
are
dying
of
being
poisoned.
That's
why
3
we
enacted
this
law.
That's
why
the
citizens
of
North
4
Carolina
unanimously
decided
to
invoke
this
law.
Another
5
purpose
of
the
law
was
to
help
other
states
realize
the
6
benefits
of
cleaning
up
air
pollution
and
helping
North
7
Carolina
clean
up
its
own.
Yet
today,
the
EPA
is
8
considering
a
proposal
that
is
going
to
weaken
ozone
9
standards
and
weaken
North
Carolina's
tremendous
progress
10
in
cleaning
up
its
own
pollution.
11
I
am
not
a
clean
air
expert,
but
by
reviewing
12
this
proposal
to
the
extent
it
can
be
considered
a
13
proposal,
I
am
led
to
believe
that
EPA
is
no
more
an
14
expert
on
clean
air
than
I
am.
North
Carolinians
expect
15
and
I
expect,
as
a
citizen
of
North
Carolina
and
the
16
United
States,
that
EPA
should
immediately
institute
a
17
program
that
directs
immediate
compliance
with
public
18
health
standards
and
implement,
enforce
and
strengthen
the
19
new
source
review
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
as
soon
20
as
possible.
21
Thanks
very
much.
22
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
23
38
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Any
questions?
1
(
No
response.)
2
MR.
HELMS:
Thanks
for
coming
up.
3
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Scott
Gollwitzer
4
was
concluded.)
5
MR.
HELMS:
Michael
Meyer,
and
Michael
will
be
6
followed
by
Illai
Kenney.
7
The
podium
is
yours.
8
TESTIMONY
OF
MICHAEL
MEYER
9
MR.
MEYER:
My
name
is
Michael
Meyer,
and
I
am
10
an
interested
citizen
from
the
state
of
North
Carolina.
11
When
I
left
Raleigh­
Durham
two
days
ago,
it
was
Code
Red.
12
When
I
came
to
Washington,
D.
C.,
it
was
a
Code
Red.
It
13
was
a
Code
Red
yesterday,
and
today
is
a
Code
Orange.
14
I
think
this
situation
is
awful.
I
come
to
my
15
nation's
capitol
and
I
can't
breathe
the
air.
I
can't
go
16
outside
and
see
the
beautiful
sites
and
the
beautiful
17
buildings
and
all
the
history
that
is
here,
and
I
think
18
that
is
such
a
shame.
I
also
think
it
is
a
shame
that
19
EPA,
in
my
opinion,
is
not
doing
enough
to
protect
the
air
20
of
citizens
like
myself.
21
I
think
North
Carolina
has
gone
a
long
way
in
22
passing
the
Clean
Smokestacks
Act.
It
is
working
towards
23
39
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
cleaning
up
the
air,
but
as
a
North
Carolina
citizen,
I
am
1
not
going
to
get
the
full
benefits
of
this
plan
if
other
2
states
are
allowed
to
continue
to
allow
high
levels
of
air
3
pollution
and
ozone
emissions.
Therefore,
I
think
­­
when
4
I
went
over
this
rule
­­
and
I
am
not
an
expert
on
ozone.
5
I
don't
know
much
about
air
pollution.
But
I
know
that
I
6
am
concerned
about
my
own
health
and
I
am
concerned
about
7
the
health
of
my
family
and
my
neighbors.
8
This
rule,
the
problem
that
I
see
with
it
is
9
that
it
presents
a
couple
of
options.
For
me,
this
10
doesn't
seem
like
it
is
a
rule.
It
is
awfully
confusing
11
for
somebody
like
myself,
just
a
simple
citizen,
to
go
12
through
this
and
understand
exactly
what
the
EPA
is
13
proposing
to
do
and
what
they
will
end
up
doing
after
this
14
hearing,
and
I
would
like
to
see
a
stricter
standard,
more
15
along
the
lines
of
option
1
but
even
more
strict
than
16
that,
and
allow
the
public
to
have
a
hearing
to
comment
17
specifically
on
actual
rule
language.
18
Please
clean
up
the
air
and
the
rest
of
the
19
country
so
that
us
North
Carolinians
can
breathe
clean
20
air.
21
Thank
you.
22
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
23
40
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Any
questions?
1
(
No
response.)
2
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
3
come
here
to
Washington.
4
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Michael
Meyer
was
5
concluded.)
6
MR.
HELMS:
Ms.
Kennedy,
and
you
will
be
7
followed
by
Anthony
Dorsey.
8
TESTIMONY
OF
ANTHONY
DORSEY
9
MR.
DORSEY:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Anthony
10
Dorsey.
I
am
here
today
representing
the
Benjamin
E.
Mays
11
National
Educational
Resource
Center.
I
am
from
Forest
12
Park,
Georgia,
and
my
community
has
extremely
poor
air
13
quality
due
to
pollution
from
the
airport,
diesel
trucks
14
and
powerplants.
15
As
more
and
more
children
suffer
from
asthma,
it
16
seems
like
EPA
is
dragging
out
the
time
when
we
will
17
enforce
a
simple
standard
that
will
protect
our
health.
18
It
is
vitally
important
to
establish
standards
to
get
the
19
job
done.
We
learned
this
in
school.
When
you
delay
and
20
weaken
standards,
things
may
look
better
on
the
surface,
21
but
the
truth
is
that
you
create
a
crisis.
22
Much
like
Maine,
we
are
numerous
with
problems,
23
41
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
some
I
am
unaware
of,
but
there
is
one
that
I
am
1
absolutely
sure
of,
and
that
is
poor
air
quality
in
my
2
community
and
abroad.
And
instead
of
progressing
to
3
cleaner
air,
we
seem
to
be
digressing.
This
is
4
unacceptable
to
youth
near
and
far,
so
we
urge
EPA
to
act
5
now
for
our
community.
Asthma
has
already
reached
crisis
6
level.
We
ask
that
you
clean
up
powerplants,
maintain
7
existing
deadlines
and,
more
aggressively,
to
clean
up
our
8
air.
9
Thank
you.
10
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Anthony
Dorsey
was
11
concluded.)
12
TESTIMONY
OF
ILLAI
KENNEY
13
MS.
KENNEY:
My
name
is
Illai
Kenney.
I
am
a
14
youth
leader
with
the
Georgia
Kids
Against
Pollution
and
15
coordinator
for
the
2004
One
Child,
One
Voice,
One
Planet,
16
One
Vote
campaign.
My
testimony
today
is
focused
on
my
17
friends,
family
and
the
communities
I
grew
up
in.
18
I
was
born
in
Teaneck,
New
Jersey,
currently
in
19
nonattainment
for
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM
2.5.
I
moved
to
Los
20
Angeles,
California,
also
in
nonattainment.
Then
I
moved
21
to
our
nation's
capitol,
once
again
in
nonattainment.
I
22
now
live
in
Atlanta,
Georgia
and,
as
you
might
guess,
in
23
42
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
nonattainment
for
PM
and
ozone.
1
African­
American
children
and
youth
are
2
concentrated
in
large
metropolitan
areas,
and
we
are
3
impacted
more
by
particulate
matter
and
ozone.
No
one
4
really
knows
exactly
why
we
have
more
asthma,
but
everyone
5
knows
that
poor
air
quality
makes
it
worse.
You
may
think
6
that
we
don't
understand
the
impact,
that
we
don't
know
7
what
we're
talking
about,
but
we
have
conducted
ozone
8
monitoring
at
our
activities
center,
and
day
after
day,
9
the
ozone
levels
were
in
the
highest
range.
10
I
read
that
the
EPA
is
trying
to
figure
out
how
11
to
implement
the
new
ozone
standards.
Words
like
12
immediately,
quickly
and
completely
come
to
mind.
The
13
ozone
standard
is
really
a
healthy
air
standard.
There
is
14
no
need
to
make
dramatic
statements
when
nonattainment
15
says
it
all.
The
bottom
line
is
that
you
will
either
act
16
now
to
make
things
better
or
watch
as
more
and
more
cities
17
go
into
nonattainment.
18
I
know
that
no
one
in
this
room
will
make
the
19
final
decision,
but
if
we
all
agree,
then
we
will
leave
20
knowing
that
we
are
moving
in
the
right
direction.
The
21
big
corporations
can't
do
anything
until
you
decide
on
the
22
standard.
When
it
comes
to
cleaning
up,
they
are
a
lot
23
43
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
like
teenagers.
Mostly,
they
will
do
only
what
they
have
1
to
do
and,
if
we
don't
watch
them,
they
will
do
what
they
2
want
to
do.
3
Nobody
owns
the
sky.
No
one
has
a
right
to
4
pollute
the
air
and
then
take
their
time
cleaning
up
the
5
mess.
The
sky
is
ours
to
enjoy,
but
we
don't
own
it.
6
When
the
air
becomes
unhealthy,
it
is
time
to
act.
For
7
black
youth
in
urban
America,
you
are
already
late.
EPA
8
must
have
a
plan
to
make
sure
the
big
companies
do
all
9
that
they
can
to
clean
up.
No
loopholes,
no
excuses,
no
10
time
out.
It
is
time
for
action,
enforcement
and
movement
11
in
the
direction
of
clean
air
now.
12
Thank
you.
13
MR.
SILVASI:
I
have
a
question.
Could
you
14
describe
a
little
bit
the
monitoring
that
you
have
done
in
15
Atlanta?
You
had
mentioned
that
you
had
done
some
16
monitoring
in
Atlanta.
17
MS.
KENNEY:
Yes.
We
did
the
ozone
monitoring.
18
During
the
day,
we
picked,
like,
an
hour
for
one
of
the
19
Kids
against
Pollution
to
go
out.
You
put
the
strip
out
20
facing
­­
actually,
we
take
the
wind,
the
temperature
and
21
everything,
we
write
it
down
and
then
we
see
what
the
22
ozone
levels
were.
Mostly
every
day
the
summer
we
did
it,
23
44
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
it
was
in
the
highest
levels.
There
wasn't
but
three
days
1
out
of
the
whole
summer
that
weren't
hot.
2
MR.
SILVASI:
And
you
have
volunteers
going
out
3
to
different
parts
of
the
city
and
exposing
­­
4
MS.
KENNEY:
Yes.
We
work
with
SOC,
and
they
5
have
people
in
different
areas
of
Atlanta
doing
things.
6
So
we
did
it
in
Forest
Park
and
other
people
did
it
in
7
other
areas
of
Atlanta.
8
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you.
9
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
10
come
here
and
testify.
11
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Illai
Kenney
was
12
concluded.)
13
MR.
HELMS:
Michael
Replogle,
followed
by
Blake
14
Early.
15
TESTIMONY
OF
MICHAEL
REPLOGLE
16
MR.
REPLOGLE:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Michael
17
Replogle,
and
I
serve
as
transportation
director
of
18
Environmental
Defense.
I
am
based
here
in
Washington,
19
D.
C.,
but
I
am
testifying
today
on
behalf
of
our
300,000
20
members.
21
We
are
alarmed
by
EPA's
proposal
for
8­
hour
22
ozone
implementation.
In
the
name
of
adopting
a
more
23
45
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
stringent
pollution
standard,
EPA
is
actually
proposing
to
1
undermine
Clean
Air
Act
enforcement
and
harm
the
health
of
2
our
children.
EPA's
proposed
implementation
plan
for
the
3
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
if
adopted,
would
substantially
4
weaken
clean
air
protections
by
sharply
curtailing
the
key
5
implementation
tools
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
that
have
6
been
successful
over
the
past
decade
in
achieving
7
significant
progress
towards
meeting
clean
air
standards.
8
EPA
proposes
to
summarily
revoke
the
old
1­
hour
9
standard
and
its
associated
designations
and
10
classifications
a
year
after
the
effective
date
of
the
new
11
8­
hour
designations.
This
would
undermine
ongoing
state
12
planning
processes
in
major
metro
areas
that
are
designed
13
to
lower
harmful
ozone
concentrations
as
part
of
efforts
14
to
achieve
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
It
is
also
15
unlawful.
16
I
would
like
to
focus
today
on
the
implications
17
of
this
proposed
rule
on
a
key
implementation
tool
for
18
clean
air
transportation
conformity,
which
ensures
that
19
transportation
plans
and
programs
don't
delay
the
timely
20
attainment
of
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards.
21
The
EPA
implementation
strategy
proposes
to
render
22
ineffective
for
many
years
transportation
conformity
23
46
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
programs
in
seriously
polluted
areas
like
Washington,
1
Atlanta,
Baltimore,
Chicago
and
other
places,
making
it
2
more
likely
that
those
areas
will
again
fail
to
achieve
3
healthy
air
quality
by
the
deadlines
established
under
the
4
Clean
Air
Act.
5
I
would
also
like
to
give
some
personal
context
6
to
my
remarks
by
putting
a
spotlight
on
Deborah
Kaufman
7
(
ph)
of
Southern
California,
who
is
on
a
crusade
to
keep
8
other
parents
from
suffering
the
horrible
loss
of
a
child
9
due
to
asthma.
It
has
been
five
years
since
her
son
Doug
10
died
at
age
19
from
a
lung
disease.
Quote,
I
didn't
know
11
someone
as
healthy
as
my
son
could
die
of
asthma,
unquote,
12
she
says.
Now
I
want
to
make
sure
everyone
who
will
13
listen
understands
the
severity
of
asthma,
unquote.
14
In
1997,
EPA
revised
the
health
standard
for
15
ozone
to
approve
the
protection
of
children
like
Doug
and
16
other
vulnerable
populations.
It
has
long
been
known
that
17
ozone
causes
people
who
already
have
asthma
and
other
lung
18
diseases
to
sicken,
to
require
more
medication,
to
go
to
19
emergency
rooms,
get
hospitalized
and
even
die.
But
at
20
least
one
credible
recent
study
has
suggested
that
21
exposure
to
high
levels
of
ozone
may
cause
people
to
get
22
asthma.
23
47
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
A
group
of
Southern
California
children
who,
1
like
Deborah's
son
Doug,
exercised
outdoors
a
great
deal
2
and
also
lived
in
areas
with
high
ozone,
were
found
to
3
have
a
greater
risk
of
developing
asthma
in
the
first
4
place,
compared
to
children
who
didn't
exercise
as
much
5
but
who
lived
in
areas
with
less
ozone.
6
It
is
clear
that
we
have
lost
precious
time
in
7
realizing
the
public
health
protection
sought
by
EPA
in
8
1997
because
there
has
been
little
progress
in
9
implementing
this
new
ozone
standard
here
in
Washington
or
10
other
areas.
This
delay,
together
with
the
serious
public
11
health
risks
posed
by
ground­
level
ozone,
make
it
12
imperative
that
EPA
both
expeditiously
complete
action
on
13
this
proposal
and
adopt
a
rigorous
protective
14
implementation
program
that
will
safeguard
the
health
of
15
our
most
vulnerable
citizens.
16
This
past
week
alone,
here
in
the
Washington
17
metro
area,
we
experienced
two
of
the
six
Code
Red
days
18
for
unhealthful
air
quality
that
are
allowable
in
the
19
entire
2003
to
2005
time
period.
It
will
be
official
once
20
again
that
our
metro
area
has
failed
to
meet
its
Clean
Air
21
Act
attainment
deadline
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
22
Yet
in
its
8­
hour
ozone
framework,
EPA
is
proposing
to
23
48
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
sweep
this
failure
under
the
carpet
with
no
requirement
1
for
further
bump
up
to
ensure
added
emission
reductions
2
are
in
place
and
with
no
requirement
that
the
region
3
undertake
additional
emission
reductions
to
ensure
4
reasonable
further
progress
towards
attainment
of
the
5
NAAQS.
It
will
take
considerable
further
emission
6
reductions
to
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
in
regions
7
like
ours
here,
but
EPA's
proposed
framework
contemplates
8
options
to
delay
timely
additional
emission
reductions,
9
literally
costing
some
children
like
Doug
their
very
10
lives.
11
With
transportation
the
source
of
a
third
to
12
half
of
the
health­
threatening
air
pollutants
in
many
13
areas,
it
is
dangerous
to
dismantle
or
undermine
the
14
operation
of
transportation
conformity,
as
the
15
Administration
proposes
to
do
both
through
this
8­
hour
16
ozone
implementation
framework
and
through
provisions
in
17
the
Safe­
T
bill
it
recently
submitted
to
Congress
to
18
reauthorize
the
federal
transportation
law,
T21.
It
is
19
also
costly
to
Deborah
and
her
family
and
the
more
than
20
135
million
Americans
who
live
in
areas
where
EPA's
data
21
shows
the
air
isn't
always
safe
to
breathe.
Indeed,
the
22
Federal
Highway
Administration
has
estimated
the
adverse
23
49
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
health
impacts
of
motor
vehicle
pollution
cost
Americans
1
over
$
40
billion
a
year,
a
hidden
tax
of
over
$
600
per
2
household.
3
Transportation
conformity
has
been
very
4
effective
behind
the
scenes,
motivating
actions
to
curb
5
pollution
and
protect
health.
Conformity
has
spurred
6
support
for
cleaner
vehicles,
fuels
and
maintenance
and
7
strategies
to
curb
traffic
and
pollution
growth
with
8
better
travel
choices.
It
has
gotten
transportation
air
9
quality
agencies
talking
together.
Disabling
conformity
10
and
dismantling
effective
emission
reduction
strategies,
11
as
EPA's
proposal
would
do,
will
undermine
this
progress.
12
In
conclusion,
the
story
today
is
simple.
We
13
have
got
a
serious
air
quality
problem
that
threatens
our
14
health.
We
have
tools
to
fix
that
problem,
but
EPA
is
15
proposing
today
to
blunt
those
tools,
leading
to
more
16
dirty
air
and
harm
or
even
death
for
once
healthy
kids
17
like
Doug.
But
we
can
win
a
happier
ending
to
this
story
18
if
EPA
revises
this
proposed
rule
to,
among
other
things,
19
first
ensure
enforcement
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
emission
20
budgets
until
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
1­
hour
21
standard
has
been
fully
demonstrated;
two,
ensure
that
22
attainment
demonstrations
are
based
on
scientifically
23
50
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
valid
regional
airshed
modeling,
rather
than
1
scientifically
invalid
weight
of
evidence
and
linear
2
proportional
rollback
methods;
three,
ensure
continuous
3
effective
operation
of
successful
emission
reduction
4
strategies,
including
conformity
and
new
source
review
in
5
both
existing
1­
hour
and
new
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
6
areas
with
strong
anti­
backsliding
provisions;
and,
four,
7
enforce
reasonable
further
progress
requirements
in
8
nonattainment
areas
and
mandatory
additional
emission
9
reduction
requirements
when
attainment
deadlines
or
SIP
10
milestones
are
missed.
11
In
closing,
I
would
like
to
mention
that
12
Environmental
Defense
has
submitted
other
testimony
on
13
this
proposed
framework
at
the
Austin
hearing,
and
that
we
14
will
be
submitting
extensive
further
written
comments
15
prior
to
August
1st.
16
Thank
you
again
for
your
time.
17
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
18
Questions?
19
(
No
response.)
20
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
21
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Michael
Replogle
22
was
concluded.)
23
51
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
Next
is
Blake
Early.
1
(
No
response.)
2
MR.
HELMS:
The
yellow
pen
let
me
down,
then.
3
Blake
is
around
somewhere.
We
will
now
move
to
Jane
4
Bright,
followed
by
John
Wilson.
5
The
podium
is
yours.
6
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
brief
discussion
off
the
7
record.)
8
TESTIMONY
OF
JANE
BRIGHT
9
MS.
BRIGHT:
Thank
you
very
much,
and
good
10
morning.
My
name
is
Jane
Bright,
and
I
am
with
a
group
11
called
HealthLink,
which
is
an
all
volunteer
citizens
12
group
in
Massachusetts
that
formed
in
1998,
when
we
13
started
getting
concerned
about
the
health
effects
of
the
14
Salem
Harbor
Generating
Station,
which
is
in
our
15
community.
We
live
under
a
powerplant.
And
people
have
16
said
what
does
that
mean
in
terms
of
our
health,
and
we
17
started
doing
some
research.
We
did
the
research,
and
it
18
is
worse
than
we
thought,
even.
We
know
and
you
folks
19
know
about
the
respiratory
problems,
and
since
we
started
20
in
1998,
further
studies
have
shown
that
air
pollution
is
21
even
more
problematic.
22
You
may
or
may
not
be
familiar
with
an
American
23
52
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Lung
Association
study
that
was
released
in
October
of
1
2002
that
just
lists
the
air
quality
studies
on
health
2
from
mid
2001
to
2002
that
talks
about
pollution
being
3
linked
to
lung
cancer,
heart
attack,
strokes,
high
blood
4
pressure,
congenital
heart
defects,
asthma
and
even
brain
5
damage.
One
year's
worth
of
studies,
seventeen
pages
6
long.
It
is
absolutely
indisputable
that
pollution
7
damages
health.
8
Now,
going
back
to
my
community,
one
of
the
9
things
that
we
did
was
we
got
mad,
because
we
didn't
think
10
it
was
right
to
be
poisoned
against
our
will.
So
we
got
11
together
with
other
people
across
the
state
of
12
Massachusetts
and
started
working
on
getting
things
13
changed
with
powerplants.
Republican
Governor
Paul
14
Cellucci
started
the
work,
looking
at
what
we
could
do
to
15
change
this.
In
2001,
his
successor,
Republican
Governor
16
Jane
Swift,
signed
the
regulations,
and
this
year,
17
Republican
Governor
Nick
Romney
said
yes,
we
are
going
to
18
implement
those
standards
as
quickly
as
we
can.
19
There
is
a
reason
why
three
Republican
governors
20
in
a
row
have
said
yes,
we
are
going
to
clean
up
these
21
powerplants.
It
is
because
over
80
percent
of
the
22
population
demanded
it.
They
said
it
is
unfair
for
us
to
23
53
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
be
poisoned
against
our
will.
1
Now,
when
you
said
this
morning
you
are
looking
2
at
possibly
going
out
to
2021,
I
was
astounded.
In
our
3
case,
the
regulations
require
that
powerplants
in
4
Massachusetts
clean
up
either
by
2004
or
2006,
depending
5
upon
the
work
that
they
are
doing.
Our
plant
is
owned
by
6
PG&
E,
and
they
did
all
sorts
of
appeals
and
so
forth,
and
7
they
finally
resolved
the
timeline
because
they
wanted
8
2006
and
we
wanted
2004
and
they
just
said
okay,
how
about
9
2005.
The
community
is
happy
to
have
it
resolved,
but
10
they
are
appalled
that
they
have
to
wait
one
more
year.
11
So
when
you
say
2021,
it
is
totally
ridiculous.
It
is
12
totally
unacceptable.
Let
me
put
it
to
you
this
way:
13
Since
September
11th,
we
have
agonized
as
a
14
country
as
to
what
we
could
have
done
to
save
those
3,000
15
lives.
Nobody
said
well,
gee,
if
we
knew
how
to
prevent
16
it
should
we
have.
You
folks
are
asking
the
question
17
should
we.
You
know
how
to
clean
up
this
pollution.
You
18
know
what
it
is
doing
to
the
American
public.
The
19
American
public
knows
what
it
is
doing
to
them.
It
is
20
time
to
close
the
loopholes.
It
is
time
to
make
this
21
happen
immediately.
22
The
DEP
of
Massachusetts
has
told
me
that,
you
23
54
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
know,
we
are
already
out
of
attainment.
You
heard
Brownie
1
Carson
talk
about
Maine.
Massachusetts
is
also
out
of
2
attainment.
We
have
just
passed
the
toughest
clean
air
3
regs
in
the
nation.
We
are
still
going
to
be
out
of
4
attainment
because
of
what
is
happening
upwind
from
us,
5
and
there
is
nothing
we
can
do
about
it
in
state.
It
is
6
up
to
you
folks
to
protect
the
states
that
are
affected
by
7
the
other
states,
which
is
probably
about
80
percent
of
8
the
states
in
this
country.
We
cannot
do
it
alone.
You
9
folks
have
to
do
it.
We
have
the
technology
to
clean
up
a
10
lot
of
these
sources.
It
is
simply
a
matter
of
will
and
11
doing
what
is
right
for
the
American
public.
12
Thank
you.
13
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
14
Comments
or
questions?
15
MR.
SILVASI:
Let
me
just
ask
one
clarifying
16
question.
You
mentioned
the
2021
attainment
date.
Were
17
you
implying
that
you
believe
that
that
was
the
date
for
18
all
areas?
19
MS.
BRIGHT:
No,
but
keep
in
mind
that
­­
you
20
know,
I
talk
about
Massachusetts,
but
I
also
have
one
son
21
who
lives
in
California
and
another
son
who
is
in
22
Missouri.
And
I
care
about
what
happens
around
this
23
55
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
country
because
I
have
family
there,
I
travel
there.
So
1
it
is
not
acceptable
for
you
to
say
well,
gee,
maybe
we
2
can
do
something
in
Massachusetts
and
let
some
of
those
3
other
states
suffer.
2021
should
be
unacceptable
4
anywhere.
5
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you.
6
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Jane
Bright
was
7
concluded.)
8
MR.
HELMS:
John
Wilson,
followed
by
Arthur
9
Stamoulis.
10
Hold
on
one
second.
I
have
to
go
outside
for
11
just
a
few
minutes.
I
will
turn
over
the
chair
to
John
12
Silvasi
as
hearing
officer.
13
MR.
SILVASI:
Would
you
state
your
name
and
your
14
affiliation
for
the
court
reporter,
please?
15
TESTIMONY
OF
JOHN
WILSON
16
MR.
WILSON:
Yes.
Thank
you.
For
the
record,
17
my
name
is
John
D.
Wilson.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
18
the
Galveston­
Houston
Association
for
Smog
Prevention.
I
19
am
here
to
comment
primarily
on
one­
half
of
one
sentence
20
in
EPA's
proposal
to
implement
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
21
and
abandon
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
In
the
words
of
22
EPA's
proposal,
we
are
also
proposing
that
we
would
no
23
56
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
longer
make
findings
of
failure
to
attain
the
1­
hour
1
standard.
If
this
proposal
becomes
effective,
Houston
2
will
fail
to
attain
the
1­
hour
standard,
and
the
health
of
3
people
in
Houston
will
suffer.
4
What
is
the
rationale
for
this
proposal?
5
According
to
EPA's
proposal,
quote,
the
deciding
factor
6
supporting
the
schedule
for
the
revocation
in
our
proposal
7
is
to
ensure
areas
do
not
have
to
perform
conformity
8
analyses
for
both
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards
at
the
9
same
time.
Now,
that
is
a
public
health
argument
if
I
10
have
ever
heard
one.
It
is
difficult
for
me,
actually,
to
11
believe
this
statement.
If
and
when
Houston
fails
to
meet
12
the
1­
hour
health
standard
for
ozone,
the
region
should
be
13
subject
to
the
federal
sanctions
as
established
by
14
Congress
and
signed
by
then
President
Bush
in
1990.
A
15
bureaucratic
repeal
that
subverts
our
clean
air
laws
on
16
this
point
can
be
described
as
backsliding,
a
rollback,
or
17
simply
a
giveaway
to
polluters
at
the
expense
of
public
18
health.
19
EPA
to
me
appears
to
have
settled
on
revoking
20
the
1­
hour
standard
prior
to
2007
for
the
very
purpose
of
21
subverting
the
clear
intent
of
the
law.
There
is
no
doubt
22
that
the
threat
of
sanctions
is
an
effective
strategy
in
23
57
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
motivating
recalcitrant
officials
in
Texas
to
finally
take
1
action.
2
Here
is
the
proof,
in
the
words
of
my
public
3
officials:
First,
Texas
state
Senator
Chris
Harris,
4
quote,
if
we
don't
address
this
problem,
this
will
shut
5
the
state
of
Texas
down.
That
is
what
makes
this
bill
so
6
important.
If
we
don't
get
this
bill
passed,
this
can
do
7
horrendous
economic
damage
to
the
whole
state,
unquote.
8
These
comments
were
made
several
months
ago.
Senator
9
Harris
was
explaining
to
the
Houston
Chronicle
that
if
the
10
Texas
legislature
fails
to
fund
its
emissions
reduction
11
plan,
Texas
would
lose
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
12
federal
highway
money
and
relinquish
control
of
the
13
cleanup
plan
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
14
Next
I
will
quote
Bruce
LaBoon,
former
chairman
15
of
the
Greater
Houston
Partnership.
And
in
Houston,
that
16
is
nonprofit
organization
that
is
private.
He
is
actually
17
a
public
official,
because
they
kind
of
run
things
down
18
there.
He
was
speaking
in
testimony
to
the
House
19
Environmental
Regulation
Committee.
He
said,
quote,
Texas
20
literally
cannot
afford
this.
It
means
the
forfeiture
of
21
our
federal
highway
dollars.
It
means
the
federal
22
government
restricting
severely
building
and
construction
23
58
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
permitting
throughout
those
areas,
and
it
would
mean
1
economic
disaster
for
the
state,
unquote.
2
Third,
Texas
Governor
Rick
Perry,
speaking
about
3
rural
lawmakers
opposing
funding
for
clean
air:
I
think
4
they
will
care
about
this
issue.
The
loss
of
highway
5
funding
for
those
areas
would
be
devastating.
It
would
be
6
political
suicide
to
ignore
it.
We
must
clean
the
air
in
7
Houston,
Texas,
and
we
must
do
it
now.
8
Fourth,
Texas
Senator
Jon
Lindsay,
from
a
press
9
release
issued
three
years
ago:
The
Clean
Air
Act
comes
10
with
carrots
and
sticks.
The
carrot
is
that
lowered
ozone
11
levels
bring
improved
public
health.
On
the
other
hand,
12
there
is
a
big
stick
awaiting
should
we
fail
to
clean
up
13
the
air,
a
stick
that
comes
in
the
form
of
two
dire
14
economic
penalties.
The
first
penalty
would
be
a
total
15
cutoff
of
federal
highway
funding.
Although
estimates
16
vary,
this
could
mean
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
17
lost
highway
projects
and
approximately
5,000
construction
18
jobs
eliminated,
not
to
mention
the
ripple
effect
on
19
construction­
related
businesses.
If
you
think
traffic
is
20
bad
now,
imagine
how
bad
it
could
be
if
we
are
unable
to
21
build
any
more
roads.
22
You
can
see
it
is
sanctions
that
make
these
23
59
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
deadlines
work.
Houston
had
a
deadline
in
1977.
Deadline
1
missed;
no
sanctions.
Houston
had
a
deadline
in
1982.
No
2
sanctions.
Houston
got
a
deadline
extension
to
1987.
No
3
sanctions.
Congress
finally
established
a
2007
deadline
4
for
Houston,
this
time
with
sanctions.
EPA
proposes
to
5
rescind
the
threat
of
sanctions
and
set
a
new
deadline,
6
probably
2013.
7
The
planning
requirements
for
the
1­
hour
8
standard
that
EPA
proposes
to
retain
for
Houston
are
not
9
enough
for
the
health
of
Houstonians.
Texas
has
evaluated
10
six
different
plans
to
clean
up
Houston's
air.
Several
of
11
these
six
plans
were
late
or
incomplete.
Even
so,
Texas
12
has
submitted
each
of
these
six
plans
to
the
EPA
with
the
13
assurance
that
each
of
the
six
was
the
latest
and
greatest
14
way
to
clean
up
the
air
and
that
each
would
succeed
in
15
bringing
Houston
into
compliance
with
the
federal
16
standards.
The
first
four
failed.
The
fifth
was
reworked
17
in
response
to
demands
from
industry.
State
officials
now
18
acknowledge
that
the
sixth
plan
is
insufficient.
19
EPA
has
really
seemed
to
me
to
be
disengaged
20
from
the
most
important
issues
facing
Houston's
clean
air.
21
Those
Houston
residents
who
care
about
clean
air
and
are
22
paying
attention
are
really
losing
hope.
A
2013
deadline
23
60
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
for
the
8­
hour
standard
is
not
enough
for
the
health
of
1
Houstonians.
As
many
within
EPA
are
well
aware,
Houston's
2
ozone
problem
is
different.
It
is
different
because
it
is
3
the
product
of
VOC
concentrations
that
are
three
to
five
4
times
more
reactive
than
any
other
city
in
the
country.
5
In
Houston,
ozone
can
increase
from
a
green
level
to
a
red
6
level
in
less
than
three
hours.
7
These
reactive
VOCs
are
proof
that
planning
8
without
the
threat
of
sanctions
is
a
failure.
While
the
9
plans
were
being
written
during
the
1980s
and
1990s,
10
industry
brayed
about
removing
80
percent
of
its
VOC
11
emissions
from
the
annual
pollution
reports.
When
someone
12
finally
checked,
that
missing
80
percent
was
found.
It
13
was
right
up
in
the
skies
above
Houston.
The
actual
14
pollution
releases
by
chemical
plants
and
refineries
in
15
the
Houston
area
are
three,
five,
ten
and
even
fourteen
16
times
higher
than
reported.
17
Even
now,
industry
grudgingly
accepts
that
this
18
is
the
reason
that
little
progress
has
been
made
over
the
19
past
decade
in
cleaning
up
the
air
pollution.
What
20
progress
has
been
made
is
a
result
of
two
things,
first,
21
mandated
requirements
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
was
passed
by
22
Congress.
Congress
required
that
the
so­
called
NO
x
RACT
23
61
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
rules,
reasonably
available
control
technology,
be
1
installed,
but
Houston
somehow
got
a
delay
from
EPA
for
2
essentially
five
years
in
implementing
those
rules
as
3
mandated
by
Congress
under
the
flawed
theory
that
cleaning
4
up
the
NO
x
emissions
from
plants
in
Houston
would
not
5
improve
Houston's
air
quality.
6
Now,
I
mean,
we
know
that's
not
true,
but
7
somehow
that
got
­­
that
was
convincing
enough
to
stall
8
those
regulations
for
five
years.
Well,
after
those
9
regulations
were
implemented
in
1999,
we
saw
pollution
10
levels
decrease
in
2000,
2001
and
2002.
The
mandates
in
11
the
law
make
a
difference.
12
Second,
the
other
major
pollution
cleanup
we
13
have
seen
in
Houston
over
the
past
eight
or
nine
years
was
14
due
to
a
mandate
in
the
Texas
electric
deregulation
bill
15
that
required
electric
utilities
to
reduce
their
NO
x
16
emissions
in
exchange
for
the
deregulation
program,
and
17
they
bought
into
that
tradeoff.
So
these
mandates
have
to
18
be
enacted
into
statute
and
have
to
be
followed
and
should
19
not
be
abandoned
by
bureaucratic
repeal.
20
The
8­
hour
standard
itself
­­
21
MR.
SILVASI:
If
I
could,
you
are
coming
up
22
close
to
your
time.
And
under
the
rules,
what
we
said
is
23
62
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
we
would
let
other
folks
talk
as
they
have
signed
up,
and
1
then
we
can
have
you
come
back
after
they
have
finished
if
2
you
care
to
finish.
3
MR.
WILSON:
Okay.
I
will
wrap
up
in
just
a
4
minute.
I
missed
the
rules.
I
wasn't
informed
at
the
5
front
of
the
time
limit.
Thank
you.
6
MR.
SILVASI:
Okay.
7
MR.
WILSON:
The
8­
hour
standard
itself
is
not
8
enough
for
the
health
of
Houstonians.
Because
of
the
high
9
reactivity
of
Houston's
VOC
problem,
Houston
may
well
be
10
the
only
city
in
the
country
that
will
continue
to
violate
11
the
1­
hour
standard,
even
after
it
meets
the
8­
hour
12
standard.
Ozone
levels
can
spike
in
Houston
to
levels
13
above
150
parts
per
billion
and
return
to
much
lower
14
levels
quite
quickly.
15
On
behalf
of
the
many
people
in
Houston
who
want
16
to
stop
worrying
about
ozone
warnings,
toxics,
air
17
pollution,
and
most
of
all
about
our
health,
I
ask
you
to
18
maintain
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
If
EPA
maintains
the
19
1­
hour
ozone
standard
until
it
is
attained
by
Houston
and
20
other
cities,
it
is
not
necessary
for
EPA
to
require
21
duplicative
transportation
conformity
requirements
as
22
claimed
in
the
rulemaking.
EPA
can
find
a
way
to
require
23
63
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
transportation
conformity
to
be
maintained
at
the
most
1
stringent
level
required
by
either
the
1­
hour
standard
or
2
the
8­
hour
standard.
Merging,
rather
than
duplicating,
3
transportation
conformity
requirements
is
the
best
way
to
4
maintain
the
public
health
protection
provided
by
the
5
transportation
conformity
rule
without
allowing
states
to
6
backslide
in
their
transportation
plans.
7
As
far
as
the
other
sentences
in
this
plan
go,
8
many
of
the
other
people
commenting
on
this
proposal
are
9
offering
a
valuable
implement.
It
was
once
EPA's
intent
10
to
strengthen
public
health
protection
by
adopting
the
11
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Please
consider
the
input
you
are
12
getting.
Return
to
a
focus
on
progress
towards
clean
air,
13
rather
than
adding
yet
another
delay
to
the
sorry
saga
of
14
endless
planning
and
endless
pollution.
15
Thank
you.
16
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you.
17
Questions?
18
(
No
response.)
19
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you.
20
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
John
Wilson
was
21
concluded.)
22
MR.
SILVASI:
Before
I
call
the
next
speaker,
I
23
64
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
will
kind
of
reiterate
the
ground
rules
for
some
of
those
1
who
may
have
arrived
late
and
didn't
hear
that.
2
Because
of
the
numbers
of
speakers
we
have
had
3
signed
up
and
pre­
registered
and
that
are
likely
to
show
4
up
without
being
pre­
registered,
we
are
asking
the
5
speakers
to
restrict
the
time
of
their
testimony
to
five
6
minutes.
Denise
Gerth
will
flash
a
sign
up
when
you
have
7
about
a
minute
left.
Then
what
we
will
do
is
ask
if
you
8
could
hold
off
at
that
point.
What
we
would
do
is
if
you
9
still
have
more
to
say,
after
everyone
else
has
testified,
10
we
can
call
you
back
if
you
want
to
continue
or
to
add
11
other
remarks
to
your
testimony.
Of
course,
written
12
comments
that
are
submitted
to
the
docket
receive
the
same
13
weight
as
comments
submitted
orally
here
at
the
public
14
meeting,
so
anything
that
you
want
to
express
in
any
more
15
detail
can
certainly
be
submitted
in
written
form
to
the
16
docket.
17
We
move
on
to
the
next
speaker
that
is
signed
up
18
and
that
is
available,
Arthur
Stamoulis,
and
then,
after
19
Arthur,
John
N.
Kearney.
20
So,
Arthur,
are
you
available?
21
22
23
65
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
TESTIMONY
OF
ARTHUR
STAMOULIS
1
MR.
STAMOULIS:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
2
present
testimony
today.
My
name
is
Arthur
Stamoulis.
I
3
am
here
on
behalf
of
the
Clean
Air
Council,
a
501(
C)(
3)
4
environmental
organization
representing
over
7,000
5
residents
of
Pennsylvania
and
Delaware.
Established
in
6
1967,
the
Council
is
dedicated
to
protecting
the
right
of
7
everyone
to
breathe
clean
air.
8
For
the
over
1
million
Pennsylvanians
suffering
9
from
some
type
of
chronic
breathing
problem,
including
10
over
100,000
children,
breathing
can
be
difficult
even
in
11
the
absence
of
air
pollution,
and
yet
a
significant
number
12
of
Pennsylvania
counties
do
not
meet
even
the
13
1­
hour
health
standard
for
ozone
smog
pollution,
and
more
14
than
30
are
expected
to
fail
the
more
stringent
8­
hour
15
standard.
16
Ozone
pollution
in
Pennsylvania
is
causing
17
asthma
attacks
among
young
children.
It
is
leading
to
18
premature
deaths
among
the
elderly.
It
is
even
damaging
19
the
lungs
of
perfectly
healthy
adults.
Pennsylvanians
20
need
clean
air
now.
The
new
8­
hour
ozone
standards
should
21
be
implemented
in
such
a
way
as
to
make
sure
all
Americans
22
can
breathe
clean,
healthful
air
as
soon
as
possible.
For
23
66
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
regions
of
the
country
that
do
not
meet
the
basic
ozone
1
health
standards,
we
need
to
maintain
strong
tools
to
2
improve
air
quality.
When
it
comes
to
classifying
3
nonattainment
areas
under
the
8­
hour
standard,
Subpart
2
4
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
offers
much
stronger
tools
than
5
Subpart
1.
6
Some
of
the
Subpart
2­
based
programs
that
7
deliver
critical
emissions
reductions
in
Pennsylvania
8
include
enhanced
emissions
inspection
maintenance
programs
9
for
vehicles,
emissions
offsets
at
higher
than
one­
to­
one
10
ratios
and
lower
thresholds
for
triggering
new
source
11
review.
Pennsylvania
has
come
to
rely
on
reductions
from
12
these
and
other
Subpart
2
programs.
It
is,
therefore,
13
necessary
to
continue
to
utilize
the
Subpart
2
framework
14
for
the
new
standard.
15
Subpart
2
also
contains
more
stringent
16
attainment
dates
for
cleaning
up
air
quality
than
just
17
Subpart
1.
Coming
into
attainment
sooner
will
prevent
18
countless
missed
school
and
work
days
in
Pennsylvania
by
19
helping
to
prevent
needless
asthma
emergencies
and
other
20
health
problems.
Regions
that
are
not
meeting
human
21
health
standards
need
all
the
help
they
can
get
reducing
22
pollution.
23
67
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
For
this
reason,
the
Council
opposes
EPA's
1
proposed
classification
incentive
feature
and
other
2
proposals
that
would
allow
regions
to
be
classified
at
3
lower
classification
levels
than
their
current
air
quality
4
justifies,
based
on
modeling
projections
of
cleaner
air
in
5
the
future.
The
Act's
mechanism
for
determining
the
6
classification
of
an
area
has
always
been
based
on
the
7
best,
most
recent,
actual
data
available.
The
Clean
Air
8
Council
views
as
inappropriate
and
even
reckless
the
9
attempt
to
replace
this
process
with
a
reliance
on
best
10
case
scenario
projections
of
what
air
quality
may
be
at
a
11
later
date.
12
The
Clean
Air
Council
also
believes
that
new
13
requirements
for
regions
out
of
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
14
standard
should
be
used
in
addition
to,
not
in
place
of,
15
existing
requirements
for
meeting
the
1­
hour
standard.
16
For
example,
under
the
1­
hour
standard,
the
Philadelphia
17
area
must
reach
attainment
by
2005.
Under
the
expected
18
8­
hour
standard,
the
Philadelphia
area
will
not
have
to
19
reach
attainment
until
2010
or
even
later.
20
This
is
an
absurd
result
that
EPA
can
avoid
by
21
withdrawing
its
first
option
for
revocation.
There
cannot
22
be
a
window
during
which
new
sources
of
pollution
can
be
23
68
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
installed
without
meeting
standards
that
were
previously
1
in
place
under
the
1­
hour
rule.
Again,
the
goal
of
these
2
rules
should
be
to
enable
people
to
breathe
clean,
3
healthful
air
as
soon
as
possible.
If
a
region
faced
more
4
stringent
requirements
under
the
1­
hour
standard
than
they
5
initially
would
under
the
new
standard,
those
more
6
stringent
requirements
should
remain
in
place
until
7
attainment
for
both
the
1­
hour
and
the
8­
hour
health
8
standards
are
met.
9
Finally,
the
Clean
Air
Council
proposes
any
10
attempts
to
weaken
new
source
review
requirements
in
any
11
region.
Air
quality
cannot
improve
if
new
sources
of
12
pollution
can
be
created
without
careful
planning
to
limit
13
their
unhealthful
effects.
EPA's
proposal
to
revise
new
14
source
review
under
a
transitional
program
for
areas
that
15
demonstrate
they
will
meet
health
standards
in
the
future
16
does
nothing
but
prolong
the
time
before
residents
of
17
dirty
areas
can
breathe
healthy
air.
18
EPA's
proposals
appear
to
approach
the
19
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
from
the
20
vantage
point
of
allowing
regions
as
much
time
as
possible
21
to
meet
the
new
standard.
The
result
of
such
a
misguided
22
approach
will
be
more
asthma
attacks,
more
emergency
room
23
69
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
visits,
more
missed
days
of
school
and
work
and
more
days
1
when
even
the
fittest
of
the
fit
should
not
exert
energy
2
outside.
3
Everyone
deserves
the
right
to
breathe
clean,
4
healthy
air
today.
EPA's
proposal
delays
the
promise
of
5
clean
air
for
much
too
long.
6
Thank
you
very
much.
7
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you.
8
Any
questions?
9
(
No
response.)
10
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you.
11
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Arthur
Stamoulis
12
was
concluded.)
13
MR.
SILVASI:
Has
Blake
Early
joined
us?
He
was
14
here
earlier
and
he
apparently
just
stepped
out.
15
John
Kearney
was
the
next
person,
and
after
16
John,
Stephanie
Sanchez.
17
TESTIMONY
OF
JOHN
KEARNEY
18
MR.
KEARNEY:
First
off,
I
thank
you
for
giving
19
us
this
opportunity
provide
comments.
My
name
is
John
20
Kearney,
and
I
am
a
staff
attorney
at
the
Clean
Air
21
Council
in
Philadelphia
and
the
director
of
the
Clean
Air
22
Council
in
Delaware.
But
I
stand
today
to
comment
on
23
70
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
behalf
of
a
group
that
we
helped
put
together
in
Delaware
1
called
the
Visible
Neighborhoods
Environmental
Justice
2
Coalition.
The
Visible
Neighborhoods
Coalition
seeks
to
3
provide
environmental
equality
for
all
Delawarians.
4
I
believe
that
Delaware
provides
a
simple
5
microcosm
for
understanding
why
this
proposal
is
flawed
6
and
why
what
is
being
proposed
here
is
reprehensible
and
7
inexcusable.
For
those
that
are
not
familiar
with
8
Delaware's
geography,
we
have
three
counties
stacked
on
9
top
of
each
other
like
three
blocks.
Delaware
has
­­
10
especially
Wilmington
has
a
long
­­
has
suffered
from
11
three
generations
of
pollution,
going
back
from
a
history
12
where
we
were
the
largest
source
of
tanneries
at
one
point
13
in
the
early
turn
of
the
century,
and
we
now
suffer
from
14
problems
left
behind
by
53
former
tanneries
and
arsenic
15
problems
related
to
those.
16
The
solutions
for
dealing
with
that
are
complex
17
and
difficult,
but
the
solutions
for
dealing
with
the
18
problem
that
we
face
due
to
ozone
problems
is
relatively
19
simple.
I
think
the
three
counties
of
Delaware
20
demonstrate
that
case
in
a
good
manner.
21
Our
first
county
on
top
of
the
stack
is
New
22
Castle
County.
It
is
currently
­­
Delaware
is,
so
to
23
71
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
speak,
at
the
end
of
the
tailpipe
as
well.
Our
top
1
county,
New
Castle
County,
is
currently
out
of
attainment
2
for
the
1­
hour
standard
and
will
also
be
out
of
attainment
3
for
the
8­
hour
standard.
Like
what
others
have
said,
it
4
will
be
impossible
for
Delaware
to
reach
attainment
5
without
help
from
upwind
sources
being
cleaned
up.
6
Already
this
year,
we
have
had
four
Code
Red
7
days
and,
I
believe,
four
exceedences
of
the
8­
hour
8
standard.
So
that
would
put
us
out
of
the
team
already
9
this
early
in
the
season
under
the
new
8­
hour
standard.
10
Last
year
we
had
15
Code
Red
days
in
Delaware,
11
Code
11
Orange
days;
81
times
we
exceeded
either
the
1­
hour
12
standard
or
the
8­
hour
standard;
8
times
our
southernmost
13
county
exceeded
the
8­
hour
standard
and
the
northernmost
14
county
did
not.
The
southernmost
county
will
now
also
be
15
out
of
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard
and
not
currently
16
out
of
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
standard.
17
Our
southernmost
county
some
of
you
may
be
18
familiar
with.
That
is
where
our
ocean
beaches
are.
It
19
is
very
rural.
But
what
is
in
that
county
is
the
largest
20
source
of
pollution
in
Delaware,
which
is
a
large
21
coal­
fired
powerplant.
So
eight
times,
with
basically
the
22
same
airshed
receiving
sources
of
pollution
from
upwind
23
72
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
sources,
so
eight
times
when
New
Castle
County
was
not
out
1
of
attainment,
this
large
powerplant
contributed
to
Sussex
2
County,
our
southernmost
county,
being
out
of
attainment.
3
The
University
of
Delaware
also
has
a
college
in
our
4
southernmost
county,
and
there
is
a
researcher
there
that
5
indicated
that
70
percent
of
the
NO
x
pollution
in
the
6
southernmost
county
comes
from
this
powerplant.
7
So
the
solution
is
to
­­
one
easy
solution
is
to
8
provide
for
cleaning
up
these
powerplants,
and
we
feel
9
that
the
options
that
are
provided
for
here
are
shifting
10
the
burden
away
from
cleaning
up
powerplants
to
smaller
11
sources
like
possibly
drycleaners,
other
smaller
sources
12
in
the
transportation
section.
We
feel
that
that's
the
13
wrong
approach
to
take.
14
The
Clean
Air
Act
was
originally
intended
to
15
provide
technology
forcing
health­
based
standards,
and
it
16
was
designed
to
include
an
increasing
of
technology
to
17
clean
up
industrial
sources.
I
am
not
asking
you
to
take
18
my
word
for
that.
I
am
going
to
cite
a
case
from
the
7th
19
Circuit
which
is
citing
the
Congressional
Record
at
the
20
time
the
Clean
Air
Act
was
passed.
21
It
indicated
­­
and
this
is
a
quote
from
the
7th
22
Circuit
­­
Clean
Air
Act
amendments
were
enacted
to
speed
23
73
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
up,
expand
and
intensify
the
war
against
pollution
in
the
1
United
States
with
a
view
toward
assuring
that
the
air
we
2
breathe
throughout
the
nation
is
wholesome
once
again.
3
We
feel
that
what
you
are
proposing
is
not
providing
4
wholesome
air
as
soon
as
it
could.
5
And
I
want
to
give
you
a
couple
of
examples.
6
Under
the
scheme
that
you
are
proposing,
current
law
­­
7
because
our
northernmost
county
is
out
of
attainment
under
8
the
1­
hour
standard
right
now,
we
conceivably
should
be
in
9
attainment
by
2005.
Under
the
scheme
that
you
are
10
proposing,
that
standard
will
be
gone,
and
there
will
be
a
11
new
standard
in
place
for
our
northernmost
county
to
12
achieve
attainment
possibly
as
far
as
ten
years.
So,
you
13
know,
it
is
pushing
back
when
we
would
have
to
meet
14
attainment.
15
You
have
heard
about
all
of
the
proposals
of
16
option
1
versus
option
2.
Option
1
for
our
southernmost
17
county
would
potentially
require
it
to
reach
attainment
18
within
six
years,
but
if
you
go
to
the
less
stringent
19
option
2,
then
you
would
have
the
possibility
of
ten
years
20
or
twelve
years
instead
of
the
six
under
the
scheme
as
21
devised.
So
we
feel
that
you
devised
implementation
of
22
the
standards
that
is
not
giving
us
the
wholesome
air
that
23
74
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
and
the
wholesome
air
that
we
1
need
in
Delaware.
2
Instead,
it
is
giving
us
what
we
have
had
over
3
the
last
four
days
in
Delaware,
which
is
unhealthy
air,
4
which
is
constricted
lung
function.
It
has
adverse
5
effects
to
the
developing
lungs.
My
three­
year­
old
son,
6
loves
on
hot
days
to
go
out
at
his
daycare
and
have
what
7
he
calls
water
days,
but
which
your
own
EPA
would
8
recommend
him
not
to
do
over
the
last
four
days.
So
we
9
feel
that
this
standard
does
not
provide
the
wholesome
10
clean
air
that
the
Clean
Air
Act
demands,
and
we
think
11
that
this
is
reprehensible
and
unexcusable.
12
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
13
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
John
Kearney
was
14
concluded.)
15
MR.
HELMS:
The
next
speaker
will
be
Stephanie
16
Sanchez.
17
MS.
SANCHEZ:
I'm
here.
18
TESTIMONY
OF
STEPHANIE
SANCHEZ
19
MS.
SANCHEZ:
Thank
you
very
much
to
the
EPA
for
20
allowing
us
to
come
down
and
comment.
And
I
say
come
21
down,
because
I
am
coming
from
Norwalk,
Connecticut.
And
22
there
I
represent
the
Greater
Norwalk
Clean
Air
Coalition,
23
75
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
part
of
a
500,000­
member
organization
in
Connecticut
1
involved
with
cleaning
up
the
air
in
Connecticut.
2
So
I
am
here
today
to
ask
for
a
strong
federal
3
presence
from
the
EPA
with
regard
to
the
more
protective
4
8­
hour
ozone
smog
standard.
I
come
before
you
as
a
former
5
deputy
mayor
of
Greenwich,
Connecticut,
where
I
felt
6
frustrated
over
the
polluted
air
coming
from
our
neighbors
7
in
New
York
and
New
Jersey,
because
I
was
told
it
was
a
8
national
issue
to
be
tackled.
Especially
when
it
came
to
9
the
issue
of
Westchester
Airport
in
our
own
backyard,
I
10
had
no
local
authority
or
control
to
deal
effectively
with
11
the
problem
of
airport
emissions.
12
At
several
National
League
of
Cities
conferences
13
I
attended
as
part
of
the
Energy,
Environment
and
Natural
14
Resources
Committee,
I
also
wanted
to
address
the
issue
of
15
polluted
air
coming
from
the
Ohio
coal
burning
plants.
So
16
the
environment
being
one
of
my
primary
passions,
I
ran
17
for
national
office
to
see
what
I
could
do
about
helping
18
to
clean
up
our
air.
It
was
on
this
campaign
for
Congress
19
throughout
the
4th
Congressional
District
in
the
20
southwestern
portion
of
Connecticut
that
I
heard
it
said
21
over
and
over
what
a
problem
the
polluting
powerplants
22
were
from
my
constituents.
They
are
effectively
known
as
23
76
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
the
Sooty
Six
in
Connecticut.
1
Considering
that
two
of
the
Sooty
Six
2
powerplants,
Bridgeport
and
Norwalk,
are
located
in
the
3
district
is
not
unrelated
to
the
fact
that
this
area
is
4
rated
severe
nonattainment
on
the
EPA's
map
of
ozone
5
nonattainment
areas.
This
Wisvest
powerplant
issue
is
6
literally
the
first
issue
I
heard
about
in
Bridgeport,
7
when
I
was
invited
to
join
a
state
representative
to
8
protest
outside
the
plant.
It
is
a
huge
health
issue
for
9
Bridgeport
residents.
10
So
I
met
with
individuals,
property
owners,
11
better
breathing
clubs
associated
with
the
American
Lung
12
Association.
People
were
literally
having
a
hard
time
13
breathing
because
of
the
pollution
from
the
plant
there.
14
And
no
wonder.
In
2000,
the
Sooty
Six
emitted
over
15
9
million
tons
of
the
gas
carbon
dioxide,
or
CO
2,
the
16
leading
pollutant
known
to
cause
climate
change.
The
harm
17
from
these
plants
is
real
and
local,
resulting
in
negative
18
health
and
environmental
impacts,
as
others
have
testified
19
about
here
today.
And
I
too
have
referenced
some
studies
20
that
I
can
include.
You
are
well
aware
as
the
EPA
of
21
these
health
studies,
particularly
the
hazards
based
on
22
studies
and
court
cases.
23
77
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
When
it
comes
to
environmental
quality
and
1
issues
of
public
health,
not
all
communities
are
treated
2
equally.
Bridgeport
is
one
of
the
poorest
cities
in
the
3
nation.
Evidence
clearly
shows
that
communities
of
color
4
have
disproportionate
numbers
of
environmental
hazards.
5
And,
being
conscious
of
the
need
for
energy,
we
are
6
obviously
not
asking
these
powerplants
to
shut
down,
only
7
to
clean
up
to
meet
modern
pollution
standards.
And
8
people
have
already
discussed
ways
of
doing
this
with
9
technology,
scrubbers
and
cleaner
fuel,
and
it
is
not
just
10
a
matter
of
concern
to
the
urban
areas
where
the
plants
11
are
located.
The
pollutants
affect
a
30­
mile
radius,
12
which
is
why
we
had
a
cross­
section
of
support
13
geographically
as
well
as
ideologically
in
our
list
of
14
Clean
Air
Coalition
endorsements.
15
Anecdotally,
I
was
also
being
told
by
soccer
16
clubs
in
Greenwich
about
the
increased
rates
in
asthma
in
17
their
players,
such
an
increase
that
the
coaches
were
18
telling
me
they
had
to
take
collective
timeouts
so
their
19
players
could
get
their
inhalers.
And
if
you
have
ever
20
had
an
asthma
attack
­­
and
I
personally
have
not,
but
a
21
friend
has
described
it
to
me.
He
described
the
severe
22
burning
in
his
chest.
He
was
so
deprived
of
air
that
his
23
78
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
airways
felt
as
if
they
were
going
to
burst
as
he
wheezed.
1
The
pain
and
pressure
that
this
placed
on
his
chest
was
so
2
severe
that
tears
came
to
his
eyes
as
he
lunged
for
his
3
prescription
inhaler.
4
My
friend
is
lucky.
He
suffers
from
a
mild
form
5
of
asthma
and
can
afford
good
medical
care.
He
is
in
no
6
immediate
danger,
yet
thousands
of
other
people,
many
of
7
them
children
and
people
of
color,
endure
the
same
8
condition,
and
many
of
them
are
not
as
lucky
as
my
friend.
9
The
sad
fact
is
that
even
in
an
affluent
area
with
strong
10
social
and
medical
services,
our
children
are
choking
on
11
the
air
they
breathe.
12
Incorporating
a
cleanup
with
the
Sooty
Six
so
13
that
the
plants
would
meet
modern
air
standards
was
a
14
public
health
issue
that
had
to
be
addressed
so
that
15
Connecticut's
children
and
others
vulnerable
to
16
respiratory
illnesses
no
longer
had
to
suffer
needlessly.
17
Despite
statistical
evidence
of
the
increase
in
asthma
18
rates
and
despite
having
the
nation's
highest
per
capita
19
income,
Connecticut
ranks
in
the
bottom
20
percent
of
20
states,
according
to
per
capita
spending
on
public
health.
21
And
that
ties
into
another
point
that
I
wanted
22
to
make,
that
in
addition
to
the
public
health
and
quality
23
79
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
of
life
aspects,
there
is
the
issue
of
fiscal
1
responsibility
as
it
relates
to
health
care
costs.
Others
2
will
probably
talk
about
it,
but
it
bares
the
point
that
3
the
cost
of
cleaner
air
will
result
in
lower
medical
4
costs.
Given
the
issue
of
treating
respiratory
illnesses
5
like
asthma,
it
is
fiscally
more
responsible
to
pay
for
6
prevention
rather
than
have
to
pay
later
with
expensive
7
treatments.
8
The
EPA
has
even
estimated
that
for
every
dollar
9
spent
on
pollution
reduction
nationally,
we
will
save
$
4
10
in
medical
costs.
Why
not
do
the
right
thing
and
be
11
fiscally
responsible
at
the
same
time?
What
we
demanded
12
and
deserve
was
to
have
real
on­
site
cleanup
of
these
13
powerplants
to
meet
the
same
emissions
standards
as
the
14
modern
plants.
We
testified
year
after
year
­­
it
took
15
five
years
­­
and
finally,
these
plants
cleaned
up.
I
am
16
happy
to
say
that
it
was
passed
by
the
General
Assembly
17
and
signed
by
the
Governor.
18
Subsequent
legislation
has
led
to
even
more
19
improvements.
We
passed
a
mercury
bill
that
is
a
lead
in
20
the
nation
for
reducing
mercury,
and
we
have
looked
at
21
other
ways
of
additionally
cleaning
up
our
air.
This
22
relates
to
the
fact
that
we
have
good
news
for
cleaning
up
23
80
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
the
air
in
Connecticut.
What
I
learned
from
this
campaign
1
is
that
now
that
we
have
cleaned
up
our
own
house,
first
2
in
terms
of
clean
air,
we
can
now
ask
for
help
nationally
3
in
terms
of
the
coal­
burning
plants
in
Ohio
and
other
4
pollutant
sources
as
have
been
referenced
here.
5
So
we
are
asking
for
strong
federal
presence
in
6
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Southwestern
Connecticut
7
routinely
violates
the
8­
hour
rule
put
in
place
in
1997
8
under
a
previous
administration,
and
further
compounding
9
this
problem
is
the
fact
that
a
majority
of
the
10
pollutants,
as
I
have
mentioned,
are
not
produced
in
11
southwestern
Connecticut.
A
combination
of
pollutants
are
12
emitted
from
poorly­
run
powerplants
outside
of
the
area,
13
and
locally,
we
have
very
limited
options
to
address
this.
14
Therefore,
the
EPA
must
enact
strong,
meaningful
15
regulations
like
the
9/
7
8­
hour
rule
to
ensure
that
we
16
have
clean
air.
I
ask
you
to
deal
responsibly
with
this.
17
We
need
help
right
now.
Not
a
year
from
now,
not
two
18
years
from
now,
not
twenty
years
from
now,
right
now.
19
Thank
you
very
much
again
for
the
opportunity
to
20
be
here
to
comment
on
this.
21
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
22
Questions?
23
81
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
(
No
response.)
1
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Stephanie
Sanchez
2
was
concluded.)
3
MR.
HELMS:
Phil
Compton?
4
Phil
come
forward.
The
podium
is
yours.
5
MR.
COMPTON:
Thank
you,
sir.
6
TESTIMONY
OF
PHIL
COMPTON
7
MR.
COMPTON:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Phil
8
Compton.
I
am
with
the
Florida
Consumer
Action
Network,
9
and
today
I
represent
our
40,000
dues­
paying
members
in
10
the
state
of
Florida.
Today
my
lungs
hurt,
and
I
want
to
11
know
what
you
are
going
to
do
about
it.
I
thought
air
in
12
Tampa
was
bad.
When
I
flew
out
Wednesday
morning,
Tampa
13
quickly
disappeared
into
a
brown
haze
of
smog,
and
this
14
was
after
a
week
of
solid
rainfall,
which
is
really
15
totally
unprecedented
in
our
area.
It
scrubbed
the
air
16
clean,
but
not
for
long.
I
had
never
experienced
a
Code
17
Red
day
before.
Now,
I
exercise
almost
every
day.
My
18
cardiopulmonary
fitness
is
excellent,
yet
today
my
lungs
19
ache.
I
have
never
felt
this
way
before.
What
are
you
20
going
to
do
about
it?
21
EPA's
proposal
won't
help
prevent
Code
Red
days.
22
It
will
ensure
that
we
have
more.
In
addition
to
this
23
82
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
hearing,
EPA
should
hold
hearings
in
schools,
assemble
an
1
auditorium
of
elementary
school
kids
and
ask
for
a
show
of
2
hands
of
how
many
have
asthma,
then
look
into
the
eyes
3
under
that
forest
of
young
hands
and
explain
to
them
why
4
you
have
chosen
to
ensure
that
they
will
never
be
able
to
5
run
and
play
normally
throughout
their
entire
childhood.
6
Explain
to
them
how
they
are
not
worth
enough
for
us
to
do
7
all
that
we
are
now
capable
of
doing
to
clean
up
the
air.
8
If
you
can
tell
children
to
not
play
outside,
you
can
tell
9
polluters
to
install
the
devices
that
are
available
today
10
that
would
prevent
asthma
and
relieve
the
symptoms
of
11
millions
of
children
who
have
developed
asthma
by
12
breathing
air
at
elevated
ozone
levels.
13
All
areas
of
the
United
States
should
move
14
toward
compliance
with
both
the
1­
and
the
8­
hour
15
standards
as
rapidly
as
possible.
Spikes
above
.12
parts
16
per
billion
in
a
one­
hour
period
and
extended
periods
of
17
eight
hours
or
more
over
0.8
parts
per
billion,
both
do
18
damage
in
different
ways.
19
Now,
before
becoming
a
clean
air
advocate,
I
20
managed
health
care
operations
for
many
years.
I
can
tell
21
you
that
there
is
an
enormous
cost
from
pollution.
It
is
22
paid
by
taxes,
it
is
paid
by
consumers
out
of
their
own
23
83
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
pockets,
and
it
is
paid
by
corporations
in
lost
1
productivity.
2
Now,
I
am
not
even
touching
on
the
threat
of
3
mercury,
which
does
cause
depression,
memory
loss
and
lost
4
productivity
in
very
low
levels.
Cleaning
up
the
ozone
5
standards
will
also
help
remove
this
problem.
Florida
has
6
a
$
4
billion
recreational
and
commercial
fishing
industry,
7
twice
as
big
as
any
other
state
in
America.
This
is
8
currently
threatened,
because
more
and
more
people
are
9
realizing
the
threat
to
their
own
health
that
many
fish
in
10
Florida
now
pose
that
they
like
to
eat.
11
Investing
in
pollution
control
will
provide
a
12
return
on
investment
several
times
more
than
the
cost.
13
EPA
can
do
more
than
Alan
Greenspan
can.
It
can
do
more
14
than
Congress
can
to
jumpstart
this
economy
and
keep
it
15
running
strong.
There
is
a
direct
link
between
saving
a
16
little
on
pollution
control
and
spending
enormous
sums
on
17
health
care.
The
numbers
may
be
posted
in
different
18
columns,
but
Americans
increasingly
now
see
the
19
connection.
We
can
no
longer
tolerate
delays;
no
20
loopholes,
no
extensions,
no
excuses.
21
My
lungs
ache
today.
What
are
you
going
to
do
22
about
it?
I
urge
you
to
write
a
rule
with
the
most
23
84
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
rigorous
and
aggressive
standards
possible
on
ozone.
1
Thank
you.
2
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
3
Comments?
4
(
No
response.)
5
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
6
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Phil
Compton
was
7
concluded.)
8
MR.
HELMS:
Charles
Kleekamp,
followed
by
9
Kathryn
Kleekamp.
Charles,
I
think
you
said
you
wanted
to
10
be
called
Chuck;
is
that
right?
11
MR.
KLEEKAMP:
That's
right.
12
MR.
HELMS:
The
floor
is
yours,
followed
by
your
13
wife.
14
TESTIMONY
OF
CHARLES
KLEEKAMP
15
MR.
KLEEKAMP:
Thank
you,
sir.
If
I
may,
I
will
16
give
a
copy
of
my
written
comments
to
the
reporter
for
her
17
assistance.
18
My
name
is
Charles
Kleekamp.
I
am
a
retired
19
professional
engineer
living
on
Cape
Cod
in
Massachusetts.
20
I
am
a
founding
member
and
vice
president
of
Cape
Clean
21
Air,
a
voluntary
and
independent
advocacy
group
for
better
22
health
through
clean
air.
23
85
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
In
fighting
for
clean
air
through
regulatory
1
standards,
I
would
like
to
draw
your
attention
to
a
number
2
of
unfortunate
situations
that
Cape
Cod
finds
itself.
We
3
not
only
have
our
own
local
dirty
fossil
fuel
powerplants
4
to
contend
with,
but
we
are
also
the
recipient
of
downwind
5
pollution
from
the
Midwest.
As
evidence,
I
refer
to
the
6
fact
that
our
National
Seashore
is
among
the
worst
in
the
7
nation
for
air
quality.
8
If
I
could
digress,
shown
on
the
screen
is
a
9
newspaper
article
from
our
Cape
Cod
Times,
which
10
illustrates
that
our
National
Seashore
Park
is
choked
by
11
Midwest
smog.
It
points
out
that
in
a
study
by
the
Park
12
Service
through
monitors,
our
national
park
is
worst
in
13
the
nation
for
air
quality,
with
only
two
exceptions
for
14
national
parks
in
the
state
of
California.
The
newspaper
15
did
even
publish
the
details
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
16
exceedences
in
their
chart
on
the
graph
on
the
left,
and
17
it
shows
that
above
85
parts
per
billion
at
our
National
18
Seashore
for
the
last
decade
is
above
the
standards,
19
whereas
the
rest
of
the
parks
in
the
country
are
below.
20
Indeed,
tourism
is
the
engine
that
drives
the
economy
of
21
Cape
Cod,
and
so
many
others
have
spoken
of
the
22
detrimental
effects
on
health,
so
I
will
not
repeat
that
23
86
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
at
this
moment.
1
In
addition,
in
that
particular
article,
the
2
American
Lung
Association
gives
a
failing
grade,
an
F,
if
3
you
will,
for
air
quality
on
Cape
Cod.
It
is
the
worst
4
county
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
in
the
state
of
5
Massachusetts
for
the
fourth
year
in
a
row,
based
on
our
6
local
monitor
in
Truro,
which
is
in
the
National
Seashore.
7
In
an
astounding
revelation,
the
8­
hour
ozone
air
quality
8
indicator
for
Cape
Cod
is
50
percent
worse
than
the
air
9
quality
indicator
in
the
center
of
the
city
of
Boston.
10
The
number
of
unhealthy
days
over
the
last
two
years
on
11
the
Cape
was
17,
compared
to
Boston's
5
days.
12
This
incongruous
phenomena
is
partially
13
explained
by
the
unique
microclimate
on
the
Cape,
where
14
dual
sea
breeze
circulation
picks
up
the
Midwest
and
15
regional
powerplant
pollution
in
the
morning
and
funnels
16
it
back
onto
the
Cape
later
in
the
midday.
To
better
17
understand
the
flow
of
these
pollution
emissions
and
the
18
possible
implications
and
the
elevated
disease
rates
on
19
the
Cape,
the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Public
Health
20
has
contracted
principals
from
three
meteorological
groups
21
to
develop
a
dispersion
model
that
tracks
pollution
22
emanating
not
only
from
local
but
from
regional
and
23
87
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Midwest
sources.
1
As
an
example
case
shown
on
the
Viewgraph
­­
it
2
is
a
little
bit
hard
to
discern
the
green
land
mass,
but
3
the
arm
of
Cape
Cod
sticks
out,
as
illustrated
there.
The
4
arrowed
vectors
point
in
the
morning
breeze
from
a
5
westerly
direction,
carrying
pollutions
from
the
Midwest
6
as
well
as
from
local
out
over
the
ocean.
This
highlights
7
only
one
particular
powerplant
in
Brayton
Point,
and
it
8
shows
the
pollution
early
in
the
morning
at
7:
00
a.
m.
9
going
out
over
the
ocean,
which
is
what
the
power
industry
10
would
like
us
to
believe
in
general.
11
The
next
illustration,
which
is
a
bit
hard
to
12
see,
shows
that
as
the
day
warms
up,
rising
air
currents
13
over
the
peninsula
create
a
circulation
or
dual
sea
breeze
14
from
that
fundus
of
pollution
back
to
the
Cape,
where
it
15
is
later
deposited.
What
this
clearly
indicates
is
that
16
not
only
local
pollution
can
be
trapped
over
the
Cape,
but
17
that
pollution
from
distant
sources
can
be
concentrated
18
and
redeposited
over
Cape
Cod.
Furthermore,
the
long­
term
19
trend
for
exceedence
days
of
the
8­
hour
standard
over
the
20
whole
state
of
Massachusetts
is
getting
worse.
More
will
21
be
said
about
that
later.
22
The
point
of
my
testimony
to
you
based
on
these
23
88
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
observations
is
to
adamantly
request
that
you
adopt
your
1
option
1,
Subpart
2,
for
mandatory
classification
and
2
stringent
attainment
deadlines
with
required
control
and
3
planning
obligation
for
all
areas
of
the
United
States.
4
This
would
make
it
easier
for
Cape
Cod,
as
well
as
the
5
whole
state
of
Massachusetts,
to
achieve
attainment
of
the
6
more
healthful
8­
hour
ozone
limit
in
the
shortest
possible
7
time,
since
we
are
largely
downwind
from
the
Midwest
8
states.
9
Thank
you
very
much.
10
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
11
MR.
SILVASI:
Will
you
be
able
to
make
copies
of
12
your
graphics
available
for
the
record?
13
MR.
KLEEKAMP:
Yes,
and
they
are
­­
the
color
14
copies
are
in
the
possession
of
your
reporter
of
these
15
graphics.
16
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you.
17
MR.
KLEEKAMP:
Thank
you
very
much.
18
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Charles
Kleekamp
19
was
concluded.)
20
MR.
HELMS:
Next.
21
TESTIMONY
OF
KATHRYN
KLEEKAMP
22
MS.
KLEEKAMP:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Kathryn
23
89
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Kleekamp.
I
am
a
retired
medical
microbiologist.
I
1
currently
live
on
Cape
Cod
in
Massachusetts,
and
I
am
here
2
today
as
a
volunteer
director
and
member
of
Cape
Clean
3
Air.
This
is
a
citizens
group
committed
to
attaining
4
clean
air
standards.
5
As
a
very
brief
aside,
I
would
just
like
to
6
thank
you
for
the
privilege.
I
would
really
like
to
7
express
my
thanks
to
everyone
here
and
tell
you
that
I
8
appreciate
your
concerns.
I
think
we
are
sharing
a
lot
of
9
the
same
deleterious
effects
of
air
standards
that
need
10
improvement.
11
I
speak
on
behalf
of
thousands
of
Cape
Cod
12
residents
who
have
a
grave
concern
about
our
air
quality.
13
Massachusetts
endured
a
severe
ozone
season
in
2002,
when
14
ground­
level
ozone
had
119
exceedences
of
the
8­
hour
15
standard.
There
were
22
exceedences
of
the
1­
hour
16
standard.
During
one
particularly
unrelenting
hot
spell,
17
NAAQS
monitors
registered
unhealthy
ozone
levels
on
nine
18
out
of
ten
days.
Barnstable
County,
which
is
Cape
Cod,
19
continually
exhibits
the
highest
number
of
exceedence
days
20
in
the
Commonwealth.
I
realize
that
was
a
short
period
of
21
time,
but
as
you
look
at
the
chart
on
the
overhead,
the
22
trend
for
exceeding
the
8­
hour
standard
over
the
last
23
90
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
decade
clearly
indicates
a
worsening
situation.
1
There
has
been
a
cascade
of
new
scientific
and
2
medical
data
gathered
since
the
1997
periodic
review
of
3
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
ozone
and
4
particulate
matter,
and
this
data
has
very
explicitly
5
stated
the
role
of
particulates
and
ozone
in
pulmonary
and
6
other
diseases.
7
A
very
recent
major
review
of
all
of
the
8
scientific
data
since
1996
has
been
compiled
by
Jefferson
9
Dickey,
M.
D.,
who
is
one
of
the
founding
members
of
the
10
Boston
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility.
His
review
11
is
called
No
Room
to
Breathe,
Health
Effects
of
Criteria
12
Air
Pollutants
from
Powerplants
in
2002.
In
the
executive
13
summary,
he
states,
and
I
am
quoting:
The
association
14
between
ozone
and
many
adverse
health
effects
is
certainly
15
causal.
And
this
is
new
because,
until
very
recently,
16
medical
research
said
that
ozone
exacerbates
asthma.
He
17
states
that
the
health
effects
are
certainly
causal,
and
18
the
association
with
excess
mortality
is
certainly
robust.
19
The
value
of
the
health
benefits
nationally
of
lower
ozone
20
and
particulate
air
pollution
levels
is
estimated
at
21
$
32
billion,
and
the
benefit
to
public
health
of
reduced
22
powerplant
emissions
seems
well
worth
the
cost.
23
91
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
I
mentioned
earlier
the
fact
that
Massachusetts
1
is
in
serious
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
2
I
would
add
that
in
New
England,
the
self­
reported
adult
3
asthma
rate
was
significantly
higher
than
the
combined
4
rate
for
all
the
other
44
U.
S.
states
and
territories.
5
Massachusetts,
Rhode
Island
and
Maine
have
the
highest
6
adult
rates
of
asthma
in
the
country.
7
In
our
state,
we
celebrated
the
passage
two
8
years
ago
by
the
Mass
DEP
of
some
of
the
most
stringent
9
powerplant
emission
regulations
in
the
country
to
improve
10
our
air
quality.
Three
successive
Republican
governors
11
have
supported
these
strict
standards
demanded
by
the
12
people.
Through
the
work
of
our
state
DEP,
our
13
legislators
and
volunteer
advocacy
groups,
we
have
14
successfully
forced
owners
of
several
of
the
antiquated
15
dirty
coal
and
oil
burning
­­
we
call
them
the
Filthy
Five
16
­­
powerplants
to
clean
up
their
pollution
emissions.
17
Having
accomplished
this,
it
is
an
outrage
to
know
that
18
with
all
the
success
we
have
had
in
Massachusetts,
if
the
19
EPA's
preferred
option
2
is
enacted,
our
state
will
20
continue
to
be
in
nonattainment
for
ozone
and
no
doubt
21
will
continue
to
see
accelerating
rates
of
asthma.
22
No
matter
how
strict
our
regulations
are,
we
are
23
92
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
downwind
from
emissions
coming
from
the
other
states.
I
1
encourage
aggressive
action
with
early
deadlines.
As
a
2
concerned
citizen,
I
appeal
to
you
to
heavily
weigh
the
3
medical
costs
of
the
negative
impacts
of
air
pollution
4
against
the
profit
motives
of
industry.
I
encourage
you
5
to
stand
firm,
be
confident,
and
brace
aggressive
action
6
with
early
deadlines.
7
In
closing,
sacrificing
human
life
and
health
8
for
utility
industry
interests
and
outdated
technology
is
9
incomprehensible
in
a
modern
and
in
a
civilized
world.
10
Thank
you.
11
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
12
Questions?
13
MR.
SILVASI:
Your
graphic
is
also
in
your
14
testimony?
15
MRS.
KLEEKAMP:
Yes.
16
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you.
17
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Kathryn
Kleekamp
18
was
concluded.)
19
MR.
HELMS:
Colleen
Kiernan?
20
(
No
response.)
21
MR.
HELMS:
Let's
go
to
Frank
O'Donnell.
22
The
podium
is
yours.
23
93
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
TESTIMONY
OF
FRANK
O'DONNELL
1
MR.
O'DONNELL:
Thank
you
very
much,
Mr.
Helms,
2
and
good
morning
to
you.
You
all
are
very
patient,
3
putting
up
with
the
crowd
that
we
have
here
today.
We
4
appreciate
it.
5
My
name
is
Frank
O'Donnell.
I
am
the
executive
6
director
of
the
Clean
Air
Trust,
a
national
nonprofit
7
organization.
For
the
record,
the
address
is
1625
K
8
Street,
Northwest,
Suite
790,
Washington,
D.
C.
20006.
9
Thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
10
We
believe
that
EPA's
proposal
would
condemn
11
tens
of
millions
of
Americans
to
continue
breathing
12
unhealthful
levels
of
smog
for
years.
In
a
purported
13
effort
to
offer
flexibility,
EPA
is
really
giving
breaks
14
to
big
polluters.
Flexibility
is
good
when
it
comes
to
15
yoga,
but
it
is
very
bad
for
breathers
in
this
context.
16
EPA's
proposal,
we
believe,
is
a
prescription
17
for
cleanup
delay
and
an
invitation
for
polluters
to
game
18
the
system,
and
breathers
will
suffer
the
consequences.
19
We
need
to
keep
in
mind
that
ozone,
the
main
component
of
20
smog,
remains
a
national
public
health
problem.
Those
of
21
us
in
the
D.
C.
area
are
all
too
aware
this
week
of
this
22
problem
because
of
the
frequent
Code
Red
warnings
we
have
23
94
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
had.
Today
we
are
lucky;
apparently,
it
is
only
Code
1
Orange.
I
know
the
folks
coming
up
from
North
Carolina
2
have
seen
their
share
of
bad
air
also
this
week.
3
But
we
should
be
aware,
everybody
here,
that
4
already
this
year
­­
and
it
is
not
even
July
yet
­­
at
5
least
35
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
have
6
experienced
smog
problems,
levels
of
pollution
above
the
7
8­
hour
standard,
according
to
information
gathered
by
8
Clean
Air
Trust
volunteers
from
EPA's
own
website
and
from
9
state
websites.
And
I
should
note
that
these
include
not
10
just
states
that
are
infamous
for
smog,
like
Texas
and
11
California,
but
states
throughout
the
nation,
from
12
Oklahoma
to
Ohio,
Louisiana
to
Vermont,
Iowa
to
Arizona.
13
A
list
of
those
states
is
attached
to
my
testimony.
14
Let
me
cite
just
two
quick
problems
with
the
EPA
15
proposals.
One
is
some
speakers
here
have
already
noted
16
very
eloquently
that
EPA
proposes
to
scrap
the
1­
hour
17
standard
entirely
before
the
air
has
been
cleaned
up
18
sufficiently
to
meet
it.
The
state
of
California,
some
of
19
the
witnesses
here
have
been
very
vocal
in
their
complaint
20
that
by
postponing
these
deadlines,
ongoing
cleanup
plans
21
could
be
delayed
or
scrapped.
We
believe
these
fears,
22
California's
fears,
the
other
speakers'
fears,
are
well
23
95
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
grounded,
and
we
urge
EPA
to
reconsider
this
approach.
1
The
controls
required
to
meet
the
1­
hour
2
standard
are
going
to
be
essential
to
meet
the
8­
hour
3
standard
also.
To
scrap
the
current
program
is,
in
4
effect,
to
endorse
dirtier
air
for
a
longer
time.
5
Secondly,
EPA
would
open
up
new
loopholes
in
areas
that
6
violate
the
8­
hour
standard
but
not
the
1­
hour
standard
by
7
permitting
these
areas
to
avoid
congressionally­
mandated
8
controls.
This
approach
could
well
be
illegal.
It
is
9
most
certainly
arbitrary
and
illogical.
10
Consider
just
for
a
moment
that
under
this
11
approach,
EPA
would
apply
less
stringent
controls
in
such
12
states
as
Ohio,
Michigan,
Mississippi,
South
Carolina
and
13
West
Virginia
than
in
New
York,
even
though
all
of
these
14
states
have
chronically
higher
8­
hour
smog
levels
than
15
Queens,
New
York.
And
that
is
according
to
EPA's
own
16
information
on
its
website.
Talk
about
illogical.
17
So
in
conclusion,
we
hope
that
you
will
take
a
18
closer
look
at
these
problems
and
come
back
with
something
19
that
truly
protects
the
public,
protects
breathers
20
everywhere
in
the
country.
21
Thank
you
very
much.
22
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
23
96
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Frank
O'Donnell
was
1
concluded.)
2
MR.
HELMS:
We
will
try
again.
Colleen
Kiernan?
3
(
No
response.)
4
MR.
HELMS:
Bear
with
us
as
we
sort
through
and
5
try
to
do
this
in
as
efficient
manner
as
we
can.
6
Is
James
Brooks
present?
7
MR.
BROOKS:
Right
here.
8
MR.
HELMS:
The
floor
is
yours,
James.
9
Melissa
Ladd
is
next.
Melissa,
you
will
follow.
10
The
podium
is
yours.
11
MR.
BROOKS:
Thank
you.
12
TESTIMONY
OF
JAMES
BROOKS
13
MR.
BROOKS:
Good
morning.
I
want
to
thank
EPA
14
for
allowing
NESCAUM,
Northeast
States
for
Coordinated
Air
15
Use
Management,
to
comment
on
EPA's
proposed
8­
hour
ozone
16
rule.
My
name
is
Jim
Brooks.
I
am
the
director
of
the
17
Bureau
of
Air
Quality
and
the
Maine
DEP.
I
am
here
today
18
on
behalf
of
the
NESCAUM
states,
which
represents
the
six
19
New
England
states,
plus
New
Jersey
and
New
York.
20
The
8­
hour
ozone
standard
was
promulgated
based
21
on
findings
that
the
1­
hour
standard
did
not
provide
22
adequate
public
health
protection
and
that
adverse
health
23
97
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
effects
occurred
at
lower
levels
over
longer
exposure
1
times
than
the
1­
hour
standard.
Different
people
came
up
2
today
and
talked
about
asthmatics
and
how
they
are
3
impacted
by
ozone.
4
I
have
a
daughter
that
is
12
years
old.
In
the
5
early
parts
of
her
life
on
these
hot
summer
days,
there
6
were
times
where
she
could
hardly
breathe.
When
you
have
7
a
young
kid
in
your
arms
that
is
turning
gray
and
you
are
8
rushing
them
to
the
hospital,
cleaning
up
the
air
gives
9
you
a
whole
different
meaning.
As
my
grandpappy
would
10
say,
it
is
a
hard
way
to
make
a
biscuit.
11
In
evaluating
EPA's
proposal,
our
main
12
consideration
is
assessing
whether
it
will
afford
adequate
13
public
health
protection
as
expeditiously
as
possible,
as
14
required
by
the
Clean
Air
Act.
My
comments
highlight
a
15
few
of
our
initial
responses
to
the
proposal.
I
have
16
really
four
major
points
that
I
want
to
make.
17
The
first
point
is
that
this
proposal
is
18
challenging
to
read.
I
think
I
went
to
sleep
many
a
night
19
reading
the
proposal.
It
seems
like
I
always
would
hit
20
page
22
and
then
the
next
couple
of
pages
I
would
read
21
over
and
over
and
over
again.
It
lacks
proposed
22
regulatory
language
and
offers
vague
options
for
each
23
98
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
major
program
component.
The
scenario
easily
leads
to
1
misunderstanding
and
could
result
in
a
severely
mismatched
2
final
rule.
EPA
should
release
for
public
comment
as
soon
3
as
possible
draft
regulatory
language
for
a
single
4
implementation
framework,
as
well
as
for
the
options.
5
Second,
in
its
quest
to
provide
flexibility,
we
6
believe
EPA
appears
to
stray
too
far
from
the
text
and
the
7
mandates
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
While
we
appreciate
EPA's
8
efforts
to
allow
flexibility
and
we
do
believe
some
of
the
9
proposed
options
are
innovative
and
are
worth
exploring,
10
certain
options
we
don't
like,
and
we
feel
that
they
come
11
at
the
expense
of
public
health
protection
and
expeditious
12
implementation.
We
will
provide
in
our
written
testimony
13
comments
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
what
we
feel
is
14
good
and
what
we
feel
is
bad.
15
In
1990
in
response
to
pass/
failures,
Congress
16
established
specific
ozone
requirements
under
Subpart
2
to
17
ensure
progress
and
accountability
in
implementing
the
18
ozone
standard.
We
are
concerned
that
EPA's
proposal
to
19
designate
areas
under
Subpart
1
is
not
based
on
sound
20
science,
does
not
provide
appropriate
accountability
and
21
will
not
afford
public
health
protection
in
a
timely
22
manner
and
is
not
responsive
to
the
Supreme
Court's
23
99
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
decision.
1
Since
1990,
states
with
1­
hour
nonattainment
2
areas
have
made
tremendous
strides
to
reduce
ozone
levels
3
under
the
provisions
of
Subpart
2.
The
public
health
4
benefits
from
the
past
implementation
of
Subpart
2
must
5
not
be
ignored,
and
we
are
concerned
that
they
will
be,
if
6
EPA
chooses
to
implement
under
Subpart
1.
Under
EPA's
7
preferred
option,
two
areas
with
identical
design
values
8
will
have
very
different
requirements.
EPA
must
also
9
ensure
that
appropriate
time
frames
and
backstops
are
in
10
place,
including
sanctions
for
failure
to
act.
EPA's
11
proposal
allows
significant
leeway
to
areas
that
would
be
12
designated
under
the
Subpart
1
option
with
very
few
13
requirements
or
incentives
to
act
prior
to
the
five­
year
14
deadline
extension
of
2014.
This
would
delay
public
15
health
protection
for
citizens
in
those
areas
and
create
16
inequities
between
areas
designated
under
Subpart
1
and
2.
17
This
also
perpetuates
the
problem
where
downwind
areas
18
cannot
attain
because
upwind
areas
do
not
yet
have
to
19
attain
the
standard.
20
Third,
EPA's
proposal
does
little
to
address
21
ozone
transport.
Instead
of
proposing
a
framework
to
22
address
transport
such
as
a
SIP
approval
process
requiring
23
100
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Section
110(
A),
assessments
of
downwind
contributions,
EPA
1
indicates
that
the
NO
x
SIP
call
under
Section
126
will
2
address
transport
up
front.
While
a
SIP
call
may
address
3
transport
for
the
1­
hour
standard,
it
does
not
do
so
for
4
the
stricter
8­
hour
standard.
5
EPA
also
indicates
that
additional
reductions
6
could
be
realized
through
the
Clear
Skies
Act.
Clear
7
Skies
is
pending
in
the
legislation
and,
as
such,
we
don't
8
believe
it
is
relevant
to
this
proposed
rulemaking.
EPA's
9
analysis
also
indicates
Clear
Skies
would
deliver
only
10
marginal
ozone
benefits
after
a
decade
of
attainment
11
dates.
We
need
commitments
to
real
and
significant
NO
x
12
reductions
that
coincides
with
attainment
dates.
We
urge
13
EPA
to
reconsider
the
options
we
submitted
in
April
2002
14
through
the
Ozone
Transport
Commission
regarding
transport
15
and
ozone
implementation.
16
Fourth,
we
are
concerned
that
EPA's
proposal
17
relies
too
heavily
on
modeling
rather
than
monitoring
18
results
and
other
metrics
to
help
make
critical
state
SIP
19
determinations.
EPA
has
not
recommended
a
specific
model,
20
yet
modeling
will
be
the
cornerstone
for
many
21
demonstrations.
EPA
must
ensure
that
modeling
criteria
22
are
well
defined
and
that
other
metrics
are
included
in
23
101
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
their
demonstrations.
We
believe
modeling
is
a
tool
and
1
should
be
used
as
such.
It
should
not
be
the
sole
method
2
for
determining
whether
an
area's
ozone
problem
or
3
contribution
to
a
downwind
area
has
been
addressed.
4
As
I
said
before,
we
will
be
submitting
more
5
detailed
written
comments,
and
I
thank
you
again
for
6
allowing
us
to
testify.
7
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
Jim.
Just
one
8
clarification
question:
You
mentioned
you
had
submitted
9
in
the
past
recommendations
on
transport.
10
MR.
BROOKS:
Yes,
for
the
Ozone
Transport
11
Commission.
12
MR.
HELMS:
Can
you
resurface
those
and
make
13
sure
they
are
introduced
into
the
record?
14
MR.
BROOKS:
Yes.
Yes,
we
will
do
so.
15
MR.
SILVASI:
They
are
actually,
I
believe,
in
16
our
docket
now
­­
before
we
opened
the
docket
for
this
17
proposal.
I
think
they
may
still
be
there,
but
it
might
18
not
hurt
to
resubmit
them,
just
so
that
they
are
there.
19
MR.
BROOKS:
We
will
do
so.
Thank
you.
20
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
Jim.
21
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
James
Brooks
was
22
concluded.)
23
102
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
Melissa
Ladd,
the
podium
is
yours.
1
TESTIMONY
OF
MELISSA
LADD
2
MS.
LADD:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Melissa
3
Ladd,
and
I
am
the
national
issues
director
for
the
South
4
Carolina
Coastal
Conservation
League.
The
Conservation
5
League
is
a
nonprofit
public
interest
group
with
over
6
4,000
members
in
South
Carolina
and
beyond.
7
In
South
Carolina,
air
pollution
is
a
rapidly
8
growing
concern.
South
Carolinians
are
worried
about
9
everything
from
summer
ozone
alerts
disrupting
football
10
practices
to
the
growing
number
of
asthma
attacks
that
11
affect
our
residents
statewide,
young
and
old.
Giving
12
areas
with
poor
air
quality
more
time
to
reverse
the
poor
13
air
quality
trends
is
not
in
the
best
interest
of
public
14
health
or
the
environment,
and
we
are
opposed
to
EPA's
15
proposal
to
do
so.
16
The
option
that
you
call
flexibility
will
only
17
prolong
the
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
18
that
this
Agency
is
directly
charged
with
controlling
and
19
reducing.
It
would
prove
pointless
to
have
a
federal
air
20
law
if,
as
you
now
propose,
each
state
is
allowed
to
21
regulate
at
different
levels.
The
inevitable
problem
that
22
will
occur
is
that
one
state
will
be
on
the
right
track,
23
103
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
but
it
will
be
surrounded
by
many
others
who
will
be
doing
1
less
to
combat
air
pollution.
This
is
what
federal
law
2
needs
to
step
in
and
ensure,
that
all
U.
S.
citizens
will
3
have
the
same
protections.
It
is
what
we
all
deserve.
4
You
have
listed
in
your
fact
sheet
about
the
5
proposed
rule
some
of
the
adverse
health
effects
of
ozone,
6
such
as
decreased
lung
function
in
children,
increased
7
respiratory
symptoms
and
more
hospital
and
ER
visits
due
8
to
asthma.
Indeed,
some
2,500
South
Carolinians
are
sent
9
to
the
emergency
room
every
year
due
to
asthma
attacks.
10
Our
state
is
experiencing
the
exact
symptoms
11
that
you
have
predicted
as
a
result
of
ozone
pollution,
12
and
we
ask
for
your
help
in
keeping
to
a
strict
timeline
13
to
solve
this
problem
and
bettering
the
health
of
our
14
residents.
15
Thank
you.
16
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
17
Questions,
comments?
18
(
No
response.)
19
MR.
HELMS:
I
do
have
one
question.
Are
you
20
involved
in
the
Early
Action
Compact
effort
that
is
21
underway
in
South
Carolina?
22
MS.
LADD:
I
am,
and
that
is
part
of
the
reason
23
104
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
that
we
are
so
concerned
about
the
states
around
us,
1
because,
while
North
Carolina
has
a
wonderful
air
2
pollution
law
and
we
are
working
so
hard
on
an
early
3
action
plan,
if
there
is
no
federal
law
overseeing
a
4
minimum
amount
to
other
states,
say
Georgia
and
Florida
5
and
Tennessee,
then
our
efforts
are
going
to
be
for
6
naught,
because
the
air
from
those
other
states
won't
be
7
up
to
quality.
8
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
9
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Melissa
Ladd
was
10
concluded.)
11
MR.
HELMS:
Jason
Babbie?
12
(
No
response.)
13
MR.
HELMS:
I
am
doing
a
double
check
to
make
14
sure
we
haven't
overlooked
anyone.
15
Chris
Recchia?
16
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER:
I
think
he
stepped
out.
17
MR.
HELMS:
Stepped
out.
That's
always
the
way
18
it
works,
is
when
you
are
called,
you
step
out.
19
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER:
Here
he
is.
20
MR.
HELMS:
Chris,
you
ought
to
know
better
than
21
to
step
out
on
Tom
Helms.
22
MR.
RECCHIA:
It
was
Jim
Brooks'
fault
outside.
23
105
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
The
podium
is
yours.
1
MR.
RECCHIA:
Thank
you
so
much.
2
TESTIMONY
OF
CHRISTOPHER
RECCHIA
3
MR.
RECCHIA:
Thank
you
all
very
much.
I
4
apologize
for
doing
that,
stepping
out
of
the
room.
5
Good
morning.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
6
testify
to
you
today
on
the
8­
hour
national
ambient
air
7
quality
standard
implementation.
My
name
is
Chris
8
Recchia.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
Ozone
9
Transport
Commission,
and
I
am
testifying
today
on
behalf
10
of
the
Commission.
We
do
have
written
statements
and
11
comments
which
are
provided
in
multiple
copies,
and
I
can
12
provide
a
copy
as
well
for
your
docket.
13
I
just
want
to
say,
just
as
general
background,
14
that
OTC
is
created
by
Congress
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
15
amendments
of
1990
to
coordinate
ground­
level
ozone
air
16
pollution
planning
in
the
Northeast
and
Mid­
Atlantic
17
region
of
the
U.
S.
It
represents
12
eastern
and
18
Mid­
Atlantic
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia.
19
Now,
as
I
think
EPA
is
aware,
OTC
works
20
regularly
and
constructively
with
EPA
on
a
variety
of
air
21
issues,
and
we
are
always
pleased
to
champion
EPA's
good
22
work
as
recently
as
its
proposed
diesel
rules.
23
106
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Unfortunately,
today
is
not
one
of
those
occasions.
OTC
1
does
oppose
the
use
of
option
2
in
the
draft
rule
as
it
is
2
proposed
and
won't
support
the
rule
if
that
is
continued.
3
OTC
is
most
concerned
that
the
draft
8­
hour
4
ozone
standard
implementation
rule
does
nothing
to
address
5
transport,
nor
does
it
draw
upon
existing
provisions
of
6
the
Clean
Air
Act
to
address
transport.
Specifically,
the
7
proposed
rule
does
not
include
effective
measures
to
8
counter
the
effects
of
pollution
transport
on
air
quality
9
in
nonattainment
areas.
And,
unless
the
rule
includes
10
such
measures,
the
nonattainment
areas
will
be
driven
to
11
take
increasingly
more
costly
and
less
cost
effective
12
actions
to
reduce
ozone
concentrations.
13
This
doesn't
make
good,
sound
economic
or
policy
14
sense
when
there
are
more
cost
effective
measures
15
available
that
address
sources
contributing
to
the
16
transport
problem.
It
also
exacerbates
an
ongoing
17
inequity
between
upwind
sources
in
the
ozone
transport
18
region.
That
is,
frankly,
inexcusable
in
this
day.
The
19
OTC
states
incur
higher
energy
costs
as
a
result
of
doing
20
the
right
thing,
and
we
continue
to
experience
premature
21
deaths
and
respiratory
illnesses
related
to
or
as
a
direct
22
result
of
the
pollution
resulting
from
these
upwind
23
107
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
sources.
1
Today,
as
you
are
likely
aware,
we
are
still
2
awaiting
full
implementation
of
the
regional
rules
that
3
were
developed
to
address
transport
in
1997.
Science
4
tells
us
that
the
8­
hour
ozone
levels
in
our
region
are
5
affected
more
by
ozone
transport
than
even
the
1­
hour
6
levels.
Economics
tells
us
the
regional
solutions
are
7
more
cost
effective.
We
believe
there
are
better
options
8
available,
other
than
simply
expanding
nonattainment
areas
9
to
hold
upwind
areas
accountable
for
their
impact
on
10
downwind
areas.
Simply
put,
states
won't
be
able
to
solve
11
a
regional
problem
with
increasingly
expensive
local
12
control
measures.
13
OTC
believes
that
four
critical
principles
14
should
guide
the
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
15
One,
public
health
first.
Classification
and
16
implementation
for
the
8­
hour
standard
must
be
developed
17
to
ensure
attainment
as
expeditiously
as
possible
so
that
18
public
health
protection
is
not
delayed.
OTC
is
concerned
19
with
policies
that
forego
requiring
specific
control
20
measures
that
delay
the
requirement
of
control
measures
or
21
weaken
the
existing
requirements.
22
Specifically,
the
preference
for
designating
23
108
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
areas
under
Clean
Air
Act
Title
I,
Part
D,
Subpart
1,
this
1
is
really
the
crux
of
our
comments.
We
think
that
we
will
2
forego
application
of
effective
proven
measures
that
3
existing
nonattainment
areas
within
the
OTR
already
have
4
in
place,
such
as
inspection
and
maintenance
of
vehicles
5
and
NO
x
RACT,
to
mention
two.
6
Further,
the
proposed
Early
Action
Compacts
for
7
areas
classified
under
Subpart
1
create
the
potential
for
8
significant
delays
in
SIP
submittals
and
achieving
9
reductions.
Areas
with
Early
Action
Compact
agreements
10
that
are
not
able
to
demonstrate
attainment
by
the
end
of
11
2007
may
not
ultimately
need
to
demonstrate
attainment
12
until
2020.
SIP
submittals
would
not
be
required
until
13
2008
versus
2004,
and
Subpart
1
allows
significant
14
extensions.
There
are
currently
35
areas
intending
to
15
pursue
Early
Action
Compacts,
and
many
of
these
are
upwind
16
from
the
OTR.
We
believe
that
EPA
will
eviscerate
the
SIP
17
call
with
Subpart
1
being
implemented
because
of
those
18
upwind
areas.
19
Second
point,
accountability
and
fair
share.
We
20
believe
everybody
should
be
accountable
­­
I
am
just
going
21
to
summarize
this
to
not
take
your
time.
We
believe
that
22
all
the
ozone
region
areas
that
are
in
nonattainment
23
109
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
should
be
held
accountable
for
their
emissions.
We
are
1
doing
the
best
we
can
and
will
continue
to
do
more,
but
we
2
think
upwind
areas
that
contribute
to
that
unhealthful
air
3
quality
must
also
be
held
accountable.
We
don't
believe
4
the
option
to
Subpart
1
allows
for
accountability
in
5
addition
to
flexibility
you
provide.
6
Third
point,
effective
national
and
regional
7
controls.
Strong
and
timely
national/
regional
base
level
8
controls
are
necessary.
We
have
used
them
in
region.
We
9
think
that
the
members
that
are
contributing
to
our
air
10
quality
problems
should
be
held
accountable
too.
OTC
11
believes
the
same
type
of
control
measures
already
in
12
place
throughout
the
OTR
should
be
applied
in
upwind
areas
13
affecting
air
quality
in
the
region.
These
have
proven
14
cost
effective
and
scientifically
effective.
Potential
15
measures
include
those
required
in
the
OTR
by
Subpart
2,
16
so
we
are
supportive
of
applying
Subpart
2.
17
The
last
point
is
flexibility,
which
I
know
you
18
have
tried
to
provide
in
this
Subpart
1
option.
19
Unfortunately,
again,
as
I
mentioned
before,
it
provides
20
flexibility
without,
we
believe,
accountability
to
those
21
sources.
It
could
be
many,
many
years
by
the
time
we
get
22
done
with
the
extensions
and
the
best
efforts
and
all
the
23
110
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
statements
and
demonstrations
that
a
state
will
achieve
1
something,
but
by
the
time
we
figure
out
something
has
2
gone
awry,
we
will
be
decades
down
the
road
still
before
3
we
get
attainment.
And
that
is
just
not
acceptable
to
the
4
OTC
region
at
this
point.
5
Again,
we
state
the
objection
to
the
rule
unless
6
implementation
occurs
under
option
1,
with
all
7
nonattainment
areas
and
areas
contributing
to
8
nonattainment,
subject
to
Subpart
2.
And
the
key
there
9
was
areas
contributing
to
nonattainment
in
addition
to
any
10
expanded
nonattainment
area.
11
That
is
really
it.
I
thank
you
again
very
much
12
for
the
opportunity
to
testify,
and
we
stand
ready
to
work
13
with
you
and
continue
to
work
with
you
in
any
way
we
can.
14
Thanks
very
much.
15
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
Chris.
16
Questions?
17
(
No
response.)
18
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
19
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Christopher
Recchia
20
was
concluded.)
21
MR.
HELMS:
Blake
Early?
22
MR.
EARLY:
Yes.
23
111
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
The
podium
is
yours,
Blake.
1
TESTIMONY
OF
A.
BLAKEMAN
EARLY
2
MR.
EARLY:
Good
morning.
I
am
Blakeman
Early.
3
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
American
Lung
Association.
4
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
today.
Many
of
my
5
remarks
are
going
to
sound
familiar
to
you
because
they,
6
in
fact,
repeat
many
of
the
same
things
that
have
been
7
raised
by
other
people
who
have
testified.
8
The
only
element
which
I
will
focus
in
on
is
9
that
we
believe
that
the
elements
of
the
EPA
proposal
is
10
deja
vu
all
over
again.
When
the
Senate
Environment
and
11
Public
Works
Committee
reported
its
version
of
the
1990
12
Clean
Air
Act
amendments,
it
took
note
of
the
lack
of
13
success
in
providing
the
nation
with
clean
air.
After
14
observing
that
in
1989,
150
million
people
still
lived
in
15
areas
that
violated
the
health
standards
for
ozone
and
16
carbon
monoxide,
the
Committee
found
the
following:
17
The
responsibility
for
the
widespread
failure
to
18
meet
the
ambient
standards
rests
with
both
states
and
19
local
governments,
and
EPA
predicting
future
air
quality
20
based
on
assumed
control
programs
is
a
complicated
21
undertaking
that
is
susceptible
to
paper
demonstrations
of
22
attainment,
that
they
are
little
relation
to
the
23
112
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
likelihood
of
actual
attainment.
1
The
Committee
went
on
to
find
that
the
2
inadequacies
in
emissions
inventories
and
modeling,
3
failure
to
implement
needed
controls
and
the
failure
of
4
EPA
and
the
states
to
require
additional
controls
when
5
needed
reductions
were
not
achieved
all
contributed
to
the
6
lack
of
success
of
combatting
air
pollution
during
the
7
1980s.
The
Committee
also
notes
that,
quote,
a
lack
of
8
resources
at
the
federal,
state
and
local
level
has
9
severely
hampered
implementation
of
the
Act's
10
requirements.
11
The
Committee
proposed
legislation
that
was
far
12
more
prescriptive,
requiring
that
minimum
emission
control
13
programs
be
included
in
the
state
implementation
plans,
14
adopted
in
accordance
with
emission
reduction
milestones
15
and
mandatory
revisions
when
deadlines
were
exceeded.
16
This
scheme
is
at
the
heart
of
the
so­
called
Subpart
2
of
17
the
Clean
Air
Act
amendments
of
1990
that
were
adopted.
18
The
American
Lung
Association
believes
that
this
19
approach
has
been
successful.
We
are
now
striving
to
20
launch
a
new
initiative
to
combat
air
pollution,
in
21
recognition
of
new
research
which
shows
that
human
22
exposure
at
lower
concentrations
of
ozone
for
longer
23
113
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
periods
of
time
is
equally
dangerous,
if
not
more
so,
than
1
spikes
of
ozone.
As
a
result,
EPA
estimates
178
million
2
people
live
in
areas
that
will
be
designated
nonattainment
3
for
the
8­
hour
standard
for
ozone.
This
number
is
4
significant,
not
because
it
represents
a
failure
of
the
5
effort
to
reduce
ozone
in
the
1990s,
but
because
it
6
provides
a
sense
of
how
big
a
job
lies
ahead
to
reduce
7
unhealthy
levels
of
ozone.
8
The
American
Lung
Association
finds
that
many
of
9
the
elements
of
this
proposal,
if
adopted,
use
the
exact
10
failed
approach
of
the
1980s
in
the
name
of
providing
11
flexibility
for
those
new
nonattainment
areas
that
violate
12
the
8­
hour
ozone
health
standards
but
not
the
1­
hour
13
standard.
In
light
of
a
lack
of
resources
at
the
state
14
and
local
level
and
at
EPA,
just
as
was
noted
occurred
in
15
the
1980s
by
the
Environment
Committee,
we
conclude
the
16
inevitable
result
of
this
approach
will
be
failure.
17
Furthermore,
although
the
EPA
claims
the
18
proposal
would
maintain
progress
in
reducing
ozone
in
19
areas
that
still
violate
the
1­
hour
health
standard,
we
20
believe
it
weakens
requirements
and
extends
deadlines
for
21
action
and
that
such
progress
will
unnecessarily
be
slowed
22
and,
perhaps,
even
halted.
23
114
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
The
EPA
asserts
that
a
more
flexible
approach
1
will
achieve
attainment
at
a
lower
cost.
While
EPA
2
acknowledges
that
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
attainment
as
3
soon
as
practicable,
the
implication
is
that
there
are
not
4
sufficient
benefits
for
achieving
attainment
earlier
than
5
the
numeric
deadlines
required
in
the
statute
to
merit
6
such
an
effort.
EPA
has
provided
no
information
to
7
substantiate
such
a
position.
The
American
Lung
8
Association
asserts
that
in
light
of
the
fact
that
a
9
succession
of
deadlines
for
achieving
healthy
levels
of
10
ozone
have
been
missed
for
nearly
30
years,
a
maximum
11
effort
is
called
for.
This
proposal
contains
far
too
many
12
options
that
we
fear
would
result
in
a
minimal
effort
in
13
many
areas
of
the
country.
14
While
the
EPA
proposal
may
provide
lower
15
financial
cost
to
polluters,
it
is
far
too
likely
to
16
provide
a
higher
personal
and
financial
cost
to
our
17
nation's
children,
seniors
and
citizens
who
suffer
from
18
asthma
or
chronic
lung
disease.
The
cost
to
these
people
19
in
increased
medical
expenses,
hospital
visits,
emergency
20
room
visits,
lost
work
time
and
decreased
quality
of
life
21
is
well
documented
and
preventable
with
aggressive
action
22
to
reduce
pollution.
23
115
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
The
ALA
will
provide
detailed
comments,
but
let
1
me
just
highlight
some
major
recommendations
that
we
will
2
be
going
into
in
greater
detail.
First
of
all,
the
Agency
3
should
not
revoke
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
Such
a
4
policy
in
essence
delays
attainment
with
ozone
reduction
5
goals
by
our
calculation
five
to
ten
years,
and
possibly
6
even
longer.
EPA
should
not
allow
maintenance
areas,
7
areas
that
previously
violated
the
1­
hour
standard
and
now
8
are
operating
under
a
so­
called
maintenance
plan,
to
9
abandon
those
maintenance
plans
and
to
abandon
10
transportation
conformity
requirements.
11
Maintenance
plans
provide
the
benefit
of
12
preventing
increases
of
ozone
in
such
areas
that
are
using
13
them
during
the
preparation
and
implementation
of
their
14
8­
hour
state
implementation
plans.
EPA
should
apply
15
Subpart
2
to
all
new
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas
classified
16
moderate
or
above
to
the
greatest
extent
possible.
It
is
17
clear
that
Congress
abandoned
the
approach
of
Subpart
1
18
for
reducing
ozone
in
areas
with
moderate
or
more
serious
19
ozone
levels.
20
We
believe
EPA
should
adopt
an
approach
that
is
21
consistent
with
the
intent
of
Congress
that
follows
22
Subpart
2.
EPA
should
significantly
limit
the
use
of
23
116
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
modeling
to
avoid
emission
reduction
programs
or
1
requirements.
We
have
seen
that
Congress
noted
that
2
models
were
gained
in
the
past.
Notwithstanding
the
3
advances
in
modeling
technology
and
analysis,
we
believe
4
the
burden
falls
on
EPA
to
justify
the
broad
substitution
5
of
modeling
for
actual
emissions
reductions.
We
do
not
6
need
to
return
to
the
days
of
the
paper
demonstrations.
7
EPA
should
not
reduce
SIP
requirements
for
clean
8
air
development
communities.
While
the
American
Lung
9
Association
encourages
efforts
to
promote
development
in
10
ways
that
reduce
its
impact
on
air
quality,
there
is
11
simply
insufficient
information
available
today
to
12
calculate
the
amount
and
time
frame
of
these
benefits
for
13
purposes
of
providing
SIP
credit
or
relaxing
new
source
14
review
requirements.
15
As
I
said,
the
Lung
Association
will
provide
16
detailed
comments
in
writing.
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
17
the
effort
of
the
Agency
to
involve
the
public
and
18
stakeholder
groups
the
opportunity
to
influence
the
19
development
of
these
regulations,
but
we
need
tighter
20
regulations,
and
we
need
them
as
quickly
as
we
can
so
we
21
can
get
on
with
the
job
of
reducing
health
threatening
air
22
pollution.
23
117
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Thank
you.
1
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
2
Questions,
comments?
3
MS.
TIERNEY:
Could
you
repeat
the
point
you
4
made?
Toward
the
end
you
said
apply
Subpart
2
to
all
and
5
then
you
said
something
about
moderate,
and
I
didn't
quite
6
catch
what
you
were
saying.
7
MR.
EARLY:
Areas
that
the
Agency
is
proposing
8
to
classify
as
moderate
and
above
should
be
subject
to
a
9
Subpart
2
style
of
requirement.
As
is
true
with
the
10
1­
hour
standard,
areas
classified
as
marginal,
in
light
of
11
the
fact
that
they
only
have
a
three­
year
deadline,
you
12
use
a
more
Subpart
1
style
of
requirements,
and
we
think
13
that
is
appropriate.
But
for
moderate
and
above,
we
think
14
it
needs
a
full
Subpart
2
approach.
15
MS.
TIERNEY:
Okay.
16
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
17
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
A.
Blakeman
Early
18
was
concluded.)
19
MR.
HELMS:
Katy
Hubener?
20
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
brief
discussion
off
the
21
record.)
22
23
118
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
TESTIMONY
OF
KATY
HUBENER
1
MS.
HUBENER:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Katy
2
Hubener,
and
I
am
the
executive
director
for
the
North
3
Texas­
based
air
quality
group,
The
Blue
Skies
Alliance.
4
Today
I
am
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
4.5
million
5
North
Texas
residents
who
are
still
living
with
lung
6
scorching
ozone
and
have
for
far
too
long.
7
As
you
know,
and
as
Region
6
has
had
many
8
discussions
with
us,
you
are
well
aware
that
the
region
9
has
repeatedly
missed
key
clean
air
deadlines,
both
in
10
1996
and
1999,
and
is
currently
not
on
track
to
reach
11
attainment
by
2005
or
2007.
It
is
in
reviewing
the
12
repeated
failures
to
attain
the
1­
hour
standard
which
13
gives
me
great
pause.
14
I
am
further
troubled
by
the
8­
hour
plan
before
15
us,
primarily
because
it
appears
that
as
we
move
towards
a
16
cleaner
standard,
the
EPA
has
offered
a
series
of
menu
17
items
which
will
weaken
clean
air
protections.
These
18
rollbacks
send
a
clear
message
to
folks
in
Texas
that
19
dirty
polluters
have
more
political
power
than
do
20
breathers.
Furthermore,
these
rollbacks
give
credence
21
that
if
you
like
to
breathe
or
need
to
breathe,
then
you
22
should
send
President
Bush
back
to
Texas.
23
119
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
It
is
important
to
note
that
these
national
1
policies
were
born
and
bred
in
Texas,
and
they
ring
an
all
2
too
familiar
tune.
What
we
are
seeing
now
are
things
like
3
voluntary
emission
reductions,
Cap­
and­
Trade
programs,
4
failure
to
ratchet
down
on
industrial
sources
and
enforce
5
new
source
review,
regulatory
flexibility,
reluctance
to
6
designate
areas
nonattainment
and
fuzzy
map
policies.
7
It
is
important
to
note
that
these
policies,
rooted
8
more
in
political
prowess
rather
than
sound
science,
9
didn't
work
in
Texas
and
won't
work
for
the
country.
10
In
regards
to
the
current
items
before
us,
let
11
me
cite
specific
concerns
with
the
following
frameworks:
12
We
agree
with
our
colleagues
that
revoking
the
1­
hour
13
standard
for
the
8­
hour
standard
­­
we
disagree
with
the
14
EPA's
position
on
that.
We
disagree
with
extensions
of
15
deadlines
for
nonattainment
areas.
We
disagree
with
16
looser
NSR
requirements
for
areas
which
violate
the
8­
hour
17
standard
but
not
the
1­
hour
standard.
We
think
that
there
18
needs
to
be
more
stringent
controls,
and
we
disagree
with
19
the
flexibility
of
Subpart
1.
20
Like
many
of
my
colleagues
before,
we
take
issue
21
with
the
EPA's
willingness
to
revoke
the
1­
hour
standard
22
before
areas
reach
attainment.
In
North
Texas,
we
believe
23
120
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
this
would
be
a
setback
for
human
health
and
would
allow
1
for
perpetual
ozone
season.
It
is
sound
public
policy
to
2
keep
the
1­
hour
standard
in
place
to
ensure
that
momentum
3
continues
towards
clearing
the
air.
4
As
EPA
is
well
aware,
advancements
in
clean
air
5
coincided
with
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
amendment
and
the
6
implementations
of
specific
Subpart
2
measurements
and
7
designations.
These
Subpart
2
measures
were
marked
with
8
much
success,
especially
for
North
Texas
breathers.
We
9
note
that
the
EPA
will
utilize
a
framework
which
offers
10
specific,
proscriptive
and
mandatory
reductions,
including
11
those
strategies
included
in
Subpart
2.
12
Becky
Bornhorst,
a
resident
of
North
Texas,
13
testified
before
the
EPA
in
Dallas,
saying
no
extensions,
14
no
delays;
clean
air
is
about
public
health,
and
the
EPA
15
should
not
forget
that.
What
Ms.
Bornhorst
didn't
tell
16
you
is
that
she
began
working
for
clean
air
when
her
17
children
were
in
preschool.
Today,
one
of
her
kids
is
in
18
college,
and
the
other
is
about
to
graduate
from
high
19
school.
Ms.
Bornhorst,
like
many
others
in
North
Texas,
20
believed
that
if
they
just
told
you
they
wanted
clean
air,
21
you
would
deliver.
22
On
behalf
of
her
and
the
remaining
4.5
million
23
121
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
residents
of
North
Texas,
we
are
asking
that
you
deliver,
1
deliver
the
promises
of
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
amendments
2
and
the
1970
Clean
Air
Act.
No
more
extensions,
no
more
3
delays;
deliver.
4
On
behalf
of
Sue
Pope
and
Debbie
Markwardt,
who
5
live
beneath
the
ominous
stacks
of
Texas
Industries,
the
6
largest
polluter
in
North
Texas
and
a
toxic
toilet
for
7
burning
hazardous
waste,
we
wish
to
raise
concerns
with
8
the
literal
weakening
of
clean
air
protection
while
we
9
impose
a
cleaner
and
more
protective
standard.
10
Specifically,
it
is
our
concern
that
by
not
imposing
the
11
same
stringent
requirements
for
areas
which
violate
the
12
8­
hour
standard
but
not
the
1­
hour
standard
constitutes
a
13
loophole.
14
In
North
Texas,
four
counties
are
designated
15
nonattainment
for
the
1­
hour
standard;
however,
one
16
county,
Ellis
County,
also
violated
the
1­
hour
standard
17
and
was
not
designated
accordingly.
Coincidentally,
that
18
county
is
home
to
the
largest
concentration
of
industrial
19
sources
in
North
Texas
and
the
home
of
Congressman
Joe
20
Barton,
the
author
of
the
bill,
which,
if
passed,
will
21
make
legal
the
dirty
air
plants
before
us
today.
22
It
is
our
hope
that
the
EPA
will
implement
the
23
122
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
same
stringent
requirements
for
areas
which
fail
to
attain
1
solely
the
8­
hour
standard
and
those
which
fail
to
attain
2
both
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standard.
By
implementing
less
3
stringent
requirements,
the
EPA
is
allowing
for
continued
4
ring­
around­
the­
regions,
like
Dallas­
Fort
Worth,
where
5
industrial
sources
moved
literally
a
block
away
from
the
6
county
line
to
escape
complying
with
LAER
and
offset
7
requirements.
8
In
conclusion,
we
hope
that
the
EPA
will
9
deliver,
deliver
more
than
33
years
of
promises
that
10
industrial
sources
will
do
their
fair
share
of
clean
air.
11
Deliver
on
a
commitment
to
public
health,
which
should
be
12
your
first
charge.
13
Thank
you.
14
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
15
Questions?
16
(
No
response.)
17
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
18
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Katy
Hubener
was
19
concluded.)
20
MR.
HELMS:
Pamela
Irwin?
Is
Pamela
Irwin
21
present?
22
MS.
IRWIN:
I'm
sorry.
I
wasn't
expecting
to
be
23
123
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
called
yet.
1
MR.
SILVASI:
Do
you
need
more
time?
2
MS.
IRWIN:
If
you
could
give
me
more
­­
3
MR.
HELMS:
Yes,
we
can
do
that,
certainly.
4
Would
be
glad
to.
5
MS.
IRWIN:
Thanks.
6
MR.
HELMS:
I
would
like
to
call
Mark
Mitchell
7
and
then
Colleen
Kiernan
next.
8
Mark
Mitchell,
the
podium
is
yours.
9
TESTIMONY
OF
MARK
MITCHELL
10
MR.
MITCHELL:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Chairman,
for
the
11
opportunity
to
speak.
I
am
Mark
Mitchell.
I
am
a
public
12
health
physician.
I
was
previously
the
director
of
the
13
Hartford
Health
Department
and,
before
that,
I
was
the
14
deputy
director
of
the
Kansas
City,
Missouri
Health
15
Department.
Now
I
am
president
of
the
Connecticut
16
Coalition
for
Environmental
Justice.
I
am
here
to
speak
17
in
opposition
to
the
use
of
option
2,
that
would
delay
the
18
implementation
of
the
ozone
standards,
and
also
in
19
opposition
to
the
elimination
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
20
standards.
21
I
went
into
environmental
health
and
22
environmental
justice
because
of
my
concerns
about
health,
23
124
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
about
public
health,
and
that
many
of
the
diseases
in
the
1
U.
S.
that
are
increasing
are,
in
fact,
related
to
the
2
environment.
We
are
particularly
concerned
in
Connecticut
3
about
asthma.
The
community
is
particularly
concerned
4
about
asthma.
There
are
several
studies
in
Connecticut,
5
one
of
them
showing
that
as
much
as
41
percent
of
children
6
­­
7
MR.
HELMS:
Hold
on
a
second.
8
Could
I
ask
all
of
you
to
either
take
a
seat
or
9
take
your
conversations
outside?
It
is
not
fair
to
the
10
speaker
to
have
competing
conversations,
so
please
do
11
that.
12
Thank
you.
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
you,
but
we
13
want
to
hear
your
testimony.
14
MR.
MITCHELL:
Thank
you.
15
As
I
was
saying,
I
went
into
environmental
16
health
because
I
was
concerned
because
so
many
illnesses
17
that
we
see
in
public
health
that
are
increasing
are
18
related
to
the
environment.
The
community
residents
in
19
Connecticut
are
particularly
concerned
about
asthma,
and
20
we
have
very
high
rates
of
asthma
and
there
are
some
21
pockets
that
are
higher
than
others.
22
There
is
one
study
in
Hartford
of
11,000
23
125
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
children,
a
screen
that
showed
that
41
percent
of
the
1
children
and
48
percent
of
the
Latino
children
have
2
asthma.
We
believe
that
a
lot
of
that
asthma
has
to
do
3
with
air
pollution,
both
industrial
sources
as
well
as
the
4
ozone.
Children
are
the
most
vulnerable
people
for
5
asthma.
The
asthma
incidence,
the
new
cases
of
asthma,
is
6
highest
in
children
between
1
and
5
years
of
age.
The
7
group
that
has
the
second
highest
incidence
of
asthma
are
8
people
in
their
30s.
9
The
asthma
deaths,
though,
about
half
of
the
10
asthma
deaths
are
in
the
elderly,
people
over
65
years
of
11
age.
Both
of
these
groups
are
more
susceptible
to
ozone
12
exposure
and
asthma.
Also,
as
you
know,
the
leading
13
chronic
­­
the
leading
cause
of
school
absenteeism
for
a
14
chronic
disease
is
asthma,
according
to
several
studies.
15
There
are
studies
that
show
that
when
the
ozone
is
16
elevated
that
the
emergency
room
rates
for
people
coming
17
in
for
respiratory
conditions
increase
20
percent.
18
That
is
why
we
believe
that
is
important
that
19
EPA
go
with
all
deliberate
speed
at
implementing
both
the
20
1­
hour
and
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
As
you
know,
asthma
21
is
an
acute
condition.
Exposure
to
ozone
for
short
22
periods
of
time,
for
periods
of
10
minutes,
can
trigger
23
126
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
asthma
attacks
in
people
who
already
have
asthma.
People
1
who
have
asthma
­­
the
asthma
rates
have
increased
over
2
the
last
20
years.
They
have
approximately
doubled
in
the
3
last
20
years.
The
asthma
death
rates
have
about
tripled
4
in
the
last
20
years.
As
you
know,
people
don't
die
of
5
asthma
unless
they
have
asthma
attacks.
6
Now,
obviously,
all
of
the
asthma
is
not
due
to
7
ozone.
It
is
a
very
complicated
multifactorial
disease.
8
But
recent
evidence
shows
that
not
only
can
ozone
trigger
9
asthma
attacks
in
people
who
already
have
asthma,
but
that
10
ozone
actually
can
cause
asthma
in
healthy
individuals.
11
For
these
reasons,
we
believe
that
short­
term
exposure
is
12
very,
very
important,
that
the
1­
hour
standard
needs
to
13
stay
in
place
so
that
we
can
both
lower
asthma
attacks
in
14
people
who
already
have
asthma
and
also
prevent
15
particularly
children
from
developing
asthma.
16
Again,
I
would
ask
that
EPA
go
with
all
17
deliberate
speed
in
implementation
of
both
the
8­
hour
18
standard
and
maintenance
of
the
1­
hour
standard
to
protect
19
the
health
of
our
residents.
20
The
last
thing
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
was
21
about
environmental
justice.
As
you
may
know,
22
environmental
justice
refers
to
the
fact
that
low
income
23
127
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
communities
and
communities
of
color
are
1
disproportionately
affected
by
environmental
hazards
and
2
are
disproportionately
burdened
with
environmentally
3
related
diseases.
The
asthma
hospitalization
rates
are
4
much
higher
in
communities
of
color
and
the
­­
the
major
5
concern
is
with
Clear
Skies
and
other
recent
initiatives
6
that
the
lack
of
enforcement
on
powerplants
­­
powerplants
7
are
also
disproportionately
located
in
low
income
8
communities
and
older
communities.
9
If
we
do
not
have
new
source
review,
if
we
10
exempt
powerplants
from
more
stringent
standards,
then
we
11
will
continue
to
see
a
disparity
in
asthma
rates
for
urban
12
areas
versus
non­
urban
areas,
and
we
believe
that
this
is
13
simply
not
fair.
14
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time,
and
I
will
15
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
16
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Mitchell.
17
Questions?
18
(
No
response.)
19
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
20
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Mark
Mitchell
was
21
concluded.)
22
MR.
HELMS:
Colleen
Kiernan.
23
128
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
TESTIMONY
OF
COLLEEN
KIERNAN
1
MS.
KIERNAN:
Good
morning.
Thank
you
all
for
2
being
here
today
and
thank
you
for
giving
us
the
3
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
sort
of
idea
of
a
proposed
4
rule.
My
name
is
Colleen
Kiernan,
and
I
am
the
Georgia
5
energy
project
organizer
for
the
Sierra
Club.
I
am
based
6
in
Atlanta,
Georgia.
I
would
like
to
start
out
by
7
supporting
the
comments
of
my
fellow
Atlantans
from
8
earlier,
both
Dr.
Frank
and
Anthony
and
Illai
from
the
9
Georgia
Kids
Against
Pollution.
10
The
comments
that
I
would
like
to
make
today
are
11
four
points
regarding
my
concern
for
possible
implications
12
that
this
proposed
rule
could
have
on
Atlanta
and
Georgia.
13
The
first
is
that
EPA's
proposed
transition
from
the
14
1­
hour
to
the
8­
hour
standard
is
troubling.
15
On
April
15,
2004,
metro
Atlanta
will
be
a
16
severe
nonattainment
area
that
will
still
be
operating
17
under
a
serious
nonattainment
SIP
because
Georgia
will
18
still
be
in
the
process
of
writing
a
severe
nonattainment
19
SIP.
If
EPA
had
not
illegally
extended
Atlanta's
20
attainment
deadline,
we
would
not
have
it.
We
would
have
21
had
a
severe
nonattainment
SIP
in
2000
or
2001.
Thus,
the
22
regulations
must
require
Georgia
not
to
backslide
from
a
23
129
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
severe
nonattainment
SIP.
To
do
otherwise
would
be
to
1
continue
to
use
this
illegal
downwind
extension
and
would
2
be
an
end
run
around
the
11th
Circuit
Court
decision.
3
The
second
point
is
that
the
incentive
feature
4
has
no
statutory
basis
and
is,
in
fact,
contrary
to
the
5
statute.
The
first
example
I
would
like
to
give
is
the
6
city
of
Macon,
Georgia.
Macon
has
been
violating
the
7
1­
hour
standard
but
has
never
been
designated
8
nonattainment
for
the
1­
hour
standard.
So
under
this
9
proposed
8­
hour
rule
in
the
incentive
feature,
they
can
10
get
designated
at
a
lower
area,
whereas
­­
you
know,
the
11
reality
of
the
situation
is
they
should
have
already
had
12
been
required
to
write
an
implementation
plan
and
they
13
should
already
be
moving
forward
to
clean
up
their
air.
14
You
know,
particularly
for
the
city
of
Macon,
EPA's
15
proposed
rule
is
definitely
going
to
extend
in
delayed
16
pollution
cleanup
and
leave
Macon
area
residents
at
risk.
17
Also,
it
doesn't
account
for
the
increase
in
18
mobile
source
pollution
or
increase
stationary
source
19
pollution
that
would
come
on
line
after
the
incentive
20
feature
was
used.
So,
for
example,
if
a
coal­
fired
21
powerplant
got
permitted
in
South
Carolina
­­
which
it
is
22
my
understanding
that
it
will
be
in
August
of
2004
­­
23
130
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
there
would
be
no
way
to
go
back
and
account
for
this,
1
because
the
incentive
feature
would
have
already
been
2
used.
3
The
incentive
feature
also
would
allow
4
nonattainment
areas
to
avoid
additional
local
controls,
5
which
contradicts
the
many
years
of
work
that
the
Southern
6
Appalachian
Mountain
initiatives
did,
which
found
that
7
local
controls
do
the
most
to
reduce
episodes
of
8
ground­
level
ozone.
9
My
third
point
is
that
EPA
asserts
that
regional
10
modeling
shows
that
most
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas
will
11
attain
in
2007.
That
is
based
on
reductions
from
the
NO
x
12
SIP
call.
However,
there
is
reason
to
believe
that
13
Georgia,
Alabama,
Missouri
or
Michigan
will
be
compliant
14
with
the
NO
x
SIP
call
by
2007,
because
EPA
has
failed
to
15
finalize
the
rule
for
those
states
in
response
to
the
16
Court's
remand
in
the
Michigan
versus
EPA
suit.
So
either
17
EPA
needs
to
re­
do
the
air
modeling
or
not
rely
on
this
18
assumption
at
all.
Furthermore,
this
assumption
is
19
probably
based
on
NSR
before
it
was
gutted
in
the
recent
20
Bush
Administration
rollbacks
of
NSR.
21
My
last
point
is
that
marginal
nonattainment
22
should
start
at
80
parts
per
million,
not
85
parts
per
23
131
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
million.
The
scientific
evidence
indicated
that
levels
1
between
80
and
84
parts
per
million
is
not
safe
and
the
2
monitors
can
go
out
three
decimal
places
now,
and
there
is
3
just
no
reason
to
leave
that
area
unprotected.
4
So,
in
conclusion,
I
would
like
to
urge
EPA
to
5
take
a
much
more
aggressive
and
speedy
way
to
get
us
to
6
clean
air.
Thank
you.
7
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
8
Questions?
9
MR.
SILVASI:
Do
you
plan
to
submit
written
10
comments
also?
11
MS.
KIERNAN:
I
will.
My
printer
wasn't
12
working,
so
we
will
get
them
in.
13
MR.
SILVASI:
Okay.
Thank
you.
14
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Colleen
Kiernan
was
15
concluded.)
16
MR.
HELMS:
Is
Jill
Stephens
here?
17
Jill,
the
podium
is
yours.
18
TESTIMONY
OF
JILL
STEPHENS
19
MS.
STEPHENS:
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
20
speak
today.
I
am
here
representing
the
National
Parks
21
Conversation
Association,
on
behalf
of
our
more
than
22
300,000
members
across
the
United
States.
NPCA
was
23
132
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
founded
in
1919.
We
are
the
only
national
nonprofit
1
conservation
organization
dedicated
exclusively
to
the
2
preservation,
protection
and
enhancement
of
our
national
3
parks.
4
We
are
concerned
that
this
proposal
to
implement
5
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
delays
the
cleanup
of
ozone
6
pollution,
which
means
unhealthy
air
for
parks
and
people.
7
Our
national
parks
were
created
to
preserve
some
of
8
America's
most
inspirational,
natural,
cultural
and
9
historic
landmarks.
They
attract
nearly
300
million
10
visitors
each
year.
On
too
many
occasions,
both
visitors
11
and
park
employees
find
their
health
at
risk
by
simply
12
breathing
the
air
in
our
national
parks.
13
For
example,
at
Joshua
Tree
National
Park
in
14
California,
ozone
levels
exceeded
the
8­
hour
standard
on
15
68
days
in
one
year
alone.
Joshua
Tree
frequently
records
16
pollution
levels
that
violate
the
less
protective
1­
hour
17
standard.
This
park
preserves
nearly
800,000
acres
as
18
extinct
Colorado
and
Mojave
Desert,
as
well
as
more
than
19
700
plant
species
and
a
variety
of
wildlife,
including
20
bighorn
sheep
and
threatened
desert
tortoises.
Despite
21
the
poor
air
quality,
visitors
come
to
the
park
to
rock
22
climb,
to
hike,
to
bike,
to
walk
along
the
park.
23
133
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Unfortunately,
Joshua
Tree
is
not
alone.
In
1
fact,
nine
national
parks
fail
to
meet
the
8­
hour
ozone
2
standard,
based
on
pollution
data
from
1997
through
1999.
3
These
are
Joshua
Tree,
Sequoia
and
Yosemite
in
California,
4
Great
Smoky
Mountains
National
Park
in
Tennessee
and
North
5
Carolina,
Shenandoah
in
Virginia,
Mammoth
Cave
in
6
Kentucky,
Acadia
in
Maine,
along
with
Cape
Cod
National
7
Seashore
and
Cowpens
National
Battlefield.
8
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
is
only
a
9
small
sample
of
the
parks
that
violate
this
standard,
10
where
air
quality
violates
this
standard,
air
pollution
11
violates
this
standard.
Only
a
small
number
monitor
12
pollution.
There
are
many
parks
located
in
or
near
urban
13
areas
where
there
are
all
too
many
Code
Red
Days.
14
Plants
are
vulnerable
to
damage
from
ozone
15
levels
much
lower
than
those
set
to
protect
human
health.
16
Ozone
can
decrease
yielded
agricultural
crops,
reduce
17
forest
growth
and
leave
plants
more
susceptible
to
18
disease,
drought
and
pests.
From
black
cherry
trees
in
19
Shenandoah
to
Jeffrey
and
Ponderosa
pines
in
Yosemite,
20
vegetation
in
our
parks
already
shows
signs
of
damage
from
21
ozone.
Sequoia
seedlings
are
sensitive
to
ozone
levels
22
present
almost
constantly
in
the
summer
months
at
Sequoia
23
134
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
and
Kings
Canyon
National
Parks.
A
correlation
exists
1
between
ozone
exposure
and
decreased
growth
rates
in
2
Eastern
white
pine,
the
official
tree
of
Maine
and
3
dominant
species
in
Acadia
National
Park.
4
It
is
clear
that
park
visitors,
staff
and
5
resources
already
are
affected
by
ozone
pollution.
But,
6
most
disturbing,
trends
throughout
the
'
90s
show
ozone
7
levels
in
many
parks
are
getting
worse.
This
is
true
for
8
nearly
every
eastern
national
park
that
monitors
ozone,
as
9
well
as
western
parks
such
as
the
Rocky
Mountains
and
10
Grand
Canyon.
The
majority
of
pollution
impacting
parks
11
comes
from
outside
park
boundaries.
This
proposal
gives
12
too
much
flexibility
to
areas
violating
federal
health
13
standards.
14
To
protect
our
homes
and
improve
polluted
15
conditions
in
our
parks,
EPA
needs
to
implement
and
16
faithfully
enforce
a
stronger
proposal
to
produce
timely
17
results.
18
Thank
you.
19
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
20
Questions?
21
(
No
response.)
22
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
23
135
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Jill
Stephens
was
1
concluded.)
2
MR.
HELMS:
Several
people
have
apparently
asked
3
is
there
going
to
be
a
lunch
break.
You
can
take
a
lunch
4
break
if
you
wish.
We
are
going
to
continue
right
on.
We
5
have
people
that
need
to
catch
planes,
get
back
to
other
6
locations,
so
we
will
run
the
hearing
straight
through
to
7
5:
00,
if
necessary.
8
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
brief
discussion
off
the
9
record.)
10
MR.
HELMS:
We
will
go
off
the
record
now.
We
11
will
convene
about
11:
48.
12
(
Whereupon,
a
recess
was
taken
from
11:
32
a.
m.
13
to
11:
48
a.
m.)
14
MR.
HELMS:
Valerie
True,
the
podium
is
yours.
15
TESTIMONY
OF
VALERIE
TRUE
16
MS.
TRUE:
Good
morning.
I
am
Valerie
True,
and
17
I
am
with
the
Southern
Alliance
for
Clean
Energy.
I
came
18
up
here
from
Knoxville,
Tennessee
to
be
with
you
today.
19
I
don't
feel
like
I
have
to
go
into
too
much
20
detail
about
the
problem
with
ozone
and
why
it
is
a
21
concern,
given
the
horrible
air
quality
that
we
have
had
22
the
last
few
days
in
most
of
the
Southeast,
and
we
have
23
136
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
had
it
down
in
Tennessee
as
well.
But
I
do
want
to
touch
1
on
a
few
points
that
concern
me
about
the
plan
and
over
2
the
last
few
days
have
concerned
me
even
more
about
3
delaying
­­
a
plan
that
delays
ozone
reductions
throughout
4
the
country,
and
particularly,
my
concern
is
with
the
5
Southeast.
6
One
area
that
I
am
particularly
concerned
about
7
is
the
provision
for
Early
Action
Compacts.
We
have
been
8
involved
in
that
process
in
Tennessee,
and
I
really
hope
9
that
this
does
not
get
expanded
to
the
rest
of
the
10
country,
because
we
do
not
find
that
these
plans
are
going
11
to
bring
us
cleaner
air
anytime
sooner.
The
localities
12
are
not
prepared
to
make
the
tough
decisions
that
it
takes
13
to
truly
reduce
ozone
pollution,
and
the
nonattainment
14
designation
counts
for
something
when
EPA
comes
in
and
15
says
you
must
do
transportation
conformity,
you
must
do
16
new
source
review
to
your
industry.
And
local
mayors,
17
county
councilmembers
who
get
voted
in
by
the
people,
if
18
they
stand
up
there
and
say
oh,
the
large
industry
­­
19
Eastman
Kodak,
you
know,
you
have
to
reduce
your
pollution
20
by
a
large
amount,
they
are
going
to
have
a
hard
time
21
getting
reelected.
So
this
is
a
serious
concern
that
we
22
have
got,
of
this
being
expanded
and
having
the
weight
23
137
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
being
put
on
the
localities
for
the
program,
and
this
is
1
why
we
don't
feel
that
this
program
is
going
to
work.
2
We
have
found
a
lot
of
confusion
in
Tennessee,
3
and
I
could
go
into
a
lot
more
detail
of
the
problems
that
4
we
have
been
having
down
in
our
area
in
terms
of
getting
5
these
programs
to
work.
The
proposals
that
are
coming
out
6
of
them
are
stuff
like
ride
sharing
and
very
fluffy
stuff
7
that
will
not
bring
clean
air.
We
fear
that
the
Early
8
Action
Compact
will
end
up
delaying
the
nonattainment
9
designation
and
thereby
delay
getting
clean
air
to
the
10
people
in
these
areas.
11
In
the
Southeast,
we
are
looking
at
25
to
30
12
areas
being
put
into
the
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area.
13
This
is
up
from
only
two
places
with
the
1­
hour.
Most
of
14
these
areas
have
opted
for
the
Early
Action
Compacts,
and
15
I
haven't
heard
much
of
a
positive
feedback
from
most
of
16
them.
17
The
other
concern
that
I
have
got
just
18
specifically
is
the
flexibility
or
the
ability
to
roll
19
back
to
reduce
the
classification
for
areas
based
on
the
20
numbers
crunched
into
a
computer
on
projected
pollution
21
decreases
and
proposed
pollution
reduction
plans.
Also,
22
through
our
work
with
the
Early
Action
Compacts,
we
are
23
138
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
definitely
learning
a
whole
lot
about
modeling
in
the
way
1
that,
you
know,
if
you
model
something
one
way,
it
comes
2
out
to
one
thing
and
if
you
model
something
another
way
­­
3
I
fear
that
modeling
will
be
used
in
order
to
reduce
these
4
classifications
and
thereby
will
reduce
the
power
of
5
having
an
area
classified
as
serious
or
severe
and
make
6
these
classifications
mean
virtually
nothing
and
make
it
7
hard
to
have
the
stronger
provisions
of
new
source
review
8
put
into
place
in
these
areas.
9
I
guess
those
are
just
a
couple
of
specific
10
things,
and
I
have
got
a
couple
of
colleagues
here
who
11
will
highlight
a
few
other
main
points.
Those
were
the
12
glaring
parts
to
me.
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
­­
as
an
13
overall
thing,
these
provisions
as
I
read
through
them
14
truly
will
­­
in
the
interest
of
flexibility,
supposed
15
flexibility,
to
the
area,
give
­­
will
weaken
the
chance
16
of
these
areas
getting
into
attainment.
17
The
reason
why
we
have
got
these
8­
hour
ozone
18
standards,
the
reason
why
they
were
put
in
place
is
19
because
people's
health
was
at
risk.
I
feel
like
by
20
weakening
and
blurring
the
lines,
as
these
provisions
do,
21
that
people's
health
is
going
to
be
at
greater
risk
and
22
our
chance
of
cleanup
is
getting
less
and
less
and
time
is
23
139
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
running
out
to
clean
up
these
plants.
1
Thank
you,
and
I
will
submit
written
comments
at
2
a
future
date.
3
MR.
HELMS:
Questions?
4
(
No
response.)
5
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
6
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Valerie
True
was
7
concluded.)
8
MR.
HELMS:
I
have
a
note
here,
Andy
Bauer
and
9
Joanna
Schnurman.
10
MR.
BAUER:
Could
you
please
just
give
us
one
11
minute,
please?
12
MR.
HELMS:
All
right.
Who
was
the
gentleman
13
that
asked
me
to
speak?
Your
name
again?
14
MR.
STANTON:
John
Stanton.
15
MR.
HELMS:
John,
come
on
up
right
now,
while
we
16
are
waiting.
17
TESTIMONY
OF
JOHN
STANTON
18
MR.
STANTON:
Good
afternoon.
Thank
you
for
19
soliciting
public
comment.
We
have
heard
a
lot
about
the
20
public
health
impacts.
I
thought
it
might
be
helpful
and
21
informative
to
talk
about
some
of
the
public
welfare
22
environmental
impacts.
23
140
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act
NAAQS
Authority,
EPA
can
1
set
both
the
primary
public
health
standard
and
the
2
secondary
­­
3
MR.
SILVASI:
Excuse
me
for
one
second.
Would
4
you
mind
just
giving
us
your
affiliation
too?
5
MR.
STANTON:
Sure.
My
name
is
John
Stanton.
I
6
am
from
the
National
Environmental
Trust.
7
At
any
rate,
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
NAAQS
8
Authority,
EPA
can
set
both
the
primary
public
health
9
standard
and
the
secondary
public
welfare
or
environment
10
ozone
standard.
The
secondary
standard
must
protect
11
against
known
and
anticipated
adverse
environmental
12
effects.
13
In
1997,
EPA
decided
not
to
adopt
a
stricter
14
secondary
8­
hour
ozone
standard
because
it
believed
the
15
primary
standard
would
adequately
protect
vegetation
and
16
other
environmental
concerns.
Because
EPA
refused
to
set
17
a
more
protective
secondary
environment
standard
for
18
ozone,
it
is
crucial
that
the
8­
hour
primary
standard
be
19
diligently
implemented
and
enforced.
Halfhearted
and
20
feeble
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
primary
standard
21
means
that
adverse
environmental
ozone
impacts
will
22
continue
far
longer
than
necessary.
23
141
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Feeble
implementation
of
ozone
standards
also
1
means
unnecessary
environmental
damage,
due
to
excess
2
nitrogen
oxide
emissions.
This
is
because
we
largely
rely
3
on
the
ozone
standards
to
reduce
NO
x
emissions
that
4
adversely
affect
the
environment.
In
addition
to
the
5
ozone
standard,
there
is
a
NO
x
standard
and
we
also
rely
6
on
Title
IV,
but
the
primary
driver
for
NO
x
reductions
is
7
the
ozone
standards.
8
Rigorous
implementation
of
ozone
standards
is
9
vital
to
NO
x
reductions
and
environmental
protection.
10
Some
of
the
NO
x
loadings
include
acidifying
surface
water,
11
reducing
biodiversity
and
killing
fish,
contributing
to
12
coastal
nitrification
­­
which
is
excessive
nutrient
13
enrichment
which
results
in
fish
kills
of
shellfish
and
14
fish
­­
acidifying
soil,
depleting
soil
nutrients,
and
15
causing
damage
to
forests,
contributing
to
regional
haze,
16
contributing
to
forest
damage
and
crop
loss,
and
speeding
17
the
weathering
of
monuments,
buildings
and
other
stone
and
18
metal
structures.
19
Additional
specific
harms
due
to
NO
x
loadings
20
include,
according
to
U.
S.
EPA,
two­
thirds
of
U.
S.
21
estuaries.
Approximately
84
water
bodies
are
moderately
22
to
highly
eutrophic
due
to
nitrogen
deposition.
This
23
142
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
deposition
causes
harmful
blooms
of
algae,
both
red
and
1
brown
types;
depletion
of
dissolved
oxygen,
which
is
2
hypoxia,
which
stresses
and
kills
marine
life;
loss
of
3
important
habitat,
such
as
sea
grass
beds
and
coral
reefs;
4
changes
in
marine
biodiversity
and
species
distribution;
5
and
then
economic
and
social
impacts
due
to
the
loss
of
6
fisheries
and
tourism.
7
Additional
adverse
NO
x
impacts
include
the
fact
8
that
up
to
40
percent
of
the
nitrogen
reaching
the
east
9
and
the
Gulf
Coast
estuaries
is
transported
and
deposited
10
via
the
atmosphere.
Over
1,000
acid
sensitive
lakes
and
11
streams
are
still
acidified,
and
some,
particularly
those
12
along
the
Appalachian
range,
are
becoming
more
acidic
each
13
year.
NO
x
emissions
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
for
power
14
generation
alone
contributes
about
25
to
30
percent
of
15
atmospheric
nitrogen
deposition
in
select
coastal
waters
16
and
affected
forests.
17
Ozone
reduction
measures
should
be
strengthened
18
and
not
weakened.
According
to
EPA
trends
data,
emissions
19
of
nitrogen
oxides
have
increased
9
percent
from
1982
to
20
2001.
EPA
projects
that
175
million
Americans
will
live
21
in
areas
and
currently
live
in
areas
that
violate
the
new
22
8­
hour
standard.
Leading
nitrogen
experts
are
calling
for
23
143
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
a
60
percent
reduction
in
NO
x
emissions
to
reduce
adverse
1
environmental
impacts,
and
this
is
the
work
of
Dr.
Gene
2
Likens
in
a
recent
article
on
atmospheric
environment
of
3
May
2003.
EPA's
proposed
8­
hour
implementation
scheme
4
cannot
be
reconciled
with
the
congressional
mandate
that
5
EPA
shall
­­
shall
adopt
NAAQS
that
protect
against
known
6
and
anticipated
environmental
impacts
of
ozone
and
7
nitrogen
oxides.
8
And
then
a
final
note
on
the
importance
of
9
maintaining
the
1­
hour
standard:
The
most
recent
best
10
science
on
vegetation
impacts
reveals
that
1­
hour
ozone
11
peaks
are
especially
harmful
to
vegetation.
Because
EPA
12
refused
to
set
a
secondary
welfare
or
environment
standard
13
for
ozone
and
we
know
that
1­
hour
peak
exposures
are
14
especially
harmful
to
vegetation,
we
must
keep
the
1­
hour
15
standard
in
place.
EPA's
proposed
1­
hour
standard
16
phaseout
violates
the
mandate
in
Section
109
of
the
Clean
17
Air
Act
that
EPA
shall
protect
against
known
and
18
anticipated
adverse
environmental
impacts
from
criteria
19
air
pollutants.
20
I
just
want
to
close
by
just
noting
that
­­
you
21
know,
having
worked
at
EPA
in
1996,
1997,
1998
on
the
22
standard,
it
is
just
particularly
distressing
to
me,
23
144
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
having
spent
years
on
this,
that,
you
know,
on
the
eve
of
1
actually
trying
to
realize
greater
health
and
2
environmental
air
quality
benefits,
you
know,
we
are
3
positioned
to
delay
everything
by
a
minimum
of
five
years,
4
but
probably
more
like
ten
years.
Unfortunately,
you
5
know,
there
is
a
really
clear
pattern
that
is
developing,
6
and
I
call
it
the
one­
two
punch.
When
you
take
nitrogen
7
oxides,
for
instance,
the
NSR
proposals
weakened
8
safeguards
to
prevent
increases
in
nitrogen
oxides.
Now
9
what
we
see
in
this
proposal
is
an
attempt
to
delay
the
10
day
when
actual
reductions
will
have
to
occur
in
order
to
11
meet
the
ozone
standard.
12
So,
you
know,
when
you
weaken
with
one
proposal
13
and
then
you
delay
on
another,
it
paints
a
pretty
grim
14
picture.
I
would
imagine
it
is
disheartening
for
the
15
professional
technical
staff
at
EPA
to
have
the
political
16
winds
blowing
in
such
a
way
that,
no
matter
what
the
17
science
says,
you
have
got
to
go
along
with
efforts
to
18
ease
and
delay
clean
air
safeguards.
So
Somerset,
you
19
have
my
sympathies,
but
I
just
think
it
is
very
20
distressing
and
it
is
unfortunate,
and
we
are
moving
in
21
just
the
opposite
direction
that
we
should
be.
22
Thank
you
for
taking
comment.
23
145
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
Hold
on
a
second.
1
Comments,
questions?
2
(
No
response.)
3
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
4
MR.
STANTON:
Thank
you.
5
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
John
Stanton
was
6
concluded.)
7
MR.
HELMS:
Now
let's
revisit
Andy
Bauer
and
8
Joanna
Schnurman.
9
TESTIMONY
OF
ANDY
BAUER
10
MR.
BAUER:
I
would
like
to
officially
­­
well,
11
my
name
is
Andy
Bauer.
I
am
from
Portland,
Connecticut.
12
My
profession
is
a
teacher,
so
I
don't
really
have
any,
I
13
guess,
connections,
although
I
do
volunteer
for
Clean
14
Water
Action
in
Connecticut.
I
am
really
here
speaking
as
15
a
dad,
so
I
would
like
to
take
a
brief
time­
out
to
wish
my
16
daughter
a
happy
birthday
and
get
that
into
the
official
17
record.
18
I
reviewed
as
best
as
I
can
the
document
the
EPA
19
has
prepared
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
standard,
and
my
20
compliments
to
the
authors
for
their
long
hours
of
21
preparation.
I
live
in
Portland,
Connecticut.
It
is
in
22
Upper
Middlesex
County
in
Connecticut,
and
the
area
23
146
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
suffers
from
an
air
inversion.
1
Can
you
guys
hold
up
your
signs?
Hold
them
up
2
really
high.
And
I
have
got
a
sign
too.
3
Okay.
This
is
Portland
(
indicating).
When
4
everybody
else
is
having
okay
or
bad,
ours
is
worse.
This
5
is
Portland
(
indicating).
When
things
­­
everybody
else
6
is
having
a
bad
or
okay
day,
ours
is
worse,
and
when
7
people
are
having
a
pretty
good
day
or
not
so
good,
ours
8
is
just
unhealthy.
9
The
area
that
I
live
in
suffers
from
an
air
10
inversion.
If
you
think
of
an
emission
toilet
bowl
with
11
no
drain,
that
is
what
it
is
like.
A
program
calling
for
12
compliance
to
regulatory
flexibility,
such
as
13
Cap­
and­
Trade,
will
most
likely
seek
to
balance
my
14
county's
high
emissions
with
a
county
that
has
got
low
15
emissions,
and
it
may
be
a
long
time
before
we
get
relief,
16
if
ever.
17
I
have
a
friend,
Steve
Luppi.
He
lives
up
the
18
hill
from
me.
He
is
a
World
War
II
veteran,
and
he
loves
19
to
garden.
And
on
hot
days,
he
can't
go
outside.
He
has
20
got
to
stay
inside.
If
I
call
him
on
the
phone,
I
have
to
21
let
the
phone
ring
for
a
long
time,
because
the
phone
is
22
one
room
and
the
air­
conditioner
is
in
another
room,
and
23
147
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
he
has
got
to
walk
to
it.
1
I
like
command
and
control.
I
am
in
favor
of
2
setting
the
bar
high,
and
whoever
can
make
it
will
make
it
3
in
terms
of
powerplants
and
the
rest
will
go
do
something
4
else.
And
here
is
why:
I
am
a
veteran
of
the
Sooty
Six
5
campaign
in
Connecticut,
and
while
my
previous
comment
may
6
seem
a
little
cold
and
cruel
and
heartless,
being
strict
7
does
work.
8
It
took
us
five
years
to
clean
up
the
Sooty
Six
9
for
sulfur
dioxide.
Within
just
a
few
months
after
the
10
legislation
had
passed
and
the
Governor
had
signed
it
into
11
law,
the
owner
of
two
of
the
plants,
Wisvest,
threw
up
12
their
hands
and
said
that's
it,
we
quit,
we
are
done.
13
Within
just
a
couple
of
months,
those
two
plants
were
14
snapped
up.
And
I
mean
snapped
up
quickly
by
PSE&
G,
the
15
new
owners,
who
knew
the
strictest
standards
in
the
16
country
were
in
place
for
sulfur
dioxide
and
didn't
even
17
blink
about
buying
the
plants.
What's
even
more
is
that
18
Wisvest
sold
them
at
a
profit.
So
there
are
companies
19
that
know
the
rules
and
know
they
can
get
it
done.
20
It
gets
even
better.
In
Connecticut,
we
have
21
set
a
rather
aggressive
climate
­­
no
pun
intended
­­
for
22
what
we
want
out
of
our
power
providers.
So
PSE&
G
then
23
148
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
entered
into
negotiations
through
the
leaders
with
the
1
Connecticut
Coalition
for
Clean
Air
and
we
talked
about
2
mercury.
I
know
this
is
off
the
topic
of
ozone,
but
3
without
any
of
the
five­
year
struggle,
without
any
public
4
demonstrations,
without
letters
to
the
editor,
without
5
hearings,
civil
conversation
over
about
five
months,
we
6
have
now
90
percent
reduction
from
a
coal­
fired
powerplant
7
in
Connecticut.
It
passed
the
House
unanimously,
it
8
passed
the
Senate
unanimously,
and
Governor
Rowland
9
recently
signed
it.
So
it
can
be
done
if
you
set
the
bar
10
high.
11
In
summary,
stricter
is
better.
My
son
and
12
daughter,
my
wife,
my
community
are
all
positioned
13
geographically
in
the
path
of
real
and
documented
harm.
14
Ladies
and
gentlemen
of
the
EPA,
you
are
in
a
position
to
15
help
us.
Please
do
so.
16
Thank
you.
17
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
18
Questions?
19
(
No
response.)
20
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
21
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Andy
Bauer
was
22
concluded.)
23
149
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
TESTIMONY
OF
JOANNA
SCHNURMAN
1
MS.
SCHNURMAN:
My
name
is
Joanna
Schnurman.
I
2
am
from
Portland,
Connecticut,
and
I
have
no
official
3
affiliation.
I
am
here
as
a
mom.
4
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
offer
comments
5
on
the
proposed
rule
to
implement
the
8­
hour
ozone
6
standard.
I
have
never
offered
comments
on
a
document
7
before,
and
the
chance
to
exercise
my
democratic
voice
is
8
both
an
honor
and
a
humbling
experience.
I
am
not
an
9
expert;
I
am
a
wife
and
a
mom
whose
family
will
be
10
affected
by
the
choices
you
make.
It
is
in
this
context
11
that
I
offer
my
thoughts.
12
While
I
was
reading
the
proposal,
I
was
struck
13
that
most
of
the
options
presented
fell
into
one
of
two
14
categories,
those
offering
clear,
unequivocal
standards
15
emphasizing
control
at
each
source
and
those
offering
16
flexibility
to
negotiate
the
designation
and
consequences
17
received
and
emphasizing
incentives
in
trade
cap
programs.
18
I
am
sure
a
state
bureaucrat
would
prefer
the
19
more
flexible
options.
Without
fail,
they
make
it
easier
20
for
areas
to
reach
attainment
on
paper
or
receive
a
lower
21
designation.
And,
while
I
really
sympathize
with
state
22
and
local
governments
struggling
to
meet
rigorous
23
150
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
obligations,
I
am
more
sympathetic
to
my
family,
friends
1
and
fellow
citizens
who
struggle
to
breathe.
2
As
my
husband
mentioned,
we
live
in
Portland,
3
Connecticut,
which
is
in
an
inversion
area.
Last
year
we
4
had
17
days
of
unhealthy
or
worse
air
standards.
Only
a
5
plan
that
addresses
the
local
sources
is
going
to
benefit
6
us.
7
I
had
my
first
asthma
attack
this
past
year.
It
8
wasn't
a
fun
experience,
and
I
wouldn't
wish
it
on
anyone,
9
and
the
thought
of
what
a
kid
must
go
through
when
he
has
10
an
attack
is
just
beyond
my
imagination.
Both
my
children
11
have
allergies
and
have
already
had
bouts
of
wheezing.
12
While
I
can
only
wonder
if
they
will
remain
asthma
free,
I
13
know
they
will
stand
a
much
better
chance
breathing
14
cleaner
air.
My
mother­
in­
law
and
my
older
neighbors
plan
15
their
summer
days
based
around
the
projected
ozone
level.
16
Sometimes
they
have
to
decide
whether
to
brave
the
air
for
17
doctors
appointments
or
buying
groceries
or
do
without.
18
My
good
friend
Sarah
is
a
single
mother
whose
19
seven­
year­
old
daughter,
Aeron,
has
come
close
to
death
at
20
least
annually
from
asthma.
Aeron's
attacks
are
so
severe
21
her
school
requires
Sarah
to
be
accessible
by
phone
at
all
22
times,
making
it
nearly
impossible
for
my
friend
to
get
a
23
151
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
job.
None
of
us
can
afford
to
wait
to
see
if
the
modeling
1
that
predicts
most
nonattainment
8­
hour
areas
will
reach
2
attainment
by
2007
is
accurate.
3
And
what
of
the
people
who
live
in
the
areas
4
that
won't
reach
attainment?
By
the
estimate
in
Table
1,
5
that
is
143
million
people,
half
the
nation's
population,
6
in
2007.
In
2020,
over
one­
third
of
the
nation's
people
7
will
still
breathe
polluted
air.
8
Given
the
magnitude
of
the
problem,
I
think
the
9
kinder,
more
gentle
approach
offered
in
the
options,
such
10
as
classifying
gap
areas
under
subsection
1,
negotiating
11
for
lower
designations,
EAPs
revoking
the
1­
hour
standard
12
in
full
and
CADCs
is
inappropriate.
I
found
no
reason
13
other
than
convenience
to
the
states
for
these
options.
14
The
guiding
principles
for
this
project
list
public
health
15
first.
Flexibility
is
fifth.
While
millions
of
our
16
people
suffer
from
the
effects
of
ozone
pollution,
17
flexibility
and
convenience
must
wait.
18
One
of
the
books
we
read
to
our
children
to
19
prepare
them
for
this
trip
­­
which
is
our
first
as
a
20
family,
I
should
let
you
know
­­
offered
the
following
21
quote
by
Thomas
Jefferson:
The
care
of
human
life
and
22
happiness,
and
not
their
destruction,
is
the
first
and
23
152
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
only
legitimate
object
of
good
government.
1
I
believe
this
Agency
tries
to
the
best
of
its
2
ability
to
follow
that
credo.
But
in
the
maelstrom
of
3
competing
interests,
it
can
get
pushed
into
the
4
background.
I
ask
that
you
who
must
decide
these
very
5
important
matters
keep
the
words
of
Thomas
Jefferson
close
6
to
your
hearts,
and
know
that
it
is
regular
people
like
my
7
family
and
me
who
must
live
with
your
choices.
8
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
9
consideration.
10
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
11
Questions?
12
(
No
response.)
13
MR.
HELMS:
We
appreciate
you
coming.
14
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Joanna
Schnurman
15
was
concluded.)
16
MR.
HELMS:
Zachary
Corrigan,
come
forward.
The
17
podium
is
yours.
18
TESTIMONY
OF
ZACHARY
CORRIGAN
19
MR.
CORRIGAN:
My
name
is
Zachary
Corrigan,
and
20
I
am
a
staff
attorney
for
the
U.
S.
Public
Interest
21
Research
Group,
or
USPIRG.
USPIRG
is
the
national
22
lobbying
office
of
the
state
PIRGs,
a
nationwide
network
23
153
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
of
state­
based,
nonprofit
public
interest
advocacy
1
organizations.
I
thank
the
EPA
for
allowing
me
to
testify
2
today
on
the
Agency's
proposal
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
3
ozone
standard.
4
Today
in
the
Washington
and
Baltimore
area,
5
7.6
million
citizens
are
suffering
through
the
fourth
6
straight
day
of
unhealthy
air
pollution
and
the
third
7
straight
Code
Red
alert.
We
are
not
alone.
On
Wednesday,
8
more
than
33
million
Americans
were
issued
Code
Red
9
alerts,
while
others
in
115
cities
were
issued
Code
Orange
10
alerts.
Nearly
every
state
east
of
the
Mississippi
11
experienced
unhealthy
smog
days.
On
Thursday
we
got
more
12
of
the
same,
as
nearly
30
million
Americans
were
warned
13
that
going
outside
could
be
harmful
to
their
health,
even
14
if
they
were
perfectly
healthy
adults.
15
In
that
context,
the
EPA
offers
a
proposal
for
16
implementation
of
the
new
8­
hour
standard
that
will
17
neither
reduce
smog
nor
protect
our
health.
Now,
more
18
than
ever,
Americans
deserve
some
summertime
relief.
19
Regrettably,
the
Agency's
proposal
reverses
course,
20
allowing
weaker
protections
and
longer
delays.
This
can
21
only
mean
that
we
are
bound
to
see
more
smoggy
summers
and
22
more
asthma.
23
154
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Despite
passage
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
30
years
1
ago,
smog
or
ground­
level
ozone
still
remains
a
problem
2
that
affects
millions
of
Americans.
According
to
the
3
American
Lung
Association,
137
million
Americans,
close
to
4
half
our
population,
live
in
areas
where
smog
levels
are
5
high
enough
to
cause
serious
health
damage.
Among
other
6
problems,
ozone
causes
increased
asthma
attacks
in
7
children
and
emergency
room
hospitalizations.
8
I
this
past
year
found
out
that
my
nine­
year­
old
9
sister,
who
lives
in
an
ozone
alley
in
Milwaukee,
10
Wisconsin,
has
asthma,
and
it
is
hindering
her
ability
to
11
play
soccer.
She
is
one
of
the
best
soccer
players
I
have
12
ever
seen,
and
I
am
not
saying
that
just
because
I
am
her
13
brother,
but
she
is
an
amazing
soccer
player.
To
see
that
14
athletic
ability
and
that
joy
that
that
sport
gives
her
15
diminished
due
to
the
smog
levels
is
just
absolutely
16
unacceptable.
17
Six
million
asthma
attacks
each
year
in
the
18
eastern
United
States
can
be
attributed
to
ozone.
19
Recently,
ozone
has
not
only
been
linked
to
asthma
20
attacks,
but
also
to
the
onset
of
asthma.
Asthma
rates
21
have
continually
gone
up
since
1982.
In
2001,
more
than
22
20
million
Americans
like
my
sister
were
diagnosed
as
23
155
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
having
asthma.
1
For
decades,
this
country
has
dismally
2
inadequate
ozone
protections,
both
because
of
delayed
3
implementation
and
inadequate
standards.
EPA
promulgated
4
ozone
standards
in
1979,
but
in
1990,
11
years
after
the
5
original
ozone
standards
were
issued,
many
areas
were
not
6
in
compliance,
and
some
were
a
long
way
from
it.
7
Frustrated
with
the
history
of
missed
deadlines
and
EPA
8
extensions,
Congress
addressed
the
failure
of
states
to
9
reach
the
ozone
standards
by
describing
the
rigorous
10
enforcement
scheme
in
1990.
The
new
enforcement
scheme
11
required
EPA
to
classify
nonattainment
areas
based
on
12
their
degree
of
nonattainment
and
establish
13
classifications
ranging
from
marginal
to
extreme,
with
14
attainment
dates
for
each
class.
15
For
each
class,
areas
were
required
to
take
16
control
measures
to
reduce
emissions
and
provide
EPA
with
17
details
on
how
they
were
going
to
implement
these
18
standards.
It
was
hoped
that
this
scheme
would
end
the
19
delay
in
delivering
people
to
the
clean
air
they
so
20
needed.
While
efforts
to
implement
ozone
protections
that
21
were
better
enforced
or
more
rigorously
implemented,
the
22
standard
itself
was
found
insufficient
to
protect
public
23
156
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
health.
In
1997
after
much
scientific
review,
tens
of
1
thousands
of
comments
­­
50,000
comments,
according
to
the
2
EPA
­­
EPA
adopted
a
more
stringent
ozone
standard.
3
Unlike
the
previous
standard,
the
8­
hour
standard,
the
one
4
­­
the
implementation
scheme
that
is
supposed
to
address
5
this
8­
hour
standard
took
into
account
health
problems
6
associated
with
long­
term
exposures
to
lesser
ozone
7
concentrations
and
increased
uniformity
across
different
8
urban
areas.
9
I
give
you
this
context
because
it
is
in
light
10
of
these
historical
delays
and
inadequate
ozone
11
protections.
The
question
of
how
the
EPA
now
decides
to
12
implement
these
new
8­
hour
standards
is
vitally
important
13
for
the
millions
of
Americans
who
are
continually
exposed
14
to
ozone
concentrations
at
dangerously
high
levels.
Every
15
year
for
the
past
five
summers,
monitors
have
recorded
16
between
4,000
and
8,000
exceedences
of
the
standard,
17
exposing
people
to
unhealthy
levels
of
smog
for
hours
at
a
18
time.
According
to
the
EPA,
between
1999
and
2001
there
19
were
a
total
of
291
counties
where
the
ozone
levels
20
averaged
unsafe
8­
hour
levels.
In
2000,
there
were
21
22
million
people
subjected
to
unsafe
high
levels
of
smog,
22
and
155
counties
with
unsafe
8­
hour
levels
have
no
23
157
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
existing
control
requirements
under
the
old
1­
hour
1
standard.
2
Unfortunately,
the
EPA
is
now
proposing
a
set
of
3
implementation
options
for
the
8­
hour
standard
that
would
4
lead
to
even
more
delay
and
ineffective
controls
for
ozone
5
pollutions.
Some
of
the
biggest
problems
with
the
EPA's
6
proposal
are
as
follows:
7
It
would
dramatically
delay
the
time
areas
are
8
required
to
reduce
emissions
to
meet
the
ozone
health
9
standards.
EPA
proposes
to
allow
all
areas
where
ozone
is
10
at
levels
meeting
the
old,
less
stringent,
1­
hour
11
standard,
but
above
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
to
avoid
12
the
enforcement
scheme
Congress
mandated
in
1990.
This
13
will
give
these
areas
years
to
avoid
mechanisms
designed
14
to
bring
them
into
attainment
and
assure
people
healthy,
15
smog­
free
air.
16
For
example,
under
this
proposal,
areas
that
17
fail
to
meet
the
ozone
attainment
deadlines
are
not
18
required
to
be
bumped
up
to
the
next
higher
ozone
19
classification
and
subsequently
implement
stringent
20
control
requirements
as
they
would
under
the
1990
21
congressionally­
mandated
scheme.
Instead,
these
areas
get
22
an
extra
ten
years
of
delay.
That
is
twice
the
life
of
my
23
158
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
sister.
Twenty
areas
will
have
to
begin
to
comply.
Also,
1
it
lets
powerplants
and
other
large
stationary
sources
of
2
smog­
forming
pollutants
off
the
hook.
Under
this
3
approach,
the
EPA
will
allow
weaker
new
source
review
4
requirements
in
some
of
our
smoggiest
areas.
5
New
source
review
requires
the
oldest
and
6
dirtiest
powerplants
and
other
sources
to
install
cleanup
7
technologies
when
they
make
changes
to
increase
emissions.
8
By
weakening
these
requirements,
the
Agency
shifts
the
9
cost
of
dirty
air
away
from
the
polluters
and
onto
10
individuals
who
must
pay
for
lost
work,
lost
school
days
11
and
hospital
visits
when
they
experience
adverse
health
12
consequences
of
ozone.
13
Third,
it
discards
the
existing
1­
hour
standard,
14
leaving
more
delay
and
lesser
ozone
protection,
and
this
15
is
a
point
that
almost
everybody
who
has
come
up
to
16
testify
so
far
has
brought
up,
so
I
won't
go
into
much
17
detail
with
that.
But
there
are
two
ways
that
this
is
18
problematic.
19
First
of
all,
by
revoking
the
existing
1­
hour
20
standard,
it
means
that
many
areas
which,
after
years,
21
still
have
ozone
levels
above
the
1­
hour
standard
are
22
given
yet
another
extension
of
time
to
clean
up
under
the
23
159
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
new
standard.
Further,
many
areas
with
ozone
levels
that
1
peak
at
dangerously
high
levels,
causing
them
to
exceed
2
the
1­
hour
standard
but
not
exceed
the
8­
hour
standard,
3
will
be
free
from
implementing
or
keeping
controls
4
designed
to
minimize
ozone
problems.
Once
the
1­
hour
5
standard
is
revoked,
areas
will
not
have
to
meet
the
6
conformity
requirements.
7
I
think
there
are
at
least
two
other
points
that
8
are
in
desperate
need
of
being
made,
one
of
which
has
been
9
made,
which
is
that
the
EPA
is
offering
vague
computer
10
modeling
instead
of
real
reductions.
That
is
11
unacceptable.
And
one
of
the
most
egregious
things
is
the
12
use
of
the
Early
Action
Compacts.
I
think
that
it
is
13
ironic
that
it
is
the
Early
Action
Compacts,
but
it
allows
14
deferred
ozone
control
requirements
until
2007.
And
then
15
it
allows
these
places
to
not
have
to
use
NSR
and
16
conformity
controls
to
clean
up
their
areas.
These
areas
17
aren't
going
to
come
into
attainment,
and
there
is
no
18
requirement,
there
is
nothing
that
these
areas
will
have
19
to
do
outside
of
the
existing
Clean
Air
Act
to
make
sure
20
their
air
is
clean.
This
simply
means
more
delay
for
21
these
areas
to
clean
up.
22
I
will
close
now
by
saying
that
in
sum,
EPA
23
160
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
proposes
a
scheme
that
will
undermine
efforts
to
reduce
1
ozone
pollution.
The
Agency
offers
to
turn
back
the
clock
2
to
allow
delays
and
ineffective
ozone
protections
to
be
a
3
continued
norm,
allowing
more
smog
and,
as
a
result,
more
4
ozone.
I
ask
the
EPA
to
reconsider
its
approach
and
5
implement
it
using
the
most
stringent
and
health
6
protective
options
available.
7
I
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
testify
today,
8
and
I
have
my
written
comments
here
for
you
as
well.
9
Thank
you.
10
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
11
Questions?
12
(
No
response.)
13
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
14
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Zachary
Corrigan
15
was
concluded.)
16
MR.
HELMS:
Jennifer
Hicks.
I
understand
you
17
need
to
go
as
fast
as
possible.
18
MS.
HICKS:
Thank
you
very
much.
19
MR.
HELMS:
The
podium
is
yours.
20
MS.
HICKS:
Thank
you.
21
22
23
161
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
TESTIMONY
OF
JENNIFER
HICKS
1
MS.
HICKS:
Thank
you
very
much
for
allowing
me
2
to
make
comments
today.
I
am
actually
an
anomaly
today.
3
I
am
actually
a
resident
of
Montgomery
County,
Maryland.
4
As
you
well
know,
I
live
in
a
severe
nonattainment
area
of
5
ozone,
and
we
have
all
experienced
together
our
first
week
6
of
the
summer
of
severe
ozone
days.
I
would
say
the
only
7
benefit
is
that
I
actually
got
a
free
ride
on
the
bus
this
8
week
because
of
ozone
alerts.
9
My
name
is
Jennifer
Hicks.
I
am
a
program
10
coordinator
with
Chesapeake
Climate
Action
Network.
We
11
are
a
new
local
organization,
a
nonprofit
based
in
Takoma
12
Park,
Maryland,
representing
thousands
of
individuals
who
13
live
in
severe
air
quality
nonattainment
in
the
D.
C.
and
14
Baltimore
region.
We
are
the
first
organization
15
exclusively
committed
to
addressing
the
issue
of
climate
16
change
in
the
state
of
Maryland,
working
in
collaboration
17
with
citizens
organizations,
businesses
and
government
18
leaders.
We
aim
to
make
Maryland
a
national
model
for
a
19
climate­
friendly
economy,
and
it
is
definitely
something
20
very
possible
to
do.
We
are
mobilizing
thousands
of
21
people
around
this
issue,
and
we
take
it
very
seriously.
22
As
a
resident
of
an
ozone
alert
area,
we
are
23
162
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
concerned
about
the
options
EPA
has
published
to
implement
1
the
1997
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
How
this
proposal
is
2
implemented
will
determine
the
quality
of
life
of
millions
3
of
people,
both
across
the
country
and
living
in
my
4
neighborhood,
including
myself.
The
more
protective
5
8­
hour
ozone
smog
standard
was
put
into
place
primarily
6
because
it
was
clear
that
the
health
of
children
and
the
7
elderly
were
put
at
risk
by
ozone
smog,
increasing
cases
8
of
lung
damage
and
illnesses.
But
it
is
also
clear
that
9
the
emissions
from
the
tailpipes
and
smokestacks
are
the
10
cause
of
some
of
the
biggest
air
quality
problems
here
and
11
worldwide.
12
Relaxed
clean
air
rules
and
increased
emissions
13
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
jeopardizes
our
future
by
14
allowing
business
as
usual
in
a
time
when
we
have
strong
15
evidence
that
human­
created
greenhouse
gases
accelerates
16
global
warming,
arguably
one
of
the
largest
threats
facing
17
humans
today.
Left
unchecked,
global
warming
could,
by
18
2100,
raise
mean
global
temperatures
3
to
10
degrees
19
Fahrenheit
and
raise
sea
levels
1
to
3
feet,
ushering
in
20
an
era
of
social,
agricultural
and
ecological
chaos
on
21
earth.
22
The
scientific
reports
now
indicate
that
23
163
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
trophospheric
or
low­
level
ozone
is
a
greenhouse
gas
that
1
contributes
to
the
warming
of
our
plant.
And,
in
2
addition,
because
ozone
is
triggered
by
heat
and
as
the
3
planet
warms,
Code
Orange
and
Code
Red
days
will
be
4
exponentially
increased,
exponentially
harming
the
health
5
of
both
humans
and
the
environment.
It
is
basically
a
6
crash
course
for
disaster
if
we
are
not
directly
7
addressing
this
issue.
8
Ozone
is
yet
another
indicator
of
many
that's
9
showing
our
country's
dependence
on
dirty
energy,
and
10
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
much
going
in
the
direction
of
11
changing
that.
It
seems
as
if
EPA
is
unwilling
to
take
a
12
stand
to
protect
and
enforce
the
Clean
Air
Act,
some
of
13
the
strongest
environmental
legislation
in
our
country
and
14
legislation
that
ensures
quick
and
effective
cleanup
of
15
dirty
energy.
The
implementation
proposal
does
not
16
require
areas
like
mine
to
do
enough
fast
enough
to
clean
17
up.
18
We
don't
have
time
to
loosen
compliance
19
schedules
to
meet
clean
air
standards.
We
can't
afford
to
20
allow
areas
like
mine
to
avoid
new
source
review
21
requirements
based
on
an
8­
hour
standard.
We
can't
afford
22
to
let
industry
delay
clean
air
measures
one
more
time.
23
164
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
We
need
strong
implementation
of
ozone
standards
now.
1
And,
just
on
a
personal
note,
my
family
is
2
originally
from
Maine
and
we
still
have
relatives
up
3
there.
They
are
experiencing
their
first
ozone
alert
4
days,
and
I
have
a
grandfather
that
can't
leave
his
home
5
in
the
summer
in
Maine
because
of
air
pollution.
And
New
6
England
states
tend
to
be
the
tailpipe
of
many
dirty
7
powerplants.
So
I
am
coming
at
this
on
a
personal
level
8
but
on
a
professional
level,
and
appreciate
your
time
9
today
letting
me
speak.
10
Thank
you.
11
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
12
Questions?
13
(
No
response.)
14
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
15
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Jennifer
Hicks
was
16
concluded.)
17
MR.
HELMS:
Pamela
Irwin.
18
If
you
are
wondering
why
we
are
not
calling
the
19
next
person
like
you
had
suggested
earlier,
we
are
jumping
20
all
the
way
around
here
as
people
show
up
and
don't
show
21
up.
Bear
with
us.
22
The
podium
is
yours.
23
165
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MS.
IRWIN:
Thank
you.
1
TESTIMONY
OF
PAMELA
IRWIN
2
MS.
IRWIN:
I
will
keep
this
brief,
because
I
3
know
that
other
people
have
said
some
of
the
things
that
I
4
have
to
say.
My
name
is
Pamela
Irwin,
and
I
am
the
clean
5
air
coordinator
for
the
Sierra
Club,
Virginia
Chapter.
I
6
would
like
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
7
you
today.
I
can
only
hope
that
the
concerns
of
everyone
8
who
is
speaking
here
today
will
be
taken
seriously.
9
The
Sierra
Club
is
deeply
concerned
with
a
10
number
of
aspects
of
the
8­
hour
implementation
proposal.
11
First,
we
are
disturbed
by
EPA's
proposal
to
discard
the
12
requirements
of
the
1­
hour
standard.
This
will
only
delay
13
progress
toward
the
8­
hour
standard,
and
it
will
continue
14
to
be
detrimental
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
It
15
is
inappropriate
to
simply
throw
away
this
requirement
16
that
still
can
have
the
effect
of
improving
air
quality,
17
protecting
human
health
and
protecting
our
environment,
18
including
vegetation
and
waterways.
19
Second,
we
are
very
disappointed
in
EPA
for
20
allowing
big
polluters
off
the
hook
by
weakening
NSR
21
requirements
under
the
8­
hour
standard.
Cars
have
become
22
less
polluting
and
more
efficient
over
the
years,
and
it
23
166
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
is
time
for
big
polluters
to
do
their
fair
share
to
1
improve
air
quality.
2
Third,
EPA's
proposal
to
allow
lower
3
classifications
and
less
stringent
control
requirements
4
based
only
on
highly
gainable
modeling
demonstrations
does
5
not
fulfill
the
Agency's
obligations
to
ensure
that
areas
6
can
meet
the
standard.
Furthermore,
it
is
unacceptable
7
that
areas
which
are
violating
the
new
standard
will
be
8
able
to
avoid
congressionally­
mandated
control
measures
9
simply
because
they
are
not
violating
the
1­
hour
standard.
10
The
air
quality
in
these
areas
is
still
harmful
11
to
human
health,
everyone
agrees.
That's
why
we
12
implemented
this
standard.
And,
because
of
that,
it
needs
13
to
be
cleaned
up
now,
not
20
years
from
now.
We
are
also
14
concerned,
as
many
other
people
have
expressed,
with
the
15
Early
Action
Compacts
that
exempt
nonattainment
areas
for
16
measures
that
can
improve
their
air
quality.
EPA
is
17
trading
specific
measures
for
vague
voluntary
programs
18
that
haven't
worked
in
the
past
and
won't
work
in
the
19
future.
20
Finally,
we
are
concerned
that
EPA
will
not
21
directly
take
comments
of
designations
under
the
8­
hour
22
standard.
It
is
unacceptable
that
EPA
is
essentially
23
167
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
refusing
to
listen
to
the
public
on
the
applicability
of
1
this
rule.
By
only
allowing
the
public
to
comment
to
2
state
and
local
agencies,
EPA
is
showing
disdain
for
3
public
opinion
and
concerns.
EPA
should
listen
to
the
4
voice
of
the
public
on
designations,
not
just
to
highly
5
politicize
state
agencies
who
may
have
other
interests
and
6
agendas
but
have
nothing
to
do
with
public
health.
7
In
closing,
we
do
not
believe
that
this
proposal
8
will
reduce
smog
or
improve
air
quality
in
Virginia
or
9
anywhere
else.
EPA
should
submit
a
proposal
that
will
10
fulfill
its
obligations
to
protect
the
public
against
11
known
and
anticipated
adverse
impacts
of
air
pollution
12
instead
of
further
delaying
cleanup.
13
Thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
14
with
you
today,
and
I
will
offer
more
detailed
written
15
comments
by
August
1st.
16
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
ma'am.
17
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Pamela
Irwin
was
18
concluded.)
19
MR.
HELMS:
Roger
Diedrich,
the
podium
is
yours.
20
TESTIMONY
OF
ROGER
DIEDRICH
21
MR.
DIEDRICH:
Thank
you.
I
am
Roger
Diedrich.
22
I
am
chairman
of
the
Virginia
chapter
of
the
Sierra
Club.
23
168
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
I
didn't
expect
to
be
following
Pamela,
but
I
can
start
by
1
endorsing
her
remarks,
of
course.
2
The
15,000
members
of
the
Virginia
chapter
of
3
the
Sierra
Club
are
deeply
disappointed
again
in
the
Bush
4
EPA
for
this
proposal
for
implementing
new
weakened
5
standards
for
ozone.
Our
members
in
the
metro
D.
C.
area
6
have
been
fighting
for
progress
on
clean
air
for
years,
7
and
we
have
been
seeing
a
lot
of
foot
dragging
by
local
8
officials.
The
last
thing
we
need
is
for
the
federal
9
government
to
come
along
and
give
them
a
free
pass
to
10
continue
this
derelict
behavior.
11
The
law
was
put
in
place
in
1997
in
response
to
12
sound
scientific
data.
And,
after
several
challenges
by
13
vested
interests,
even
more
substantiating
data
has
been
14
produced.
We
have
been
waiting
for
six
years
for
EPA
to
15
implement
a
common
sense
regulation
change.
For
the
sake
16
of
some
truckers'
profit
margin,
for
the
sake
of
some
17
power
companies'
market
share,
for
the
sake
of
some
SUV
18
drivers'
macho
desire
to
dominate
the
road,
you
will
deny
19
America's
children
the
ability
to
play
outside
and
the
20
right
of
the
elderly
to
comfortably
live
out
their
lives.
21
What
kind
of
cheapened
value
system
is
driving
these
22
obscene
decisions?
We
can
do
better.
23
169
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
EPA
should
tighten
the
compliance
schedules
for
1
nonattainment
areas,
not
loosen
them.
Our
communities
2
need
forward
progress
in
meeting
the
healthier
8­
hour
3
standard.
At
a
minimum,
you
should
keep
the
1­
hour
4
standard
in
place
as
a
safety
net
until
there
is
progress
5
toward
meeting
the
new
standard.
Power
companies
can
do
6
better
by
shifting
more
resources
to
cleaner
sources
of
7
electricity
and
to
stop
pushing
to
get
around
the
8
long­
established
rules
like
new
source
review.
The
EPA
9
should
not
condone
it
when
they
try
and
also
do
not
give
10
in
to
stated
plans
of
the
freight
industry,
the
rollback,
11
the
diesel
rule.
12
EPA
needs
to
do
a
better
job
of
eliminating
13
loopholes
in
the
analysis
and
modeling
methods
for
14
assigning
classifications.
Some
of
this
may
involve
15
additional
spending
for
research
for
positive
incentive
16
programs
or
for
public
transportation
infrastructure.
We
17
just
saw
the
approval
of
a
new
$
29
billion
Department
of
18
Homeland
Security,
largely
in
response
to
the
loss
of
19
about
3,000
innocent
lives.
What
is
the
proper
response
20
to
address
the
tens
of
thousands
of
early
deaths
every
21
year
from
filthy,
toxic
air?
22
Thank
you.
23
170
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
1
Questions?
2
(
No
response.)
3
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
4
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Roger
Diedrich
was
5
concluded.)
6
MR.
HELMS:
Jason
Babbie,
the
podium
is
yours.
7
MR.
BABBIE:
Thank
you.
8
TESTIMONY
OF
JASON
BABBIE
9
MR.
BABBIE:
Hello.
My
name
is
Jason
K.
Babbie.
10
I
am
an
environmental
policy
analyst
for
the
New
York
11
Public
Interest
Research
Group,
NYPIRG,
the
nation's
12
largest
statewide
environmental
protection
consumer
rights
13
and
government
reform
advocacy
organization.
I
first
14
would
like
to
thank
the
EPA
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
15
to
testify
on
the
Agency's
options
for
implementing
the
16
1997
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
I
sincerely
hope
today's
17
hearing
and
the
other
hearings
lead
the
Agency
to
a
18
standard
with
compliance
mechanisms
that
are
adequate
to
19
protect
public
health.
20
I
am
here
today
because
New
York
State
has
a
21
serious
air
quality
problem,
which
is
another
more
sterile
22
way
of
saying
people
are
breathing
unhealthy
air
and
23
171
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
getting
sick
all
across
the
state.
NYPIRG
has
offices
1
from
Buffalo
to
Long
Island
and,
while
Buffalo
may
not
2
look
a
lot
like
Long
Island
or
have
a
lot
in
common
with
3
Long
Island,
they
do
have
poor
air
quality
in
common,
as
4
do
many
places
in
between.
In
fact,
according
to
EPA's
5
website,
the
capitol
district,
New
York
City,
which
6
includes
Long
Island
and
the
northern
suburbs,
7
Poughkeepsie
and
Buffalo
all
have
counties
in
8
nonattainment.
9
Just
last
year
alone,
counties
in
the
following
10
places
topped
EPA's
8­
hour
limit
for
ozone:
35
times
in
11
the
New
York
metro
area;
34
times
in
Buffalo;
16
times
in
12
the
Adirondacks;
15
times
in
the
capitol
district;
13
13
times
in
Rochester
and
8
times
in
Syracuse.
It
is
14
counterintuitive
for
an
area
such
as
the
Adirondacks
to
15
have
unhealthy
air
to
breathe,
let
alone
air
at
one
of
the
16
highest
peaks
of
the
Adirondacks.
But
numerous
times
last
17
summer
that
was
the
case.
because
of
weak
standards
and
18
pollution
trading.
What
is
worse
is
that
the
poor
air
19
quality
appears
to
be
getting
worse
in
New
York
and
20
spreading.
Unfortunately,
many
of
the
options
presented
21
in
the
1997
8­
hour
standard
will
further
exacerbate
this
22
problem.
23
172
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
New
York's
pervasive
air
quality
problems
have
1
very
real
consequences.
Using
EPA­
approved
methodology,
2
over
510,000
asthma
attacks
and
over
12,000
emergency
room
3
visits
during
the
summer
of
1997
are
attributable
to
ozone
4
smog.
The
latest
research
shows
that
growing
up
in
an
5
area
with
elevated
ozone
concentrations
may
actually
cause
6
the
disease
asthma.
This
is
demonstrated
by
specific
7
examples
in
New
York
City.
The
South
Bronx
has
one
of
the
8
nation's
highest
and
worst
asthma
rates
in
a
recent
study
9
reported
by
The
New
York
Times
on
findings
of
a
similar
10
trend
in
central
Harlem.
How
many
days
and
how
many
11
places
is
the
EPA
going
to
accept
advising
asthmatics
and
12
children
not
to
play
outside
while
sending
people
reaching
13
for
inhalers
or,
even
worse,
heading
to
the
hospital?
14
In
addition
to
the
obvious
public
health
15
problems
and
emotional
toll
that
goes
along
with
an
asthma
16
attack
or
watching
a
loved
one
go
through
an
asthma
17
attack,
there
are
very
real
economic
impacts
as
well.
18
There
are
the
costs
of
health
care,
which
affect
lower
19
income
communities
much
more
than
others.
Asthma
is
also
20
the
number
one
reason
for
chronic
school
absenteeism
in
21
New
York,
hindering
a
child's
ability
and
his
future.
22
Many
times
adults
also
miss
work
to
care
for
their
23
173
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
asthmatic
child
or
for
their
own
difficulty
with
asthma,
1
impacting
a
family's
income.
2
The
regulatory
consequences
of
not
meeting
3
attainment
are
important,
because
it
is
these
mechanisms
4
that
create
the
structure
to
clean
up
the
air.
5
Unfortunately,
some
of
the
options
the
EPA
has
put
forward
6
will
exacerbate
New
York's
current
problems.
One
­­
and
I
7
won't
go
into
too
much
detail,
because
you
have
heard
a
8
lot
of
them
today,
and
I
will
be
submitting
more
specific
9
written
comments.
But
erasing
the
compliance
necessary
10
for
the
1­
hour
standard
or
to
then
later
meet
the
8­
hour
11
standard
will
honestly
just
mean
more
asthma
attacks
and
12
more
hospital
room
visits
for
New
Yorkers.
I
know
it
is
13
unacceptable
to
seniors,
children
and
their
parents
and
14
asthmatics
in
New
York,
and
hope
that
is
unacceptable
to
15
EPA
as
well.
16
Letting
major
stationary
polluters
such
as
17
powerplants
off
the
hook
from
existing
new
source
review
18
requirements
means
making
New
York's
residents
pay
more
19
money.
New
Yorkers
will
be
paying
more
in
taxes
to
cover
20
Medicaid
and
Medicare
costs
and
for
more
of
their
own
21
personal
income
because
of
their
own
health
care
costs.
22
Passing
along
costs
to
those
that
can
afford
it
least
is
23
174
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
exactly
what
the
EPA
should
be
avoiding.
1
Third,
giving
modeling
enough
credit
to
lower
an
2
area's
classification
ignores
the
fact
that
people
will
3
still
be
breathing
unhealthy
air.
The
simple
fact
is
that
4
modeling
does
not
provide
respiratory
relief.
5
In
closing,
I
would
like
to
reiterate
the
6
importance
of
having
breathable
air
and
how
that
is
7
directly
linked
to
EPA's
8­
hour
standard
and
the
8
mechanisms
for
meeting
that
standard.
In
making
your
9
final
decision,
I
implore
you
to
keep
in
mind
that
which
10
is
truly
important.
I
definitely
have
had
people
that
I
11
supervise
that
have
not
been
able
to
come
into
work
12
because
their
four­
year­
old
daughter
had
to
go
to
the
13
hospital
numerous
times
because
of
asthma.
My
roommate,
14
who
is
fit
and
in
his
20s,
has
to
reach
for
the
asthma
15
inhaler
at
the
top
of
our
fourth
floor
walkup
on
hot
16
summer
days
like
this.
New
York
City
could
turn
off
all
17
of
its
pollution
sources
and
would
never
be
in
attainment
18
if
we
don't
have
a
strong
national
standard,
so
I
implore
19
you
to
do
so.
20
Thank
you.
21
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
22
Questions?
23
175
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
(
No
response.)
1
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
2
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Jason
Babbie
was
3
concluded.)
4
MR.
HELMS:
In
an
attempt
to
accommodate
Nat
5
Mund
­­
you
have
to
leave
at
1:
00
­­
come
forward,
and
we
6
will
move
you
forward.
7
MR.
MUND:
Thank
you.
8
MR.
HELMS:
The
podium
is
yours.
9
TESTIMONY
OF
NATHANIEL
MUND
10
MR.
MUND:
My
name
is
Nat
Mund.
I
am
a
11
Washington
representative
with
the
Sierra
Club.
The
12
Sierra
Club
has
over
700,000
members
across
the
country.
13
It
is
one
of
the
oldest
conservation
organizations
here.
14
We
are
going
to
be
submitting
more
specific
written
15
comments.
I
am
just
going
to
make
oral
comments
at
this
16
time.
I
am
not
going
to
go
over
the
ground
that
a
lot
of
17
people
have
already
tread.
I
just
want
to
try
to
18
underscore
a
few
things
and
then
add
a
personal
note
to
19
this.
20
Something
that
actually
I
­­
and
I
have
been
in
21
and
out
of
the
hearing
­­
I
haven't
heard
underscored
yet
22
is
a
concern
about
the
process
that
brought
us
here
today,
23
176
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
the
fact
that
the
rule
package
that
was
published
in
the
1
Federal
Register
is
a
set
of
options
and
is
not
actually
2
­­
it
doesn't
contain
regulatory
language.
We
are
3
concerned
that
this
absence
of
regulatory
language
is
4
going
to
lead
to
a
less
perfect
public
process.
I
mean,
5
the
more
specific
the
actual
language
is,
the
more
6
specific
our
comments
could
be
to
help
inform
your
7
decision
making.
8
I
don't
want
this
to
be
interpreted
in
any
way
9
as
a
call
for
delay.
We
share
the
Agency's
concern
that
a
10
rule
needs
to
be
implemented
soon
and
strongly,
but
we
had
11
hoped
that
a
rule
would
be
­­
actual
rule
language
would
12
be
available
and
hope
that
the
Agency
could
provide
it
13
before
the
end
of
the
public
comment
period
so
that
more
14
specific
comments
could
be
made.
15
I
also
want
to
just
again
generally
underscore
a
16
few
items.
The
move
from
­­
or
at
least
the
options
that
17
indicate
a
move
from
the
more
proscriptive,
the
more
18
controlling,
Subpart
2
into
Subpart
1,
we
think
this
19
ignores
some
of
the
lessons
that
we
have
learned
over
the
20
last
33
years
as
we
have
dealt
with
clean
air
issues,
that
21
the
Clean
Air
Act,
when
originally
passed
in
1970,
had
a
22
goal
of
cleaning
up
the
air
by
1975.
But
it
was
merely
­­
23
177
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
we
were
unable
to
achieve
that.
1
In
fact,
until
1990
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
2
amendments,
we
had
a
lot
of
difficulty
in
achieving
clean
3
air
from
smog
in
many
communities
around
the
company.
We
4
have
made
substantial
progress
since
then
in
several
5
areas.
We
have
a
lot
more
to
go,
but
we
believe
that
6
moving
away
from
the
more
proscriptive
ideas
that
actually
7
make
those
tough
political
decisions
that
Congress
made,
8
that
that's
an
important
thing
that
we
should
hold
onto,
9
and
that
we
shouldn't
leave
that
and
go
back
to
something
10
that
we
have
already
had
some
experience
with
and
11
understand
that
it
is
not
as
effective.
12
Sort
of
also
related
to
that
is
the
incentive
13
program
which
focuses
on
modeling
and
allowing
communities
14
to
model
their
way
out
of
a
nonattainment
designation
or
15
to
a
lower
level
of
nonattainment
designation.
We
are
16
concerned
that
that
encourages
communities
to
spend
17
resources
on
modeling
emissions
reductions
rather
than
18
spending
resources
on
achieving
emissions
reductions.
You
19
know,
to
the
extent
that
­­
I
mean,
there
are
limited
20
resources.
We
know
that
we
are
in
a
difficult
economic
21
time.
We
need
those
resources
to
get
protections
for
air
22
quality.
And
we
have
heard
today
voluminous
reports
of
23
178
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
the
air
quality
impacts
of
ozone.
1
Actually,
that
is
what
I
would
like
to
speak
on,
2
if
I
may
speak
a
portion
of
my
testimony
as
an
individual,
3
as
a
citizen,
rather
than
as
a
representative
of
the
4
Sierra
Club.
My
wife
has
asthma,
and
thankfully,
it
is
5
well
controlled
now.
But
that
hasn't
always
been
the
6
case.
And
I
assume
that
for
people
that
don't
have
access
7
to
medical
care,
that
remains
the
case
today.
8
In
May
of
1997,
we
were
whitewater
rafting
on
9
the
Chatuga
River,
which
is
probably
best
known
as
the
set
10
for
Deliverance.
It
is
a
wild
and
scenic
river,
so
it
is
11
sort
of
out
in
the
middle
of
nowhere,
but
it
is,
12
unfortunately
­­
and
we
didn't
really
realize
this
at
the
13
time.
It
is
downwind
from
Atlanta
and
also
downwind
from
14
a
series
of
powerplants
owned
by
Southern
Company
and
the
15
Tennessee
Valley
Authority.
We
were
on
the
river
for
16
several
hours
during
that
day
and
managed
to
­­
we
weren't
17
married
at
the
time,
but
we
did
get
married
later,
which,
18
for
anybody
who
has
actually
run
a
two­
person
raft,
I
19
think
it
is
quite
an
achievement
for
us.
20
Suzanne
was
having
some
difficulty
during
the
21
trip,
and
she
had
her
rescue
inhaler
with
her
and
used
it
22
during
the
day.
We
were
staying
with
friends
at
a
cabin
23
179
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
outside
Franklin,
North
Carolina,
up
in
the
­­
we
were
1
right
up
at
the
top
of
the
mountains,
which
­­
we
didn't
2
know
at
that
time,
but
in
that
area
of
the
country,
at
3
high
altitude,
you
have
severe
ozone
problems.
It
had
4
been
a
very
hot
day,
and
Suzanne's
difficulty
breathing
5
didn't
get
any
better.
And
by
about
11:
00
at
night,
it
6
became
evident
that
it
wasn't
going
to
get
any
better
7
without
significant
intervention,
and
we
had
to
go
8
hurtling
through
those
two­
lane
roads
in
the
gullies
about
9
20
minutes
to
get
to
a
hospital,
where
she
could
­­
where
10
they
gave
her
a
medication
so
that
she
could
breathe.
11
That
is
one
of
the
most
horrifying
memories
of
12
my
life,
is
sitting
there
at
11:
00
at
night,
dark
country
13
road,
hurtling
at
unsafe
speeds
to
get
her
there
with
her
14
wheezing.
And
the
pain
and
the
fear,
that
is
something
15
that
we
can
do
something
about,
and
we
should.
So
that
is
16
why
I
believe
that
we
need
to
have
a
very
strong
rule
17
here.
18
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
19
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
so
much.
20
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Nathaniel
Mund
was
21
concluded.)
22
MR.
HELMS:
I
have
two
individuals
that
want
to
23
180
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
be
called
together,
Stephen
Smith
and
Ulla
Reeves.
1
MS.
REEVES:
No.
2
MR.
SMITH:
We
don't
need
to
be
called
together.
3
MR.
HELMS:
I
stand
corrected.
We
have
two
4
individuals
that
want
to
speak,
but
they
don't
want
to
be
5
called
together.
6
Stephen
Smith
has
the
podium.
He
will
be
7
followed
by
Ulla
Reeves.
8
MR.
SMITH:
Thank
you
very
much.
9
MR.
HELMS:
The
podium
is
yours.
10
TESTIMONY
OF
STEPHEN
SMITH
11
MR.
SMITH:
My
name
is
Stephen
Smith.
I
am
the
12
executive
director
of
the
Southern
Alliance
for
Clean
13
Energy,
a
veterinarian
by
training.
I
live
in
Knoxville
­
14
­
and
that
is
spelled
K­
N­
O­
X,
not
just
N­
O­
X,
even
though
15
the
air
quality
there
is
quite
severe
­­
and
we
continue
16
to
struggle
in
East
Tennessee
with
bad
air.
Our
17
organization
does
work
throughout
the
Southeast
United
18
States.
As
many
of
you
know,
there
are
a
number
of
areas
19
in
the
Southeast
that
continue
to
struggle
with
the
burden
20
of
poor
air
quality,
which
is
unhealthy
both
for
humans
21
and
nonhumans,
and
is
extracting
an
environmental
toll.
22
I
live
in
the
shadows
of
the
Great
Smoky
23
181
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Mountain
National
Park,
although
unfortunately,
because
of
1
the
bad
air
quality,
even
though
I
may
only
be
30
vertical
2
miles
from
some
of
the
highest
elevations
in
the
eastern
3
United
States,
I
can't
see
the
mountains
because
of
the
4
air
pollution,
regional
haze
and
other
things.
So
we
have
5
got
a
very
serious
problem.
6
I
am
a
father.
My
oldest
son
has
experienced
7
asthma,
and
as
a
parent,
it
is
one
of
the
most
frightening
8
things
that
you
can
experience.
I
am
an
employer,
and
I
9
have
a
number
of
people
that
work
for
me
and
have
10
employees
that
have
children
that
suffer
from
severe
11
asthma
and
have
employees
themselves
that
sometimes
are
12
unable
to
come
to
work
or
come
to
work
compromised
because
13
of
the
poor
air
quality.
14
So
this
is
not
an
abstract
concept.
It
is
not
15
something
that
is
just
sort
of
pushed
around
in
16
bureaucratic
circles.
It
has
true
human
health
17
implications,
it
has
true
environmental
implications,
and
18
we
need
to
move
forward
to
implement
a
very
strong
rule
to
19
get
us
clean
air.
The
promise
of
clean
air
continues
to
20
remain
elusive.
21
In
a
very
real
way,
it
is
like
approaching
a
22
finishing
line
in
a
race
and
then,
all
of
a
sudden,
the
23
182
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
judge
or
the
people
that
are
­­
the
regulatory
people,
1
sort
of,
in
the
race
begin
to
move
the
finishing
line
back
2
so
that
you
never
actually
get
the
race
finished.
And
I
3
think
we
are
in
a
race
for
clean
air,
and
we
need
EPA
to
4
hold
firm
the
line
for
healthy
air
and
for
attainment
5
throughout
the
country.
We
need
healthy
air.
6
To
be
honest
with
you,
I
am
a
little
confused
7
about
this
whole
process,
because
I
guess
at
this
point
we
8
don't
really
have
a
proposed
rule.
We
have
­­
I
think
the
9
terminology
I
will
use
is
we
have
a
framework.
It
is
a
10
little
uncertain
when
this
framework
is
actually
going
to
11
be
given
to
us
in
a
form
that
is
in
the
proposed
rule.
12
We
participated
with
a
number
of
other
groups
in
13
the
environmental
community
to
try
to
challenge
through
14
legal
means
to
get
EPA
to
hold
firm,
and
we
remain
15
frustrated
by
the
fact
that
it
seems
like
every
time
we
16
turn
around
we
are
dealing
with
a
regulatory
agency
that
17
is
vested
with
the
guy
that
is
to
protect
human
health
who
18
seems
to
be
moving
the
bar.
19
In
that
context,
I
want
to
make
just
a
few
20
comments
on
the
aspects
of
the
proposal
that
I
understand.
21
First
of
all,
we
need
very
strong
anti­
backsliding
22
provisions.
It
is
of
great
concern
that
as
you
move
from
23
183
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
a
1­
hour
standard
to
the
8­
hour
standard
that
we
do
not
1
want
to
see
progress
that
is
being
made
or
should
be
being
2
made
around
the
1­
hour
standard
to
somehow
or
another
3
slip.
If
I
understand
correctly,
the
whole
purpose
of
the
4
8­
hour
is
to
give
a
more
protective
standard
to
the
5
country
because
science
has
clearly
demonstrated
that
6
exposure
to
ozone
is
dangerous
to
human
health.
As
a
7
veterinarian,
we
used
to
use
ozone
to
purify
surgical
8
instruments.
Ozone
is
used
to
purify
water.
And
we
need
9
to
get
the
levels
reduced
in
the
atmosphere
so
that
we
10
have
healthy
air
to
breathe.
11
Now,
it
would
be
sadly
ironic
that
in
the
12
process
of
moving
to
a
more
healthy
standard
and
moving
13
from
the
1­
hour
standard
to
the
8­
hour
standard
that
14
somehow
or
another,
we
slipped
or
allowed
to
backslide
the
15
necessary
push
within
the
regulatory
community
to
get
16
local
governments
and
get
various
industries
and
others
17
who
are
contributing,
including
individuals
who
drive
18
their
automobiles,
to
all
of
a
sudden
see
that
start
to
19
backslide.
So
I
think
that
it
is
absolutely
imperative
20
that
there
is
no
way
that
in
the
transition
from
the
21
1­
hour
standard
to
the
8­
hour
standard
that
we
see
any
22
backsliding.
23
184
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
We
should
also
be
extremely
careful
that
the
1
term
flexibility
doesn't
become
synonymous
with
delay.
2
While
flexibility
is
conceptually
a
good
thing,
if
it
is
3
being
used
to
manipulate
the
rules
in
order
to
allow
delay
4
to
become
a
code
word
­­
flexibility
to
become
a
code
word
5
for
delay.
So
you
have
all
the
folks
that
are
being
6
regulated
out
there
saying
well,
we
need
greater
7
flexibility,
when
in
reality
what
they
are
saying
is
that
8
we
need
you
to
continue
to
delay
the
standard
because
we
9
don't
want
to
be
held
accountable
and
we
don't
want
to
10
make
the
investments,
we
don't
want
to
generate
the
11
political
will
so
that
we
actually
achieve
what
we
are
12
trying
to
do
here,
which
is
healthy
air.
So
I
am
13
concerned
that
you
read
through
this
flexibility
and
some
14
people
are
saying
delay,
and
I
think
it
is
critical
that
15
that
not
happen.
We
do
not
need
delay.
16
We
are
active
in
the
process
of
looking
at
the
17
Early
Action
Compacts
in
our
region.
We
are
skeptical.
18
We
are
not
sure
that
they
are
going
to
achieve
what
they
19
need
to
do.
But
we
do
know
one
thing,
that
the
threat
of
20
nonattainment
­­
it
was
characterized
in
an
article
this
21
past
weekend
as
the
scarlet
letter
for
many
of
these
22
communities
­­
is
a
powerful
hammer,
a
powerful
motivating
23
185
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
tool.
And
if
you
continue
to
sort
of
pull
that
back,
when
1
we
get
some
of
these
communities
moving
towards
trying
to
2
take
the
actions
to
move
forward
to
develop
the
political
3
will
to
actually
implement
measures
that
are
going
to
4
reduce
air
pollution,
you
don't
want
to
pull
that
back.
5
A
couple
of
other
very
quick
things.
We
do
not
6
support
modeling
reclassification.
Clearly,
we
need
to
be
7
looking
at
the
tons
in
the
air,
we
need
to
be
looking
at
8
the
actual
what
the
environment
sees,
what
my
lung
tissue
9
sees.
And
it
is
not
what
is
on
a
computer
screen
through
10
modeling,
it
is
actually
what
I
breathe,
what
I
am
exposed
11
to
in
the
atmosphere.
So
using
modeling
to
achieve
some
12
measure
of
weakening
the
standard
or
reclassification
to
13
lower
levels
of
the
designated
areas
in
the
rule
is
14
unacceptable.
You
should
go
by
what
we
are
seeing
in
the
15
atmosphere.
16
So
with
those
things,
again,
I
would
just
17
implore
upon
you,
please
do
not
weaken
what
we
are
doing.
18
We
are
close.
We
are
making
progress.
Let's
see
it
19
through.
Let's
not
use
flexibility
as
a
code
word
for
20
delay.
21
Thank
you
very
much.
22
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
23
186
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Questions?
1
(
No
response.)
2
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
Dr.
Smith.
3
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Stephen
Smith
was
4
concluded.)
5
MR.
HELMS:
The
podium
is
yours
by
yourself.
6
MS.
REEVES:
Thank
you
very
much.
7
TESTIMONY
OF
ULLA
REEVES
8
MS.
REEVES:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Ulla
9
Reeves.
I
am
also
with
the
Southern
Alliance
for
Clean
10
Energy.
I
am
the
regional
air
director.
I
am
going
to
11
say
everything
that
you
have
already
heard
before,
and
I
12
am
going
to
say
it
again.
13
First
of
all,
I
would
like
to
say
that
the
air
14
outside
is
really
gross,
and
I
am
having
a
hard
time
15
breathing
today.
I
think
Code
Red
days,
I
think
Code
16
Orange
days
and
especially
Code
Purple
days
are
17
unacceptable.
We
have
unacceptable
air
quality
outside.
18
We
have
the
means
and
the
know­
how
to
clean
up
19
the
air.
We
have
the
technology
available.
We
know
how
20
to
do
this.
So
my
question
to
EPA
is
why
are
we
proposing
21
extensions
of
time
and
leniency
to
those
responsible
for
22
polluting
our
air?
23
187
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
In
the
Southeast
where
we
live,
as
Steve
and
1
Valerie
and
other
people
have
mentioned,
there
are
2
approximately
23
million
people
living
in
areas
with
3
unhealthy
levels
of
ozone.
In
our
8
states
of
Alabama,
4
Georgia,
Florida,
Kentucky,
Mississippi,
North
Carolina,
5
South
Carolina
and
Tennessee,
there
are
9
cities
and
6
counties
violating
our
clean
air
standards.
And
that
is
7
just
the
counties
with
the
monitors
in
it;
that
is
not
8
reflective
of
the
counties
that
don't
have
the
monitors.
9
So,
again,
why
are
we
proposing
increased
10
flexibility
to
solve
these
problems?
I
thought
hard
for
a
11
while
for
an
analogy
about
this
issue
of
changing
12
designations
based
on
modeling.
We
don't
let
our
children
13
move
up
to
fifth
grade
without
passing
fourth
grade,
so
14
why
would
we
let
Atlanta,
with
a
severe
nonattainment
15
classification,
move
to
a
lesser
classification
without
16
actually
meeting
the
requirements
to
get
them
there?
17
We
are
very
concerned
about
this
EPA
proposal
18
allowing
changes
in
designation
based
on
arbitrary
future
19
hopeful
projections.
In
the
states
across
the
Southeast,
20
we
can't
wait
for
clean
air.
We
can't
breathe
when
we
are
21
having
Code
Red,
Code
Orange
and
Code
Purple
days.
22
Allowing
areas
lesser
classification
means
more
pollution
23
188
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
for
more
time,
and
that
is
simply
wrong.
1
Valerie
mentioned
our
concern
about
the
Early
2
Action
Compacts,
and
I
would
like
to
reiterate
this.
The
3
Early
Action
Compacts
would
essentially
allow
for
4
extensive
delays
in
actually
achieving
clean
air.
Early
5
Action
Compacts
are
technically
illegal
and
allow
areas
6
with
serious
air
quality
problems
to
avoid
the
tried
and
7
true
programs
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
8
Another
concern
that
I
would
like
to
highlight
9
is
that
EPA
is
holding
these
hearings
without
offering
a
10
formal
proposal
for
the
public
to
review
and
understand
11
before
giving
comment.
It
is
incredibly
difficult
for
the
12
general
public
to
formulate
comments
without
knowing
what
13
EPA
is
planning
on
writing
in
the
actual
rule.
I
would
14
like
to
request
that
EPA
issue
the
proposed
rule
before
15
August
1st
of
2003
so
that
we
have
time
to
comment
on
this
16
and
actually
see
what
is
going
to
be
written.
17
Furthermore,
it
is
critical
that
we
retain
the
18
April
15,
2004
deadline
for
nonattainment
designation
and
19
not
let
that
slip.
EPA
does
not
have
to
finalize
this
20
rule
in
order
to
make
the
nonattainment
designations,
and
21
we
would
like
to
ensure
that
those
designations
are
made
22
in
advance
of
the
rule
being
finalized.
23
189
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
The
bottom
line
is
that
both
through
the
process
1
and
the
details
of
this
preamble,
we
are
facing
potential
2
delays
for
clean
air,
and
that
is
unacceptable.
Let's
3
ensure
that
as
we
transition
areas
from
the
old
standard
4
to
the
new,
that
we
not
lose
sight
of
our
goal
that
is
5
real
and
attainable,
clean
air.
In
this
proposal,
EPA
6
seems
to
be
favoring
greater
flexibility,
longer
timelines
7
and
vague
rules
that
are
essentially
loopholes
for
8
nonattainment
and
will
prolong
getting
us
into
attainment
9
indefinitely.
10
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment.
11
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
12
Questions?
13
(
No
response.)
14
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
15
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Ulla
Reeves
was
16
concluded.)
17
MR.
HELMS:
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
exercise
18
the
prerogative
of
the
chair
here
to
take
a
ten­
minute
19
break.
We
will
convene
back
at
13
after
1:
00.
20
I
have
been
prompted
by
our
legal
assistant
21
here,
who
would
like
a
15­
minute
break.
Being
one
not
to
22
argue
with
our
Office
of
General
Counsel,
we'll
take
a
23
190
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
15­
minute
break.
1
(
Whereupon,
a
recess
was
taken
from
1:
00
p.
m.
to
2
1:
15
p.
m.)
3
MR.
HELMS:
Let's
reconvene
the
hearing.
4
TESTIMONY
OF
RONALD
L.
BERT,
(
via
e­
mail)
5
MR.
HELMS:
I
would
like
to
read
into
the
record
6
an
e­
mail
that
I
got
here
from
Ronald
L.
Bert
of
Falls
7
Church,
Virginia.
He
comments:
8
Like
many
of
the
concerned
public,
I
cannot
9
attend
this
hearing
as
it
conflicts
with
my
work
schedule,
10
specifically
doing
my
full­
time
job.
Therefore,
I
am
11
voicing
my
objection
through
you
­­
me
as
the
hearing
12
officer
reading
it
into
the
record
­­
about
the
appalling
13
attempt
to
roll
back
the
ozone
standards.
I
agree
with
14
and
would
like
the
reading
of
the
detailed
part
below
at
15
the
hearing
and/
or
submission
of
this
e­
mail
below
to
the
16
hearing.
17
The
detailed
part
that
I
will
read
in
his
behalf
18
as
hearing
officer:
19
Right
now,
140
million
Americans,
more
than
half
20
of
our
population,
live
in
areas
where
ozone­
forming
smog
21
levels
are
high
enough
to
cause
serious
health
problems.
22
Unfortunately,
the
rule
that
is
being
proposed
will
delay
23
191
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
and
loosen
clean
air
requirements
in
those
areas
where
it
1
is
literally
unsafe
to
breathe.
This
would
mean
more
smog
2
and
higher
instances
of
asthma
and
other
respiratory
3
ailments
for
children
and
others
in
that
population
that
4
exist
living
in
these
areas.
For
more
information,
please
5
visit
­­
and
it
gives
a
website,
and
I
will
not
read
6
through
that.
I
wouldn't
make
it
through
without
messing
7
it
up,
but
it
will
be
in
the
record.
8
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
dedication
to
help
9
enhance
and
protect
our
national
parks
for
present
and
10
future
generations.
The
NPCA
Grassroots
Staff.
National
11
ParkLines
is
a
publication
of
the
National
Parks
12
Conservation
Association's
Park
Action
Network.
13
So
I
will
give
this
to
the
court
reporter
as
14
part
of
the
record.
15
Our
next
presenter,
Brooke
Suter.
The
podium
is
16
yours.
17
TESTIMONY
OF
BROOKE
SUTER
18
MS.
SUTER:
Good
afternoon.
I
would
first
like
19
to
thank
you
very
much
for
your
stamina
here
at
these
EPA
20
hearings.
I
know
that
they
are
long
days,
and
I
know
that
21
everyone
works
very
hard
on
these
issues.
It
is
so
22
important
that
the
public
has
the
opportunity
to
comment.
23
192
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
I
am
the
Connecticut
director
for
Clean
Water
1
Action
and
the
Clean
Water
Fund.
My
primary
reason
for
2
being
here
today,
however,
is
as
the
lead
coordinator
for
3
the
Connecticut
Coalition
for
Clean
Air.
I
agree
with
all
4
the
comments
that
have
been
said
here
today.
There
has
5
been
some
tremendous
compelling
testimony.
6
I
came
here
today
from
Connecticut
with
Dr.
Mark
7
Mitchell,
who
went
over
some
of
the
medical
information,
8
with
Andy
Bauer
and
Joanna
and
Aiden
and
Holly,
that
9
family
from
Portland
who
outlined
some
other
issues,
and
10
with
Stephanie
Sanchez,
from
the
Norwalk
area.
And
those
11
are
just
a
few
of
the
people
from
a
coalition
that
12
includes
over
130
organizations,
over
half
a
million
13
Connecticut
residents.
14
What
is
significant
about
that
is
when
you
think
15
of
the
fact
that
the
state
only
has
3.2
million
people
in
16
it,
half
a
million
of
them
are
willing
to
say
specifically
17
that
they
are
concerned
about
this
issue
and
are
willing
18
to
take
action.
I
think
that
says
a
lot.
19
What
I
thought
I
would
add
to
that
group
effort
20
is
to
explain
a
little
bit
how
broad
the
Coalition
is
and
21
the
broad­
based
support
for
this.
I
think
often,
sort
of
22
the
usual
suspects
come
forward.
You
might
have
some
23
193
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
public
health
advocates.
You
might
have
some
1
environmental
groups.
But
what
you
should
know
about
the
2
Connecticut
Coalition
for
Clean
Air
is
that
those
members
3
include
health
organizations
like
the
American
Lung
4
Association
of
Connecticut
and
more
conservative
groups
5
like
the
Greater
Bridgeport
Medical
Association.
These
6
were
not
­­
there
is
a
long
process
that
one
has
to
go
7
through
to
get
these
kinds
of
people
on
board
with
these
8
sorts
of
issues.
9
It
also
includes
faith
communities,
the
10
Connecticut
Conference
of
the
United
Church
of
Christ,
the
11
Committee
on
the
Environment,
the
Episcopal
Diocese
of
12
Connecticut
are
a
couple.
There
are
130
groups
­­
I
won't
13
read
all
of
them
­­
public
interest
groups
like
the
14
Connecticut
Citizen
Action
Group
and
the
Connecticut
15
Public
Interest
Research
Group.
So
those
are
some
­­
16
those
are
more
usual
suspects.
17
But
then
you
have,
for
instance,
the
teachers,
18
the
Fairfield
Education
Association,
understanding
how
19
significant
asthma
attacks
and
high
ozone
days
are
for
the
20
loss
of
school
days
for
teachers,
loss
of
workdays,
and
21
for
the
future
of
our
children
and
their
ability
to
be
22
effective
members
of
society
and
get
an
education
by
being
23
194
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
able
to
attend
school
and
not
be
in
the
emergency
room.
1
There
are
political
organizations
like
the
League
of
Women
2
Voters
of
Connecticut
and
then
other
environmental
3
organizations
like
Clean
Water
Action
or
Toxics
Action
4
Center
and
NCR
Club
of
Connecticut.
There
are
groups
that
5
are
concerned
about
these
issues.
There
are
not
just
a
6
few
concerned
people
that
are
impacted.
7
I
am
sure
you
all
are
incredibly
aware
after
the
8
compelling
testimony
today
of
how
many
people
from
across
9
the
country
have
very
severe
and
direct
impacts
from
high
10
ozone,
and
I
need
to
convey
to
you
that
these
people
and
11
this
coalition
of
people
don't
understand
delay.
It
is
12
simply
unacceptable
to
delay
any
further.
Six
years
to
13
get
the
rule
moving
is
one
thing,
but
to
delay
beyond
this
14
point
is
something
that,
frankly,
as
their
organizing
15
leader,
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
explain
to
them.
They
look
16
at
me
and
say
you
must
be
kidding;
they
have
to
do
17
something
now;
my
child
is
in
the
emergency
room
today.
18
I
guess
the
underscoring
point
is
that
this
is
19
all
preventable,
and
I
would
say
we
need
to
prevent
it.
20
Thank
you.
21
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much
for
taking
the
22
time
to
come
down.
23
195
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
(
Whereupon
the
testimony
of
Brooke
Suter
was
1
concluded.)
2
MR.
HELMS:
Amy
Beck.
Amy,
you
have
been
3
waiting
very
patiently.
The
podium
is
yours.
4
TESTIMONY
OF
AMY
BECK
5
MS.
BECK:
I
am
Amy
Beck,
and
I
am
not
with
any
6
organization.
I
am
a
student
at
ETSU
in
Johnson
City,
7
Tennessee.
And
I
am
like
one
of
the
citizens
that
she
was
8
talking
about
who
doesn't
understand,
doesn't
understand
9
why,
when
we
have
the
technology
and
the
science
to
10
protect
our
environment
and
to
protect
our
health,
why
it
11
is
getting
pushed
back
and
why
it
is
not
fixed
now.
12
I
just
last
month
watched
a
friend
die.
His
13
lungs
shut
down
and
filled
with
fluid,
and
I
watched
him
14
take
his
last
breath.
Nobody
should
have
to
go
through
15
that.
You
all
have
the
power
to
prevent
some
of
that
from
16
happening,
and
I
hope
that
you
will
do
that,
because
our
17
lives
are
in
your
hands,
and
we
are
trusting
you.
18
I
came
because
I
want
to
just
remind
you
and
to
19
let
you
all
know
that
even
if
some
of
us
don't
know
a
lot
20
of
the
science
about
this
­­
and
I
don't
know
a
lot
about
21
politics
­­
I
am
trusting
you
all
to
make
the
right
22
decisions
and
to
protect
my
life
and
my
health
and
my
23
196
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
family's
health.
1
Thank
you.
2
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
coming
all
3
the
way
from
Johnson
City.
4
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Amy
Beck
was
5
concluded.)
6
MR.
HELMS:
Lee
Epstein,
the
podium
is
yours.
7
TESTIMONY
OF
LEE
EPSTEIN
8
MR.
EPSTEIN:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Hearing
Officer.
I
9
didn't
come
all
the
way
from
Tennessee,
but
I
did
walk
13
10
long,
hot
blocks
from
the
Metro.
11
My
name
is
Lee
Epstein.
I
am
the
director
of
12
the
lands
program
at
the
Chesapeake
Bay
Foundation,
which
13
is
a
regional
environmental
organization
here
in
the
14
Mid­
Atlantic.
We
have
about
110,000
members,
mostly
in
15
the
states
of
Maryland,
Virginia
and
Pennsylvania
and
the
16
District
of
Columbia,
but
actually
across
the
country.
17
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
this
brief
18
testimony
on
EPA's
proposed
implementation
plan.
19
In
our
view,
most
of
the
implications
for
the
20
Agency's
preferred
plan
of
action
are
substantially
21
negative
for
human
health,
the
environment
and,
in
our
22
case,
the
Chesapeake
Bay,
which
is
already
hugely
stressed
23
197
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
by
nitrogen
pollution.
The
implementation
proposal
should
1
largely
be
rejected,
at
least
with
respect
to
the
matters
2
I
mention
below.
3
Timely
attainment
of
national
ambient
air
4
quality
standards
is,
first
and
foremost,
an
objective
in
5
law
already
past
due,
but
it
is
also
too
dear
to
the
291
6
counties
estimated
to
be
in
violation
to
leave
to
chance
7
or
near
impossibility
in
the
short
term,
as
these
various
8
proposals
would
do.
The
new
8­
hour
standards
are
intended
9
to
obtain
significant
seasonal
reductions
in
ozone,
10
important
for
restoring
the
health
of
the
Chesapeake
Bay,
11
which
actually
would
be
restored
even
quicker
with
year­
12
round
reductions.
But
the
current
proposals
would
unduly
13
delay
and
actually
jeopardize
full
implementation
to
reach
14
those
goals
in
a
timely
manner.
15
There
are
several
problems
with
the
proposals.
16
First,
many
areas
that
would
otherwise
be
classified
as
17
moderate
for
nonattainment
under
the
Clean
Air
Act's
18
public
health
standards
based
on
the
new
8­
hour
values
­­
19
thus
making
them
subject
to
local
controls
on
industry
and
20
vehicle
emissions
­­
could
be
exempted
here
from
such
21
control
because
they
are,
quote,
expected,
end
quote,
to
22
attain
the
standards
by
2007
anyway.
23
198
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Additionally,
nonattainment
areas
could
be
1
placed
in
a
less
demanding
designation
by
using
analytic
2
models
to
show
that
they
will
attain
their
standard
within
3
three
years
and
by
showing
the
influence
of
out­
of­
area
4
air
pollution
sources.
This
is
the
case
even
though
such
5
analyses
are
often
notoriously
weak,
as
are
many
of
the
6
incentives
and
local
voluntary
programs
that
are
currently
7
in
place
and
that
are
used
reportedly
to
arrive
at
air
8
quality
attainment.
9
Second,
transportation
conformity,
the
major
10
Clean
Air
Act
program
that
requires
regional
11
transportation
plans
be
within
the
vehicle
emission
limits
12
established
in
state
implementation
plans,
would
be
13
wrongly
transformed.
This
essential
accountability
14
program,
strengthened
in
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
amendments
15
precisely
because
of
the
substantial
influence
of
16
transportation
emissions
and
ozone,
would
be
seriously
17
weakened
by
this
proposal.
18
Along
these
lines,
the
proposal
would
permit
19
regions
to
ignore
or
reject
adopted
emissions
budgets
and
20
so­
called
reasonable
further
progress
targets
that
are
21
derived
from
the
1­
hour
standard
as
well
as
the
air
22
quality
standard
bump
up
to
a
higher
standard
that
has
23
199
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
occurred
in
certain
nonattainment
areas.
1
Honest
conformity
and
its
rigorous
tests
and
2
analyses
would
no
longer
apply,
and
the
transportation
3
plan
would
no
longer
need
to
conform
to
the
pollution
4
limits
of
the
currently
accepted
and
the
currently
adopted
5
1­
hour
ozone
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget
once
a
new
6
8­
hour
designation
is
put
in
place,
even
though
the
7
8­
hour
SIPs,
the
8­
hour
state
implementation
plans,
would
8
not
be
due
for
at
least
another
two
years.
9
Instead,
a
nonattainment
area
could
use
the
old
10
and
discredited
build/
no
build
conformity
test
to
measure
11
projects
until
the
new
standard's
emission
budgets
and
12
plan
are
formulated
a
couple
of
years
hence.
Thus,
13
traffic
growth
and
pollution
increases
to
continue
during
14
this
time,
though
the
increased
emissions
would
continue
15
to
adversely
affect
human
health
and
the
environment.
16
Indeed,
just
by
virtue
of
coming
under
the
17
8­
hour
standard's
protective
umbrella,
the
requirement
for
18
an
April
2005
adoption
of
more
stringent
pollution
19
controls
if
an
area
fails
to
attain
more
healthful
air
20
quality
under
the
1­
hour
standard
would
be
abandoned.
21
Finally,
for
areas
that
recently
failed
to
meet
but
now
22
need
to
maintain
their
achievement
of
the
standards,
23
200
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
conformity
reviews
would
no
longer
be
required,
1
eliminating
necessary
ongoing
monitoring.
2
For
human
health,
the
implications
are
serious,
3
especially
vulnerable
populations
such
as
children,
the
4
elderly
and
those
with
compromised
respiratory
systems
5
that
number
in
the
hundreds
of
thousands
in
some
6
nonattainment
areas
would
continue
to
suffer.
For
7
transportation
systems
and
facilities,
major
projects
will
8
proceed
that
can
result
in
substantial
sprawl
and
further
9
air
quality
degradation
without
the
kind
of
analysis
10
necessary
to
determine
the
degree
of
adverse
impact
and
11
without
the
strong
standards
against
which
such
proposal
12
should
be
measured.
13
For
already
stressed
environmental
systems
such
14
as
the
Chesapeake
Bay,
NO
x
problems
­­
nitrogen
oxide
15
problems
­­
originating
within
the
many
nonattainment
16
areas
within
our
watershed
will
continue
to
worsen,
17
leading
to
higher
nitrogen
loadings
instead
of
lower
ones
18
and
delayed
or
ultimately
denied
necessary
improvements.
19
Thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
20
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
21
Questions?
22
(
No
response.)
23
201
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
Thanks
again.
1
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Lee
Epstein
was
2
concluded.)
3
MR.
HELMS:
Melissa
Bernardin,
the
podium
is
4
yours.
5
TESTIMONY
OF
MELISSA
BERNARDIN
6
MS.
BERNARDIN:
Melissa
Bernardin,
Clean
Water
7
Action,
163
Court
Street,
Portsmouth,
New
Hampshire
03801.
8
Good
afternoon.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
9
you
today.
My
name
is
Melissa
Bernardin.
I
am
here
on
10
behalf
of
the
3,000
members
of
New
Hampshire
Clean
Water
11
Action.
12
We
have
heard
overwhelming
public
opinion
today
13
that
current
unhealthy
air
quality
in
our
nation
is
an
14
unacceptable
threat
that
we
must
deal
with
swiftly
and
15
without
leniency.
Coming
from
the
Live
Free
or
Die
State,
16
I
would
add
that
it
is
unacceptable
for
the
federal
17
government
to
allow
our
air
to
get
so
dirty
that
people
18
must
be
advised
to
stay
indoors
on
certain
days
as
19
prisoners,
more
or
less,
in
our
own
homes.
20
Taking
it
to
the
regional
level,
when
you
live
21
in
New
England,
where
warm
weather
comes
around
just
three
22
to
four
months
per
year,
being
advised
to
stay
indoors
for
23
202
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
even
one
summer
day,
separate
from
being
worrisome
for
1
asthmatic
families,
is
downright
disappointing.
Surely
2
you
can
appreciate
how
enjoyable
the
sun
is
after
winters
3
such
as
the
last,
where
the
north
country
of
our
state
was
4
dealt
Arctic
blasts
as
chilling
as
80
degrees
below
5
Fahrenheit
with
wind
chill,
not
to
mention
how
our
summer
6
tourism
revenues
may
suffer
from
advisories
to
stay
7
indoors.
8
In
New
Hampshire
in
2002,
approximately
one
day
9
out
of
every
two
summer
weeks
were
unhealthy
air
days,
and
10
we
have
already
had
at
least
one
unhealthy
ozone
11
designated
day
in
New
Hampshire
this
year,
2003.
EPA's
12
published
set
of
quote/
unquote
options
for
implementing
13
the
1997
8­
hour
ozone
standard
would
weaken
clean
air
14
protections
for
our
country.
Failure
to
reign
in
nitrogen
15
pollution
in
the
U.
S.
will
allow
further
harm
to
New
16
Hampshire's
natural
environment,
as
our
state
is
located
17
downwind
of
the
East
Coast's
most
smoggy
areas.
18
Now
I
want
to
focus
for
just
a
couple
minutes
on
19
the
ecosystem
impacts
that
will
persist
should
EPA
choose
20
a
path
forward
that
allows
standards
for
ozone
compliance
21
to
be
weakened.
Much
of
this
testimony
draws
on
the
22
recent
nitrogen
publication
and
bioscience
paper
prepared
23
203
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
by
the
Hubbard
Brook
Research
Foundation's
Science
Links
1
project,
work
that
was
undertaken
to
advance
a
scientific
2
policy
and
public
understanding
of
nitrogen
pollution.
3
Because
it
is
field
season,
scientists
associated
with
4
this
study
were
not
available
to
attend
this
hearing,
but
5
they
will
be
submitting
written
comments.
6
Nitrogen
pollution
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
7
is
linked
to
several
major
environmental
issues,
number
8
one,
acid
rain.
Nitrogen
oxides
from
fossil
fuel
9
combustion
contribute
to
the
formation
of
acid
rain.
10
Unlike
sulfur
dioxide,
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxides
have
11
not
declined
over
the
past
decade.
The
well­
documented
12
impacts
of
acid
rain
include
acidification
of
many
lakes
13
and
streams,
such
that
they
are
too
acidic
to
support
fish
14
life,
depletion
of
essential
basic
nutrients,
such
as
15
calcium
from
soils,
reduction
in
colder
stress
tolerance
16
in
some
tree
species,
including
red
spruce
and
sugar
17
maple.
18
Two,
ground­
level
ozone.
Nitrogen
oxides
19
contribute
to
the
formation
of
trophospheric
ozone,
which
20
damages
plant
tissue,
thus
resulting
in
reductions
in
21
forest
growth
and
crop
yield.
22
Three,
nitrogen
saturation
in
forests.
Nitrogen
23
204
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
deposition
can
overfertilize
forests.
Excessive
inputs
1
over
a
long
period
of
time,
such
as
has
occurred
in
the
2
many
parts
of
the
eastern
U.
S.,
reduce
tree
vigor
and
3
allow
nitrogen
to
leak
from
soils
into
surface
waters,
4
thus
exacerbating
acidic
conditions.
5
And
four,
nitrification
of
coastal
waters.
The
6
nitrogen
that
enters
rivers
flows
downstream
to
coastal
7
waters,
where
it
can
cause
nitrification
or
8
overenrichments.
Symptoms
include
algoblooms,
low
oxygen
9
events,
fish
kills,
loss
of
sea
grasses
and
loss
of
10
aquatic
life.
Nitrification
of
coastal
waters
is
one
of
11
the
most
widespread
water
quality
problems
in
the
U.
S.
12
The
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
has
13
identified
42
major
estuaries
in
the
nation
that
have
been
14
nitrified
as
a
result
of
overenrichment
related
to
15
nitrogen
pollution.
16
The
last
point
that
I
would
like
to
make:
In
a
17
study
published
last
month
in
Atmospheric
Environment,
18
Dr.
Gene
Likens
­­
this
was
mentioned
earlier
today
­­
and
19
his
coauthors
offer
strong
evidence
that
controls
on
NO
x
20
emissions
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
are
essential
to
21
reduce
rainfall
acidity,
ground­
level
ozone,
nitrogen
22
deposition
and
coastal
pollution.
The
article
shows
that,
23
205
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
unlike
sulfur,
where
there
is
almost
a
one­
to­
one
1
relationship
between
emissions
and
deposition,
that
the
2
NO
x
emission
deposition
ratio
requires
a
deeper
NO
x
3
emissions
reduction.
This
means
a
50
percent
reduction
in
4
deposition
could
require
a
60
percent
reduction
in
5
emissions.
Given
that
instead
NO
x
emissions
have
remained
6
unchanged
for
over
a
decade,
it
is
critical
now
to
support
7
actions
that
result
in
meaningful
cuts.
8
Weakening
the
clean
air
protections
by
extending
9
deadlines
and
allowing
control
measures
that
are
unlikely
10
to
bring
areas
into
ozone
compliance
is
a
step
in
the
11
wrong
direction.
Many
of
our
nation's
ecosystems
will
12
shoulder
the
burden
of
such
a
decision.
There
is
an
13
opportunity
to
require
reductions
that
will
benefit
our
14
forests,
lakes,
stream
and
coastal
waters.
Such
an
15
opportunity
should
not
be
missed.
16
Thank
you.
17
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
18
Questions?
19
(
No
response.)
20
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
21
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Melissa
Bernardin
22
was
concluded.)
23
206
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
Now,
is
anyone
here
on
a
very
tight
1
time
frame?
2
(
No
response.)
3
MR.
HELMS:
Okay.
Seeing
no
hands
raised,
we
4
will
go
through
the
list
here.
5
Julie
Crenshaw,
come
forward.
The
podium
is
6
yours.
Be
sure
to
give
us
your
name,
affiliation
and
so
7
forth,
Ms.
Crenshaw.
8
TESTIMONY
OF
JULIE
CRENSHAW
9
MS.
CRENSHAW:
Good
afternoon.
I
am
Julie
10
Crenshaw.
I
am
the
chair
of
the
Air
Quality
Public
11
Advisory
Committee
at
the
Council
of
Governments.
I
am
12
also
a
citizen
here
in
Alexandria.
Today
I
am
not
13
speaking
for
the
committee,
but
I
think
it
is
important
14
that
you
understand
that
I
am
affiliated
with
that
group.
15
I
have
been
there
for
ten
years.
This
is
my
third
year
as
16
chair.
17
Many
of
the
things
that
I
have
seen
in
the
last
18
ten
years
and
the
people
I
have
spoken
with
have
been
19
represented
here
today.
Mr.
Helms,
I
am
glad
you
are
from
20
North
Carolina.
The
man
who
owns
Grandfather
Mountain
21
once
said
to
me
in
the
last
decade
­­
he
said
please,
I
22
want
my
trees
to
stop
dying.
And
it
was
because
of
the
23
207
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
air
quality.
1
The
North
Carolina
State
University
has
done
2
some
very
good
research
into
effects
of
air
quality
on
3
tree
development,
and
many
of
the
tests
that
they
have
4
done
have
shown
conclusively
that
air
quality
stunted
the
5
growth
and
the
normal
development
of
trees
that
were
6
growing,
and
one
of
them
was
a
seedling
­­
were
seedlings
7
from
Grandfather
Mountain.
8
The
people
who
sit
on
my
committee
represent
a
9
lot
of
different
areas
in
this
particular
region,
from
10
business
to
environment
to
health
to
general
citizens.
11
Many
of
the
concerns
that
we
have
as
the
public
do
not
12
always
carry
over
to
the
political
will
and
the
political
13
information
that
is
submitted
to
EPA.
Many
of
the
things
14
that
the
public
would
like
to
see
happen,
the
politicians
15
who
will
send
you
state
implementation
plans,
they
are
not
16
as
stringent
as
what
the
public
would
like
to
see,
because
17
of
the
political
will,
because
of
the
fact
that
they
want
18
to
be
reelected.
19
And
it
is
not
that
people
don't
care.
Mirant
20
has
a
seat
on
my
committee,
and
the
fellow
who
represents
21
Mirant,
which
we
have
one
of
the
powerplants
down
here
on
22
the
Potomac
River,
it
is
grandfathered,
although
I
have
23
208
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
never
understood
the
term
grandfathered,
because
no
1
grandfather
would
want
something
that
pollutes
for
his
2
children,
his
grandchildren,
et
cetera.
3
They
had
had
problems
with
the
regulations
for
4
EPA
specifically
under
the
new
source
review.
There
is
5
confusion.
There
is
some
things
that
they
would
like
to
6
do,
but
they
don't
have
the
permission
to
do
some
of
the
7
things
that
would
clean
up
their
plants.
Now,
this
is
not
8
necessarily
their
grandfathered
plants.
But
there
seems
9
to
be
some
confusion
about
what
they
can
do
that
would
be
10
beneficial
in
implementing
improvements
that
they
say
11
would
clean
the
air.
I
don't
know
what
needs
to
happen,
12
but
I
feel
like
this
gentleman
is
being
very
honest
with
13
me.
14
As
well,
the
people
who
live
near
this
Mirant
15
plant
down
on
the
water,
the
coal
that
they
stack
up
to
16
fuel
their
plant
is
not
covered.
So
these
people
can't
17
open
their
windows
because
they
get
coal
dust
in
the
18
windows.
I
mean,
this
is
aside
from
what
comes
out
of
the
19
smokestacks.
If
Alexandria
had
their
way,
they
would
tell
20
them
to
leave.
They
don't
want
the
plant
here,
but
they
21
don't
have
the
wherewithal
to
say
we
don't
want
that.
22
There
needs
to
be
some
local
control
about
what
happens
in
23
209
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
an
area
related
to
air
quality,
and
that
isn't
here,
and
1
we
need
that.
2
This
area
has
had
50
plus
days
of
rain
up
until
3
this
particular
week,
Code
Green
all
across
the
board.
4
All
of
a
sudden,
once
the
Code
Green
went
away
and
we
got
5
90
degree
weather,
we
are
Code
Red
and
Code
Purple.
This
6
tells
me
that
we
have
a
crisis.
I
don't
know
whether
this
7
air
is
coming
down
from
Baltimore
or
whether
it
is
coming
8
from
the
Ohio
Valley.
That's
the
way
our
airshed
is.
But
9
if
that
is
not
the
case,
then
the
problem
is
here.
If
we
10
could
get
the
Ohio
Valley
to
clean
up
their
air,
we
11
wouldn't
have
to
deal
with
it
in
this
location.
12
There
has
to
be
more
localized
responsibility,
13
and
it
can't
be
voluntary.
There
are
people
and
there
are
14
companies
who
do
everything
that
they
possibly
can,
but
15
that
is
not
the
norm.
And
until
the
norm
is
such
that
16
people
take
responsibility,
we
have
to
have
the
17
regulation,
and
people
want
the
regulation.
People
are
18
asking
why
are
we
having
to
go
through
this
severe
19
situation
and
why
wasn't
something
done
to
start
with.
20
Sometimes
the
research
that
is
done
at
the
local
21
level
to
determine
what
the
situation
is,
given
that
we
22
had
to
go
back
ten
years
to
look
at
the
data
to
determine
23
210
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
what
was
happening
for
a
severe
status
­­
which
is
what
we
1
are
going
to
be
bumped
up
to
­­
it
is
very
tedious.
A
lot
2
of
the
time
they
were
calling
EPA
for
guidance
constantly.
3
I
don't
know
what
the
give
and
take
was
there,
4
but
at
the
last
Metropolitan
Washington
Air
Quality
5
Committee,
where
we
were
looking
at
putting
out
the
state
6
implementation
plan
for
public
comment,
nobody
from
EPA
7
was
there.
And
it
is
crucial
that
at
every
one
of
these
8
MWAQC
meetings
we
have
someone
from
EPA
there.
Sometimes
9
we
have
questions,
sometimes
we
don't,
but
that
was
really
10
critical,
because
given
we
were
at
that
point
putting
out
11
the
state
implementation
plan
for
public
comment,
there
12
were
some
questions
that
I
think
would
have
been
asked
of
13
EPA
before
this
was
done.
14
So
we
need
more
localized
ability
to
deal
with
15
things,
and
if
every
jurisdiction
did
something
at
the
16
local
level,
we
wouldn't
get
the
downwind
from
Ohio
or
the
17
downwind
from
Baltimore
or
they
wouldn't
get
wind
that
18
comes
from
us,
which
is
not
usually
the
norm.
We
would
19
have
better
ability
to
deal
with
this,
and
it
would
20
straighten
out
the
national
problem.
21
Thank
you.
22
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
Thanks
for
taking
the
23
211
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
time
to
come
in.
1
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Julie
Crenshaw
was
2
concluded.)
3
MR.
HELMS:
Robert
Dalton,
the
podium
is
yours.
4
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
brief
discussion
off
the
5
record.)
6
TESTIMONY
OF
ROBERT
DALTON
7
MR.
DALTON:
Thank
you.
It
is
good
to
see
a
lot
8
of
southerners
here.
I
know
I
moved
down
from
New
Jersey
9
to
South
Carolina.
The
air
quality
was
a
lot
cleaner
and,
10
16
years
later,
there
is
a
great
deterioration
in
the
air
11
quality.
My
talk
will
be
a
little
bit
­­
probably
12
different
than
most
of
the
talks
today,
but
it
will
focus
13
on,
probably,
the
same
issues.
14
Good
afternoon,
ladies
and
gentlemen
and
members
15
of
the
U.
S.
EPA.
My
name
is
Robert
Dalton.
I
am
vice
16
president
of
business
development
and
government
affairs
17
for
ESTEC
Enterprises.
I
am
a
member
of
South
Carolina's
18
staff
advisory
committee
for
the
Early
Action
Compact
for
19
Greenville,
Spartanburg
and
Anderson
Counties.
I
am
a
20
staunch
supporter
of
a
clean
and
healthy
environment
21
through
free
enterprise.
I
am
an
ultraconservative
and
a
22
free
trader
that
is
not
aligned
with
any
political
party.
23
212
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
ESTEC
Enterprises
bases
its
principles
on
free
1
trade.
I
have
previously
participated
in
the
U.
S.
EPA's
2
public
comment,
and
I
have
attended
meetings
concerning
3
innovative
initiatives
for
the
print
industry
and
4
inaugural
and
subsequent
meetings
for
the
U.
S.
EPA
Common
5
Sense
Initiative
dating
back
to
1994,
and
I
have
attended
6
clean
coal
events
sponsored
by
the
Department
of
Energy.
7
My
public
comment
will
end
with
an
explanation
8
of
why
Ms.
Diane
Eldridge
walked
out
of
the
last
staff
9
advisory
committee
meeting
for
the
Early
Action
Compact
10
very
upset.
Ms.
Eldridge
is
the
associate
director
of
11
Upstate
Forever,
a
South
Carolina
organization
concerned
12
about
social
issues
affecting
the
future
of
South
13
Carolina.
My
comment
will
begin
with
addressing
the
14
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
rule,
addressing
the
areas
in
15
this
proposal
that
would
automatically
trigger
a
federal
16
lawsuit
against
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
comments
on
my
position.
17
Further
written
statements
will
be
sent
to
the
U.
S.
EPA
18
prior
to
the
deadline
for
public
comment.
19
First,
there
exists
no
difference
in
the
20
capabilities
of
technology,
cost
of
technology
and
the
21
ability
of
the
general
public
to
be
expeditiously
as
22
practical
in
reducing
ozone
precursors
to
meet
the
1­
hour
23
213
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
and
8­
hour
standards.
Therefore,
the
extension
of
time
1
provided
by
this
proposed
implementation
standard
is
2
unwarranted.
The
capabilities
of
technologies
and
the
3
costs
of
technologies
to
meet
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
4
standard
by
the
time
frame
of
the
1­
hour
standard
is
only
5
limited
to
the
desire
of
the
Bush
Administration
to
reduce
6
the
deaths,
asthma
attacks
and
the
associated
medical
7
costs
and
health
problems
of
the
general
public
that
is
8
associated
with
ground­
level
ozone.
The
ozone
standard
9
has
changed,
but
the
technology
remains
the
same,
is
more
10
readily
available
and
cheaper
than
it
was
ten
years
ago.
11
I
am
willing
to
testify
to
Congress
on
these
topics.
12
In
the
will
and
efforts
to
reduce
ozone
13
precursors
that
protect
the
general
health
and
welfare
of
14
the
public
by
the
federal
government,
both
the
legislative
15
and
executive
branches
over
the
last
30
years
have
been
16
negligent
in
their
duties
to
the
general
public.
This
17
negligence
appears
to
continue
with
this
proposal.
While
18
the
Supreme
Court
has
remanded
the
implementation
of
the
19
8­
hour
ozone
standard
to
the
U.
S.
EPA
for
obvious
reasons,
20
there
exists
no
evidence
that
the
intent
of
the
21
expeditiously
as
practical
clause
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
22
the
Clean
Air
Act
amendment
in
1990
for
attainment
cannot
23
214
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
be
met
by
the
year
2010
or
within
a
reasonable
extension
1
of
time
for
severe
nonattainment
regions.
2
When
one
examines
the
time
frames
of
the
3
proposed
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard,
one
finds
4
that
the
time
frame
for
nonattainment
extends
by
more
than
5
one
decade.
This
is
an
absurd
result
by
any
standards,
6
due
to
the
fact
and
common
sense
that
the
8­
hour
standard
7
was
enacted
because
of
the
new
health
data
regarding
the
8
adverse
effects
of
ground
level
ozone
on
the
general
9
public.
10
The
proposed
implementation
plan's
options
for
11
the
new
8­
hour
standard
exposes
the
general
public
to
ten
12
more
years
of
unhealthy
air
quality,
while
the
intentions
13
of
the
8­
hour
standard
was
to
protect
the
health
of
the
14
general
public
due
to
new
science
that
supports
the
fact
15
that
ground­
level
ozone
is
worse
for
the
health
of
the
16
general
public
than
previously
understood.
These
proposed
17
implementations
place
the
Bush
Administration
and
the
U.
S.
18
EPA
in
a
position
of
neglect
with
regard
to
the
health
of
19
the
general
public
regarding
ozone.
20
Nonattainment
deadlines
for
the
standards
that
21
are
later
than
2012
would
trigger
a
lawsuit.
Therefore,
I
22
now
present
the
U.
S.
EPA
with
Freedom
of
Information
Act
23
215
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
requests.
The
requests
are
as
follows:
1
The
first
Freedom
of
Information
Act
request:
2
What
is
the
probability
of
a
ground
level
ozone
event
that
3
would
trigger
a
violation
of
the
8­
hour
standard
based
4
upon
concentration
of
ozone
precursors
in
all
suspected
5
counties
for
nonattainment
of
the
8­
hour
standards
based
6
upon
weather
conditions
from
data
of
the
past
100
years
in
7
each
of
those
counties?
If
there
exists
no
data
for
100
8
years,
then
base
the
calculation
on
the
largest
year
9
amount
data.
Furthermore,
what
is
the
probability
of
10
triggering
a
ground­
level
ozone
event
if
the
ozone
11
precursors
from
a
point,
area
or
major
source
were
reduced
12
in
the
ozone
transportation
region
by
70
percent,
by
80
13
percent
and
by
90
percent?
Please
use
the
most
current
14
data
for
ozone
precursors.
15
The
second
request:
How
many
premature
deaths
16
and
asthma
attacks
would
be
prevented
and
what
is
the
cost
17
savings
of
health
expenses
due
to
a
70
percent,
80
percent
18
and
90
percent
reduction
of
ozone
precursors
in
the
ozone
19
transportation
region
if
they
were
implemented
in
2005,
20
compared
to
the
proposed
implementation
timetables
of
the
21
8­
hour
standard
by
the
U.
S.
EPA?
22
The
purpose
of
examining
the
historical
weather
23
216
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
events
that
would
lead
to
adverse
levels
of
ground­
level
1
ozone
is
to
back
a
statement
recently
published
in
the
2
Atlanta
Journal
and
Constitution
on
Thursday,
June
26th.
3
The
article
clearly
states
that
the
weather
greatly
4
affects
the
violations
of
the
ozone
standard.
I
quote:
5
Although
scientists
attribute
much
of
the
approvement
to
6
favorable
weather,
the
number
of
days
that
the
area
7
violated
the
federal
smog
standard
dropped
to
seven
last
8
year
from
twenty­
one
in
1999.
9
Our
position
is
that
the
health
of
the
general
10
public
is
too
important
to
rely
on
the
fickleness
of
the
11
weather.
Therefore,
it
would
be
considered
an
absurd
12
result
or
absurd
basis
if
attainment
solely
rested
on
the
13
weather.
For
example,
if
attainment
in
2004
can
be
14
achieved
by
the
weather
and
wind
direction
in
previous
15
years
in
a
specific
region,
then
in
subsequent
years,
the
16
weather
and
wind
direction
could
produce
adverse
health
17
effects
due
to
ground­
level
ozone
being
above
the
8­
hour
18
standard
for
several
years
before
the
same
area
is
found
19
to
be
in
nonattainment
status
under
the
implementation
of
20
the
standard.
This
is
a
principle
widely
understood
by
21
the
general
public
and
does
not
protect
the
health
and
22
welfare
of
the
general
public.
Predicting
the
weather
for
23
217
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
three
days
in
advance
is
a
difficult
job
for
any
1
meteorologist.
2
Since
1998,
the
lack
of
action
by
the
federal
3
government
to
promulgate
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
and
the
4
lack
of
good­
faith
efforts
by
the
owners
of
older
5
coal­
fired
powerplants,
the
federal
government
and
6
Congress
to
retire
these
facilities
or
reduce
their
7
ground­
level
ozone
precursors
over
the
30
years
had
had
a
8
cost
on
the
general
public
in
terms
of
health
and
monetary
9
expenses.
10
My
next
Freedom
of
Information
request
is:
What
11
is
the
estimated
effects
on
the
health
of
the
general
12
public
and
estimated
cost
of
monetary
expenses
associated
13
with
these
health
costs
during
the
period
of
1998
through
14
2007
due
to
ground­
level
ozone?
15
Furthermore,
this
proposal
states
that
the
local
16
control
technologies
on
industries
and
control
17
technologies
on
the
electricity­
generating
units
are
18
expensive.
Could
I
have
the
first
slide,
please?
19
This
could
be
furthest
from
the
truth.
The
cost
20
of
reducing
a
ton
of
ozone
precursors
per
ton
is
the
21
lowest
for
coal­
fired
powerplants,
followed
by
local
22
controls
on
industries,
then
controls
on
mobile
sources.
23
218
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Figure
1
illustrates
the
reality.
The
cost
to
reduce
a
1
ton
of
NO
x
on
an
automobile
is
between
$
10,000
and
$
20,000
2
per
ton.
The
costs
for
industrial
control
technologies
to
3
reduce
volatile
organic
compounds,
including
hazardous
air
4
pollutants,
ranges
from
$
3,000
to
$
5,000
per
ton
for
5
reasonable
available
control
technology,
to
roughly
$
4,000
6
to
$
8,000
per
ton
for
best
available
control
technology
7
and
MACT
technology.
The
cost
of
reducing
a
ton
of
NO
x
8
from
an
electricity­
generating
unit
is
between
$
1,500
to
9
$
2,000
per
ton.
Clearly,
industry
and
powerplants
have
10
the
lower
cost,
with
due
respect
and
objectivity
to
11
powerplants,
especially
coal­
fired
powerplants
having
12
technology
issues
when
a
multi­
pollutant
approach
is
taken
13
to
reduce
nitrogen
oxides,
sulfur
and
mercury.
Being
an
14
expert
in
advance
control
technologies
for
VOCs
and
NO
x,
I
15
know
much
about
the
cost
of
technologies.
16
For
example,
the
state­
of­
the­
art
of
VOC
control
17
technologies
works
as
follows:
With
advanced
electric
18
technology,
one
push
of
a
button
will
provide
a
70
percent
19
reduction
in
VOCs.
This
would
be
BACT
technology.
A
push
20
of
another
button
on
the
same
machine
would
produce
a
21
90
percent
reduction
in
VOCs.
Press
another
button,
and
22
the
same
machine
will
produce
95
to
99
percent
reduction
23
219
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
in
VOC
precursors.
Press
another
button
on
the
same
1
machine,
and
the
machine
allows
for
an
increase
in
the
2
tons
of
VOCs
to
be
reduced.
3
This
advanced
technology
was
developed
through
4
DARPA,
the
Defense
Advance
Research
Program
Agency,
under
5
President
Bush,
President
George
Herbert
Walker
Bush,
our
6
President's
father.
This
technology
is
readily
available
7
and
can
be
readily
produced
in
mass
quantity.
In
the
8
1994­
1995
period,
U.
E.
EPA
Administrator
Carol
Browner
was
9
given
a
highly
competitive
cost
for
the
earlier
technology
10
of
advanced
electric
technologies
that
used
resistive
11
heating
elements
in
add­
on
controls
at
the
first
Common
12
Sense
Initiative
meeting.
13
This
newer
technology
also
has
that
same
cost.
14
If
the
technology
is
not
low
enough
for
competition,
the
15
products
can
be
made
in
China,
reducing
manufacturing
16
costs
by
75
percent.
Further
cost
reductions
can
be
17
achieved
by
exploiting
cheap
labor
in
third
world
18
countries
where
people
work
for
a
dollar.
Without
a
19
doubt,
environmental
technology
initiatives
for
hydrogen,
20
solar
energy,
renewable
fuel
and
conventional
energy
21
production
under
George
W.
Bush
will
produce
the
same
22
rapid
advancement
most
likely
within
five
years.
23
220
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Statements
regarding
local
controls
that
affect
1
air
quality
in
this
proposed
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
2
standard
are
highly
suspect
to
the
nature
of
these
3
statements.
The
position
of
the
EPA
on
reducing
ozone
4
precursors
locally
must
be
influenced
by
some
other
reason
5
besides
costs.
Quite
possibly,
money
contributions
6
control
an
oligarchy
that
greatly
influences
the
U.
S.
7
EPA's
decision.
8
Free
enterprise
and
market­
driven
trading
9
programs
could
put
a
stop
to
this
moligarchy
from
10
preventing
reductions
of
ground­
level
ozone
precursors
in
11
local
environments.
Free
enterprise
and
free
markets
will
12
allow
the
general
public
and
the
customers
of
power
13
companies
to
influence
local
air
quality
by
supporting
14
controls
on
local
industry
through
power
companies
15
reducing
emissions
from
their
customers.
Without
a
doubt,
16
local
communities
would
rather
have
the
emissions
from
a
17
plant
next
door
to
their
community
reduced
instead
of
18
distant
reductions
controlled
by
a
moligarchy
that
runs
19
the
U.
S.
EPA.
20
Also,
if
Congress
and
the
President
can
provide
21
an
80
percent
tax
writeoff
for
the
purchase
of
a
Hummer
22
and
other
heavy­
duty
trucks
that
produce
ozone
precursors,
23
221
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
then
Congress
and
the
President
can
provide
an
80
percent
1
tax
writeoff
for
local
controls
that
reduce
ozone
2
precursors.
3
Furthermore,
any
implementation
that
bases
4
nonattainment
status
on
proposed
modeling
of
attainment
5
will
be
challenged
in
court.
Neither
the
Clean
Air
Act
or
6
the
Clean
Air
Act
amendment
allows
for
this
action.
7
Either
an
area
has
attainment
status
or
has
a
8
nonattainment
status.
9
Models
and
modeling
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
is
highly
10
suspect,
and
input
data
is
highly
suspect
as
well.
The
11
validity
of
the
U.
S.
EPA's
modeling
is
even
stated
within
12
this
proposal.
Other
proposed
ideas
for
modeling
raises
13
questions
about
the
intent
of
the
U.
S.
EPA.
While
this
14
proposal
­­
U.
S.
EPA
cites
cost
for
the
reasons
that
the
15
U.
S.
EPA
will
perform
modeling
for
candidate
marginal
and
16
moderate
nonattainment
areas
in
order
to
prove
that
these
17
area
should
be
given
a
waiver
for
nonattainment
status.
18
Suspicion
is
quite
warranted.
There
is
reasonable
doubt
19
that
the
cost
is
the
U.
S.
EPA's
primary
concern
for
20
modeling.
21
In
recent
months,
I
have
had
conversations
and
22
contact
with
South
Carolina's
Department
of
Environmental
23
222
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Health
Control,
DHEC,
and
U.
S.
EPA
officials
in
Research
1
Triangle
Park
and
Region
4
offices.
In
a
meeting
with
2
DHEC
on
March
25,
2003,
DHEC
officials
stated
that
their
3
models
showed
it
would
be
doubtful
to
reach
attainment
by
4
2007
without
further
controls
on
industries
and
an
5
electricity­
generating
unit.
When
I
spoke
with
DHEC
on
6
June
26,
2003,
I
was
told
there
would
be
no
problem
with
7
all
of
South
Carolina
being
able
to
reach
attainment
by
8
2007
based
upon
new
modeling.
9
Were
the
results
of
the
new
models
just
tweaked
10
for
attainment?
Were
accurate
assumptions
made
for
the
11
new
results?
Another
example
of
inaccurate
data
is
found
12
in
New
Jersey
by
an
action
known
as
the
Camden
sweeps.
13
The
Camden
sweeps
found
that
reporting
of
emissions
were
14
inaccurate.
Another
example
of
data
inaccuracies
is
that
15
data
for
a
court
case
was
lost
in
the
Midwest
recently.
16
These
are
just
some
examples
of
the
problems
with
models,
17
modeling
and
data
that
the
public
is
aware
of.
18
Further,
I
had
a
recent
conference
call
with
19
U.
S.
EPA
officials
in
the
Region
4
office
and
in
Research
20
Triangle
Park
regarding
the
concept
that
South
Carolina
is
21
a
NO
x­
limited
area.
The
U.
S.
EPA
officials,
experts
as
22
they
are,
could
not
provide
me
with
any
relationship
to
23
223
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
the
effect
of
different
ozone
precursors
on
ground­
level
1
ozone
formation
which
would
relate
to
an
exchange
of
a
VOC
2
for
NO
x
emissions.
I
was
assured
by
the
Region
4
official
3
that
this
was
a
complicated
and
difficult
thing
to
do.
4
Further
attesting
to
this
same
type
of
accuracy
5
of
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
this
type
of
relationship
is
given
in
6
the
proposal
for
the
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
7
standard.
Therefore,
how
can
the
health
and
the
welfare
8
of
the
general
public
be
based
on
these
models
in
a
9
non­
cautious
manner?
Models
possibly
could
be
utilized
10
similar
to
the
concept
in
medical
practice,
cause
no
harm.
11
Models
possibly
could
be
used
for
cautious
predictions
12
that
protect
public
health,
but
should
not
be
used
to
13
predict
the
future
of
public
health.
14
Also
noted
is
a
point
from
conversations
with
15
U.
S.
EPA
officials
that
these
models
are
not
tested
or
16
verified
in
local
measurements,
near
local
sources
that
17
are
away
from
ozone
monitors.
18
Further
evidence
to
the
accuracy
of
the
U.
S.
EPA
19
models
and
modeling
was
provided
in
a
June
18,
2003
20
article
in
the
Atlanta
Constitution.
The
11th
Circuit
21
Court
of
Appeals
ruled
that
the
EPA's
model
for
Atlanta
22
was
incorrect.
The
Court
held
that
the
independent
23
224
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
modeling
proved
the
U.
S.
EPA
wrongfully
accounted
for
the
1
local
effect
of
ozone
precursors
on
Atlanta's
ground­
level
2
ozone.
The
U.
S.
EPA
Region
4
experts
were
wrong
again.
3
Can
the
public
actually
trust
their
health
and
welfare
on
4
these
inaccurate
models,
data
and
modeling?
5
In
the
opinion
of
ESTEC
Enterprises
and
myself,
6
implementation
should
be
sooner,
rather
than
later,
and
7
free
enterprise
and
free
markets
should
assist
in
8
attainment
to
be
as
expeditious
as
practical.
9
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
brief
discussion
off
the
10
record.)
11
MR.
DALTON:
Figure
2
depicts
the
NO
x
SIP
call
12
trading
region
in
orange,
pretty
much
east
of
the
13
Mississippi.
The
red
areas
are
candidate
areas
for
14
nonattainment
areas
of
the
new
8­
hour
standard
and
the
15
blue
areas
are
nonattainment
areas
for
the
1­
hour
16
standard.
These
areas
are
based
upon
1998
predictions
by
17
the
U.
S.
EPA.
18
Free
enterprise
and
free
markets
could
be
used
19
to
expedite
healthier
air
quality
to
these
nonattainment
20
areas.
Local
controls
can
improve
local
air
quality
by
21
trading
local
ozone
precursors
for
transport
ozone
22
precursors.
For
example,
in
the
red
areas,
if
there
are
23
225
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
coal­
fired
powerplants
that
are
not
situated
near
large
1
communities,
they
could
be
used
­­
the
local
reductions
in
2
the
red
areas
could
be
used
to
trade
off
against
these
3
transport
NO
x
emissions.
4
VOC
and
NO
x
emissions
can
be
traded
between
each
5
species.
This
type
of
trading
­­
apples
for
oranges,
VOCs
6
for
NO
x
­­
would
achieve
a
reduction
in
local
ozone
7
precursors
that
is
more
reliable
than
reduction
of
8
transport
ozone
precursors,
because
transport
ozone
9
precursors
are
affected
by
weather
conditions
and
wind
10
direction.
Local
communities
and
industries
would
use
11
their
buying
power
to
make
their
own
choices,
instead
of
12
the
federal
government
dictating
how
and
when
local
13
communities
should
have
healthy
air
quality.
14
Also,
this
free
enterprise
and
free
market
15
approach
prevents
the
federal
government,
lobbyists
and
16
moligarchies
from
dictating
the
health
of
local
air
17
quality,
the
time
frame
of
reaching
healthy
air
quality
in
18
local
communities
and
places
control
back
in
local
19
communities.
20
(
Whereupon,
there
was
a
brief
discussion
off
the
21
record.)
22
MR.
SILVASI:
Do
you
have
this
in
your
23
226
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
testimony?
1
MR.
DALTON:
Yes.
That
is
the
USPIRG
data
from,
2
I
think,
1998
that
shows
the
excess
emissions
on
the
right
3
of
coal­
fired
powerplants.
Then
we
do
a
calculation
to
4
see
what
the
excess
emissions
actually
do.
5
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
that
is
where
the
6
actual
summation
of
the
data
is,
right
there
(
indicating).
7
The
Clinton
Administration
said
that
it
cost
about
8
$
14
billion
to
clean
up
these
excess
air
emissions
from
9
the
powerplants.
If
you
take
the
typical
cost
of
a
piece
10
of
pollution
control
equipment,
which
is
$
225,000,
or
a
11
2,500
CFM
smokestack,
which
is
about
90
percent
of
the
12
smokestacks,
you
go
with
emissions
credits
trading,
and
if
13
the
credits
trade
around
$
3,500,
you
could
pretty
much
14
clean
up
all
the
stacks,
45,000
of
them,
in
the
United
15
States.
16
So
Figures
3
and
4
show
the
abundance
of
NO
x
17
emissions
from
the
coal­
fired
powerplants
are
readily
18
available.
Furthermore,
allowance
allocations
can
be
19
greatly
reduced
in
order
to
have
power
companies
earn
20
allowances
by
purchasing
early
reduction
credits
from
the
21
reduction
of
ozone
precursors
by
local
industries
and
22
initiatives
such
as
paying
people
$
100
to
replace
older
23
227
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
catalytic
converters
after
2007.
1
Furthermore,
congressional
legislation
such
as
2
the
Clean
Power
Act,
the
Clear
Skies
Act
and
other
3
initiatives
by
senators
from
Arizona
and
Connecticut
call
4
for
emission
credits
trading
programs.
The
most
effective
5
trading
program
would
be
a
Cap
and
Earn
program
instead
of
6
a
Cap
and
Trade.
7
In
the
end,
I
support
an
interpollutant,
open
8
market
emissions
credits
trading
program,
and
I
believe
9
that
the
future
will
show
that
Ms.
Whitman's
free
10
enterprise
and
free
market
approach
of
emission
credits
11
trading
would
prove
to
be
the
best
way
to
improve
air
12
quality
as
expeditiously
as
practical
and
will
ultimately
13
empower
the
people.
14
Furthermore,
the
Early
Action
Compacts
that
I
15
represent
had
poor
participation
by
voting
members,
16
unequal
representations
of
society,
no
Robert's
rules
of
17
orders
for
addressing
issues,
minutes
of
the
meetings
that
18
did
not
actually
represent
the
issues
discussed,
notices
19
of
meetings
typically
were
given
in
short
terms
with,
on
20
occasion,
no
notice
at
all.
While
some
of
these
actions
21
are
due
to
the
speed
of
progress
needed
to
meet
the
Early
22
Action
Compacts,
most
are
inexcusable.
23
228
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
Finally,
Ms.
Eldridge
left
the
meeting
upset
1
because
it
was
apparent
to
her
that
the
members
that
are
2
responsible
for
forming
implementation
strategies
under
3
the
Early
Action
Compacts
were
more
concerned
about
doing
4
as
little
as
possible
for
reducing
ozone
precursors
than
5
ensuring
the
protection
of
air
quality.
6
Thank
you
for
your
time.
7
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you.
8
Questions?
9
(
No
response.)
10
MR.
HELMS:
I
have
one
clarifying
question.
You
11
mentioned
the
magic
words
several
times,
Freedom
of
12
Information.
13
MR.
DALTON:
Yes.
14
MR.
HELMS:
Do
you
intend
this
to
be
a
Freedom
15
of
Information
­­
16
MR.
DALTON:
Oh,
absolutely.
Do
I
need
to
17
submit
it
to
someone
else
or
­­
18
MR.
HELMS:
Mechanically
putting
in
the
19
testimony
I
don't
think
will
do
it.
He
should
formally
20
submit
it?
21
MS.
TIERNEY:
I
am
not
a
FOIA
expert,
so
I
am
22
not
positive,
but
I
think
you
need
to
submit
a
letter.
23
229
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
DALTON:
All
right.
That's
fine.
1
MR.
HELMS:
I
would
send
your
request
in
a
2
letter
to
the
Administrator,
and
it
will
get
sent
down
to
3
the
appropriate
person.
That
would
be
much
more
4
effective.
5
MR.
DALTON:
Okay.
Thank
you.
6
MR.
HELMS:
No
problem
with
you
doing
it,
just
7
do
it
that
way.
8
MR.
DALTON:
I
intended
to
do
that
anyway.
9
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
for
your
time.
10
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Robert
Dalton
was
11
concluded.)
12
MR.
HELMS:
Is
there
a
Heather
Quinlan
here?
13
You
have
been
sitting
very
patiently
back
there.
The
14
podium
is
yours.
15
TESTIMONY
OF
HEATHER
QUINLAN
16
MS.
QUINLAN:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
17
Heather
Quinlan.
I
am
a
fourth­
year
environmental
science
18
student
at
the
University
of
California
in
Riverside.
19
This
summer
I
am
interning
in
Washington,
D.
C.
with
the
20
National
Parks
Conservation
Association,
and
I
thank
you
21
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
in
front
of
you
today.
22
I
come
before
you
today
asking
for
a
more
rapid
23
230
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
and
strict
set
of
implementation
plans
for
the
8­
hour
1
ozone
standard.
Ground­
level
ozone
is
bad
for
the
2
economy,
causing
a
loss
of
productivity
due
to
human
3
health
problems,
as
well
as
mounting
medical
bills.
Ozone
4
is
a
major
contributor
to
a
variety
of
respiratory
5
problems.
You
have
heard
about
a
lot
of
them
already
6
today.
7
According
to
the
American
Lung
Association,
8
ozone
is,
quote,
one
of
the
most
damaging
and
most
9
pervasive
of
common
outdoor
pollutants,
end
quote.
The
10
cost
of
medical
care
for
these
conditions
and
the
lost
11
production
from
sick
days
is
a
tremendous
burden
on
12
polluted
areas.
Ozone
also
negatively
affects
our
natural
13
environment,
with
consequences
ranging
from
decreased
14
agricultural
production
and
forest
damage
to
diminished
15
aesthetic
conditions.
Commercial
forestry
and
agriculture
16
experience
lower
yields
and
lower
profits
due
to
17
ozone­
related
plant
damage.
18
The
beauty
of
our
national
parks
and
other
19
natural
spaces
is
obscured
behind
some
of
the
worst
air
20
pollution
in
the
nation.
National
parks
are
designated
as
21
Class
1
areas
that
warrant
the
strictest
air
pollution
22
protection
under
the
Clean
Air
Act,
yet
they
continue
to
23
231
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
experience
forest
damage
due
to
elevated
levels
of
ozone.
1
The
switch
to
an
8­
hour
standard
of
80
parts
per
2
billion
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction;
however,
it
will
3
do
little
to
improve
the
current
state
of
the
air
unless
4
it
is
implemented
in
a
timely
and
effective
manner.
The
5
proposal
set
forth
by
the
EPA
allows
too
much
leeway
for
6
nonattainment
areas.
Attainment
deadlines
need
to
be
7
enforced
and
not
extended,
pushing
the
heaviest
polluters
8
to
clean
up
their
systems
on
schedule.
New
source
review
9
and
transportation
conformity
can
not
be
left
out
of
Early
10
Action
Compacts
which,
if
they
were,
could
cause
an
uneven
11
distribution
of
air
pollution
within
a
region.
The
Clean
12
Air
Act
needs
to
be
enforced
in
its
entirety
without
13
weakening
various
provisions
at
the
expense
of
our
health.
14
Before
I
conclude,
I
would
like
to
share
my
own
15
experience
with
living
with
ozone
pollution.
I
grew
up
16
and
still
live
in
San
Bernadino
County
in
California,
a
17
county
with
the
worst
ozone
pollution
in
the
country.
As
18
a
child,
my
lungs
would
hurt
from
swimming
in
the
pool
or
19
playing
outside.
Even
now,
15
years
later,
clear
views
of
20
local
mountains
happen
only
in
winter,
if
we
are
lucky.
I
21
haven't
seen
the
mountains
for
probably
a
month
now.
You
22
just
have
to
trust
they
are
there.
Hiking
trips
into
the
23
232
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
hills
surrounding
UCR
are
often
canceled,
due
to
the
dense
1
cloud
of
particulates
and
ozone
and
smog
that
rest
against
2
the
hills.
In
fact,
San
Bernadino
National
Forest
is
3
primed
for
one
of
the
largest
forest
fires
there
in
recent
4
history,
in
part
due
to
ozone
damage
of
plant
tissues.
5
Presently,
I
have
been
living
in
the
Capitol
for
6
a
week
now
and,
instead
of
jogging
past
monuments
and
7
museums,
I
exercise
in
a
building,
unable
to
enjoy
the
8
sights
of
our
beautiful
capitol.
I
do
this
to
protect
my
9
health
because
the
regulations
are
not.
10
In
conclusion,
I
would
like
to
say
that
11
nonattainment
areas
have
already
had
too
long
to
fix
the
12
ozone
pollution
problem.
The
quality
and
duration
of
13
human
life
are
influenced
by
the
decisions
that
will
be
14
made
regarding
this
issue.
I
ask
the
EPA
to
protect
human
15
health
and
the
natural
environment
by
implementing
and
16
enforcing
a
more
forceful
ozone
implementation
policy.
17
Thank
you.
18
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
19
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Heather
Quinlan
was
20
concluded.)
21
MR.
HELMS:
Rob
Sliwinski.
Rob,
I
am
not
22
leaving
you.
I
will
be
right
back.
23
233
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
SILVASI:
Just
while
Rob
is
coming
up
here,
1
just
a
reminder
to
those
that
may
have
come
late,
we
are
2
trying
to
enforce
a
five­
minute
testimony
rule.
If
you
3
find
you
are
going
to
need
more
time,
in
fairness
to
the
4
other
speakers
who
have
not
yet
spoken,
what
we
will
do
is
5
ask
you
to
kind
of
summarize
at
that
point,
and
then
if
6
you
are
still
around,
you
can
come
back
and
resume
your
7
testimony
after
others
have
had
a
chance
to
testify.
8
Thank
you.
9
TESTIMONY
OF
ROBERT
SLIWINSKI
10
MR.
SLIWINSKI:
Good
afternoon.
My
name
is
11
Robert
Sliwinski,
and
I
am
the
director
of
the
Bureau
of
12
Stationary
Sources
in
the
New
York
State
Department
of
13
Environmental
Conservation,
Division
of
Air
Resources.
On
14
behalf
of
Commissioner
Crotty,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
15
providing
the
Department
with
the
opportunity
to
testify
16
at
this
hearing.
Among
its
many
mandates,
the
Department
17
is
responsible
for
the
preservation,
protection
and
18
improvement
of
the
air
quality
in
New
York
State.
Under
19
the
leadership
of
Governor
George
Pataki,
the
Department
20
is
dedicated
not
to
just
protecting
our
air,
but
to
21
continuously
improving
air
quality.
22
I
am
here
to
present
the
Department's
oral
23
234
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
comments
on
the
U.
S.
EPA's
proposed
rule
to
implement
the
1
8­
hour
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standard.
2
Although
it
is
referred
to
as
a
proposed
rule,
the
3
Department
notes
there
is
no
regulatory
text
included,
4
only
various
options
on
how
to
implement
the
8­
hour
5
standard.
The
Department
is
concerned
that
the
current
6
rulemaking
notice
does
not
sufficiently
describe
or
7
explain
the
substance
of
the
upcoming
regulatory
text
or
8
the
subjects
and
issues
that
are
implicated
by
all
the
9
various
options
listed.
We
encourage
the
U.
S.
EPA
to
hold
10
a
new
comment
period
on
the
regulatory
text
after
it
is
11
proposed.
12
The
U.
S.
EPA's
proposed
rule
centers
on
two
13
options
for
classifying
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
14
Option
1
uses
the
8­
hour
design
values
to
classify
the
15
areas
under
the
specifications
of
Subpart
2
of
Part
D
of
16
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Option
2
uses
the
1­
hour
ozone
design
17
values
and
allows
some
areas
to
be
regulated
under
the
18
more
general
requirements
of
Subpart
1
of
Part
D
of
the
19
Act.
20
Overall,
the
Department
supports
the
use
of
21
option
1,
because
it
is
more
consistent
with
the
22
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
the
Supreme
Court's
23
235
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
direction
to
U.
S.
EPA
to
develop
a
reasonable
resolution
1
of
the
ambiguity
that
exists
on
how
parts
of
Subparts
1
2
and
2
interact
with
regard
to
the
revised
ozone
standards.
3
We
believe
that
option
1
will
continue
well
into
the
4
future
progress
that
the
states
are
making
to
provide
5
clean
and
healthful
air
through
mandatory
pollution
6
controls.
7
The
Department
contends
that
the
mandatory
8
control
programs
established
by
Congress
in
Subpart
2,
as
9
implemented
by
U.
S.
EPA,
the
states
in
the
regulated
10
community
deserve
much
of
the
credit
for
the
decrease
in
11
ozone
pollution
that
the
EPA
discusses
in
the
proposed
12
rule.
Subpart
2
has
done
much
to
level
the
playing
field
13
by
requiring
that
ozone
nonattainment
areas
all
have
the
14
same
core
pollution
control
programs.
15
EPA's
demonstrated
preference
in
the
proposed
16
rule
for
option
2
would
place
some
new
8­
hour
17
nonattainment
areas
under
the
general
requirements
of
18
Subpart
1.
Choosing
this
option
would
obviate
19
congressionally­
mandated
programs
in
some
8­
hour
20
nonattainment
areas,
denying
the
public
the
protections
of
21
those
programs
and
making
the
now
level
playing
field
as
22
lopsided
as
it
was
before
the
1990
amendments
were
23
236
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
enacted.
1
The
Supreme
Court
has
stated
that
although
gaps
2
may
exist
in
the
scheme
of
Subpart
2,
they
do
not
render
3
inoperative
the
subpart's
carefully
designed
restrictions
4
on
U.
S.
EPA's
discretion
in
implementing
an
ozone
5
standard.
The
Court
specifically
recognized
the
gap
6
evident
in
the
structure
of
Table
1
of
Subpart
2
as
it
7
relates
to
the
8­
hour
standard.
Instead
of
resolving
the
8
ambiguity
created
by
this
gap,
the
Department
believes
9
U.
S.
EPA
is
using
this
gap
in
its
regulatory
proposal
to
10
jettison
entirely
Subpart
2'
s
applicability
for
many,
if
11
not
most,
nonattainment
areas
and
widening
its
discretion
12
by
relying
on
Subpart
1.
This
is
just
the
type
of
13
interpretation
that
the
Supreme
Court
found
unreasonable.
14
In
the
documents
accompanying
the
proposed
rule,
15
U.
S.
EPA
partly
justifies
its
desire
to
substitute
Subpart
16
1
requirements
for
the
stricter
standards
of
Subpart
2
on
17
a
belief
that
it
would
benefit
many
areas
of
the
country.
18
EPA
believes
that
many
areas
which
are
currently
in
19
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
standard
but
are
projected
20
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
standard
will
attain
the
21
8­
hour
standard
on
the
basis
of
existing
regional
or
22
national
control
programs.
It
appears
that
EPA
would
23
237
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
prefer
to
avoid
requiring
new
control
programs
for
these
1
areas.
2
Although
the
regional
and
national
control
3
programs
established
to
bring
areas
into
attainment
for
4
the
1­
hour
standard
will
help
those
areas
attain
the
5
8­
hour
standard
and
must
be
implemented,
they
may
not
be
6
sufficient
to
bring
about
this
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
7
standard
by
themselves.
Local
control
programs
may
be
8
needed
for
those
areas
that
had
attained
the
1­
hour
9
standard
but
not
the
8­
hour
standard.
If
EPA
does
not
10
consider
local
controls
in
the
beginning
of
its
11
implementation
planning,
it
risks
delaying
attainment
when
12
those
controls
are
later
determined
to
be
necessary.
The
13
Act
requires
attainment
to
come
as
expeditiously
as
14
practicable,
and
EPA's
failure
to
consider
local
controls
15
in
its
planning
is
inconsistent
with
the
Act.
16
EPA's
recognition
of
the
interstate
transport
of
17
ozone
and
its
precursor
pollutants
and
of
the
difficulties
18
which
downwind
states
have
in
meeting
their
clean
air
19
goals
because
of
transport
is
appreciated.
However,
the
20
programs
developed
to
address
transport,
the
NO
x
SIP
call
21
and
the
Section
126
rules,
have
not
been
shown
to
be
22
sufficient
by
themselves
to
bring
about
attainment
of
the
23
238
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
8­
hour
standard
in
all
metropolitan
areas.
U.
S.
EPA
needs
1
to
expand
these
programs
to
ensure
that
the
ambient
levels
2
of
background
air
pollution
are
low
enough
for
state
and
3
local
control
programs
to
be
effective
in
completing
the
4
task
of
attaining
the
8­
hour
standard
and
protecting
the
5
public
health.
6
On
behalf
of
Commissioner
Crotty,
I
want
to
7
thank
you
again
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
8
proposed
8­
hour
ozone
rule,
and
the
Department
will
be
9
sending
EPA
more
detailed
written
comments
prior
to
the
10
end
of
the
comment
period.
We
also
look
forward
to
11
commenting
on
the
regulatory
text
when
it
becomes
12
available.
Thank
you.
13
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you,
Rob.
14
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Rob
Sliwinski
was
15
concluded.)
16
MR.
HELMS:
Peter
Witzler?
17
(
No
response.)
18
MR.
HELMS:
Dan
Grace.
Thank
you
for
waiting.
19
MR.
GRACE:
Thank
you
for
having
me.
20
TESTIMONY
OF
DAN
GRACE
21
MR.
GRACE:
My
name
is
Dan
Grace,
and
I
traveled
22
here
from
Johnson
City,
Tennessee
to,
at
first,
really
23
239
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
just
witness
these
proceedings
and
to
learn
a
little
bit
1
more
about
air
quality
standards.
After
making
the
long
2
trip,
I
felt
a
little
bit
more
compelled
to
at
least
offer
3
my
comments,
so
I
prepared
a
really
brief
and
somewhat
4
objective
statement.
But,
after
hearing
plenty
of
other
5
people's
statements,
they
sound
very
similar
to
mine,
so
I
6
am
just
going
to
sum
up
really
quickly
that
I
think
that
7
it
is
really
important
that
we
raise
the
standards
of
air
8
quality,
and
I
feel
that
as
an
environmentalist,
as
a
9
participating
athlete,
outdoor
enthusiast
and
lover
of
the
10
southern
Appalachian
Mountains.
I
also
would
like
to
urge
11
you
all
to
please
offer
a
chance
at
least
for
the
public
12
to
comment
after
you
guys
come
up
with
your
­­
13
MR.
HELMS:
The
regulatory
text?
14
MR.
GRACE:
Yes.
15
MR.
HELMS:
All
right.
16
MR.
GRACE:
Thank
you
very
much
for
having
me
17
here,
and
it
was
a
joy
taking
part
in
this.
18
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
for
sitting
so
patiently.
19
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Dan
Grace
was
20
concluded.)
21
MR.
HELMS:
Molly
Rooke?
22
(
No
response.)
23
240
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
MR.
HELMS:
Pete
Witzler
again?
Molly
Rooke?
1
(
No
response.)
2
MR.
HELMS:
I
am
going
to
go
through
and
call
3
out
a
few
names
of
people
that
had
pre­
registered
but
have
4
not
shown,
or
at
least
our
records
don't
show
you
are
5
here.
6
Lenny
Kohm?
7
(
No
response.)
8
MR.
HELMS:
Matthew
Wasson?
9
(
No
response.)
10
MR.
HELMS:
Pauline
Kaltsunis?
11
(
No
response.)
12
MR.
HELMS:
Felicia
Davis?
13
(
No
response.)
14
MR.
HELMS:
Bahri
Aliriza?
15
(
No
response.)
16
MR.
HELMS:
Is
there
anyone
else
here
that
would
17
like
to
make
a
statement
at
this
time
to
offer
comments
on
18
our
proposed
8­
hour
implementation
rule?
19
(
No
response.)
20
MR.
HELMS:
We
will
remain
here
until
5:
00,
21
should
any
of
you
change
your
mind.
We
will
go
into
22
recess
now
and
we
will
convene,
if
not
before
5:
00
at
23
241
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
5:
00,
to
adjourn.
1
Again,
I
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
taking
the
2
time,
energy
and
effort
to
come
here
to
Alexandria,
3
Virginia
to
testify.
The
meeting
is
adjourned,
4
temporarily
suspended.
5
Thank
you.
6
(
Whereupon,
a
recess
was
taken
from
2:
28
p.
m.
to
7
2:
59
p.
m.)
8
MR.
SILVASI:
We
are
about
to
break
out
of
the
9
recess
and
we
will
reopen
the
testimony
here
at
the
public
10
hearing.
Just
a
reminder
that
we
have
been
enforcing
a
11
five­
minute
rule
here,
but
in
light
of
the
fact
that
there
12
is
no
one
else
behind
you,
we
probably
won't
actually
13
enforce
that
at
this
point.
14
Would
you
please
state
your
name
and
your
15
affiliation?
16
TESTIMONY
OF
BAHRI
ALIRIZA
17
MR.
ALIRIZA:
My
name
is
Bahri
Aliriza.
I
am
18
the
president
for
Polytrade
International
Corporation,
19
which
is
a
corporation
that
emphasizes
on
reducing
air
20
pollution.
I
am
also
a
member
of
the
Chesapeake
Climate
21
Organization,
which
also
emphasizes
on
reducing
air
22
pollution.
23
242
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
My
purpose
of
being
here
is
to
emphasize
that
we
1
need
to
do
everything
and
anything
that
we
possibly
can
to
2
reduce
air
pollution.
We
should
look
at
every
means
3
possible
to
us.
Otherwise,
we
are
not
going
to
have
an
4
environment
in
the
long
term.
There
are
various
avenues
5
available
to
us.
I
know
one
is
wind
generation,
6
generating
electricity
with
wind
power.
7
My
company
emphasizes
on
fuel
additives.
We
8
have
a
product
which
will
reduce
emissions
38
to
9
60
percent,
and
I
encourage
everyone
to
look
at
our
10
organization.
It
is
on
our
Web
page,
under
11
www.
polytrade.
net.
What
it
will
basically
do
in
a
12
nutshell
is
it
will
reduce
emissions
38
to
60
percent,
13
which
I
think
is
very
significant,
and
it
will
reduce
the
14
harmful
emissions
like
your
nitrogen
oxides,
your
15
hydrocarbons
and
your
carbons,
and
it
will
not
affect
any
16
of
the
operations
of
anyone
that
is
doing
business
of
17
driving
a
vehicle.
18
It
is
treated
directly
into
the
fuel,
whether
it
19
is
for
gasoline
or
for
diesel.
For
gasoline,
one
gallon
20
will
treat
up
to
2,000
gallons,
and
for
diesel,
one
gallon
21
will
treat
1,000
gallons
of
diesel
fuel.
So
it
is
very,
22
very
concentrated,
and
it
will
get
rid
of
all
the
black
23
243
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
smoke
that
is
associated
with
vehicles,
with
refineries
1
and
powerplants,
ships.
Anything
that
uses
fuel,
our
2
product
will
mix
with
the
fuel
and
make
that
fuel
burn
3
much,
much
better,
which
means
that
we
will
all
have
a
4
much
better
environment.
5
And
for
people
that
are
here
that
are
6
interested,
I
do
have
a
business
card
and
I
do
have
a
7
flyer.
And
if
anybody
has
any
questions,
I
would
like
to
8
keep
it
short,
but
I
can
explain
a
little
bit
more
about
9
how
it
works.
In
a
nutshell,
when
the
hydrocarbons
burns,
10
it
burns
as
a
chain,
and
the
whole
chain
doesn't
burn.
11
This
is
why
we
end
up
getting
carbon
buildup
in
our
12
engines.
What
our
product
basically
does
is
it
coats
the
13
hydrocarbons
and
breaks
them
down
into
individual
14
identical­
sized
pieces.
And
then,
almost
like
magnetic,
15
it
draws
it
towards
heat,
which
is
where
your
combustion
16
chamber
is,
and
that
is
where
you
get
a
full
combustion,
17
which
is
basically
a
full
burning.
That's
what
saves
you
18
money
on
fuel,
and
that
is
what
allows
you
to
have
cleaner
19
air.
And
it
has
a
lot
more
benefits,
like
getting
rid
of
20
water
in
your
fuel,
preventing
the
rusting
of
your
fuel
21
tank,
stabilizing
the
fuel
and
lubricating
your
entire
22
engine,
so
your
engine
lasts
longer.
23
244
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
The
product
is
very,
very
cost
effective,
so
you
1
are
getting
better
fuel
efficiency
as
well
as
a
longer
2
lasting
and
a
smoother
running
engine
and
you
are
helping
3
the
environment
by
reducing
all
the
emissions.
It
doesn't
4
get
any
easier
than
that.
5
Thank
you.
6
MR.
SILVASI:
I
just
have
a
question.
Would
you
7
mind
leaving
your
flyer
for
the
record
to
contribute
to
8
the
testimony?
9
MR.
ALIRIZA:
My
what?
10
MR.
SILVASI:
Did
you
say
you
had
a
flyer
with
11
you?
12
MR.
ALIRIZA:
No.
I
said
I
have
business
cards
13
and
I
have
a
flyer,
which
I
will
be
more
than
happy
to
14
leave,
yes.
15
MR.
SILVASI:
Okay.
And
just
as
a
clarifying
16
question,
have
you
been
in
contact
with
our
Office
of
17
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
in
Ann
Arbor
with
your
18
product?
19
MR.
ALIRIZA:
I
did
make
a
couple
of
attempts,
I
20
know,
at
the
Department
of
Transportation
in
Virginia
and
21
there
was
some
interest,
and
it
did
go
as
far
as
Richmond
22
and
then
came
back
to
me.
But
it
was
very
complicated,
in
23
245
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
that
there
was
a
lot
of
things
that
were
requested
from
1
me.
One
of
those
requests
was
independent
testing.
But
2
nobody
was
willing
to
pay
for
the
independent
testing,
and
3
we
are
a
small
business
and
we
do
have
a
budget.
That
is
4
one
of
the
problems
for
us.
5
But
the
other
problem
is
that
the
testing
is
­­
6
when
it
is
done,
it
is
usually
done
in
a
laboratory,
and
7
our
product
is
not
meant
to
work
in
the
laboratory.
It
is
8
meant
to
work
out
in
the
field
in
real
life,
real
working
9
conditions.
And
we
will
provide
free
samples,
whether
it
10
is
to
the
Department
of
Transportation
or
any
organization
11
that
is
substantial,
to
prove
to
them
that
the
product
12
does
work.
13
The
problems
that
we
have
had
in
the
past
in
14
labs
doing
the
work
is
that
they
would
put,
like,
one
drop
15
of
our
product
onto,
like,
so
many
drops
of
fuel,
and
they
16
would
expect
miracles
under
a
microscope.
Well,
our
17
product
doesn't
exactly
work
that
way.
First
of
all,
if
18
you
do
that,
you
don't
have
a
mixture,
so
you
have
to
19
actually
mix
the
product.
The
other
downfall
is
that
the
20
product
needs
a
little
bit
of
what
we
call
curing
time.
21
It
is
like
making
wine.
It
needs
to
­­
if
it
can
sit
in
22
there
for,
like,
two
days
maximum,
you
will
get
the
23
246
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
maximum
benefit,
but
even
if
you
have
a
couple
of
hours,
1
it
will
show
its
effects.
2
Then
each
time
you
use
the
product
­­
like
3
carbon
with
vehicles,
it
can
only
get
rid
of
one
layer
of
4
carbon
at
a
time,
so
the
second
time
you
will
notice
5
tremendous
power
in
your
vehicle,
and
you
will
also
notice
6
tremendous
savings
in
your
miles
per
gallon.
But
the
7
third
and
fourth
time
you
will
notice
even
more
so.
So
8
that
is
kind
of
how
the
product
works.
9
Thank
you.
10
MR.
SILVASI:
Thank
you
very
much.
11
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Bahri
Aliriza
was
12
concluded.)
13
MR.
SILVASI:
There
are
no
more
speakers
at
this
14
point,
so
we
will
again
recess
until
another
speaker
shows
15
up.
16
Thank
you.
17
(
Whereupon,
a
recess
was
taken
from
3:
06
p.
m.
to
18
3:
28
p.
m.)
19
MR.
HELMS:
We
will
reopen,
reconvene
the
20
hearing.
Our
next
speaker
is
James
Lowenstern.
21
MR.
LOWENSTERN:
That's
correct.
22
MR.
HELMS:
James,
if
you
will
identify
yourself
23
247
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
with
an
address,
how
we
can
reach
you,
who
you
represent,
1
and
then
the
mic
is
yours.
2
MR.
LOWENSTERN:
Okay.
3450
Terrace
Court,
3
Apartment
1044,
Alexandria,
Virginia
22302.
And
do
you
4
want
the
e­
mail?
5
MR.
HELMS:
The
e­
mail
would
be
great.
6
MR.
LOWENSTERN:
Okay.
It
is
zuboguy@
aol.
com.
7
I
represent
myself
and
the
Green
Party.
8
TESTIMONY
OF
JAMES
LOWENSTERN
9
MR.
LOWENSTERN:
Greetings.
Thanks
for
the
10
opportunity
to
speak
before
you.
This
may
be
slightly
11
different
than
you
have
heard
before,
but
it
looks
like
12
you
have
had
a
little
break.
13
There
is
no
argument
there
is
a
problem
with
air
14
pollution
and
there
are
some
nonattainment
problems.
I
15
think
right
now
in
the
world
and
the
nation,
currently
we
16
have
the
technology
and
the
brainpower
to
do
renewables
in
17
non­
polluting
sources
of
energy
and
waste
disposal.
That
18
would
mean
no
more
burning
of
carbon
fuels,
no
more
19
nuclear
and
no
incinerators,
so
there
would
be
no
toxic
20
byproducts.
That
would
be
less
lung
problems,
less
21
asthma,
less
emphysema.
22
We
need
to
bite
the
economic
bullet
of
the
23
248
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
market
economy
and
take
into
account
the
pollution
poison.
1
That
is
the
bottom
line.
Instead
of
the
economic
bottom
2
line,
the
bottom
line
should
be
the
health.
So,
again,
3
let's
use
the
brainpower
to
get
these
technologies
that
we
4
already
know
about
on
the
road
so
we
can
have
a
safer
5
world.
6
Thanks.
7
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
in.
8
We
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
come
back.
9
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
James
Lowenstern
10
was
concluded.)
11
(
Whereupon,
a
recess
was
taken
from
3:
30
p.
m.
to
12
4:
20
p.
m.)
13
MR.
HELMS:
We
will
reconvene
the
hearing
and
go
14
on
the
record.
We
have
another
speaker.
Sir,
state
your
15
name.
16
MR.
NEWELL:
My
name
is
Skipper,
legally
17
Frederick,
Newell.
18
TESTIMONY
OF
FREDERICK
NEWELL
19
MR.
NEWELL:
I
have,
like,
two
seconds
of
20
something
to
say.
I
don't
drive
a
car
purposely.
I
ride
21
my
bike
everywhere,
take
public
transportation.
It
has
22
been
my
life.
Lately
it
has
been
really
sad,
because
I
23
249
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
hate
riding
my
bike
because
of
all
the
exhaust.
I
really
1
­­
I
choke
when
I
ride
my
bike,
and
there
is
not
very
good
2
paths,
you
know,
away
from
main
highways
and
things
like
3
that.
So
any
help
with
emission
regulations
and
things
4
like
that
would
be
help
on
my
lungs.
But
otherwise,
I
am
5
moving
to
Charlottesville,
where
the
air
is
a
lot
fresher
6
than
here.
7
I
think
that
is
about
it,
besides
the
fact
that
8
I
do
think
about
air
pollution
as
affecting
us
all,
and
I
9
think
that
we
don't
even
realize
that
­­
I
am
sure
you
10
guys
do,
but
most
people
don't
realize
that
there
is
­­
11
what
is
it
­­
15
million
­­
that's
like
the
average
­­
12
tons
of
carbon
dioxide
in
the
air
every
day.
I
mean,
13
except
for
the
fact
that
trees
are
loving
it,
I
am
not.
14
That's
it.
Thank
you.
15
MR.
HELMS:
Thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
16
you
coming
over.
17
(
Whereupon,
the
testimony
of
Frederick
Newell
18
was
concluded.)
19
MR.
HELMS:
We
will
recess
the
hearing
now.
20
(
Whereupon,
a
recess
was
taken
from
4:
21
p.
m.
to
21
5:
00
p.
m.)
22
MR.
SILVASI:
The
public
hearing
on
23
250
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard
proposal
is
hereby
1
adjourned,
being
that
there
are
no
other
speakers,
and
it
2
is
5:
00.
3
Thank
you
very
much.
4
(
Whereupon,
at
5:
00
p.
m.,
the
public
hearing
in
5
the
above
entitled
matter
was
concluded.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
251
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE
(
703)
451­
6256
CERTIFICATE
OF
COURT
REPORTER
I,
MAUREEN
S.
BENNIE,
the
officer
before
whom
the
foregoing
proceedings
were
taken,
do
hereby
certify
that
the
witnesses
whose
testimony
appears
in
the
foregoing
transcript
of
proceedings
was
taken
by
me
stenographically
and
thereafter
reduced
to
typewriting
by
me;
that
said
transcript
of
proceedings
is
a
true
record
of
the
testimony
given
by
said
witnesses;
that
I
am
neither
counsel
for,
related
to,
nor
employed
by
any
of
the
parties
to
the
action
in
which
these
proceedings
were
taken;
and,
further,
that
I
am
not
a
relative
or
employee
of
any
attorney
or
counsel
employed
by
the
parties
hereto,

nor
financially
or
otherwise
interested
in
the
outcome
of
these
proceedings.

______________________________
Maureen
S.
Bennie
Verbatim
Court
Reporter
