

                                                                       1



            1

            2

            3

            4                     SEPTEMBER  5, 2007

            5

            6            PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE

            7                 REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE

            8      NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE

            9

           10                       HOUSTON, TEXAS

           11

           12

           13

           14

           15

           16

           17

           18

           19

           20

           21

           22  Public meeting held on the 5th day of September, 2007,
               at Houston Marriott West Loop by the Galleria, 1750 West
           23  Loop South, Emerald Rooms 4 & 5, in the City of Houston,
               County of Harris, State of Texas, before Mylinda Tubbs
           24  Faircloth, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the
               State of Texas.
           25


                                                                       2



            1                         EPA PANELS

            2  MORNING SESSION
               Susan Stone
            3  Lydia Wegman
               Carl Edlund
            4
               EARLY AFTERNOON SESSION
            5  Carl Edlund
               Lydia Wegman
            6  Thomas Diggs

            7  LATE AFTERNOON SESSION
               Lydia Wegman
            8  Jan Cortelyou
               Thomas Diggs
            9
               EVENING SESSION
           10  Jan Cortelyou
               Lydia Wegman
           11  Alison Davis
                                   PUBLIC COMMENTARY
           12
               Judge Ed Emmett
           13  Matthew S. Tejada, Ph.D.
               Ana E. Hernandez
           14  Cynthia Brum
               Jane L. Laping
           15  Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D.
               Lynnette Mazur, M.D.
           16  Karen Hadden
               Dr. Bonnie New
           17  Admiral Harold M. Koenig, M.D.
               Gregory L. Johnson
           18  Arturo Blanco
               Susannah Fuchs
           19  Jim Schermbeck
               Michelle R. Bernth
           20  Mike Roberson
               Britt D. Davis
           21  Stuart Abramson, M.D.
               Tonia Candelario
           22  Taylor Candelario
               Nicola Hanania, M.D.
           23  Janice Nolen
               Soleil Manzo
           24  Liz Hendler
               Christina T. Wisdom
           25  Debbie Hastings


                                                                       3



            1  Juan Parras
               Kyle Isakower
            2  Mary Miksa
               Elena Marks
            3  Sterling Burnett
               James Peppe
            4  Beverly Feeler
               Julie Moore
            5  Council Member Linda Koop
               Brandt Mannchen
            6  Walt Baum
               Kathryn Weathers
            7  Lesly Van Dame
               Colin McKellips
            8  Rick Morgan
               Berwick Simon
            9  David DiMarcello
               Kelly Frels
           10  David Schanbacher
               Laura Blackburn
           11  Tim Webster
               Grant Bailey
           12  Wendi Hammond
               Meg Healy
           13  Eric Birch
               Daphne Scarborough
           14  David Marrack
               Geoffrey Castro
           15  Charles Stillman
               Scott Hochberg
           16  Ronald Parry
               Doug Schuler
           17  Charlotte Wells
               Burton Dickey
           18  Dan Healy
               Linda Mercer
           19  Melissa Taldykin
               Mary Schultz
           20  Ben Ziesmer
               Stephen Pavel
           21  Rosalia Guerrero
               Kevin Farnham
           22  Ariel Thomann, M.D.
               Ashley Streetman
           23  Lucy Randel
               Jose Moreno
           24

           25


                                                                       4



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

            2                      SEPTEMBER 5, 2007

            3                    MORNING SESSION PANEL

            4         Susan Stone    Lydia Wegman    Carl Edlund

            5                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you very much for

            6  attending the Environmental Protection Agency's public

            7  hearing on our proposed revisions to the ozone

            8  standards.  My name is Lydia Wegman.  I'm the director

            9  of the Health and Environmental Impacts Division in our

           10  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which is

           11  part of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.

           12                 And I am very grateful to all of you for

           13  taking the time to attend our public hearing this

           14  morning.  I very much appreciate the effort you've made

           15  and the time you've taken out of your schedule to share

           16  your thoughts with us today on our proposed ozone

           17  standard revisions.

           18                 I'm going to be the chair of today's

           19  hearing, and with me, on my right, is Susan Stone.  And

           20  she is with my office in North Carolina, and she is a

           21  health scientist and an expert on ozone health effects.

           22  And to my left is Carl Edlund, and he is the division --

           23  the division director of our air division in our

           24  Region 6 office in Dallas.

           25                 So, we are here to take your thoughts on


                                                                       5



            1  our ozone standards.  As a reminder, this is a hearing

            2  and it's an opportunity for public comment.  The panel

            3  members may answer questions, if you have clarifying

            4  questions; but for the most part, the purpose of today's

            5  hearing is to hear your comments and not to discuss or

            6  debate the proposals.

            7                 Before we do start the comment period,

            8  I'd like to briefly describe the proposed rule, which

            9  was published in the "Federal Register" on July 11th.

           10  And I'll just note that the comment period is a 90-day

           11  comment period, which closes on October 9th.  And if you

           12  have an interest in submitting written comments in

           13  addition to what you offer us today, we have procedures

           14  for submitting those written comments and there's

           15  information on how to do that out front at the table

           16  where you signed in.

           17                 Ground-level ozone is the primary

           18  component of smog and is formed through the reaction of

           19  nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the

           20  presence of sunlight.  Exposure to ozone is associated

           21  with an array of respiratory problems, including

           22  aggravated asthma, increased susceptibility to

           23  respiratory infections, increased doctors' visits,

           24  increased emergency department visits and hospital

           25  admissions and premature death.


                                                                       6



            1                 In addition, ground-level ozone can have

            2  harmful effects on sensitive plant species, including

            3  trees and crops, and on the ecosystems they inhabit.  It

            4  has been shown that both the level of ozone to which

            5  plants are exposed and the duration of their exposure

            6  are important factors in determining the plant's

            7  response to ozone.  The most significant effects result

            8  from the accumulation of ozone exposures throughout the

            9  growing season, with higher concentrations of ozone

           10  producing greater impacts.

           11                 Based on a careful review of a large body

           12  of scientific evidence that is now available regarding

           13  both the health and welfare effects of expose -- of

           14  exposure to ozone, the Administrator at EPA has

           15  concluded that the current ozone standards are not

           16  adequate to protect public health and welfare.

           17                 A number of new health studies have been

           18  conducted indicating that adverse effects occur

           19  following to -- following exposure to ozone at levels

           20  below the current standards.  Furthermore, these studies

           21  indicate that people with respiratory illness, such as

           22  asthma, are particularly sensitive to these adverse

           23  effects.  In addition, new scientific studies confirm

           24  that exposure to ozone adversely affects the growth of

           25  sensitive plant species and may increase their


                                                                       7



            1  susceptibility to disease and pests.

            2                 After careful consideration of this

            3  scientific evidence, advice from our Clean Air

            4  Scientific Advisory Committee, which is an independent

            5  scientific advisory committee, and public comments, the

            6  Administrator has proposed -- proposed to revise both

            7  the primary ozone standard, which is designed to protect

            8  human health, and the secondary ozone standard, designed

            9  to protect welfare, such as vegetation and crops.

           10                 Currently, the primary and secondary

           11  ozone standards are identical:  Our current eight-hour

           12  standard of .08 parts per million, which is effectively

           13  a .084 standard with our current rounding convention.

           14  Under our proposals, each of these standards would be

           15  revised and the form of the secondary standard may

           16  change so that it is no longer identical to the primary

           17  standard.

           18                 We've requested comments on all aspects

           19  of the proposal and alternatives to our proposed

           20  revisions.  And, specifically, let me go over what our

           21  proposal is.  We have proposed revising the level of the

           22  health standard to within the range of .070 to .075.

           23  That's seven parts per million or 70 to 75 parts per

           24  billion.  And we've also requested comment on

           25  alternative levels down to .060 parts per million and up


                                                                       8



            1  to the level of and including retention of the current

            2  standard.

            3                 We're also requesting comment on

            4  specifying the level of the primary standard to the

            5  third decimal place because our monitors are able to

            6  detect ozone at that level of accuracy.  And that would

            7  eliminate that standard that you mentioned -- that I had

            8  mentioned.

            9                 Concerning the secondary standard, we

           10  proposed two alternatives.  One option would be to

           11  establish a new form of the standard, called -- right

           12  now we call it the W126, that is designed specifically

           13  to cumulate ozone exposures and give more weight to

           14  higher concentrations.  And we're proposing to set the

           15  level of the cumulative standard to within a range of 7

           16  to 21 parts per million hours.  And our second option

           17  would be to revise the secondary standard to be

           18  identical to the primary standard.

           19                 As I said, there is additional

           20  information that's available on our proposed rule in the

           21  registration area.  And let me just see.  And the -- we

           22  are under a consent decree, which requires us to issue

           23  our final rule by March 12th, 2008.  So, we are going to

           24  be moving forward fairly quickly following the public

           25  hearing and the close of the comment period to review


                                                                       9



            1  the comments and meet our March 12th deadline.

            2                 Turning now to the comment portion of

            3  today's hearing, this hearing is one of five public

            4  hearings that we're holding across the country.  We had

            5  two hearings last Thursday, one in Los Angeles and one

            6  in Philadelphia.  And there are two others going on

            7  today, one in Chicago and one in Atlanta.

            8                 We have a very helpful court reporter

            9  here who will be preparing a transcript of today's

           10  hearing.  So, please, when you come forward, state your

           11  name clearly, and your affiliation, which will help her

           12  keep track of your comments.

           13                 The way we're going to work the hearing

           14  today is I'm going to call scheduled speakers in pairs.

           15  And as I said, state your name and affiliation.  We're

           16  asking that you limit your testimony to five minutes

           17  each and to please remain at the microphone until the

           18  pair of speakers have finished speaking.  After you

           19  finish your testimony, one of us may ask you a question.

           20  And so, please bear with us if we do have a question.

           21                 And what you say today will become part

           22  of the official record of the entire review of our ozone

           23  standards.  If you do have any written comments, please

           24  give a copy of those comments to the staff at the

           25  registration table.  And you're welcome to give us a


                                                                     10



            1  copy -- copy, as well, if you have one, which will

            2  enable us to follow what you have to say.

            3                 We have a little echo here, I think, but

            4  I guess they're working on that.  We have a timekeeping

            5  system, green, yellow, and red lights.  When you begin

            6  speaking, the green light will come on and that will be

            7  an indication of -- that you've got five minutes to

            8  speak.  After four minutes, a yellow light will come on,

            9  indicating you have one minute remaining, and then the

           10  red light will indicate that your five minutes are up.

           11  And if you are still speaking, please try to wrap up

           12  your testimony at that point.

           13                 We are planning to stay into the evening

           14  to make sure everyone does have an opportunity to speak.

           15  And if you have not registered and are interested in

           16  speaking today, please do sign up at the registration

           17  desk outside of this hearing room.  I think that's

           18  everything I wanted to say to open the hearing, so why

           19  don't we get started.

           20                 And our first two speakers are Judge

           21  Emmett and Matthew Tejada.

           22                 JUDGE EMMETT:  Good morning.

           23                 MR. TEJADA:  Good morning.

           24                 JUDGE EMMETT:  How are you?

           25                 MR. TEJADA:  Fine.  Thank you.


                                                                     11



            1                 JUDGE EMMETT:  Good morning.

            2                 MS. WEGMAN:  Good morning.

            3                 JUDGE EMMETT:  Are you ready?

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  We're ready.

            5                 JUDGE EMMETT:  Good.

            6                 Well, welcome to Houston.  My name is Ed

            7  Emmett.  I'm county judge of Harris County.  For those

            8  who are not from Texas, county judge is really not a

            9  judge.  It's a county executive.  But I'm here this

           10  morning appearing on behalf of the Houston-Galveston

           11  Area Council Board of Directors, which after bubbling up

           12  a resolution through the Transportation Policy Council,

           13  has adopted a statement which the Houston-Galveston Area

           14  Council will be sending to you in a formal letter.  So,

           15  my comments are just to sort of give you a heads-up.

           16                 Recognizing that the EPA is recommending

           17  a range of 70 to 75 parts per billion for the standards

           18  and is taking these comments and also its recommendation

           19  of a broader range from 60 to 84 parts per billion,

           20  we -- we would like to note that this does leave the

           21  current standard open for reapproval.

           22                 Secondly, in the proposal the EPA has

           23  stated that the current eight-hour standard is not

           24  adequately protect -- protective of human health.  HGAC

           25  feels strongly that if this proves to be correct after


                                                                     12



            1  all the public comment is considered, the current

            2  standard should not be retained.  Clearly, this is about

            3  health.

            4                 If the EPA implements a revision to the

            5  current eight-hour ozone standard, however, the

            6  requirements of the current standard should -- should

            7  remain in effect for current non-attainment areas to

            8  avoid backsliding.

            9                 And, fourth, if the EPA implements a

           10  revision to the current eight-hour ozone standard, Early

           11  Action Compact should be an available option for

           12  eligible areas to encourage early action to prevent

           13  non-attainment.  And I'll say a little bit more about

           14  that at the end.

           15                 And fifth, and final point, so important

           16  to our area, you know, when the standards were first

           17  developed, the Houston area, the Beaumont and Houston,

           18  Galveston, Brazoria area, came from a different standing

           19  than the -- perhaps the entire rest of the country.  I

           20  mean, we had this petrochemical complex second to none

           21  in the world.  So, a standard applied here would be

           22  obviously much more difficult for us to -- to get to.

           23                 So, with that in mind, because mobile

           24  source emission reductions are so critical to attaining

           25  ozone standards for our area, the EPA should expedite


                                                                     13



            1  the process of implementing more stringent mobile source

            2  emissions controls.  It's simple -- simply a question of

            3  can we get there without that, and it's very difficult,

            4  just given the -- the type of industry we have in our

            5  area.

            6                 A couple of other additional points to

            7  make, obviously it should go without saying, but any

            8  decision should be based on sound science, which we

            9  assume that will be the case, and also needs to be

           10  recognition that there are adverse economic consequences

           11  for non-attainment regions.

           12                 The increased cost delays restricted

           13  permit requirements associated with a non-attainment

           14  designation prevent economic growth and expansion in the

           15  region.  And there's also the potential loss of federal

           16  highway dollars.  And, of course, that was particularly

           17  important to the Transportation Policy Council.

           18                 With all this in mind, we would ask for

           19  EPA to consider how far the Houston-Galveston area has

           20  come, and we look forward to working with you.  And I

           21  haven't even gotten to the orange light yet.  So, maybe

           22  I've set the tone for the rest of the day.  And there

           23  will be a formal letter coming with more details.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you, Judge Emmett.

           25                 Just -- just a -- a quick question.  You


                                                                     14



            1  said more mobile source controls would be desirable.

            2  Are there any specific things you have in mind?

            3                 JUDGE EMMETT:  Well, we will -- the

            4  Transportation Policy Council will be making those

            5  suggestions, but it -- I won't say it's impossible, but

            6  I can tell you in discussions with many, many people who

            7  have been in this realm longer than I have, that just

            8  trying to get the Houston-Galveston area to any lower

            9  standard without taking into consideration the mobile

           10  sources is -- is so difficult.  I just don't see how we

           11  can get there.

           12                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.  And does the policy

           13  council have any views on what the standard should be

           14  based on our proposal, or have you not settled on a

           15  position yet?

           16                 JUDGE EMMETT:  We have not settled on

           17  that.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  All right.  We'll

           19  look forward to hearing from you and --

           20                 JUDGE EMMETT:  Thanks.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- viewing your petition.

           22                 JUDGE EMMETT:  Thank you.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  All right.  Thank you very

           24  much, Judge Emmett.

           25                 Mr. Tejada?


                                                                     15



            1                 DR. TEJADA:  Uh-huh.  My name is Matthew

            2  Tejada with two T's.  Last name is spelled T-E-J-A-D-A.

            3  I am an advocate with the Texas Public Interest Research

            4  Group, a statewide, non-partisan, non-profit policy

            5  research and public interest advocacy.

            6                 I'm here today to say that the EPA must

            7  follow the law, the decision of the Supreme Court, and

            8  the advice of its own scientists when setting its ozone

            9  standards.  The science on this is sound.  EPA's own

           10  handpicked health science advisory panel is the most

           11  well qualified in the United States to determine what

           12  ozone standards will protect the public health.

           13                 Since there is such a range within the

           14  panel's own recommendation, it behooves the EPA to set a

           15  standard that protects the public health with an

           16  adequate margin of safety.  Setting a standard of 0.07

           17  parts per million does not achieve this.  The EPA cannot

           18  play a guessing game of which standard will protect the

           19  public health.  If the EPA guesses wrong and sets a

           20  standard which does not protect the public health with a

           21  sustainable margin of safety, all of us will suffer.

           22                 That is why a standard of 0.06 parts per

           23  million is the most suitable.  The time when industry

           24  could reasonably complain that they are being

           25  unnecessarily burdened with pollution standards is past.


                                                                     16



            1  Limiting pollution and protecting public health are a

            2  cost of doing business that must be accepted by those

            3  who pollute.

            4                 I feel that arguments citing the fact

            5  that areas such as Houston are unable to reach current

            6  standards only support my opinion.  There are policy

            7  recommendations that would substantially improve the

            8  City's ability to lower its ozone levels.

            9                 Why have these policies not been

           10  implemented?  Because elected representatives and

           11  business leaders and social pressure have not been

           12  brought to bear.  The level of the debate needs to be

           13  raised, and awareness on the issue needs to be

           14  increased.

           15                 By significantly strengthening the

           16  standard, the EPA will raise the level of debate and

           17  shine a light on the ozone issue bright enough to force

           18  people to regard the health impact of ozone with the

           19  seriousness the issue deserves.  Arguments that a

           20  stronger standard are not economically appropriate are

           21  not only unconvincing, they do not belong in this

           22  debate.

           23                 Should the EPA consider cost benefit

           24  economic arguments or impact on industrial bottom lines,

           25  they would be both breaking the law and defying the


                                                                     17



            1  Supreme Court.  Frankly, industry representatives are

            2  talking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.

            3  The National Association of Manufacturers and the

            4  American Petroleum Institute fought like mad to block

            5  the current standard ten years ago, the standard that

            6  they now say is great when the threat of an even

            7  stronger standard comes along.  And at the same time

            8  that they are trumpeting the current standard, they are

            9  working behind the scenes to undo its limited

           10  effectiveness.

           11                 The Washington, D.C. Circuit Court

           12  decided in December to overturn delayed implementation

           13  tactics for current ozone standards, a decision which

           14  the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association is

           15  expected to challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court.

           16                 Industry says that it is working hard to

           17  limit ozone pollution and that the current standards are

           18  suitable and effective.  I would say that the industry

           19  words contradict their actions, which have repeatedly

           20  proven that industry in this country continues to

           21  believe that it has the right to pollute and the right

           22  to harm our health.

           23                 There has also been some talk recently

           24  about new studies showing that the current ozone

           25  standard is adequate.  The number of such studies is not


                                                                     18



            1  only miniscule when compared to the overwhelming body of

            2  scientific evidence, the providence of such reports is

            3  questionable.

            4                 The facts here are very simple.  The EPA

            5  has a job to do.  There are rules governing how it does

            6  this job.  Rules reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.  The

            7  EPA must set ozone standards that protect the public

            8  health and can only consider public health when setting

            9  these standards.

           10                 The overwhelming body of scientific

           11  evidence, including the findings of the EPA's own expert

           12  scientists, supports a significant strengthening of

           13  national ozone standards.  If the EPA -- if the EPA is

           14  to do its job and follow the letter of the law, then it

           15  must accept the strongest standard recommended, 0.06

           16  parts per million.

           17                 And I see that I also have one minute

           18  left, so I'd like to read to you a few comments from

           19  TexPIRG's membership to show that there are folks around

           20  the state interested in this issue, not just the Houston

           21  area folks that suffer from ozone.

           22                 This is from Sondra Spiker in Lago Vista,

           23  Texas.  As a mother and a youth soccer referee, I am

           24  very concerned about the quality of air we breathe.  My

           25  daughter suffers from asthma.


                                                                     19



            1                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,

            2  whoa.  You're going to have to slow down when you read.

            3                 DR. TEJADA:  I'm sorry.

            4                 THE REPORTER:  Thank you.

            5                 DR. TEJADA:  As a mother and a youth

            6  soccer referee, I am very concerned about the quality of

            7  air we breathe.  My daughter suffers from asthma, and

            8  she loves to play soccer, as well.  When ground-level

            9  ozone is high, her asthma symptoms are markedly more

           10  severe.  I've noticed the same in other children who

           11  play soccer, as well.

           12                 I would hope that no other parent has to

           13  experience what I once did, holding my gasping child

           14  close for long minutes as I prayed that the EMS would

           15  arrive in time to help her breathe.  Thankfully, they

           16  were able -- they were able -- able to save her.  The

           17  savings would not only be in human terms, but monetary

           18  as well.  It's expensive to treat chronic diseases

           19  caused by air pollution and even more expensive when

           20  emergency services are required.

           21                 (Timer beeping.)

           22                 I'll stop there.

           23                 MR. EDLUND:  It beeps.

           24                 DR. TEJADA:  Yeah.

           25                 MR. EDLUND:  Just if -- if you have


                                                                     20



            1  additional comments like that --

            2                 DR. TEJADA:  I --

            3                 MR. EDLUND:  -- if you'd like to submit

            4  those for the record.

            5                 DR. TEJADA:  I am.  I'm going to submit

            6  all of them to the record.  Thank you.

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Just one thing,

            8  Mr. Tejada --

            9                 DR. TEJADA:  Yes, ma'am.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- you talked about the

           11  providence of the report saying that the current

           12  standard is adequate is questionable.  If you have

           13  specific points on -- on why they're questionable from

           14  the scientific angle, it would be helpful if you

           15  submitted those --

           16                 DR. TEJADA:  Okay.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- in written comments.

           18                 DR. TEJADA:  I can do that.

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  All right.

           20                 DR. TEJADA:  Thank you.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           22                 Thank you both.

           23                 Our next witnesses are Ana Hernandez and

           24  Cynthia Brum.

           25                 MS. HERNANDEZ:  Good morning.  I'm State


                                                                     21



            1  Representative Ana Hernandez, and I represent House

            2  District 143 and -- including neighborhoods around the

            3  Houston Ship Channel area.  I'd like to thank the panel

            4  for coming to Houston today from -- to hear from

            5  environmental groups and advocacy groups and government

            6  officials.

            7                 I'm here today to speak on behalf of

            8  numerous residents living around the Houston Ship

            9  Channel, the people who I represent who are regularly

           10  exposed to levels of health-damaging smog in

           11  concentrations twice that of the rest of Houston.  The

           12  area I represent encompasses a large concentration of

           13  petrochemical plants, refineries, and other industrial

           14  facilities.

           15                 Many of the pollutants that combine in

           16  sunlight to create ozone come from our local industry.

           17  The Houston Ship Channel area is currently on the Texas

           18  Commission on Environment Quality's air pollution watch

           19  list for high levels of benzene and butadiene, air

           20  pollutants that react in sunlight, creating ozone.

           21                 Houston is one of the most susceptible

           22  cities in the nation to ozone pollution, given the

           23  summer heat and sun.  And this -- if you're here in our

           24  city and you'll spend an afternoon out, you'll -- you'll

           25  quickly realize this.  The climatic and geographic


                                                                     22



            1  vehicles that work in Houston, exacerbated by the

            2  city's -- as the city is one of the most heavily

            3  polluted in the U.S., especially with regard to the type

            4  of pollution that form ozone.

            5                 A task force of experts assembled by the

            6  University of Texas Health Science --

            7                 THE REPORTER:  I'm sorry.  Can -- can you

            8  slow down your reading?  It's going really fast.

            9                 MS. HERNANDEZ:  A task force -- a task

           10  force of experts at the University of Texas Health

           11  Science Centers found concentrations of ozone over the

           12  Houston Ship Channel area to be twice as much as the

           13  rest of -- of the Houston downtown area.  In the Houston

           14  Ship Channel area, we had ozone in the levels of between

           15  120 to 200 parts per billion.  And at the same time in

           16  the downtown area, they ranged between 40 and 90 parts

           17  per billion.

           18                 The disparity between pollution suffered

           19  by people in the Ship Channel area and the rest of

           20  Houston is just that simple.  The residents in the Ship

           21  Channel area whom I represent are potentially exposed to

           22  twice as much pollution as the remainder of Houston.

           23                 And although we are not experts in the

           24  science of -- of air pollution and health, we find the

           25  statements of the committee extremely compelling.  And


                                                                     23



            1  the committee is recommending significantly

            2  strengthening these standards, and I'm here in support

            3  of that.  We must strengthen the standards in order to

            4  protect public health with the margin of -- of safety.

            5                 It's very important that we -- we ask the

            6  EPA to set the standard that we are working at the state

            7  and local levels to protect public health, but we need

            8  your help in helping us strengthen standards and

            9  community air for our constituents.

           10                 It's a very important health concern in

           11  my area.  We have lots of residents without health

           12  insurance, and this issue -- I mean, we've got

           13  neighborhoods that are next to refineries, children

           14  playing outside.  And I remember as a child -- I grew up

           15  around the Ship Channel area -- not being able to go

           16  outside because of the ozone watches.

           17                 At that age, I didn't really understand

           18  what it was.  But I think children in our neighborhoods

           19  in the district that I represent should have the right

           20  to work -- to play out and -- and be able to breathe

           21  clean air as the rest of the city and the rest of the

           22  state.  So, I'm here hoping to send a powerful message

           23  that we need to clean the air in Texas.

           24                 I have a letter that I'll be submitting

           25  as written testimony on behalf of the environmental


                                                                     24



            1  legislative caucus, health members that have signed

            2  down -- signed on to the -- to the letter supporting the

            3  recommendation of the EPA experts to strengthen these

            4  standards.  These are letters -- members that have

            5  signed across the state, including Austin, El Paso,

            6  Corpus Christi, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, the Rio

            7  Grande Valley, and San Antonio.  So, we hope that you --

            8  you hear our -- our -- our request to help protect our

            9  families.

           10                 Thank you.

           11                 MS. STONE:  What is your specific

           12  recommendation for the level of the standard?

           13                 MS. HERNANDEZ:  The 60 parts per billion.

           14                 MS. STONE:  Okay.  Thank you.

           15                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           16                 MS. HERNANDEZ:  Thank you.

           17                 MS. BRUM:  Good morning.  My name is

           18  Cynthia Brum, B-R-U-M, and I'm here representing the

           19  Galveston/Houston Association for Smog Prevention.  And

           20  I thank you all for being here today.

           21                 Our message is simple.  We ask that the

           22  EPA listen to the requirement of your scientific

           23  advisors and set a stronger ambient air quality standard

           24  that protects public health with an adequate margin of

           25  safety.


                                                                     25



            1                 As you all are well aware, Houston has a

            2  series ozone problem, and for more than 30 years, the

            3  Houston, Galveston, Brazoria area has failed to attain

            4  the current level of ozone standard.  Because of the

            5  consistent delays in cleaning up our air, we need the

            6  EPA to hold Texas accountable for the current standard

            7  and not keep giving the State extension after extension.

            8                 Governor Perry recently requested a

            9  reclassification of our area from moderate to severe.

           10  So, instead of meeting the current ozone standard in

           11  2010, the governor effectively is asking for yet another

           12  extension until 2019.  We need our state regulators and

           13  industry leaders to take action now to reduce the

           14  harmful emissions that cause our ozone problem.

           15                 Air quality has improved over the past

           16  three decades, but it's only happened through

           17  enforcement.  Should the EPA implement a revision to the

           18  eight-hour ozone standard?  The requirements of the

           19  current standard should remain current for attainment

           20  areas -- for non-attainment areas.  I'm sorry.

           21                 Because the Houston area experiences

           22  sudden high one-hour ozone exceedences, setting the

           23  standard with an adequate margin of safety is absolutely

           24  necessary for our region.  These one-hour spikes pose

           25  the greatest risk for the most vulnerable Houstonians,


                                                                     26



            1  children, seniors, and those who suffer from

            2  cardiovascular diseases and who also suffer from serious

            3  lung illnesses like asthma, chronic bronchitis, and

            4  emphysema.

            5                 Fortunately, the ozone season so far this

            6  year has been relatively mild, but this is only because

            7  persistent rain has kept the sudden hidden -- the sun

            8  hidden and temperatures mild.  We cannot control the

            9  weather, and we certainly cannot keep praying for more

           10  rain to correct Houston's poor air quality.

           11                 Our health and quality of life cannot

           12  afford to depend on inadequate policies and lack of

           13  enforcement that failed to reduce our harmful ozone

           14  problem.  We ask -- we must have a stronger ozone

           15  standard to protect our health.  But most importantly,

           16  for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area, the EPA needs

           17  to be more aggressive in requiring our state regulate --

           18  regulators and industry leaders attain the current

           19  standard.

           20                 Thank you very much.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           22                 Any questions?  Just one for you real

           23  quickly.

           24                 MS. BRUM:  Oh, I'm sorry.

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  Do you support, then, the --


                                                                     27



            1  the low end of the CASAC recommendation?

            2                 MS. BRUM:  We do.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

            4                 Our next two speakers are Jane Laping and

            5  Ramon Alvarez.

            6                 MS. LAPING:  Good morning, and thank you

            7  for holding this hearing in Houston.  Yes, Houston has a

            8  problem, and we call it air pollution.  My name is Jane

            9  Laping, L-A-P-I-N-G, and I'm the executive director of

           10  Mothers for Clean Air, a local organization in Houston

           11  concerned about air pollution and its effects on health,

           12  particularly the health of children.  I'm speaking today

           13  on behalf of our 1,400 members.

           14                 We are asking the EPA to consider the

           15  advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee,

           16  which has reviewed hundreds of studies published in the

           17  last ten years, when deciding on a standard that

           18  protects the health of our children.  As an agency, EPA

           19  is mandated by Congress to set standards that protect

           20  public health, including the health of sensitive

           21  populations, with an adequate margin of safety, and that

           22  is what we expect you to do.

           23                 Pressure from industry, however, tells

           24  you that they cannot possibly do more and that it would

           25  cost too much to do so anyway.  Yet, in 2002, the


                                                                     28



            1  Supreme Court determined that economics cannot be a part

            2  of the decision-making process for setting the National

            3  Ambient Air Quality Standards, only public health.  So,

            4  I urge you not to be dissuaded by pressure from big

            5  business to compromise the health of our little ones by

            6  revising the standard to anything less than what you

            7  know to be protective of the public health with an

            8  adequate margin of safety.

            9                 Unfortunately, for our children, they

           10  cannot apply the same pressure to tell you that they

           11  need clean air for their bodies to develop properly and

           12  so they can breathe healthful air when they play

           13  outside.  However, I can give you a few facts to

           14  consider as you make your decision.

           15                 More than a million children in Harris

           16  County are at risk of adverse health effects from high

           17  concentrations of ozone.  Children are especially

           18  vulnerable to negative consequences of air pollution

           19  because of their active -- activity patterns and

           20  developing bodies.  In addition to short-term effects,

           21  exposure to ozone during childhood can adversely affect

           22  normal lung development and lead to respiratory problems

           23  later in life.

           24                 Of the 1,000,000 children in Harris

           25  County, 100,000 of those children have asthma.  Their


                                                                     29



            1  asthma can be aggravated by ozone air pollution and may

            2  cause them to need more medication, a trip to the

            3  emergency room, or even hospitalization.  These adverse

            4  health effects have a cascading effect on school

            5  attendance, missed time at work by parents and

            6  grandparents, and resulting medical costs.

            7                 Last year, the Houston-Galveston area had

            8  36 eight-hour ozone exceedence days.  36 days when

            9  children's outdoor activity was restricted according to

           10  the EPA's air quality index.  36 days when children

           11  should not be out at recess or practicing soccer or

           12  attending their friend's outdoor pool party.

           13                 It's a sad situation that we can't let

           14  our children play outside because the air is unhealthy.

           15  Making the ozone health standard stricter will increase

           16  the number of days children shouldn't be outside, but it

           17  will also decrease the number of children who experience

           18  an asthma episode because they breathed in too much

           19  ozone.

           20                 Experience has shown that industry will

           21  not do more than it is required to do, but enforce the

           22  law and they will respond.  Newly developed technology

           23  has been responsible for the emission reductions we have

           24  experienced in the last five years in the

           25  Houston-Galveston area.  All these effects and more


                                                                     30



            1  recent technology will assist this area to meet a

            2  higher, more protective ozone health standard.

            3                 We need ambient air quality standards

            4  that protect the most vulnerable, namely, our children.

            5  CASAC has recommended a range of 60 to 70 parts per

            6  billion.  Possibly feeling pressure from industry, EPA

            7  says that 70 to 75 ppb is enough.  We know that the

            8  current standard is not sufficiently protective of

            9  public health, and we know that EPA is charged to set

           10  standards with an adequate margin of safety without

           11  regard to cost.

           12                 So, when you determine the new ozone

           13  standard, we ask that you stand up to the pressure from

           14  big business and feel the pressure from the little ones

           15  so that they can have a chance at healthy lungs.

           16                 Thank you.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           18                 DR. ALVAREZ:  Good morning.  My name is

           19  Ramon Alvarez.  Thank you for the opportunity to testify

           20  today.  I'm testifying on behalf of Environmental

           21  Defense, a non-profit, non-governmental, non-partisan

           22  environmental organization with more than 500,000

           23  members nationwide.

           24                 Today we respectfully request that EPA

           25  set the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone


                                                                     31



            1  at 60 parts per billion, which is the protective end of

            2  the range unanimously recommended by the Clean Air

            3  Scientific Advisory Committee, an EPA-appointed panel of

            4  the nation's leading experts.

            5                 The experts leave no doubt about the

            6  science.  Ozone at levels well below the current

            7  standard can affect the respiratory system by damaging

            8  lung tissues and reducing lung function.  As a result,

            9  they can lead to the exacerbation of asthma and chronic

           10  bronchitis, as well as diminishing lung development in

           11  growing children.  More -- more recent studies show that

           12  ozone exposure can increase the risk of premature death.

           13                 According to data in EPA's risk

           14  assessment, lowering the ozone health standard below

           15  .065 parts per million compared to the ozone

           16  concentrations in 2004 would have far-reaching benefits

           17  in preventing the adverse effects associated with ozone

           18  air pollution.

           19                 Here in Houston, EPA's data predicts an

           20  88 percent reduction in the number of children with

           21  impaired lung function due to -- due to ozone and an

           22  80 percent reduction in the ozone-related mortality

           23  rate.  Clearly, strengthening the standard would touch

           24  thousands of individual lives in Houston and millions

           25  nationally.


                                                                     32



            1                 EPA's periodic review of the NAAQS is

            2  quite simply about truth in labeling.  The NAAQS allow

            3  Americans to know whether the air in their -- their

            4  communities and neighborhoods is safe to breathe.  We

            5  are concerned that EPA has expressly held open the

            6  possibility of leaving the current ozone standard for

            7  ozone unchanged, explicitly seeking public comment on

            8  such an option.  Given the science, this is

            9  unacceptable.  It would be unconscionable to tell people

           10  that they are breathing healthy air when, in fact, they

           11  are not.

           12                 The imperative of protecting human health

           13  from air pollution is deeply rooted in the Clean Air

           14  Act.  In 1970, a unanimous United States Senate provided

           15  an effective two-step process for the fight against air

           16  pollution.  First, Congress commanded that the National

           17  Ambient Air Quality Standards be based solely on

           18  public health considerations.

           19                 Then, second, after the health-based

           20  standards had been set, Congress directed that economics

           21  be thoroughly considered in devising the air pollution

           22  control strategies to achieve the standards.

           23                 You will surely hear today from some in

           24  industry protesting this carefully calibrated dual

           25  system.  They will argue that this two-step inquiry


                                                                     33



            1  should be conflated, rather than direct, and that the

            2  nation's health standards should be based on economics.

            3  This argument has been trotted out time and time again,

            4  and resoundingly rejected, over the past 37 years.

            5                 It was most recently rejected in 2001 by

            6  a unanimous Supreme Court.  The Court upheld the bedrock

            7  principle that National Ambient Air Quality Standards

            8  should be precautionary in safeguarding against adverse

            9  health -- health effects and be based exclusively on

           10  public health.  Therefore, as the Clean Air Act plainly

           11  states, the Administrator must establish that standards

           12  are requisite to protect the public health with an

           13  adequate margin of safety.

           14                 A couple of -- of more points to give you

           15  a little more local color.  I heard a state

           16  representative today say, I think, quite -- quite

           17  elegantly, that in Houston we have risen to the

           18  challenge.  We can reduce pollution if we have -- if we

           19  set our sights to it.  Texas is a can-do state.

           20                 If we set the goals correctly, we can

           21  make progress.  Over the last 37 years, since 1970, we

           22  have significantly reduced pollution in this country

           23  while increasing gross domestic product.  Texas --

           24  Texans want clean air.

           25                 In Houston, an amazing thing has happened


                                                                     34



            1  over the last 20, 26 years.  There's been an annual

            2  survey of public opinion conducted by researchers at

            3  Rice University.  They track trends in different --

            4  different policy issues, including air pollution trends.

            5  In -- in the most recent survey, they concluded their

            6  respondents supported enhanced environmental

            7  initiatives, even after being told of the inherent

            8  tradeoffs.

            9                 On every question, respondents indicated

           10  a willingness to pay the associated costs.  For example,

           11  by a margin of 57 to 35 percent, they decisively

           12  rejected the suggestion that, quote, "strengthening

           13  pollution controls will result in too many restrictions

           14  on individuals and business," close quote.

           15                 The researcher that carries out this

           16  work, Dr. Stephen Klineberg, summarized the pulse of

           17  Houstonians in his last survey when he said that if

           18  Houston -- if it turns out that Houston is unable to

           19  comply with the federal air quality standards by 2007,

           20  or 2010, and to fashion a more livable urban environment

           21  overall, that inability will not be due to any presumed

           22  resistance on the part of the residents of this city,

           23  but to a failure of leadership.

           24                 So, we hope that today, EPA, that you

           25  will listen to the public and -- and strengthen the


                                                                     35



            1  ambient air quality standard for ozone significantly

            2  down to the level of 60 parts per billion.

            3                 Thank you.

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            5                 Any questions?

            6                 MR. EDLUND:  Ms. Laping, do the Mothers

            7  for Clean Air have a recommendation on the level that --

            8                 MS. LAPING:  Our recommendation is that

            9  the EPA listen to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory

           10  Committee and follow their recommendations.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  And I just want to

           12  encourage, Ms. Laping, if you have information -- you --

           13  you spoke of the -- the numbers of kids with asthma.  If

           14  you have any documents supporting those figures that you

           15  cited, those would be helpful to submit.

           16                 MS. LAPING:  We will submit more formal

           17  written comments.  I also have my comments for today.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  Great.  Thank you.  Thank

           19  you.

           20                 And Mr. Alvarez -- or Dr. Alvarez, if

           21  you -- you do have the Rice University survey, that

           22  would be interesting to receive, as well.

           23                 DR. ALVAREZ:  Do you want me to give it

           24  to you now or do it later?

           25                 THE REPORTER:  I'm sorry?


                                                                     36



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah, he was just asking me

            2  whether he should give it to me now or send it later,

            3  and I was just saying whatever is best.

            4                 If you have it, that'd be great.  Thank

            5  you.

            6                 Just a quick announcement.  We found a --

            7  a set of keys in the room where the press conference was

            8  held.  So, if you are missing a set of keys, please stop

            9  by the registration desk.  They are being held up there.

           10                 Our next two speakers are Lynnette Mazur

           11  and Karen Hadden.

           12                 Good morning.

           13                 DR. MAZUR:  Good morning.  Thank you for

           14  the opportunity to speak on ozone and particularly the

           15  findings we see in children.  I'm Dr. Lynnette Mazur,

           16  and I am the chief of pediatrics at Shriners Hospital

           17  for Children here in Houston.  I'm also a professor of

           18  pediatrics at the University of Texas here in Houston.

           19                 But I come today representing the 60,000

           20  pediatricians in the United States and the Committee on

           21  Environmental Health from the AAP.  I'm here to urge the

           22  AAP to make the air we breathe a little cleaner.

           23  Although the ideal level for ozone is zero, the AAP

           24  members call to lower the standard below the current of

           25  .8 parts per million.


                                                                     37



            1                 Does anybody here have asthma?  Does

            2  anybody here have a child with asthma?  So, there are a

            3  few hands.  Does anybody live somewhere else, and when

            4  they fly into Houston or Los Angeles start coughing or

            5  start tearing when they get off the plane?

            6                 Over the years, probably the last

            7  25 years, I've taken care of countless, countless

            8  children with asthma.  Thousands.  I've been a

            9  pediatrician for 25 years.  And the kids that come, they

           10  come to the emergency room.  They're hospitalized.  It

           11  is the most common cause to be hospitalized here in

           12  Houston.

           13                 The kids miss school.  They miss -- they

           14  cough all night.  They're tired when they go to school.

           15  And they're in the emergency room.  They're in the

           16  hospital.  Some of them are even in the intensive care

           17  unit with breathing machines.  And my hope is to make

           18  the air a little cleaner so that we don't experience

           19  these big numbers of asthma admissions.

           20                 I counsel kids.  I counsel parents on a

           21  lot of things, their personal air.  I counsel them, Stop

           22  smoking, stop smoking, every time they come.  Don't

           23  sleep with your furry pet if you have asthma.  Take your

           24  medicine.  Take your prevention medicine.  I can do

           25  that.


                                                                     38



            1                 And as a pediatrician and as a professor

            2  of pediatrics at the University, I can teach residents

            3  and I can teach other faculty members to really help

            4  patients with their personal air issues.  But I come

            5  here today to help with the outdoor air issues, and

            6  that's something that you can do that I cannot do.

            7                 Currently, about half of the U.S.

            8  population lives in ozone non-attainment areas, and

            9  children are specifically susceptible to asthma.  You've

           10  heard some of the other speakers talk about why children

           11  are more susceptible.  Children have growing lungs until

           12  about the age of 10 to 12.  And until they're 10 or 12,

           13  their lungs are still developing and very prone to be

           14  affected by toxins, which ozone is a toxin.

           15                 They breathe faster.  They're outside

           16  more than the adults.  Adults are indoors about

           17  25 hours -- 25 hours a day, 24 and a half hours a day.

           18  So, we're not really exposed as much children are.  They

           19  spend more time outdoors.  They have increased exposure

           20  to bad air.

           21                 So, the current standard of .08 parts per

           22  million puts -- that was last reviewed in 1997, there

           23  have been many studies that have consistently reported

           24  that ozone is bad.  It has bad effects on children's

           25  health.  It has bad effects on adults' health.  It


                                                                     39



            1  causes symptoms.  It's a trigger for asthma, but it also

            2  causes asthma.

            3                 So, if you're outdoors playing, doing

            4  your sport, practicing your sport, studies in California

            5  have shown that children who spend more time outdoors

            6  are more likely to have asthma as an adult than someone

            7  who does not spend time outside.

            8                 Ozone also affects crop growth -- crop

            9  yield, the food we eat.  It's more expensive.  We know

           10  that ozone is harmful.  And some have urged lowering the

           11  ozone standard will cost too much.  I would respond that

           12  we are already paying -- or rather shifting the price.

           13  Children miss school.  Their parents miss work.

           14  Children go to the emergency department.  They're

           15  hospitalized.  On an even sadder note here in Texas, we

           16  lose one person per week that dies because of asthma.

           17  And if we can prevent any death by lowering the

           18  standard, I would be a lot happier.

           19                 So, even though non-attainment areas may

           20  have 20 to -- 20 years or so to actually attain the

           21  standard, I would urge that we act soon to lower the

           22  standard.  And I would support -- and the 60,000

           23  pediatricians that I represent through the Academy of

           24  Pediatrics, we would support lowering the level to .06.

           25                 Thank you.


                                                                     40



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            2                 Any questions?

            3                 I -- I do just have a request.  You

            4  talked about that the most -- asthma is the most common

            5  cause of hospitalization in Houston.  If you have any

            6  information to back up that -- that figure, that would

            7  be --

            8                 DR. MAZUR:  I work at a children's

            9  hospital, and -- and I would be happy.  Where -- where

           10  should I send that to?

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  You can submit it to the

           12  address on the --

           13                 DR. MAZUR:  Okay.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- document that is out

           15  front.

           16                 DR. MAZUR:  Okay.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  That -- that kind of

           18  information would be helpful to us.

           19                 DR. MAZUR:  Okay.

           20                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

           21                 MS. HADDEN:  Good morning.  My name is

           22  Karen Hadden.  I'm here on behalf of the SEED Coalition,

           23  Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition,

           24  and we have 5,000 members here in the state of Texas.

           25                 I share the concerns of the speakers who


                                                                     41



            1  have already been before you and urge you to pursue the

            2  60-parts-per-billion ozone standard.  We need to put the

            3  health of our children first.  And I'd like to give you

            4  a couple of reasons, and a few experiences that I've

            5  dealt with I'd like to relay.

            6                 In Arlington, Texas, the mayor, Mayor

            7  Richard Cluck, is a physician.  He has been working with

            8  the Coalition of Cities because of his concern about air

            9  quality.  He can walk into the emergency room in a

           10  hospital and know that it's an ozone-action day because

           11  all around are children wheezing and are other people

           12  who are having asthma attacks.

           13                 There is a film that's being produced

           14  right now, and in a short piece of that film you'll see

           15  Mayor Cluck calling in and asking, What are the numbers

           16  today?  He said, I know that -- I know that we're having

           17  ozone problems.  It's very serious.  Sometimes he even

           18  gets called in from work from his job as the mayor to

           19  come help out at the hospital because it is that

           20  serious.

           21                 In Houston, there was a study in 2000 in

           22  the TXAQS 2000.  And the presentations were made in

           23  Austin, and speaker after speaker came forward and said,

           24  You know, the data on our air quality here in Texas

           25  isn't right.  It's worse than these numbers are showing.


                                                                     42



            1  And people had done flyovers and gotten independent

            2  data, and it was worse than we realized.

            3                 In Houston, with the Ship Channel, it was

            4  found that that was contributing seriously in this area

            5  and that Houston's ozone forms faster.  It cooks harder

            6  than in 50 other cities in the United States.  That is a

            7  serious concern here where the air pollution is already

            8  a threat to health.  The last speaker of the day that

            9  day concluded that not only was there this serious air

           10  pollution problem, but there was actually enhanced

           11  lightning over the Ship Channel.

           12                 We need your help.  I have a niece and

           13  two nephews who live in this area.  They're in Pearland.

           14  They were born here.  They're growing up in this area.

           15  They like to play outside, and they should be able to.

           16  But there are serious concerns about whether this is

           17  safe for their health, for their developing lungs.

           18                 In Texas, we have 1,160 premature deaths

           19  every year from just the particle pollution from coal

           20  plants.  That's related.  The nitrogen oxides that form

           21  smog are also part of the particle pollution problem

           22  that impacts our lungs and the small particles that go

           23  deep into our lungs and cause so many problems.  So, I

           24  urge you -- these are premature deaths, typically on the

           25  order of 14 years or more shaved off of the expected


                                                                     43



            1  lifespan.  I am happy to provide you this data.

            2                 I will also send you a recent Texas

            3  Medical Association statement and urge you to move

            4  forward with the strongest possible measure.  Heads of

            5  over 20 public health and environmental organizations,

            6  including the American Lung Association, the American

            7  Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health

            8  Association, have written to EPA Administrator Stephen

            9  Johnson -- this was April 16th of this year -- urging

           10  the tightening of the National Ambient Air Quality

           11  Standards for ozone smog.

           12                 The science is solid, and we urge you to

           13  protect our children.  You are the only ones that can do

           14  that.  Parents are struggling to protect the health and

           15  safety of their children in so many ways, ranging from

           16  safe vehicles, from smog detect -- or smoke detectors in

           17  the home, from healthy food to eat, from car seats.  Who

           18  is going to protect them from dirty air?  We call on the

           19  EPA to do that and to do it to the best of your ability.

           20                 Thank you.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  And please do

           22  submit the information --

           23                 MS. HADDEN:  Okay.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- you have.  That would be

           25  helpful, both of you.  Thank you.


                                                                     44



            1                 Our next two speakers are Dr. Bonnie New

            2  and Admiral Harold Koenig.

            3                 DR. NEW:  Good morning.  Thank you for

            4  allowing me to speak today.  I'm Dr. Bonnie New.  I'm a

            5  physician in Houston specializing in environmental and

            6  occupational health, and I represent Health

            7  Professionals for Clean Air, a coalition of doctors,

            8  nurses, and researchers in the Houston area who are very

            9  concerned about the harmful health effects of poor air

           10  quality.

           11                 Ozone exposure is a serious public health

           12  issue.  It's important for the voice of the health

           13  professional community to be heard on the subject of

           14  ozone, not only because we're the origin of the data

           15  that is the basis of standard setting but because we're

           16  right there on the front lines every day in our

           17  hospitals and offices caring for people harmed by ozone

           18  exposure.

           19                 Asthmatics taking more and more

           20  medications, adults and children gasping for breath in

           21  the emergency room, kids missing school, admissions to

           22  the hospital, days off from work, and people dying

           23  prematurely from in -- the increased physiologic burden

           24  of ozone exposure.

           25                 It is the explicit responsibility of the


                                                                     45



            1  EPA to set the ozone standard at a level that is

            2  protective of public health with a margin of safety that

            3  covers sensitive populations.  There are solid medical

            4  data documenting adverse health effects of ozone at

            5  concentrations of 60 ppb.  To one trained in medical

            6  science, experienced in public health, with a good

            7  working knowledge of epidemiology, this sounds pretty

            8  clear.  Set the standard at 60.  Not rounded, that would

            9  be 64.  Set it at 60.

           10                 The EPA's modeling of health effects at

           11  65 ppb presented in its staff paper on ozone gives a

           12  sense of the public health impact that would -- that

           13  that change in ozone exposure would have in Houston.

           14  Compared to 2004, we could expect an 88 percent

           15  reduction in the number of children with impaired lung

           16  function due to ozone.

           17                 The same EPA model predicts an 80 percent

           18  reduction in ozone-related mortality in Houston.  And

           19  along with that, we would experience a significant drop

           20  in ER visits and hospital admissions for ozone-related

           21  illnesses.

           22                 You will hear from pediatric expert

           23  Dr. Stuart Abramson about the dramatic impact of ozone

           24  exposure on children, increasing and worsening asthma

           25  attacks, even causing new cases of asthma in previously


                                                                     46



            1  healthy children.

            2                 Health effects of similar proportions are

            3  occurring in adults.  Ozone further decreases lung

            4  function in people with existing lung disease, such as

            5  chronic bronchitis, increasing medication use,

            6  hospitalization, and risk of premature death.  We're

            7  increasingly aware of ozone's role in exacerbating the

            8  effect of cardiovascular disease, already the No. 1

            9  killer of adults in the U.S.

           10                 Adults who work outside, such as in

           11  construction or at refineries and other plants, and

           12  people who are out jogging to keep in shape, they think

           13  they're in great health.  And yet those very activities

           14  put them at increased risk of illness and premature

           15  death due to ozone exposure.

           16                 At the same time, we're in the midst of

           17  a -- an epidemic of obesity.  But instead of encouraging

           18  exercises, doctors are having to say, No, the ozone

           19  level is dangerous today, you'd better not exercise.

           20                 As a physician with a duty to protect the

           21  public health, I'm distressed when commenters with clear

           22  economic self-interest attempt to undermine medical

           23  knowledge by repeatedly claiming uncertainty.

           24  Assessment of the health effects literature is most

           25  definitely the purview of the health science community,


                                                                     47



            1  and assessment by any person or entity with an economic

            2  interest at stake should be considered with appropriate

            3  caution.

            4                 On behalf of health professionals for

            5  clean air, I urge the EPA to set the NAAQS for ozone at

            6  60 ppb with no rounding.  Existing health effects data

            7  -- animal, human, experimental, clinical, and

            8  epidemiological -- is, indeed, sufficient to establish

            9  that adverse health effects occur in ozone

           10  concentrations down to 60 ppb.

           11                 Our patients come to us to treat their

           12  worsening respiratory and cardiovascular status.

           13  Although our therapeutic artillery is impressive, it

           14  focuses on treating the consequences of ozone exposure

           15  when we should be preventing them.  Really significant

           16  progress for our patients will require setting the ozone

           17  NAAQS at a truly protective level and then enforcing it,

           18  an entirely separate subject, as if people's lives

           19  depended on it.

           20                 Thank you.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  I -- I know that

           22  much of the scientific literature you cite, we cite in

           23  our proposed notice.  But if there are any additional

           24  studies that support your -- your comments, we would

           25  appreciate receiving them.


                                                                     48



            1                 DR. NEW:  Will do.

            2                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            3                 Admiral Koenig?

            4                 DR. KOENIG:  Good morning.  My name is

            5  Harold Koenig.  I am a physician, actually, a graduate

            6  of Baylor University College of Medicine here in

            7  Houston.  I'm also a pediatrician, a retired U.S. Navy

            8  Vice Admiral, former Surgeon General of the United

            9  States Navy.  I currently serve as the president of The

           10  Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy.

           11                 I have submitted written testimony.

           12  You'll find a copy of our Center's recent publication,

           13  "The Science and Health Effects of Ground-level Ozone,"

           14  a 69-page report that was peer-reviewed by highly

           15  qualified scientists, physicians, and the board

           16  of directors of -- of the Center.  I'm going to quickly

           17  review some of the findings.

           18                 In 1971, federal ozone standards were

           19  set, and national programs began to control emissions of

           20  ozone precursors.  Between 1980 and 2006, nationwide

           21  emissions and ambient concentrations of all ozone

           22  precursors have been greatly reduced.

           23                 At 275 sites throughout the nation, we

           24  have continuous data over that period showing that ozone

           25  concentrations at those with the highest peak one-hour


                                                                     49



            1  levels decreased by 29 percent and eight-hour

            2  concentrations decreased 21 percent.  Significant

            3  progress.

            4                 Reductions in remote areas, though, have

            5  not been nearly as dramatic, suggesting that non-U.S.

            6  and/or non-anthropogenic sources contribute

            7  substantially to background levels.  These are

            8  uncontrollable and highly variable.

            9                 Analysis of long-term data from remote

           10  sites indicates summertime average daily one-hour maxima

           11  are in the 40 to 50 parts per billion range but maximum

           12  one-hour concentrations occasionally exceed the 80 parts

           13  per billion range in the spring.  This achievement of a

           14  yearly one-hour ozone standard below 80 parts per

           15  billion is probably impossible.

           16                 Among the recommendations under

           17  consideration, as you have heard, is a 60 parts per

           18  billion eight-hour ozone primary standard.  The

           19  practical effect of which would put over 97 percent of

           20  our nearly one -- 1,100 monitored areas in this country

           21  out of compliance, leaving essentially no room for human

           22  activity.

           23                 A standard of 70 parts per billion would

           24  put 82 percent of the monitors out of compliance,

           25  including many sites, and this is vitally important


                                                                     50



            1  where there are no obvious man-made sources of ozone.

            2  The lack of understanding of the extremes of background

            3  will result in setting unattainable standards.

            4                 The risk of respiratory effects from

            5  ozone have been well delineated here, and I have no

            6  argument with them.  But today Americans spend over

            7  90 percent of their time indoors where ozone degrades

            8  rapidly when it contacts any surface.  Indoor ozone

            9  monitoring shows the concentration can be as little as

           10  one-tenth of that measured by nearby outdoor monitors.

           11                 We also know that ozone exposure is lower

           12  at person height and plant height than it is at monitor

           13  heights.  Most of our monitors are set about 15 to

           14  30 feet off the ground.  That is not where we live and

           15  where most of the plants that we eat live.

           16                 Chronic exposure to ozone does not cause

           17  emphysema or cancer, but it is a known respiratory

           18  irritant.  Documented physiologic responses to ozone

           19  include decreased inspiratory capacity, exercise-induced

           20  rapid and shallow breathing, cough and pain on deep

           21  inspiration, and inflammation.  Those -- these responses

           22  are dose-related and are reversible.  Threshold effects

           23  in controlled studies occur at ozone levels considerably

           24  above the vast majority of personal exposures.

           25                 Meteorological conditions that contribute


                                                                     51



            1  to elevated levels of ozone and its pre -- precursors

            2  also lead to elevated levels of other pollutants in our

            3  environment, in particular PM2.5.  High temperatures

            4  accelerate ozone formation, but also singularly, in

            5  other words, by themselves, high temperatures cause

            6  mortality.  Separating the contributions of multiple

            7  co-existing environmental factors to mortality is not

            8  possible.

            9                 There are many differences between the

           10  1997 and 2007 risk estimate methodologies, but it is

           11  clear the percent of the population experiencing

           12  exposure to damaging levels of ozone is significantly

           13  less than thought in 1997.  The known link ozone has in

           14  protecting us from overexposure to UV rays and

           15  developing skin cancer is far better established in the

           16  medical literature than is the case for ozone-related

           17  mortality.

           18                 We know ozone is -- is a -- the most

           19  phytotoxic of airborne pollutants.  It can impair crop

           20  production and native vegetation.  The current estimates

           21  of crop loss from ozone are substantially lower than

           22  those in the 1997 review.  The recommended range for a

           23  cumulative standard needs to be adjusted upward to

           24  account for the reduction in ozone at plant height.

           25                 I ask you to not only review the science


                                                                     52



            1  in this report but to truly consider its findings.  A

            2  populist decision to impose more stringent ozone

            3  standards probably won't serve any of us well.  I

            4  believe that the standard of less than 80 parts per

            5  billion is unattainable.  I also think that we need to

            6  put our monitors down to where the people are and where

            7  the plants are so we have a better understanding of

            8  what's actually happening at our level, and we ought to

            9  be focusing on that.  We need to refine our science, is

           10  what I'm saying.

           11                 Thank you.

           12                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  I assume that

           13  the various scientific findings that you cite are

           14  supported by the report that you've got referenced in

           15  your report.

           16                 DR. KOENIG:  It is.  It's a

           17  highly-referenced report.  It -- it looks at the same

           18  data that the -- the previous speakers have -- have

           19  dealt on.  It just looks at it from a little different

           20  angle.  I -- I think my main thrust is, even in our most

           21  rural and remote areas, we have exceedence.  And we have

           22  to understand why that is.

           23                 And we put our monitors at a place that

           24  does not reflect what we as humans are exposed to and

           25  the plants that we're interested in, which should be all


                                                                     53



            1  of them, where they live either.  We got -- when you

            2  stick them on top of a tower 30 meters high, that's not

            3  what's happening down here.  So we've got to -- we've

            4  got to get that part fixed before we make too many

            5  decisions.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.

            7                 DR. KOENIG:  Okay?

            8                 MS. WEGMAN:  Any questions?  Okay.  Thank

            9  you.

           10                 Our next speakers are Gregory Johnson and

           11  Arturo Blanco.

           12                 MR. JOHNSON:  Do I go first?

           13                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yes.

           14                 MR. JOHNSON:  Okay.  Okay.  Is that good?

           15                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's good.

           16                 MR. JOHNSON:  My name is Gregory Johnson.

           17  I represent the Sherwin-Williams Company today.  I've

           18  been in the environmental air quality business in one

           19  aspect or another for over 20 years now.  And the last

           20  15 years I've been part of industries that have made

           21  substantial, 40 percent or greater, cuts in VOCs in

           22  order to try to achieve ozone standards in California.

           23  So -- so I have a little bit of experience in that -- in

           24  that realm.

           25                 As well, I'm an allergy and asthma


                                                                     54



            1  sufferer.  I had pneumonia twice before I was 2 years

            2  old and grew up in Houston.  So, I have some experience

            3  in that nature, too.  The interesting thing about that

            4  is I had respiratory issues my entire life.  We moved

            5  from Houston to rural Texas when I was 11 years old, and

            6  they got worse.

            7                 So, I find it interesting that people

            8  suggest that ozone -- and -- and it's always inferred

            9  that ozone is the -- the -- the major contributor to

           10  asthma and allergies when, in fact, there are literally

           11  hundreds of respiratory irritants that can cause equal

           12  or as impressive of results in those -- in those realms.

           13                 But the reason I -- I've -- I've always

           14  supported every clean air initiative since I've been in

           15  the business, and this is the first time I've actually

           16  testified against one.  And I -- I have to say I oppose

           17  lowering the standard to .06 for three -- several -- a

           18  lot of reasons, but I'll start with the first one.

           19                 The -- the ink isn't even dry on the SIPs

           20  to -- to -- to -- to meet the 08 standard -- .08.  I

           21  just reviewed the California SIP and commented on that,

           22  and there's a large black box of undesignated emission

           23  reductions that are going to be projected out into the

           24  later -- around 2020 that they don't know how to reduce

           25  yet.  So, we don't know if the SIPs will -- that are in


                                                                     55



            1  place now will even get us to the .08.

            2                 The technology may not be there, the

            3  pathways to -- to make some of these reductions may not

            4  be there.  This is going to go -- this standard that is

            5  being proposed, as the last speaker said, is going to go

            6  beyond what industry can do.  You could pretty much

            7  eliminate industry and not achieve this standard, and --

            8  and I don't think we'll be able to get there with cars

            9  reasonably either.  So, I think it's premature to set

           10  this standard at .06 when we -- we don't even know if we

           11  can get to .08 yet.

           12                 Second, I reviewed the -- the health

           13  study that California commissioned when they set their

           14  state standard at .07.  To me, it read like -- like a

           15  statistical validation of a predetermined outcome.  I

           16  saw very little incremental evidence of the benefits

           17  going from .08 to .07 as far as the overall health.

           18                 And, again, to the last speaker's point,

           19  there was no -- there was very little effort to

           20  discriminate between the causes of some of the problems

           21  that they identified.  And there were some sensational

           22  sweeping indictment statements of ozone in general as

           23  it -- as it was harmful, but very little to show what

           24  the benefits were going to be from going to .08 to .07

           25  and no identification of the costs.  I think what we're


                                                                     56



            1  talking about here is going to be hundreds of billions

            2  of dollars.

            3                 And last and most important, I think, the

            4  real stakeholders in this issue are not here today.

            5  You -- you go out into the general public and you ask

            6  them if they know what's going on here today -- I -- I

            7  did this over the last couple of weeks -- not one person

            8  that I've talked to had any idea what was being

            9  considered here today.

           10                 And since we can't get there with

           11  industry, these are the people that are going to be

           12  affected in order to try to get to .06, if that's even

           13  possible, the -- the average Joe is going to be looking

           14  at restrictions on the use of his bass boat, his

           15  four-wheeler, his auto -- his -- his automobile.  We're

           16  talking mandatory trip reductions and carpooling and

           17  backyard barbecue restrictions.

           18                 I read in a survey -- or I read a report

           19  not too long ago that showed that the city of Houston

           20  had the highest fat meat concentration particulate in

           21  the air of any city in the country.  So, backyard

           22  barbecues are significant.  I mean, we're -- we're

           23  talking severe draconian measures to get to this, and I

           24  don't -- I'm not sure we'll ever get there.

           25                 There's an old saying when you're -- when


                                                                     57



            1  you're trying to give directions to somebody and it's

            2  too complicated is you -- you can't get there from here.

            3  And I really think this is a situation where we're

            4  setting a standard where we don't know the technology

            5  and we don't know the pathways.

            6                 It's going to impact the average person

            7  more than it's going to impact industry because industry

            8  is already making the kind of cuts that they're --

            9  they're required to get to get to the .08.  I think we

           10  should wait and see if we make progress toward the .08

           11  or if our SIPs are going to be plausible and then decide

           12  whether or not we can achieve a .06 because that's where

           13  we have to be.

           14                 Thanks.

           15                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  I -- I think

           16  you're aware that when we set the standard, we focus

           17  only on the public health impact of the --

           18                 MR. JOHNSON:  I understand.

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- and not the economics.

           20  Thank you.

           21                 Mr. Blanco?

           22                 MR. BLANCO:  Good morning.  My name is

           23  Arturo Blanco, and I'm the chief of the Bureau of Air

           24  Quality Control in Houston Department --

           25                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa.  I'm sorry.


                                                                     58



            1  I'm having a hard time understanding you.  You're

            2  speaking very quickly.

            3                 MR. BLANCO:  Arturo Blanco, and I am the

            4  chief of the Bureau of Air Quality Control, BAQC, in the

            5  Houston Department of Health and Human Services.  I am

            6  also a member of the National Association of Clean Air

            7  Agencies board of directors and serve as co-chair of the

            8  association's training committee.

            9                 On behalf of NACAA, an association of air

           10  pollution control agencies in 54 states and territories

           11  and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country, I am

           12  testifying today on the EPA's proposed revisions to the

           13  NAAQS.  NACAA commends EPA for proposing a more

           14  stringent primary ozone NAAQS to protect public health.

           15                 THE REPORTER:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.  I

           16  need you to slow down for me.  I'm -- your accent is

           17  making it a little harder for me.

           18                 MR. BLANCO:  And you'll give me grace for

           19  this?

           20                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's fine.

           21                 MR. BLANCO:  Okay.  Thank you.

           22                 I can oblige.

           23                 NACAA commends EPA for proposing a more

           24  stringent primary ozone NAAQS to protect public health.

           25  Ozone exposure is linked to many adverse health effects,


                                                                     59



            1  including premature mortality in people with heart and

            2  lung disease, and recent evidence shows that these

            3  adverse effects occur at concentrations lower than the

            4  current standard.  Although we appreciate EPA's proposal

            5  to tighten the standard, we nevertheless have

            6  significant concerns with the agency's proposal.

            7                 EPA's Congressionally chartered body of

            8  independent scientific advisors, CASAC, unanimously

            9  concluded, based on several significant epidemiological

           10  studies and clinical studies, that the primary ozone

           11  standard needs to be substantially reduced and

           12  recommended strengthening the primary ozone NAAQS to a

           13  level within the range of .060 and -- to .070 parts per

           14  million.

           15                 However, EPA's proposed range of levels,

           16  .070 to .075, falls outside that recommended unanimously

           17  by CASAC, coinciding only at CASAC's upper bound.  In

           18  determining the levels requisite to protect public

           19  health and welfare, NACAA strongly believes that EPA

           20  should follow the science, the learned, informed advice

           21  of CASAC.  Given CASAC's statutorily defined role in the

           22  NAAQS review process, EPA needs to specifically indicate

           23  why it chose not to follow the advice of its independent

           24  scientific advisors.

           25                 In addition, we question why EPA is


                                                                     60



            1  considering retaining the current standard of .084 ppm

            2  million when, as CASAC points out, a large body of

            3  scientific evidence clearly demonstrates adverse health

            4  effects at the current standard.  CASAC said it best:

            5  There is no scientific justification for retaining the

            6  current primary eight-hour NAAQS.

            7                 On the secondary ozone standard to

            8  protect public welfare, NACAA is pleased that the EPA

            9  has proposed a distinct, cumulative seasonal standard.

           10  Ozone inhibits photosynthesis, causes visible damage to

           11  leaves and reduces agricultural crop yields.  A

           12  cumulative seasonal standard more directly correlates

           13  with the exposure of plants to ozone, since plants are

           14  exposed to this pollutant during the entire ozone

           15  season.

           16                 As with the primary standard, EPA's

           17  proposal is a step in the right direction but falls

           18  short of what science indicates is needed.  While EPA

           19  did propose promulgating a distinct, cumulative seasonal

           20  secondary standard called W126, the agency's proposed

           21  range for a level extends outside CASAC's range.

           22                 Also, we are troubled that EPA proposed

           23  as an alternative making the secondary standard

           24  identical to the primary standard, despite agreement

           25  among CASAC, ecological experts convened at a 1997


                                                                     61



            1  workshop and EPA staff for a distinct, cumulative

            2  seasonal secondary standard to protect vegetation.

            3                 Finally, with respect to both the primary

            4  and secondary standards, to the extent that new

            5  peer-reviewed scientific studies have been published in

            6  scientific journals since EPA proposed this rule, we

            7  encourage the agency, time permitting under the

            8  Court-ordered deadline, to review these studies during

            9  its deliberation of a final rule.

           10                 We are further concerned that EPA in this

           11  proposal, as in the particulate matter NAAQS, is mixing

           12  in implementation issues in a rule setting a

           13  health-based standard.  EPA needs to erect a strong

           14  firewall between standard -- standard-setting and

           15  implementation issues.

           16                 The Supreme Court in Whitman versus

           17  American Trucking Associations was very clear that EPA

           18  may not consider the cost of implementation in setting

           19  the NAAQS.  Also, for policy reasons, EPA should not let

           20  considerations of implementation bleed into

           21  standard-setting.

           22                 The benefits of setting a strong standard

           23  are harder to measure, in that one cannot precisely

           24  identify whose life was saved, whose child had fewer

           25  asthma attacks and which trees grew faster and stronger


                                                                     62



            1  because of less ozone pollution.  The costs, on the

            2  other hand, can be more easily tallied, and if

            3  considerations of implementation are allowed to

            4  influence -- influence standard-setting, than the human

            5  propensity for avoiding pain makes it very likely that

            6  some stakeholders will clamor for a weaker standard to

            7  avoid those costs.

            8                 Let me close by saying that while EPA

            9  should not conflate implementation and standard-setting

           10  issues in this rulemaking, whatever decision EPA makes

           11  on the level and form of the primary and secondary NAAQS

           12  will have a profound impact on the work of state and

           13  local clean air agencies.

           14                 EPA must recognize these, not in setting

           15  the NAAQS, but in timely future rulemakings and

           16  appropriations requests by requesting sufficient funds

           17  for state and local clean air agencies to do work

           18  associated with meeting the new NAAQS, providing

           19  sufficient infrastructure, such as monitors, issuing

           20  timely implementation guidance and adopting national

           21  rules that address major sources of ozone precursors.

           22                 Accordingly, it will be imperative for

           23  EPA to work in close partnership with state and local

           24  clean air agencies at the appropriate time to address

           25  implementation issues and achieve the ultimate goal of


                                                                     63



            1  public health protection.

            2                 Thank you.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  All right.  Thank you.  Just

            4  a couple of questions.  You -- you said you encourage us

            5  to review new studies that have come out since the

            6  closure of the criteria document.  Are you aware of any

            7  new studies, or if you are, could you submit them to us?

            8                 MR. BLANCO:  NACAA is and we -- yeah,

            9  we'll pass it along.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  One of the

           11  questions, did you have a recommendation -- a specific

           12  recommendation for the primary standard or the secondary

           13  standard?

           14                 MR. BLANCO:  Above the -- within the

           15  range of -- recommended by CASAC.

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           17                 Our next speakers are Sarah Fuchs and Jim

           18  Schermbeck.

           19                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  I -- I have an attempt

           20  at a PowerPoint presentation and I understand it hasn't

           21  been today and I don't want to make it too complicated.

           22  So, if it's going to take up too much time, I don't want

           23  to try it.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  No, that's fine.  It's not a

           25  problem.


                                                                     64



            1                 MS. FUCHS:  Hello.  My name is Susannah

            2  Fuchs.  I'm director of environmental health for the

            3  American Lung Association of the Central States.  I've

            4  spent the last ten plus years working on air pollution

            5  issues, and I feel very strongly about them.  I'm here

            6  to add my thoughts and perspective on this very

            7  important issue, the ozone standard.

            8                 In my opinion, the issue comes down to

            9  one thing.  That's health.  We need a stronger standard

           10  to protect our health.  That's your health, my health,

           11  the health of your children, and mine, and the health of

           12  our parents, grandparents, and everyone else we know.

           13                 Sometimes in these discussions and

           14  rulemakings, I've found over the years the bottom line,

           15  which is health, gets left out or pushed to the side.

           16  It's the reason that we're here, and that's really

           17  important -- gravely important to remember.

           18                 We need a stronger standard because

           19  that's what the science says.  Even EPA's own scientific

           20  studies say it.  The standard needs to be stronger to

           21  protect health, everybody's health.  Even in the areas

           22  across the country where the stricter standard will put

           23  them out of attainment when they're in attainment now,

           24  we want to clean up the air.  No air pollution is okay.

           25  We don't want anyone to have to deal with dirty air.  A


                                                                     65



            1  stricter standard will protect more people.

            2                 Although everybody here certainly knows

            3  about ozone, I'm going to go over the health effects

            4  again because that's what I think is so important.

            5  These are facts drawn right from the American Lung

            6  Association's state-of-the-air report.

            7                 Ozone is an irritating invisible gas

            8  that's formed most often by a reaction of sunlight and

            9  vapors emitted when fuel is burned by cars, trucks,

           10  factories, power plants and other sources.  It usually

           11  peaks in the summer months, and, lo and behold, that's

           12  when kids spend the most time outdoors.  So, that's why

           13  it's really, really important that we take care of this.

           14                 It -- it reacts or oxidizes with internal

           15  body tissues that it comes in contact with.  It's almost

           16  like getting a sunburn on your lungs.  And I hate to

           17  think of that happening to anybody, especially our kids.

           18  Smog can cause health problems the day you breathe it or

           19  after long-term exposure.  There's almost no one in this

           20  room -- or I'd even hazard to say no one who doesn't

           21  know somebody impacted by air pollution.

           22                 Smog can cause asthma attacks, coughing,

           23  wheezing, shortness of breath, chest pain when inhaling

           24  deeply, and even premature death.  Breathing high levels

           25  of smog repeatedly over the long term may, and probably


                                                                     66



            1  does, reduce lung function, inflames lung linings, and

            2  lots of breathing problems.

            3                 There have been studies about ozone going

            4  on for decades now.  It seems like each study shows more

            5  reasons why we need a stronger standard.  It shows that

            6  ozone is even more harmful than we thought previously.

            7  In 1994, two studies showed that short-term exposure to

            8  ozone could shorten lives.  In 2005, three studies

            9  confirmed that thinking.  In 2005, two more studies

           10  looked at the health effects of ozone.  Those studies

           11  showed that lung function was reduced by long-term

           12  exposure to ozone.

           13                 So many people are impacted by ozone even

           14  on what's commonly known as a yellow day when ozone

           15  levels are not supposed to be all that bad.  Children,

           16  the elderly, those who work outdoors, and people with

           17  lung disease are all impacted.  A stricter standard is

           18  attainable.  Our country has met new and tougher

           19  standards in the past, and we can do it again.

           20                 Recently, the EPA announced its plans to

           21  revise the ozone standard, why we're all here today, and

           22  we -- the American Lung Association feels strongly that

           23  it should be revised to .060 parts per million.  And we

           24  are counting on you to final that -- finalize that

           25  standard because it's about our health and everybody's


                                                                     67



            1  health.

            2                 Thank you.

            3                 MS. STONE:  Thank you.

            4                 MR. EDLUND:  Do we have --

            5                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  I don't know.

            6                 MR. EDLUND:  -- video here?

            7                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  I may just end up using

            8  exaggerated hand gestures.

            9                 Well, my name is Jim Schermbeck.  I'm

           10  here today representing Downwinders at Risk, a group

           11  based in Dallas, Fort Worth.  I want to welcome the EPA

           12  to Texas, home to some of the worst ozone problems in

           13  the nation.  Dallas and Houston residents have been

           14  breathing illegal air now for 16 years.  As far as I

           15  know, we're not in remote areas either.

           16                 Our group focuses on reducing pollution

           17  from the nation's largest concentration of cement plants

           18  just south of Dallas.  Those cement plants emit half of

           19  all the industrial air pollution and NOx released by

           20  industry in the Dallas, Fort Worth nine-county,

           21  non-attainment area.  It has -- collectively, the three

           22  plants have an impact of over 11 or 12 parts per

           23  billion.  That's more impact than all 17 proposed TXU

           24  coal plants combined that were the source of controversy

           25  last year.


                                                                     68



            1                 While accounting for only a portion of

            2  the overall ozone problem in Dallas/Fort Worth, the

            3  history of trying to reduce NOx emissions that contribute

            4  to ozone pollution from the cement plants is, I think --

            5                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  You've

            6  got to slow down when you read.

            7                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  Well, I can talk like

            8  this.

            9                 THE REPORTER:  Well, that'd be great.

           10  Trust me.  You guys can all read faster that I can

           11  write.  I promise.

           12                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  Okay.

           13                 THE REPORTER:  Okay.

           14                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  Anyway, our -- our

           15  dealing with the NOx emissions from these cement plants,

           16  I think, is very instructive as -- instructive as to why

           17  DFW, Texas, in general, is still struggling to obtain

           18  clean air long after other cities that started out where

           19  we did in 1990 and '91 have met that goal.  And it gives

           20  great lie to the objections that the State has to a new

           21  standard.

           22                 During our last state implementation

           23  process for Dallas/Fort Worth seven years ago, our group

           24  presented local and state officials with new

           25  technologies that could reduce ozone pollution, NOx


                                                                     69



            1  pollution from these cement plants by at least 40 to

            2  50 percent.  In particular, we pressed for technology

            3  known as SNCR, selective non-catalytic reduction,

            4  because it was already being used widely in Europe by

            5  over a dozen cement plants there with results ranging in

            6  the 40 to 50 percent range.

            7                 Our information was ignored, however.  At

            8  the time, the State gave us all kinds of reasons why

            9  SNCR wouldn't work, all based on industry arguments.

           10  So, despite the widespread use of this technology in

           11  European cement plants, there was no requirements for

           12  its use in the 1999, 2000 DFW SIP.

           13                 However, in 2004 one of the cement plants

           14  admitted that they couldn't meet even that level of

           15  reduction of NOx, and our group reached a settlement with

           16  that cement plant that would require a pilot test of the

           17  very same technology, SNCR.  Lo and behold, that test

           18  was successful, and the plant became the first in -- in

           19  Texas and the U.S. to use SNCR to reduce NOx.  Now, did

           20  the State take a lesson and require that technology of

           21  the other kilns in the area?  No, it did not.

           22                 Also, in 2004, as the result of another

           23  settlement, this one resulting from a lawsuit against

           24  the EPA over the failed 2000 SIP, the State and TSEC had

           25  to perform a study identifying successful technologies


                                                                     70



            1  to reduce NOx five years down the road from the last SIP.

            2                 That study concluded that technology

            3  known as SCR, selective catalytic reduction, could

            4  reduce NOx from these plants by 90 percent or more.  In

            5  the seven years since the first SIP, SNCR had been

            6  leapfrogged over and been replaced to state of the art

            7  by this technology of SCR.  In between, the -- just the

            8  Dallas/Fort Worth SIPs, Europe had managed to leapfrog

            9  technologies and start using technology that still has

           10  yet to see its inauguration here in the States.

           11                 Right now, SCR is being used by three

           12  European kilns, getting the lowest NOx emissions of any

           13  cement kilns in the world, as well as reducing emissions

           14  at -- of particulate matter and SOCs and mercury and

           15  VOCs and dioxins.

           16                 In 2006 and this year, DFW faced another

           17  state implementation plan.  Did the State demand

           18  selective catalytic reduction from these cement plants?

           19  No, it ignored our group's advice, despite our good

           20  track record concerning SNCR.  It ignored local

           21  officials who joined us in pushing for SC -- SCR and

           22  ignored its own report and ignored even the regional EPA

           23  office to also push for a pilot test of SCR.

           24                 No.  The State finally caught up with my

           25  group's analysis of seven years earlier and required


                                                                     71



            1  only 36 percent reductions from the cement kilns, a

            2  mandate for SNCR which had already been out of date for

            3  seven years.

            4                 If TSEC and the State of Texas cannot

            5  reduce emissions from the lowest hanging industrial

            6  fruit in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, what do you expect

            7  them to do about the whole plethora of options and

            8  technologies out there for other sources?  Well, the

            9  result, of course, is a state implementation plan that

           10  was just approved by the State for DFW that violates the

           11  Clean Air Act, at least four monitors over the standard,

           12  and large sections of DFW are breathing illegal air.

           13                 One reason it does this is because of its

           14  refusal to require SCR and the cement plant, even though

           15  they knew that such a requirement would bring one of

           16  those monitors into compliance.  Now, with both the

           17  regional EPA and local officials insisting on amending

           18  those completely illegal SIPs, the State, meaning TSEC

           19  and Governor Perry, are threatening to just quit the

           20  process altogether.

           21                 Take a bump up and put off any clean air

           22  plan for DFW for another decade, the same fate as

           23  Houston's.  They would rather just quit than impose any

           24  more restrictions, even ones that have a demonstrable

           25  track record on industry.  We don't lack the technology


                                                                     72



            1  to meet tough standards; we lack the political ship --

            2  political leadership to implement that technology.  That

            3  same leadership is now urging you not to adopt a more

            4  protective ozone standard, saying that it would be

            5  impossible to meet.

            6                 They're partially correct.  It is

            7  impossible for them to meet it.  It's certainly not

            8  impossible for people who want to do it to do so.

            9  They're conjuring up dreadful scenarios, the end of

           10  drive-throughs in the summer for restaurants, the end of

           11  afternoon Ranger games, which, believe me, would be a

           12  blessing for everyone in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

           13                 However, science says that the current

           14  standard is killing people and making them sick.  The

           15  law says the standard should be based on the science.

           16  There's no excuse for not following the EPA's own

           17  Scientific Advisory Committee -- Committee in

           18  establishing a new standard of at least 70 parts per

           19  billion.  As always, setting a new standard will

           20  motivate the marketplace to provide the technologies and

           21  options necessary to meet it.  It will then be up to us

           22  as citizens to demand our politicians implement them.

           23                 When you're a parent rushing your child

           24  to the hospital because they can't breathe, the lack of

           25  drive-through restaurants and the lack of afternoon


                                                                     73



            1  Ranger games don't seem all that important to you.  And

            2  they should not keep the EPA from doing the right thing.

            3                 It would have been a dynamite PowerPoint

            4  show.  I'm sorry.

            5                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you, Mr. Schermbeck.

            6  Would you submit your PowerPoint, too, for the record?

            7                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  Yeah.  I already did

            8  that.  Thanks.

            9                 MS. STONE:  Yeah, I have a question.  So,

           10  70 parts per billion is your recommendation, your

           11  group's recommendation?

           12                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  I could say at least

           13  that.

           14                 MS. STONE:  At least that.  Okay.  Thank

           15  you.

           16                 MR. SCHERMBECK:  Thanks.

           17                 MS. STONE:  Okay.  Our next two witnesses

           18  are Michelle Bernth and Mike Roberson.  Good morning.

           19  Thank you.

           20                 MS. BERNTH:  Good morning.  Thank you.

           21                 My name is Michelle Bernth.  I'm senior

           22  vice president of advocacy for the American Lung

           23  Association of the Central States.  Thank you for your

           24  time this morning.

           25                 I'm here today because I have a very deep


                                                                     74



            1  commitment to the mission of our organization.  Our

            2  mission is simple.  It's to prevent lung disease and

            3  promote lung health.  Clean air is absolutely essential

            4  to our mission.  A stricter ozone standard will help us

            5  meet our goal of ensuring clean air for everyone across

            6  the country.

            7                 I strongly believe that the decision

            8  about stricter ozone standard must be based on

            9  protecting public health.  We are all impacted by poor

           10  air quality.  It especially affects children, the

           11  elderly, those with lung disease, and anyone who works

           12  outdoors.

           13                 Ozone pollution can cause many health

           14  problems, including immediate health problems such as

           15  shortness of breath, chest pain when inhaling, wheezing,

           16  coughing, and increased susceptibility to respiratory

           17  infections.  It can also cause longer-term health

           18  problems, as we've heard, such as risk of premature

           19  death, pulmonary inflammation, and the risk of asthma

           20  attacks, which we all know is a very serious problem

           21  here in the Houston area.

           22                 EPA's own scientists agree after careful

           23  review of extensive studies that the current ozone

           24  standard is not protective enough of public health.  The

           25  law requires that the EPA base its decision about the


                                                                     75



            1  standards only on the need to protect public health.

            2  We've heard some other issues being brought into the

            3  conversation.  We're not here to talk about economics.

            4  We're not here to talk without industry.  We're here to

            5  talk about health.

            6                 It is absolutely critical that the

            7  decision makers at EPA stay focused on the issue at

            8  hand, which is protecting public health.  EPA has

            9  proposed strengthening the ozone standard to somewhere

           10  in the range of .070 to .075 parts per million.  This

           11  does not go far enough.  We absolutely need to maintain

           12  the adequate margin of safety for public health as

           13  required under the Clean Air Act.

           14                 EPA should finalize an ozone standard of

           15  .060 parts per million, which is consistent with what

           16  was recommended by its own scientific advisors.  A

           17  stronger standard is essential to promote and protect

           18  public health.  That's the reason the standards exist in

           19  the first place.

           20                 The public expects that the EPA is here

           21  to protect their health.  They expect the EPA will take

           22  the necessary steps to protect their health.  That's

           23  what tightening the ozone standard will do.  It's

           24  crucial to the health of all citizens that we protect

           25  their health by strengthening the ozone standard to


                                                                     76



            1  .060 parts per million.  The health of each and every

            2  one of us in this room depends on it.

            3                 Thank you for your time.

            4                 MS. STONE:  Thank you.

            5                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you.

            6                 MR. ROBERSON:  Thank you.  My name is

            7  Mike Roberson.  I am the senior program director for the

            8  American Lung Association's office here in Houston.  I

            9  will be brief.

           10                 I'm here to urge you to adopt the

           11  recommendations of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory

           12  Committee and adopt the proposed ozone standard of

           13  60 parts per billion with no allowance for rounding.

           14  I'll explain why.  As noted, the EPA's own panel of

           15  scientists has made recommendations regarding ozone

           16  levels, saying that, and I quote, "There is no

           17  justification for the retention of the current

           18  standard."

           19                 After reviewing over 2,000 pages of data,

           20  CASAC has unanimously recommended that the new -- new

           21  eight-hour ozone standard be set between 60 and 70 parts

           22  per billion.  Over the years, study after study after

           23  study has demonstrated that ozone exposure, even at

           24  levels lower than current standards, is highly

           25  correlated with adverse health -- health impacts on


                                                                     77



            1  large segments of the American population.

            2                 And you guys have heard today comment

            3  after comment that has -- has referenced that fact, that

            4  ozone is highly correlated with health effects.  So, I

            5  don't think that's in doubt at this point.  At this

            6  point in our history, 30 years after creation of the

            7  EPA, I think we understand well what ozone can and

            8  cannot do.  E -- EPA's announced intention of giving

            9  consideration to the retention of the current standard

           10  is unacceptable, given that the health and quality of

           11  life will be adversely impacted by millions of

           12  Americans.

           13                 I also would like to say that the -- the

           14  opposing -- the opponents of the proposed standards

           15  would argue that compliance would be too costly, that

           16  many areas have yet to attain the current standards, and

           17  that EPA should focus on assisting those in

           18  non-attainment to meet those standards.

           19                 I will submit that these arguments are

           20  invalid in light of the fact that the EPA is, by law,

           21  responsible to make those decisions based on health, and

           22  I would urge you to review the preponderance of the

           23  public health data that's out there in making your

           24  decision.

           25                 I have no doubt that American industry


                                                                     78



            1  can meet the challenge.  Time after time we've been --

            2  it's been proven that industry can be driven to

            3  innovation by government regulation, and I have no doubt

            4  that -- that -- that will happen again at -- at a

            5  standard of 60 parts per billion.

            6                 I'm here today as a representative of the

            7  American Lung Association to respectfully remind you

            8  that the mission of the EPA is unambiguous.  You are not

            9  in place to negotiate a happy medium between the public

           10  health and industry interests.  You are in place to

           11  protect the health of the American public.

           12                 And I thank you for your time.

           13                 MS. STONE:  Thank you.

           14                 All right.  The next two people to

           15  give -- give testimony are Britt Davis and Stuart

           16  Abramson.

           17                 MS. STONE:  Thank you.  And good morning.

           18                 MR. DAVIS:  Thank you.  We appreciate

           19  this hearing very much, the opportunity to speak.  I'm

           20  Britt D. Davis, a resident of Houston and the Houston

           21  area since 1973.  This is in the nature of a confession.

           22  I may look like Marley's ghost -- I think that goes

           23  without saying, but I probably am him.

           24                 I've been complicit, by my silence, in

           25  stonewalling the enforcement by the EPA of its early


                                                                     79



            1  1970s findings that our area ozone level was too high.

            2  The Greater Houston Chamber of Commerce originally

            3  established the Greater Houston Community Foundation for

            4  the sole purpose of funding a locally based ozone study.

            5  This permitted the tax-exempt contribution of corporate

            6  funding for such a study, which successfully preempted

            7  the enforcement of the EPA findings.

            8                 It is apparent that local, city, and

            9  state elected officials have been reluctant until lately

           10  to buck this stone wall.  Likewise, our two Houston

           11  presidents and a succession of Texas Senators and

           12  Congressmen have apparently seen where their political

           13  bread is buttered, for none have been successful at

           14  moving the EPA to act.  It is now apparent that the

           15  current EPA members are wavering after talks by the

           16  affected industries with the White House and,

           17  presumably, with the Houston delegation and Texas

           18  Senators.

           19                 I've recently been diagnosed with asthma,

           20  well past 70.  My doctor has indicated that this is

           21  common among elders who are long-time residents in the

           22  Houston area.  Those public health facts are included in

           23  those laid before the current commissioners, which they

           24  may be trying to ignore.  I'm the father of young

           25  families and grandfather to four in the Houston area.


                                                                     80



            1                 All of us who were in a position to know

            2  about this political stonewalling and have not stepped

            3  forward share the blame for this health catastrophe.

            4  Many of them cannot even yet risk their jobs, including

            5  area mayors and other elected city officials.  But I can

            6  and do speak for them, their children, and their

            7  grandchildren.

            8                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you.

            9                 DR. ABRAMSON:  Good morning.  My name is

           10  Dr. Stuart Abramson.  I'm a physician specializing in

           11  the care of children with allergies and asthma in

           12  Houston at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas

           13  Children's Hospital, and a volunteer on the leadership

           14  council of the American Lung Association of Central

           15  States, which I represent today.

           16                 The American Lung Association's mission

           17  is to prevent lung disease and promote lung health, and

           18  it is the mission of my clinical practice, as well.

           19  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today

           20  on EPA's proposal to revise the national air quality

           21  standard for ozone.

           22                 In my practice I have seen many kids who

           23  have required emergency treatment for asthma on high

           24  ozone days and kids that can't play outside without

           25  having symptoms.  I know the difficulty they have


                                                                     81



            1  breathing when we have high ozone days, how they cough

            2  and wheeze and require more medications.  And this is

            3  happening now all too often in our community.

            4                 We are meeting today in Houston ranked as

            5  the fifth most ozone polluted city in the United States.

            6  Each year, the American Lung Association ranks cities

            7  and grades counties in an annual report on air

            8  pollution, the state of the air report.  About five

            9  million people in the Houston metropolitan area,

           10  including hundreds of thousands who are especially at

           11  risk for breathing this toxic air pollutant, in

           12  particular, children, seniors, and people who suffer

           13  from chronic lung disease like asthma, emphysema, and

           14  chronic bronchitis, and even healthy adults who exercise

           15  outdoors are at risk.

           16                 Finally, there is strong evidence now

           17  that ozone is not only an irritant that triggers asthma

           18  but that it can actually cause the development of asthma

           19  in otherwise unaffected children.  It is, in fact,

           20  everyone's problem.

           21                 Houston's Mayor White in 2005 called for

           22  a task force to report on the health effects of air

           23  pollution, and I had the privilege of serving with eight

           24  members of our community on this that represented the

           25  Medical Center and Rice University.  And I'm going to


                                                                     82



            1  submit this report for your reference.  It's a 56-page

            2  report.  On Page 13, we list the definitive risk

            3  pollutants, and Public Enemy No. 1, the top of the list,

            4  for definitive risk -- health risk pollutants is ozone,

            5  out of hundreds looked at.

            6                 In addition, I would like to mention

            7  another study that I was involved with looking at Aldine

            8  Middle School children funded by Mickey Leland Center

            9  for Urban Air Toxics that involved personal monitors.

           10  We were looking at air toxics, but, in fact, ozone

           11  turned out to be the one that was mainly associated with

           12  symptoms, loss of lung function.  And I -- I intend to

           13  submit material in this regard.

           14                 We must do more to protect everyone's

           15  health from the serious effects of ozone, but most

           16  urgently the most vulnerable populations I've mentioned.

           17  The American Lung Association of the Central States is

           18  pleased that the EPA is taking a step forward towards

           19  cleaner air by proposing to strengthen the air quality

           20  standard for ozone.  But unfortunately, EPA's proposal

           21  fails to follow the law -- the law and protect public

           22  health adequately from this widespread and dangerous air

           23  pollutant.

           24                 The overwhelming scientific evidence,

           25  including reviews by independent scientists, confirmed


                                                                     83



            1  that public health is seriously at risk, and we urge you

            2  to establish a much more protective standard.  Ozone, as

            3  you've heard, is a powerful irritant to the airways,

            4  leading to inflammation and damage to lung tissue.  It's

            5  been described as sunburn on the lungs, but it is more

            6  like rubbing sandpaper over an open wound, irritating

            7  and inflaming the tissues.  It's very damaging.

            8                 Breathing ozone causes a variety of

            9  health effects that you've heard about, including, we

           10  now know, premature death.  It's even dangerous at

           11  levels lower than the current ambient air standard.  And

           12  as I mentioned, healthy adults can develop decreased

           13  lung function, increased symptoms and inflammation.

           14                 In 2006, 23 of the nations top scientists

           15  sent a letter to the EPA on ozone pollution.  They

           16  served on the elite panel known as Clean Air Scientific

           17  Advisory Committee gathered to review the science.  And

           18  this committee reviewed a 2,000-page summary of the

           19  scientific research that unanimously concluded that

           20  there is no scientific justification to keep the current

           21  ozone standard.

           22                 EPA advisors recommended providing a much

           23  more -- much more protection by tightening it to .06 to

           24  .07 parts per million.  So EPA's proposal of .07 to .075

           25  five, while an improvement, is still much weaker than


                                                                     84



            1  what's needed.

            2                 The most disturbing part of the EPA

            3  proposal is that it leaves the door open to retain the

            4  current ozone standard.  I urge you to follow the

            5  recommendations of the committee of the scientists and

            6  the law to set an eight-hour standard of .060 parts per

            7  million.  That's what it takes to protect public health

            8  with a margin of safety.

            9                 Thank you.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  And if you can

           11  submit those studies, that would be extremely helpful,

           12  the ones that you referenced.  Okay.  Thank you.

           13                 Our next speakers are Tonia Candelaro --

           14                 MS. CANDELARIO:  Candelario.

           15                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- Candelario, I'm sorry,

           16  Candelario, and Taylor Candelario.

           17                 MS. TONIA CANDELARIO:  Good morning.

           18  Thank you for letting us speak today.

           19                 Look around the room.  How many of us do

           20  you imagine will be affected by some kind of lung

           21  ailment that will be exacerbated by the quality of air

           22  that we breathe?  Poor air quality affects the elderly.

           23  Do you truly believe that none of us will -- will grow

           24  old?  When you watch the weather in preparation of your

           25  day, do see whether or not you need an umbrella?  Do you


                                                                     85



            1  also pay attention to the air quality warnings?

            2                 Do you think that any of us are immune to

            3  these warnings?  Why would they have them if there was

            4  no reason to heed them?  It's to take extra precaution

            5  as we enter in the outside world.  It's bigger than

            6  needing an umbrella.  It's what we do -- we need to do

            7  in order to breathe.

            8                 Will our future in Houston require the

            9  majority of -- of us in this room to be assisted to

           10  breathe by the use of an oxygen tank?  Is there help for

           11  Houston to avoid air quality issues that will allow us

           12  to stop compromising the most important resource that we

           13  need to live?  Clean air.  I believe the answer is an

           14  astounding yes.  This is what today is all about.  It's

           15  about Houstonians stepping up to the plate, taking a

           16  stand, and demanding better air quality.  Today is that

           17  day.

           18                 My name is Tonia Candelario.  I am the

           19  mother of Colton, 13 years old, and Tay, 12.  Both of my

           20  children are asthmatics.  Tay just got out of the

           21  hospital less than two weeks ago.  In less than

           22  12 months, she has had four hospitalizations that have

           23  included ICU visits.  Last school year, she missed a

           24  total of 39 and a half days.  This year, she has already

           25  missed four days due to her asthma.


                                                                     86



            1                 My son luckily has never had a

            2  hospitalization due to his asthma, but he also misses

            3  more school than the average student because of it.

            4  Thankfully, both of my children are bright, but missing

            5  so much school causes gaps in their learning and they

            6  have unnecessary struggles because they have to miss so

            7  much school.  This would be a non-issue if they had

            8  cleaner air to breathe.

            9                 Colton and Tay participate in sports and

           10  other activities.  They are normal kids.  What they have

           11  to -- what they have to deal with is constant worry that

           12  they will have an asthma flare-up that will keep them

           13  from -- from participating in day-to-day activities that

           14  keep them from being normal.  They do not have

           15  exercise-induced asthma.  Their asthma is due to their

           16  environment.  The quality of air they breathe.

           17                 They are on medication daily, and I worry

           18  that taking any medication for a long period of time is

           19  not good for them.  I worry that one day I might lose

           20  one or both of my children to asthma.  It's not an

           21  unheard-of scenario.  You only have to watch your child

           22  gasping for air and turn blue because they do not have

           23  the ability to breathe to know that one day their body

           24  might not be able to fight it anymore.

           25                 I mentioned that Tay has had numerous


                                                                     87



            1  hospitalizations.  Since she was 18 years -- months old,

            2  she's had over 12, all due to breathing problems.  About

            3  five years ago, my husband and I were convinced that

            4  there was something in our 30-year-old home that was

            5  causing her to become ill.  We had our house tested, and

            6  they did find a small amount of mold in our home.

            7                 Because of her health -- health issues,

            8  the contractors remediated our whole house at an

            9  incredible expense.  We are from modest means, but we

           10  felt it was important to the health of our children.

           11  After a year or so, her health had not improved.  And we

           12  decided to take another drastic measure and build a

           13  house that included everything that allergy and asthma

           14  specialists recommend for asthmatics, special air

           15  conditioners, vents, bedding, no window treatments, no

           16  carpet, et cetera.

           17                 We call it our "Taylor made" home because

           18  we built it to keep our -- our child -- children,

           19  especially Tay, well.  We moved into our new home in May

           20  of 2006.  October, 2006 marked her first of four

           21  hospitalizations in less than 12 months.  It's not our

           22  home environment that continues to make her sick.  Our

           23  house is as clean and dust free as it can be.  It's

           24  still not enough.

           25                 You see, we've gone to such extremes to


                                                                     88



            1  keep our children healthy.  We've set high standards for

            2  our way of living to protect our children.  It's not

            3  what we are doing or not doing.  It's simply the air we

            4  breathe in Houston.  People ask us all the time, Why

            5  don't you move to another city?  Here's why.  We

            6  shouldn't have to.  Houston is our home.  We want what

            7  everyone wants.  A better city to breathe in.

            8                 I'm not sure that anywhere is perfect.  I

            9  just know that if we had the help in Houston to control

           10  the amount of pollution that is allowed, the -- the help

           11  to clean up our air, that people would be a lot

           12  healthier.  Our medical bills would be at a minimum,

           13  insurance companies would like us better, and our life

           14  expectancy would be increased.

           15                 Houston is a great city.  We have great

           16  leadership.  We have people who care about Houstonians.

           17  We lend our help to neighboring states who can't help

           18  themselves.  We host major events and contribute to the

           19  economy.  Houston is not a place to give up on.  It's

           20  time that Houston gets the helping hand it needs in

           21  order to continue with its success as a great city.

           22                 You know what I love about Tay?  She

           23  doesn't place blame.  She doesn't get down because she

           24  can't breathe.  She just fights.  She's a positive

           25  force, and her goal is to win that fight.  My job is to


                                                                     89



            1  help her win the fight.  My job is to come here today

            2  and ask you to protect my children and others who have

            3  breathing problems because the air quality is less than

            4  adequate.

            5                 It's your job to listen.  It's your job

            6  to act and do what it is for the best in the public's

            7  health.  Not what's best for your agency or the

            8  government or who's got the deepest pockets so that

            9  others can look the other way and not keep the best

           10  interest of Houston.  It's your job to get tough on air

           11  quality standards.  It's your job not to put your finger

           12  in a dam and hope that it will be enough.  Pretend that

           13  it fixes the problem when there's other major problems

           14  to fix.

           15                 It's time to fix the whole problem.

           16  Clean air is not a privilege that we are granted.  We

           17  are entitled to clean air.  We are entitled to breathe

           18  without worry.  We are entitled for the assistance that

           19  we need in order to have these simple things.

           20                 I don't pretend to understand the

           21  political ramifications or the scientific research that

           22  has been done to support what I'm asking.  I'm just an

           23  experienced mom who has children that I love so dearly

           24  who happen to be asthmatics affected by Houston's poor

           25  air quality.


                                                                     90



            1                 Today ranks up with some of the most

            2  important things that I have done in my life.  The

            3  first, I married my high school sweetheart.  The second

            4  was becoming a mother to precious children.  And they

            5  are precious.  But when you look around the room,

            6  everyone here has someone precious.  Today I'm talking

            7  on behalf of those people.  I get to tell you that clean

            8  air is what we need to keep these people happy, not

            9  precious memories.

           10                 Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           12                 MISS TAYLOR CANDELARIO:  Good morning.

           13  My name is Tay Candelario.  I'm 12 years old, and I have

           14  asthma.  Asthma is a disease that I have, but it is not

           15  who I am.  I'm just a regular, everyday girl who likes

           16  to hang out with my friends, likes competitive

           17  cheerleading, likes to bake, and loves to annoy my big

           18  brother, Colton.

           19                 The thing is that when you have asthma,

           20  people tend to treat you differently.  Every time I

           21  cough at home or at school, everyone starts freaking

           22  out, thinking that my asthma is starting up again.

           23  Sometimes it is just a cough.

           24                 It's frustrating when people only focus

           25  on my asthma.  Sometimes it's embarrassing because my


                                                                     91



            1  friends have to see me so sick, and I have to worry

            2  about them because they see me have to be taken to the

            3  hospital by ambulance.  It's hard for them to understand

            4  what I'm going through, even though they've seen me go

            5  through it since we all started school together in

            6  kindergarten.

            7                 It's embarrassing when you get back to

            8  school and you don't know what is going on in your

            9  classes.  I have to catch up what I miss and try to

           10  learn what they are learning when I get back.  It is

           11  very stressful.  It seems that once I get caught up and

           12  know what's going on again, that I have another asthma

           13  attack and the cycle starts all over again.

           14                 I miss out on a lot of things that my

           15  friends all do together.  Most of the time it's -- it's

           16  because I'm sick a lot.  I know that it's not personal,

           17  but it hurts a lot because I feel left out on a lot of

           18  stuff.  My mom says that she refuses to let me live in a

           19  bubble.  She wants me to experience life to the fullest.

           20  She wants -- she wants to give me the same opportunities

           21  that everyone else has, though I do have asthma.

           22                 She constantly reminds me that I'm well

           23  more days than I am sick.  She is sometimes criticized

           24  that she should not let me do this or that, like play

           25  football on a team with my guy friends or participate in


                                                                     92



            1  competitive cheerleading or go hunting with my dad and

            2  brother.

            3                 People don't understand and they don't

            4  necessarily want to understand.  They don't -- they

            5  don't understand that I need to exercise in order to

            6  keep my lungs healthy.  But my mom understands it's just

            7  so that I can be a kid, to be like every other kid.  It

            8  seems that if -- that it would be easier for my mom if

            9  she just kept me in a bubble.  She might not worry so

           10  much if she did, but she says that worrying is her job,

           11  being a kid is mine.  I want to do my job well for her.

           12                 I learned to take care of my asthma as

           13  soon as I could read.  It was important to my mom that

           14  if she weren't here -- if she weren't around, that I

           15  could handle whatever asthma-related issues I was

           16  having.  I know what medicines to take, when and how

           17  much.  I know what the medicines do for me, too.

           18                 My doctors have always included me in

           19  their asthma education of the medicine so that I can do

           20  what I need to do whenever an asthma situation comes up.

           21  My friends don't have to worry about medications like I

           22  do.  They wake up and have to take maybe one medication

           23  a day.  But me?  I have to take a lot.

           24                 Asthma interferes with our lives so much.

           25  I miss a lot of school.  My mom and dad miss a lot of


                                                                     93



            1  work, too.  When we are in the hospital, my mom never

            2  leaves me.  We are a team.  It's hard on my brother who

            3  has to stay with relatives, but it's not fair for him

            4  that he has to worry about getting everything he needs

            5  from home so that he can do well at school.

            6                 All of our lives get put on hold or are

            7  majorly interrupted because of my asthma.  There are

            8  times when I feel like I'm actually dying.  My body

            9  feels so weak, and it shakes a lot from all the

           10  medications I take.  My heart feels like it will come

           11  out of my chest.

           12                 When I was asked to come and speak to you

           13  today, I was excited because I knew that I might

           14  possibly be able to convince you to help a lot of

           15  people.  But I also didn't want the focus on me, being

           16  the poor girl with asthma.  I don't want it to be about

           17  what I have.  I want it to be about cleaning up our air

           18  for everyone.

           19                 Have -- having asthma is not fun.  It's

           20  expensive for my parents, and the worry and frustration

           21  it causes our whole family.  But our family doesn't

           22  focus on the asthma.  Okay, so maybe my mom is a pain

           23  about keeping the house clean, but we focus on being a

           24  family.  We love doing as much as we can together as a

           25  family.  Unfortunately, asthma is also a part of our


                                                                     94



            1  family.  I know there are a lot of families in Houston

            2  just like us.

            3                 When you look at me, you don't see

            4  someone who is sick.  You don't realize -- you don't --

            5  you don't know that I take several medications a day.

            6  You don't realize that it is a daily struggle to fight

            7  the battle to breathe that everyone else takes for

            8  granted.  You don't know that I spend a lot of time

            9  going to the doctor or hospital.  You don't know that my

           10  parents spend a lot of money keeping my environment safe

           11  to be in so that I can breathe or on medical bills

           12  because I couldn't breathe.

           13                 I'm not alone in my struggles.  There are

           14  millions of others also fighting the same war, but I'm

           15  doing my part.  I need you to do yours.  I need you to

           16  clean up Houston's air.  I'm depending on you; my family

           17  is depending on you; Houston is depending on you.

           18                 I come here today to ask you to be like

           19  our country who will send their proud soldiers to back

           20  up a country that needs help, a state that helps other

           21  states when a hurricane strikes, a city that provides

           22  resources to -- to those that can't help themselves;

           23  people with asthma that need help, for the air, in the

           24  future that our elders and the people born after us,

           25  that they won't have asthma or any other lung problems,


                                                                     95



            1  for people to live longer.  And I come to you today and

            2  ask that you can give us hope that our air, my air, is

            3  to be clean once again.

            4                 Thank you.

            5                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you both for coming.

            6  Thank you very much for speaking.  Thanks especially to

            7  Tay for coming to talk to us.  We really appreciate it.

            8                 Our next speakers are Nick Hanania and

            9  Janice Nolen.

           10                 DR. HANANIA:  Good morning.  Good

           11  morning, ladies and gentlemen.  I -- my name is Dr. Nick

           12  Hanania.  I'm an adult pulmonary physician specialized

           13  in airway diseases here at Baylor College of Medicine in

           14  Houston.  I'm a faculty member at Baylor, and I also

           15  oversee a very busy clinic that caters for adult

           16  asthmatics and also patients with COPD, chronic

           17  obstructive pulmonary disease, sometimes called

           18  emphysema.

           19                 I'm very glad to be given the opportunity

           20  here to address you and also the audience and give you a

           21  testimony from the heart what I see in my patients with

           22  asthma and COPD and how it's related to the issue we're

           23  discussing today.  I work at Ben Taub General Hospital,

           24  which is, as you all know, a tertiary care County

           25  hospital who cater -- which caters for inner city


                                                                     96



            1  Houstonians.  Most or our patients are indigent

            2  patients, poor, from minorities who are the ones at

            3  highest risk of death from diseases such as asthma.

            4                 I'm presenting comments today on behalf

            5  of the American Lung Association, which I've supported

            6  for many years.  I serve on the leadership council for

            7  its efforts to promote lung health.  But I'm also here

            8  to represent my patients.  Unfortunately, I don't have

            9  them with me here, but I truly want to represent them,

           10  many of my patients with airway diseases, such as asthma

           11  and COPD, who suffer on a daily basis from consequences

           12  of air pollution, particularly ozone.

           13                 You have already heard from many of my

           14  colleagues and other speakers quoting clinical and

           15  epidemiologic studies, convincing studies that have

           16  shown the link between air pollution, including ozone,

           17  and airway diseases where they're exacerbating the

           18  diseases or even causing asthma in child -- children

           19  with the disease.

           20                 You've read convincing evidence about

           21  children with asthma, but let me remind you as an adult

           22  pulmonologist, children although a very important and

           23  vulnerable group of patients, are not the only group

           24  affected with these disease and -- and the ill effects

           25  of air pollution.


                                                                     97



            1                 As a lung physician treating adults, I

            2  can attest to the fact that asthma affects all age

            3  groups.  And, in fact, with the elderly population in

            4  the U.S. and many other developed countries growing at a

            5  fast rate, we are seeing more and more elderly with

            6  asthma.  As such, also, we are seeing patients with

            7  COPD, a disease affecting patients who are above

            8  40 years of age.

            9                 So, therefore, this -- this problem with

           10  pollution does not and is not restricted to young

           11  individuals and children.  It's been shown that these

           12  patients with asthma are at significant risk of

           13  morbidity and even mortality with exposure to pollutants

           14  such as ozone.  In particular, I would like to mention

           15  that it is estimated that the prevalence of asthma is

           16  about 6 percent of the population; however, prevalence

           17  rates from Houston suggest that these -- that this rate

           18  is much higher, especially in polluted areas.

           19                 Ozone air pollution has, indeed, been

           20  shown to increase the likelihood of ER visits and

           21  hospitalization in such patients.  COPD is another very

           22  common disease, affects about 24 million Americans,

           23  mostly seen in patients above 40.  It is the --

           24  currently the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.

           25  and accounts for more than $34 billion in direct and


                                                                     98



            1  indirect healthcare costs.

            2                 While it is true that tobacco smoke is

            3  the main cause of COPD, it is also true that pollutants

            4  such as ozone can aggravate the disease and increase its

            5  progression and can increase exacerbations of these

            6  disease that lead to hospitalization and emergency room

            7  visits.  These exacerbations account for two million

            8  emergency room visits a year and about half a million

            9  hospitalizations in the United States.

           10                 Ladies and gentlemen, if you cannot

           11  breathe, nothing else matters.  It is a true fact that I

           12  see in my -- the faces of my patients with airway

           13  disease.  It is also a motto of the American Lung

           14  Association for many years.  It is a true fact that

           15  breathing is the most important, not being a

           16  pulmonologist, for the -- for the system to -- to work.

           17                 And feeling like suffocation, which many

           18  patients of mine do, is not fun, and it's really not a

           19  comfortable feeling.  While we have done our best over

           20  the last few years in medicine to improve outcomes from

           21  patients with COPD and asthma, we have still fallen

           22  short to achieve them in allowing them to breathe clean

           23  air.  It does not matter how long it will take us and

           24  how much it costs.  This is a very important thing that

           25  we have to achieve.


                                                                     99



            1                 It is, in my mind, that every American,

            2  including my patients, our children, parents and

            3  grandparents, deserve to breathe clean air.  The fact

            4  that exposure to ozone at levels even below the current

            5  set standards have been shown to be responsible for

            6  measurable significant adverse health effects in terms

            7  of both morbidity and mortality in children and adults,

            8  especially those with underlying lung conditions.

            9                 I, therefore, strongly support EPA -- the

           10  EPA Administrator in his efforts to issue a more

           11  stringent standard and absolutely reject any efforts to

           12  maintain the current standard for ozone.  However, in my

           13  mind, we cannot do an incomplete job.  In proposing a

           14  revised standard between 0.070 and 0.075 parts per

           15  million for ozone, the EPA, in my mind, has failed to --

           16  to truly appreciate the danger of ozone posed with lower

           17  levels of ozone.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  Dr. Hanania, I think you

           19  should try to wrap up.

           20                 DR. HANANIA:  Just one minute.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           22                 DR. HANANIA:  Based on the strength of

           23  the scientific knowledge, based on the advisory

           24  committee for the EPA and many other health professional

           25  organizations, I strongly support lower levels of ozone


                                                                    100



            1  to be set.  And a level as suggested by these

            2  organizations of .06 parts per million is -- is -- is

            3  very important and, in my mind, provides the margin of

            4  safety required by the Clean Air Act to protect the

            5  public health from serious consequences of ozone air

            6  pollution.

            7                 Again, I would like to thank you all for

            8  giving me the opportunity here, the American Lung

            9  Association for asking me to present them here today.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Just -- just one

           11  question.  You talked about the billions of dollars in

           12  healthcare costs associated with asthma and --

           13                 DR. HANANIA:  COPD.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- COPD -- COPD, rather.  If

           15  you have any supporting information on that --

           16                 DR. HANANIA:  Yes, I can send it to you.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- that would be helpful.

           18                 DR. HANANIA:  Sure.

           19                 MR. EDLUND:  And we noticed, Dr. Hanania,

           20  that you have a whole lot more there, if you would

           21  submit that.

           22                 DR. HANANIA:  I will, yes.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           24                 MS. NOLEN:  Good morning.  Thank you for

           25  the opportunity to comment on the agency's proposed


                                                                    101



            1  National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.  I am

            2  Janice Nolen.  I'm assistant vice president for national

            3  policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association.

            4                 The American Lung Association has

            5  carefully followed this review, and, in fact, our legal

            6  actions in 2002 and 2003 instigated this review cycle.

            7  We are pleased to be at this point five years later,

            8  with a hope of more protection for all of us from the

            9  harms of ozone pollution.

           10                 The proposed revisions to the national

           11  standards for ozone are a good step toward cleaner air.

           12  While the American Lung Association is pleased that EPA

           13  is calling for significantly tighter standards, the

           14  agency's plan falls short of the range recommended by

           15  its own scientific experts.

           16                 We believe that there is ample evidence

           17  to support a standard of 0.60 parts per million, and we

           18  urge the Administrator to adopt that level.  We are

           19  pleased to hear that the Administrator is personally

           20  convinced that the existing standard fails to protect

           21  public health.  Despite that, the agency left the door

           22  open to retaining the existing standard or nudging the

           23  standard downward slightly.  These options are not

           24  acceptable.  We trust the Administrator will agree.

           25                 We will submit full comments in writing


                                                                    102



            1  for the docket; however, for today I want to focus on

            2  one issue, on the core arrangement given for not

            3  proposing the range that the agency's independent

            4  scientific advisors recommended.  The argument is a

            5  familiar one, recycled, if you will, from previous

            6  reviews.  The data from the research are assessed as,

            7  quote, "too uncertain" to set the standard at any lower

            8  than the proposed range.

            9                 This old bugaboo provides an all-purpose

           10  cover.  To the average person, it sounds like ozone may

           11  not actually be a problem at those levels, something

           12  that needs more study before we know what we need to do.

           13  EPA sounds quite reasonable in arguing that we don't

           14  need to move ahead in face of such, quote, "uncertain"

           15  evidence, except that the argument is wrong.

           16                 First, there is clear evidence that

           17  breathing ozone at levels well below .070 parts per

           18  million is harmful.  Many studies provide ample proof of

           19  that, including ten that I'm footnoting in my written

           20  comments.  Breathing even these lower ozone standards --

           21  ozone concentrations sends newborns and seniors to the

           22  hospital, decreases lung function in children with

           23  asthma and in healthy adults and even increases the risk

           24  of premature death.

           25                 What uncertainty really means here is


                                                                    103



            1  that there -- while we know breathing that much ozone is

            2  harmful, we just don't know how much harm occurs at

            3  those levels.  In more concrete terms, we're not sure

            4  how many asthma attacks school children in Houston

            5  suffer at these levels of ozone, but we know without

            6  question that they suffer them.

            7                 Even if the uncertain -- even if the

            8  evidence wasn't as strong as it is, another reason lifts

            9  the mask of uncertainty and compels the EPA to propose a

           10  tighter standard, the requirement to provide a margin of

           11  safety.

           12                 When Congress wrote the Clean Air Act,

           13  scientists testified that we would never have absolute

           14  knowledge, that we would learn more and improve our

           15  ability to assess these dangers, but that we would

           16  always need to protect the public, even when we lacked

           17  full knowledge.

           18                 The Clean Air Act requires, and the

           19  American public expects, that the EPA must address such

           20  uncertainty in favor of more public health protection,

           21  not less.  The science is strong.  The harm from levels

           22  at below .070 is real.  The American Lung Association is

           23  one of many public health and medical groups in this

           24  nation to call for such tighter standards.

           25                 The argument of too much uncertainty


                                                                    104



            1  merely justifies a political limitation, not one

            2  supported by science or legal arguments -- requirements.

            3  The evidence and the law require more protection now.

            4  The American Lung Association urges the Administrator to

            5  choose a standard that truly offers the protection the

            6  Clean Air Act requires.

            7                 Thank you.

            8                 MS. WEGMAN:  And to the extent that you

            9  have, you know, scientific evidence that --

           10                 MS. NOLEN:  You will have it.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Thank you both.

           12                 Our next speakers are Soleil Manzo and

           13  Liz Hendler.

           14                 MS. MANZO:  Good morning.  My name is

           15  Soleil Manzo, and I'm a regional vice president for the

           16  American Lung Association of the Central States.  I have

           17  asthma.  I'm here because I have strong personal and

           18  professional feelings about the ozone standard.  I have

           19  family members with asthma, and every day I meet family

           20  members who are affected by the environment.

           21                 Many of them cannot go outside on a bad

           22  ozone day.  Their day-to-day lives are impacted by air

           23  pollution.  It is important to me that the health of my

           24  family members, the health of everyone here in Texas,

           25  and the health across the United States is protected


                                                                    105



            1  from ozone air pollution.  A stricter ozone standard

            2  will help protect us all.

            3                 We've all experienced scorching hot

            4  summer days when the haze covers over the horizon and

            5  the air feels thick.  And on those many days, many

            6  people with breathing problems are suffering.  The haze

            7  that's visible in the ground-level ozone, often called

            8  smog, is even a bigger problem here in Texas.

            9                 During the summer months, ozone acts as a

           10  powerful respiratory irritant that has been linked to

           11  numerous health conditions, including shortness of

           12  breath, chest pain when inhaling deeply, wheezing and

           13  coughing, and increased susceptibility to respiratory

           14  conditions.  Prolonged exposure can pose even greater

           15  threats, including pulmonary inflammation, increased

           16  asthma attacks, reduced lung capacity, and even

           17  premature death.

           18                 The more ozone in the air, the more

           19  people end up in the hospital.  Children, senior

           20  citizens, and those who have lung disease such as asthma

           21  or COPD are most affected by the ozone pollution.  It is

           22  important to note that even healthy adult -- adults who

           23  work or exercise outdoors can experience negative health

           24  effects from the exposure to the ozone.

           25                 Recent studies indicate that ozone


                                                                    106



            1  pollution may actually be a cause of asthma, making it

            2  even -- making it even more important that we strengthen

            3  the standards.  Under the guidelines -- guidelines of

            4  the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set and review

            5  the outdoor air pollution limits and standards in order

            6  to protect public health in an adequate margin of

            7  safety.

            8                 The ozone standard is critical for a

            9  variety of reasons.  It sets a goal for clean air in

           10  every county and state in the nation that it has to

           11  meet.  It drives all air pollution cleanup in the U.S.,

           12  and it determines how much pollution must be removed

           13  from the air.  Tighter standards will directly translate

           14  into fewer asthma attacks, fewer hospital trips, and

           15  reduction of number of deaths linked to air pollution.

           16  That matters to me both personally and professionally.

           17                 Recently, the EPA announced plans to

           18  revise the ozone standard to a level within the range of

           19  .070 to .075 parts per million.  This revision is a step

           20  towards clean air, but it falls short, well short,

           21  between the recommended -- well short between the

           22  recommendations of EPA scientists, advisors who

           23  conducted this research and the health impact of ozone

           24  that have concluded in current ozone standards and not

           25  adequate to protect human health.


                                                                    107



            1                 These independent scientists have

            2  suggested that the eight-hour standard is substantially

            3  strengthened and set to a range of .060 to .070 parts

            4  per million.  The American Lung Association strongly

            5  agrees.  To comply with the guidelines of the Clean Air

            6  Act, air pollution standards must be set to levels that

            7  protect public health, including the health of sensitive

            8  populations with an adequate margin of safety.

            9                 These studies showing that breathing

           10  ozone can harm health at concentrations lower than the

           11  current standards.  It is clear that the care -- the

           12  current standards are not enough and must be

           13  strengthened.  Choosing not to implement a stronger

           14  standard could leave millions of individuals unprotected

           15  from harmful effects of poor air quality.

           16                 It is time for the EPA to follow their

           17  own scientists' recommendations and tighten the ozone

           18  standard.  This will help us clean up our air and

           19  protect the health of all of our citizens.

           20                 Thank you for your time.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           22                 MS. HENDLER:  Good morning.  My name is

           23  Elizabeth Hendler, and I'm the project manager for the

           24  8-Hour Ozone SIP Coalition.  The 8-Hour Coalition is

           25  comprised of members from the energy industry that have


                                                                    108



            1  a common interest in achieving the goals of clean air

            2  and a strong regional economy for Texas.

            3                 Our refining, petrochemical, and electric

            4  utility members have been strong supporters of clean air

            5  improvements, and the eight companies that comprise the

            6  coalition by themselves have invested over two billion

            7  dollars in the state-of-the-art emission controls just

            8  since 2001.

            9                 The 8-Hour Ozone SIP Coalition believes

           10  that EPA should retain the current primary and secondary

           11  ozone standards, which the agency set in 2000 -- 1997.

           12  The proposed revisions to the standard do not adequately

           13  account for uncertainties in the health science.  They

           14  overstate the benefits and dramatically underestimate

           15  the cost of attainment.

           16                 Most importantly, the administrative

           17  tasks that are associated with implementing a new

           18  standard take the national, state, and local focus away

           19  from actual steps to achieve the current standard and

           20  may threaten to slow improvements and future progress in

           21  air quality in our region.

           22                 Less than ten years ago, EPA set the

           23  current ozone standard, concluding that it protected the

           24  public health and provided an adequate margin of safety.

           25  Since that time, air quality in Houston and throughout


                                                                    109



            1  the United States has improved dramatically despite

            2  increased population and economic growth.

            3                 Over the past 15 years in Houston, any

            4  measure that you wish to assess of ozone has decreased,

            5  while the population has increased 36 percent.  Reducing

            6  ozone while providing a better quality of life for

            7  citizens is no accident, and it doesn't come about by

            8  continuing ratcheting down standards.

            9                 It's the result of thorough and

           10  thoughtful application of the science, including in

           11  Houston the most comprehensive air quality monitoring

           12  network and field study program in the nation.  It's

           13  also the result of targeted regulations and voluntary

           14  actions by citizens, businesses, and government.

           15                 During the previous ozone NAAQS review,

           16  EPA found that there was no bright line health effects

           17  threshold at which to set the level of the standard, and

           18  they concluded based on policy judgments that the

           19  eight -- .08 ppm standard would protect public health

           20  and provide an adequate margin of safety.

           21                 The current ozone NAAQS's review provided

           22  no new evidence to assist EPA with establishing that

           23  bright line.  Indeed, there's still many uncertainties

           24  in the epidemiological studies, risk assessments and

           25  conflicting data relating to background levels of ozone,


                                                                    110



            1  the use of chamber data, and also separating the

            2  co-benefits of ozone and fine particle reductions.

            3  We're going to cover these a little bit more thoroughly

            4  in our written comments.

            5                 In addition, to proposing a revision to

            6  the ozone NAAQS, EPA is required to perform a regulatory

            7  impact analysis or RIA.  The purpose of the analysis is

            8  to present a comparison of the benefit and costs of the

            9  proposed new standard to the communities that will

           10  actually have to implement it.  We believe that the RIA

           11  presents a misleading picture of the relative costs and

           12  benefits of this proposal.

           13                 First, the report ignores the costs

           14  associated with the economic impact of regulation beyond

           15  the immediate control costs.  It does not consider

           16  unemployment effects.  It does not consider the cost of

           17  business relocation out of the area, even though other

           18  RIA reports have considered these impacts.  These costs

           19  force businesses to decide whether they can afford to

           20  continue operating their facilities or they must shut

           21  them down.

           22                 Houston appears to have already reached

           23  this tipping point due to the stringent industrial NOx

           24  reductions that we've already implemented.  The last

           25  parcel of NOx emission credits traded on the open market


                                                                    111



            1  sold this year for $165,000 per ton, and there are no

            2  other substantial NOx credits available on the market for

            3  any price.  The RIA does not take these issues into

            4  account.

            5                 Furthermore, the report does not comply

            6  with an executive order promulgated in 2001 that

            7  requires a statement of energy effects to the OMB for

            8  any proposed rule that significantly affects energy

            9  supplies.  The RIA contends that because states have to

           10  develop the control measures to meet the new NAAQS, the

           11  EPA cannot predict whether those measures will adversely

           12  affect the energy industry or industry use.

           13                 Yet, elsewhere in the same report they

           14  assume controls on the energy industry in Houston.

           15  Well, even if the new eight-hour regulations were to

           16  affect only Houston, national energy markets would be

           17  affected because Houston produces so much of the

           18  nation's final energy products.  If Houston industry

           19  makes less, that translates to higher unemployment, less

           20  growth in the economy, and higher end fuel and product

           21  prices.  Again, the RIA does not address these issues.

           22                 At this time, the TCQ and the broader

           23  community is engaged in a thoughtful scientific review

           24  of data collected in the 2006 field study.  And right

           25  now, they're transforming those findings into practical


                                                                    112



            1  ozone reduction policies.  However, if the EPA proceeds

            2  with the new NAAQS now, the focus on our regions of

            3  ozone causes and controls will be stalled while we

            4  implement new administrative regulations.

            5                 Resetting the standard will mean several

            6  years' delay in implementation role development,

            7  designation, and classification.  Instead of this

            8  paperwork exercise, EPA states in the local community

            9  would better spend their time on activities to speed

           10  attainment of the current local ozone -- current

           11  stringent ozone standard.  We look toward to continuing

           12  with TCQ and EPA to achieve these goals.

           13                 Thank you.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Thank you.

           15  There were -- well, first, as you know, we don't

           16  consider costs in determining what the appropriate level

           17  of public health protection is, and I wanted to note

           18  that you talked about effects that were ignored.  Having

           19  said that, you talked about effects that were ignored in

           20  the regulatory impact analysis.  And we don't normally

           21  analyze the kind of secondary -- what we call secondary

           22  effects that you mentioned.  So, we'll certainly review

           23  your comments on that.

           24                 MS. HENDLER:  We appreciate that.  The

           25  secondary effects are actually crucially important


                                                                    113



            1  because they're actually larger than the immediate

            2  control costs.  They're the costs of what happens when a

            3  facility has to shut down a unit, what happens to those

            4  workers, what happens to the local tax base.  So, those

            5  are very important facts.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  No, I -- I understand what

            7  you're referring to.  It's just that we -- we are not

            8  required to -- to look at those, but we'll certainly

            9  look at your comments.

           10                 MS. HENDLER:  Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  And -- and I wanted to just

           12  ask you to submit whatever you plan to -- what you

           13  talked about on the energy impact issues.

           14                 MS. HENDLER:  Thank you.  We will.

           15                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you both.

           16                 Okay.  Our next speakers are Christina

           17  Wisdom and Debbie Hastings.

           18                 MS. WISDOM:  Good morning.  My name is

           19  Christina Wisdom, and I am the general counsel of the

           20  Texas Chemical Council.  TCC is a statewide trade

           21  association representing approximately 85 chemical

           22  manufacturers with more than 200 Texas facilities, the

           23  great majority of which are located in the

           24  Houston/Galveston/Brazoria non-attainment area.

           25                 TCC member companies manufacture products


                                                                    114



            1  that improve the quality of life for all Texans.  Our

            2  industry has invested more than $50 billion in physical

            3  assets in the state and pays over $1 billion annually in

            4  state and local taxes.  TCC's members provide

            5  approximately 70,000 direct jobs and over 400,000

            6  indirect jobs to Texans across the state.

            7                 In the HGB non-attainment area, TCC

            8  member companies have worked with other industrial

            9  sectors to invest more than $3 billion since 2001 to

           10  achieve an 80 percent reduction of NOx from point

           11  sources.  TCC supports retention of the current NAAQS of

           12  80 parts per billion for ground-level ozone.

           13                 First, air quality in Texas and across

           14  the nation under the current standard is improving.

           15  According to EPA, between 1970 and 2006, total emissions

           16  of the six principal air pollutants dropped by

           17  54 percent across the country.  The TCEQ predicts the

           18  area of exceedence of the current eight-hour standard in

           19  the HGB non-attainment area will decrease over

           20  80 percent from 2000 to 2009.  Such decreases are

           21  expected to continue despite the area's rapidly growing

           22  economy and population.

           23                 Second, TCC feels strongly that EPA

           24  should fully implement the current standard before it

           25  attempts to lower it.  In June, Texas Governor Rick


                                                                    115



            1  Perry submitted a request to EPA for a reclassification

            2  of the HGB non-attainment area from moderate to severe

            3  status under the current ozone standard.

            4                 Despite the 80 percent NOx reduction made

            5  by industry since 2001, HGB is unable to obtain the

            6  current standard by 2010 because federally regulated

            7  mobile sources are projected to account for 50 per --

            8  56 percent of the NOx emissions in the HGB non-attainment

            9  area in 2009.  In fact, TCEQ modeling estimates that

           10  even if all point source emissions from the Houston Ship

           11  Channel region were eliminated, ozone concentrations

           12  will continue to be above 85 parts per billion in 2009.

           13                 Mobile source emission controls rest

           14  solely with the federal government, and time is needed

           15  for the federal fuel and engine standards to be

           16  implemented.  Lowering the standard now before these

           17  mobile source emission reductions can be realized would

           18  be short-sighted, particularly in light of EPA's own

           19  admission that attainment of a lower standard will

           20  require use of technologies by point sources that do not

           21  yet currently exist.

           22                 The effect of the proposed rule for HGB

           23  will primarily accomplish only additional and

           24  unattainable regulatory burdens on point sources that

           25  have already made significant reductions and are not the


                                                                    116



            1  primary source of NOx emissions in the HGB non-attainment

            2  area.

            3                 Third, it is not clear that the

            4  difference between the current standard and the lowest

            5  proposed standard will result in a measurable

            6  improvement in public health.  For example, Texas is

            7  unique in its meteorology and emission sources, and this

            8  is evident in Texas data regarding asthma

            9  hospitalizations.

           10                 In Texas, hospitalization rates due to

           11  asthma decrease in the summer and increase in the

           12  winter, indicating that ozone is not a significant

           13  contributor to asthma hospitalizations.  Additionally,

           14  there are numerous questions regarding the state of the

           15  science and, in particular, whether or not there have

           16  been any significant developments over the last ten

           17  years that weren't a significant lowering of the

           18  standards.

           19                 Furthermore, recent studies present

           20  inconsistent or -- or conflicting data.  For example,

           21  the author of one key study upon which the new standard

           22  is based expressed during a public teleconference that

           23  he was uncomfortable about EPA's statistical

           24  interpretation of his own study at levels below 80 parts

           25  per billion.


                                                                    117



            1                 Finally, it's unclear whether EPA has

            2  fully examined the differences between the health

            3  effects expected at 80 parts per billion and 60 parts

            4  per billion.  This is alarming in light of EPA's

            5  estimated cost of the rule, which would make it among

            6  the most expensive regulations ever issued by the

            7  federal government.

            8                 Finally, lowering the standard will

            9  result in new non-attainment area designations that will

           10  hurt -- hurt both large and small businesses and prevent

           11  expansion and growth in many urban and rural parts of

           12  the state and country.  In Texas, there are currently 12

           13  counties whose monitors measure over the current

           14  standard of 80 parts per billion.

           15                 Simply lowering the standard to 75 parts

           16  per billion would result in an additional ten Texas

           17  counties being in non-attainment.  Significant negative

           18  consequences to the Texas economy will likely result

           19  immediately from a non-attainment designation, such as

           20  job loss, increased energy costs, increased dependence

           21  on foreign fuels, permitting delays, increased

           22  monitoring costs, and stunted community growth and

           23  business expansion.

           24                 In conclusion, TCC supports retention of

           25  the current eight-hour ozone standard and recommends


                                                                    118



            1  lowering, again, the standard at this time.

            2                 Thank you very much for your time and

            3  consideration today.

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            5                 MS. HASTINGS:  Good morning.  My name is

            6  Debbie Hastings.  I'm the vice president for

            7  environmental affairs with the Texas Oil & Gas

            8  Association.  I have a master's degree in environmental

            9  resources and over 20 years of environmental management

           10  experience, including working at the Texas Commission on

           11  Environmental Quality and its predecessor agencies for

           12  19 years.

           13                 I'm the mother of two sons.  My oldest

           14  son has fought asthma symptoms for many years.  And may

           15  I add that those symptoms seem to flare in the colder

           16  months versus the months when ozone levels are expected

           17  to rise.  Coming to you with this background, I

           18  appreciate the opportunity to offer TXOGA's support for

           19  clean air by staying the course and maintaining the

           20  current ozone standards.

           21                 TXOGA, founded in 1919, continues to

           22  serve as the only organization in the state which is

           23  unified to embrace all segments of the petroleum

           24  industry.  Approximately 3,000 members strong, TXOGA's

           25  membership produces in excess of 92 percent of Texas


                                                                    119



            1  crude oil and natural gas.  It's responsible for over

            2  95 percent of the state's refining capacity and operates

            3  a vast majority of the state's pipeline mileage.

            4                 The oil and gas industry directly employs

            5  264,000 Texans, providing payroll and benefits of over

            6  33 billion in 2006 alone.  Studies have shown that each

            7  new job in the industry creates a total of 6.6 new

            8  indirect jobs in Texas.  As the major energy center for

            9  the world, there are over 115,000 oil and gas-related

           10  direct jobs in Harris County alone.  Additionally, the

           11  average oil and gas job pays more than twice that of

           12  other industries.

           13                 TXOGA supports retaining the current --

           14  current National Ambient Air Quality Standard of .08

           15  parts per million of ground-level ozone for three

           16  specific reasons.  First, the air quality under the

           17  current standard is dramatically improving in Texas and

           18  will continue to improve considering our implementation

           19  progress made, including, but not limited to the

           20  industry's reduction of NOx emissions; industry's

           21  voluntary reduction of episodic emissions; lowering of

           22  the HRVOC, or highly reactive volatile organic compound,

           23  reportable quantities and the hourly limit program

           24  implemented in 2006; accelerating state grant dollars to

           25  reduce off-road diesel NOx emissions; industry's


                                                                    120



            1  voluntary use of VOC gas imaging cameras; Texas low

            2  emission diesel program; and implementation of the

            3  federal on-road cleaner diesel requirements.

            4                 Our industry has committed three to five

            5  billion dollars of clean air expenditures through 2007

            6  alone.

            7                 Second, certainty in regulations is

            8  important to our industry, and we feel that we should

            9  fully meet the current standard before there is an

           10  attempt to lower it.  Establishing a new standard while

           11  we are still trying to obtain the current standard would

           12  be difficult since we -- we -- we would be competing

           13  with resources within our state and with other states.

           14  Eliminating a moving target helps ensure our success and

           15  gives us the opportunity to advance technology in an

           16  economical and feasible fashion.

           17                 Third, the science is not clear that

           18  lowering the standard will improve public health.  It

           19  doesn't make sense to harm the economic health of our

           20  state and jobs for Texas citizens based on unclear

           21  science, especially at a time when the nation is seeking

           22  higher energy security.  Because air quality is

           23  improving under the current standard, because certainty

           24  in regulations is essential for our state's economy, and

           25  because of the questions regarding the state of the


                                                                    121



            1  science, I believe that the time and the resources of

            2  the state and federal agencies, as well as the general

            3  public, are best spent trying to meet the current

            4  eight-hour standard before considering a lowering of the

            5  standard.

            6                 We do recommend that EPA continue to work

            7  with states to build upon the improvements being made to

            8  develop new technology.  Again, thank you for the

            9  opportunity to speak with you today, and we look forward

           10  to ongoing and future discussions related to managing

           11  and protecting the state's public, environmental, and

           12  economic health.

           13                 MS. WEGMAN:  Just a couple of points.

           14  I've said this before.  But as you know, we don't take

           15  economics into account in setting the standard.  And

           16  I -- I just wanted to ask.  You both talked about -- you

           17  talked about your son's symptoms flaring not in the

           18  summer, and you talked about hospital admissions being

           19  higher in the winter than the summer.  If you have any

           20  information on those hospital admissions, that would be

           21  helpful.  And you both mentioned uncertainties in the

           22  science, and I'm assuming in your written comments you

           23  will elaborate on what you view those uncertainties to

           24  be.

           25                 MS. WISDOM:  Yes.


                                                                    122



            1                 MS. HASTINGS:  Yes.

            2                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

            3                 Our next two speakers are Juan Parras and

            4  Kyle Isakower.

            5                 MR. PARRAS:  Am I next?

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  You are.

            7                 MR. PARRAS:  Good afternoon.  My name is

            8  Juan Parras, and I live in the East End of Houston.  And

            9  I'm here representing two organizations.  One is CLEAN,

           10  Citizens League for Environmental Action Now, and the

           11  other one is called TEJAS, Texas Environmental Justice

           12  Advocacy Services.  And I kind of hate to be after the

           13  person who I'm after because they will paint a rosy

           14  picture for you about economics and cost factors and

           15  what not but...

           16                 So, let me paint you a picture of, you

           17  know, a costly factor to us that live in those

           18  communities that are overburdened with ozone.  As -- as

           19  you saw, there was a young lady here that spoke about

           20  her conditions of asthma.  We have high rate -- rates of

           21  asthma in Houston, no doubt.  Records will indicate

           22  that.  And there are numerous reports that have been

           23  written, not only regarding the -- the standard that is

           24  set for the ozone but also just the tremendous amount of

           25  air quality issues that we have in Houston.


                                                                    123



            1                 And so, I want to address both of them.

            2  One is that I am in support of scientific evidence that

            3  has been submitted that says that, you know, the

            4  standard of our ozone needs to be reduced to .6 --

            5  60 parts per million.  We definitely support that.

            6                 And -- and I think that cost, when you

            7  relate it to health, that the health aspect is more

            8  important than the cost.  Because without a healthy

            9  person, then you cannot have a good economy.  So, I

           10  think that we need to consider the health of our

           11  children, the livelihood of our children.

           12                 And in addition to asthma rates going up

           13  in -- in our communities, we also have other reports

           14  that indicate that there is a rise in leukemia because

           15  of the levels of benzene and -- and butadiene in the

           16  East End of Harris County.  So, that is a concern.

           17                 Just to tell you what happens in our

           18  community:  We have as -- an average person that has an

           19  automobile, we have 18-wheelers just right next to them.

           20  Every time, you know.  For every car you see, you'll see

           21  an 18-wheeler, which emits, you know, particulate matter

           22  into the air.

           23                 We have a tremendous amount of railroad

           24  cargo in our community that releases fumes into our

           25  communities.  And then we have the Ship Channel that


                                                                    124



            1  ships come in and -- and unload their cargos with their

            2  engines running all the time and partly pollute our

            3  community.

            4                 And when you look at ozone studies, you

            5  will find that ozone is created or born in the East End

            6  and then it migrates to other parts of the city so that

            7  at least everybody can get a fair dose of what we are

            8  exposed to daily.

            9                 But I think that, seriously, what we need

           10  to do is follow the recommendations of the scientists

           11  that came out with those reports and at least give it a

           12  wholehearted attempt.  So, if we have a conscience and

           13  if we are morally obligated to the future of our

           14  country, I think that we need to at least give it a

           15  shot.  Let's see if it works.

           16                 I wanted to say that you don't know until

           17  you try.  And if -- and if we just rely on scientific

           18  evidence, sometimes we may not attempt to do that which

           19  is difficult because the scientific evidence or -- or

           20  the theories may say that it's impossible.  But I think

           21  it is -- it is possible that we can have clean air in

           22  Houston.

           23                 And I also believe that -- I don't think

           24  you're here by chance.  You selected cities that we have

           25  serious air quality problems and serious ozone problems.


                                                                    125



            1  So, in that respect, I thank you for being here and at

            2  least hearing from the community at large that we do

            3  have a problem and we need to address it.

            4                 And the other thing is that I don't want

            5  to be repetitive of what a lot of people, you know,

            6  especially people that are more knowledgeable about

            7  ozone and the chemistry and whatnot of the things that

            8  occur in the air.  I am an average citizen that works

            9  for environmental justice issues, that fights air

           10  quality issues in our community because we have

           11  everything.

           12                 In fact, I tell students that are

           13  attending universities that if they want to study about

           14  the environment, well, select Houston.  I mean, we've

           15  got all the problems here.  All you need to do is come

           16  and study the problems, and -- and you'll find --

           17  hopefully, you'll find solutions to those problems.

           18                 And it would be nice, too, if we could in

           19  the future invite or get more participants from the

           20  Latino communities, because one thing that I have

           21  noticed in dealing with environmental issues is -- is

           22  that there are not very, very many Latinos involved with

           23  issues of environmental.  And I don't have an excuse for

           24  that.

           25                 But I think that maybe agencies that are


                                                                    126



            1  in charge of promoting public health and outreach should

            2  extend those outreach to more Latinos and more African

            3  Americans and, of course, any other minority that feels

            4  empowered, either because of language, culture, or even

            5  in this case fear of -- of immigration because we do

            6  have a lot of immigrants in our community that will not

            7  speak out even though their children are, you know,

            8  coming down with asthma.  They're low income families.

            9                 (Beeping)  And I guess that's my time,

           10  huh?  But, anyway, thank you for your consideration and

           11  for being here in Houston.

           12                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  And -- and I

           13  will note, we are very much interested in hearing from

           14  Latinos and African Americans and the whole community.

           15  And if you have suggestions for us on how we can improve

           16  our outreach to those members of the community, we'd

           17  like to hear them.

           18                 MR. PARRAS:  Great.  Thank you.

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  If you didn't --

           20  if you wouldn't mind staying --

           21                 MR. PARRAS:  Oh.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN: -- until Mr. Isakower speaks,

           23  I'd appreciate it.  Thank you.

           24                 MR. PARRAS:  Sorry.

           25                 MR. ISAKOWER:  Good morning.  My name is


                                                                    127



            1  Kyle Isakower.  I'm director of policy analysis at API.

            2  API is the primary trade association of America's oil

            3  and gas -- natural gas industry, which represents more

            4  than 400 members involved in all aspects of the

            5  industry.

            6                 API has participated as a stakeholder in

            7  this and prior reviews of the ozone NAAQS.  Today I will

            8  make three points.  First, that the oil and gas industry

            9  is helping make the air cleaner now and will do so in

           10  the future; second, that there is actually far more

           11  debate on the science than EPA has represented; and

           12  third, that the proposed standard -- the proposed new

           13  standards will impose real costs on real people that may

           14  very well fail to provide any commensurate benefit.

           15                 API acknowledges efforts undertaken by

           16  the EPA, as well as state and local communities, in

           17  improving air quality.  In cooperation with the

           18  regulating authorities, the oil and gas industry has

           19  contributed to cleaning the air.  Since 1990, the oil

           20  and gas industry has invested more than $148 billion

           21  toward improving the environmental performance of its

           22  products, facilities, and operations.

           23                 As you can see from EPA's own figure,

           24  emissions of the six criteria air pollutants dropped by

           25  54 percent between 1970 and 2006 while the number of


                                                                    128



            1  miles driven has increased 177 percent.  According to

            2  EPA's TRI, since 1998, releases and transfers of toxic

            3  chemicals from the oil and gas industry has decreased by

            4  66 percent.

            5                 And all this progress will continue.

            6  Cleaner gasoline will be used in cars and trucks that

            7  must be 77 to 95 percent cleaner than those produced

            8  before 2004.  By 2030, the annual emissions reductions

            9  from the use of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel with cleaner

           10  technology engines will be equivalent to removing

           11  90 percent of today's trucks and buses from the road.

           12  Clearly, progress cleaning the air will continue.

           13                 Moving on to my second point, the science

           14  behind changing ozone standards is uncertain and

           15  variable.  There are numerous questions regarding the

           16  state of the science and whether new research findings

           17  warrant further revisions of the standard.

           18                 In the only toxicological evidence of

           19  human health effects since the last standard review, a

           20  peer-reviewed published study found no statistically

           21  significant lung function impairment at levels below the

           22  existing standard.  Nonetheless, the EPA staff

           23  reanalyzed selection -- selected portions of the data

           24  and reported finding health effects at ozone levels

           25  below the current standard.  EPA appears to be relying


                                                                    129



            1  on this unpublished, unreviewed staff analysis, one that

            2  contradicts the author's original peer-reviewed results,

            3  to help support a call for a tighter standard.

            4                 There are also inconsistent and uncertain

            5  findings in new studies of acute mortality, an effect

            6  not addressed in 1997.  The Bell, et al. epi study, for

            7  example, found statistically significant associations

            8  between ozone and mortality in only six of the 95 cities

            9  studied.  Further, the overall statistical signal

           10  identified in the Bell study is significantly less than

           11  the level of uncertainty in this study results.

           12                 This is a now -- this is analogous to an

           13  election night poll that shows a candidate with a 50 to

           14  49 percent lead, with a margin of error or plus or minus

           15  5 percent.  In such a case, no media outlet would

           16  project a winner.  Yet, in this ozone NAAQS context, EPA

           17  is claiming an ozone-mortality link despite the similar

           18  level of uncertainty.

           19                 Moving to my third point, a more

           20  stringent ozone standard will burden states with a new

           21  and more difficult target before they complete work and

           22  implement attainment plans for the current standard.

           23  Many local communities will be saddled with new costs

           24  that will hurt both large and small businesses and

           25  prevent expansion and growth.  Fuels which cost more to


                                                                    130



            1  manufacture will be required in more areas.

            2                 EPA's proposed revisions could harm

            3  ongoing and planned implementation processes now under

            4  way.  Hurting local economies and citizens without a

            5  clear scientific basis for selecting a different numeric

            6  standard is not a prudent use of our resources.

            7                 In conclusion, further air quality

            8  improvements will come through current regulations

            9  designed to meet the existing standards, such as the

           10  cleaner fuels described above.  Of course, we all know

           11  that the Clean Air Act mandates that the ozone NAAQS be

           12  established based solely on science, not economics.

           13                 However, the significant economic impact

           14  of tightening the standard should highlight the

           15  importance of getting the science right, and the

           16  inherent uncertainty in the current science does not

           17  support imposing further costs for the uncertain

           18  benefits proposed.

           19                 Thank you for the opportunity to speak

           20  this morning.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Just one point I

           22  want to note for clarification that I assume you're

           23  referring to the Adams study --

           24                 MR. ISAKOWER:  Uh-huh.

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- in your -- your testimony


                                                                    131



            1  and that the EPA analysis is in the dockets, and I

            2  assume you'll be commenting on that.

            3                 MR. ISAKOWER:  Yes, I will.

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  And that -- that there was,

            5  in fact, one statistically significant finding in the

            6  Adams analysis that Adams himself did.  So, you may want

            7  to comment on that.  Okay?

            8                 MR. ISAKOWER:  Be happy to.

            9                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Great.  Thank you

           10  both.

           11                 Our next speakers are Mary Miksa and

           12  Elena Marks.

           13                 MS. MIKSA:  My name is Mary Miksa, and

           14  I'm senior vice president for governmental affairs for

           15  Texas Association of Business.  TAB is an 85-year-old,

           16  broad-based business association of more than 4,000

           17  companies in Texas and over 200 local Chambers of

           18  Commerce representing 2.2 million Texas jobs.  Over

           19  70 percent of our membership is small business.

           20                 TAB supports retention of the current

           21  NAAQS standards on ozone and believes that the standard

           22  should be retained until communities have been able to

           23  meet their current regulatory requirements.

           24                 Since 2001, there has been steady,

           25  significant improvement in Texas, and ozone quality is


                                                                    132



            1  improving more than the national average.  While this

            2  improvement has been taking place in Texas, the Texas

            3  population grew at twice the national average.

            4                 According to the EPA, current federal

            5  regulations will significantly reduce ground-level

            6  ozone-causing emissions over the next two decades.  Here

            7  in Texas, Houston, for example, total ozone emissions

            8  dropped by 80 percent since 2001.  Despite these

            9  reductions in Houston and elsewhere, Texas is still

           10  struggling to reach the current eight-hour standard in

           11  several areas.

           12                 Three current non-attainment areas --

           13  Dallas/Fort Worth, Beaumont/Port Arthur, and San

           14  Antonio -- are right on the cusp of meeting their

           15  obligations under the current eight-hour standard.  If

           16  EPA approves the SIPs for these areas, then for many

           17  years to come they will still have to continue to make

           18  emission reductions to sustain their economic growth and

           19  population increases.

           20                 If EPA does not approve these area SIPs,

           21  another round of emission reductions on top of the

           22  already made substantial decreases will be required.  If

           23  this were to occur, small business would be particularly

           24  hard hit, especially in the DFW and San Antonio areas

           25  where there are scant industrial sources.


                                                                    133



            1                 The Houston/Galveston/Brazoria

            2  non-attainment area is still not in attainment in spite

            3  of the 80 percent NOx reductions.  And, by the way, only

            4  one other part of the country today has made such

            5  substantial NOx reductions.

            6                 Other speakers have pointed out that one

            7  of the primary reasons for HGB remaining out of

            8  attainment is that the State only has authority over

            9  50 percent of the emissions in that area.  54 percent of

           10  the emissions, primarily mobile sources in the Houston

           11  area, can only be regulated by the federal government,

           12  this agency, to be specific.  Texas's current effort at

           13  bringing the Houston area into clean air attainment is

           14  like trying to calf rope with one hand tied behind our

           15  backs.

           16                 Since industry sources, which have made

           17  the most significant reductions to date, will have fewer

           18  reductions to make which are technologically and

           19  economically feasible and since, by far and large,

           20  mobile source reductions are not within the State's

           21  control, we anticipate that the bulk of any new

           22  reductions will be focused on area sources, including

           23  small business.  And small business is the least able to

           24  afford installation of expensive control technology.

           25                 Texans are a creative and hard-working


                                                                    134



            1  group of people.  Give us the right tools and allow us

            2  enough time and we will figure it out and we'll get it

            3  done.  But tie our hands, load us up with additional

            4  burdens, give us unrealistic deadlines, and even we may

            5  falter.

            6                 Thank you for the opportunity to make

            7  these comments.

            8                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            9                 MS. MARKS:  Thank you.  My name is Elena

           10  Marks, and I am the director of health and environmental

           11  policy for the City of Houston and Mayor Bill White's

           12  office.

           13                 The City of Houston urges the EPA to set

           14  the primary eight-hour ozone max at a level that

           15  qualified scientists have determined to be protective of

           16  public health.  We support the recommendations of the

           17  Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, the panel of

           18  expert scientists appointed under the Clean Air Act to

           19  advise the EPA Administrator on the National Ambient Air

           20  Quality Standard.

           21                 CASAC has unanimously concluded that

           22  there is no scientific justification to keep the current

           23  primary ozone standard, that the rounding loophole

           24  should be closed, that the eight-hour standard should be

           25  set in the range of .06 to .07 ppm, and that the ozone


                                                                    135



            1  health standard must explicitly include the margin of

            2  safety required by the Clean Air Act.

            3                 The City of Houston supports

            4  science-based standards that reflect a concentration

            5  level sufficient to protect public health, and we

            6  believe that the standard must be based solely on

            7  science.  The scientific definition of air pollution is

            8  the presence of an airborne contaminant at sufficient

            9  concentration to have a negative impact on human health,

           10  welfare, or the environment.

           11                 The primary NAAQS standards are

           12  specifically focused on the protection of human health.

           13  The Clean Air Act mandates this approach.  EPA is

           14  required to establish maximum levels of regulated

           15  pollutants no higher than what the protection of public

           16  health demands.  The levels must be based on a

           17  scientific assessment of hazards from air pollution.

           18  CASAC, consisting of 23 scientific experts, conducted

           19  the assessment and made the above recommendations, and

           20  the EPA should set the primary eight-hour ozone standard

           21  based on those recommendations.

           22                 Houston experiences elevated levels of a

           23  number of air pollutants, including ozone particulate

           24  matter and several air toxins.  We are home to the

           25  nation's largest petrochemical and refining complex, and


                                                                    136



            1  our VMT, or vehicle miles traveled, which is an

            2  indicator of mobile source pollution, is one of the

            3  highest in the country.

            4                 The combination of these factors presents

            5  multi-pollutant challenges that most communities in the

            6  U.S. do not face.  The health effects of multiple

            7  pollutants are cumulative and often synergistic.

            8  Because the NAAQS addresses the health effects one

            9  pollutant at a time and because they do not take into

           10  account cumulative or synergistic effect, it is

           11  especially important in an area like Houston that the

           12  standard for each pollutant be conservative to be truly

           13  protective of public health.

           14                 Houston has not achieved the current

           15  eight-hour ozone standard and isn't expected to do so

           16  for some years to come.  Our region has adopted numerous

           17  control strategies at substantial expense in order to

           18  make the dramatic progress that we have made to date.

           19  But we are significantly handicapped in making further

           20  progress more quickly due to the many sources over which

           21  the federal -- federal government, and specifically the

           22  EPA, has control, and we're preempted from taking any

           23  action.

           24                 Thus, it is not without recognition of

           25  the costs associated with achieving an even stricter


                                                                    137



            1  standard that we advocate for the adoption of such a

            2  standard.  We owe it to the public to tell the

            3  scientific truth about the quality of our air.  Whether

            4  and when we achieve the standard and at what economic

            5  costs are important issues that we will continue to

            6  wrestle with.

            7                 We urge the EPA to help us to accelerate

            8  the emission reductions by preempted sources and not to

            9  impose penalties against regions such as Houston that do

           10  not attain the NAAQS because of the significant

           11  contributions of preempted sources.  We must begin,

           12  however, by adopting health-based standards.  Therefore,

           13  we urge the EPA to adopt a primary eight-hour ozone

           14  standard in conformity with the scientific committee's

           15  recommendations.

           16                 Thank you.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Does

           18  anyone have...

           19                 MS. STONE:  Do you have a specific

           20  recommendation as to the level or just within .060 to

           21  0.070 parts per million?

           22                 MS. MARKS:  Within that range.

           23                 MS. STONE:  Okay.

           24                 MS. MARKS:  I do not have a specific

           25  recommendation.


                                                                    138



            1                 MS. STONE:  All right.  Thank you.

            2                 MS. WEGMAN:  Our next two speakers are

            3  Sterling Burnett and James Peppe.

            4                 DR. BURNETT:  Thank you for the

            5  opportunity to appear here today as you review the clean

            6  air standards for ozone.  My name is H. Sterling

            7  Burnett.  I'm a senior Fellow with the National Center

            8  for Policy Analysis.

            9                 In that capacity, I have examined --

           10  examined proposed and current environmental and energy

           11  laws and policies for over 11 years.  I come bearing

           12  good news.  Due to technological -- technological

           13  improvements in the EPA's present standards, ozone

           14  levels are declining and they will continue to do so.

           15                 Indeed, in the past few years only

           16  19 percent of the nation's metropolitan areas violate

           17  EPA's current ozone standard, down from 40 percent a few

           18  years ago.  Non-metropolitan counties are in even better

           19  shape, with only a 4 percent violation rate.  This

           20  decline is not surprising since both ozone and the

           21  pollutants that combine to form it are declining.

           22                 For instance, NOx levels decreased

           23  37 percent between 1980 and 2005.  Emissions of VOCs

           24  fell 47 percent during the same time period.  Peaking

           25  eight-hour ozone levels declined 20 percent, and days


                                                                    139



            1  per year exceeding the eight-hour ozone standard fell

            2  79 percent.

            3                 Many areas have just begin to implement

            4  their programs to comply with the current standard, and

            5  new standards already slated to come online for other

            6  pollutants should reduce ozone even further.  As a

            7  result, many areas should shortly be getting out from

            8  under some of the Clean Air Act's development

            9  restrictions, absent a tougher standard.

           10                 Despite this progress -- despite this

           11  progress, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has stated

           12  the science demonstrates the need for a tougher standard

           13  to protect public health.  If the new limit of .7 to .75

           14  parts per billion is adopted, non-attainment will become

           15  the norm rather than the exception.

           16                 The EPA's new standard would put 67 to

           17  87 percent of metropolitan areas and 39 to 72 percent of

           18  non-metropolitan areas and counties in violation.  Many

           19  areas would likely violate the ozone standard

           20  permanently, since in some places the standard --

           21                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.

           22                 DR. BURNETT:  -- will go below --

           23                 THE REPORTER:  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.

           24                 DR. BURNETT:  I'm sorry.

           25                 THE REPORTER:  Can you just slow down?


                                                                    140



            1                 DR. BURNETT:  Policies.

            2                 THE REPORTER:  Go ahead.

            3                 DR. BURNETT:  Many areas would likely

            4  violate the ozone standard permanently since in some

            5  places the standard will be below natural background

            6  levels.

            7                 More stringent ozone standards might be

            8  worthwhile if ozone at current levels plausibly posed a

            9  significant health threat to human health or welfare.

           10  But research done since 1997 does not show this to be

           11  the case; rather, research undermines the claim that

           12  ozone, even at current levels, is causing an increase in

           13  asthma or other health-related problems.  Ozone simply

           14  isn't a plausible cause of the recent rise in asthma.

           15                 The incidence of asthma rose 75 percent

           16  from 1980 to 1996, and nearly doubled for children.  At

           17  the same time, ozone declined 20 percent.  Emergency

           18  room visits and hospitalizations for asthma are lowest

           19  during July and August when ozone levels are highest.

           20  The lowest asthma rates in the world are found in

           21  developing and ex-Soviet countries with awful air

           22  pollution, while western countries with the world's

           23  cleanest air have the highest asthma rates.

           24                 Even direct attempts to link air

           25  pollution to asthma have come up empty.  California


                                                                    141



            1  researchers tracked thousands of children from ages 10

            2  to 18 who grew up in communities with the highest ozone

            3  levels in the country.  They had 30 percent lower risk

            4  of developing asthma when compared with children in

            5  areas with background ozone levels.

            6                 The same study also showed that growing

            7  up in areas that exceeded the current 85 parts per

            8  billion standard for 120 days per year, multiple times

            9  the number of days even the worst areas of the country

           10  suffer at the moment, has no effect on lung growth or

           11  capacity.

           12                 Claims that present ozone levels kill

           13  thousands of people prematurely each year are based on

           14  unreliable, observational epidemiological studies.  They

           15  find no support in either animal studies or laboratory

           16  studies using college volunteers.  In the human

           17  laboratory studies, even at ozone levels 50 percent

           18  greater than the current ozone standard, volunteers had

           19  to work out for five hours before ozone elicits even a

           20  small change in lung function.

           21                 Indeed, college students are used in

           22  these studies because children, the elderly, and people

           23  with respiratory diseases, the ones who are supposedly

           24  most at risk from ozone, can't work out vigorously long

           25  enough to elicit the desired health effects.


                                                                    142



            1                 In conclusion, air quality in the U.S. is

            2  better than it's been in more than a century.  Due to

            3  natural technological turnover, technological

            4  improvements, and past and present regulatory standards,

            5  we can expect continued improvements.  There is scant

            6  evidence that the proposed standards will actually

            7  produce tangible health or environmental benefits.

            8                 And, by the way, I'm writing a paper on

            9  this.  I'll look at some of the health costs that I

           10  think are involved with these standards.  You can get

           11  that within a couple of weeks.

           12                 In fact, the EPA's own scientists

           13  estimate full national attainment of the proposed

           14  standard would reduce hospital visits for asthma and

           15  other respiratory diseases by only a few tenths of a

           16  percent.

           17                 Therefore, we suggest the best policy

           18  would be for the EPA to certify the present standards as

           19  sufficiently protective of public health and allow the

           20  regions in violation of these standards to continue down

           21  the path of improving their air quality by fulfilling

           22  the requirements of their approved SIPs.

           23                 Thank you.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  I assume you'll

           25  be submitting for the record the studies that you


                                                                    143



            1  referred to.

            2                 DR. BURNETT:  The -- the one that I'm

            3  working on?

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, you -- no, you

            5  mentioned a -- a -- study concerning children in remote

            6  areas.

            7                 DR. BURNETT:  That's the CARB study.

            8                 MS. WEGMAN:  The CARB study?

            9                 DR. BURNETT:  Yes.  Out of California,

           10  California Air Resources Board study.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.

           12                 DR. BURNETT:  You don't -- yeah, if you

           13  don't have it, I sure could.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, I'm sure we're --

           15  we're going to get it from CARB, I imagine.  But if you

           16  have references to the studies you mentioned, that --

           17  those would be helpful.

           18                 MR. PEPPE:  Good morning.  My name is

           19  James Peppe.  I'm the senior regional manager for the

           20  National Association of Manufacturers, based here in

           21  Houston.  Thank you for the opportunity to comment on

           22  the EPA's proposed revision to the National Ambient Air

           23  Quality Standards for ozone.

           24                 The NAM is the nation's largest

           25  industrial trade association representing approximately


                                                                    144



            1  11,000 small, medium, and large manufacturers in every

            2  industrial sector in all 50 states.  The manufacturing

            3  sector nationwide employs more than 14 million workers,

            4  and in Texas that number exceeds 900,000, with an

            5  average salary of more than $54,000 per year.  This

            6  annual compensation is about 35 percent higher than the

            7  average wage of $40,000 in the state.

            8                 After analyzing the EPA's latest

            9  proposal, the NAM has concluded that any recommendation

           10  to revise the current ozone standard will provide

           11  uncertain benefits while burdening the nation's economy.

           12  We, therefore, support preservation of the existing

           13  ozone standard.

           14                 The current ozone standard is working.

           15  The current standard establishes limits of .08 parts per

           16  million is reducing emissions and has not been fully

           17  implemented.  Many states have until June 2013 to attain

           18  the current standard and, therefore, improve their

           19  regional air quality.

           20                 According to EPA's own studies, average

           21  ozone concentrations nationwide have decreased by

           22  21 percent between 1980 and 2006.  Furthermore, total

           23  emissions from the -- from the six key air pollutants

           24  regulated by the Clean Air Act have declined by

           25  54 percent between 1970 and 2006.


                                                                    145



            1                 These emissions will continue to fall

            2  without revision -- without revising the current

            3  standard.  According to EPA's Clean Air Trends Report,

            4  current regulations will significantly reduce

            5  ground-level ozone, causing emissions to drop over the

            6  next two decades.

            7                 Power plant emissions will drop by

            8  50 percent by 2015, and mobile source emissions will

            9  drop by more than 70 percent by 2030.  Also, this

           10  environmental progress has taken place within the

           11  context of a growing economy, with energy consumption in

           12  the U.S. having increased by more than 176 percent since

           13  passage of the Clean Air Act during the 1970s.

           14                 Great uncertainty surrounds scientific --

           15  the scientific methodologies EPA used to recommend a

           16  more stringent standard.  There are many questions

           17  regarding the state -- the state of the science and

           18  especially whether there have been significant

           19  developments during the past decade that would warrant a

           20  stricter standard.  Recent studies present inconsistent

           21  data, and they do not point to a particular numeric

           22  change to the current standard.

           23                 In developing the proposed revision to

           24  the current standard, EPA changed the way it calculated

           25  naturally occurring and other existing ground-level


                                                                    146



            1  ozone to inflate the benefits of a new standard by as

            2  much as 90 percent.  Even EPA's own scientific advisory

            3  board, known as CASAC, indicated that EPA, quote, "did

            4  not provide a sufficient base of evidence," unquote, to

            5  provide that this new method was the best choice.

            6                 Of additional concern is the fact that

            7  EPA's own analysis shows huge costs without

            8  corresponding benefits.  There is great uncertainty

            9  regarding the benefits and the costs of tightening the

           10  standard, resulting in the agency being able to draw no

           11  conclusions at all about whether the nation would gain

           12  or lose as a result of the proposed regulation.

           13                 EPA's benefits estimates range from 2.5

           14  to $33 billion per year, and the cost estimates range

           15  from 10 billion to 22 billion per year.  EPA's estimated

           16  costs for the proposed rule are so high as to make it

           17  among the most expensive federal rules ever issued.

           18  Also, EPA admits existing technologies are insufficient

           19  to meet the proposed standard and simply assumes that

           20  new technologies will become available that can double

           21  emission reductions.

           22                 Adverse economic impact of -- of

           23  redundant regulation is well documented.  A 2006 study

           24  conducted by the NAM shows that U.S. industry pays the

           25  equivalent of a 5.2 percent tax in order to comply with


                                                                    147



            1  pollution abatement regulations.  This cost undermines

            2  U.S. competitiveness and has contributed to the loss of

            3  more than three million manufacturing jobs between 2000

            4  and 2004, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

            5                 The U.S. spends more of its manufacturing

            6  output on pollution abatement than France, Germany, and

            7  Great Britain, which ironically are generally viewed as

            8  upholding a higher degree of regulation on the private

            9  sector than the U.S.

           10                 The EPA estimates that current Clean Air

           11  Act regulations will cost about $27 billion annually in

           12  2010 and $180 billion overall.  The additional 10 to

           13  22 billion-dollar annual cost of the proposed new

           14  standard willing further increase costs to businesses,

           15  which consumers will likely see reflected in the cost of

           16  everyday items.  If employers don't pass on the added

           17  expense to consumers, they will likely shift operations

           18  to lower cost areas of production.  In Texas, more than

           19  150,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared between 2000 and

           20  2006.

           21                 In conclusion, there is no sound policy

           22  justification for changing the current standard.  EPA's

           23  current ozone standard is improving air quality

           24  nationwide and will continue to do so, according to the

           25  agency's own studies.  There is disagreement surrounding


                                                                    148



            1  the methodologies EPA used to draw its justification

            2  toward consideration of a more stringent standard, and

            3  the EPA concedes that a higher degree of uncertainty

            4  surrounds the estimated costs and benefits of a more

            5  stringent standard.

            6                 Because there is less doubt that a more

            7  stringent standard will further undermine the

            8  competitiveness of the nation's most dynamic and

            9  innovative economic sector, the EPA should preserve the

           10  existing standard.

           11                 Thank you for the opportunity to comment

           12  on this important issue.

           13                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  You talked about

           14  there being inconsistent data in recent studies.  And if

           15  you can elaborate on what you're referring to --

           16                 MR. PEPPE:  Well, I -- I think --

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  You don't -- you don't have

           18  to do it now.

           19                 MR. PEPPE:  Yes, ma'am.  I think -- I was

           20  going to say, I think in our written submissions you'll

           21  have all that.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.

           23                 MR. PEPPE:  Thank you.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Any other

           25  questions?  Okay.  Thank you.


                                                                    149



            1                 Our next two speakers are Beverly --

            2  Beverly Feeler and Julie Moore.

            3                 MS. FEELER:  My name is Beverly Feeler,

            4  and I live in The Woodlands, Texas.  And I'm speaking as

            5  a concerned citizen.

            6                 My mother passed away two years ago with

            7  lung cancer and never smoked a cigarette; however, I

            8  grew up in Texas City where my father worked for years

            9  at what is now the BP refinery.  Our house was about a

           10  mile from the numerous -- numerous refineries in Texas

           11  City and lay in the path of the pollution with

           12  prevailing winds coming off of the Gulf of Mexico.

           13                 Several of my mother's doctors told us

           14  that her lungs looked just like a smoker's lungs on the

           15  numerous scans that she had, and they felt that it was a

           16  result of living nearly 50 years under the

           17  pollution-saturated skies of Texas City.

           18                 I remember growing up that when it was

           19  time for my dad to paint the house, which had been a --

           20  a gray wood frame house, you could see how much more

           21  yellow the paint had become over the years than when it

           22  was the original gray.  It was actually just quite

           23  yellow.

           24                 Even though the air always smelled bad,

           25  on some days it would be particularly noxious.  When I


                                                                    150



            1  grew up, we were outdoors a lot playing games like tag

            2  and -- and hide-and-go-seek.  And you can just imagine

            3  what our lungs look like, as we were running around and

            4  breathing the deep air, oblivious to the consequences of

            5  what we were breathing.

            6                 There have been many of our neighbors

            7  that have passed away from various forms of cancer, but

            8  lung cancer has been the dominant form.  I continue to

            9  hear of people who I went to school with dying of

           10  cancer, the latest of which was last week; a 46-year-old

           11  man died of lung cancer.  And in his obituary it also

           12  stated that he never smoked a cigarette, as well.

           13                 And let me tell you, it is a particularly

           14  awful way to die.  My mother -- excuse me -- was a

           15  vibrant, joyful, and healthy woman until she was

           16  diagnosed with lung cancer.  After surgery, a round of

           17  radiation, and two rounds of chemo that had no effect

           18  on -- on her, it -- other than to make her deathly ill

           19  for what little time she had left.

           20                 I implore you to do everything in your

           21  power to curb the pollution, not just from refineries,

           22  but from all sources.  This problem affects all

           23  Americans, and it is long overdue that real progress is

           24  made to impose further restrictions and enforce them.

           25                 Thank you.


                                                                    151



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            2                 MS. MOORE:  Good afternoon.  My name is

            3  Julie Moore, and I'm the vice chairman of the Texas

            4  Association of Manufacturers.  TAM is a statewide

            5  organization that represents a diverse cross section of

            6  manufacturers, from small employers to large

            7  corporations from across the nation.

            8                 As a mother and a fourth generation

            9  Texan, I'm proud to raise my daughter here, and clean

           10  air is a priority for me, not only professionally, but

           11  personally.  Thank you for the opportunity to be a part

           12  of this process.

           13                 Manufacturing is the cornerstone of

           14  Texas -- the Texas economy.  Manufacturers contribute

           15  $122 billion to the Texas economy and employ more than

           16  900,000 Texans.  I share this information because it is

           17  critical that manufacturers are able to remain

           18  internationally competitive to sustain and grow the high

           19  quality jobs that support so many Texas families.

           20                 TAM believes that if the EPA changes the

           21  ozone -- ozone standard unnecessarily, it will threaten

           22  manufacturing jobs and will hurt employers of all sizes.

           23  Like me, our member companies, their employees and their

           24  families are proud to call Texas home.  Tangible

           25  evidence shows that the State has made significant


                                                                    152



            1  strides in cleaning our air, even as our economy has

            2  grown, our population has increased, and the number of

            3  vehicle miles traveled has increased.

            4                 In fact, Texas has created several

            5  voluntary programs beyond federal mandates, often with

            6  manufacturers leading the way in our air quality

            7  innovation.  Programs like TERC, Texas Emissions

            8  Reduction Plan, and the -- and LIRAP, Low Income Vehicle

            9  Repair Assistance, are producing dramatic results.

           10                 Texas also pioneered the concept of early

           11  action compacts to voluntarily reduce ozone levels which

           12  were adopted by San Antonio and Austin and much of

           13  northeast Texas.  These programs are projected to reduce

           14  emissions by hundreds of thousands of tons per year.

           15  Manufacturers are committed to these programs and have

           16  invested billions to continue our progress in cleaning

           17  out -- cleaning air.

           18                 TAM supports maintaining the current

           19  standard -- standard of .08 parts per million for

           20  several reasons.  First, the current standard is

           21  working.  Our air is getting cleaner.  According to the

           22  EPA, the current standard will cut power plant emissions

           23  in half by 2015 and reduce car and truck emissions by

           24  more than 70 percent by 2030.

           25                 These improvements will be in addition to


                                                                    153



            1  the dramatic improvements in air quality in Texas in the

            2  last 15 years.  Houston alone has achieved an 80 percent

            3  reduction in volatile organic compounds since the early

            4  '90s, even as the economy grew.

            5                 Second, TAM believes the current standard

            6  should be fully implemented before a lower standard is

            7  considered.  Texas just spent the last two years and

            8  taxpayer dollars to develop plans, working with local

            9  governments and other stakeholders to implement the

           10  current ozone standard.

           11                 The EPA proposed a lower ozone level less

           12  than 30 days after Texas submitted its implementation

           13  plan to meet the current standard.  TAM is concerned

           14  that if the EPA creates a moving target for success, we

           15  will have no hope for success.

           16                 Third, TAM feels strongly that the EPA

           17  does not adequately consider the impact of international

           18  border pollution in proposing ozone standards.

           19  Emissions from other countries with minimal air quality

           20  standards blow over the United States and affect

           21  domestic ozone levels.  As a neighbor to Mexico, Texas

           22  manufacturers are very concerned that the EPA did not

           23  fully consider the impact of emissions from Mexico in

           24  its calculation of the proposed ozone standard.

           25                 Finally, it is not clear that the


                                                                    154



            1  proposed ozone standard will improve public health.  The

            2  science behind lowering the standards is uncertain and

            3  inconsistent.  Many scientists, including those selected

            4  by the EPA to advise them, disagree on the methodology

            5  used to determine the risks and benefits of changing the

            6  ozone standard.

            7                 For instance, Texas inpatient hospital

            8  discharge data on numbers of hospital visits for asthma

            9  between 1990 and 2001 actually shows that fewer children

           10  visit the hospital for asthma during peak summer ozone

           11  season compared to wintertime.  This chart will be

           12  submitted with my written comments.

           13                 In summary, TAM supports maintaining the

           14  current standard because making a change that is

           15  surrounded by uncertainly is unwise.  We do not know

           16  that lowering the ozone standard will impact public

           17  health.  We cannot reliably predict how international

           18  pollution affects domestic ozone levels, and we have not

           19  fully implemented the current standard to realize its

           20  benefit.

           21                 We do know that unnecessarily lowering

           22  the ozone standard will threaten high quality

           23  manufacturing jobs and jep -- jeopardize the Texas

           24  economy.  For these reasons, I hope you will decide to

           25  maintain the current ozone standard.


                                                                    155



            1                 Thank you.

            2                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  And we'll assume

            3  you'll submit all of the --

            4                 MS. MOORE:  Yes, we will.

            5                 MS. WEGMAN: -- supporting information for

            6  the record.

            7                 MS. MOORE:  Yes, we will.  Thank you.

            8                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Thank you both.

            9                 Our next speakers are Brandt Mannchen and

           10  Linda Koop.

           11                 Good morning.

           12                 DR. KOOP:  Good morning.  All set?

           13                 Hello.  My name is Linda Koop.  I'm a

           14  member of the Dallas City Council, and for the past two

           15  years, I've been the chairman of the transportation and

           16  environment committees to the -- to the City of Dallas.

           17  I've also participated extensively in the North Texas

           18  Clean Air Steering Committee that's focused on ozone

           19  issues in our region for many years.

           20                 On behalf of the City of Dallas, I'd like

           21  to make remarks on the propose -- proposal to revise the

           22  National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.  While

           23  the City does not have the scientific expertise to

           24  comment on the quantitative aspects of the proposal to

           25  lower the standard to 70 or 75 parts per billion, the


                                                                    156



            1  City would like to make general comments about the

            2  development process of the SIP in the Dallas/Fort Worth

            3  region.

            4                 Engine and fuel standards.  Non-road and

            5  on-road mobile sources comprise approximately 70 percent

            6  of the emissions in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, thus,

            7  making these categories the largest source of NOx

            8  emissions in our region.  Because the State is federally

            9  preempted by the EPA from regulating these sources, we

           10  have little control over the major source of our ozone

           11  problem.

           12                 While cities in our region have done a

           13  great deal to reduce emissions, such as purchasing

           14  natural gas and hybrid vehicles, in order to make a vast

           15  improvement in the mobile source category, the most

           16  effective and efficient means is to reduce these

           17  emissions -- to reduce these emissions or for lower

           18  engine standards to be set and cleaner fuels used.

           19                 Our region needs cleaner vehicles now in

           20  order to meet the current standard of 85 parts per

           21  billion.  If EPA is going to lower the standard by as

           22  much as 15 parts per billion, EPA must expedite --

           23  expedite setting even cleaner engine standards and

           24  marrying the implementation of these engine standards

           25  with the compliance phase of the new ozone standard.


                                                                    157



            1                 If EPA does not couple the implementation

            2  of the engine and the fuel standards timetable with the

            3  SIP compliance dates, then EPA should reevaluate the SIP

            4  development process.  I would suggest if EPA does not

            5  allow a region or state to regulate 70 percent of the

            6  sources which contribute to ozone in its region, then

            7  the EPA needs to be responsible for that portion of the

            8  SIP development and only require the State and the local

            9  area to propose controls relative to the remaining

           10  30 percent of our sources.

           11                 Another concern for the City of Dallas is

           12  available technology to reduce sources that contribute

           13  to ozone formation.  Depending on the date of the

           14  compliance for the proposed standard, it is likely there

           15  will not be sufficient technologies to reduce emissions

           16  to achieve the standard.  And for this reason, EPA needs

           17  to consider the status of a non-attainment region during

           18  this gap period in its regulations.

           19                 While we at the City of Dallas would work

           20  enormously hard to reduce ozone levels below a

           21  health-based standard, if technologies are not in place

           22  to appropriately reduce these emissions, economic

           23  sanctions should not be considered or levied against the

           24  region.

           25                 Retrofits.  The City of Dallas


                                                                    158



            1  continually researches for retrofits to reduce emissions

            2  from existing mobile sources.  With non-mobile sources,

            3  they have engine lifetimes up to 20 years.  Retrofits

            4  may be the only mechanism to significantly reduce this

            5  category of emissions over the short term.

            6                 However, verification of retrofit

            7  technology by the California Air -- Air Resources Board

            8  or the EPA is required to ensure SIP credits.  And while

            9  the EPA's verification process has been in place for

           10  many years, there have been virtually no verified

           11  retrofits that have resulted in a reduction of ozone.

           12                 Due to the cost of lengthy delays for

           13  verification, the program EPA has in place now is a

           14  major impediment in the development and implementation

           15  of the verification technologies.  EPA needs to

           16  immediately work with ozone and non-attainment regions

           17  and technology vendors to completely revamp the EPA's

           18  verification program to accelerate the verification

           19  program concentrated on nitrogen-oxide-reducing

           20  technologies.

           21                 The City looks forward to continued

           22  involvement in clean air issues across the region and

           23  future discussions and collaborations between the City

           24  and the EPA.

           25                 Thank you.


                                                                    159



            1                 MR. EDLUND:  Councilwoman Koop, do you

            2  have a -- a view on the -- what the standard might be?

            3                 DR. KOOP:  Do you want to say a few

            4  words?  This is our director of the environment.

            5                 MS. FIFFICK:  Yes.  I think the City

            6  has --

            7                 MS.  STONE:  Would you mind coming to the

            8  mike?

            9                 DR. KOOP:  Laura Fiffick, our director

           10  for the environmental services for the City of Dallas.

           11                 THE REPORTER:  Can you spell your last

           12  name, please?

           13                 MS. FIFFICK:  Sure.  It's F, as in Frank,

           14  I-F, as in Frank, F, as in Frank, I-C-K.

           15                 Our comments haven't been focused on what

           16  the standards should be.  We've -- we've mainly focused

           17  on the SIP process and the problems that we've

           18  encountered in the development of the current SIP.

           19                 MR. EDLUND:  Okay.

           20                 MS. WEGMAN:  To the extent you do have

           21  any comments on the standard, you don't have to offer

           22  them today, but the comment period does close October

           23  9th.

           24                 DR. KOOP:  Okay.  Then we'll submit our

           25  comments to you.


                                                                    160



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you for

            2  attending.

            3                 MR. MANNCHEN:  My name is Brandt

            4  Mannchen, B-R-A-N-D-T, M-A-N-N-C-H-E-N, and I'm here

            5  representing the Houston Regional Group of the Sierra

            6  Club and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.  I

            7  would like to make several comments regarding the

            8  proposed change to the EPA ozone standard.

            9                 First, the Sierra Club opposes keeping

           10  the present standard.  Your own scientific panel has

           11  stated that there is no information that supports

           12  keeping that standard.

           13                 Secondly, we oppose the .07 ppm to

           14  .075 ppm proposed standard that the Administrator has

           15  proposed.  We believe, again, the data that you have in

           16  the 2,000-page report shows that that standard is not

           17  protective of human health with an adequate margin of

           18  safety.

           19                 Third, we support setting a standard in

           20  the range of .060 ppm to .070 ppm.  Our preference is

           21  toward the lower end of the range, in other words,

           22  closer to .060 ppm because the health data seems to

           23  indicate that we have significant impacts at that range.

           24  And, in fact, EPA mentions in the "Federal Register"

           25  that there may not be a threshold for health effects for


                                                                    161



            1  ozone, which is of considerable concern.

            2                 The Sierra Club supports changing the

            3  primary ozone standard so that we have a rounding of --

            4  to the thousandths place.  In other words, .060 ppm, not

            5  .06 ppm.  In many respects, the .08 ppm has allowed

            6  violations of what the standard is and human health

            7  impacts while -- while legally being allowed that.

            8                 Next, we'd like to say we support the

            9  three-month average secondary standard to protect

           10  welfare effects.  We favor the -- the lower end, and I

           11  believe that's -- there's a 7 to 21 ppm range.  We favor

           12  the lower end.  And in particular, we're concerned

           13  because in the Houston area, within a hundred miles, we

           14  have many, many important natural areas.

           15                 These areas cannot speak for themselves,

           16  and the Sierra Club wishes today to speak for those

           17  areas.  I have a map here.  It's hard to see everything.

           18  But on this map, this is Sam Houston National Forest,

           19  which is about 50, 60 miles north of Houston.  It is in

           20  the plume of the Houston area as far as the refineries

           21  and the city itself and everything.  It's one of those

           22  areas that's potentially affected.  Loblolly pines are

           23  potentially affected by higher ozone levels.

           24                 In addition, we have Little Lake Creek

           25  Wilderness Area in Sam Houston National Forest, and we


                                                                    162



            1  have these two green spots here representing Big Creek

            2  Scenic Area and Winters Bayou Scenic Area, natural areas

            3  that should be protected from the effects of air

            4  pollution.  And we speak out in favor of that.

            5                 Big Thicket National Preserve also is

            6  close to here.  We have Trinity River, San Bernard and

            7  Brazoria National Wildlife Refuges that are close to

            8  here.  We have Huntsville State Park, and we have

            9  Brazoria State Park, many, many areas that people like

           10  to go to and enjoy.  We want children in the woods.  We

           11  don't want children kept from the woods because the air

           12  pollution is bad.  In other words, what we want to do is

           13  if we're going to keep it green, then we need to keep it

           14  clean.

           15                 The Sierra Club also supports more

           16  monitoring in these less populated rural areas, as

           17  mentioned in the "Federal Register" area.  We'd like a

           18  monitor in Sam Houston National Forest.  That would make

           19  a lot of sense.  In addi -- in addition, we agree that

           20  setting the standard must be based not on cost but on

           21  human health.  If we set the standard in that range of

           22  .060 ppm to .070 ppm, we're going to be protecting 16

           23  million Texans.  That's the number of people

           24  approximately who live in those areas.  We'll be

           25  protecting them better.


                                                                    163



            1                 We also support a one-hour peak standard

            2  because in Houston -- Houston is noted in scientific

            3  circles as having very high peak values of ozone.  We

            4  have seen in the study in 2000 and the recent study in

            5  2006, we emit VOC emissions well above the emissions

            6  inventory, anywhere from a hundred percent to -- in

            7  2000, it was somewhere in the neighborhood of five to

            8  ten times the amount of VOC we thought was in the

            9  emissions inventory.  We need to do more.

           10                 So, as a -- as a result, the Sierra Club

           11  winds this up by saying we want the standard closer to

           12  .060 parts per million, and we want to protect all

           13  Texans with an adequate margin of safety.

           14                 Thank you very much.

           15                 MS. STONE:  Thank you.

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you very much.

           17  Actually, Mr. Mannchen, to -- to the extent you have a

           18  recommendation on a one-hour standard, if you are

           19  supporting a one-hour standard, we'd be interested in

           20  hearing that --

           21                 MR. MANNCHEN:  Sure.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- in your written comments.

           23                 MR. MANNCHEN:  Thank you very much.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  All right.  Our next

           25  speakers are Walt Baum and Kathryn Weathers.


                                                                    164



            1                 MR. BAUM:  My name is Walt Baum, and I

            2  represent the Association of Electric Companies of

            3  Texas, or AECT.  We're a trade association representing

            4  electric companies in Texas.  We've been around since

            5  1978, and we provide a forum for member companies to

            6  exchange information on their industry and to

            7  communicate with state and federal governmental

            8  officials.

            9                 Our member companies own and operate more

           10  than 29,000 megawatts of electric generating units in

           11  Texas, which are subject to extensive regulation under

           12  the Federal Clean Air Act and the Texas Commission on

           13  Environmental Quality.  And we're very proud of our

           14  record on NOx reductions.

           15                 Nationally, the electric power sector

           16  emits approximately 10 percent of combined emissions of

           17  NOx and VOCs.  Numerous Clean Air Act programs have

           18  dramatically reduced NOx emissions from electric

           19  generating units.  The Clean Air Act Acid Rain Program,

           20  the NOx SIP Call have helped reduced national, annual

           21  electric generating NOx emissions by 47 percent since

           22  1980.

           23                 EPA's CAIR rule will reduce annual

           24  electric generating NOx emissions further, starting in

           25  2009 and then again in 2015.  Altogether, total U.S.


                                                                    165



            1  emissions of NOx from power generators will be reduced

            2  from -- by 70 percent from 1980 levels.

            3                 In Texas, our story is even better.

            4  Texas generators have been among the nation's leaders in

            5  reductions of NOx, lowering emissions by 60 percent

            6  between 1997 and 2004, despite not being a NOx SIP call

            7  state.  The 1999 Texas Electric Choice Act required our

            8  member companies to reduce the NOx emissions from their

            9  grandfathered electric generating facilities by

           10  50 percent from '97 levels, which we did.

           11                 Texas is now -- is a CAIR state and we

           12  will be subject to NOx caps in the two -- in the next two

           13  phases, 2009 and 2015, that will further lower our --

           14  our NOx emissions.  Our testimony today highlights our

           15  broad concerns with the EPA's proposed revisions to the

           16  primary standard.  AECT will submit written comments by

           17  EPA's October 9th comment deadline.

           18                 While public health concerns are

           19  paramount, EPA needs to be sure that any additional

           20  regulations imposed on the states will produce real

           21  public health benefits.  In 1997, EPA established the

           22  current eight-hour ozone standard, which it defined as

           23  requisite to protect public health with an adequate

           24  margin of safety.  There have been no significant

           25  developments since 1997 that undermine that conclusion


                                                                    166



            1  or support reducing the standard.

            2                 The electric power sector has cut NOx

            3  emissions substantially and will continue to do so under

            4  current law.  But in order to meet a tighter standard,

            5  state officials will have to impose more significant

            6  emission cuts on large industrial sources, like electric

            7  generating units, even those located far away from a

            8  non-attainment area.

            9                 In addition, states will have to impose

           10  emissions cuts on a wide range of smaller sources across

           11  the country, including small businesses, such as gas

           12  stations.  Regional control of sources that could be far

           13  away from a non-attainment area is a real possibility.

           14                 There are substantial direct penalties on

           15  sources located in areas that fail to meet the standard,

           16  including extremely tight emission limits and costly

           17  emission control requirements.  Also crucial is the fact

           18  that new sources in a non-attainment area must offset

           19  all of their emissions, which pushes new businesses away

           20  from investing in such areas.  Overall, a tighter

           21  standard will result in higher energy and consumer

           22  product costs that will burden citizens, especially

           23  those with lower fixed incomes.

           24                 Currently, there are over 400 counties

           25  who fail to meet the standard.  If the standard is


                                                                    167



            1  reduced, many counties that will finally meet ozone

            2  attainment status in 2007 through 2009 are likely to be

            3  thrown back into non-attainment in 2010, and many areas

            4  will join them in non-attainment for the first time

            5  ever.

            6                 The Texas electric power sector is

            7  concerned about the impact that a reduced ozone standard

            8  would have on current NOx emission control activities.

            9  Under the NOx SIP call CAIR and individual states' ozone

           10  SIP requirements.  EPA, state environmental and energy

           11  regulators, state legislators, and our industry have

           12  spent years planning and implementing strategies for how

           13  best to implement the NOx reduction standards mandated by

           14  those programs, while at the same time maintaining a

           15  reliable power supply.

           16                 A revised standard could undo much of

           17  that planning by unraveling the state plans that were

           18  crafted to cost effectively reduce emissions through

           19  trading, and forcing prohibitively expensive retrofits

           20  of control equipment.

           21                 Given the large degree of uncertainty

           22  regarding evolving ozone science, the fact that EPA is

           23  required to review the standard every five years and the

           24  fact that air quality has improved and continues to

           25  improve, there's little justification for tightening the


                                                                    168



            1  ozone standard.  AECT does not believe that scientific

            2  development since 1997 support a revision in the ozone

            3  standard.

            4                 While potential benefits of a revision

            5  would be uncertain, at best, revising the standard would

            6  improve an enormous burden on the country, U.S.

            7  businesses, both large and small, and consumers,

            8  especially those least able to bear such a burden.

            9                 We do appreciate the opportunity to

           10  discuss our views at this hearing today, and we will be

           11  turning in public comments.  Thank you.

           12                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           13                 MS. WEATHERS:  Good afternoon.  I'm

           14  Kathryn Weathers.  I'm a member of the Union of

           15  Concerned Scientists, Texas Pioneers, and the Sierra

           16  Club; but I'm speaking today as a private citizen.  I

           17  really appreciate you-all being here and giving us an

           18  opportunity to speak.

           19                 And I am glad that the EPA stepped

           20  forward toward cleaner air by proposing to strengthen

           21  the national air quality standard for ozone.  Regret --

           22  regrettably, the EPA's proposal falls short of its own

           23  analysis.  The EPA Clean Air Science Advisory Committee

           24  has recommended tightening the standard to between .06

           25  and .70.


                                                                    169



            1                 They also have recommended eliminating

            2  the rounding loopholes, requiring emissions to be

            3  measured to the three decimal places instead of two.  I

            4  agree with both of those positions, preferring the .06.

            5  They've also stated unanimously that the overall body of

            6  evidence clearly calls into question the adequacy of the

            7  current standard.

            8                 Ground-level ozone is one of the nation's

            9  most pervasive air pollutants and poses a serious

           10  threat -- serious threat to public health.  According to

           11  the American Lung Association's 2007 State of the Air

           12  Report, one-third of the U.S. citizen population live in

           13  areas with unhealthy levels of ozone.  I, unfortunately,

           14  live in one of them.

           15                 The State of Texas does not meet the

           16  current EPA standards for ozone.  The first deadline for

           17  the Houston area to meet ozone standards was 1975, but

           18  the deadline was not then met.  Three extensions later,

           19  the deadline is now 2019.  That's 44 years.  I was in

           20  the sixth grade when Kennedy became president, and we

           21  had a man on the moon when I graduated from high school.

           22  I think that without even knowing what technology we

           23  have, we could make it happen if we have the desire to

           24  make it happen.

           25                 Our scientific understanding of the


                                                                    170



            1  dangerous health effects of ozone pollution has grown

            2  considerably stronger during the last ten years.  This

            3  new body of research provides overwhelming evidence of

            4  the adverse effects of ozone and exposure levels below

            5  the current standards, and including aggravated severe

            6  respiratory symptoms, which is dangerous for children,

            7  the elderly, anyone with outdoor activities, and

            8  individuals -- individuals with lung illnesses like

            9  asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema.

           10                 Ozone exposure increases the risk of

           11  death even at levels of exposure below the current EPA

           12  proposal.  In fact, the research on ozone -- ozone

           13  exposure has found no safe level of ozone.  Ozone damage

           14  can occur without any noticeable signs.  People who are

           15  exposed to ozone levels that are frequently high may

           16  find that their initial symptoms go away over time,

           17  particularly when exposure to high ozone levels

           18  continues for several days.

           19                 Yet, ozone continues to cause lung damage

           20  even when the symptoms have disappeared.  In fact,

           21  clinical studies of otherwise healthy adults have found

           22  decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms,

           23  inflammation and increased susceptibility to respiratory

           24  infection at or below the current standard of .08.

           25                 Children are especially vulnerable to the


                                                                    171



            1  effects of air pollution.  Children tend to spend more

            2  time out of doors.  They're often more physically active

            3  and they breathe more rapidly.  Their airways are

            4  narrower -- narrower, and they inhale relatively more

            5  pollutants to the proportion of their body weight.

            6                 A study of infants born in California

            7  found that maternal exposure to ozone, even at levels

            8  far lower than .07 or .075 proposed by the EPA, was

            9  associated with low birth weight and intrauterine growth

           10  retardation.

           11                 My granddaughter does very well in

           12  school, but her personal passion is baseball.  She

           13  played in her league's all-star softball team in the

           14  summer.  She is a fast-pitch dynamo.  But she checks her

           15  ozone -- the ozone watches daily, and she has to carry

           16  her inhaler and her medications with her at all times.

           17  She's not alone.  I was really surprised at the numerous

           18  young girls out on this large league in Katy that do the

           19  same thing.

           20                 Many of us go about our daily lives with

           21  headaches, red eyes, thick coughs, and tight chests,

           22  tired, not even realizing that we're unable to get a

           23  full breath of air.  Our parents seemed healthy.  We

           24  have allergies, and our children have asthma and chronic

           25  bronchitis.  Yet, those who are placed to protect us


                                                                    172



            1  seem unwilling to step up to the plate.  It seems as if

            2  our government officials are willing to slowly poison

            3  its citizens, somehow still expecting each new

            4  generation to be strong, healthy, and bright.

            5                 Please, every American deserves breath --

            6  to breathe fresh, healthy air.  Reject political and

            7  industrial and manufacturing pressure to retain weak

            8  standards.  Corporate entities are not equal to human

            9  citizens.  Adopt an ozone standard of .06 consistent

           10  with the recommendations of your own scientific

           11  advisory.

           12                 I thank you again for letting me speak.

           13  I have your backup here.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you both.

           15                 Our next speaker, and the last for this

           16  morning's session, is Lesly Van Dame.

           17                 MS. VAN DAME:  Thank you for sacrificing

           18  your lunchtime.

           19                 My name is Lesly Van Dame.  I am

           20  representing myself and a good number of my species,

           21  Homo sapiens.  I have lived in Houston since 1991.  This

           22  city has a lot going for it, but it is basically an

           23  unhealthy place to live.  Poor air quality is one of the

           24  main reasons, if not the main reason, it's an unhealthy

           25  place to live.


                                                                    173



            1                 Just to get an idea of how bad it is, a

            2  fellow alumnus from my college taught at an elementary

            3  school near the chip -- Ship Channel a few years ago.

            4  She reported that 90 percent of the students have asthma

            5  and think that's normal.

            6                 Bad air contributes to bad health in

            7  other ways.  Say we want to stay physically fit.  We

            8  want to go outdoors to run, but the air quality is so

            9  bad we don't know if we're risking our lives by trying

           10  to stay healthy.  How many of the three of you have to

           11  go online on a daily basis to find out whether your air

           12  is breathable?

           13                 I personally am sick of being sick with

           14  rhinitis and other respiratory problems.  I call on the

           15  EPA to adopt the .06 to .07 eight-hour parts per million

           16  ozone standard, and I above all call on the EPA to

           17  enforce the standards.  For once, put protecting public

           18  health above looking after the financial interests of

           19  big business.

           20                 Polluters have screamed and whined for

           21  decades about how meeting air standards will cripple

           22  business, force them into bankruptcy, and eliminate

           23  jobs.  And we can count on the fact they will continue

           24  this behavior as long as the EPA enables it by standing

           25  by and doing nothing or caving in and lowering


                                                                    174



            1  standards.

            2                 Again, I call on the EPA to adopt and

            3  enforce the standards recommended by the experts

            4  appointed to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory

            5  Committee.  Doing so, could actually benefit businesses.

            6  In one way, it levels the playing field.  If the

            7  standards are enforced nationally, it won't pay for

            8  them -- for business to -- polluters to evacuate one

            9  region to go to another.  If compliance happens to lead

           10  to higher costs, at least all businesses will have to

           11  face them equally without giving preference to one

           12  region over another.

           13                 And then, too, as has been found when

           14  meeting other kind of problems with toxins coming out of

           15  manufacturing processes, when businesses develop new

           16  technologies to meet standards, they just might find

           17  they reduce their costs in the long run.  I believe the

           18  EPA can help with technology and improvements.  And I,

           19  as a taxpaying citizen, am willing to pay for it.

           20  That's what it means to me.

           21                 Ultimately, creating and sustaining an

           22  unhealthy living environment costs us dearly.  The whole

           23  purpose of the EPA is to lead the U.S. towards a

           24  cleaner, healthier environment.  A big step in this

           25  direction is to adopt the stronger ozone standards and


                                                                    175



            1  enforce.

            2                 Thank you.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            4                 MS. VAN DAME:  Have a good lunch.

            5                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            6                 Okay.  Thank you for all of you who have

            7  sat through the morning session.  We are going to take a

            8  break now for lunch, and we will return at 2:00 o'clock

            9  this afternoon and hear from more speakers.

           10                 (Lunch recess.)

           11                 EARLY AFTERNOON SESSION PANEL

           12         Carl Edlund    Lydia Wegman   Thomas Diggs

           13                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  I think we'll begin

           14  the hearing again.  Sorry for the delay there.

           15                 I want to welcome everybody to the

           16  afternoon session of our public hearing on our proposed

           17  revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard

           18  for Ozone.  My name is Lydia Wegman.  I am the director

           19  of the Health and Environmental Impacts Division in the

           20  Office of Air Quality Planning, which is part of EPA's

           21  Office of Air and Radiation.

           22                 With me is Carl Edlund.  He is in our

           23  Region 6 office, and he is the division director of the

           24  air division in Dallas.  And to my left is Tom Diggs,

           25  and he is the deputy director of that division.  So --


                                                                    176



            1  oh, I'm sorry, associate director, associate director.

            2                 We are here today to receive your

            3  comments on our proposed ozone standard, and I want to

            4  thank you all for taking the time to come and speak with

            5  us today.  We very much appreciate the effort you are

            6  all making to give us your comments.  And I know some of

            7  you are taking off time from work or school, and we --

            8  we appreciate that effort very much.

            9                 This is one of five public hearings we're

           10  holding on the proposed revision.  We had two last week,

           11  one in Los Angeles and one in Philadelphia, and we've

           12  got two others going on today in Atlanta and Chicago.

           13  The comment period on the standard opened on July 11th,

           14  and it will close on October 9th.  So, if you have

           15  written comments to submit beyond what you say today,

           16  please do get them to us by October 9th.  And there are

           17  instructions for submitting comments out at the

           18  registration desk.  Also available, I should note, is a

           19  fact sheet on the standard and a list of areas where we

           20  have requested comment.

           21                 Just very briefly, I'll remind folks that

           22  we have proposed to revise our ozone standard.  The

           23  Administrator concluded that our current standard is not

           24  adequate to protect public health with an adequate

           25  margin of safety.  And we have proposed this -- to lower


                                                                    177



            1  the standard from its current -- current level of

            2  84 parts per billion, effectively, and lower it to

            3  between 70 and 75 parts per billion.

            4                 We're also taking comment on a range from

            5  60 parts per billion to 85 parts per billion, which

            6  brings it up to the level of the current standard and

            7  we're -- so, we're taking comment on a wider range than

            8  we proposed for the health standard.

            9                 On the secondary standard, we're taking

           10  comments on two options.  One is a new form of the

           11  secondary standard, a cumulative seasonal form called

           12  the W126.  And we're taking comment on a range of

           13  between 7 and 21 parts per million hours for that

           14  standard.  And we're taking comment on whether the

           15  primary standard and the secondary standard should be

           16  set at the same level, which is what they currently are.

           17  And so, we're taking comment on that option, as well.

           18                 As far as the way the hearing will run

           19  today, we have a timer and everybody is allotted five

           20  minutes.  You will see a green light when you start

           21  speaking.  At one minute, a yellow light will come on,

           22  and then the red light will come on when your five

           23  minutes is up.  And if you are still speaking at that

           24  time, I would ask that you try to wrap your testimony up

           25  so that we can allow everybody the opportunity to speak.


                                                                    178



            1                 I will be calling the speakers up in

            2  pairs.  So, when you come up, if you would come up with

            3  your fellow speaker and please stay to the end of each

            4  other's testimony.  So that's -- that's the way we're

            5  running it today.  So, I think with that, we will begin.

            6                 And our first two speakers are Colin

            7  McKellips and Rick Morgan.

            8                 MR. McKELLIPS:  Hello, my name is Colin

            9  McKellips, and I'm a field organizer with Environment

           10  Texas.  Environment Texas is a statewide citizen-based

           11  environmental advocacy organization.  And thank you for

           12  the opportunity to speak today on the EPA's proposal to

           13  revise the air quality standard for ozone.

           14                 Environment Texas is pleased that the

           15  Environmental Protection Agency is taking a step toward

           16  cleaner air by proposing to strengthen the national air

           17  quality standard.  Unfortunately, the EPA's proposal

           18  falls short of the ozone standard its own scientific

           19  advisors say is necessary to protect public health and

           20  leaves open the -- the possibility of not strengthening

           21  the current ozone standard at all.

           22                 Ozone is a powerful pollutant that can

           23  burn our lungs and our airways and causes health effects

           24  ranging from coughing and wheezing to asthma attacks and

           25  even premature death.  Children, teenagers, seniors, and


                                                                    179



            1  people with lung disease are particularly vulnerable to

            2  the health impacts of -- of ozone.

            3                 New epidemiological and clinical studies

            4  have shown the health impact of breathe -- breathing

            5  ozone at levels lower than the current ozone standard.

            6  In fact, clinical studies of otherwise healthy adults

            7  have found decreased lung function, increased

            8  respiratory symptoms, inflammation, and increased

            9  susceptibility for respiratory infection at -- at or

           10  below the current standard of .08 parts per million.

           11                 The independent clean air study -- Clean

           12  Air Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed a 2,000-page

           13  summary of the scientific research of the health impacts

           14  of ozone and unanimously concluded that the current

           15  ozone standard is not adequate to protect public health.

           16                 Under the Clean Air Act, air quality

           17  standard must be set at levels that protect public

           18  health, including that of sensitive populations within

           19  an adequate margin of safety.  As a result, the Clean

           20  Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended setting a

           21  new ozone standard in the range of .06 to .07 parts per

           22  million.

           23                 The EP -- the EPA's proposal to

           24  strengthen the standard to within a range of .07 to

           25  .075 parts per million is, therefore, weaker than what


                                                                    180



            1  the agency's scientific advisors say is necessary to

            2  protect public health.  And while stronger than the

            3  current ozone standard, the propose -- proposal fails to

            4  protect public health within the adequate margin of

            5  safety.

            6                 In effect, the EPA-proposed standard

            7  would protect millions of Americans but would also

            8  continue to leave millions more, particularly those with

            9  lung disease or who are particularly sensitive to air

           10  pollution, exposed to the harmful effects of dirty air.

           11  Alarmingly, the new -- the new EPA proposal also leaves

           12  the door open for retaining the current standard.

           13  Scientists and even EPA Administrator Johnson has said

           14  that the current standard is not good enough to protect

           15  public health.  And why is that even an option on the

           16  table is a good question.

           17                 In the weeks leading up to the release of

           18  the EPA's proposal, representatives for the electric

           19  utilities, the chemical industry, big oil, and the

           20  automakers convened high-level meetings with the Bush

           21  administration officials to discuss the new ozone

           22  standards.  And could those meetings have influenced the

           23  decision to consider keeping the current inadequate

           24  standard?  It's possible.

           25                 You know, Americans -- every American


                                                                    181



            1  deserves to -- to breathe clean air.  And the -- the EPA

            2  should reject the industry pressure to retain the

            3  current standard and instead adopt an ozone standard of

            4  .06 parts -- parts per million, consistent with the

            5  recommendations of its own scientific advisors.

            6                 And thank you again for allowing me the

            7  opportunity to talk today.

            8                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            9                 MR. MORGAN:  Well, good afternoon.  First

           10  of all, thank y'all for giving us the opportunity to

           11  come out here and address this issue.  I really

           12  appreciate that.

           13                 My name is Richard Morgan.  I'm a member

           14  and activist with Environment Texas and TexPIRG.  I'm

           15  also here just as a concerned citizen.  But I've had the

           16  opportunity over the last 27 months or so to speak with

           17  over 60,000 Texans across the state through Houston,

           18  Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, as well as rural areas.

           19  So, I feel that I have the ability to emphasize how

           20  important it is to Texans that they breathe clean air.

           21                 So, I also know that, from personal

           22  experience here in Texas, that the quality of the air,

           23  especially on hot summer days in metropolitan areas, can

           24  be pretty horrendous.  I ride my bike to work every day

           25  for the last two years or so, and I've noticed that -- I


                                                                    182



            1  mean, I'm not a scientist, but I have -- I have noticed

            2  that on my bike ride to work, certain days I have a hard

            3  time breathing.  I feel like I'm in shape, but I still,

            4  many times, have a sore throat when I arrive to work.

            5                 Come to find out later, it's an ozone

            6  action day.  Bus rides are free, and Capital Metro, who

            7  operates the bus system there, provides that incentive.

            8  Well, because of the high level of ozone action days,

            9  Capital Metro has eliminated the free ozone action day

           10  program.

           11                 So, I also -- I read the news reports

           12  regarding last week's testimony in -- in Los Angeles, as

           13  well as Chicago, and one thing that struck me was the

           14  industry's quotes from industry representatives

           15  complaining about costs and how they don't want to be

           16  burdened with having to -- to pay to clean up their

           17  facilities and industrial sites.  They don't want to

           18  spend the extra time, money, and resources to pay to

           19  clean up the -- to strengthen ozone standards.

           20                 However, I would like to counter that by

           21  mentioning a personal story of mine.  My little brother

           22  Leland, growing up, suffered asthma pretty severely.

           23  There was one occasion where I woke up to my mother

           24  screaming in horror from my little brother Leland who at

           25  the time was blue and wasn't breathing.


                                                                    183



            1                 Well, at the time we didn't even have

            2  medicine for his nebulizer.  We were on the verge of

            3  bankruptcy, and it was a -- thankfully, Leland survived

            4  but it was an issue that -- that struck us really

            5  heavily.  And a lot of families are facing that same

            6  predicament.

            7                 I -- I just want to remind such industry

            8  representatives that this is not the 19th century.

            9  People will no longer accept the -- the status quo.  We

           10  cannot -- our society -- our society has moved beyond

           11  such shrugging acceptance of simply living with hacking

           12  cough, wheezing lungs, constant headaches, and little

           13  brothers suffering from asthma attacks.

           14                 Also, the stronger ozone standards

           15  will -- of course, they will cost money in order for

           16  businesses and communities to reach compliance.  But

           17  what will be the cost in terms of medical expenditures,

           18  lost wages, shortened lifespans, and generally lower

           19  quality of life of -- you know, for -- because we just

           20  aren't as healthy as we have the right to be.

           21                 I also just want to remind the EPA that

           22  the one -- the one factor -- the one and only factor

           23  which can be taken into consideration when setting ozone

           24  standards is protecting public health with a reasonable

           25  margin of safety.  When the industry gives a number on


                                                                    184



            1  how much stronger -- you know, stronger standards, how

            2  much it's going to cost them, that's fine.  That -- you

            3  know, that's their number and when advocates counter

            4  that and say, Here's the number of costs that it's going

            5  to -- it's going to cost for public health loss and --

            6  and other expenditures.

            7                 Those numbers are really relevant because

            8  these are the numbers that we're coming up with, whether

            9  they're environmental advocates or industry

           10  representatives.  But it's -- those numbers cannot enter

           11  into the EPA's considerations.

           12                 You, the EPA, assembled the best

           13  scientists in the United States to address this issue

           14  and make a recommendation.  They have made that

           15  recommendation.  And it's my belief that if the EPA is

           16  to do its job and protect the public health with a

           17  margin of safety, that we must err on the side of safety

           18  and accept the lowest number recommended by its own

           19  scientists at 60 parts per billion.

           20                 Thank you very much.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you both.

           22                 Our next speakers are Berwick Simon and

           23  David -- David DiMarcello, Marcello.

           24                 MR. SIMON:  Good afternoon.  My -- my

           25  name is Berwick Simon.  I'm here representing the


                                                                    185



            1  Baytown-West Chambers County Economic Development

            2  Foundation, and I thank you for the opportunity to share

            3  economic development perspective with the EPA as it

            4  relates to the proposed changes in the ozone standard.

            5                 Baytown, if you -- some of you may know,

            6  is a home to a large petrochemical and refining cluster

            7  and has been in existence for a number of years and is

            8  home to ExxonMobil, Chevron Phillips, Bayer Material

            9  Sciences, just to name a few.

           10                 The foundation has been in existence for

           11  about 20 years, and most of that time has been focused

           12  on trying to maintain a balance to ensure the

           13  sustainability of petrochemical and refining industry

           14  and assist them in their efforts to meet the

           15  requirements of the EPA and Clean Air Act, as well as --

           16  along with trying to diversify the economy with clean

           17  air industries and the like.  And we've been able to do

           18  that.

           19                 The current messages, I guess, that we

           20  want to share today is to make a plea for the EPA, as

           21  you go through deliberations, to take a fair and

           22  balanced approach in making the assessments with respect

           23  to ozone standards.  A few key messages to share, we

           24  think that the current standard -- standard is working.

           25  Air quality is improving.


                                                                    186



            1                 Based upon some research that even the

            2  EPA has done, ozone emissions have been reduced in the

            3  area.  Even though the Houston/Galveston area is in a

            4  severe non-attainment area, our area, Baytown-West

            5  Chambers, resides in both or at the cusp of two

            6  counties, one -- and -- and -- and basically is in a

            7  moderate non-attainment.

            8                 So, we think that the current standard is

            9  working and make an appeal to allow the standard as it

           10  exists to continue and work.  The Houston industries

           11  have spent anywhere from three to $5 billion in a number

           12  of mitigation or emission controls statutes and have

           13  been proactive to achieve the current requirements under

           14  the -- the current SIP and TERP.  And so, we would ask

           15  that you consider that when you make your deliberations.

           16                 The second message would be that -- that

           17  any new non-attainment designation or redesignation that

           18  a new ozone requirement would have could hurt and has

           19  hurt the new -- the capacity to attract new industry in

           20  our area.  Areas that are currently marginally

           21  non-attainment designated could be -- could tip to

           22  moderate.  Those that are currently moderate could tip

           23  to severe, and it would have a debilitory impact on our

           24  ability to attract, retain, and expand current

           25  businesses.


                                                                    187



            1                 Over the last two years alone there have

            2  been at least four projects that have come our way that

            3  reflected approximately six and a half billion dollars

            4  of potential capital outlay where the decision to go

            5  elsewhere was based upon the ozone standard and not

            6  being able to at least cobble together the offset

            7  credits that it would take to operate in the

            8  Baytown-West Chambers area.

            9                 So, it's very important for us to be able

           10  to understand the impact -- economic impact.

           11  Ironically, one of those projects was the FutureGen

           12  project that we were vying for, I guess, to represent

           13  Texas for one of its candidates.  And one of the

           14  reasonings that Texas FutureGen provided was that we

           15  were located in a non-attainment area.  So, competing

           16  for a project for that -- basically a clean air

           17  greenhouse emissions mitigation project, you know, we

           18  were scuttled because of being in a moderate

           19  non-attainment area.

           20                 Another key message is that we want to

           21  ask the EPA to adequately consider the impact of

           22  international border pollution and -- and basically try

           23  to really focus on developing or maintaining or

           24  enhancing their -- the measurement regime in a way to be

           25  able to understand the impact the background --


                                                                    188



            1  background ozone contributors or contributions from

            2  Mexico, India, China and the like.  The EPA's ability to

            3  be able to exclude or back those quantities out is very

            4  important before making any changes or proposed changes

            5  in the current ozone standard.

            6                 We ask that -- that the EPA consider the

            7  impact of increased ethanol usage.  Again, it's kind of

            8  a Catch-22.  Ethanol is a preferred fuel but will have

            9  some impact on ozone levels.  The -- the automobiles --

           10  looking at the -- the number of challenges that we have

           11  in this area, particularly in this area, I don't know if

           12  you've had a chance to tool around Houston or -- or

           13  Harris County since it's very expansive and a number of

           14  cars on the road.  So, irrespective as to how cogent and

           15  disciplined the industry -- petrochemical and refining

           16  industries are in trying to take -- I guess to use the

           17  best available control technologies, we have a lack of

           18  public transportation and the like.  And all those cars

           19  will be, you know, burning alternative fuels at some

           20  point, and we need to try to understand the impact of

           21  ethanol.

           22                 And then finally, in closing, the -- if

           23  the EPA tightens the ground-level zone or ozone

           24  standard, it will increase the cost of gasoline and

           25  natural gas, and we don't want that to happen.


                                                                    189



            1                 Thank you.

            2                 MS. WEGMAN:  You can finish your last

            3  sentence there.

            4                 MR. SIMON:  It was -- that's fine.

            5                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.

            6                 MR. SIMON:  We can follow up.

            7                 MR. DIMARCELLO:  Well, good afternoon,

            8  and thank you for having -- allowing us an opportunity

            9  to speak today.  My name is Dave DiMarcello, and my

           10  statement is on behalf of BASF Corporation.

           11  Headquartered in New Jersey, BASF Corporation is the

           12  North American affiliate of BASF AG in Ludwigshafen,

           13  Germany.  BASF employs more than 15,000 people in North

           14  America, the majority of which are in the United States.

           15  We have more than a hundred facilities across the U.S.,

           16  including several in the Houston area.

           17                 We believe that the EPA's existing ozone

           18  standard, through a series of significant emission

           19  control programs, will continue to provide ample

           20  protection of public health.  BASF believes in

           21  appropriately peer-reviewed sound science and would

           22  support a new standard if the science demonstrated that

           23  it was justified.

           24                 We do not believe that the current

           25  scientific evidence clearly supports the lowering the


                                                                    190



            1  ozone standard at this time.  Thus, EPA and the State

            2  should focus on fully implementing the existing ozone

            3  standard before adopting any lower standards such as

            4  proposed on June 20, 2007.

            5                 BASF and the chemical industry understand

            6  the value and importance of clean air.  We support

            7  protecting public health and the environment as

            8  demonstrated by our industry's significant and continued

            9  progress in reducing emissions through the Responsible

           10  Care program.

           11                 More broadly, the nation's air quality

           12  has significantly improved and continues to improve with

           13  new voluntary and EPA's -- EPA's own regulatory programs

           14  that are being implemented.  According to EPA, total

           15  emissions of the six principal criteria air pollutants

           16  were reduced by 54 percent between 1970 and 2006.

           17                 I'm not here to discuss the cost of the

           18  standard.  I'm going to focus on the science used to

           19  evaluate the ozone standard.  An ongoing and thorough

           20  review of the new science evidence does not support

           21  EPA's conclusion that the existing standard needs to be

           22  made stricter to protect public health.

           23                 There are numerous questions regarding

           24  the state of the science and, in particular, whether or

           25  not there have been any significant developments in the


                                                                    191



            1  past ten years that would warrant further tightening of

            2  the standard.  Recent studies contain inconsistent and

            3  conflicting data and, consequently, do not support a

            4  particular numeric change to the current standard.

            5                 Briefly, my concerns with the science

            6  are:  The evidence presented does not confirm that ozone

            7  exposure causes premature death.  There are inconsistent

            8  findings and weaknesses in some studies, different lag

            9  times reviewed in analyses, and co-pollutants were

           10  inadequately addressed in many studies and overall not

           11  adequately addressed at EPA -- by EPA in their analysis.

           12  This is not sound science and inconclusive with respect

           13  to proven cause and effect.

           14                 With regard to -- secondly, with regard

           15  to Adams' Chambers Study, Adams' publications show no

           16  statistically significant difference at 60 or 40 parts

           17  per billion.  EPA mischaracterizes the Adams results in

           18  the staff paper and uses the results to provide support

           19  for its assertion that significant lung function effects

           20  are found at concentrations less than 80 parts per

           21  billion.

           22                 We believe this is a misinterpretation by

           23  EPA and a poor characterization of the science.

           24  Dr. Adams, himself, clearly disagreed with EPA as

           25  evidenced by his statement at the March, 2007 CASAC


                                                                    192



            1  meeting.

            2                 Third, neither the in -- individual

            3  studies nor EPA's analysis adequately takes into account

            4  possible confounding by pollutants other than ozone.

            5  Sound scientific analysis requires adequate

            6  consideration of confounders in order to identify true

            7  cause-and-effect relationships.

            8                 And, finally, the last point, sound

            9  scientific analysis requires consideration and

           10  quantification of all major sources of uncertainty.  EPA

           11  has not adequately identified or evaluated the

           12  uncertainty of its quantitative estimates.  The agency

           13  included only one source of uncertainty in its

           14  calculations, ignoring many others such as differences

           15  in study location, time period, and model uncertainties.

           16                 Revising the ozone standard would have

           17  significant consequences across the country.  These

           18  consequences should only be borne if there were truly a

           19  public health benefit, which the science has not shown

           20  will result if the standard is lowered.  If the standard

           21  is revised to the lower end of the CASAC-recommended

           22  range, the number of counties designated as

           23  non-attainment would triple from today's number and

           24  would include both rural and urban counties.

           25                 EPA's regulatory impact analysis


                                                                    193



            1  indicates that 27 states will have regions projected by

            2  EPA to be un -- unable to achieve the lower range of the

            3  proposed standard, even with the application of all

            4  known control measures.  Thus, adopting a new lower

            5  standard for ozone will be detrimental to states as they

            6  struggle to implement and achieve the current standard.

            7                 In conclusion, a review of the science

            8  does not support changing the current ozone standard.

            9  BASF recommends that EPA retain the current ozone

           10  standard and not significantly lower the standard as

           11  proposed.  As the science develops further, EPA will

           12  once again have the opportunity to determine if any

           13  additional actions might be warranted in the future.

           14                 I appreciate the opportunity to talk

           15  today.

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

           17  although what I noted this morning that -- I don't think

           18  you're aware of this -- that we do not, in fact, take

           19  economics into account or costs into account when we set

           20  the standard.  We certainly do consider the science.

           21  And I'm assuming that you will be submitting additional

           22  elaboration of that -- the points you've made as -- as

           23  to the science, which underlines the administrator's

           24  proposal.

           25                 MR. DIMARCELLO:  Yes.


                                                                    194



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  All right.  Thank

            2  you.

            3                 Our next speakers are Kelly Frels and

            4  David Schanbacher.

            5                 MR. FRELS:  Good afternoon.  I'm Kelly

            6  Frels, F-R-E-L-S, and am appearing here on behalf of the

            7  Greater Houston Partnership.  The Greater Houston

            8  Partnership is the primary advocate of Houston's

            9  business community and is dedicated to building the

           10  regional economy and the quality of life.  The

           11  partnership represents a diversity of businesses in the

           12  eight-county area, which is -- comprises the Harris --

           13  the Houston, Brazoria, and Galveston area.

           14                 Clean air is in our best interest, and

           15  it's in the best interest of everyone.  And it's one of

           16  our top priorities at the partnership.  The partnership

           17  supports the development of a quality clean air program

           18  based upon sound science.

           19                 There have been significant improvements

           20  in our area, in our region, with regard to the

           21  ground-level ozone standard through programs enacted by

           22  the state and local governments, businesses and citizens

           23  all working together to improve the quality of our air.

           24                 With extensive emission control

           25  strategies in place, the Houston region continues to


                                                                    195



            1  face a tremendous challenge implementing additional

            2  measures under the current attainment deadline.  In

            3  other words, we were very -- in a very difficult

            4  position.  It's like sending someone across the mountain

            5  range and giving them only enough fuel to get up to the

            6  base of the mountains.

            7                 We need help from the EPA.  We need help

            8  from others in several areas.  One is in the area of

            9  federal prevention.  There are many different

           10  industries, the on-road and some of the off-road engines

           11  and vehicles, that we just simply cannot deal with on a

           12  state basis or on a local basis.  They're federally

           13  preempted.  Fortunately, we've had the cooperation of

           14  the Port of Houston, our major airlines, and others in

           15  the rail transport in implementing volunteer programs on

           16  the -- in the preempted areas that we would have no

           17  ability to -- to regulate.  So, we're very appreciative

           18  of their support.

           19                 But we need further help from the

           20  Environmental Protection Agency in -- in the area of

           21  promoting research and development, and also in the area

           22  of regulating these other -- the federal standards for

           23  fuel engines and the like, because we have a multiple

           24  issue here in Houston that many areas don't encounter.

           25  And that is, we have off-road, on-road, we have marine,


                                                                    196



            1  and then we have our point sources.

            2                 We've made a lot of progress, and a lot

            3  of people have contributed to that progress over the

            4  years.  Our Texas Legislature has poured in over

            5  $200 million in our region alone over the past years

            6  through the Texas Environmental Quality Commission and

            7  others to help address these issues.  That is called the

            8  Texas Emissions Reduction Program, or TERP.  I think

            9  you've all heard of TERP.

           10                 We also this past legislative session

           11  made some significant changes legislatively in the

           12  vehicle -- vehicle replacement program.  In other words,

           13  what we've done now is to lower the threshold for people

           14  to be able to take advantage of it, because we want to

           15  get those old vehicles off the road and replace them

           16  with new vehicles that are -- have much better emissions

           17  control.

           18                 We've had many of our industrial sources

           19  that have cooperated and are working even more

           20  diligently today through using techniques such as camera

           21  technology to spot and identify where their leaks are,

           22  where the sources of volatile organic compounds.

           23                 And one -- one thing we really need some

           24  continued help on is with our diesel testing laboratory

           25  at the University of Houston.  Everybody seemed to


                                                                    197



            1  support it, and everybody is beginning to contribute to

            2  it.  But it's important that we have it here so that we

            3  can address the issue of the off-road -- particularly

            4  the off-road diesel vehicles and to have a mobile

            5  component so that we can go to the marine interests and

            6  to be able to retrofit those engines.

            7                 We have worked together with the EPA in

            8  the past.  In March of 2003, we held a joint conference

            9  in Washington to bring together everyone in an

           10  information-sharing arena.  We hope that we can continue

           11  those kind of efforts with you.

           12                 Thank you.

           13                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Frels, do

           14  you have any views on what the ozone standard should be

           15  that are comment on our proposal, specifically?

           16                 MR. FRELS:  My -- my comment would be

           17  that it should be left the same, for the main reason

           18  that we cannot attain, using the current technology and

           19  current tools that we have available to us, compliance

           20  with the eight-hour standard at the current level.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           22                 MR. SCHANBACHER:  Good afternoon.  Thank

           23  you very much for the opportunity.  I'm David

           24  Schanbacher with the Texas Commission on Environmental

           25  Quality.


                                                                    198



            1                 And Texas currently has three ozone

            2  non-attainment areas, one deferred non-attainment area

            3  with an early action compact, and two other areas with

            4  early action compacts.  If the standard is lowered to

            5  75 parts per billion, in Texas ten additional counties

            6  would exceed the standard, resulting in four new

            7  non-attainment areas.  And if the standard is lowered to

            8  60 parts per billion, every county in Texas that has an

            9  ozone monitor would exceed the standard, resulting in 12

           10  non-attainment areas.

           11                 So, Texas and many other states could

           12  experience a significant -- a significant economic

           13  impact if the standard is lowered.  Therefore, the

           14  scientific basis for a new standard must be without

           15  question, but the scientific community has -- does have

           16  questions about the need to lower this ozone standard.

           17                 The epidemiology studies used by the EPA

           18  to support lowering the standard are not robust enough

           19  for this purpose.  These studies used monitor --

           20  monitoring data, a poor measure of personal exposure,

           21  instead of actual personal exposure data.

           22                 These studies also used a poor health

           23  effects index.  An appropriate health effect index would

           24  have been patient histories, but, instead, these studies

           25  used medical records that were collected for other


                                                                    199



            1  purposes.  None of the epidemiological studies found

            2  causality with ozone and health effects.  And of those

            3  things that -- found in association with ozone health

            4  effects, the effects can be attributed to other

            5  pollutants, such as particulate matter, nitrogen

            6  dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.

            7                 Several studies, including the Kaiser

            8  Permanente report in 2002 and the Gallerman study in

            9  2004, found no -- excuse me -- no increase in hospital

           10  admissions in elderly patients and health effects in

           11  children due to ozone alone.  In fact, Texas inpatient

           12  hospital discharge data on numbers of hospital visits

           13  for asthma between 1999 and 2001 actually showed that

           14  fewer children in Texas visit the hospital for asthma

           15  during peak summer ozone season as compared to

           16  wintertime.

           17                 Many of the clinical studies used to

           18  justify the lower end of the proposed range do not

           19  support lowering the ozone standard to that level.

           20  Dr. Adams, himself, noted that EPA misinterpreted

           21  Dr. Adams' study that it is using to justify the lower

           22  end of the proposed standard.

           23                 The challenges that -- that Texas faces

           24  in Houston may be symbolic of what most of the country

           25  may face under stricter standards.  The Houston area is


                                                                    200



            1  unique and includes one of the most comprehensively

            2  controlled industrial complexes in the world.

            3                 Yet, even with extensive regulations such

            4  as 80 percent NOx emission reduction requirements for

            5  point sources, control of highly reactive volatile

            6  organic compounds and mobile source controls, including

            7  emissions inspections, Texas low-emission diesel, and a

            8  multi-million-dollar grant incentive program, attainment

            9  of the current standard by 2010 is impossible.

           10                 Only by requesting the area be

           11  reclassified to provide adequate time to address what's

           12  left to control in the area may success be found under

           13  the current standard.  The bottom line is that Texas is

           14  using every opportunity to address the current ozone

           15  problem and still faces insurmountable challenges.

           16                 The feasibility of attaining a new

           17  standard is questionable for other reasons.  Background

           18  concentrations of ozone in many areas are higher than

           19  the proposed standard.  States do not have the authority

           20  to address interstate transport.  EPA should recognize

           21  that the majority of emissions contributing to ozone

           22  formation come from mobile sources, which states are

           23  generally preempted from regulating.

           24                 The Texas Commission on Environmental

           25  Quality has already placed very stringent controls on


                                                                    201



            1  the industry.  The control strategies to meet a new

            2  standard may be completely different than those -- than

            3  those behind -- being considered to address the existing

            4  standards.

            5                 Implementation guidelines -- guidance for

            6  the proposed standards was not included in the proposal.

            7  The current process must be thoroughly reconsidered and

            8  revised to have any hope of meeting a new standard.  The

            9  process will need to place greater accountability on the

           10  federal government to do their share to address

           11  interstate transport and mobile sources.  And because of

           12  the increased complexities for the proposed standard,

           13  current funding provided to states from the EPA will not

           14  be adequate to address any expected implementation

           15  requirements.

           16                 I've got the supporting data with us to

           17  back up these -- these studies or for -- to -- I can

           18  give these to you now or when we submit our comments.

           19  And, again, I appreciate the opportunity to come here

           20  and -- and talk to y'all today.  I have 30 seconds left

           21  so we'll save it for some other time.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  You can bank them.

           23                 MR. EDLUND:  What about the level that --

           24                 MR. DIGGS:  David, what -- what level

           25  standard would you recommend then?  Just maintain the


                                                                    202



            1  existing standard?

            2                 MR. SCHANBACHER:  Well, I'm not -- I'm

            3  not really prepared to address that today.  I'll have to

            4  take that back to our commission and discuss it before I

            5  can make a -- a comment.  But, hopefully, we can do that

            6  with our written comments.

            7                 MR. DIGGS:  Okay.

            8                 MS. WEGMAN:  If you do have materials

            9  with you today to back up the statements you're making

           10  about the science, we'd be happy to take them today so

           11  we can start reviewing them.

           12                 MR. SCHANBACHER:  Okay.  Yeah, we've got

           13  them here.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Great.

           15                 MR. SCHANBACHER:  Thank you.

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           17                 Our next two speakers are Laura Blackburn

           18  and Tim Webster.

           19                 MS. BLACKBURN:  My name is Laura

           20  Blackburn, and I am here as president of the League of

           21  Women Voters of Houston.

           22                 First, as others have mentioned, thank

           23  you for being here today to hear all of us in this

           24  particular area, which is particularly prone to

           25  non-attainment with regard to ozone.


                                                                    203



            1                 The Houston Area League of Women Voters

            2  encourages EPA to adopt more stringent standard than --

            3  a more stringent standard than -- particularly the one

            4  recommended unanimously by the EPA Clean Air Scientific

            5  Advisory Committee, specifically of .06 to .07.  We

            6  prefer .06, and I'll go into why in a moment.

            7                 There are two reasons we recommend the

            8  .06.  Health effects have been shown at even less than

            9  .06, one.  And I have referenced these in my paper.  The

           10  .50 is the lowest O3 concentration at which significant

           11  reductions in forced vital capacity and forced

           12  expiratory volume in one second were reported in

           13  sedentary subjects, which was in the "Federal Register."

           14  The other were 0.040 parts per million of ozone

           15  specifically decreased lung function, also in the

           16  "Federal Register."

           17                 I'm going to take a moment to talk about

           18  science.  I am a scientist.  I would love to have two

           19  scientists agree on specific numbers.  The EPA is

           20  required to look not only at observed and quantified

           21  health effects providing an adequate margin of safety

           22  but is to provide a reasonable degree of protection

           23  against hazard that research has yet identified.  Now,

           24  that is in a -- in a court document, not in the law.

           25  Nonetheless, it gives direction.  And I don't think that


                                                                    204



            1  EPA has looked that far.  I think it's going in the

            2  right direction.  I think it should go further.

            3                 Clearly, the .07 parts per million to

            4  .075 standard does not meet the requirement.  Thus, the

            5  Houston Area League of Women Voters recommend the .060

            6  or lower as the primary standard.

            7                 Let me say parenthetically that I have

            8  taught in the Houston area for 17 years.  And throughout

            9  that 17 years, I saw an increased and increased and

           10  increased number of students with asthma.  I've lived

           11  here all my life.  I have a husband who died of lung

           12  complications.  I'm very aware of the lung problems, the

           13  health problems, that people have.

           14                 Furthermore, with regard to costs, even

           15  though we're not supposed to consider it, let me say

           16  that time and time again citizens have said they are

           17  willing to pay for the costs of clean air and clean

           18  water.

           19                 With regard to attracting new industry,

           20  yes, we have some people leaving because the

           21  requirements of ozone -- other -- other requirements

           22  that -- my particular interest is in air toxic.  And so,

           23  they go away because it's too cumbersome.  We also have,

           24  however, industry that doesn't come here because we

           25  don't have clean enough air.  You've got to balance


                                                                    205



            1  those concerns.

            2                 Thank you very much.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            4                 MR. WEBSTER:  Yes.  My name is Tim

            5  Webster, and I currently serve in the capacity of health

            6  and safety officer of my local union at the ExxonMobil

            7  Baytown facilities.  Thank you for allowing me to

            8  address the panel today.

            9                 I'm here today primarily because I have a

           10  daughter who at an early age became affected with

           11  asthma.  This was the first instance of asthma within

           12  our family medical history.  I observed her growing up

           13  with her inhaler becoming her best friend.  I saw at

           14  times how she became stressed when her inhaler was not

           15  readily available.  I did not make an environmental

           16  connection to her condition until she moved away from

           17  the Houston area to attend nursing school.  Her

           18  condition significantly improved and, in turn, worsened

           19  when she moved back to the Houston area, seeking

           20  employment.  Linda is to have her first child in

           21  October.  I surely do not want my future grandson to

           22  experience the same manner of health issues that my

           23  daughter has been subjected to.

           24                 I will accrue 28 years of service with

           25  ExxonMobil this coming month.  My job has provided well


                                                                    206



            1  for me and my family throughout the years.  I will be

            2  the first to state that the ExxonMobil Baytown site has

            3  implemented numerous facility improvements which has

            4  served to reduce environmental emissions.

            5                 However, a disturbing trend has evolved

            6  not only in Baytown, but throughout the petrochemical

            7  industry in the Gulf Coast area.  That trend consists of

            8  reducing staffing levels of operating units in search of

            9  competitive advantages.  What these practices have led

           10  to are not only increased worker safety concerns, but as

           11  well the potential for environmental type issues which

           12  can directly lead to increased ozone levels.

           13                 These decreased staffing levels have

           14  potential to contribute to longer duration flaring

           15  excursions during times of unplanned operational upset

           16  conditions.  This trend became so problematic at the

           17  Baytown facilities that our local union saw the need in

           18  January of this year to purchase and place a one-quarter

           19  page ad in the local community newspaper.  We also

           20  submitted public comment in this area to the Texas

           21  Commission on Environmental Quality and the EPA in the

           22  sites 2005 Title V Air Permit application.

           23                  I have provided for your review

           24  documentation relating to these and other actions.

           25                 If you take the time to review the


                                                                    207



            1  chemical safety board's report on the March 23rd, 2005,

            2  BP tragedy, you will clearly see that reduced staffing

            3  levels was a safety and environmental concern for BP

            4  hourly workers, not only around the tragic explosion,

            5  but day-to-day operations, as well.

            6                 Current OSHA safety regulations does not

            7  contain language which can serve to appropriately

            8  address these types of emergency response issues as is

            9  related to safety and environmental, as well.

           10                 The United Steelworkers Union have

           11  initiated activities with a goal of improving upon

           12  identified regulatory gaps.  This is also a

           13  recommendation of the chemical safety board in certain

           14  areas.  These actions, if successful, will no doubt

           15  serve to improve upon safety, as well as environmental

           16  performance in the petrochemical industry, which in turn

           17  will drive improvements in areas which we have come

           18  together here today to discuss.

           19                 I would urge the EPA to insist upon

           20  responsible staffing levels when issuing operational

           21  permits and to openly support enhancement of existing

           22  safety regulations.  I, today, would simply encourage

           23  the EPA to thoroughly evaluate expert health information

           24  which is being provided and arrive at the best possible

           25  decisions to ensure clean and healthful air to breathe


                                                                    208



            1  for families and workers residing in the Houston Ship

            2  Channel area.

            3                 In closing, obviously my main tie in this

            4  discussion is my family member's personal health.  You

            5  have heard comment on improved petrochemical industry

            6  emission -- emission levels today.  While this is no

            7  doubt true, more improvements can still be made in order

            8  to successfully meet any standard changes which the EPA

            9  may deem as necessary in the future.

           10                 Thank you for your time.  I appreciate

           11  it.

           12                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Mr. Webster, I

           13  assume you don't want to make a specific recommendation

           14  as to the ozone standard?

           15                 MR. WEBSTER:  I don't have the -- all of

           16  the medical knowledge to make that decision, and I'm

           17  trusting in your best judgment.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank

           19  you, sir.

           20                 MR. WEBSTER:  You're welcome.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Our -- our next speakers are

           22  Grant Bailey and Wendi Hammond.

           23                 MR. BAILEY:  Should I start?

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yes, please.

           25                 MR. BAILEY:  Okay.  I recognize it's been


                                                                    209



            1  45 minutes since lunch so I'll endeavor to be

            2  particularly entertaining.  I am here on my own behalf,

            3  but I think I represent many that are concerned about

            4  air quality and -- and also love Houston and our

            5  country.

            6                 And from what I've been reading, there

            7  are many experts, your own Clean Air Scientific Advisory

            8  Committee, the American Lung Association, the World

            9  Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics,

           10  your own Children's Health Protection Advisory

           11  Committee, American Medical Association -- I think I may

           12  have already mentioned -- who are all -- have concluded

           13  unanimously that a -- a standard of .06 parts per

           14  million for eight-hour ozone exposure would be sort of

           15  the minimum that would provide a margin of safety.

           16                 And I don't personally have the

           17  experience or the data to draw any conclusions myself;

           18  however, I can't see any motivations for them to suggest

           19  a standard that would be beyond what was necessary, and

           20  I can see many motivations for -- for other research

           21  that might suggest a -- a looser standard.

           22                 I've -- I've -- I've done some reading

           23  and found that the people most commonly affected by --

           24  by elevated ozone in -- in the atmosphere are the

           25  elderly, the young, and the infirm.  And while I've seen


                                                                    210



            1  some instances where there was -- those were referred to

            2  as select groups, no, we've all been young at one point

            3  and we've all been infirm at one point, and we all hope

            4  to be old at one point.  So, really, that group

            5  encompasses all Houstonians and all Americans.

            6                 And I think that it's only responsible

            7  that if something is dangerous for the few, that it's

            8  also dangerous for the many.  So, I would encourage you

            9  to disregard pressures in the opposite direction to --

           10  to set a higher standard.  I know that some may make the

           11  case that this would come at the cost of cities' growth

           12  or industrial progress.  But I suppose my counterpoint

           13  would be that if that does directly affect growth or

           14  progress, that that was sort of a false progress or a

           15  subsidized growth because it -- it came at the cost of

           16  what has been found by -- by qualified organizations

           17  with no other stake to be a -- a -- a minimum safe

           18  standard for -- for citizens.

           19                 So, I would encourage you not to

           20  subsidize that sort of growth and -- and that sort of

           21  industrial development but to -- to consider what

           22  Congress has decreed to be the only criteria for setting

           23  an ozone level, which is that of public health.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           25                 If you wouldn't mind waiting until


                                                                    211



            1  Ms. Hammond is done.

            2                 MR. BAILEY:  Oh, certainly.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            4                 MS. HAMMOND:  Hi, my name is Wendi

            5  Hammond.  I am here to give testimony on behalf of

            6  myself, the Clean Air Institute of Texas, and the SEED

            7  Coalition.  I'd like to thank the EPA for having a

            8  public meeting here in Texas because Texas is one of the

            9  most affected states as far as non-attainment.  And,

           10  also, I think in 2000 we were ranked the No. 1 for NOx

           11  emissions alone.  And I am not sure what the current

           12  standing is, but I don't think it's decreased that much.

           13                 As you know, two-thirds of the Texas

           14  population live in regions that routinely experience

           15  elevated levels of ozone concentration.  The scientific

           16  committee clearly stated that no scientific

           17  justification for retaining the current standard exists.

           18  And, in fact, the fact that others are considering or --

           19  or advocating and EPA is considering no change at all is

           20  tantamount, at least to me, an insult to those at-risk

           21  populations for which I am a member, as I am asthmatic

           22  and I recently overcame lung cancer by sacrificing a

           23  portion of my lung.  I was healthy.  I ate right.  No

           24  history in my family, and I -- I exercised outside a

           25  lot.  They have no reason for why I had that tumor.


                                                                    212



            1                 I am not alone as evidenced by the other

            2  heartfelt and emotional testimony provided by others

            3  today.  As such, EPA needs to protect the health.  You

            4  need to recommend -- and I recommend that you adopt at

            5  least a .060 parts per million standard.  The standard

            6  should be specific -- specified to the thousandth part

            7  per million.  It should use a rounding system and

            8  definitely not truncation.  It should also use the third

            9  highest daily maximum for the eight-hour average

           10  concentration, and also the one-hour standard should be

           11  retained.

           12                 The example for the third highest daily

           13  standard is that I understand that they adopted

           14  originally the fourth standard because they wanted to

           15  avoid extreme environmental consequences of episodes.

           16  Well, Texas just experienced an extreme episode, but it

           17  was raining and it was in the opposite direction.  And I

           18  have been looking at the monitor system, and the fourth

           19  highest would significantly skew the record of what the

           20  average daily would be in the state of Texas if they go

           21  by the fourth highest.

           22                 And, in fact, for the one-hour standard,

           23  for example, the DFW area has currently, as of today's

           24  date, achieved the one-hour standard by one part per

           25  million.  And part of that is because this last summer


                                                                    213



            1  was entirely so rainy and so cool, unseasonably so, so

            2  the records were met that -- but when we actually did

            3  have the three days in the DFW area of normal ozone

            4  temperatures and weather, we actually had three ozone

            5  spike above the one-hour standard all the way up to

            6  141 parts per billion.

            7                 That might not show up.  It might be the

            8  first case that shows that this monitor alone actually

            9  can have a high one-hour standard but maybe not even

           10  violate the eight-hour standard.  It's something to

           11  watch.  It's something that was brought up the last time

           12  in the 1997 comments, and it might be something that

           13  actually is happening, and I'm trying to keep an eye on

           14  it.

           15                 But it's a little difficult when one of

           16  the monitor systems in the DFW area that is typical use

           17  and -- typically violates the one-hour standard, oddly

           18  enough, was out of commission during that one five-week

           19  episode of where we actually had summer temperatures

           20  this summer.  No conspiracy theories.  Believe it.

           21                 The bottom line is what happens once we

           22  do adopt a better standard, because there's obviously

           23  been problems with the current standard of how we

           24  actually achieve it.  The fault alone lies in Texas on

           25  the shoulders of our state environmental agency, TCEQ.


                                                                    214



            1  And for TCEQ to come in here and provide statements

            2  saying that they are -- they are using every opportunity

            3  available is simply false.

            4                 Several examples have already been

            5  provided today.  One was back in the 1997 -- excuse

            6  me -- 1999 standards with the cement kiln plants.  The

            7  recommendations of the state -- of the local governments

            8  recommended a much higher standard and TCEQ refused to

            9  adopt it.

           10                 That has happened again in this standard

           11  that exists.  The tech -- North Texas Clean Air Steering

           12  Committee had actually recommended several things that

           13  they did not implement.  They are not doing everything

           14  possible.

           15                 Another loop -- several other loopholes

           16  is a longer monitoring period must be required when

           17  you're doing the attainment demonstration.  Texas used

           18  only one week.  It needs to be much longer than that.

           19  The -- we also need to have enforcement of the

           20  assumptions the State uses in its attainment

           21  demonstration.

           22                 For example, it assumes that there will

           23  only be an "X" amount of increase in point sources;

           24  however, they don't actually follow that.  I will also

           25  provide additional testimony later on in writing because


                                                                    215



            1  there's a lot more to be said.

            2                 Thank you.

            3                 MR. EDLUND:  Ms. Hammond.

            4                 MS. HAMMOND:  Yes.

            5                 MR. EDLUND:  You -- you've obviously done

            6  some analysis of the monitoring reading.  So, in that

            7  additional testimony, it would be great if you could

            8  include that.

            9                 MS. HAMMOND:  Oh, well, yes, I'll be

           10  providing that, and I'll also be providing the -- the --

           11  the power plant information and PSC permitting.

           12                 Thank you.

           13                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           14                 Our next speakers -- our next speakers

           15  are Meg Healy and Eric Birch.

           16                 MS. HEALY:  Good afternoon.  My name is

           17  Meg Healy, H-E-A-L-Y.  I'm the acting executive director

           18  of the Galveston/Houston Association for Smog

           19  Prevention.  I'm also a native Houstonian with more than

           20  20 years' experience in the energy industry.  So, I'm

           21  here today advocating not only healthy -- healthier air,

           22  but also a healthier industrial economy.

           23                 I want to start by thanking you for

           24  coming to my hometown today to hear why we are so

           25  concerned about ozone pollution.  There's been a


                                                                    216



            1  wide-ranging discussion here so I'll just focus on one

            2  issue.  I'd like to address industry complaints that by

            3  revising the standard, the EPA is moving the goalposts.

            4  Some polluters whine that they just get geared up to

            5  meet one standard when a new one comes along.

            6                 I find that a curious complaint for

            7  several reasons.  For starters, Congress clearly

            8  envisioned a periodic review of the standards.  In fact,

            9  the Clean Air Act calls for a review every five years.

           10  The current eight-hour ozone standard was established at

           11  80 parts per billion ten years ago in 1997.  It took a

           12  lawsuit brought by the American Lung Association to even

           13  get this far.  So, this review is long overdue.

           14                 Second, it's pretty disingenuous for

           15  industry to complain about the EPA moving the goalposts

           16  to tighten the standard when industry has been

           17  successfully lobbying to weaken the standard for more

           18  than three decades.  As I said before, the current

           19  eight-hour ozone standard of 80 parts per billion was

           20  established in 1997, but an ozone standard of 80 parts

           21  per million was first established 36 years ago.

           22                 In 1971, the EPA set the one-hour ozone

           23  standard at 80 parts per billion, but in 1979 all that

           24  changed.  The one-hour standard was weakened to 120

           25  parts per million.  Then somewhere along the way


                                                                    217



            1  rounding was allowed to weaken the standard even

            2  further.  Then rather than reviewing the one-hour

            3  standard, the EPA tried to abandon it altogether.

            4                 Finally, whatever the standard, some

            5  industry representatives are relentless in lobbying

            6  Congress and the EPA to push back the line of scrimmage.

            7  The first deadline for states to met an ozone max for

            8  one-hour standard of 80 parts per billion was 1975.  Of

            9  course, Houston didn't meet it.

           10                 But it was two years after the 1970s

           11  deadline before -- before Congress even reset it.  This

           12  time to 1982.  When the EPA in 1979 relaxed the one-hour

           13  standard to 120 parts per billion, it also extended the

           14  deadline for Harris County to 1987.  By -- but by that

           15  time, Congress had amended the Clean Air Act to prevent

           16  the EPA from imposing sanctions on non-attainment areas

           17  that did not meet the 1987 deadline.

           18                 Finally, in the 1990 Clean Air Act

           19  amendment, Congress classified Houston as in severe

           20  non-attainment and extended the -- the deadline another

           21  17 years, until 2007.  So, in December, 2004, after much

           22  litigious pushing and shoving, the TCEQ proposed a

           23  revised SIP for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria area that

           24  most assuredly does not demonstrate attainment of the

           25  one-hour standard.


                                                                    218



            1                 But no matter, in 1997 the EPA

            2  established the current eight-hour ozone standard at

            3  80 parts per billion, and in 2005 it tried to abandon

            4  the one-hour standard in favor of the eight-hour

            5  standard.  From the TCEQ's perspective, this essentially

            6  revoked the 20 -- 2007 deadline for meeting the one-hour

            7  standard in favor of the 2010 deadline for meeting the

            8  eight-hour standard.

            9                 The DC Circuit tried to set things

           10  straight by ruling in 2005 that the EPA could not

           11  abandon the penalty and anti-backsliding provisions

           12  associated with the one-hour standard.  But no matter,

           13  the EPA approved the TCEQ's revised SIP for the Houston

           14  area, even though it most assuredly does not demonstrate

           15  attainment of the one-hour standard.

           16                 A month later, the TCEQ proposes an

           17  eight-hour ozone standard for the Houston area that, no

           18  surprise to anyone, does not demonstrate attainment by

           19  the 2010 deadline.  And just this past June, at the

           20  eleventh hour, Governor Rick Perry once again procured

           21  an extension of the attainment deadline for Houston by

           22  requesting a reclassification.

           23                 He asked for a new deadline of 2019.

           24  That will be almost half a century since Congress first

           25  called for health-based air quality standards.  It is


                                                                    219



            1  certain industry representatives that keep wasting

            2  precious time and resources or pressing the EPA one way

            3  or the other to weaken the standards and delay

            4  implementation.

            5                 Experience shows that industry does not

            6  make real strides for pollution control unless forced to

            7  do so.  Then once they do, it never costs as much as

            8  they claimed it would.  So, we believe that it's more

            9  appropriate than -- it's more than appropriate for the

           10  EPA to follow the law and review the eight-hour ozone

           11  standard.

           12                 We ask that the agency now follow the

           13  science in revising that standard.  And equally

           14  important, we ask that the EPA not be distracted, once

           15  again, from the original unaltered goal, clean air

           16  standards that are protective of public health.

           17                 Thank you.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Do you have a

           19  specific recommendation as far as what the new standard

           20  should be?

           21                 MS. HEALY:  Our recommendation is

           22  following the science.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           24                 MR. BIRCH:  Good afternoon.  My name is

           25  Eric Birch.  I'm from Austin, Texas, and I'm providing


                                                                    220



            1  comments today on behalf of the Center for Energy and

            2  Economic Development, or CEED.

            3                 CEED is a non-profit industry trade

            4  association dedicated to preserving coal as a fuel

            5  option for meeting America's electrical energy need

            6  through the use of research, education, and advocacy

            7  programs.  CEED members will be impacted by the EPA's

            8  proposal to provide the ozone ambient air standard.

            9                 Obviously, the public's health is the

           10  paramount concern when considering whether to adopt a

           11  new ozone ambient air standard.  However, for a program

           12  with a significant financial and societal impact of the

           13  Clean Air Act's non-attainment program, EPA must be sure

           14  that any additional regulations imposed on the states

           15  will produce real public health benefits.

           16                 But experts, instead, have questioned the

           17  science behind lowering the current ozone standard.  For

           18  example, Dr. Roger McClellan, past chair of EPA's Clean

           19  Air Scientific Advisory Committee, testified recently

           20  before a U.S. Senate subcommittee.  He states in his

           21  testimony that the decision to lower the level to within

           22  a range from .07 to .075 parts per million is a policy

           23  judgment based on a flawed and inaccurate presentation

           24  of the science.

           25                 Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar, medical doctor and


                                                                    221



            1  an epidemiology expert, has testified that studies used

            2  by the EPA, in his opinion, do not support a lower ozone

            3  standard.

            4                 The Annapolis Center for Science-Based

            5  Public Policy recently concluded that EPA last reviewed

            6  the national ozone air standards in 1997, that there

            7  have been limited, if any, development in toxicology or

            8  background science that would support a revision of the

            9  ozone standard.  This report was endorsed by the

           10  center's board of directors whose membership includes

           11  ten medical doctors.

           12                 Although the health benefits of the

           13  revised standard are questionable, there is no doubt the

           14  cost of the program will be significant.  According to

           15  EPA's analysis, the cost of attaining a stringent ozone

           16  standard could be as much 46 billion in a single year,

           17  and even a less stringent standard would amount to as

           18  much as 8.8 billion in a single year.

           19                 The number of counties that would be

           20  affected by this regulatory program is also significant.

           21  Currently, 368 counties are designated non-attainment.

           22  If the EPA revises the ozone standard, the number of

           23  non-attainment counties could increase to between 887

           24  counties to 1,243 counties.

           25                 It's also questionable to consider


                                                                    222



            1  changes to the standard since at this time significant

            2  advances in ozone levels have already been made around

            3  the country and more reductions will come from

            4  regulatory programs already in place.

            5                 For example, numerous Clean Air Act

            6  programs have already reduced NOx emissions from power

            7  plants.  The Acid Rain Program, the NOx SIP Call have

            8  reduced annual power plant NOx emissions by almost

            9  50 percent since 1980, and summertime NOx emissions have

           10  been reduced by 70 percent in the east.

           11                 To reduce the ozone and other air

           12  pollutants even further, EPA has promulgated new

           13  regulations for power plants.  Most notably the Clean

           14  Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR, alone will reduce NOx

           15  emissions an additional 70 percent from power plants in

           16  the east.  EPA and the states are now in the process of

           17  implementing these new regulations, which will cost

           18  approximately $50 billion by 2020.

           19                 Now, everything comes at a cost.  And

           20  revising the ozone standard will require premium

           21  expenditures by all segments of society.  It's been

           22  noted several times that cost is not a factor in this

           23  analysis.  However, significant costs will be

           24  experienced by utilities, manufacturers, service

           25  providers, and at its most basic level by consumers.


                                                                    223



            1                 Consumers are the only ones who actually

            2  absorb the costs, and unfortunately, the consumers most

            3  impacted are those of low income or those on fixed

            4  income, like the elderly.  Currently for low income

            5  Americans, energy costs represent as much as 40 percent

            6  or more of their income.  When energy costs go up, other

            7  sacrifices must be made, and often those cuts are made

            8  in things like healthcare.

            9                 When a child is sick, the decision of

           10  whether to go to a doctor gets a lot tougher when

           11  there's no money.  Likewise, in a heat spell or a cold

           12  snap, the elderly and low income are forced to adjust

           13  the thermostat increasing the likelihood of exposure to

           14  increased health impact.  Few remember that in 1995,

           15  during the -- a heat spell in Chicago, 600 people died

           16  in a week from the heat.

           17                 Setting a more stringent standard without

           18  justifiable health benefits raises real environmental

           19  justice issues since the program would arguably improve

           20  health for some, while adversely and disproportionately

           21  affecting the health of the poor and disadvantaged.

           22                 In conclusion, EPA must seriously

           23  consider the need for adopting a new ozone standard in

           24  light of questions regarding the science used to justify

           25  the proposed standard, the doubtful health benefits of


                                                                    224



            1  revising the standard, the uncertainty regarding the

            2  economic consequences of implementing a new standard,

            3  and the unintended impact of increased energy costs on

            4  the poor and disadvantaged.

            5                 Thank you.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  I assume you'll

            7  be submitting more detailed comments expanding on your

            8  points on the science.

            9                 MR. BIRCH:  Okay.  Will do.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you both.

           11                 MR. BIRCH:  Thank you.

           12                 MS. WEGMAN:  Our next speakers are

           13  Charlotte Wells and Daphne Scarborough.

           14                 MR. EDLUND:  Is Charlotte Wells here,

           15  too?

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  We can always bring her up

           17  in a different group.

           18                 MR. EDLUND:  Okay.  All right.

           19                 Ms. Scarborough?

           20                 MS. SCARBOROUGH:  Thank you.

           21                 MR. EDLUND:  Sure.

           22                 MS. SCARBOROUGH:  My name is Daphne

           23  Scarborough, and I'm here representing the Mobility

           24  Coalition for the Quality of Life.  And we have

           25  recently -- we're a grassroots organization of inner


                                                                    225



            1  city -- within the city limits, all the alignments that

            2  our Metropolitan Transit Authority has decided to change

            3  our transit patterns.

            4                 So, we are in the process of learning

            5  what emissions we're supposed to be looking for, and I

            6  thought this hearing would be a good start on that

            7  because we have in a draft environmental impact

            8  statement.  And in looking at the tables that we have

            9  been given, none of this has complied with what I've

           10  just heard for your emissions standards.

           11                 So, we are very concerned with, I guess,

           12  primarily the emissions that would cause -- would be

           13  occurring from not only construction of a

           14  four-and-a-half-year period, the particulate matter that

           15  would be released in the air, and METRO's own statement

           16  that they're going to be creating 62 hazardous waste

           17  sites, which don't currently exist upon one particular

           18  alignment.

           19                 And we have questions concerning that,

           20  and I know that the EPA will be looking at the program

           21  that the Metropolitan Transit Authority will be

           22  presenting to them.  And we are hopeful that somebody

           23  will be awake at the wheel and question some of these

           24  emissions because they're telling us that they're going

           25  to have a NOx reduction of 22 tons and a VOC reduction of


                                                                    226



            1  2.3.  But, yet, they are also telling us on the next

            2  page that they're increasing congestion at 32

            3  intersections.

            4                 So, it doesn't take -- I'm just a

            5  layperson.  I have some nice physics courses from

            6  college that I'm riding by on just slightly, but --

            7  but -- how can you have decreased emissions if you're

            8  having increased traffic at intersections?  And if

            9  you're talking about three- to six-minute headways on a

           10  horizontal grid of traffic lights and the addition of 50

           11  traffic lights on one alignment, we do not understand

           12  how this helps our air.

           13                 And we're very concerned about the ozone

           14  level because not only will we lose our -- our mobility

           15  in all the areas affected in Houston, but we're losing

           16  all of our green space, as well.  And it will be covered

           17  in concrete.  We will have increased temperatures, we

           18  will have increased flooding, and there doesn't seem to

           19  be a solution for this.

           20                 So, we are concerned, and we do want

           21  better air, not worse air.  And so, we are looking

           22  forward to the EPA's review of this process and -- and

           23  any type of answers we can get.

           24                 Thank you.

           25                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you very much.


                                                                    227



            1                 So, okay.  Is Charlotte Wells here?  No.

            2                 Okay.  How about David Marrack and

            3  Geoffrey Castro?

            4                 DR. MARRACK:  Welcome to ozone city.

            5                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you.

            6                 DR. MARRACK:  My name is David Marrack,

            7  M-A-R-R-A-C-K.  What other city can you go to in the

            8  United States where the ozone level reaches 240 ppb?

            9  None.  This is a unique city.  What's more, we get

           10  spikes of ozone where the ozone concentration goes up at

           11  the rate of two to five ppb per minute.  Very steeply.

           12  You'll see that nowhere else.

           13                 Ozone damages the mucous membranes of the

           14  airways and the eyes, and it is not good for you.

           15  What's worse, it enhances the damage done by a number of

           16  air pollution pollutants, I should point out.  I'm a

           17  physician.

           18                 And Congress directed the EPA to set

           19  standards to protect the people from air pollution.  One

           20  of them was ozone.  The ozone standard of one ppb -- one

           21  hour was set a number of years ago.  And in spite of

           22  three extensions, this area is not yet in compliance.

           23  You are in an area which is noncompliant with the

           24  one-hour ozone standard.

           25                 The Supreme Court in the United States


                                                                    228



            1  said that both -- held that both the one-hour and the

            2  eight-hour standards held -- were applicable and must be

            3  enforced.  You haven't enforced this one-hour standard.

            4  You've taken no action at all, and Congress directed you

            5  to do so and told you how to do it.  We need to get

            6  moving.  Your credibility is zilch.

            7                 The eight-hour standard you set is being

            8  tried, but it's interesting that California on the basis

            9  of exactly the -- almost exactly the same scientific

           10  peer-review data set a standard of 70 ppb.  And we now

           11  know from more recent studies that that is inadequate.

           12  They're recognizing that it damages children's lungs.

           13  Ozone damages people -- children, adults, and

           14  particularly those people who are impaired health,

           15  diabetics, people on anti-cancer drugs, and all the

           16  others.

           17                 We need to get the standard that protects

           18  the public.  I recommend to you that you should apply a

           19  standard of 55 ppb.  And if you think there's some doubt

           20  about the quality of the evidence, as many in the

           21  industry have suggested, on which you base that

           22  standard, you must write an even wider margin of

           23  protection.  You go down to 50 ppb.

           24                 What you need to do, there are a number

           25  of things in this area, particularly.  Reduce the


                                                                    229



            1  emissions from cooling plants, cooling towers,

            2  particularly those in plants handling ethylene,

            3  propylene, and butadiene.  These towers are volcanos of

            4  VOCs.  Their emissions greatly exceed the permits of

            5  these plants that have them, but no one measures it.

            6                 You need to make flares efficient if you

            7  can.  They're not.  They don't meet the 78 -- 98, sorry,

            8  98 percent destruction that EPA claims.  They're much

            9  nearer to 75 percent and worse and -- but flaring should

           10  only be an action of last resort in addition to prevent

           11  a catastrophe.  No other action -- no other reasons

           12  exist for any flaring.

           13                 California Air Resources Board Bay Area

           14  has already enacted that kind of arrangement, and it cut

           15  flaring substantially.  What's more, you have the party

           16  who flares must provide a written report within two days

           17  why, what they flared, how much, and why it was

           18  necessary to save -- only action available to save the

           19  plant.  You change the way flaring is done around here,

           20  and there's a massive amount of flaring.

           21                 Other things that need to be done.  You

           22  need to acquire the authority to control the emissions

           23  from marine vessels within the United States territorial

           24  waters.  They're a major problem here.  We also need to

           25  control and reduce the emissions from the power plants


                                                                    230



            1  or units in trains.  They are a -- a significant issue.

            2                 We also need to reduce the emissions from

            3  mobile -- mobile sources -- mobile vehicles, both

            4  on-road and off-road vehicles.  Idling should be

            5  stopped.  It's easy enough, and they're available,

            6  switches, which switch off vehicles that idle for more

            7  than five minutes.  I don't know.  We need to apply them

            8  to every vehicle.

            9                 What other things are available?  The --

           10  one of the issues --

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Dr. Marrack, if you could

           12  try to wind up.  Your five minutes is up.

           13                 DR. MARRACK:  Oh, I'm sorry.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's -- that's all right.

           15  If --

           16                 DR. MARRACK:  I wasn't even -- I

           17  apologize.  Sorry.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's all right.

           19                 DR. MARRACK:  So, you need to set a

           20  standard of 55 ppb, screwed to three figures, and

           21  enforce it.  And I would point out in putting that

           22  control system in and maintaining it will create jobs

           23  and produce -- also produce a product that can be

           24  exported.

           25                 Thank you.


                                                                    231



            1                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you.

            2                 MR. CASTRO:  Good afternoon.  I would

            3  like to start by thanking the members of the EPA for

            4  coming to Houston.  My name is Geoffrey Castro.  That's

            5  G-E-O-F-F-R-E-Y, C-A-S-T-R-O.  I'm the executive

            6  director for CLEAN, the Citizens League for

            7  Environmental Action Now.  We are a non-profit

            8  organization based here in Houston.

            9                 Houston has consistently had some of the

           10  worst ozone levels in the nation.  Although the EPA

           11  allows up to three bad ozone days each year, the ozone

           12  levels exceed the EPA's standards for 30 to 40 days each

           13  year.

           14                 Although Houston's first goal for meeting

           15  ozone standards was in 1975, over three decades later

           16  that goal has yet to be met.  With nearly six million

           17  people living in the Houston region, many residents are

           18  being exposed to risks as a result of failure to meet

           19  federal targets for ozone.

           20                 These risks include asthma and a host of

           21  other respiratory illnesses.  Recently, the American

           22  Lung Association gave Harris County an "F" for its

           23  ozone.  Even more concerning is that one out of almost

           24  every ten children has asthma.  Furthermore, these risks

           25  are starting to be more threatening to children as they


                                                                    232



            1  spend more time outdoors when the ozone levels are at

            2  their highest.

            3                 The Houston area survey conducted for

            4  Rice University's Stephen Klineberg repeatedly shows

            5  that the majority of Houston's public support

            6  strengthening pollution controls and environmental

            7  protection regardless of costs.

            8                 The problems we face with ozone here in

            9  Houston are occurring all over the state, the country,

           10  and in our major urban areas for we have emissions from

           11  vehicles and industry.  We need stronger standards, and

           12  they need to be enforced.  The Clean Air Act requires

           13  the EPA to set standards to protect public health with

           14  an adequate margin of safety to protect -- to protect

           15  sensitive populations.

           16                 Recently, the Clean Air Scientific

           17  Advisory Committee, CASAC, recommended that the agency

           18  adopt a more stringent standard to protect the health of

           19  Americans.  After reviewing 2,000 pages of scientific

           20  evidence on health effects related to ozone, they

           21  unanimously agreed that there's no scientific

           22  justification for retaining the current standard of

           23  ozone.

           24                 Houston and the rest of the nation needs

           25  an ozone standard that is consistent with scientific


                                                                    233



            1  analysis.  We recommend that the EPA follow the

            2  recommendation by CASAC and set the standard at 60 parts

            3  per billion.

            4                 I realize much of what you've heard today

            5  opposing stronger ozone standards is based on costs and

            6  economic variables.  However, I would like to reiterate

            7  that the EPA should resist industry pressure in adopting

            8  an ozone standard solely focused on protecting the

            9  public health.

           10                 Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           12                 Our next speakers are Charles Stillman

           13  and Scott Hochberg.

           14                 MR. STILLMAN:  My name is Charles

           15  Stillman.  I'm with CLEAN, a local environmental

           16  organization, non-profit, here in Houston.  I am the

           17  project coordinator.  Stillman is spelled

           18  S-T-I-L-L-M-A-N.  I have a short statement.

           19                 We urge the EPA to adopt ozone standards

           20  that protect the health of Houstonians and all

           21  Americans.  The agency's own scientific advisory board,

           22  the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, has

           23  recently recommended that the EPA adopt a stricter

           24  eight-hour standard in the range of .06 to .07 parts per

           25  million.


                                                                    234



            1                 CLEAN stands with hundreds of local,

            2  regional, and national environmental and public advocacy

            3  organizations in calling for a stricter standard in line

            4  with the recommendations of the CASAC.

            5                 MR. HOCHBERG:  Thank you.  I'm Scott

            6  Hochberg.  I'm a state representative in the Houston

            7  area.  And interestingly enough, I represent an area

            8  that is not heavily industrial.  It's not what you think

            9  of as the Ship Channel area or anything like that, but

           10  we are starting to consistently rank in the top two or

           11  three in terms of our ozone readings.  So, this is

           12  clearly a more complicated problem than I think a lot of

           13  people realize.

           14                 First, let me thank you for this

           15  wonderful format.  I've never seen appointments given

           16  for testimony, and I think it's a great idea.  I have

           17  to -- let's give them a hand for that.  (Applause.)  I

           18  have to -- to -- to sit in a similar venue tomorrow for

           19  about eight hours listening to testimony, and we ought

           20  to think about doing that at the State Legislature.  I

           21  think it would be great.

           22                 I -- I am here to -- you know, after the

           23  number of hours you've had, what is it that I can tell

           24  you that's any different?  Well, I am here to tell you

           25  not to listen to me.  I'll bet nobody has said that


                                                                    235



            1  before.

            2                 I am not a scientist.  I don't know

            3  whether your advisory council scientists are right or

            4  wrong.  You can evaluate whether the process they went

            5  through was honest, fair, and complete, and you can and

            6  should listen to other scientists who have reviewed

            7  their work or conducted peer-reviewed research of their

            8  own.

            9                 In the scientific world, that's what you

           10  would do, and that's really what your job is, as I'm

           11  sure you know.  But since this is a public hearing, the

           12  topic seems to have broadened from beyond exactly what

           13  the science is, and I know you're being told that it's

           14  not good to set a goal unless you know you can reach it.

           15  Go tell that to Appalachian State, or even to Mack

           16  Brown.  And if you don't know who Mack Brown is, please

           17  don't admit it in front of this crowd.

           18                 Not only is that inappropriate for your

           19  mission, it doesn't really even serve industry very

           20  well.  Houston is a tremendous example, not only of a

           21  place with ozone, but also a place of how a goal can

           22  drive research and drive technology to learn how our

           23  atmosphere works, to learn what makes a difference when

           24  we're trying to clean it up and, most importantly, to

           25  learn how to spend less -- less money by not going down


                                                                    236



            1  blind alleys.

            2                 We would not have the research that we

            3  have today from TCEQ, from TERP, from U of H, from HARC,

            4  and all the public and private entities that have

            5  combined their efforts to work on this problem, had you

            6  at the federal level not defined the problem and told us

            7  we needed to solve it.

            8                 And I can assure you, as a representative

            9  of the state government, that our state government would

           10  have not spent the hundreds of millions of dollars that

           11  we have spent on ozone reduction efforts through diesel

           12  equipment retrofitting and other programs.  If we had

           13  not been required to meet the federal standard, it would

           14  not have happened.

           15                 So, to those who tell you not to set a

           16  goal you can't meet, I remind you and them that you'll

           17  never meet a goal until you set it.  And if you're going

           18  to ignore the science and ignore the documented health

           19  effects, then what basis do you use?  You just pretend

           20  that we don't know that the existing standard is not as

           21  good as we thought and just leave it as it is?

           22                 Unfortunately, in our region of the

           23  country we have an example of just that kind of

           24  thinking, as well.  And just a couple of hundred miles

           25  east of here we all learned what happens when we stick


                                                                    237



            1  to the old standard, even though science tells us that

            2  it will not adequately protect life and property.  We

            3  stuck with the old way through heck and high water and

            4  we got both.

            5                 Do the right thing.  Let my counterparts

            6  in Washington decide in their ultimate wisdom how or

            7  even whether to try to reach the goal, but give them the

            8  truth as a starting point.  You would never tell your

            9  advisory group not to give you the best scientific

           10  information they could find.  Take their input.  Take

           11  the best scientific information you can find and set the

           12  standard accordingly.

           13                 Thank you for your time.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  And we can give

           15  you pointers on how to --

           16                 MR. HOCHBERG:  I'm sorry?

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  I just said we'll give you

           18  pointers on how to schedule five minutes.  It's not that

           19  hard.

           20                 MR. HOCHBERG:  You just -- really, this

           21  was terrific.  Come and go.  We usually try to make

           22  people wait at least four or five or six or maybe eight

           23  hours to see if they really care.  And if they're -- if

           24  they're paid lobbyists, we make them wait even longer.

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.


                                                                    238



            1                 Our next speaker is Ronald Parry.

            2                 MR. PARRY:  Well, talk about a tough act

            3  to follow.

            4                 Okay.  My name is Ronald Parry.

            5  That's -- last name is spelled P-A-R-R-Y.  I'm a

            6  professor of chemistry at Rice University.  I've lived

            7  in this town since 1978, and it didn't take me long

            8  after arriving here to realize that there was something

            9  wrong with the air.  Actually, I grew up in Los Angeles

           10  so I was pretty good at recognizing air pollution

           11  already.  So, I've since then become interested in air

           12  and tried to understand what's going on here and even

           13  tried to help when that seemed like something I could

           14  do.

           15                 So, I've tried to come up to speed on

           16  this issue.  And as far as I can tell, it's as some of

           17  the people from the environmental community here have

           18  already said to you, which is that the science

           19  indicates -- including the science done by the EPA, that

           20  an appropriate standard is somewhere between .06 and

           21  .07.  My view of ozone, as a chemist, is that it's an

           22  extremely toxic, highly reactive and dangerous

           23  substance.

           24                 And my personal assessment would be that

           25  probably any level of ozone is probably damaging to lung


                                                                    239



            1  tissue.  In other words, the ideal standard for ozone

            2  would probably be zero ppb if we were living in an ideal

            3  world because of the -- the highly toxic and highly

            4  reactive nature of ozone.

            5                 But, of course, we're not living in an

            6  ideal world so we have to think about what's real.

            7  Well, since your scientists say that .06 ppb or .07 ppb

            8  is a reasonable possibility for protecting public

            9  health, I would say let's go for as low as we can

           10  possibly go.  Let's go for 0.06.

           11                 Is there anything else I need to add?

           12  Probably not, except to reinforce the notion that we're

           13  here to protect public health and that other issues,

           14  economics and so forth, should be secondary because the

           15  public's health is what makes people want to live here,

           16  after all, or not live here.

           17                 And this is becoming an issue in this

           18  city.  People are becoming more conscious of the fact

           19  that this town has a lot of environmental problems.  And

           20  so, the people who want to ignore those problems are not

           21  going to succeed in their wish for a better economy

           22  unless they decide to recognize the reality of the

           23  environmental issues.

           24                 That's about all I wanted to say.  Thank

           25  you.


                                                                    240



            1                 MR. EDLUND:  Thank you.

            2                 MR. DIGGS:  Thank you.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  Thank you very

            4  much.

            5                 MR. EDLUND:  Doug Schuler.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  Doug Schuler.  Let me just

            7  ask at this point if anyone else in the audience wants

            8  to speak at this time.  If not, we'll take a short break

            9  after Mr. Schuler.

           10                 MR. SCHULER:  Well, good afternoon.

           11  Thanks for letting me speak in front of you.  I'm a

           12  professor at Rice University in the business school.  I

           13  teach public policy.  But I'm really speaking not as a

           14  professor but as a -- as a citizen, and I just kind of

           15  walked into the hearing and -- and don't have anything

           16  prepared.

           17                 But, to me -- to me, ozone and air is

           18  about -- is about quality of life.  And I just heard the

           19  last comments of the speaker before, and I think here in

           20  Houston -- I -- I come from the West Coast in the Bay

           21  Area, Sacramento, areas with a lot of industry, lot of

           22  -- lot of cars.  And to tell you the truth, I -- I have

           23  a great job at Rice University.  But if I could get this

           24  job even in a crowded urban area in California, I would

           25  go in a heartbeat.


                                                                    241



            1                 And it makes me sad.  It makes me sad.  I

            2  live in a beautiful area of Houston, right around Rice

            3  University.  I run.  I play soccer.  My kids play

            4  soccer.  We ride bikes.  We do all these outside

            5  activities.  But I -- I -- after 15 years in Houston, I

            6  find this just a -- really a -- an environmentally very

            7  unfriendly place to live.  And -- and -- and it bothers

            8  me.

            9                 And it hurts us recruiting at Rice.  I

           10  think it hurts a lot of businesses here in town, getting

           11  people to come from the coast because they think Houston

           12  is a -- is a dirty place.  And so, the question becomes

           13  to me, why?  Why -- why is -- why is it that way?

           14                 Clearly, we have a lot of petrochemical

           15  here in town.  It's a big employer in the business

           16  school at Rice.  Recruiters come from a lot of the

           17  energy, petrochemical companies, and they're very

           18  important employers.  And -- and we realize there's --

           19  there's probably a balance here.  But certainly I --

           20  I -- from -- from my point of view as a professor of

           21  public policy and someone who -- who worries about --

           22  about these things generally, it seems that either the

           23  state agency or the U.S. Government, in forms of EPA,

           24  has been lax here in Houston.

           25                 And I would very much -- I don't know any


                                                                    242



            1  of the technical elements of -- of this bill.  I haven't

            2  read any of the technical elements of this bill.  I have

            3  no expertise, but I would certainly hope that the U.S.

            4  EPA would do whatever it is to -- to -- to have Houston

            5  kind of have to comply under a tougher standard than we

            6  have now.

            7                 So, those are my comments.  If you have

            8  any questions, that's fine.

            9                 MS. WEGMAN:  I don't think we have any

           10  questions.  But if you are interested in learning more

           11  about the standard and what we propose, we have a fact

           12  sheet out there and some information.

           13                 MR. SCHULER:  I just picked that up.

           14  Thank you.

           15                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.  But we very much

           16  appreciate your coming out today to give us your views.

           17                 MR. SCHULER:  Thank you.  Thank you for

           18  being here.

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           20                 Okay.  I think at this point we're going

           21  to take a break and -- yes, we'll reconvene when we have

           22  some more speakers.

           23                 (Brief recess.)

           24                LATE AFTERNOON SESSION PANEL

           25       Lydia Wegman    Jan Cortelyou     Thomas Diggs


                                                                    243



            1                 MS. CORTELYOU:  We'll go ahead and get

            2  started again.  We're happy to have two speakers.  Thank

            3  goodness.

            4                 Now, you -- just to refresh, you each

            5  have five minutes.  We've got a timer right here that

            6  will help you keep track.  The light will stay green for

            7  about three minutes, then it will turn -- turn yellow,

            8  and you'll hear a beep and the -- the red when it's time

            9  to stop talking.

           10                 And we'll start with you, Charlotte, if

           11  you're ready.

           12                 Let's see if we've got our AV technician.

           13                 MS. WELLS:  Okay.  Good.  I was going to

           14  say because it was --

           15                 MS. CORTELYOU:  And if you could, please,

           16  state your name and spell your name for our court

           17  reporter and let -- let us know what your affiliation

           18  is, that would be great.

           19                 MR. DIGGS:  And the green light stays on

           20  for four and the orange for one.  So, once you see the

           21  green light go out, recognize you have one minute left.

           22                 MS. WELLS:  Where am I looking for the

           23  light?

           24                 MR. DIGGS:  Right here (indicating).

           25                 MS. WELLS:  Okay.


                                                                    244



            1                 MR. DIGGS:  And we'll get started.

            2                 MS. WELLS:  My name is Charlotte Wells,

            3  C-H-A-R-L-O-T-T-E, Wells, W-E-L-L-S.  I'm the Galveston

            4  Baykeeper.  I'm also the executive director for Texans

            5  for Alternatives to Pesticides and on the board of the

            6  Galveston/Houston Area Association for Smog Prevention.

            7  In Houston, we wear many hats, if you're an

            8  environmentalist.  It's also a good place to be because

            9  there's a lot of work to do.

           10                 I started with some pictures taken as I

           11  drive down Highway 225.  Actually, I believe this one is

           12  on 45.  But I drive down the Houston Ship Channel when I

           13  come to Houston because I live in Shore Acres, the

           14  southeast part of the county in a very industrial area.

           15  In fact, I'm surrounded by industry.

           16                 And I didn't plan to speak this morning

           17  and changed my mind when I heard industry saying the

           18  same things over and over again, talking about the jobs

           19  in Houston, and Texas, and the millions and billions of

           20  dollars that the chemical company -- chemical industries

           21  puts into the economy.  And I'm very concerned about the

           22  health, our health, my community's health, my state's

           23  health, my country's health.

           24                 And a little bit of background, I taught

           25  school for ten years, third grade, so my background is


                                                                    245



            1  in education, non-chemistry.  I wish I had paid a little

            2  more attention in chemistry class.  My parents are both

            3  Houstonians, and my grandfather worked for ExxonMobil.

            4  So, I'm very familiar with how this city is based on the

            5  petrochemical industry.  However, I think that we can

            6  live together, and I definitely support the .060 parts

            7  per million.

            8                 When I get up in the morning, I ask

            9  myself, Should I walk this morning or should I walk in

           10  the evening?  Because the chemical plants around me

           11  emit -- they release toxins into the air so that when I

           12  walk in the morning, I'm breathing things like benzene,

           13  toluene, things that have been released by the chemical

           14  plants that surround me around the Bayport complex.  Or

           15  I can walk in the evening, in which ozone is worse.

           16                 So, my question still to the State of

           17  Texas and EPA is, When should I walk?

           18                 The people in my community work in these

           19  industries.  I listened to industry again this morning

           20  talk about how people should be concerned with their

           21  jobs, and we should be more concerned with people's jobs

           22  than -- than our health.  And I can tell you that the

           23  industry's not talking to the people that work in the

           24  local chemical plants because they, too, are concerned

           25  about the air pollution.  They, too, are concerned about


                                                                    246



            1  their families and the asthma that their children have.

            2                 From my home, I also call Harris County

            3  Pollution Control to report what is called nuisance

            4  odors.  And when they arrive -- it usually takes about

            5  an hour for them to get to me.  And usually by that

            6  time, the wind has picked up on Galveston Bay, and those

            7  pollutants -- those air toxins have been blown away and

            8  they cannot smell, which is usually -- that's what they

            9  come out with is their nose to see what toxins are in

           10  the air.

           11                 I just wanted to show a couple of

           12  pictures.  This is a flare.  There are many accidents --

           13  accidental releases.

           14                 From the Houston Chronicle article, "The

           15  Houston area refineries and chemical plants accidentally

           16  released pollution on more than 1,000 occasions.  The

           17  average plant recorded about eight upsets, but the dozen

           18  worst operators averaged 41.  A Texas refinery recorded

           19  104 unpermitted releases.  These uncontrolled and

           20  presumably uncontrollable emissions put more than seven

           21  million pounds of unwanted pollution into this region's

           22  air.  However, the Texas Commission on Environmental

           23  Quality issued only 113 notices and levied 13 fines."

           24  This is in 2003.

           25                 I see these all the time.  I live right


                                                                    247



            1  on Galveston Bay.  Looking over the Houston Ship

            2  Channel, I see these flares, and they go on for more

            3  than seven minutes.  They continue sometimes for as long

            4  as eight hours.

            5                 This is just another day driving on the

            6  freeways in Houston around the Houston Ship Channel.

            7  And when I hear industry talk about us losing our right

            8  to barbecue, I'm concerned.

            9                 And that means I have -- I'm out of time?

           10                 Okay.  This is the Port of Houston, the

           11  Bayport Container facility where there are also a lot of

           12  emissions.

           13                 And I thank you and, again, I support the

           14  lower standard, .6.

           15                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Thank you very much.

           16                 MR. DIGGS:  Thank you very much.

           17                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Mr. Dickey?

           18                 DR. DICKEY:  My name is Burton,

           19  B-U-R-T-O-N, Dickey, D-I-C-K-E-Y.  I'm a professor of

           20  medicine and chair of the Department of Pulmonary

           21  Medicine at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.  And I'm a

           22  long-standing member of the American Thoracic Society

           23  and here today to speak primarily on behalf of the

           24  American Thoracic Society, but also, perhaps, to give

           25  some perspective from M. D. Anderson.


                                                                    248



            1                 On -- on both the -- the behalf of the

            2  ATS and speaking for myself, we support the level of the

            3  primary standard at .060 parts per million, feel that

            4  the degree of precision for the standard should be

            5  expressed as a thousandth part per million, and that the

            6  form of the standard should be constructed as a

            7  three-year average of the annual fourth highest daily

            8  maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration.

            9                 And you certainly don't need me to

           10  recapitulate any of the data on asthma, chronic

           11  bronchitis, and COPD.  The one thing that I'll mention

           12  that I have some personal experience with in terms of

           13  the irritating effects of ozone on the airway is that we

           14  do a lot of stem cell transplantations to replace the

           15  bone marrow of people getting intensive chemotherapy at

           16  M.D. Anderson, about 600 a year.  And some fraction of

           17  those go on to develop graft versus host disease.

           18                 And graft versus host disease in the

           19  lungs is -- is relatively rare, probably only about

           20  10 percent of transplant patients will develop that.

           21  And -- and -- and who decides who that 10 percent is?

           22  It's probably related to some trigger of airway

           23  inflammation.  The best known trigger is virus, and --

           24  and the data are good on that.

           25                 So, when a viral infection occurs and


                                                                    249



            1  inflammatory cells are -- are recruited to the airway,

            2  once they're there, they are stimulated and they

            3  recognize the allo-mismatch and then sort of set up

            4  housekeeping and never leave.  And that sets in

            5  obliterative bronchiolitis, which is a -- a progressive

            6  and severe airway inflammatory disease.  It looks a lot

            7  like asthma, but instead of having a -- sort of a

            8  30-year progression can progress over a -- a few months,

            9  really, to debilitating lung disease.

           10                 And anything that triggers airway

           11  inflammation, and an ozone would fall in that category,

           12  is -- is suspect in triggering the disease.  The data

           13  don't exist for ozone triggering of -- of obliterative

           14  bronchiolitis in the post-transplant patient setting

           15  like they do for the virus, but any inflammatory

           16  stimulus seems to set it off.

           17                 And so, I -- I think that that would be

           18  a -- a relatively smaller population who might be

           19  affected by things that played into airway inflammation,

           20  but -- but something else to think about.  A very

           21  sensitive population, I guess.

           22                 Thanks.

           23                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Thank you for your

           24  comments.

           25                 MR. DIGGS:  Thank you.  We appreciate it.


                                                                    250



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  We've got two more

            2  speakers, Ben Ziesmer and Dan Healy.

            3                 MR. HEALY:  I'm Dan Healy.  I'm sort of

            4  new to this type of operation.  I've never been to one

            5  of these before.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  Oh, okay.  Well, this is a

            7  public hearing, and we -- we're giving people five

            8  minutes to speak.  And we've got a little timer here.

            9  So, when the green light goes on, it tells you you've

           10  got five minutes.  And after four minutes, the yellow

           11  light will come on, and that tells you you've got one

           12  minute left.

           13                 MR. HEALY:  All right.

           14                 MR. DIGGS:  You can go ahead and get

           15  started.

           16                 MR. HEALY:  All right.  I'm really not as

           17  prepared as I'd like to be, but my major question is,

           18  why do we have these?  The industry has plenty of

           19  technical skills and knowledge and ability to clean up

           20  the environment.  Why don't they just do it?  It's

           21  costing us, the stockholders, additional loss of revenue

           22  because they're poisoning our customers.  You know,

           23  they've got people out there that have to go in for

           24  asthma that the doctor just spoke of.  They've got to

           25  spend their time and money curing that and not buying


                                                                    251



            1  products that are produced here.

            2                 So, my question is, and I'd like to

            3  address this to the people running the chemical plants,

            4  why can't they do the same kind of things they're doing

            5  in California?  The flares that were just pointed out

            6  earlier, why don't they schedule those, tell us when

            7  they're going to be, and let us know what they are?

            8                 You know, it's -- it's -- to me, just a

            9  stockholder and a businessman, it's a no-brainer.  It's

           10  economic nonsense to be wasting our resources by doing

           11  things that they shouldn't have been doing in the first

           12  place.  So, I'll leave it with that, and let your --

           13  give you more time for other people.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you very much

           15  for speaking today.

           16                 Is Ben Ziesmer here?  Okay.  Well, we'll

           17  take another brief break.

           18                 (Brief recess.)

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  We've got a couple

           20  more folks who have signed up, Melissa Taldykin and

           21  Linda Mercer.

           22                 Okay.  Okay.  Well, we can -- would you

           23  come forward then?  Are you ready to speak now?  I mean,

           24  if you're not ready, we can wait.

           25                 MS. MERCER:  Oh, no.


                                                                    252



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Yeah.

            2                 MS. MERCER:  They do two of us, and we

            3  wait through each other's things.

            4                 MS. TALDYKIN:  Oh, is that how it goes?

            5  I'm sorry.  I just got off work.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  No problem.  Thank you for

            7  coming.

            8                 MS. TALDYKIN:  Thank you for having me.

            9                 MS. MERCER:  And thank you for having the

           10  meeting in Houston.  I believe that Houston can achieve

           11  a lot better clean air than we've been doing in the past

           12  30 years.  And I would hope that the EPA would adopt

           13  more stringent standard for compliance with regard to

           14  ozone.  Instead of seven point -- a .060 standard would

           15  be what I was personally in favor of.

           16                 I am not a scientist, but I'm a forever

           17  Houstonian.  I was born on the banks of the San Jacinto

           18  River, actually Goose Creek, and my ancestors are --

           19  came to this part of the country because of the

           20  stability, the employment in oil and gas.  And my

           21  grandmother got her first house with floors in it

           22  because of Mobil Oil in the area.

           23                 So, I very much appreciate what the

           24  energy companies have done for the economic viability of

           25  this area and in giving us long-term opportunities for


                                                                    253



            1  employment and long life.  But I think that things have

            2  come to a point in time where we really have to

            3  challenge ourselves to do the most that we can with our

            4  technology, and we have to hold ourselves to higher

            5  standards.  I would encourage you to go to the third

            6  decimal point on measurements because we can, we should.

            7                 I have had the good fortune of good

            8  health all my life and never really gave a second

            9  breath, if you will, to thinking about ozone until last

           10  fall when my nephew was playing Friday night football at

           11  one of the local schools.  And, of course, the family

           12  all turned out.

           13                 As I left for the game that evening, I --

           14  I became aware of the ozone notice that we were under.

           15  And the air was of bad quality that night, and I was

           16  dismayed later in the evening to notice my nearly

           17  80-year-old dad for the first time ever, that I've

           18  noticed it, having a lot of trouble with -- with

           19  breathing, sitting in the stands.

           20                 And so, I -- I began to put the two

           21  things together and think, my God, if you can't even sit

           22  outside on a Friday night and watch a football game,

           23  what is this like for the kids on the field?  This is

           24  something that we really must arrest.

           25                 And the health of the people is very


                                                                    254



            1  important.  Of course, we don't want to see our huge

            2  population increase.  What's going on in Houston, all of

            3  the new people coming in, the children being born here,

            4  and the density of population coming in.  We don't want

            5  to see those become unhealthy populations.

            6                 And we're -- have enough issues with --

            7  with -- with accommodating the density where we're

            8  losing our urban forests and we're losing our trees that

            9  have protected us from heat factors.  And we're looking

           10  so much now at -- as we dense up, in -- in order to --

           11  to minimize commute miles, what we're creating all over

           12  inner city Houston are urban heat islands where we've

           13  got heat factor.  I would think, you know, adding to the

           14  potential for the ozone accumulation.

           15                 So, we really need to put every effort,

           16  and I would encourage the EPA to adopt the more rigorous

           17  standards and to apply the pressures that you can to

           18  make sure that we don't try to take exception and -- and

           19  say we can't do it because we know in Houston, Texas

           20  that we can do things that are hard to achieve and

           21  require the most diligent and brightest minds to be paid

           22  to -- to pour our attention to it.

           23                 So, I would say don't let us off the

           24  hook, make us make sure that this environment and many

           25  others will be economically viable as healthy


                                                                    255



            1  sustainable places to live for the next hundred years or

            2  so.

            3                 And I would encourage you to adopt the

            4  more stringent standard when it comes to plant life, as

            5  well.  This is a very sensitive habitat here.  People

            6  sometimes look at Houston and say there's no geography

            7  here and there's -- there's no nature.  But our

            8  biosystems -- we're 21 subwatersheds of the San Jacinto

            9  River system.

           10                 We have -- you know, Audubon, when he

           11  first came to Houston, talked about the incredible bird

           12  life that was here and, unfortunately, took many samples

           13  of things that have become, you know, extinct species.

           14  But this is a very rich, natural part of the world and

           15  should continue to be able to be that way if we treat

           16  our environment with the respect and the intelligence

           17  that we can give it.

           18                 So, thank you very much for what you're

           19  doing.

           20                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you very much.

           21                 MS. TALDYKIN:  Good afternoon.  My name

           22  is Melissa Taldykin.  And I'm the director of external

           23  affairs for Consumer Energy Alliance, and I'm pleased

           24  today to testify on behalf of CEA.

           25                 We are a Houston-based, non-profit


                                                                    256



            1  organization that supports the thoughtful utilization

            2  and development of energy resources to help create sound

            3  energy policy and maintain stable energy prices for

            4  consumers.

            5                 Speaking as an advocate for American

            6  consumers, small businesses, and a range of industry

            7  sectors, CEA fully supports any and all EPA policy

            8  decisions that aim to protect consumers and businesses

            9  from an environmental standpoint.  CEA also recognizes

           10  the importance of developing policies that maintain the

           11  most reasonable prices possible for consumers,

           12  businesses, and the manufacturing and agricultural

           13  industries.  As such, CEA feels that any policies

           14  proposed by EPA which will increase consumer costs

           15  should be built on sound science.

           16                 Reducing ozone levels, without tying the

           17  reductions directly to reduced health impacts, could

           18  negatively impact many industries and communities across

           19  America.  Many areas now under attainment are at risk

           20  for falling under non-attainment.  This could place a

           21  significant economic burden on these communities.

           22                 Based on the scientific -- scientific

           23  information that we have reviewed, it appears that

           24  additional ozone studies may be warranted to justify the

           25  cost involved in reducing the ozone levels to those


                                                                    257



            1  proposed by the EPA.  It is necessary that the EPA has a

            2  full understanding of all implications derived from

            3  the -- from the proposed ozone standards.

            4                 CEA is continuing to review the data and

            5  EPA's proposed rule for new standards for ozone, and we

            6  will be submitting detailed comments on the proposed

            7  rule next month.

            8                 Thank you.

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

           10  right.  Another break.

           11                 (Brief recess.)

           12                 MS. WEGMAN:  Good afternoon.  If you

           13  could state your name and affiliation, if you have one,

           14  for the record.

           15                 MS. SCHULTZ:  My name is Mary Schultz.

           16  I'm basically a citizen of Houston, a professional

           17  social worker, and a member of the Sierra Club.  I'm

           18  here because I learned about it from the Sierra Club,

           19  but I have a lot of experience just living in this city.

           20  So, that's my main motivation for wanting to say a few

           21  words.  And I wrote it down, so I'm sorry.  I know

           22  you've been hearing the same thing, but I'll try to read

           23  it very carefully or --

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's quite all right.

           25                 MS. SCHULTZ:  Okay.  We are seriously


                                                                    258



            1  concerned about the standards of safe ozone

            2  concentration in the atmosphere because we in Houston

            3  are witnessing, or worse, are experiencing increasing

            4  serious illnesses related to Houston's polluted air.  We

            5  are seeing in this city notable increase in asthma among

            6  children.

            7                 I did a search for information that could

            8  link ozone concentration to air pollution-related

            9  illnesses in Houston -- in the Houston area.  By the

           10  way, as a social worker, my work -- I'm not working

           11  directly with hospital patients, but I have to drive a

           12  five- or six-county area almost every day.  So, I have

           13  plenty of opportunity to experience the pollution and

           14  see it.  And -- and I've been in Houston since 1964, and

           15  I've really seen quite a change in that.  Okay.  So,

           16  that's a lot of where this is coming from.

           17                 I'll mention two of the findings that

           18  seem to point to ozone as a culprit, confirmed by

           19  scientific study, and I would conclude by endorsing the

           20  recommendation of the EPA's own science advisory

           21  committee for decreasing the ozone concentration

           22  standard to that which they recommend.

           23                 Studies by the Collaborative on Health

           24  and the Environment, or CHE, confirm that asthma is

           25  increasing, especially in young children, both in the


                                                                    259



            1  number of people affected and in severity.

            2                 CHE finds, quote, "More and more people

            3  without a family history of asthma are getting the

            4  disease.  The increase in frequency of asthma has been

            5  too fast and too large to be explained by inheritance of

            6  genetic susceptibility.  Changes in gene frequency occur

            7  slowly over many generations, except under highly

            8  unusual circumstances.

            9                 "Since inheritance does not seem to be

           10  responsible for the increased rate of asthma, research

           11  is looking for factors that affect the development of

           12  the immune system in ways that would increase its

           13  sensitivity to the triggers for asthma."

           14                 Okay.  And ozone, according to my

           15  readings from the American Lung Association, does have

           16  that effect of sort of hypersensitizing the tissues of

           17  the lungs.

           18                 Household allergists are unlikely to be

           19  responsible for the increases in asthma.  And this is

           20  another quote.  "There has not been any significant

           21  increase in indoor allergen concentrations during the

           22  last few decades to account for the doubling of asthma

           23  rates during that time.  There are no differences in

           24  asthma rates in dry, cool regions with low levels of

           25  house dust, mites, and fungus compared to warm, humid


                                                                    260



            1  areas where the levels are high.  Studies have not shown

            2  that children with less exposure to these allergens are

            3  any less likely to develop asthma."

            4                 The CHE concludes that the presence of

            5  the triggers has not increased at any rate that could

            6  explain the increased rate of occurrence of asthma,

            7  especially asthma with adverse outcomes.  That means

            8  worse outcomes.  You know, special -- need for special

            9  equipment and so on.

           10                 What makes ozone a major culprit in the

           11  increasing number of children and adults suffering with

           12  lung diseases is ozone's effect of sensitizing lung

           13  tissue to triggers of the environment.  While some types

           14  of outdoor air pollution are decreasing, ozone and fine

           15  particle pollution from diesel engine exhaust are

           16  ongoing or increasing problems, both in the U.S. and

           17  other countries and other regions where asthma is on the

           18  rise.

           19                 Kids who engage frequently in sports

           20  activities in areas of high ozone have an increased

           21  risk.  Diesel exhaust, for example, appears to change

           22  some immune cells to a type that is linked to the

           23  development of asthma.  So, it -- it is -- a lot of it

           24  is an immune deficient -- it's in that immune deficiency

           25  continuum.  And kids growing up along streets with heavy


                                                                    261



            1  truck traffic are more likely to have asthma-related

            2  respiratory symptoms.

            3                 Exposure to secondhand smoke before and

            4  after birth is linked to asthma risk.  But if this were

            5  a large factor, asthma rates should be declining because

            6  fewer people smoke.

            7                 The American Lung Association, the other

            8  source I was using, states that ozone, quote, "oxidizes

            9  with internal body tissues," having an effect similar to

           10  "sunburn on the lungs." The American Lung Association --

           11                 (Beeping).

           12                 Is that five minutes?

           13                 MS. WEGMAN:  It -- it is five minutes,

           14  but we don't have any other speakers.  So, if you do

           15  want to go on a little longer, that's all right.

           16                 MS. SCHULTZ:  I was looking for my yellow

           17  light.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  I'm sorry.  Yeah.

           19                 MS. SCHULTZ:  All right.  Let me just

           20  kind of cut to the chase here.

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  You're fine.

           22                 MS. SCHULTZ:  Okay.  What I'll say here

           23  is that I'm speaking today as a concerned citizen on

           24  behalf of my own family and for the many other families

           25  I have seen in my social work practice in this


                                                                    262



            1  metropolitan area.  The EPA has opened an opportunity to

            2  improve one known health risk within its scope of

            3  influence, and that is to improve the ozone standard,

            4  which is now known to be a continuing risk at its

            5  current .08 parts per million.

            6                 The EPA's own Clean Air Scientific

            7  Advisory Committee has already given the EPA scientific

            8  evidence for a standard of .060 to .070 ppm as necessary

            9  to make the public safe from ozone effects in our air.

           10  The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to follow the latest

           11  scientific evidence setting the ozone concentration.

           12                 I am here to urge the adoption of the

           13  ozone health standard explicitly -- to explicitly

           14  include the margin of safety required by the Clean Air

           15  Act, which requires the EPA to protect sensitive

           16  populations that respond at lower concentrations than

           17  healthy adults and to follow the latest scientific

           18  evidence.  I want to see the EPA heal -- I want to see

           19  the EPA adopt the recommended concentration level of .06

           20  to .07 parts per million.

           21                 Thank you for your attention to that.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           23                 MS. SCHULTZ:  Were there any questions or

           24  anything?

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  I don't think so.  If you


                                                                    263



            1  have any, you know, scientific information that you

            2  found in your search that you want to submit to us, you

            3  can do that separately.

            4                 MS. SCHULTZ:  I have a couple of Web

            5  pages that I used.  I'll put that in with my -- with my

            6  comments.

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.  Okay.  And if you

            8  have written comments and want to leave them with our

            9  court reporter, you can do that.

           10                 MS. SCHULTZ:  I'll do that.  Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you very much

           12  for coming.

           13                 MS. SCHULTZ:  Okay.  Thank you.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  All right.  Ready?

           15                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Mr. Ziesmer?

           16                 MR. ZIESMER:  Yeah, Ziesmer.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  Ziesmer, yeah.

           18                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Are you going to do a --

           19  present a PowerPoint presentation?

           20                 MR. ZIESMER:  I'm not going to do a

           21  PowerPoint presentation, but my prepared remarks are on

           22  my computer.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's fine.

           24                 MR. ZIESMER:  So, I need to be able to

           25  read it.


                                                                    264



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  And if you can, when

            2  you're ready, just state your name and spell your last

            3  name for our court reporter.

            4                 MR: ZIESMER:  Sure.  My name is Ben

            5  Ziesmer, Z-I-E-S-M-E-R, and I'm a registered

            6  professional engineer.  I'm speaking as a citizen of the

            7  Houston area.  I first became aware that I had asthma

            8  when I was 10 years old, and I continue to suffer from

            9  asthma today.  Moreover, two of my children suffer from

           10  asthma.  I am also speak -- speaking based on the

           11  experience of my wife who has worked for many years as a

           12  registered nurse in -- in an emergency room.

           13                 First point I'd like to make is I believe

           14  the EPA has not adequately explained to the public that

           15  about half of ozone is due to natural causes.  And this

           16  failure to fully publicize the natural causes leaves the

           17  public with the mistaken impression that ozone is

           18  primarily due to manmade causes.

           19                 Second, it should be pointed out, as you

           20  well know, that this new standard is not necessary for

           21  Houston's air quality to improve since Houston is

           22  currently not in compliance with the National Ambient

           23  Air Quality Standards for Ozone.  And the air -- area is

           24  obligated to continue to implement new air pollution

           25  control measures to achieve the existing standard.


                                                                    265



            1  Houston is not unique.  We are talking about a national

            2  standard.

            3                 Currently, engineering construction firms

            4  and air pollution equipment manufacturers are swamped

            5  with work retrofitting pollution control equipment as a

            6  result of the EPA announcing and promulgating the Clean

            7  Air Interstate Rule.  We have not -- since this

            8  equipment has not even been installed and operational

            9  yet, we do not know what the impact of these -- this

           10  tremendous pollution control investment is going to have

           11  on public health.

           12                 Third, it seems like we all accept a

           13  priority that this pollution control regulation is worth

           14  the cost to society.  I am not talking about jobs versus

           15  health.  What I'm talking without is since this

           16  regulation is being justified on the basis of public

           17  health, it needs to be evaluated as a public health

           18  issue.  Is a stricter NAAQS for ozone really the best

           19  way to spend our public health dollars?

           20                 I am confident that public health

           21  professionals, given a choice between this regulation

           22  and the cost of this regulation as cash to spend as they

           23  see fit, would choose the cash.  For example, it could

           24  be shown that equipping every police vehicle with

           25  automatic external defibrillators would save thousands


                                                                    266



            1  of lives per year.  This is real and tangible compared

            2  to the ephemeral health savings from reduced ozone

            3  concentration.

            4                 Since 1990, ozone concentrations and

            5  emissions of concentrated pollutants have decreased

            6  markedly.  Yet, the incidence rate of asthma has

            7  doubled.  Nobody knows why asthma incidence rates are

            8  increasing.  It is doubtful that further decreasing

            9  emissions of ozone precursors will cause the asthma --

           10  asthma incidence rate trend to reverse.

           11                 One definition of insanity is for someone

           12  to keep doing the same things and expect different

           13  results.  Yet, the EPA and our politicians continue to

           14  implement stricter ambient air quality standards, even

           15  though asthma incident rates have increased as air

           16  pollution levels have decreased.

           17                 One of the problems we have is the EPA

           18  has only one way to address health concerns.  That's

           19  with regulations.  That's a hammer.  As the saying goes,

           20  when all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks

           21  like a nail.

           22                 Thank you.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  I -- excuse me.

           24  You stated that half of ozone is due to natural causes,

           25  and I just wanted to ask you if you have any


                                                                    267



            1  studies or -- or what the basis is for that.

            2                 MR. ZIESMER:  If you look in your own Web

            3  site, detailed on the EPA, it will say that.

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, I -- I don't think it

            5  will say that as a national matter.  It might be true in

            6  some areas, but I think --

            7                 MR. ZIESMER:  Well, there's, I think,

            8  quite a bit of controversy about what is and isn't

            9  natural.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Uh-huh.

           11                 MR. ZIESMER:  One of the things that we

           12  see is that it was half when we had a .08 standard.

           13  It's always half.  It's always half.  And I have a

           14  problem with that.

           15                 Another point I would make is I am aware

           16  of some areas that are not industrialized areas that

           17  have had very high ozone concentrations.  For example,

           18  Poynette, Wisconsin, well -- routinely, well above,

           19  historically, the National Ambient Air Quality

           20  Standards.  So, let's stop pretending that the only

           21  thing that causes National Ambient Air Quality Standards

           22  for ozone to be exceeded is industrial pollution.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you for your

           24  testimony.  Any questions?

           25                 MR. DIGGS:  Would there be a certain


                                                                    268



            1  level that you would recommend or to stay --

            2                 MR. ZIESMER:  I think you should say

            3  right where you are now, and we should not be spending

            4  our money on this.

            5                 What aggravates me so much is -- my wife

            6  has worked for years in an emergency room.  Poor people

            7  come in and they have kids suffering tremendously from

            8  asthma attacks, but all they can get is emergency

            9  treatment.  They can't get any continuing treatment.

           10  There is no money for that.  We act as if ozone is the

           11  only reason that people get asthma.  Almost every

           12  asthmatic I know has other things that cause the asthma,

           13  generally allergies.

           14                 For poor people, they don't even know

           15  what they are because they can't get the testing paid

           16  for.  They can't get treatment.  I am confident that

           17  instead of blowing all this money on this ephemeral

           18  possible savings with ozones, if this money was instead

           19  spent to allow poor people to get really good,

           20  continuing medical care to deal with asthma, they would

           21  be much better off and emergency room people wouldn't be

           22  sitting there treating the same problem time and time

           23  again on an emergency basis.  I am tired of us spending

           24  our money the wrong way.

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you for your


                                                                    269



            1  testimony.  Thank you for coming in.

            2                 (Brief pause.)

            3                 MR. PAVEL:  Hello.  My name is Steve

            4  Pavel, and I'm now a chemistry teacher.  I used to be

            5  a -- in refining for over 20 years.  I have a couple of

            6  patents that include catalytic cracking technologies,

            7  handling heavy hazardous and poisonous metals.  I used

            8  to use the most toxic materials known, hydrogen sulfide

            9  and chlorine --

           10                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.  I

           11  need you to slow down for me.  You've got -- you're

           12  turned away from me.

           13                 MR. PAVEL:  I've just got five minutes.

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's okay.

           15                 MR. PAVEL:  That's my introduction.

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  All right.

           17                 MR. PAVEL:  Okay.  So, I come to -- I

           18  come to the table with a bit of background from the

           19  people that are against lowering the standard.

           20                 I say lower it down to 60, make the

           21  decision to protect the public health, to save lives,

           22  lower healthcare costs, insurance rates, and taxes for

           23  individuals and families.

           24                 And then the other option is to keep the

           25  standard at 80, as industrial point sources request,


                                                                    270



            1  with millions spent on lobbying, to irreparably harm

            2  human lungs and increase premature death and increase

            3  family healthcare costs and insurance, increase taxes to

            4  cover those others not covered otherwise, and perpetuate

            5  America's healthcare crisis.

            6                 Tough choice.  Not for juniors in high

            7  school, I can tell you.  They've reviewed this.  They

            8  didn't understand why an adult had to say this to other

            9  adults.  Currently, the ozone standard of 80 parts per

           10  billion, 84 by rounding, which, on the surveys, is

           11  unacceptable.

           12                 And then I just looked to the Thoracic

           13  Society that said it very much better than I could,

           14  "Unhealthy for America's kids, unhealthy for America's

           15  seniors, and unhealthy for America."  So, I certainly

           16  agree with that, especially with the growing prevalence

           17  of asthma and COPD in nonsmokers.

           18                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.

           19  Especially with what?

           20                 MR. PAVEL:  Asthma and COPD in

           21  nonsmokers.  COPD.

           22                 THE REPORTER:  You said something before

           23  asthma and --

           24                 MR. PAVEL:  Especially?  Okay.

           25                 And then the American Lung Association


                                                                    271



            1  statement, which I thought said it very well, as well,

            2  so I just included that.  I'm sure that people have seen

            3  this, and I know they've had presenters already, which I

            4  totally agree with.

            5                 Corporations, trade organizations,

            6  SuperGroups, I call them, campaign-funded elected and

            7  appointed officials are opposed to decreasing the

            8  standard to health professional recommendation of

            9  60 parts per billion.

           10                 And, again, we have a quote from the

           11  National Association of Manufacturers.  They said that

           12  the standard hasn't been fully implemented, that it

           13  would cost a hundred billion.  And the EPA has remarks

           14  to consider a regulation's economic impact is forbidden,

           15  but the arguments against these standards are

           16  scientific, as well as economic, and the current

           17  standard is working and continues to protect human

           18  health.

           19                 However, the National Association of

           20  Manufacturers campaigned to reduce healthcare costs, big

           21  campaign, without making any effort to reduce the source

           22  of the afflictions burdening the families and the

           23  healthcare system.

           24                 Who wants to keep the 80 parts per

           25  billion and put 84 into the public air shed and continue


                                                                    272



            1  to harm the public health and increase government

            2  spending?  One SuperGroup in the docket included

            3  everybody from the American Automobile Manufacturers,

            4  American Chemical Council -- Chemistry Council, Coke,

            5  Iron and Steel, American -- API, Trucking, Corn

            6  Refiners, Electric -- Edison Electric, which is the big

            7  electrical guys, and the NAM, who might actually include

            8  pharmaceuticals.

            9                 And I haven't had a chance to research

           10  that yet, but it would appear that the people who sell

           11  the pharmaceuticals to relieve the symptoms of asthma,

           12  if they're a part of that group, have a big conflict of

           13  interest.  Hey, let's promote more illness.

           14                 National Petroleum & Refiners

           15  Association, which I attended many meetings.  Portland

           16  Cement --

           17                 THE REPORTER:  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  I

           18  seriously need you to slow down for me.

           19                 MR. PAVEL:  Okay.  I don't have much.

           20  It's quick.

           21                 Okay.  National Petroleum & Refiners

           22  Association, which we have a lot of; and the Portland

           23  Cement Association, which is a huge source of nitrous

           24  oxide and other toxics.  And the U.S. Chamber of

           25  Commerce, interestingly enough, would rather see it 80


                                                                    273



            1  parts per billion.  And the Utility Air Regulatory

            2  Group, another electrical group.

            3                 Now, on the other side, should we follow

            4  the healthcare professionals or industrial point source

            5  healthcare opinion?  Gosh, this is a tough choice.  It's

            6  just a high school senior choice.

            7                 Your family member is afflicted with

            8  respiratory distress, shortness of breath, pains in the

            9  chest, asthmatic or COPD symptoms.  Do you take them to

           10  the physician, the emergency room, or to the local

           11  filling station?  Do you go to a full-service,

           12  mechanic-staffed branded station or a convenience store?

           13                 Would you trust the E -- electric --

           14  Edison Electric Institute, American Chemical Council,

           15  NPRA, API, NAM, for critical care treatment or

           16  healthcare advice for your child, elder or self?  And

           17  are these organizations paying for your family's

           18  healthcare costs that are due to their emissions?  And

           19  are these organizations concerned about your family's

           20  health?  Just curious.

           21                 Well, there's been -- this is -- as I've

           22  gone through the docket and read the 234 pages from the

           23  API and every one of the pieces of paper that have come

           24  out -- and it's excellent work that's done.  I have to

           25  give great credit to the EPA and all the excellent work


                                                                    274



            1  that they've done.  And when I read the API, it seems it

            2  just reads about the same, and their paid people do the

            3  very same thing as they did with the PM2.5s and, no

            4  doubt, the CO2 and whatever else comes up.

            5                 And I remember when we had to change out

            6  the lead that was poisoning our kids' brains, they said

            7  that they'd be going broke.  And I was part of the

            8  people putting lead into the gasoline to the absolute

            9  max.

           10                 Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  You can -- you can take

           12  another minute, if you want to finish up.

           13                 MR. PAVEL:  Oh, okay.  Sure.

           14                 So, anyway, there's a lot of mass

           15  campaigns -- there are, like, 33,000 -- I counted 34,000

           16  people that have submitted documents, but they are just

           17  called mass campaign comments.  Mine never is,

           18  obviously.

           19                 Point sources, we've got a lot of point

           20  sources around.

           21                 Ozone to receptors.  Can we believe the

           22  people that underestimate their VOCs by factors of

           23  hundreds?  These are the same people that are saying

           24  keep it at 80, and they would supersede healthcare

           25  professional opinions down -- for downwinders.


                                                                    275



            1                 Ozone affects everyone downwind.

            2                 We've got a windrose.  This is Houston's

            3  over a period of time.  Not very good, but that's what

            4  it is.  Comes from the southeast.

            5                 There's our monitors.  There's a closeup

            6  of the monitors.

            7                 I happen to live up by the very top

            8  corner, up in Kingwood/Humble.  And blank.  And then

            9  there they are again.  And then I just started going

           10  through the TCEQ.  Excellent work the TCEQ's done in --

           11  on the --

           12                 Let's go.  It's a little slow.  Sorry.  I

           13  put it together on a fast machine.  Sorry.

           14                 Well, anyway, if we did -- every one of

           15  these has an animation, and every one of these

           16  animations comes out with a --

           17                 Gosh, come on.  There -- okay.  There's

           18  one, at least, there showing.

           19                 And then all of them come from the Ship

           20  Channel.  All of them emanate from the Ship Channel.  If

           21  you put the stuff in the air, it has to have time to

           22  react with the VOC and the NOx.

           23                 And by the time it gets there, some kid

           24  over there is trying to take a test, and he's got 145

           25  parts per billion of ozone.  And somebody down here has


                                                                    276



            1  got a 59.  I don't think that's fair.  We've got kids

            2  that are on standardized tests, and they have a

            3  disadvantage in the force ex -- exhalated -- expiratory

            4  volume.  Their brain power is diminished by poison.

            5  Ozone is one of those poisons.

            6                 I can bring an ozone generator here and

            7  shove it into, you know, an NPRA or API face and say,

            8  Hey, you know, let's go up to your 80 parts per billion

            9  right now, in this short of time, like this.  We'll just

           10  pump it right up, level you out so your eight-hour

           11  average is under.  None of them have wanted to take me

           12  up on the offer.

           13                 I did the same thing on PM2.5s.  Nobody

           14  wants that either.  They're a little smarter than that.

           15                 Anyway, all these -- oh, yeah, Deer Park

           16  is the other place it comes out of.  And down here we

           17  have -- the hump over there, that's Texas City.

           18                 And if these animations were actually

           19  flowing, you'd see they're all coming out of there.

           20  This one actually sort of started out.  It comes out

           21  over the island.  There's another one.

           22                 See, if you live over in this area of

           23  town, you're really getting hit hard.  It happens to

           24  come from the south, southwest.  I live in the north and

           25  every now and then we get it, and it's pretty nasty.


                                                                    277



            1  Some of these -- these are animations.  See, they're all

            2  coming from there.

            3                 And so the governor says, Oh, well, we

            4  can shut down the Ship Channel.  It wouldn't make any

            5  difference.  Well, that's false.

            6                 There's one at -- it's Aldine, a

            7  beautiful -- Aldine-Westfield High School is right in

            8  that path, and Mercer Arboretum is just missed there.

            9  There's another one down in the south.

           10                 So, anyway, I had a batch of these things

           11  that just went through the history of our -- our

           12  situation.  So, you know, high school juniors, they

           13  think you could shut down the Ship Channel and fairly

           14  well stop all those, but it doesn't take much.

           15                 Thank you very much.  I appreciate the

           16  chance to present.

           17                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           18                 MR. PAVEL:  And I really think it's a

           19  great that y'all got out and -- did you do the same

           20  thing with PM2.5s, and I just got into it late?

           21                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, we did have public

           22  hearings.  We did propose and take final action on --

           23                 MR. PAVEL:  Oh, yeah, yeah.  The -- in

           24  the NPRA comments, they remind the Administrator it

           25  doesn't matter what anybody says, it's his decision.


                                                                    278



            1  It's just like he did in the PM2.5.

            2                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.  Yeah, we did have --

            3  we only had three public hearings for the PM.  We've

            4  had -- we're having five on ozone.

            5                 MR. PAVEL:  Yeah, well, I'm very glad to

            6  have you all here.

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, thank you.

            8                 MR. PAVEL:  Thank you very much for

            9  taking the time to reach out.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you for coming out and

           11  providing this PowerPoint for us.

           12                 MR. PAVEL:  Well, it wasn't finished,

           13  kind of cobbled together.

           14                 MS. CORTELYOU:  And do we have a copy of

           15  your PowerPoint?

           16                 MR. PAVEL:  Do we?  Oh, you mean a hard

           17  copy?  Well, it's mostly a video.

           18                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Well, just give an

           19  electronic copy to the ladies at the registration table.

           20                 MR. PAVEL:  Okay.  Yeah, sure.

           21                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Thank you.

           22                 MR. PAVEL:  Thank you.

           23                 MS. WEGMAN:  Are there other folks here

           24  who would like to speak at this point?

           25                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Yes.


                                                                    279



            1                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.

            2                 MS. CORTELYOU:  Thank you.

            3                 MS. WEGMAN:  Rosalia Guerrero and Kevin

            4  Farnham.  And just so newcomers know, we ask two people

            5  to come forward, if Kevin Farnham is here, and each

            6  person will -- will get five minutes.  And we have a

            7  timer.

            8                 MS. GUERRERO:  Ping, instead of gong.

            9                 MS. WEGMAN:  How about that?

           10                 MS. GUERRERO:  You go ahead and go.

           11                 MR. FARNHAM:  No, you can go ahead.

           12                 MS. GUERRERO:  Good afternoon.  My name

           13  is Rosalia Guerrero-Luera, and I am an outreach

           14  coordinator for Mothers for Clean Air.  That basically

           15  means I work with families, mothers, children.  I work

           16  in the schools and the churches mainly in Southeast

           17  Houston along the Ship Channel.  And basically I'm here

           18  today to speak for a lot of the families that I work

           19  with.

           20                 The air is a concern of theirs and the

           21  environment, in general.  We have a burgeoning young

           22  population, mainly Hispanic, in Southeast Houston who

           23  many times has difficulty interfacing with agencies.

           24  And opportunities to speak like this can be

           25  opportunities to us.  Sometimes it's scary for them.


                                                                    280



            1  So, so, I come -- I come to speak for them.

            2                 I do understand the importance of this

            3  issue.  We -- that's part of my job is to educate them

            4  on the points on the science of a lot of our regulations

            5  and how things work.  Also, I think one of the things

            6  that's been mentioned throughout the day, and you might

            7  hear it, is that there's burdens to the community,

            8  burdens to industry.

            9                 But I'm just here to say that a lot of

           10  these -- some of these burdens can be dealt with

           11  financially with money, with technology.  But I speak

           12  for a community that already has certain burdens that

           13  they really cannot deal economically and will have to --

           14  whatever comes out of this, whatever environment they

           15  must live in, they'll have to deal with that for the

           16  rest of their lives and for the rest of their children's

           17  lives.

           18                 And they do not have either the money or

           19  the technology to invest in creating a better

           20  environment for their children because usually the

           21  comment I get is they live in the region that they're at

           22  because that's all they can afford.  And, unfortunately,

           23  they can afford that because other people have the

           24  opportunity to move away from the Ship -- Ship Channel

           25  and maybe go into other places even within Houston or


                                                                    281



            1  within Harris County where they don't have to deal with

            2  the brunt of -- of some of these issues -- with these

            3  environmental issues.

            4                 So, I just really came to speak out for

            5  them.  And we did see some of them during the day, but

            6  like I said, this can be a scary process for them.  But

            7  they're doing the best they can for -- for their

            8  families and for the schools.  I do work with a lot of

            9  educators, and they're very -- they're very supportive

           10  on this issue.

           11                 So, I just, you know, again just ask that

           12  the EPA do as much as they can to actually make stricter

           13  regulations.  I do understand that sometimes they can

           14  say, Well, we're not making it as it is.  We can't get

           15  any more stricter.  But I really think that if we all

           16  work together, we can actually meet any kind of

           17  standards as a community, including industry and

           18  non-profits and families.  And we can all work together

           19  to meet those -- those guidelines, but we really need

           20  the EPA to take the leadership on that.

           21                 Thank you very much.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

           23                 MR. FARNHAM:  Hi, my name is Kevin

           24  Farnham, and I'm a fourth-year medical student at Baylor

           25  College of Medicine, and I wish to pursue internal


                                                                    282



            1  medicine training.  And then subsequently I completed a

            2  fellowship in allergy and immunology, and I wish to

            3  treat the growing prevalence of asthma in the United

            4  States.

            5                 Data from the CCI has shown the

            6  prevalence of asthma has increased in the U.S.  From

            7  1982 to 1992, the overall annual age just of prevalence

            8  rate of self-reported asthma increased by 42 percent.

            9  And for the younger age group, from 5 to 34 years, the

           10  diagnosis of asthma is thought to be more accurate.  The

           11  rate increased from 34.6 to 52.6 per 1,000, an increase

           12  of 52 percent.

           13                 And most of the U.S. mortality

           14  hospitalization rates continue to increase.  During the

           15  period from 1980 to 1993, the annual age specific asthma

           16  death rate increased 118 percent.  In the same period,

           17  the annual hospital -- hospitalization rate for asthma

           18  among persons aged from 0 to 24 years increased

           19  28 percent.

           20                 There are several explanations for these

           21  trends.  Increased commission of public awareness and

           22  signs and symptoms of asthma could have led to a change

           23  in diagnostic recognition accuracy, but numerous,

           24  numerous papers say it's very, very likely that changes

           25  in risk factors thought to cause and worsen asthma are


                                                                    283



            1  responsible for much of the increase in the asthma

            2  prevalence.

            3                 An important risk factor is environmental

            4  ozone layers.  Ozone is a serious threat causing and

            5  exacerbating asthma and other respiratory diseases.

            6  It's a powerful respiratory barrier that can cause

            7  coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, and pain

            8  when inhaling deeply.

            9                 Breathing ozone harms the respiratory

           10  health at levels of exposure below the current

           11  standards.  Research has shown that increased

           12  hospitalizations and ER visits following exposures to

           13  ozone concentrations lower than .08 parts per million

           14  and that even at concentrations as low as .06 parts per

           15  million can reduce lung function in healthy adult

           16  subjects.

           17                 So, this science supports a stronger

           18  standard.  The current standard is clearly inadequate.

           19  After extensive review, the Clean Air Scientific

           20  Advisory Committee unanimously concluded that there is

           21  no scientific justification for retaining the current

           22  primary eight-hour NAAQS of .08 parts per million.  And

           23  the EPA staff scientists also have stated that the

           24  overall body of evidence clearly -- clearly calls into

           25  question the adequacy of the current standard.


                                                                    284



            1                 So, the proposed revision to the ozone

            2  standard ignores the recommendations of its science

            3  advisors and does not go far enough to protect public

            4  health.  The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee

            5  recommends strengthening the ozone standard to within

            6  the range of .06 parts per million to .07 parts per

            7  million.  And EPA's proposal of .07 to .075, it barely

            8  touches the top end of this range.

            9                 And in order to protect the health of

           10  children, the elderly, and other sensitive groups, the

           11  EPA should set the ozone standard at the low end of the

           12  CASAC recommended range of .06 parts per million.

           13  There's strong consensus among the medical, nursing,

           14  scientific, and public health committees that EPA's

           15  proposed standard would remain inadequate to promote

           16  public health and must be substantially strengthened.

           17                 And this is an issue of -- just moral

           18  issue because there's also strong consistent evidence

           19  showing that breathing ozone can result in death.  And

           20  ozone exposure increases the risk of death even at

           21  levels of exposure, again, below the current EPA

           22  proposal.

           23                 So, I -- I -- I can say from a personal

           24  standpoint that, you know, we are seeing a lot of as --

           25  kids with -- asthmatics, not only with asthma but


                                                                    285



            1  difficult to treat asthma.  And -- and I believe

            2  strongly that it is very well known in the community

            3  that the increase in risk factors, specifically the

            4  ozone levels and the pollutants, is contributing

            5  significantly to this, and we need to try to abate this

            6  asthma, sort of, epidemic by, I think, aggressively

            7  reducing the -- the ozone levels in any way we can

            8  possible.

            9                 So, thank you.

           10                 MR. DIGGS:  Thank you.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  And if you do

           12  know of any studies -- any scientific studies that do --

           13  that we haven't included in our record that shows how

           14  ozone contributes to the exacerbation of asthma, we

           15  would be interested in receiving it.

           16                 MR. FARNHAM:  Sure.  I don't have the

           17  actual census.  I wish I did, but I can -- if I get your

           18  e-mail or something.

           19                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah, actually outside at

           20  the registration table there's a form that tells you how

           21  to e-mail comments to us.  So, if you have them, you can

           22  send them.

           23                 MR. FARNHAM:  Okay.  Thank you.

           24                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you very much for

           25  coming.


                                                                    286



            1                 At this point, we're going to take a

            2  dinner break, and we'll be back at -- at 7:30 to take

            3  any other testimony that people want to offer, unless

            4  there's anybody here who wants to speak now.  Okay.

            5  Thank you.

            6                 (Dinner recess.)

            7                    EVENING SESSION PANEL

            8   Jan Cortelyou     Lydia Wegman     Alison Davis

            9                 MS. WEGMAN:  Good evening.  And thank you

           10  for coming to our evening session on the proposed ozone

           11  standards.  We very much appreciate the time you're

           12  taking to come and speak to us about the standards.

           13  This is a public hearing to take your comments on our

           14  proposed ozone rule, and we have three folks here to

           15  take your comments.

           16                 My name is Lydia Wegman.  I'm the

           17  director of the Health and Environmental Impacts

           18  Division in the Office of Air Quality Planning and

           19  Standards, which is part of EPA's Office of Air and

           20  Radiation.  And Jan Cortelyou, to my right, is one of

           21  our communication folks in the Office of Air Quality

           22  Planning and Standards, and Alison Davis is with our

           23  Office of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C.  And we are

           24  here and prepared to stay as long as we need to tonight

           25  to take all your comments.


                                                                    287



            1                 I'll just note that our proposed ozone

            2  rule was published in the "Federal Register" on July

            3  11th.  We are taking public comments for 90 days, and

            4  the public comment period closes on October 9th.  So, if

            5  you or anyone you know who want -- wants to submit

            6  comments to us, you can do so by e-mail or mail them to

            7  us, and there's information at the registration desk on

            8  how to submit comments.  And just please do so by

            9  October 9th if you're interested in doing that.

           10                 We have a proposal on both the health or

           11  primary standard for ozone and on the welfare or

           12  secondary standard.  We are proposing to strengthen the

           13  current standard, which is 84 parts per billion, to

           14  between 70 and 75 parts per billion.  The Administrator

           15  of EPA has proposed that the current standard of

           16  84 parts per billion is not sufficient to protect public

           17  health with an adequate margin of safety.  We're also

           18  taking comment on a broader range of 60 parts per

           19  billion to 84 parts per billion, 84 parts per billion

           20  being the current standard.

           21                 In the case of the welfare or secondary

           22  standard, we're taking comments on two options.  One is

           23  to establish a distinct secondary standard, a cumulative

           24  seasonal standard known as a W126.  We proposed a range

           25  there of 7 to 21 parts per million hours.  And we're


                                                                    288



            1  also taking comment on the option of keeping the

            2  secondary standard and the primary standard the same,

            3  which is the way they currently are.

            4                 With that, I think we'll start the -- the

            5  testimony.  Just some information on how we're going to

            6  make this work.  We have a timer, and everybody who

            7  speaks has five minutes.  When you start speaking, the

            8  green light will go on.  And after four minutes, a

            9  yellow light will come on, letting you know you have one

           10  minute left to speak, and then the red light.  And then

           11  we would ask that you try to wrap up your statement if

           12  you're still speaking at that point.  And we'll be

           13  calling you up in pairs if we do, in fact, have two

           14  people, and we do for the beginning here.

           15                 So, the first two people are Ariel

           16  Thomann and Ashley Streetman.  And we ask that you stay

           17  up at the speaker's table until both of you are finished

           18  speaking.

           19                 DR. THOMANN:  Ladies, thank you for being

           20  here.  It's been a long day for you.  I know about long

           21  days.  My name is Ariel Thomann.  The last name is

           22  spelled T, as in Tom, H-O-M-A-N-N.  I'm a physician.  I

           23  didn't even know that I was going to be able to get here

           24  this evening so I'm just -- I didn't have a -- an actual

           25  prepared presentation.


                                                                    289



            1                 The first thing is -- that I want to say

            2  is ozone is bad for health.  You know that.  You've

            3  heard it all day long, I'm sure, in any number of ways.

            4  And it's important that we help human health.

            5                 And then as I look at some of the

            6  arguments that I have heard about, you know, not being

            7  too harsh on industry, smoking bans have not bankrupted

            8  the hospitality industry.  We keep hearing that that

            9  would be the effect of smoking bans.  And Houston, just

           10  a few days ago, took the final step.  And I -- I

           11  understand that the hospitality industry is just doing

           12  fine, and people's health is benefitting in the process.

           13                 Lowering ozone standards will not

           14  bankrupt the industries either.  If anything, indirectly

           15  or directly, it would help decrease fossil fuel

           16  consumption and help slow down the problems with global

           17  climate disruption that we hear so much about.

           18                 Now, I'm a little concerned about the

           19  fact that for the last several years there have been

           20  misnamed laws that are damaging the nation in many ways.

           21  Pure water and clean air are misnomers.  They have

           22  resulted in the opposite.  And I guess I would just say

           23  that Bobby Kennedy, Jr. can, you know, spell it out in

           24  hard -- greater detail if -- if need be.

           25                 There's -- there's an element of -- of


                                                                    290



            1  misdirection.  The EPA, itself, indirectly injured

            2  emergency workers in New York after 9-11.  That's become

            3  very clear.  And that was done semi-deliberately for

            4  political reasons.  Mining safety, which has been in the

            5  headlines in the last few weeks again, is not what it

            6  could be.

            7                 OSHA failed to do its job in Texas City,

            8  and we're all very well aware of that here.  OSHA got --

            9  well, the refinery, BP, got raked over the coals.  OSHA

           10  was raked over the coals.  They said, Well, we -- we

           11  couldn't inspect because we don't have enough

           12  inspectors.  Why don't you have enough inspectors?

           13  Well, because we don't have enough money.

           14                 Which takes me to, I think, the -- the

           15  primary source of the misdirection.  My opinion is that

           16  some six years ago our compassionate-in-chief probably

           17  told all of these various agencies, Leave the big boys

           18  alone.  They're my buddies.  They need to make a buck.

           19  Never mind the collateral damage.

           20                 So, let me just close by saying that

           21  there's a -- an expression that you're familiar with.  I

           22  don't think I have seen it used in this context, again,

           23  with what little reading I've been able to do, and that

           24  is lowest achievable level.  And if industry has to pay

           25  the price, so be it.  We will pay the price because


                                                                    291



            1  they'll jack up the prices and force us to use less of

            2  what they sell.  Lowest achievable level, and then some.

            3                 Thank you.

            4                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.

            5                 Any questions?

            6                 (No response.)

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  Thank you.

            8                 MS. DAVIS:  Thank you very much.

            9                 MS. STREETMAN:  Hi, my name is Ashley

           10  Streetman.  Thanks for coming out tonight.  We really

           11  appreciate it, especially from central Houston.

           12                 I came really to talk about my experience

           13  as a Houston resident.  I think you met my 7-month-old

           14  son a little bit earlier as you came in.  He's actually

           15  an eighth generation Texas resident.  My family came

           16  here 200 years ago, back when this was Spain, for a

           17  better life, and I think we'll be the generation that

           18  leaves.

           19                 We enjoy living here.  It's not that we

           20  lack opportunity.  Houston is targeted to boom.  Housing

           21  is very affordable.  The people are kind.  We're just

           22  very concerned about the quality of life that our family

           23  would have here.

           24                 My husband likes to jog.  He used to go

           25  running in Memorial Park, which is a large park in the


                                                                    292



            1  city.  He's a healthy man.  He hiked the Appalachian

            2  Trail a year or two ago.  Walked all the way from

            3  Georgia up to Maine.  No issues.

            4                 But he started having respiratory

            5  problems as he was running, some minor.  At one point he

            6  actually thought he was having a heart attack.  He

            7  started experiencing chest pains.  He went to the

            8  emergency room, and they ran tests.  Basically,

            9  everything was fine.

           10                 Finally, one of the doctors, when he

           11  heard that he'd actually been running during rush hour

           12  in Memorial Park, actually started laughing.  They were,

           13  like, Oh, you know, you were running in Houston in the

           14  pollution.

           15                 I -- I think that's obscene.  You know,

           16  Houston, also, often vies for the No. 1 spot as the

           17  fattest city in the country.  Some of it, of course, may

           18  have to do with the weather and other things.  But

           19  Houston really is a wretched place to be outside,

           20  particularly on high ozone days.  Sometimes it's very,

           21  very difficult to breathe.

           22                 I work in human resources here in

           23  Houston, and I struggle to explain away our environment

           24  to prospective candidates who look to come here that

           25  there are great economic opportunities.  A lot of people


                                                                    293



            1  are not interested in living in a fat city with polluted

            2  air.

            3                 My case is interesting.  I'm a

            4  telecommute worker.  I technically could work in any

            5  city, any state, any country.  And I'm at a point where

            6  I just can't justify staying here with my family with

            7  the current levels of pollution, especially after my

            8  husband's experience.

            9                 You know, I often hear arguments about

           10  how better pollution controls would harm business here

           11  in the area.  I don't think that's necessarily true.  I

           12  think we're already paying the cost.  The question is

           13  who is bearing that cost.  And I've often worked with

           14  companies in this area with health insurance in my role

           15  in HR, and you spend a lot of time trying to contain

           16  costs.

           17                 We increase copays.  We reduce benefits.

           18  We do ever so many things, but we just can't seem to get

           19  around the fact that we have environmental factors here

           20  that we have no control over.  And no matter what we do,

           21  we won't be able to address that.  Poor air, poor

           22  health.  Poor health increases costs.  Businesses here

           23  do feel those costs.

           24                 The question has become, is it the

           25  businesses that cause -- is it the business that causes


                                                                    294



            1  the pollution, or are there other businesses here that

            2  are having to pick up those costs, the externalities.  I

            3  find that very disturbing both in my career and as a

            4  citizen in this community.

            5                 Please consider lowering the standard.

            6  Further, I wish you would consider the advisory panel's

            7  recommendation for an even lower standard.  We should

            8  have clean air here.  The air is our commons.  We should

            9  be able to go to the park, to run, to engage in normal

           10  outdoor activities without having to worry about our

           11  health.  We would like to attract and retain talent in

           12  this area.  We would like for companies to come here and

           13  stay here and feel they can attract talent here.

           14                 And then, finally, I would just say that

           15  we ask for your help.  We ask for your help because we

           16  care about our community, we care about our citizens, we

           17  care about our businesses, and perhaps, most

           18  importantly, we care about those that come after us.

           19                 Thank you.

           20                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you very much for

           21  coming out this evening.  We very much appreciate your

           22  comments.  Thank you for bringing your baby.

           23                 Next speakers are Lucy Randel and Jose

           24  Moreno -- Moreno.

           25                 MS. RANDEL:  Hi, my name is Lucy Randel,


                                                                    295



            1  L-U-C-Y, R-A-N-D-E-L.  On behalf of Industry

            2  Professionals for Clean Air, I am submitting comments on

            3  the proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air

            4  Quality Standards for Ozone.

            5                 Industry Professionals for Clean Air,

            6  IPCA, in Houston is a group of professionals with

            7  firsthand knowledge of air pollution issues and

            8  understanding of the relevant technologies for solving

            9  these issues.  IPCA is extremely concerned about the

           10  slow pace in achieving acceptable air quality in our

           11  region and the consequent adverse public health impact.

           12                 Houston's air pollution also threatens

           13  our economy.  As you've just heard from the previous

           14  speaker, we are less attractive to businesses and young

           15  professionals.  I personally made a choice not to move

           16  to Los Angeles 15 years ago because of concern about air

           17  quality.  I later found, to my chagrin, that Houston was

           18  not far behind.

           19                 You've already received numerous comments

           20  urging you to follow the guidance of your Scientific

           21  Advisory Board and enact a standard that is truly

           22  protective of human health, namely, 0.060 ppm.  I

           23  believe you have also heard comments reminding you that

           24  in setting public health standards cost may not be

           25  considered.


                                                                    296



            1                 Nonetheless, certain spokesmen for the

            2  chemical industry have expressed concern that meeting

            3  new standards would be cost prohibitive and result in

            4  plant closures.  These arguments are almost always made

            5  when new regulations are proposed.  Yet, the technical

            6  expertise of our chemical industry is vast and readily

            7  meets new challenges.

            8                 The experience of IPCA members is that --

            9  that there are few, if any, technical problems that a

           10  good engineer cannot solve.  More often, the

           11  intransigence in meeting new standards has more to do

           12  with corporate policies than technical issues or

           13  implementation.  We also find it ironic that industry

           14  made the same argument against the current eight-hour

           15  standard but now endorses it as workable and important

           16  to public health.

           17                 Let me give you an example of reality

           18  silencing the naysayers.  Episodic emissions of

           19  highly-reactive volatile organic compounds, HRVOCs, have

           20  been identified as a contributor to peaks in ozone

           21  levels in the Houston-Galveston area.  Texas enacted

           22  restrictions on HRVOC emissions.  These emissions were

           23  reduced, and despite warnings of dire financial

           24  consequences, our local industry is thriving.

           25                 Another example is reducing waste gas


                                                                    297



            1  flaring, a major source of these episodic emissions.

            2  While maintaining that flaring was the BACT, or best

            3  available control technology, petrochemical plants

            4  around the country entered into consent decrees with EPA

            5  to install flare gas recovery systems.

            6                 Operational procedures were also improved

            7  to minimize non-emergency flaring.  Did these practices

            8  significantly hurt the bottom line for these plants?

            9  No.  In fact, several companies, including Dow Chemical

           10  and Shell Oil, have published papers detailing how they

           11  saved money by minimizing flaring.  Dow Chemical's Light

           12  Hydrocarbons Plant in Freeport, Texas experienced an

           13  89 percent reduction in overall upset flaring, using a

           14  two-year running average.

           15                 Moreover, from 2001 to the end of 2003,

           16  the plant achieved documented savings of $2.5 million.

           17  These reductions and cost savings were accomplished by

           18  optimizing equipment and procedures related to plant

           19  start-up, shutdown, and upsets, and improving overall

           20  plant reliability.  Shell Chemicals in Deer Park, Texas

           21  reduced flaring by 50 percent between 2002 and 2003.

           22  The facility developed a parking mode to reduce feed

           23  rates during upset conditions at its two ethylene units.

           24                 Based on our industry experience, we

           25  believe that air pollution can be achieved -- can be


                                                                    298



            1  reduced at an accelerated pace and at a reasonable cost

            2  with existing technologies.  We urge EPA to enact a

            3  strong standard, protective of human health, that will

            4  force the corporate offices to turn loose their

            5  engineers who will quickly demonstrate why they are the

            6  best in the world.

            7                 MS. WEGMAN:  Thank you.  If you have

            8  references to those published papers about the cost

            9  savings, that would be helpful for us to have.

           10                 MS. RANDEL:  I don't have it with me.

           11                 MS. WEGMAN:  That's fine.  You

           12  can take --

           13                 MS. RANDEL:  Can I --

           14                 MS. WEGMAN:  You can e-mail them to us.

           15                 MS. RANDEL:  Okay.

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  Yeah.

           17                 MS. RANDEL:  Sure.

           18                 MS. WEGMAN:  There's a -- there's a -- a

           19  sheet up front that will tell you how to submit that

           20  information.

           21                 MS. RANDEL:  Okay.  I can do that.

           22                 MS. WEGMAN:  Okay.  And you can just stay

           23  where you are until Mr. --

           24                 MS. RANDEL:  Sure.

           25                 MS. DAVIS:  And if you would leave us --


                                                                    299



            1  if you have a copy of your statement, with us.  Thank

            2  you.

            3                 MR. MORENO:  Hi, my name is Jose Moreno.

            4  I'm a citizen of Houston.  I grew up in the East End,

            5  close to the plants.  I worked in the plants for about

            6  eight years, from '92 to basically almost '99.  As I

            7  worked through these plants, I mean, there were --

            8  there's been, like, explosions, gas releases, I mean,

            9  experiences that I've been through.

           10                 That's what made me get out of

           11  construction into an office.  I always told my wife I

           12  would never work in an office, didn't like it.  I liked

           13  working outside with my hands.  But I had a -- we had an

           14  issue one time.  There was a gas release from the flare

           15  stack.  The flare stack was supposed to burn, but it

           16  didn't.  It leaked out.  And we were downwind.  Instead

           17  of going out, we were downwind.

           18                 The supervisor would tell us, No, you're

           19  fine, you're fine.  And as I looked at my helper, I was,

           20  like, we can't breathe right.  We were, like, you know,

           21  just -- just couldn't breathe.  Well, 250 guys went to

           22  the hospital right here at Hermann, and we were all told

           23  we were fine.

           24                 What I'm trying to figure out is, we're

           25  fine now.  But as we are barely finding out about


                                                                    300



            1  asbestos -- and I can tell you that I've worked in

            2  asbestos before, too, and I'm pretty sure, you know,

            3  without masks.  I'm going to be honest.  And, you know,

            4  when you're young, you feel like nothing can, you know,

            5  hurt you.

            6                 We need more -- I mean, I appreciate you

            7  thinking about bringing it more down, and I hope you

            8  bring it even more.  Like I said, right, I was exposed.

            9  Now, I was fine.  They say I was fine.  But am I?  How

           10  many more years will I be fine?  I mean -- I mean, like

           11  I said, asbestos -- asbestos, we're just finding out

           12  what the cause and effects it's doing to people now.

           13                 The fumes from the welding rods, we're

           14  just finding out about those, too.  There's a lot of

           15  cases saying, you know, they have lung cancer and all

           16  that.  So, whatever you can help, I mean, it would be

           17  very appreciated.  I mean, there's a lot of guys out

           18  there that, you know, work in these refineries, good

           19  guys that, you know, would like to be there for their

           20  families in the future.

           21                 So, thank you for helping us, and

           22  hopefully you -- if there's anything we can do to help

           23  y'all to bring it even lower, we appreciate it.

           24                 Thank you.

           25                 MS. WEGMAN:  Well, thank you.  You are


                                                                    301



            1  helping us by being here tonight and -- and offering

            2  your views on this.  And if you have friends who also,

            3  you know, want to share their thoughts with us, we'd

            4  very much like to hear from them.

            5                 MR. MORENO:  Yes, ma'am.  Appreciate it.

            6                 MS. WEGMAN:  And thank you --

            7                 MR. MORENO:  Thank you.

            8                 MS. WEGMAN:  -- very much.

            9                 MS. DAVIS:  Thank you.

           10                 MS. WEGMAN:  Do we have anyone else in

           11  the audience who would like to speak at this point?

           12                 (No response.)

           13                 Okay.  We'll take a break.  Okay.  I

           14  think we'll take a break since we don't have anybody.

           15                 (Brief recess.)

           16                 MS. WEGMAN:  At this point we don't have

           17  any other registered speakers or anyone else who is

           18  interested in speaking so we will adjourn the public

           19  hearing on our proposed ozone acts.

           20                 And we very much appreciate all the help

           21  we've gotten from our court reporter, Mylinda, and from

           22  our audio support.

           23                 I don't know your name, but I appreciate

           24  your help.

           25                 And from our translator who has been with


                                                                    302



            1  us all day, and all the folks who helped us.

            2                 Thank you very much.

            3                 (PUBLIC HEARING CONCLUDED.)

            4

            5

            6

            7

            8

            9

           10

           11

           12

           13

           14

           15

           16

           17

           18

           19

           20

           21

           22

           23

           24

           25


                                                                    303



            1               REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION TO THE

            2            PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE

            3                 REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE

            4      NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE

            5                 TAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2007

            6

            7       I, MYLINDA TUBBS FAIRCLOTH, a Certified Shorthand

            8  Reporter in and for the State of Texas, hereby certify

            9  that this public meeting transcript is a true record of

           10  the statements made by the public as named herein on the

           11  5th day of September, 2007.

           12       GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of office on this the

           13  ________ day of __________________, _________ .

           14

           15
               _____________________________
           16  MYLINDA TUBBS FAIRCLOTH, CSR
               Certification No. 2896
           17  Expiration Date: 12-31-08

           18  ELITE REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
               Registration No. 75
           19  3637 W. Alabama, Suite 155
               Houston, Texas 77027
           20  (713) 623-4434

           21

           22

           23

           24

           25
