
                                                                     1





              1        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

              2

              3        PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE

              4             REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE

              5   National Ambient Air Quality Standards For Ozone

              6

              7

              8

              9        TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the

             10   above-mentioned open hearing held in the Governor's

             11   Suite, Westin Hotel, 909 North Michigan Avenue,

             12   Chicago, Illinois, on the 5th day of September,

             13   A.D. 2007, beginning at 9:03 a.m.

             14

             15

             16   PANEL MEMBERS:

             17        MS. ROSALINA RODRIGUEZ, Chairman;

             18        MR. HARVEY RICHMOND;

             19        MR. STEVE MARQUARDT.

             20

             21

             22

             23

             24   REPORTED BY:  ELLEN DUSZA, CSR No. 84-3386.

                                                                     2





              1        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Good morning.  We're going to

              2   start this public hearing.

              3              This is the public hearing on the EPA's

              4   proposed rules regarding the revisions of the

              5   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.

              6   Thank you for attending this public hearing on

              7   the Environmental Protection Agency's ozone

              8   standards.  I recognize that many of you have

              9   traveled quite a distance to be here and I

             10   appreciate your efforts.

             11              My name is Rosalina Rodriguez, I'm the

             12   associate director of the Health and Environmental

             13   Impacts Division of the Office of Air Quality

             14   Planning and Standards in the office of AR and EPA.

             15   I will be chairing today's hearing, and my

             16   colleagues here, Harvey Richmond and Mary Pat

             17   Tyson, will be co-chairing with me.

             18              We are here today to listen to your

             19   comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the

             20   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.

             21   As a reminder, this is a hearing, an opportunity

             22   for the public to comment on EPA's proposed rule.

             23   The panel members may answer questions that seek to

             24   clarify what we have proposed, but the purpose of

                                                                     3





              1   the hearing is to listen to your comments, not to

              2   discuss or debate the proposals.  We won't have

              3   much time for that.

              4              Before we begin the comment period, I

              5   would like to briefly describe the proposed rule

              6   that is the subject of today's hearing.  The

              7   proposed rule was published in the Federal Register

              8   on July 11, 2007.

              9              Ground-level ozone is the primary

             10   component of smog.  It is formed through the

             11   reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic

             12   compounds in the presence of sunlight.  Exposure to

             13   ozone is associated with an array of respiratory

             14   problems, including aggravated asthma, increased

             15   susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased

             16   doctors' visits, increased emergency department

             17   visits and hospital admissions and premature death.

             18              In addition, ground-level ozone can have

             19   harmful effects on sensitive plant species,

             20   including trees and crops and on the ecosystems

             21   that they inhabit.  It has been shown that both the

             22   level of ozone to which plants are exposed and the

             23   duration of the exposure are important factors in

             24   determining plant response.  The most significant

                                                                     4





              1   effects, including biomass loss and yield

              2   reductions, and they result from the accumulation

              3   of ozone exposures throughout the growing season

              4   with higher concentrations of ozone producing

              5   greater impacts.

              6              Based on critical review of the large

              7   body of scientific evidence now available regarding

              8   the health and welfare effects associated with

              9   exposure to ozone, the administrator of the EPA has

             10   concluded that the current ozone standards are not

             11   adequate to protect public health and welfare.  A

             12   number of new health studies have been conducted

             13   indicating that adverse effects occur following

             14   exposure to ozone at levels below the current

             15   standard.  Furthermore, these studies indicate that

             16   people with a respiratory illness, such as asthma,

             17   are particularly sensitive to these adverse

             18   impacts.  In addition, new scientific studies

             19   confirm that exposure to ozone adversely affects

             20   the growth of sensitive plant species and may

             21   increase the susceptibility to disease and pests.

             22              After careful consideration of this

             23   scientific evidence, advice from EPA's Clean Air

             24   Scientific Advisory Committee, and public comments,

                                                                     5





              1   the administrator has proposed to revise both the

              2   primary ozone standard designed to protect human

              3   health and the secondary ozone standard, designed

              4   to protect welfare such as vegetation and crops.

              5              Currently, the primary and secondary

              6   ozone standards are identical, an eight-hour

              7   standard .08 parts per million, which is

              8   effectively .084 parts per million with the current

              9   rounding convention that we use.  Under EPA's

             10   proposal, each of these standards would be revised

             11   and the form of the secondary standard might change

             12   so that it is no longer identical to the primary

             13   standard.  EPA has requested comments on all

             14   aspects of its proposal and on alternatives to the

             15   proposed revisions.  Specifically:

             16              With respect to the primary standard to

             17   protect public health, the proposal included:

             18   No. 1, Revising the level of the standard to within

             19   the range of .070 to .075 parts per million.  The

             20   Agency has also requested comments on alternative

             21   levels down to the .060 parts per million and up to

             22   and including retention of the current standard

             23   which is .084 parts per million.

             24              No. 2, we've also proposed specifying

                                                                     6





              1   the level of the primary standard to the third

              2   decimal place, because today's monitors can detect

              3   ozone that accurately.

              4              With respect to the secondary standard

              5   to protect public welfare, EPA proposed two

              6   alternatives:  No. 1, one option would be to

              7   establish a new form of the standard called the

              8   W126, that is designed specifically to cumulate

              9   ozone exposures and give more weight to higher

             10   concentrations.  This form of the standard would

             11   add together weighted hourly ozone concentrations,

             12   measured during the 12-hour daylight window from

             13   8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. across the consecutive

             14   three-month period with the highest ozone levels.

             15   EPA is proposing to set the level of this

             16   cumulative standard within the range of 7 to 21

             17   parts per million hours.  Another option would be

             18   to revise the secondary standard so that it is

             19   identical to the proposed primary eight-hour

             20   standard.

             21              Additional information on the proposed

             22   rule can be found in the fact sheet available in

             23   the registration area today.  Publication of the

             24   rule on July 11, 2007 marked the beginning of the

                                                                     7





              1   90-day public comment period, which closes on

              2   October 9, 2007.  We have a handout available in

              3   the registration area with detailed information for

              4   submitting your written comments.

              5              In addition, we have prepared a list of

              6   all the topics in the proposed rule that the agency

              7   is seeking comments on.  This handout is also

              8   available on the registration table.  EPA will

              9   issue a final rule by March 12, 2008.

             10              Now, let me turn to the logistics of the

             11   comment portion of today's hearing.  This hearing

             12   is one of five public hearings we are holding

             13   across the country.  Last Thursday, August 30 of

             14   2007, hearings were held in Los Angeles, California

             15   and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Today, hearings

             16   are being held in Atlanta, Georgia, Houston, Texas

             17   and here in Chicago.  We will be preparing a

             18   written transcript of each hearing.  The

             19   transcripts will be available as part of the

             20   official record for each rule.

             21              Today's hearing will work as follows:  I

             22   will call the scheduled speakers to the microphone

             23   and to that table in pairs.  Please state your name

             24   and affiliation.  It will help our court reporter

                                                                     8





              1   if you will spell your name, please.  In order to

              2   be fair to everyone, we are asking that you limit

              3   your testimony to five minutes each and to remain

              4   at the microphone at the table until both speakers

              5   have finished speaking.

              6              After you finished your testimony, a

              7   panel member may ask clarifying questions.  As I

              8   mentioned, we are recording today's hearing and

              9   each speaker's oral testimony will become part of

             10   the official record.  Please be sure to give a copy

             11   of any written comments to our staff at the

             12   registration table.  We will put the full text of

             13   your written comments in the docket for you.

             14              We have a timekeeping system consisting

             15   of green, yellow and red lights.  When you begin

             16   speaking, the green light will come on.  You'll

             17   have five minutes to speak.  The yellow light will

             18   signal that you have two minutes left to speak.  We

             19   will ask that you stop when the red light comes up.

             20   We will try to ensure that everyone has an

             21   opportunity to comment.  If necessary, we will stay

             22   through the evening.

             23              If you would like to testify but have

             24   not yet registered to do so, please sign up at the

                                                                     9





              1   registration table.  We have a pretty full schedule

              2   this morning, but we might have a couple openings

              3   if you're interested in registering and speaking

              4   today.  For those who have already registered, we

              5   have tried to accommodate your request for specific

              6   time slots.  We ask for your patience as we proceed

              7   through the list.

              8              Again, Harvey Richmond to my right, he

              9   is part of the staff responsible for writing the

             10   rule from the Health and Environmental Impacts

             11   Division of the Office of Air Quality and Planning.

             12   Mary Pat Tyson, again, she is acting deputy

             13   director of the Air and Radiation Office here in

             14   the EPA office.

             15              I would like to thank you again for

             16   participating.  Let's get started and let me call

             17   the first two speakers.  Dr. David Cugell and Paul

             18   Greenberger.

             19              I'm sorry for mispronouncing, that's

             20   David Cugell and Dr. Paul Greenberger.  Please

             21   spell your names and correct my pronunciation.

             22   Please spell your names for the court reporter.

             23          STATEMENT OF DAVID W. CUGELL, MD.

             24        DR. CUGELL:  Good morning, I am a David W.

                                                                    10





              1   Cugell, C U G E L L.  My medical specialty is lung

              2   disease.  My appearance here today has been

              3   arranged by the Respiratory Health Association

              4   Metropolitan Chicago.  I speak on behalf of a large

              5   but little heard constituency, those among us with

              6   one or another type of chronic lung disease such as

              7   asthma, emphysema, bronchitis and others.

              8              If blessed with healthy, normally

              9   functioning lungs, one takes little note of the

             10   ozone concentrations in the air we breathe, even

             11   when those concentrations rise to actionable

             12   levels.  On the other hand, people with lung

             13   disease or those with sensitive airways may be

             14   incapacitated by airborne contaminants that others

             15   hardly notice.  How can this be?  Let me try

             16   explain.

             17              Ozone is an exceedingly corrosive -- it

             18   is a powerful irritant that inside active tissue it

             19   signals certain responses, primarily an outpouring

             20   of fluid.  Our lungs contain a branching network of

             21   air waves, with inspiration, fresh air to those

             22   regions of the lungs where oxygen enters the

             23   bloodstream and carbon dioxide is removed.

             24              The tissue lining in much of these air

                                                                    11





              1   channels contains mucous-secreting glands, the same

              2   type of glands and secretions with which we become

              3   all too familiar whenever we have a cold.  When

              4   secretions accumulate in the airway, as they do

              5   with ozone or with any irritant, they limit air

              6   movement to some degree.  Those secretions are

              7   reabsorbed by tissues within the lung or cleared by

              8   coughing if clearance mechanisms are intact.

              9              If those protected mechanisms are

             10   faulty, as they are in patients with lung diseases,

             11   secretions accumulate, the patient has to work

             12   harder and harder to breathe.  Consider the simple

             13   physical principles of the flow of gas in tubes,

             14   bronchial tubes in this case.  Throughout most of

             15   our airways, airflow is turbulent, meaning that a

             16   decrease in the radius of an airway by more than

             17   one-half will reduce air movement four-fold or

             18   more.  To maintain airflow, the patient must

             19   increase airway pressure and must work harder and

             20   harder to do so.

             21              Those of us with normal lungs barely

             22   notice the effort required to breathe other than we

             23   notice it when we're doing vigorous exercise.  On

             24   the other hand, the patient with emphysema, for

                                                                    12





              1   example, may feel like he has just completed a

              2   hundred yard dash all the time.  When the airflow

              3   cannot be maintained, then respiratory failure

              4   occurs.

              5              In the 1950s when Los Angeles County

              6   smog was at its worst, patients with lung diseases

              7   were studied prior to and after entering an air

              8   chamber, and in a controlled environment, most lung

              9   function and exercise capacity improved.  Countless

             10   studies and populations, both urban and rural, have

             11   demonstrated a consistent pattern of increased

             12   morbidity and mortality when air pollution levels

             13   are elevated.  Population surveys primarily of lung

             14   function show a decline on days when ozone

             15   concentrations are increased, and in some surveys,

             16   the adverse effect on breathing capacity as found

             17   at ozone levels well below 60 parts per billion.

             18              The plethora of scientific studies now

             19   available fully justify why we should tighten the

             20   existing ozone standard.  We take for granted that

             21   our water supply is not contaminated and safe for

             22   all, are we not entitled to similar assurances

             23   about the air we breathe.

             24              Numerous scientific bodies and

                                                                    13





              1   professional organizations support a new ozone

              2   standard, the EPA should follow the recommendation

              3   and issue a new ozone standard that is no greater

              4   than 60 parts per billion.

              5              Thank you.

              6        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you Dr. Cugell.

              7              Any questions from the panel?

              8        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

              9        MS. TYSON:  No.

             10        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Dr. Greenberger.

             11             STATEMENT OF PAUL GREENBERGER, MD

             12        MR. GREENBERGER:  Thank you.  My specialty is

             13   allergy immunology.

             14              Thank you to the panel members for

             15   conducting this hearing in Chicago.  I urge the

             16   panel to compel EPA to set a final standard for

             17   ozone of 60 parts per billion for an eight-hour

             18   time.  I'm also here under the auspices of the

             19   Respiratory Health Association of Chicago.  This

             20   level is consistent with prominent expert

             21   scientific panels including the EPA's Children's

             22   Health Protection Advisory Committee and the Clean

             23   Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

             24              I am an asthma specialists.  For over 30

                                                                    14





              1   years I've conducted studies in the various aspects

              2   of asthma, which is now recognized as one of the

              3   most complex disorders a physician is called upon

              4   to treat.  I diagnose and treat patients five

              5   minutes from here at Northwestern University

              6   Medical School, teach residents, students and train

              7   future specialists in allege immunology.  I speak

              8   today on behalf of approximately 500,000 people

              9   with asthma who live in the Chicago metropolitan

             10   area.  This is based conservatively on 7 percent

             11   incidence of 7 million people.

             12              Ozone has been shown to damage the cells

             13   in the surface lining of the bronchial tubes.  The

             14   cells are not able to provide the necessary

             15   defenses called anti-oxidants.  To translate this

             16   into football language, this is equivalent to

             17   having a poor defensive line that cannot stop the

             18   fullback or running back.  Patients with asthma

             19   have defective anti-oxidant defenses, which makes

             20   them vulnerable to ozone.

             21              Ozone even in the currently accepted

             22   concentration ranges has harmful effects.  First,

             23   the harmful effects of ozone were recorded in a

             24   study of children ages four through nine with

                                                                    15





              1   asthma who were studied in inner cities, including

              2   Chicago, St. Louis, Washington, DC, Cleveland

              3   Detroit, Baltimore, the Bronx and East Harlem.

              4              There is a big surprise in this study in

              5   that children with the history of being born

              6   prematurely, meaning earlier than three weeks

              7   early, or being low in birth rate, meaning under

              8   5.5 pounds, were especially harmed by increases in

              9   ozone when the children were now between ages four

             10   and nine years of age.  There were greater declines

             11   in the peak expiratory flow rate, which is a marker

             12   of lung function, and greater symptoms of asthma

             13   for increases from the mean and the study of 48

             14   parts per billion for every increment of 15 parts

             15   per billion, so that was up to 63 parts per

             16   billion.  So although the ozone concentrations

             17   averaged over eight hours were in the acceptable

             18   range, there were clearcut harmful effects on lung

             19   function and asthma symptoms.

             20              Another finding was that children who

             21   were allergic to cats had cats living in the home,

             22   which in my experience is very common.  They

             23   experienced more symptoms of asthma and drops in

             24   their peaks expiratory flow rates on the days with

                                                                    16





              1   the levels of ozone above 63 parts per billion.  In

              2   other words, even the standard hours won't be

              3   without harmful effects but the 60 parts per

              4   billion will be an important improvement for

              5   children with asthma.

              6              There are a number of studies in adults

              7   as well demonstrating the deleterious effects of

              8   ozone such as in amateur bikers who exercise and

              9   studied the various concentrations of ozone and in

             10   mail carriers who were exposed to maximum

             11   concentrations 65 parts per billion.  For every ten

             12   parts per billion increment in the eight-hour ozone

             13   concentration, there were declines in the nighttime

             14   peak expiratory flow rates.

             15              I urge the EPA to set the final standard

             16   of 60 parts per billion.  The time is now.  It is

             17   imperative to protect the health of the public.  As

             18   a physician and investigator, the scientific data

             19   are very clear.  We must take action to prevent

             20   harmful effects of ozone on children and adults,

             21   especially in patients with asthma.

             22              Thanks.

             23        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Dr. Greenberger.

             24   Both of you gentlemen, would you leave copies of

                                                                    17





              1   your testimony.  That would be great.

              2              Any questions of the panel?

              3              Thank you.

              4              The next two speakers will be Walter

              5   Perez and Joe Wishnoff.  We were happy to

              6   accommodate Mr. Perez because he has another

              7   conflict.

              8        MR. PEREZ:  Thank you.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Mr. Joe Wishnoff.

             10              As we said, we're calling the speakers

             11   in pairs.  Mr. Perez, you can go first.

             12             STATEMENT OF WALTER B. PEREZ

             13        MR. PEREZ:  Thank you very much.  Walter B.

             14   Perez and I'm a pediatrician working in the

             15   community of Little Village and I came here to give

             16   some testimony I think that will be reflective of

             17   situations that the community lives currently.  I

             18   don't have expertise, but I do have experience,

             19   great experience of treating patients.

             20              I've worked in the Chicago area since

             21   2000, it's not too long, but I notice a change

             22   because when I was working in 2000 to 2006 and the

             23   in the community of Pilsen, I didn't have as many

             24   asthmatic patients compared to what I was expecting

                                                                    18





              1   based on the reports of increased asthma in the

              2   city.  It was kinda puzzling to me, but I didn't

              3   give it much of a thought.

              4              But in 2006 I moved my practice to an

              5   area that's Little Village, the heart of Little

              6   Village, that's Pulaski and 26th Street.

              7   Immediately I realized there was a big difference

              8   in the number of patients I was seeing who had

              9   asthma.  I was pretty much seeing everyday new

             10   asthmatic patients that came to my practice.  So

             11   that was very appalling to me and I realized

             12   immediately that it was related to environmental

             13   conditions, which was in the many, many reports and

             14   investigation.

             15              To this point I think I have 200

             16   patients out of a total of 1500 patients, between

             17   13 and 15 percent, who have some form of asthma,

             18   which I think is really, really high.  I think that

             19   the environmental conditions in the area are a

             20   resultant conclusion of the conditions.

             21              I think the type of problem that this is

             22   bringing also has some ripple effect because

             23   children get sick when they are outside, and this

             24   is a large population, and they will keep their

                                                                    19





              1   kids indoors because of that and that in turn has a

              2   rippling effect on another major problem we're

              3   seeing, obesity, which I think has other

              4   implications as well as you can understand.

              5              I'm convinced that the environment

              6   though the conditions we're living now in the

              7   Chicago area are a result of that situation, and I

              8   think the patients will benefit if this condition

              9   started improving and we'll have other situations

             10   like I mentioned before.  I think it's a very

             11   striking experience I have moving in an area that

             12   has different environmental conditions in the

             13   number of patients that I'm treating right now.

             14              Thank you.

             15        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             16              Mr. Wishnoff.

             17              STATEMENT OF JOSEPH WISHNOFF.

             18        MR. WISHNOFF:  I want to thank you guys for

             19   listening to me.  I'm a private citizen in this

             20   country and I can tell my story.

             21              Imagine if four days from now you were

             22   lying in a hospital bed and you were told that you

             23   have a rare lung disease called idiopathic

             24   pulmonary fibrosis, IBF, and it has no cure other

                                                                    20





              1   than a double-lung transplant, which is my story.

              2              I'm 28 years old, I've served as

              3   managing director of two Internet companies.  I've

              4   owned three start-up businesses which have been

              5   sold, I go to school at DePaul University.  I'm a

              6   Chicago born-and-bread person, my family has lived

              7   here my whole life.  Imagine that story and that's

              8   every day that I wake up.

              9              This unit on my face is a portable

             10   oxygen tank.  Through technology, we've been able

             11   to narrow the boundaries of, you know, people

             12   able -- people with the ability to travel with

             13   oxygen, which is great.  I think technology we can

             14   change and set standards to give people the best

             15   help possible via ozone or any other way so we can

             16   have our citizens of this country, this great

             17   country, live as long as they can.

             18              A couple years ago I would say that I

             19   didn't even think about my health.  I was

             20   25-years-old, skydiving and having a good time.

             21   Health was not an issue.  And something painful had

             22   to happen which said you're not going to live past

             23   38, you may not even live past 33.  Actually, the

             24   chances of me living past another year without a

                                                                    21





              1   double-lung transplant are less than 50 percent.

              2              It's a sad story and I know this but it

              3   hasn't stopped me.  I still go to school full-time,

              4   I'm going to grad school.  I still also work two

              5   jobs and it's important to me to continue pushing

              6   forward regardless of obstacles.

              7              When I was coming here today, I asked

              8   myself this one question, big business or politics

              9   or lobbyists, do they breathe a different air than

             10   we do?  Is there something we don't know.  Can we

             11   buy it?  Because I'd like to buy the better air if

             12   they're breathing different air.  To me, it makes

             13   no sense how we can't set the best ozone level for

             14   all of our citizens, because at the end of the day,

             15   the CEO of a billion dollar company breathes the

             16   same air.

             17              What I've learned through this painful

             18   event in my life is that without health, we have

             19   nothing.  If you're not alive to contribute or do

             20   something about it, then there's nothing you can

             21   do, you're gone.  Your impact is irrelevant if

             22   you're not here.  So I speak to you guys today to

             23   try to go ahead and make an impact, to try to give

             24   back to do something so that between now and

                                                                    22





              1   whatever my time is gone, I can go ahead and say he

              2   helped change the world.  He helped do something.

              3   He helped make it so people are living a healthier

              4   life, and that's really my goal between now and

              5   when I'm gone.

              6              You know, there's your immediate family

              7   and we all love our brothers and sisters and

              8   parents and then there's the bigger family.

              9   There's America and America should take care of its

             10   own.  And by taking care of its own, we should set

             11   the best standards possible so that our citizens of

             12   this great country could live the best possible

             13   lives they can.  I think we forget about this.  I

             14   think we neglect the fact that money and politics

             15   and self-interest get in the way of people's

             16   health.  At the end of the day, as I've said

             17   before, health is everything.

             18              I most likely will not have a family, I

             19   most likely will not raise kids, unless they happen

             20   very quickly, which my girlfriend probably won't be

             21   too excited about right now, but I know at the end

             22   of the day that for her and everyone else in my

             23   family that people should be thinking about health

             24   first and self-interest last, and I don't think

                                                                    23





              1   that's how it is right now.  I hope that you guys

              2   and the rest of the people can change it so that we

              3   do what's best for our people.  That is all I have

              4   to say.  Thank you.

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much, Dr. Perez

              6   and Mr. Wishnoff.

              7              Let me ask the audience to turn cell

              8   phones off as a courtesy to the speakers.  Thank

              9   you.

             10              The next two speakers are Anita Gewurz

             11   and Becki Stanfield.

             12              Again, I apologize for mispronouncing

             13   your names.  Please make sure you say your name and

             14   spell it for the reporter.

             15             STATEMENT OF ANITA GEWURZ, MD

             16        MS. GEWURZ:  Good morning.  My name is Anita

             17   Gewurz, G E W U R Z.  I was going to try to use

             18   power point slides as well, they probably won't

             19   work, but I think there are two photographs that I

             20   think will be helpful to see.

             21              I'm a professor of

             22   immunological/microbiology and a specialist in

             23   asthma and allergic diseases at Rush University

             24   Medical Center and in the Departments of Pediatrics

                                                                    24





              1   at Rush and Stroger Hospital in Cook County.  I am

              2   a diplomate of the American Board of Pediatrics and

              3   I'm speaking today for the American Academy of

              4   Pediatrics.  I also served on the American Board of

              5   Allergy and Immunology, which I chaired in 2004.

              6   For the past 35 years, however, I have practiced in

              7   Chicago's west side, which has some of the highest

              8   concentrations of air pollution and pediatric

              9   asthma.  I hope to persuade you that this

             10   association is not coincidental but can be avoided.

             11              According to EPA data, more than

             12   one-third of Americans live where ground-level

             13   ozone exceeds the current eight-hour standard of

             14   0.08 to 0.84  parts per million, which is

             15   approximately equivalent to 157 micrograms of ozone

             16   per cubic meter.

             17              As reported in the Chicago Tribune

             18   August 7 of this year, ozone levels in Cook County

             19   and surrounding counties violated the National

             20   Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone on eight

             21   days between May 22 and August 7.  In other words,

             22   here in the Chicago area where one child in ten

             23   below age 18 has asthma, approximately 215,000

             24   asthmatic children were exposed to excess ozone

                                                                    25





              1   levels one day per week during last June and July.

              2   Should we be upset about this?  Very.

              3              Why?  Because not all lungs are created

              4   equal.  Ozone exceedants are particularly harmful

              5   to children with asthma and other diseases that

              6   affect the small airways.  Yet, it is children who

              7   bear the brunt of ozone exposure.

              8              The first photograph from the Tribune

              9   articles shows five boys playing soccer next to a

             10   coal-fired power plant in Pilsen.  Pilsen is a

             11   mostly Mexican working class industrial Chicago

             12   neighborhood.  Unlike adults who work indoors

             13   during months where ozone is highest, that is April

             14   through October in Illinois, children are more

             15   likely to be outdoors and exposed to ozone.

             16   Because children have higher respiratory rates,

             17   minute ventilation, when exposed to ozone, whether

             18   at rest or exercising, they naturally breathe and

             19   absorb more ozone than adults engaged in comparable

             20   activity.

             21              Unfortunately, communities with higher

             22   population density are the same areas where

             23   non-attainment of the ozone standard is more

             24   frequent.  Also shown in the second picture, and

                                                                    26





              1   I'm sorry these aren't projecting, this means that

              2   the people at highest risk are also exposed to the

              3   most potential harm.

              4              The Inflammatory effects of ozone on

              5   immature lungs are only now becoming apparent.

              6   Lung development continues from birth through

              7   adolescence, and developing airways are

              8   particularly susceptible to delayed and long-term

              9   damage from ambient ozone.  Asthmatic children are

             10   at increased risk.  Fetal lung damage can begin in

             11   utero from maternal exposure to ozone as well.  The

             12   inference is obvious.  Even at 60 parts per

             13   billion, ozone causes airway damage and children

             14   with asthma are especially vulnerable.

             15              The EPA's June '07 proposal to review

             16   the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

             17   ground-level ozone states the standards set within

             18   the range of 0.70 to 0.075 parts per million, which

             19   would provide appropriate protection against the

             20   variety of health effects associated with ozone

             21   exposure.  The Agency proposes that a standard

             22   level below this is unnecessary because the

             23   evidence linking ozone exposure to specific health

             24   effects becomes increasingly uncertain at lower

                                                                    27





              1   levels of exposure.

              2              However, recent data such as those we

              3   have just reviewed refute this claim.  EPA's

              4   Children Health Protection Advisory also

              5   recommended setting the ozone standard at 0.06

              6   parts per million, the lowest value of the range

              7   offered by the EPA, a level which is supported by

              8   the scientific literature, and this was March 26 of

              9   this year.  I emphatically agree.  Thank you.

             10        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Dr. Gewurz.  I'm

             11   sorry we couldn't see the pictures.  If you have

             12   hard copies, we'll take them and put them into our

             13   record.

             14        MS. GEWURZ:  Thank you.

             15        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Any questions?

             16        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             17        MS. TYSON:  No.

             18        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Ms. Stanfield, please.

             19             STATEMENT OF BECKY STANFIELD

             20        MS. STANFIELD:  Good morning and thank you for

             21   coming to Chicago to give us an opportunity to

             22   weigh in on your proposal to revise the National

             23   Ambient Air Quality Standard.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Let me interrupt you so he

                                                                    28





              1   could set the clock here.

              2        MS. STANFIELD:  My name is Rebecca Stanfield

              3   and I'm the state director of Environment Illinois.

              4   We are a statewide citizen-based environmental

              5   advocacy organization.  Ensuring that Illinois has

              6   clean air is core to our mission.

              7              The Clean Air Act Commission is very

              8   clear, every American should be able to breathe the

              9   air outdoors and not get sick.  Congress

             10   anticipated that the medical science would progress

             11   and to our understanding of how much pollution

             12   triggers health problems to us all.  They charge

             13   your agency with a great responsibility of updating

             14   the standards as warranted by scientific discovery

             15   and entrusted you with the job of realizing the

             16   promise of clean air for all Americans, even the

             17   most vulnerable among us.

             18              We think it's unfortunate, then, that

             19   you've proposed setting a standard that we already

             20   know is inadequate based on health studies that you

             21   have before you today.  You're a clean air

             22   scientific advisory committee and especially your

             23   children's health advisory committee have both

             24   recommended more protective standards.  They have

                                                                    29





              1   warned that your proposal even when fully met will

              2   leave the most vulnerable among us, our children,

              3   breathing levels of smog that we know will cause

              4   serious health impacts for many of them.

              5              Ozone, as others have said, is a

              6   powerful pollutant that can burn our lungs and

              7   airways causing health effects ranging from

              8   coughing and wheezing to asthma attacks to even

              9   premature death.  Children, teenagers, senior

             10   citizens and people with lung disease are

             11   particularly vulnerable to the health effects of

             12   the ozone.  There doesn't seem to be fairly broad

             13   agreements that the current standard of .08 parts

             14   per million is inadequate even to protect perfectly

             15   healthy adults.

             16              Now, political studies show that the

             17   health impacts of breathing ozone at levels lower

             18   than the current ambient air quality standards and

             19   in fact, clinical studies of otherwise healthy

             20   adults have found decreasing lung function,

             21   increased respiratory symptoms, inflammation and

             22   increased susceptibility or respiratory infection

             23   at or below the current standards.

             24              The clean air scientific advisory

                                                                    30





              1   committee reviewed a 2,000 page summary of

              2   scientific research of health and safety and

              3   unanimously concluded that the current standard is

              4   not adequate.  They recommended setting new ozone

              5   standards in the range of .060 to .070 parts per

              6   million.  The children's health protection advisory

              7   committee in their letter dated March 23, made a

              8   compelling case that only a standard in the low end

              9   of that range, .060 parts per million will be

             10   protective of children's health.

             11              EPA's proposal to strengthen the

             12   standards to a reasonable .070 parts per million to

             13   .075 is therefore weaker than what the Agency's

             14   scientific advisors say is necessary to protect

             15   public health.  Well, as stronger than the current

             16   standards, the proposal fails to protect health

             17   within an adequate margin of safety.  In effect,

             18   EPA's proposed standards is to protect millions of

             19   Americans but will continue to leave millions more,

             20   particularly those with lung disease or who were

             21   otherwise sensitive to airflow exposed to harmful

             22   effects of dirty air.

             23              Alarmingly, your proposal also leaves

             24   the door open to retaining the current ozone

                                                                    31





              1   standard.  We are aware that in the weeks leading

              2   up to the release of your proposal, representatives

              3   from the electric industry, chemical industry, oil

              4   companies and auto makers organized high level

              5   meetings with the Bush Administration to discuss

              6   the new ozone standards.

              7              This obviously for us raises concerns

              8   that you are entertaining a course of action that

              9   will be unwise and illegal under the Clean Air Act

             10   at the behest of these industries.  We urge you to

             11   reject that pressure and to adopt standards that

             12   are consistent with what the children's health

             13   protection advisory committee recommended, .060

             14   parts per million.  We thank you for this

             15   opportunity to address you.

             16        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Ms. Stanfield, and

             17   I'll remind both of you to please leave a copy of

             18   your testimony at our registration table.  Thank

             19   you very much.

             20              Any questions?

             21              Our next two speakers, Dean Schraufnagel

             22   and Giedrius Ambrozaitis.  You'll both definitely

             23   have to spell those names.  I think we have the

             24   Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, also.  We have three

                                                                    32





              1   gentlemen here.

              2              Dean Schraufnagel, you're the first.  Go

              3   ahead.

              4          STATEMENT OF DEAN SCHRAUFNAGEL, MD

              5        MR. SCHRAUFNAGEL:  Thanks for the opportunity

              6   to speak and thank you for coming and for

              7   listening.

              8              My name is Dr. Dean Schraufnagel,

              9   S C H R A U F N A G E L.  I represent the

             10   American Thoracic Society.  The American Thoracic

             11   Society is a scientific and professional

             12   organization, that is all physicians and

             13   scientists, and as such, it represents thousands of

             14   pulmonologists, pulmonologists being lung doctors,

             15   and each of these pulmonologist in turn represents

             16   millions -- well, not each, but in total millions

             17   of patients with lung disease.

             18              The patients with lung disease -- I'm

             19   also at the University of Illinois, a practicing

             20   pulmonologist -- they invariably will tell you

             21   there's good days and bad days.  The bad days are

             22   sometimes very alarming to them.  They will call

             23   me, "I can't breathe, what do I do?"  And there's

             24   not too many things that we can do for patients

                                                                    33





              1   with emphysema, stay indoors, sometimes increase

              2   medicines but the medicines aren't all that

              3   effective.

              4              These bad days, as you know, have been

              5   associated with levels of ozone and particulate

              6   matter.  The American Thoracic Society strongly

              7   recommends that the EPA adopt the level -- the

              8   primary standard should be established at 0.060

              9   parts per million.  We further strongly recommend

             10   that the degree of precision from the standard

             11   should be expressed in the thousandths part per

             12   million.  The 0.06 parts per million is needed to

             13   protect the nation from the effects of the ozone.

             14              There have been several studies and the

             15   primary national scale of immunologic study has

             16   shown that premature mortality and ozone exposures

             17   below the current level are highly correlated.

             18   Control human exposure studies of healthy adults

             19   have demonstrated reduced lung function, increased

             20   expiratory systems, changes in airway

             21   responsiveness and increased airway inhalation for

             22   six hours, 6.6 hours of the .08 parts per million.

             23              Recent studies, this is Schwartzman and

             24   Devlin, are the two authors there, recent studies

                                                                    34





              1   have also demonstrated that people, some of these

              2   people tested have adverse effects at the 0.6 level

              3   and -- which raises our -- which is why we're

              4   recommending that level.

              5              In short, this is -- as other speakers

              6   have said, this is a step where we can do something

              7   for all Americans and we strongly encourage that

              8   you do so.  Thank you.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             10              Mr. Giedrius Ambrozaitis.

             11           STATEMENT OF GIEDRIUS AMBROZAITIS.

             12        MR. AMBROZAITIS:  Thank you very much.  I

             13   would just like to make a slight correction.

             14   Unfortunately, this is not the Lieutenant Governor

             15   of Illinois sitting to my left, this is my

             16   colleague John Heuss of Air Improvement Resource.

             17              Good morning.  My name is Giedrius

             18   Ambrozaitis and I'm here today representing the

             19   Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Alliance.

             20   The Alliance is a trade association of nine car and

             21   light truck manufacturers, including BMW Group,

             22   Chrylser LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors,

             23   Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.

             24   One of out of ten jobs in the United States is

                                                                    35





              1   dependent on the automotive industry.

              2              The Alliance members share the concerns

              3   of our customers and the American public about this

              4   nation's air quality and recognize the importance

              5   of assuring clean air that protects public health.

              6   Our air is cleaner today than it was a generation

              7   ago and air quality is continuing to improve.

              8   Meanwhile, gross domestic product, vehicle miles

              9   traveled and energy consumptions have all

             10   increased.  Yet, notably, today's vehicles are 99

             11   percent cleaner than vehicles of the 1970s.

             12   Further, significant additional emissions

             13   reductions will occur over the next 20 years as a

             14   result of already promulgated regulations for

             15   mobile sources.

             16              According to EPA's own statistics,

             17   emissions from cars and trucks are expected to be

             18   reduced by an additional 70 percent by 2030.  These

             19   reductions will help to reduce ozone concentrations

             20   across the country and will improve the air quality

             21   as a result of these reductions, will occur

             22   regardless of whether the existing ozone standards

             23   is revised.

             24              The Alliance cannot support changing the

                                                                    36





              1   current ozone NAAQS due to continued uncertainties

              2   in the science and the likelihood that many of the

              3   additional health benefits cited by EPA will not

              4   occur.  The Alliance continues to believe that the

              5   current form and level of the primary and secondary

              6   ozone standards at .08 ppm is protective of public

              7   health and welfare.

              8              Similar to 1997, the science today does

              9   not support lowering the ozone NAAQS below .08 ppm

             10   and continues to show much scientific uncertainty.

             11   There have been limited, if any, new developments

             12   in scientific data, such as clinical data,

             13   epidemiology or toxicology that would support a

             14   division of the ozone standards.

             15              The available data supports retaining

             16   the current standard.  EPA cites one clinical study

             17   that supports lowering the existing standards, the

             18   Adams 2006 study.  Whether the small changes

             19   reported in this study are statistically

             20   significant or not is a matter of contention

             21   between EPA and Adams, and more importantly, the

             22   small changes are not medically significant using

             23   the EPA's own guidelines.

             24              Further, EPA's criteria document

                                                                    37





              1   acknowledges that the toxicological effects are

              2   transient, of a reflexive nature, and reversible.

              3   Clearly, the evidence does not support lowering the

              4   standard.

              5              The Alliance believes that federal and

              6   state resources would be better served by focusing

              7   on meeting the current standard.  States are now

              8   just finalizing plans to meet the current standard

              9   and should have the opportunity to implement these

             10   plans.

             11              Despite having spent billions of dollars

             12   on reducing air pollution, several metropolitan

             13   areas have concluded that they will not be able to

             14   meet the current standard even if they close every

             15   major stationary course in their cities.  The EPA

             16   should focus on helping these communities meet the

             17   existing standard before imposing new standards

             18   that are not scientifically justified, not

             19   achievable and, more important, not likely to

             20   provide the benefits that EPA asserts.

             21              Thank you very much.

             22        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, gentlemen.

             23              Questions from the panel?

             24        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

                                                                    38





              1        MS. TYSON:  No.

              2        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much and please

              3   put the written testimony on the table.

              4              We do have the Lieutenant Governor now,

              5   Pat Quinn.

              6               STATEMENT OF PATRICK QUINN

              7        MR. QUINN:  I appreciate the opportunity to be

              8   here.  My name is Pat Quinn.  I'm the Lieutenant

              9   Governor of Illinois.  I was elected in 2002 and

             10   reelected last year and my office is charged with a

             11   number of responsibilities in Illinois, a number of

             12   them relate to the environmental issues, and I want

             13   to commend the United States EPA for coming here to

             14   Chicago to have this hearing, to listen to everyday

             15   people on an important issue.

             16              I am testifying in favor of

             17   strengthening the standards with respect to ozone

             18   in our state and in our country.  I think the

             19   proposed standard is insufficient to protect public

             20   health and with respect to the Clean Air Act, I

             21   think the standard should be much stronger.

             22              From my point of view, our office has

             23   worked a great deal with citizens who suffer from

             24   asthma in the State of Illinois.  We have an asthma

                                                                    39





              1   epidemic, almost 1 million people in Illinois

              2   suffer from asthma.  In our city here in Chicago we

              3   have lost more people to losing their lives to

              4   asthma than any other place in the United States

              5   and it's exceptionally important that our area and

              6   our country have standards to protect people who

              7   suffer from this very serious chronic disease.

              8   Respiratory disease is something that we should all

              9   pay attention to and I don't think there's any

             10   question that it is a very severe hardship on

             11   people with respiratory ailments, chest pain and

             12   asthma and so on.

             13              We have ozone alert days so it's

             14   important I think that all of us in our state

             15   families, individuals, businesses, governments,

             16   make a strong effort to reduce the level of ozone

             17   in our area as well as in our country.  I think

             18   that's exactly what the Clean Air Act seeks to do.

             19   It looks at scientific studies and I think the

             20   science in this case shows that a stronger standard

             21   lowering the amount of ozone allowed is necessary.

             22   By having such a strong standard, I realize that

             23   there may need to be adjustments made by businesses

             24   as well as governments to adjust to those levels.

                                                                    40





              1              Right now we have a great debate in our

              2   state concerning public transit and how to finance

              3   public transit, and clearly that is a relationship

              4   to reducing the level of ozone in our particular

              5   area where we're a nonpayment area.  So I think

              6   that all of us have to band together to do our very

              7   best to reduce the level of ozone, but I think it's

              8   important that the EPA through the provisions of

              9   the Clean Air Act adopt a standard, a strong

             10   standard that we must aspire to.

             11              I think the Supreme Court of our country

             12   has made it crystal clear when we talk about the

             13   Clean Air Act and public health issues that we

             14   don't just take the everyday person and apply that

             15   standard only to the person who may be in good

             16   health, but we do have to take into account that

             17   many of our fellow citizens may suffer from

             18   particular ailments or they may be of a certain age

             19   or very young or very old or they're particularly

             20   susceptible to respiratory disease.

             21              So I think in looking at these standards

             22   that the EPA should pronounce and promulgate.  The

             23   current proposal is insufficient with respect to

             24   protecting the public health, especially those who

                                                                    41





              1   are most vulnerable.

              2              In Illinois, our state, we want to be a

              3   leader with respect to standards of our power

              4   plants regarding mercury.  We have a much stronger

              5   standard than the federal standard, we've had

              6   voluntary compliance and agreements with the major

              7   utilities in Illinois on that issue and we were

              8   proud to announce that last year.  We want to

              9   continue that strong path toward an environmental

             10   future that's good for everyone for clean air, and

             11   I think it would be most beneficial for the United

             12   States Environmental Protection Agency to take

             13   today's hearing and the testimony you hear from the

             14   advocates of having a lower standard of ozone to be

             15   permitted than what is currently being proposed.

             16              Thank you very much.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Mr. Quinn.

             18              Harvey, do you have a question?

             19        MR. RICHMOND:  I just wanted to clarify, is

             20   there a specific range that you were advocating or

             21   supporting?

             22        MR. QUINN:  The range that I support is 0.060,

             23   and I think that should be the final standard

             24   adopted by the EPA in concert with scientific

                                                                    42





              1   recommendations.

              2        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

              3              Mary Pat, any questions?

              4        MS. TYSON:  No.

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thanks.  Our next two speakers

              6   are Tim Montague and Becki Clayborn.

              7              Again, let me remind you to please spell

              8   your names for our reporter.

              9                STATEMENT OF TIM MONTAGUE

             10        MR. MONTAGUE:  Thank you very much for the

             11   opportunity to testify about the US Environmental

             12   Protection Agency's proposed revisions to the

             13   nation's ambient air quality standard for

             14   ground-level ozone.

             15              My name is Tim Montague,

             16   M O N T A G U E.  I am the Associate Director of

             17   Environmental Research Foundation, a national

             18   non-profit science-based environmental

             19   organization.  We specialize in translating

             20   scientific and medical information into terms

             21   that ordinary people can understand and use to

             22   further protect their local environment and public

             23   health.

             24              When Congress established the Clean Air

                                                                    43





              1   Act in 1970, it commanded that the National Ambient

              2   Air Quality Standards be based upon public health

              3   considerations alone.  The economic implications of

              4   meeting those health-based standards were

              5   secondary.  This two-step process has proven

              6   extremely effective both in terms of improving air

              7   quality and fostering economic growth.

              8              Some examples of the success of the

              9   Clean Air Act:  Nitrogen oxides, which are

             10   implicated in the formation of ground-level ozone,

             11   and particulate pollution have been lowered nearly

             12   one quarter since 1970.  Volatile organic

             13   compounds, which form ground-level ozone and are

             14   often comprised of toxic contaminants, have been

             15   reduced by over 50 percent since 1970.  And sulfur

             16   dioxide, which forms particulate pollution, has

             17   also been cut in half since 1970.  Many other air

             18   contaminants have been significantly reduced all

             19   because of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

             20              During the period that these remarkable

             21   emissions reductions have been achieved, the

             22   nation's economy has grown dramatically.  Our

             23   gross domestic product has increased 174 percent in

             24   the 37 years that the Clean Air Act has been in

                                                                    44





              1   effect.

              2              Each year, the Clean Air Act prevents

              3   well over 200,000 premature deaths, more than

              4   650,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, over 200,000,

              5   hospital admissions, more than 200 million

              6   respiratory ailments and over 22 million lost

              7   workdays.  According to research by the EPA, the

              8   monetary benefits to society have outweighed the

              9   costs by a factor of more than 40 to one.

             10              The EPA's proposed ozone decision:  The

             11   EPA Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee,

             12   hereafter CASAC, unanimously and unambiguously

             13   advised EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, quote,

             14   "There is no scientific justification for retaining

             15   the current primary eight-hour NAAQS of 0.08 parts

             16   per million; and, 2, the primary eight-hour NAAQS

             17   needs to be substantially reduced to protect human

             18   health, particularly in sensitive subpopulations."

             19   The committee also unanimously agreed upon a

             20   recommended range, quote, "Therefore, the CASAC

             21   unanimously recommends a range of 0.06 to .070 ppm

             22   for the primary ozone of NAAQS."  These

             23   recommendations leave no room for

             24   misinterpretation.

                                                                    45





              1              The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory

              2   Committee stated, quote, "There is no longer

              3   significant scientific certainty regarding the

              4   CASAC's conclusion that the current eight-hour

              5   primary NAAQS must be lowered.  A large body of

              6   data clearly demonstrates adverse human health

              7   effects at the current level of the eight-hour

              8   primary ozone standard."  Retaining this standard

              9   would continue to put large numbers of individuals

             10   at risk for respiratory effects and/or significant

             11   impact on quality of life, including asthma

             12   exacerbations, emergency room visits, hospital

             13   admissions and mortally.

             14              In sum, CASAC unequivocally found there

             15   is no basis in public health considerations for EPA

             16   to retain the current standard.  Ozone pollution is

             17   a serious threat in public health.  It burns our

             18   lungs and airways causing inflammation and

             19   increases asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.  The

             20   scientific consensus is clear.  Retaining the

             21   current standard would ignore a decade of

             22   scientific evidence and recklessly subject millions

             23   of Americans to unsafe levels of ozone pollution.

             24   We encourage the EPA to finalize an ozone standard

                                                                    46





              1   of 0.06 parts per million, which is consistent with

              2   the range recommended by the EPA's Clean Air

              3   Scientific Advisory Board.

              4              Thank you very much.

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions?

              6        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

              7        MS. TYSON:  No.

              8        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Mr. Montague.

              9              Ms. Clayborn.

             10              STATEMENT OF BECKI CLAYBORN.

             11        MS. CLAYBORN:  My name is Becki Clayborn, and

             12   I'm a regional representative with the Sierra

             13   Club's clean energy campaign.  The Sierra Club is

             14   the oldest and largest national environmental group

             15   in the United States.  We work to protect land,

             16   water and air for our approximately 800,000 members

             17   in the U.S.

             18              For the past five years, Sierra Club has

             19   had a focus on cleaning up old coal-fire power

             20   plants, specifically here in the midwest, Illinois

             21   and Chicago.  We do this through the permitting

             22   process and we push for what's called best

             23   available control technologies.  Those control

             24   technologies are based on not only what's available

                                                                    47





              1   as technology but also has to do with what

              2   scientists have agreed in terms of public health

              3   and what protection is needed for public health.

              4              Up to this point, many of these power

              5   plants for the past 40 to 100 years have been

              6   grandfathered in and have basically been operating

              7   without pollution controls or with very minimal

              8   pollution controls.  These pollutants are one of

              9   the largest sources of ozone, what we're here to

             10   talk about today.

             11              The technologies do exist to clean out

             12   these plants and strong standards from the EPA

             13   would increase the use of such technologies.  And

             14   without the strong standards, the power plants will

             15   continue to us our air as not the proper solution

             16   that leads to ozone pollution and therefore health

             17   problems for everyone.

             18              I have a little story.  I moved to

             19   Chicago two-and-a-half years ago.  I never had

             20   respiratory problems, I've never had to take any

             21   medication until I moved to the Chicagoland area.

             22   The air pollution in Chicago I have noticed

             23   personally has had an effect on my respiratory

             24   ability.  I think it's insane that if you live in a

                                                                    48





              1   city, you have worse air quality than anywhere

              2   else.  It's basically because we're not demanding

              3   stronger standards from our industry, our power

              4   plants, our car industries.  I think that we need

              5   to push for those things.

              6              The Sierra Club encourages the EPA to

              7   adopt the standard that was recommended by science

              8   advisors, the .060 parts per million in order to

              9   protect our public health.

             10              I thank you.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Ms. Clayborn, and

             12   again, put copies of your testimony in the

             13   registration if you haven't already provided them.

             14   Thank you very much.

             15              Our next presenter is David Sykuta and

             16   Charles Pierce, Dr. Charles Pierce.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Mr. Sykuta, you'll go first.

             18   I apologize for the mispronunciation, as I'm

             19   certain I did.

             20              STATEMENT OF DAVID SYKUTA

             21        MR. SYKUTA:  Actually, you did a good job.

             22   Just about right on the money.

             23              Good morning, my name is David Sykuta,

             24   S Y K U T A, and I'm executive director of the

                                                                    49





              1   Illinois Petroleum Council.  The Petroleum

              2   Council represents Illinois' large integrated oil

              3   industry.  Illinois is the fourth largest refining

              4   state in the nation, and we're also a major oil

              5   producer in the transportation hub of the nation

              6   for energy.

              7              Nearly 50,000 Illinois citizens earn

              8   their living working for the oil industry.  We've

              9   worked closely with the United States EPA on both

             10   the existing standard and debate on this new

             11   standard.  Looking forward, we continue to engage

             12   the USEPA and our belief is that great gains will

             13   come from staying with the standard as it is now.

             14              I believe there's three points that need

             15   to be made.  First, the fuel we use to make the oil

             16   and gas industry is helping to make the air

             17   cleaner; secondly, there's at least a fair amount

             18   of debate as to the methodology behind the proposed

             19   changes of the United States EPA is suggesting, and

             20   third, the proposed changes will have significant

             21   both economic and lifestyle impact on normal

             22   citizens, so we need to think very closely about

             23   what we're doing.

             24              Before we do that, let me just hold up

                                                                    50





              1   this chart.  It's in the testimony, but as we move

              2   forward talking about where we should go, I think

              3   we should look closely at where we've been.  The

              4   interesting thing here, some of the previous

              5   speakers have spoken about this, in the past

              6   20-some years, while the population has gone up,

              7   vehicle miles have gone way up, the economy has

              8   gone up, the population has gone up almost 50

              9   percent, despite all those going up.  The amount

             10   of pollution, at least the six major ones measured

             11   with EPA's data, has gone down 54 percent.  The

             12   point here being that we're making great progress

             13   with the program in place, and in fact, much of the

             14   progress that we'll make in the future is with

             15   programs that are already in place that have not

             16   been completely implemented, particularly the low

             17   sulfur diesel program that one of the other

             18   speakers spoke of and continuing improvements in

             19   gasoline, so we're making improvements as we speak

             20   under the existing standards.

             21              I come at these with kind of two hats,

             22   because as well as being the spokesman for the

             23   Illinois oil industry for the past 32 years, I'm

             24   also an asthma sufferer.  So I watch all of this

                                                                    51





              1   with both a personal hat and a professional hat.

              2   And I think one of the points that needs to be

              3   made, as an asthma sufferer myself, everybody

              4   wants things to be better, but I think we have to

              5   look at the whole range of factors that affect

              6   asthma.

              7              For example, everyone agrees that the

              8   air is much cleaner now than it was 20 years ago,

              9   much cleaner than it was ten years ago,

             10   specifically here in Chicago.  Yet while the air is

             11   getting cleaner, the incidence of asthma continues

             12   to go up, so clearly there are other factors in

             13   play besides just the ozone standards as far as the

             14   effect of asthma and the changes that we're about

             15   to make.

             16              As far as our questions with the

             17   methodology, you know, there's always disagreement

             18   on statistics and computer programs.  I think it's

             19   fair to say that at least part of the basis for the

             20   USEPA suggesting lowering the standard or making

             21   the standard more strict was using that that was

             22   not peer-reviewed and I think there's always a

             23   question with that.

             24              The third comment, as you know, inside

                                                                    52





              1   the Chicago metropolitan area and the four counties

              2   of metro East St. Louis are already non-attainment.

              3   With this standard going into place a number of

              4   other counties in the state would most likely also

              5   become non-attainment areas.  There are real life

              6   consequences for that.  I'm not saying we shouldn't

              7   do it, I'm just saying that the best sound science

              8   should be applied before we raise everybody's

              9   gasoline prices in these area, before we reduce

             10   economic activity and before we have the economic

             11   impacts that could affect everyone.  At the same

             12   time, we need to continue to move forward making

             13   all of our citizens more healthy.

             14              I look forward to participating in this

             15   continuing dialogue and I'll be happy to answer any

             16   questions.  Thank you very much.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions to Mr. Sykuta?

             18        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             19        MS. TYSON:  No.

             20        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             21              Dr. Pierce.

             22          STATEMENT OF CHARLES PIERCE, MD

             23        DR. PIERCE:  Good morning.  My name is Charles

             24   Pierce P I E R C E, as in arrow.  I'm a medical

                                                                    53





              1   doctor and I've worked over 30 hours -- I've earned

              2   my gray hair -- educating both students and

              3   physicians.  Asthma is my area of medical

              4   expertise.  I'm also a member of the Board of

              5   Directors of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based

              6   Public Policy.  I'm hear today representing that

              7   organization.  We're a 501(c)(3) non-profit

              8   organization that promotes and supports

              9   peer-reviewed science in public policy

             10   decision-making.

             11              In my submitted written testimony,

             12   you'll find a copy of the Center's newest

             13   publication peer-reviewed, the Science and Health

             14   Effects of Ground Level Ozone.  This report was

             15   peer-reviewed by high qualified scientists,

             16   physicians and reviewed by the entire board of

             17   directors of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based

             18   Public Policy.  Due to the time constraints, I'll

             19   quickly review the following major summary points

             20   from the report.

             21              Since the U.S. Environmental Protection

             22   Agency last reviewed the national ozone air quality

             23   standards in '97, there have been limited, if any,

             24   developments in epidemiology, toxicology or the

                                                                    54





              1   background science that would support a revision of

              2   ozone standards.  Emotion, yes; science, no.

              3              The recommendations regarding primary

              4   and secondary standards in the EPA's final ozone

              5   Staff Paper and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory

              6   Committee's October 24th, 2006 letter to the

              7   administrator are premised on estimates of health

              8   risk from exposures to concentrations of ambient

              9   ozone.  However, the estimates considered were

             10   based on an incomplete assessment of the

             11   uncontrollable background levels of ozone.  EPA

             12   assumes that there will be zero, zero emissions

             13   from human activities in North America.  This

             14   results in a gross overstatement of health risks.

             15              EPA and CASAC continue to overestimate

             16   the magnitude and consistency of and --

             17   underestimate the uncertainty in -- the results of

             18   acute epidemiological studies especially for

             19   emergency room hospital admissions from asthma and

             20   other respiratory disorders, school absences and

             21   mortally among them.  In addition, the EPA

             22   overstates the likelihood of causality,

             23   particularly for the more serious endpoints and at

             24   lower ozone concentrations.

                                                                    55





              1              With respect to the primary or health

              2   standard, our peer-reviewed report found that,

              3   yes, ozone is the respiratory irritant but the risk

              4   of respiratory effects is now lower than that in

              5   1997.

              6              Second, the EPA and its science advisors

              7   have recommended a tightening of the standard

              8   relying on an inappropriate computer model to

              9   establish the uncontrollable background of ozone.

             10              Third, the EPA has misinterpreted the

             11   report of 2006 by Adams and Group, that clinical

             12   study, the only controlled study that allegedly

             13   supports making the existing primary standard more

             14   stringent.  These studies are inconsistent, provide

             15   a biological and implausible range of results and

             16   do not establish a cause and effect.

             17              With respect to the secondary or welfare

             18   standard, the report found that the staff

             19   recommendation to lower the addition of unique

             20   seasonal standard to protect vegetation does not

             21   sufficiently address the uncertainties and

             22   limitations of such a standard.

             23              Since no new data has been presented

             24   since the 1997 review to reduce the uncertainties

                                                                    56





              1   and limitations of the cumulative seasonal

              2   standard, there is no compelling reason to change

              3   the current secondary standard.

              4              In conclusion, I ask you to not only

              5   review the science in this report but truly

              6   consider its findings when making your decision.  A

              7   hasty decision to impose more stringent ozone

              8   standards based upon a very flawed review will

              9   serve no one and will have unforeseen implications

             10   and a staggering cost.

             11              I thank you for your time and I stress

             12   again, please let science, not emotion be our

             13   guiding light in this thought process.

             14              Are there any questions?

             15        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions, Harvey?

             16        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             17        MS. TYSON:  No.

             18        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Dr. Pierce.

             19              Thank you Mr. Sykuta.

             20              Our next speakers are Mr. Joseph

             21   Suchecki and Angela Tin.

             22             STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SUCHECKI.

             23        MR. SUCHECKI:  Okay.  I'm Joseph Suchecki,

             24   S U C H E C K I, Director of Public Affairs for the

                                                                    57





              1   Engine Manufacturers Association, EMA.  EMA is the

              2   international trade association representing the

              3   major manufacturers of internal combustion engines.

              4   EMA's 29 member companies manufacture diesel,

              5   gasoline and alternative fueled engines that power

              6   much of the transportation and distributed

              7   generation infrastructure in the US.

              8              First, it's important to recognize that

              9   the efforts to reduce ozone levels across the

             10   country are working, and ambient ozone

             11   concentrations have decreased by about 21 percent

             12   over the past 16 years while economic and

             13   manufacturing output has increased significantly.

             14   The ambient ozone levels are likely to improve

             15   further as industry implements existing regulations

             16   to reduce ozone precursors, so a more stringent

             17   ozone NAAQS is not really needed in order to

             18   achieve better air quality.

             19              For our part, engine manufacturers have

             20   significantly reduced emissions of NOx and

             21   hydrocarbons since the 1980s.  Today's on-highway

             22   diesel trucks and buses emit PM and hydrocarbon at

             23   essentially near-zero levels, and NOx emissions

             24   have reduced by about 90 percent.  Concurrently

                                                                    58





              1   we're working on introducing new technologies to

              2   further reduce NOx emissions by another 80 percent

              3   by 2010.

              4              Requirements for similar reductions are

              5   already on the books for non-road equipment and

              6   stationary engines and will soon be finalized for

              7   small non-road locomotive and marine engines; none

              8   of these improvements depends on revising the

              9   current standards, because our friends at EPA

             10   regulate us on the best available technology and

             11   putting that technology into use, so it really

             12   doesn't matter what the standards are, we make the

             13   best and the most improvement we can.

             14              From our viewpoint, the relevant

             15   question is whether there is sound scientific

             16   evidence that reducing the code of standards from

             17   the range of 0.06 to 0.07 will improve public

             18   health.

             19              On that question, there's a great deal

             20   of scientific uncertainty regarding the health

             21   effects at ozone at levels below the current

             22   standard of 0.08.  EPA's rationale for proposing to

             23   lower the current standard is based on both human

             24   exposure studies and epidemiology studies.  The

                                                                    59





              1   epidemiology studies of ozone provide very mixed

              2   signals with wide variations and often negative

              3   results.  In the case of long-term effects, there

              4   appears to be no relationship between ozone and

              5   mortality.

              6              What epidemiology evidence there is

              7   comes from short-term or daily time-series studies.

              8   However, there are many unresolved problems with

              9   such studies related to model selection, what lag

             10   times that we choose to create the greatest effects

             11   and compounding with other pollutants and

             12   non-air pollution factors.  Results from

             13   time-series studying epidemiology studies are

             14   really are not adequate to establish a NAAQS

             15   standard.  The most relevant studies are the human

             16   exposure studies where volunteers are exposed to

             17   various ozone concentrations in experimental

             18   chambers, and it was these studies that we were

             19   used to establish the current ozone standard.  Do

             20   these studies show negative health effects from

             21   ozone below the .08 ppm level?  The answer is no.

             22              The only way that any physiological

             23   effects from exposure to low levels are observed is

             24   if the researchers force the subjects to vigorously

                                                                    60





              1   exercise several hours in the ozone chamber.  And

              2   then, the results are minor, temporary and

              3   reversible change in selecting lung function

              4   indices.  There is a small immeasurable effect but

              5   but there are no other symptoms, and it's

              6   questionable whether the changes are adverse health

              7   effects.

              8              Certainly, the special and extreme

              9   conditions required to elicit an ozone effect at

             10   concentrations at or below today's NAAQS cannot be

             11   generalized to apply to the general population.

             12   Such chamber tests also show that the elderly and

             13   children are actually less sensitive to ozone.

             14              As summarized by the EPA staff report,

             15   quote, "There is some limited indication that lung

             16   function and respiratory system effects, as well as

             17   mortality effects, may be occurring in areas that

             18   likely would have met the current standards."  Such

             19   a weak and qualified statement on the science of

             20   ozone health effects is not sufficient to conclude

             21   that the current standards are not adequate to

             22   protect public health.

             23              Since we have been successful in

             24   reducing ozone levels in many areas of the country,

                                                                    61





              1   another important issue is that atmospheric

              2   chemistry of ozone formation has changed.  Our

              3   previous assumptions about what was needed to

              4   further lower ozone concentrations may be no longer

              5   valid.  For example, the ambient ozone levels are

              6   stabilized or are decreasing more slowly in areas

              7   where states have achieved significant reductions

              8   in NOx.  In reviewing the ozone NAAQS, EPA has not

              9   adequately addressed the issue of ozone formation

             10   nor considered how the changing control strategies

             11   affect the attainment of the proposed ozone

             12   standard.  EMA believes it is important to do so in

             13   order to understand what ambient levels of ozone

             14   are achievable and what the best path is to assure

             15   further reductions in ozone concentrations.  We

             16   would certainly recommend a comprehensive review of

             17   this topic be undertaken by the EPA and the

             18   National Academy of Sciences in conjunction with

             19   any action on the ozone.

             20              Thank you.

             21        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.  I do have a

             22   clarifying question.  Did you say that the elderly

             23   and children are less susceptible to ozone and what

             24   was the basis that you quoted?

                                                                    62





              1        DR. PIERCE:  The chamber studies that were

              2   done, particularly some in the late '80s and early

              3   '90s where they first were working on these higher

              4   levels of ozone actually found that there was less

              5   of a response from the children and the elderly in

              6   the chamber studies.  And there's references

              7   available that would apply or I'm sure Harvey knows

              8   of those studies.

              9        MR. RICHMOND:  You're talking about one-hour

             10   studies, not six-hour studies.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Any other questions?

             12        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             13        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             14              Ms. Tin.

             15              STATEMENT OF ANGELA TIN

             16        MS. TIN:  Good morning, my name is Angela Tin,

             17   T I N, and I'm director of environmental programs

             18   for the American Lung Association of the metro

             19   Chicago area and of the upper midwest.

             20              The United States EPA proposed

             21   provisions for the ozone standards are our first

             22   step towards cleaner air.  Currently in Illinois

             23   there are two areas designated non-attainment for

             24   ozone, Chicago and metro east.  These two

                                                                    63





              1   non-attainment areas consist of nine counties and

              2   several additional townships.

              3              In 2005 Illinois EPA monitored ozone at

              4   36 stations throughout Illinois.  Ten sites had

              5   ozone readings that exceeded the current standard,

              6   the highest level was 90 parts per billion in

              7   Mt. Zion and 94 parts per billion in East St.

              8   Louis.

              9              Between May and August of 2007, we in

             10   Illinois experienced 15 days for the ambient air

             11   monitoring networks recorded ozone concentrations

             12   at or above the current eight-hour ozone standard.

             13   As other speakers have mentioned, ozone has

             14   significant adverse health impact on children and

             15   seniors who suffer from emphysema and chronic

             16   bronchitis due to ozone exposure.  Clinical studies

             17   show that even healthy adults develop increased

             18   lung function and increased respiratory problems.

             19              The scientific advisory committee has

             20   emphasized the need for stronger standards.  There

             21   is no scientific justification for keeping the

             22   tighter level.  The Clean Air Act requires that the

             23   air quality standards be set to protect human

             24   health, including the health of sensitive

                                                                    64





              1   populations with an adequate margin of safety.  We

              2   understand that economic impacts are not to be

              3   considered in the standard setting process,

              4   however, we feel that economic benefits will occur

              5   if health impacts are reduced.

              6              The American Lung Association recommends

              7   that EPA takes the next step towards cleaner air

              8   by following the recommendations of its own

              9   scientific advisors and tighten the eight-hour

             10   ozone standard.

             11              Thank you.

             12        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Any questions from the panel?

             13              Thank you, Ms. Tin and Mr. Suchecki.

             14              The next two speakers are Dr. Willard

             15   Fry and Ms. Helen Costello.

             16        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Dr. Fry.

             17             STATEMENT OF WILLARD FRY, MD

             18        DR. FRY:  Thank you.  Good morning.  I'm

             19   Dr. Willard Fry and I'm a board member of the

             20   Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan

             21   Chicago.  I'm a professor emeritus of clinical

             22   surgery at Northwestern University School of

             23   Medicine and for many years I was head of the

             24   section of general thoracic surgery at Evanston

                                                                    65





              1   Hospital and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare.

              2              Ozone is the irritant to the lining of

              3   airway, our lungs.  There is not an effective

              4   anecdote to ozone exposure, so it is to be avoided.

              5   People with underlying airway disease, such as

              6   asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema are

              7   particularly affected.

              8              Chicago has already documented in top

              9   level scientific publications to have an excessive

             10   amount of particular matter in the ambient air.

             11   Not the subject of today's hearings, but it is a

             12   fact that our air here in Chicago is not good.

             13   What many people don't know is that Chicago has an

             14   abnormally high incidence of asthma and the highest

             15   infant mortally rate for asthma in African-American

             16   children in America.

             17              This is a bad marker on our city.  We

             18   must mobilize all appropriate means to reduce the

             19   concentration of ozone in the air we breathe in

             20   Chicago.  We need the EPA to come to our aid and to

             21   strengthen the ozone standard to protect the public

             22   health.  The EPA's own clean air scientific

             23   advisory committee has even included that the

             24   current ozone standard is not adequate.  The EPA

                                                                    66





              1   needs to hope to heed its own independent

              2   scientific advisory committee's advice.  Even the

              3   United States Supreme Court has ruled that the

              4   EPA's sole responsibility in setting the ozone

              5   standard is to protect the public's health.  By

              6   setting the recommended ozone standard at 0.060

              7   parts per million, the EPA would be doing all of us

              8   a great service.

              9              The Clean Air Act is for the benefit of

             10   all of us.  Its recommendations should be followed.

             11   The EPA has already had voluminous scientific

             12   presentations to support this new ozone standard.

             13   You are here today for comments from American

             14   citizens.  The National Ambient Air Quality

             15   Standards for ozone, the NAAQS, needs to be

             16   tightened, and I would submit with my presentation

             17   today an editorial that I'm sure you have already

             18   seen, but I submit it to you again for emphasis

             19   from the American Journal of Respiratory and

             20   Critical Care Medicine, the leading chest disease

             21   journal in the world.

             22              Thank you very much.

             23        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Dr. Fry.

             24              Questions from the panel?

                                                                    67





              1        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

              2        MS. TYSON:  No.

              3        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, and we'll take your

              4   written testimony with the attached editorial.

              5              Next is Helen Costello and a young

              6   guest.

              7             STATEMENT OF HELEN COSTELLO.

              8        MS. COSTELLO:  My name is Helen Costello.  I'm

              9   a private citizen and full-time mom.  This is my

             10   daughter Mia, and I would just like to assure you

             11   that I'm going to leave after I read my comments.

             12              I feel that in our society a lot of

             13   decisions are made for the sake of business and the

             14   economy, which is important, but sometimes it's to

             15   the exclusion of other major concerns.  And the

             16   consequences of these choices can be very serious,

             17   and I believe that accepting pollution for the sake

             18   of avoiding heavy expenses calls for this type of

             19   decision.

             20              Our health is just as important as the

             21   economy.  The environment should be even more

             22   important to all of us because we're not going to

             23   have health or business if our environment and

             24   circumstances fail.  This is the principle that

                                                                    68





              1   guides my questions on pollution.

              2              In my life there hasn't been a time when

              3   pollution wasn't going on all around so that it

              4   seemed like a given that ozone and smog are just a

              5   fact of life, but ozone studies say we need to

              6   reduce it.  I read that any ozone at ground level

              7   is bad for us.  Breathing it injuries lung cells.

              8   I haven't had an asthma attack, bronchitis or

              9   emphysema, so I can't feel the effects but that

             10   makes it no less important to me.  I don't want

             11   ozone silently damaging my lung cells, my

             12   daughter's or anyone's, for that matter.  My father

             13   had asthma and my husband is an emergency room

             14   doctor.  I'm aware of the suffering that is a

             15   result of ozone in our air.

             16              I've also learned that ozone is one of

             17   the most toxic air pollutants to plant life

             18   damaging plant cells and interfering with growth.

             19   Also related to this problem, a July 25 article in

             20   a journal called Nature.  It reported that rising

             21   levels of ozone pollution erode the ability of

             22   plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

             23   which contributes to global warming.

             24              We have the opportunity here to correct

                                                                    69





              1   past mistakes about ozone levels and help save our

              2   environment and to better protect ourselves from

              3   exposure to a toxin that will affect some of us.

              4   The American Thoracic Society is recommending a

              5   level of 60 parts per billion, the Chicago

              6   Respiratory Health Association also recommends 60,

              7   and the EPA is considering 70 to 75, although the

              8   advisory committee is recommending 60 to 70.

              9              While I personally wish that we were

             10   here to discuss how to achieve 50 parts per

             11   million, I'd like to point out that none of these

             12   medical, environmental and government agencies are

             13   supporting the current standard of 85 anymore.

             14   That standard is outdated and that definitely needs

             15   to be lowered.  These agencies exist to protect and

             16   promote our health.  I respect the work of industry

             17   representatives, but I ask EPA to listen to the

             18   health environment and government experts and lower

             19   us from this clearly harmful level.  That is what

             20   your role is.  And we're all good, smart people,

             21   we'll find a way to continue life at the lower

             22   standard of ozone, but we need you to set that

             23   lower standard.

             24              That's my position.  Thank you.

                                                                    70





              1        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Mrs. Costello and

              2   Mia and Dr. Fry.

              3              It's 10:30.  We'll take a short break

              4   and we'll be back around 10:45.  Thanks.

              5                  (WHEREUPON, a recess was had from

              6                  10:32 a.m. until 10:48 a.m.)

              7        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We're at a public hearing on

              8   EPA's proposed rule regarding the revisions to the

              9   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone,

             10   and my co-chair panel members are Harvey Richmond

             11   from the Office of the Air Quality Planning and

             12   Standards and Mary Pat Tyson from the Region 5 EPA.

             13   My name is Rosalina Rodriguez from the Office of

             14   Air Quality Planning and Standards, also the EPA.

             15              We will resume and I will start calling

             16   the presenters in pairs to the table across from

             17   us.  I will again remind you and request that you

             18   spell your names and I apologize for mispronouncing

             19   any names here.

             20              I'll quickly go through the logistics

             21   here.  We had a timekeeping system consistent of

             22   green, yellow and red lights.  When we begin

             23   speaking, the green light will come on, you'll have

             24   five minutes to speak, the yellow light will signal

                                                                    71





              1   that you have two minutes left to speak.  We'll ask

              2   that you stop speaking when the red light comes on.

              3   We'll try to assure that everyone has an

              4   opportunity to comment, if necessary we'll stay

              5   into the evening tonight.  If you would like to

              6   testify but have not registered yet, please sign up

              7   at the registration table outside.  We will take a

              8   lunch break at 12:30 and be back here by about

              9   2:00.  I believe we have an hour and a half for

             10   lunch.

             11              Okay, I'd like to call the next two

             12   speakers, Karen Stacey and Bryan Brendle to the

             13   table, please.

             14              Ms. Stacey, we'll start with you.

             15             STATEMENT OF KAREN STACEY.

             16        MS. STACEY:  Good morning.  My name is Karen

             17   Stacey, K A R E N, S T A C E Y.

             18        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  You may want to adjust your

             19   microphone.

             20        MS. STACEY:  Is that better?

             21              I'm here as a private citizen

             22   representing myself, my own interests as far as the

             23   EPA's draft on ozone pollution standards.  Thank

             24   you for the opportunity to voice my concerns.

                                                                    72





              1              I'm here because of the ozone alerts.

              2   As you know today we have a yellow one.  And when

              3   the weather is hot and sticky, the National Weather

              4   Service advises "that those with breathing

              5   disabilities stay indoors."  Well, I couldn't stay

              6   indoors, I had to come here.

              7              I have to pay attention to these alerts

              8   and I'm not one of the groups who usually have to

              9   pay heed.  I'm not elderly, a child, I don't work

             10   outdoors or exercise outdoors, for that matter, and

             11   most certainly I do not have a preexisting

             12   breathing problem.  I am what's termed as a

             13   responder, one who is otherwise healthy but has a

             14   sensitivity to ozone.  When an alert happens, I

             15   have to make sure that I have my inhaler with me, I

             16   have to watch how long I'm outside.  I can't

             17   breathe, it feels like I have an elephant sitting

             18   on my chest.  My chest burns when I try to take a

             19   deep breathe.

             20              The first time this happened I went to

             21   my doctor because I thought I walked through a fog

             22   of bug spray and he said, "No, it's the ozone," so

             23   I got an inhaler.  Now I find myself with an

             24   opportunity to address the EPA about the ozone that

                                                                    73





              1   is nearest the earth.  With this opportunity, I

              2   started reading about ozone pollution harms your

              3   health from the American Lung Association.  I

              4   didn't realize how big an issue ozone is.  I found

              5   it quite alarming to find that ozone could be

              6   deadly as well.

              7              The EPA is aware of the effect ozone

              8   has.  In 2005, EPA commissioned researchers to redo

              9   all the research regarding death associated with

             10   short-term, high levels of ozone.  The researchers

             11   used their own means of confirming the data and all

             12   came to the same conclusion, a small but robust

             13   association between daily ozone levels and

             14   increased death.  Writing a commentary on these

             15   reviews, David Bates, MD, explained how these

             16   premature deaths could occur.  He said, "Ozone is

             17   capable of causing inflammation of the lung at

             18   lower concentrations than any other gas.  Such an

             19   effect would be a hazard to anyone with health

             20   failure and pulmonary congestion and would worsen

             21   with the function of anyone with advanced lung

             22   disease."

             23              Of course, one has to be a part of the

             24   five groups who are vulnerable to the effects of

                                                                    74





              1   breathing ozone, children, elderly, people who work

              2   or exercise outside, people who already have

              3   breathing difficulties and responders.

              4              Since discovering I'm a responder, I was

              5   happy to learn that the EPA is taking action to

              6   strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality

              7   Standards for ozone.  I was happy to learn that the

              8   EPA had its own scientific advisors recommending a

              9   level of .06 parts per million to .07 parts per

             10   million.  Finally, I thought the EPA was going to

             11   enforce the Clean Air Act, which states that the

             12   Environmental Protection Agency must set National

             13   Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone that

             14   protect public health, including a health of

             15   sensitive populations, with an adequate margin of

             16   safety.  And then I read a little further and found

             17   that the EPA is proposing a range of .07 to .075.

             18   Why hire the scientists if the information is

             19   ignored anyway.  Even though the Clean Air

             20   Scientific Advisory Committee, the EPA's

             21   independent science advisors, completed an

             22   extensive review of the research published over the

             23   last ten years and unanimously concluded that there

             24   is no scientific justification for retaining the

                                                                    75





              1   current primary eight-hour NAAQS of .08 part per

              2   million.  EPA staff scientists also stated that the

              3   overall body of evidence clearly calls into

              4   question the adequacy of the current standard.  Air

              5   quality standards must be strong enough to protect

              6   sensitive groups, not just average healthy

              7   individuals.  Significant public health benefits

              8   can be achieved by setting stronger standards.

              9              This would not be a first time that the

             10   EPA has failed to use available science research in

             11   regulatory decisions.  In 2005 the Agency --

             12        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Ms. Stacey, we will

             13   take your written testimony and make sure it gets

             14   submitted in its entirety into the record.  Thank

             15   you very much.

             16        MS. STACEY:  Thank you.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Mr. Brendle.

             18             STATEMENT OF BRYAN BRENDLE

             19        MR. BRENDLE:  Hell, my name is Bryan Brendle

             20   and I'm with the National Association of

             21   Manufacturers.  Thank you very much for an

             22   opportunity to come here to Chicago today to talk

             23   about the ozone standards.

             24              The NAM is the nation's largest

                                                                    76





              1   industrial trade association in the United States

              2   representing a sector that employs more than 14

              3   million American workers.  In Illinois, that number

              4   exceeds 675,000 with an average salary for the

              5   average worker 50,000 per year.  This annual

              6   compensation is almost 20 percent higher than the

              7   average wage of $43,000 in the state.

              8              After analyzing EPA's latest proposal,

              9   the NAM has concluded that any recommendation to

             10   revise the current ozone standard will provide

             11   uncertain benefits will burdening the nation's

             12   economy.  We therefore support preservation of

             13   existing ozone standard.

             14              The current standard establishes limits

             15   of .08 parts per million, is reducing emissions and

             16   has not been fully implemented.  Many states have

             17   until June 2013 to attain the current standard and

             18   therefore improve their regional air quality.

             19              According to the EPA's own studies,

             20   average ozone concentrations dropped by more than

             21   21 percent of 1980 and 2006, and since the Clean

             22   Air Act was passed by Congress in the early 1970s,

             23   emissions from the six key air pollutants criteria

             24   dropped by more than 54 percent, so the nation's

                                                                    77





              1   air quality was actually improving under current

              2   programs.  According to the EPA's Clean Air Trends

              3   Report, current regulations will significantly

              4   reduce ground level ozone causing emissions to drop

              5   over the next two decades.  Power plant emissions

              6   will drop by more than 50 percent by 2015 and

              7   mobile source emissions will drop by more than 70

              8   percent 2030.

              9              There are unfortunately many questions

             10   remaining regarding the state of science and

             11   especially whether there have been any significant

             12   developments during the past decade that would

             13   warrant a stricter standard.  In developing the

             14   proposed revision to the current standard, EPA

             15   changed the way it calculated naturally occurring

             16   and other existing ground level ozone to inflate

             17   the standard by as much as 90 percent.  So in other

             18   words, it's a great deal that industry or any

             19   manmade activity cannot do to further reduce the

             20   emissions of the ozone.  If you actually look at

             21   certain maps that project new areas of

             22   non-attainment that EPA will designate, many of

             23   those areas are actually rural, there's no

             24   industrial activity whatsoever, but there are other

                                                                    78





              1   sources of ozone that industry cannot reduce

              2              A 2006 study conducted by the NAM shows

              3   that US pays the equivalent of 5.2 percent tax or

              4   structural cost in order to comply with pollution

              5   abatement regulations.  This cost differential

              6   undermines competitiveness and has contributed to

              7   the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs

              8   in the United States between 2000 and 2004,

              9   according to the Congressional Budget Office.

             10   Studies showed that even though most people lose

             11   manufacturing jobs, are actually employed by six

             12   months of being laid off, they often earn about 72

             13   percent of their former wage.  These new jobs they

             14   take often don't even have health benefits, so we

             15   believe that again poses a significant health risk

             16   to the American public.

             17              Furthermore, the EPA estimates that

             18   current Clear Air Act regulations will cost about

             19   $27 billion annually in 2010 and $180 billion

             20   overall.  The additional 10 to $20 billion annual

             21   cost the proposed standard will further increase

             22   costs to businesses which consumers will likely see

             23   reflected in the cost of everyday items.

             24              If employers don't pass on the added

                                                                    79





              1   expense to consumers, they'll likely shift

              2   operations to lower cost areas of production.  In

              3   Illinois, for example, more than 180,000 high

              4   paying manufacturing jobs disappear between 2000

              5   and 2006.

              6              There is no sound policy justification

              7   for changing the current standard.  EPA's current

              8   ozone standard continues to improve -- thank you

              9   very much for the opportunity to come out.

             10        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Mr. Brendle.  We'll

             11   also take your testimony and submit it to the

             12   written record.

             13        UNIDENTIFIED PERSON:  May I ask a question?

             14        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Sure.

             15        UNIDENTIFIED PERSON:  Where do you get your

             16   statistics that the ozone is Illinois is going

             17   down?  According to the American Lung Association,

             18   it's only in the eastern states that ozone has gone

             19   down, in the western states it has gone up.

             20        MR. BRENDLE:  We use actual EPA data so the

             21   concentrations nationwide have dropped

             22   significantly for ozone.

             23        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             24              Our next two speakers are Terry Josie

                                                                    80





              1   and Meleah Geertsma.  Again, I remind you to please

              2   spell your names for the reporter.  Thank you.

              3                STATEMENT OF TERRY YOSIE

              4        MR. YOSIE:  Good morning, my name is Terry

              5   Yosie, Y O S I E.  I served as the first Executive

              6   Director of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory

              7   Committee and I'm the former director of EPA's

              8   Science Advisory Board.  Today I'm appearing on

              9   behalf of the International Truck and Engine

             10   corporation.

             11              My role as a public official and as a

             12   representative of the private sector has provided a

             13   bird's eye view on the process of developing

             14   National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

             15   and their implementation.  Ozone standard-setting

             16   is one of the most scientifically challenging and

             17   administratively difficult problems that EPA has to

             18   address.

             19              My testimony this morning will present a

             20   proposal to minimize such controversy and will

             21   enable ozone standard-setting to proceed without

             22   delay.  Over the past 30 years, EPA has made great

             23   strides in improving scientific basis and integrity

             24   of its process for establishing ambient air quality

                                                                    81





              1   standards.  Too little effort and too few resources

              2   have been placed on developing better

              3   implementation tools and for ensuring that the

              4   scientific information and analysis for

              5   implementing standards are more robust.

              6              Approximately 16 years ago, the National

              7   Research Council published a report entitled

              8   Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional

              9   Air Pollution.  The report represented a

             10   comprehensive evaluation of some of the most

             11   important issues related to ozone standards

             12   development, implementation and attainment.

             13              The 1991 NAS report represented not only

             14   an important benchmark in the nation's

             15   understanding of the dimension of the ozone

             16   problem, but it helped create a road map for future

             17   ozone research and decision-making.

             18              As EPA proceeds to promulgate revised

             19   ozone standards in 2008, there are a number of

             20   large challenges confronting the Agency's ability

             21   to effectively implement its decisions on ozone.

             22   These include improving the State Implementation

             23   Planning process, assessing the effects of

             24   co-pollutant exposures and evaluating the impacts

                                                                    82





              1   upon ozone formation for continuous changes in the

              2   mix of fuels and vehicles.

              3              These and other major challenges, and

              4   EPA's ability to successfully address them will be

              5   shaped by the changing scientific understanding in

              6   the role of nitrogen oxides in ozone formation.

              7   The conclusion that NOx should be reduced in the

              8   VOC/NOx ratio exceeded 15 to 1 was one of the

              9   principle scientific judgments of the 1991 NAS

             10   report.  Since that time, due to the implementation

             11   of controls, that ratio was much lower across air

             12   quality and regions.

             13              More recent scientific reports in the

             14   peer-reviewed and professional literature recommend

             15   that the time has arrived to reassess the role of

             16   nitrogen oxides in creating ground level ozone.

             17   Several examples support this conclusion:  The

             18   staff of the California Air Resources board

             19   evaluated and acknowledged what's called the

             20   weekend effect, the phenomenon in which ozone

             21   levels on Saturdays and Sundays are higher on

             22   average than those recorded during the week.  CARB

             23   officials have written that and I quote, "The focus

             24   of ozone control policies must now begin shifting

                                                                    83





              1   from the traditional analysis and modeling of

              2   weekday to weekend," unquote.

              3              Second, Researchers at the National

              4   Renewable Energy Laboratory and other research

              5   institutions have examined the hypothesis that

              6   lower ozone of NOx on weekend mornings resulting

              7   largely from fewer trucks on the road at that time

              8   is the single largest contributor to elevated ozone

              9   levels.  Other peer-reviewed research findings

             10   document that this is not a phenomenon limited to

             11   the South Coast Air Quality basin but in fact

             12   becoming nationwide across the midwest and the

             13   northeast corridor.

             14              Finally, last year the National Research

             15   Counsel issued a major report that's included, and

             16   I quote, "Because NOx can result in both ozone

             17   formation and removal as well as secondary PM

             18   formation, there is some debate as to the

             19   effectiveness of NOx emissions reduction for ozone

             20   and PM control.

             21              I believe the EPA should ask the

             22   National Academy of Sciences to conduct a new study

             23   focusing on the role of nitrogen oxides and the

             24   relationship of VOCs in ozone formation.  At a

                                                                    84





              1   minimum, such a study should address the following

              2   issues:  Review the accuracy of air quality data,

              3   emission inventories and modeling tools related to

              4   ozone formation, assess the weekend effect

              5   phenomenon and evaluate the role of NOx control

              6   strategies and mobile source emission control

              7   technologies in meeting mandated air quality goals

              8   for ozone and particulate matter.

              9              Like the 1991 study, the new NAS effort

             10   to deliver timely, valuable and relevant

             11   information to guide future decision-making.  I

             12   recommend the EPA adopt this proposal.  Thank you.

             13        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions from the panel?

             14        MS. TYSON:  No.

             15        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             16              Ms. Geertsma?

             17            STATEMENT OF MELEAH GEERTSMA.

             18        MS. GEERTSMA:  Good morning.  Thank you for

             19   this opportunity to address the Agency regarding

             20   the need to pass a new more protective ozone

             21   standard.

             22              My name is M E L E A H, G E E R T S M A,

             23   and I'm a staff attorney and public health

             24   specialist for the Environmental Law and Policy

                                                                    85





              1   Center here in Chicago.  ELPC is the Midwest's

              2   leading public interest in environmental advocacy

              3   organization working here to improve the region's

              4   air quality through various smart policies as

              5   initiatives.  My comments today come from dual

              6   background in law and public health and I provide

              7   my comments on behalf of myself and my colleagues

              8   at ELPC.

              9              Rarely and unlikely in the complicated

             10   Clean Air Acts are there clear directives as to

             11   what the agencies must do.  Even more rarely it

             12   seems does the Supreme Court make unanimous

             13   decisions.  The basis for setting the National

             14   Ambient Air Quality Standards thus presents a point

             15   of clarity and unanimity.  The standards must be

             16   based on public health considerations alone.

             17              As those involved in Clean Air Act would

             18   know, opportunities and often mandates abound at

             19   the state and federal levels for considering costs

             20   and achieving the standards.  Costs should not and

             21   indeed cannot be allowed to dilute the NOx in the

             22   first instance.  The legal aspects of air work are

             23   not the only areas where clarity and consensus are

             24   rare.  Those of us who have acted on the public

                                                                    86





              1   health side have read plenty of studies to report

              2   calling for more research before action is taken.

              3   Here, again, the ozone NOx presents a unique

              4   opportunity.  The Clean Air Act advisory committee

              5   has unanimously and unambiguously advised the

              6   USEPA to substantially reduce the AR ozone NOx to

              7   protect humans in the range of 60 to 70 parts per

              8   billion.

              9              My father is an inner city pediatrician

             10   who has been in practice for over 30 years.  In his

             11   current position, he serves a largely minority

             12   population.  Asthma affects close to 40 percent of

             13   the children served and uncontrolled asthma

             14   contributes to a major proportion of pediatric

             15   hospital admissions and emergency room visits.

             16              Despite successive treatment and

             17   improved preventative management, Asthma

             18   complications, hospitals, lost school time and

             19   increasing treatment, costs continue to rise in the

             20   city as elsewhere.  Ozone, even at levels below the

             21   current NOx, is a major contributor to these social

             22   and economic costs.

             23              I chose to go into environmental law and

             24   policies to help address the system and problems

                                                                    87





              1   which so frustrate my father's profession of

              2   medicine.  NOx are not simply numbers on a page.

              3   In my own work, I've seen firsthand how the NOx

              4   direct policy as well as individual project

              5   decisions of construction of highways to clean car

              6   legislation to the degree of air pollution control

              7   required a -- a strong air quality standard is

              8   critical to protecting the health of my clients,

              9   individuals and local environmental groups

             10   throughout the Midwest.  For these people as well

             11   as segments in the general population, high ozone

             12   levels are not assessed by a reading on a monitor

             13   but determinant of their daily and long-term

             14   well-being.

             15              As my clients, they put their trust in

             16   me to hold companies and individual polluters, the

             17   standards that will protect their health.  This

             18   trust is diluted where the standards themselves are

             19   watered down and inadequate.  I in turn rely on the

             20   USEPA to promulgate the strong, scientifically

             21   based standards that I combat in my work and that

             22   act as a gauge for assessing progress towards clean

             23   air.

             24              The USEPA has the tools and information

                                                                    88





              1   and indeed the obligation to provide with my

              2   father, myself and the advocacy community with a

              3   benchmark of both here in the Midwest and in the

              4   rest of the country.  For these reasons the agency

              5   should promulgate a standard of 60 parts per

              6   billion.  I also urge the Agency to properly issue

              7   guidance to implement the updated standards as the

              8   standards themselves are little lacking in these

              9   implementation plans.

             10              Thank you again for this opportunity.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you both.

             12              Our next speaker is Raymond Brytan and

             13   Gregor Sosnowski.  Again, I apologize for the

             14   pronunciation.  Please spell your names for the

             15   reporter.

             16              Mr. Brytan.

             17             STATEMENT OF RAYMOND BRYTAN

             18        MR. BRYTAN:  Raymond Brytan, B R Y T A N.  I'm

             19   a private citizen.  I have no remarks prepared

             20   other than to express my support for the .06 parts

             21   per million standard which the majority of the

             22   testimony here has also expressed.  If I may, I

             23   would like to respond to some of the things I've

             24   been listening to this morning so far.

                                                                    89





              1              First of all, I thought that loss of

              2   manufacturing jobs had a lot more to do with

              3   cheaper overseas labor than air quality standards.

              4   I think we have to remind ourselves this, it has

              5   been implied here previously that there is a cross

              6   in the treatment of respiratory uses in terms of

              7   public health system and into the individual and

              8   that's all I have to say.  Thank you.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

             10              Gregor Sosnowski.

             11             STATEMENT OF GREGOR SOSNOWSKI

             12        MR. SOSNOWSKI:  Good morning.  It's

             13   G R E G O R, my last name S O S N O W S K I.

             14              I'm also a private citizen and by no

             15   means an expert.  I would like to testify here

             16   today.  I'm also in favor of more stringent air

             17   pollution restrictions.

             18              I want to say I really love living in

             19   the city.  Today I biked downtown to be here along

             20   our beautiful lakefront.  This past Labor Day we

             21   swam in Lake Michigan.  We try to stay as active as

             22   we possibly can, but I worry about our six-year-old

             23   daughter growing up in a place where the air

             24   quality is so poor.  I developed asthma as a child

                                                                    90





              1   and as a result, I was hospitalized on more

              2   occasions than I care to remember.  Only recently

              3   have I come to understand that asthma is a

              4   condition that's exacerbated by air pollution.

              5              My mom was always a nervous wreck when I

              6   had my asthma attacks, I would cough and wheeze and

              7   as you know you could hardly breathe.  When I was

              8   really bad, she took me to ER and I was often

              9   admitted and hooked up to IVs and asked to breathe

             10   through a tube which had some sort of vaporized

             11   medicines in it.  I try not to think about it -- as

             12   a kid, I stayed active and played outdoors.  I try

             13   not to think about it now.  In fact, clean air and

             14   clean water is not something we should have to

             15   think about.  Yet all of us are here to testify in

             16   front of you, the Environmental Protection Agency,

             17   and advocate for more stringent standards than the

             18   ones that have been proposed.

             19              When I was a child my mother instilled

             20   in me a great faith in America and its ideals.  She

             21   had sincere trust that governmental agencies were

             22   in a place to protect us from harm, that is what

             23   she taught me, that is what made America great.

             24   The federal institutions like the EPA were above

                                                                    91





              1   political influence regardless of the various

              2   cultural shifts, religious beliefs, financial, or

              3   social status.  We as Americans are all due the

              4   same protection under mandate of law and this is

              5   what I want to believe, this is what I want my

              6   daughter to believe.

              7              It is your agency's duty to protect the

              8   health of individual citizens over the interest of

              9   industry, and as I understand, the EPA is legally

             10   bound to do, so please finalize an ozone standard

             11   of 0.06 parts per million.

             12              Thank you.

             13        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.  Thank you,

             14   gentlemen.

             15        MR. BRYTAN:  Excuse me, since we both have cut

             16   ourselves short, could I add one other thing to my

             17   testimony?

             18        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Sure.

             19        MR. BRYTAN:  I didn't mean to say that --

             20   there has been a lot of contradictory testimony

             21   here this morning in terms of lab studies and so

             22   forth, and I think that what we will really need to

             23   keep in mind is the incidence of respiratory

             24   incidences in places like L.A. and Chicago.  Those

                                                                    92





              1   have laboratory results from the smog and

              2   particulate concentrations.

              3              Thank you.

              4        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

              5              Our next two speakers are Ellen

              6   Rendulich and Carol Starks.  Ms. Rendulich, go

              7   first.

              8             STATEMENT OF ELLEN RENDULICH

              9        MS. RENDULICH:  Ellen Rendulich,

             10   R E N D U L I C H.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Could you get a little closer

             12   to the mic or the mic closer to you?

             13        MS. RENDULICH:  I'm a founder and director of

             14   a Grass Roots organization, Citizens Against

             15   Ruining the Environment, CARE.  We're located in

             16   Will County, Illinois.  We banned together in 1995,

             17   local citizens and we formed our group to protect

             18   the community's health and environment.  At the

             19   time there weren't any other environmental groups

             20   and there are many more today.

             21              Will County is one of the fastest

             22   growing counties in the nation, and new polluting

             23   industries are approaching our neighborhoods daily.

             24   We are also experiencing heavy population growth

                                                                    93





              1   which of course brings pollution from other

              2   sources, including diesel and gasoline fuels.

              3   Millions of us that live in the small mid sized

              4   communities are home to extremely healthy polluting

              5   industries including three coal fired power plants.

              6   We have numerous polluting industries including

              7   chemical and refinery plants such as Citgo, BP and

              8   Exelon, that according to the EPA, spew

              9   neurotoxins, PMs, coarse particles and other

             10   hazardous chemicals into our air.

             11              The death rate from asthma, lung

             12   diseases, heart attacks and stroke will only

             13   continue to worsen as the population and pollution

             14   increases in our areas.  American Lung gave Will

             15   County an "F" for ozone.  The score card has ranked

             16   Will County in the 90 to 100 percent range of the

             17   dirtiest counties in the United States.

             18              Why would the EPA consider lowering the

             19   standards with the ever-growing population of the

             20   United States.  Why would the EPA not consider the

             21   fact that the population of baby boomers is growing

             22   daily in historic proportions.  According to

             23   American Lung's research report dated July '05

             24   which was based on 2003 reports, over 10 percent of

                                                                    94





              1   the population in Will County was suffering from

              2   various forms of lung diseases.  To hear that the

              3   administration proposes to maintain the status quo

              4   and reject the more protective standards in our

              5   communities is ludicrous.  When taxpayers pay for

              6   scientific studies by the EPA, when independent

              7   scientists confirm that the health impacts of ozone

              8   and its standard are not adequate to protect human

              9   health, the standards must be substantially

             10   strengthened, not weakened, and not kept status

             11   quo.  Doesn't the law require you, the EPA, to base

             12   your decision solely on the need to protect public

             13   health?

             14              I think I'll let Carol finish reading

             15   the rest of this.

             16        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Ms. Stark.

             17                  STATEMENT OF CAROL STARK

             18        MS. STARKS:  Industry should not dictate nor

             19   should you allow them to influence decisions as to

             20   lowering the standards.  The Clean Air Scientific

             21   Advisory Committee has recommended to protect our

             22   health, the EPA should set the ozone standards at

             23   0.060 parts per million.  This is who the EPA

             24   should listen to, not industry, as this committee

                                                                    95





              1   was formed to protect citizens' health and

              2   well-being.

              3              Nine out of ten CARE members have a

              4   family member that is affected by respiratory

              5   disease.  Nine out of ten of our neighbors, their

              6   children or friends are suffering from some type of

              7   respiratory or lung disease.  Thousands are using

              8   inhalers for asthma and respiratory problems

              9   because of the pollution caused by industry.  My

             10   own family, my daughter has been affected by asthma

             11   and she was on a nebulizer for three years.

             12   Ellen's family, her sister-in-law died leaving two

             13   babies due to lung disease.  Her husband and

             14   herself, they're both on inhalers.  We expect

             15   immediate protection.

             16              Future generations will one day ask "Why

             17   didn't they do something?"  They will be talking

             18   about us.  Now is the time to control pollution.

             19   We have to be responsible.  This is not going to be

             20   easy, doing the right thing rarely is.

             21              Why do private citizens have to

             22   continuously defend our right for clean air and

             23   water?  CARE has attended public hearings, written

             24   letters and networked without pay for more than 12

                                                                    96





              1   years.  The government is being paid to protect us

              2   and we expect nothing less.  Thank you.

              3        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.  Let me

              4   remind you to please leave a copy of the written

              5   testimony.

              6              Our next two speakers are Kathy Chan and

              7   Caroline Herzenberg.

              8              Ms. Khan.

              9                STATEMENT OF KATHY CHAN.

             10        MS. CHAN:  Good morning and thank you for the

             11   opportunity to testify.

             12              My name is Kathy Khan and I'm the policy

             13   director for the Illinois Maternal and Child Health

             14   Coalition, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to

             15   promoting and improving the health of women,

             16   children and families through advocacy, education,

             17   community empowerment and policy development.

             18              I am here today because we're concerned

             19   that the USEPA's proposed revisions to the ozone

             20   standards do not go far enough to protect public

             21   health, especially the health of some of society's

             22   most vulnerable populations, children and pregnant

             23   women.

             24              It has been proven that ozone poses a

                                                                    97





              1   serious threat to respiratory health, especially

              2   for those who already have a compromised breathing

              3   condition, the most common of which is asthma.

              4              More than 3.2 million children breathe

              5   the air here in Illinois.  Data from the Centers

              6   of Disease Control and Prevention's National

              7   Survey of Children's Health shows that one in ten

              8   Illinois children suffers from asthma.  The

              9   prevalence of asthma is even higher for

             10   African-Americans where one in five children were

             11   reported having asthma.

             12              In comparison to adults, children tend

             13   to spend more time outdoors but have narrower

             14   airways and inhale more pollutants relative to

             15   their body weight.  Childhood exposure to ozone can

             16   also be detrimental to normal development of

             17   healthy lungs.

             18              Additionally, pregnant woman who are

             19   exposed to levels of ozone at an even lower rate

             20   than the 0.07 parts per million to .075 parts per

             21   million range proposed to be adopted by the EPA are

             22   at a higher risk of giving birth to low birth

             23   weight babies and subject to intrauterine birth

             24   retardation.

                                                                    98





              1              The data is clear, exposure to ozone at

              2   levels even below current standards results in

              3   adverse health outcomes, not only for those

              4   suffering from asthma for other respiratory

              5   conditions, but even for healthy individuals.  The

              6   children's Health Protection Advisory Committee

              7   proposes that the standard be set at .060 ppm in

              8   order to afford the greatest protection to

              9   children.

             10              We agree with the consensus of the

             11   scientific medical communities that the EPA should

             12   strengthen the ozone standards to maintain the

             13   adequate margin of safety for public health as

             14   required by law.  Everyone deserves the right to

             15   clean air.

             16              Thank you.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             18              Ms. Herzenberg.

             19            STATEMENT OF CAROLINE HERZENBERG,

             20        MS. HERZENBERG:  Thank you.

             21              Good day.  My name is Caroline

             22   Herzenberg, C A R O L I N E, H E R S E N B E R G.

             23   I'm a scientist, a physicist retired from Argonne

             24   National Laboratory.  I want to thank you for

                                                                    99





              1   providing me with this opportunity to speak to you.

              2              I find it gratifying that the EPA is

              3   considering taking a step toward cleaner air by

              4   proposing to strengthen the National Ambient Air

              5   Quality Standard for ozone.  However, it is

              6   disappointing that EPA's proposal falls short of

              7   the ozone standard that its own scientific advisors

              8   indicated is necessary to protect public health,

              9   and it is even more unfortunate that the current

             10   EPA proposal leaves open the possibility of not

             11   strengthening the ozone standards at all, even

             12   though the current standard has been shown to be

             13   unsafe.  I recommend that EPA adopt a new standard

             14   to keep ozone levels below .06 parts per million,

             15   which is at the lower and safer end of the range

             16   recommended by EPA's scientific advisory committee.

             17              The current EPA standard of .08 parts

             18   per million is not acceptable because it was not

             19   set low enough to protect the public from

             20   respiratory damage from ozone.  Recent

             21   epidemiological and clinical studies have shown

             22   that there are adverse health impacts from

             23   breathing ozone at levels below the current ambient

             24   air quality standards.  In fact, it has been

                                                                   100





              1   reported that clinical studies of otherwise healthy

              2   adults have found decreased lung function,

              3   increased respiratory symptoms, inflammation

              4   and increased susceptibility to respiratory

              5   infection at or below the current standard of

              6   .08 parts per million, which was set in 1997.

              7   it's clear the ozone standard should be

              8   substantially strengthened by lowering the level

              9   significantly below its present value in order to

             10   protect public health.

             11              I know that you all have access to the

             12   air quality statistics that show that the pervasive

             13   extent of air pollution in the greater metropolitan

             14   area here, and you are undoubtedly aware that

             15   Chicago is one of the ten smoggiest cities in the

             16   United States, and you may also know that Cook

             17   County has some of the worst ozone pollution in

             18   the state as well as problematic particulate

             19   pollution.

             20              As a Chicagoan, I can personally tell

             21   you that air pollution has been and continues to be

             22   a serious problem in the Chicago area.  I live in a

             23   high-rise condominium building, and we can look out

             24   over the city and see the characteristic

                                                                   101





              1   yellowish-brown haze hanging over the Chicago

              2   skyline and extending out over Lake Michigan.  I

              3   have cardiovascular disease and my younger daughter

              4   has asthma, and we are affected by pollution in the

              5   ambient air.  I personally am even more seriously

              6   affected, I've noticed, when winds from the

              7   southeast blow pollution in from southeast Chicago

              8   and northwest Indiana.  I not only experience acute

              9   pain in the mucous membranes of my nose and throat

             10   and eyes from the polluted air, but I also am

             11   systemically affected, and find it difficult or

             12   impossible to engage in intellectual activity or

             13   even much physical activity during days with high

             14   air pollution levels.  And there are many other

             15   people here who suffer as we do.  These detrimental

             16   impacts on physical activities and mental

             17   activities are taking a disabling toll on the

             18   wellness and well-being and physical performance

             19   and creativity of people throughout the Chicago

             20   metropolitan area.

             21              I have somewhat of a longer statement

             22   that appears to be impossible to present in the

             23   time that appears to remain.  If you would like, I

             24   will continue, or if you prefer, I will terminate

                                                                   102





              1   and wrap it up rapidly and hand it in as a written

              2   statement.

              3        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We'll take your written

              4   statement.  I cannot see how many minutes you have

              5   left, but it's up to you to continue until the

              6   clock runs out.

              7        MS. HERZENBERG:  Briefly, I think I'm -- I

              8   think I conveyed my ideas.  I also believe that the

              9   EPA should eliminate this rounding loophole, which

             10   I won't go into, but I think you're well aware of

             11   what it is.

             12              To wrap it up, I do think that everyone

             13   in the Chicago area and everyone in the United

             14   States deserves to breathe clean air and the EPA's

             15   responsible for this.  We rely on the EPA to

             16   maintain -- to set the standards for maintaining

             17   the air.  I believe as do my friends and family

             18   that the EPA should reject industry pressure to

             19   simply retain the inadequate current ozone standard

             20   and instead that the EPA should adopt a new safer

             21   ozone standard of .06 parts per million consistent

             22   with the recommendations of the scientific advisors

             23   and many other organizations.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

                                                                   103





              1        MS. HERZENBERG:  You're very welcome.

              2   Remember, EPA has a duty to protect public health,

              3   so let's do it.

              4        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Questions from the panel?

              5              Thank you very much.  We'll take your

              6   written testimony.

              7              Our next speakers are Samuel Dorevitch

              8   and Ruth Johnson.

              9        DR. DOREVITCH:  Good morning.  My name is

             10   Samuel Dorevitch, D O R E V I T C H, and I'm a

             11   physician and environmental health researcher at

             12   the University of Illinois at the Chicago School of

             13   Public Health.  Thank you for the opportunity to

             14   provide input into the process of reviewing and

             15   hopefully establishing a more protective National

             16   Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.

             17              I fully support the CASAC's unanimous

             18   statements that the primary ozone standard should

             19   be lowered.  In reviewing the arguments that have

             20   been put forth against improving the ozone

             21   standard, it makes me think that Yogi Berra had in

             22   mind the NAAQS review process when he said, "It's

             23   like deja vu all over again."

             24              Arguments like the science contains

                                                                   104





              1   uncertainties, the air is getting cleaner anyway so

              2   why complicate things with a new standard, we've

              3   heard these before, almost word for word, in the

              4   statements made in the 1996 hearings on the

              5   proposed ozone standard.  As it has turned out,

              6   science has become more certain over time.  We have

              7   a larger body of scientific evidence demonstrating

              8   negative effects of ozone in concentrations below

              9   0.8 parts per million, and it isn't coincidence

             10   that the air quality happens to be improving.

             11              The reason the air quality is improving

             12   is because of progressive improvements in air

             13   quality standards.  In fact, the same standards

             14   that special interest groups say we ought to stick

             15   with now are the very standards they opposed in

             16   public comments in 1996 and subsequently in legal

             17   battles going all the way to the United States

             18   Supreme Court.

             19              I'd like to address one argument against

             20   protecting the health of the public by improving

             21   the current primary ozone standard, and that is the

             22   argument that the ozone standard recommended by the

             23   panel of independent scientists, which shift to

             24   many parts of the country from ozone standard

                                                                   105





              1   attainment to non-attainment.  This argument says

              2   it's better to not raise the bar of air quality

              3   because too many parts of too many states will be

              4   in violation of the new standards.

              5              This approach says it's not better --

              6   I'm sorry, this approach says it's better not to

              7   establish air quality goals that provide better

              8   protection for children and those with underlying

              9   lung disease.  I'd like to provide an alternative

             10   approach from another area of public health.

             11              40 years ago we knew that very high

             12   levels of blood pressure led to heart disease and

             13   stroke.  Over the last 40 years it's become clear

             14   that even levels that were once considered

             15   acceptable, the risk of heart disease and stroke is

             16   elevated.  For that reason, doctors now try to

             17   treat blood pressure of people who in a previous

             18   era would have gone untreated.

             19              There has been no outcry that by

             20   revising downward the range of normal blood

             21   pressure you would create a problem by identifying

             22   too many people as having blood pressure that

             23   worked in the non-attainment range.  Instead, the

             24   new scientific evidence that showed significant

                                                                   106





              1   health risk to blood pressures once thought to be

              2   normal was seen as an opportunity to prevent heart

              3   disease and stroke and in fact rates of heart

              4   disease and stroke have went down nationwide as

              5   treatment for blood pressure has become more

              6   widespread.

              7              Yes, a standard of 0.60 ppm would bring

              8   parts of the country into non-attainment initially,

              9   but state implementation plans would be developed

             10   and by acting responsibly to protect public health,

             11   ambient ozone concentrations would be brought down,

             12   asthma attacks would be prevented.  Such action to

             13   protect the health of the vulnerable population is

             14   the intent of Section 109 in the Clean Air Act.  I

             15   commend Administrator Johnson on his interest in

             16   improving the ozone standard and I endorse the

             17   primary standard of 0.60 parts per million.

             18              Thank you.

             19        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Dr. Dorevitch.

             20              Ms. Johnson.

             21              STATEMENT OF RUTH JOHNSON.

             22        MS. JOHNSON:  My name is Ruth Johnson and I'm

             23   a private citizen.  I'm a small business owner and

             24   Realtor and also an asthmatic and under the care of

                                                                   107





              1   Dr. Chris McGrath at Northwestern Hospital.

              2              I was born and raised in Chicago in the

              3   late '40s but have lived in Houston, Southern

              4   California, New Jersey, New York City and Tucson,

              5   Arizona during my time in corporate America from

              6   the 1970s to 1998.  In returning to Chicago for

              7   family reasons in late 1998, I found it necessary

              8   to rely on daily asthmatic medication in order to

              9   perform daily activities.  If I did not use these,

             10   I would die.

             11              In Chicago, we have high levels of

             12   ozone, fine particles which result from

             13   coal-burning power plants and refineries.  Also,

             14   diesel fuel levels used by trucks, buses, trains

             15   and some private vehicles contribute to these high

             16   pollution levels unhealthy for all people.

             17              I ask that the EPA follow the mandate to

             18   protect the citizens of the United States and to

             19   set the ozone rate at .060 level parts per million

             20   for all air in the United States.  I believe that

             21   by this action, the EPA will increase the levels of

             22   health in America and over time provide economic

             23   benefits to the health and insurance industries and

             24   I thank you for this opportunity.

                                                                   108





              1        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

              2              Our next two speakers, Andrew Fisher and

              3   Ari Weitzman.

              4              Mr. Fisher, you go first.

              5        MR. FISHER:  I'm Andrew Fisher, F I S H E R.

              6   I am the chair of the Environmental Task Force for

              7   the Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice.  I

              8   over half of my adult life have suffered with

              9   asthma and am familiar with the negative effects on

             10   the physical activity.  I've learned a couple

             11   things from the American Lung Association rating

             12   Cook County -- giving it a grade of F.  It was very

             13   high ozone of 5.7 on orange days and red days of 7.

             14   And as far as people affected, I'll cite about

             15   three here, young people, pediatric asthmatics,

             16   it's 122,000, and for adult asthmatics it's over

             17   272,000 for cardiovascular disease it's over

             18   1,204,000.

             19              We all know asthmatic rates in children

             20   are growing at exponential rates at our current

             21   ozone level which should be reduced.  We found one

             22   definite backup to this, the CBS news Asthma

             23   Sufferers Pay Price For Ozone, about young

             24   children.  In a 55 major urban communities study an

                                                                   109





              1   increase in daily ozone levels was associated with

              2   more than 3,700 associated deaths each year from

              3   cardiovascular and respiratory illness.  Many

              4   things besides the asthma are causing the ill

              5   effects of this air pollution from studies done

              6   both at Yale and at Johns Hopkins.  I'm turning

              7   them both in as evidence later.

              8              Another piece of written evidence I'd

              9   like to present is from the environmental health

             10   prospectus which basically says that ozone and

             11   second-hand smoke outweigh the genetic influences

             12   on causing asthma.  I submit that entire statement

             13   to you.  Basically I'm -- I urge EPA to lower the

             14   NAAQS below .06 parts per million or even lower to

             15   greatly increase our health and the EPA's main

             16   responsibility is for the public health of this

             17   country and not for the profits of the oil

             18   companies and the utilities.

             19              Thank you.

             20        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Mr. Weiztman.

             21             STATEMENT OF ARI WEITZMAN.

             22        MR. WEITZMAN:  Thank you for the opportunity

             23   to speak.  My name is Ari Weitzman, A R I,

             24   W E I T Z M A N.

                                                                   110





              1              I'd like to start off with a story.

              2   It's a very good story.

              3              The EPA has set the National Ambient Air

              4   Quality Standards for six major --

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Excuse me, sir, can you get a

              6   little closer to the mic?

              7        MR. WEITZMAN:  Previously the standards for

              8   ozone was set to .08 parts per million.  To review

              9   the safety of this, the EPA set up the Clean Air

             10   Advisory Committee, composed of 22 scientists

             11   responsible for reviewing this standard.  The

             12   unanimous vote was the standard should be lower

             13   than .06 ppm or no more than .07 ppm.  On June 20th

             14   the EPA decided to lower the standards to .075 ppm.

             15   The Clean Air Act states that the air must

             16   breathable for every one.  The standard must be no

             17   more than .07 parts per million and should be .06

             18   parts per million.

             19              We, as concerned citizens, are here to

             20   convince you that the ramifications -- these are

             21   ramifications that most notably are major helpers,

             22   a general threat to all people and a specific

             23   threat to those at risk.  I am not one of those

             24   specific at-risk citizens, but being somebody who

                                                                   111





              1   exercises a lot outside, I could appreciate that.

              2   You also are trying to weigh the positive

              3   ramifications, and I'm in no position to accurately

              4   stipulate upon what those might be, but you will

              5   remember the prior testimony in that regard.  I

              6   will comment, though, that even if Chicago doesn't

              7   reach the non-attainment, a stronger standard will

              8   prevail much more convincingly than if no action is

              9   taken.  To ensure the health of those at risk the

             10   Clean Air Act requires that they do this.  If you

             11   could look in the reports before you and aren't

             12   worried about making incorrect decisions, please

             13   note that certainly no one can fault you for

             14   abiding by the CASAC numbers.

             15              As far as personal testimony goes, I

             16   have very little to say about the negative

             17   ramifications of your actions, they won't affect me

             18   personally as much as they will other testifiers

             19   here.  I don't have asthma, I don't suffer from

             20   lung disease, I'm like most of you, I can

             21   appreciate the general ramifications of these and

             22   also I'm probably the youngest testifier here, I

             23   can say that it is important that you set the

             24   standard for the future.  If you set a poor

                                                                   112





              1   standard here, you're only helping to complete a

              2   bleaker overall picture that I and your children

              3   are going to have to deal with.  I hope that

              4   sufficient strides are taken to improve the air

              5   quality.

              6              I thank you for the opportunity to speak

              7   with you.

              8        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Mr. Weitzman, we have a

              9   question.  Can you tell us whether you are

             10   supporting the 0.70 or the .075.

             11        MR. WEITZMAN:  I'm supporting .070.

             12        MR. RICHMOND:  One quick clarification, the

             13   June -- the July 11th proposal cited a range of

             14   .070 to .075 not just .75.

             15        MR. WEITZMAN:  Yes.

             16        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, gentlemen, and

             17   we'll take copies of your written testimony and

             18   supporting documentation also.

             19              Before I announce the next two speakers,

             20   I would like to say does anyone in the audience

             21   like to speak that has not registered?  We have a

             22   few spaces open, so if you're interested, please

             23   register at the registration table outside and

             24   we'll give you a chance to speak.

                                                                   113





              1              Our next speakers are Wende Fox-Lawson

              2   and Caroline Baier-Anderson.

              3              Ms. Fox-Lawson, you're first.

              4             STATEMENT OF WENDE FOX-LAWSON

              5        MS. FOX-LAWSON:  Hi, my name is Wende

              6   Fox-Lawson and first I wanted to say I appreciate

              7   very much this opportunity to speak.

              8              I live in Chicago with my husband and

              9   our two children ages 9 and 11, and I'd be

             10   interested in sharing our -- the experience of our

             11   nine-year-old who would have come except for it's

             12   his first day of school.  He has severe asthma

             13   which is exacerbated by the poor air quality, and I

             14   wanted to share with you just one example of many

             15   young children who are affected by asthma and by

             16   whom asthma management is becoming more difficult,

             17   we believe because of air quality concerns.

             18              James, who is now nine, has been

             19   hospitalized twice for asthma, he has had numerous

             20   emergency room visits.  He was diagnosed at six

             21   months.  He's been seen at Children's Memorial here

             22   and he's been fortunate enough to be seen by the

             23   head of -- first Dr. Richard Evans, who

             24   unfortunately passed away six years ago, and now

                                                                   114





              1   Dr. Jack Lynch.  He's been on the most aggressive

              2   medication that we believe is available including

              3   daily inhalant steroids since age eight months and

              4   also he has -- albuteral is needed and occasionally

              5   when he gets a fever, he takes an oral prednisone,

              6   so his management of asthma is considered to be

              7   best that's available.

              8              Despite this, he does have some problems

              9   when he gets a fever, probably twice a year.  The

             10   other times he has problems, however, are during

             11   outdoor activities, primarily during the school

             12   recess and when he plays soccer outdoors.  I think

             13   this is significant for children because I point

             14   out that he participants in some very vigorous

             15   indoor sports activities.  He's an avid ice hockey

             16   player, which amazingly is a common pursuit for

             17   children with asthma because it's a way of

             18   strengthening their lungs in a controlled air

             19   environment.  He's never needed his albuteral

             20   during hockey, and he's both a player, they call it

             21   a skater, and a goalie.  Amazing for a 55 pound

             22   nine-year-old.  And swimming, he's had no problems

             23   at all.  But when he's outdoors, the nurse

             24   frequently has to bring him in from recess, give

                                                                   115





              1   him a dose of albuteral.  This occurs -- we tried

              2   to count it out -- approximately 20 days during the

              3   school year last year and that's aside from the

              4   times that he had a fever, which would, of course,

              5   explain an asthma condition.

              6              We also take significant precautions at

              7   home.  We have HEPA filters.  We use the air

              8   conditioner regularly, we try to keep the indoor

              9   air quality very high.  I'm concerned that there

             10   are a lot of children who aren't able to take

             11   precautions that we're able to take with James, who

             12   don't have access to the excellent medical care

             13   that he has.

             14              In fact, Dr. Evans, who I mentioned

             15   earlier, was very interested in the plight of

             16   children in Chicago who were in public housing and

             17   commented to me -- this was six years ago, I know

             18   there's been a lot of research on it and I'm not

             19   familiar with all of it, but at that time he was

             20   very concerned these children didn't have care in

             21   place that James does, so I can't imagine how

             22   they're doing with poor air quality.

             23              I encourage you to lower the standard.

             24   I'll be happy to provide any additional

                                                                   116





              1   information.

              2        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you very much.

              3              Dr. Baier-Anderson.

              4         STATEMENT OF CAROLINE BAIER-ANDERSON, MD.

              5        MS. BAIER-ANDERSON:  My name is Caroline

              6   Baier-Anderson, C A R O L I N E, B A I E R hyphen

              7   Anderson, and I'm a health scientist at

              8   Environmental Defense, a national non-partisan

              9   science-based environmental organization.  Thank

             10   you for the opportunity to testify about the EPA's

             11   proposed revisions to the nation's health-based

             12   ambient air quality standard for ground-level

             13   ozone.

             14              Next March, administrator Johnson will

             15   be making his final decision on the ozone NAAQS.

             16   According to the law, these standards must protect

             17   the public health with an adequate margin of

             18   safety.  We are concerned that EPA's final decision

             19   will not be adequate to meet the statutory mandate,

             20   so we are requesting that the EPA set the NAAQS at

             21   60 parts per billion.  This is the protective end

             22   of the range unanimously recommended by the CASAC,

             23   an EPA-appointed panel of the nation's leading air

             24   quality experts.

                                                                   117





              1              Retaining the current health standard is

              2   not supported by science and will continue to put

              3   large numbers of individuals at risk.

              4              The CASAC unanimously and unambiguously

              5   advised the EPA administrator, 1, there's no

              6   scientific justification for retaining the current

              7   primary eight-hour NAAQS of .08 parts per million

              8   and; 2, the NAAQS must be substantially reduced to

              9   protect human health, particularly in sensitive

             10   subpopulations.  The Committee also clearly and

             11   unanimously agreed upon a recommended range of 60

             12   to 70 parts per billion.

             13              Now, in the technical support document

             14   prepared by the EPA staff, it also demonstrates the

             15   inadequacy of the current ozone standard.  Quoting

             16   from Page 6-38 of the EPA Staff Paper, quote,

             17   "Based on the strength of the currently available

             18   evidence of adverse health effects, especially

             19   indicators of respiratory morbidity, and on the

             20   extent to which the evidence indicates that such

             21   effects likely result from exposures to ambient

             22   ozone concentrations well below the level of the

             23   current standard, we conclude that the available

             24   evidence clearly calls into question the adequacy

                                                                   118





              1   of the current standard and provides strong support

              2   for giving consideration to advising the standard

              3   to provide increased protection, especially for

              4   sensitive groups, against a broad array of adverse

              5   health effects.

              6              But EPA has inexplicably included

              7   retaining the current standard ozone as an option.

              8   The CASAC addressed this matter and found there's

              9   no longer significant scientific uncertainty

             10   regarding CASAC's conclusion that the current

             11   eight-hour primary NAAQS must be lowered.  An ozone

             12   standard above 70 parts per billion will result in

             13   unacceptable residual health risks.

             14              The EPA risk assessment demonstrates

             15   that there is no evidence that a threshold exists

             16   below which there are no adverse health effects.

             17   In fact, EPA has concluded, quote, "If a threshold

             18   exists, it is well below the current standard,

             19   probably within the range of ambient exposures, end

             20   quote.

             21              Moreover, there's abundant evidence that

             22   children, people with asthma, outdoor workers and

             23   elderly are more severely affected by ozone, due to

             24   increased sensitivity, greater exposures or both.

                                                                   119





              1              A health protective ozone standard

              2   within CASAC's recommended range of 60 to 70 ppb

              3   will significantly reduce premature mortality.

              4              The EPA Staff Paper concludes that the

              5   evidence for the association between ozone and

              6   premature mortality as robust and credible.

              7              I'm going to skip ahead a little bit to

              8   get this all in.

              9              Lowering ozones also lowers particulate

             10   matter, a critical co-benefit.  So the lowering of

             11   ozone requires the lowering of chemical precursors

             12   such as NOx and VOCs; NOx also contribute to the

             13   formation of PM 2.5.  The EPA's calculated the

             14   value of the co-benefits.  For example, an ozone

             15   standard is 65 parts per billion translates to a

             16   combined morbidity plus mortality benefit of

             17   $4.7 billion.  So when you add in the co-benefits

             18   of decreasing PM 2.5 and call it decreasing ozone,

             19   and add it to the total, the co-benefits skyrocket

             20   to 14 to $27 billion.  So I think this is a really

             21   important point that merits emphasis.

             22              A standard at the more protective end of

             23   the CASAC recommendation is needed to protect

             24   public health.  Given the preponderance of evidence

                                                                   120





              1   of ozone health effects at ambient concentrations,

              2   it is unfortunate that EPA has chosen to ignore its

              3   own staff and the recommendations of the CASAC to

              4   focus on standards that will adequately protect

              5   public health.

              6              Environmental Defense supports an ozone

              7   standard of 60 parts per billion as offering the

              8   best protection for vulnerable populations against

              9   an array of ozone-related adverse health effects

             10   and premature mortality.

             11        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Dr. Baier-Anderson.

             12   Any questions from the panel?

             13              Thank you both and we will submit your

             14   written statements in the record.  Thanks.

             15              The next speaker is Anne McKibbin and

             16   Glenn Frederick.

             17              Please state your name and spell it for

             18   the court reporter.

             19              STATEMENT OF ANNE McKIBBIN

             20        MS. McKIBBIN:  Anne McKibbin, A N N E,

             21   M C K I B B I N.

             22        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Please get closer to the mic.

             23        MS. McKIBBIN:  I'm the chair of the Air and

             24   Energy Committee of the Sierra Club's Chicago

                                                                   121





              1   Group.  Our group has approximately 8,600 members

              2   in Cook County and we strongly encourage the EPA to

              3   do as its own scientific advisors have recommended

              4   and go to the eight-hour primary ozone standard.

              5   We urge you to set the final standard at the low

              6   end of the recommended range, 60 parts per million,

              7   which is supported by a number of studies of the

              8   effects of ozone on human health.  I also urge you

              9   to eliminate the rounding loophole that allows

             10   states to round ozone concentrations down to

             11   artificially meet the standard.

             12              The law requires EPA to base its

             13   standard on the levels needed to preserve our

             14   health.

             15              Ozone pollution, as you heard, is a

             16   serious health threat.  We know that breathing

             17   ozone can shorten our lives, even at the current

             18   standard levels, and we know that it aggravates

             19   chronic diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and

             20   emphysema.

             21              And ozone adversely affects the health

             22   of vulnerable populations, which include elderly,

             23   children and teens, and even people who exercise

             24   outdoors and just want to take a nice morning jog.

                                                                   122





              1              All Americans deserve to breathe clean

              2   air.  EPA can assure cleaner air in our

              3   communities.  Retaining the current standard levels

              4   would ignore overwhelming scientific evidence that

              5   a standard of 60 parts per billion is needed to

              6   preserve human health, so we strongly encourage you

              7   to lower the standard.

              8              Thank you.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             10              Mr. Frederick.

             11             STATEMENT OF GLENN FREDERICK.

             12        MR. FREDERICK:  My name is Glenn Frederick.

             13   I'm a private citizen.  I believe that Ari Weitzman

             14   spoke probably earlier today.  I'm just a member of

             15   the organization, I don't have a bunch of numbers

             16   or anything.  I just wanted to come down and show

             17   my support and just to say a couple of common

             18   sense, I guess, statements or facts.

             19              I'm a small businessman and entrepreneur

             20   and most of these things probably affect, you know,

             21   when the policy changes are going to affect the

             22   outcome of -- new policies usually affect me harder

             23   and quicker than it does -- because I don't have

             24   the money coming in.  But if something is important

                                                                   123





              1   to make whatever changes are required of me, which

              2   is like for us to do the correct thing in this

              3   situation.  I would say that me, myself, I look at

              4   it as a form of risk management as a business

              5   person dealing with my day-to-day things, it's a

              6   form of risk management, what's the reward versus

              7   what's the risk.  And when I look at maintaining or

              8   staying at the level that we are at, currently at,

              9   we've already been told by your advisors that the

             10   reward of us just staying there -- there's really

             11   no reward other than saying we're going to be able

             12   to stay the same, we're not going to be forced to

             13   make a change.  We're going to be just going on

             14   with the day-to-day as we do.  But the risk is so

             15   great, the fact that we don't know what the outcome

             16   is, we still don't know and will not know for who

             17   knows how many years what effect we're having on

             18   our environment, and there's not going to be a

             19   second chance for us to go back and say we made the

             20   wrong decision back in 2007.  So me, myself, as a

             21   constituent, as a businessman, I urge you to drop

             22   the levels to what has been suggested by your own

             23   people to the .60 part per million.

             24              And I would like to say one other thing.

                                                                   124





              1   When reading the information that I get in e-mails

              2   just with being a member of the organization, it's

              3   almost probably to the taxpayer also it's almost

              4   irritating to always see the independent advisors,

              5   the independent scientific board always paid for

              6   to get their suggestions, our tax dollars paid for

              7   to get their suggestions, So I ask that you

              8   reconsider.

              9        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We have the last of the

             10   registered speakers for the morning, Dr. Helen

             11   Binns and Ms. Liane Casten.

             12              Dr. Binns, you go first, please.

             13             STATEMENT OF HELEN BINNS, MD

             14        MS. BINNS:  Thank you.  My name is Helen

             15   Binns, B I N N S.  I was the chairperson at the

             16   American Academy of Pediatrics.  I speak on

             17   behalf of that organization of 60,000 pediatric

             18   members.

             19              I'm a professor of pediatrics at

             20   Northwestern University, an attending physician at

             21   the Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago.  Thank

             22   you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of

             23   children.

             24              Since the passage of the Clean Air Act,

                                                                   125





              1   the air quality has improved in many parts of our

              2   nation.  However, many regions in the United States

              3   still experience serious air pollution.  Further,

              4   numerous scientific studies continue to identify

              5   adverse health effects at ozone levels below the

              6   current air qualities.  This special vulnerability

              7   of infants, children and adolescents to ambient air

              8   pollution compel our nation to craft standards that

              9   will safeguard ourselves against this threat.  The

             10   science is unambiguous.

             11              Ozone air pollution harms children.  We

             12   have the ability to reduce this threat.  The

             13   American Academy of Pediatrics calls upon the

             14   Environmental Protection Agency to propose ozone

             15   standards at or below an eight-hour exposure 70

             16   parts per billion.  The AAP support rounding down

             17   to meet this standard.

             18              Children are especially susceptible to

             19   the adverse effects of the ambient air pollution

             20   due to their extensive lung growth and development

             21   after birth.  80 percent of the alveoli, which is

             22   the smallest portion of the lungs where gas

             23   exchange occurs, are formed after a child is born.

             24   The lungs continue to develop through adolescence.

                                                                   126





              1   During the early post-neonatal period, the

              2   developing lung is highly susceptible to damage

              3   from the exposure to environmental toxicants.

              4              Compared to adults, children have

              5   increased exposure to many air pollutants because

              6   of their relatively higher amounts of air breathed

              7   per minute in relationship to their size and due to

              8   higher levels of physical activity.  Children also

              9   have high exposures to outdoor air pollution than

             10   adults, because they spend more time outdoors.

             11              Ozone is a powerful oxidant gas and

             12   respiratory tract irritant.  Exposure to ozone at

             13   lower concentrations than other ambient gaseous

             14   pollutants can cause shortness of breath, chest

             15   pains when inhaling deeply, wheezing, coughing and

             16   inflammation in the lungs.  Studies of children at

             17   summer camp and epidemiological studies and other

             18   settings found that on days with the high levels of

             19   ambient ozone children have decreases in lung

             20   function, increased respiratory tract symptoms and

             21   asthmatic exacerbations, increased respiratory

             22   room -- emergency room visits and increased school

             23   absences.  Hospitalizations and premature mortality

             24   have also been linked to increases in ozone.

                                                                   127





              1             Additionally, long-term exposure to

              2   ozone may have lifelong consequences for children.

              3   A prospective study in southern California found

              4   that children involved in high levels of team

              5   sports who grew up in communities with high ozone

              6   levels were at increased risk for developing

              7   asthma.  Another study from the chronic long-term

              8   exposure to ambient ozone was associated with

              9   decreased levels of small airway function in

             10   college students.

             11              Controlled human exposure studies in

             12   young, healthy adults have found reduced lung

             13   function, increased respiratory symptoms, increased

             14   airway hyper-reactivity, and increased airway

             15   inflammation after ozone exposure.  Exposures to

             16   ozone concentrations as low as 80 parts per billion

             17   for 6.6 to eight hours in young, healthy exercising

             18   adults caused decreased lung function, airway

             19   hyper-responsiveness and airway inflammation.

             20   These studies conducted in laboratory settings did

             21   not include young children or individuals with

             22   moderate to severe asthma or other respiratory

             23   diseases, which are two groups more likely to

             24   experience acute adverse effects than healthy

                                                                   128





              1   invidious.

              2              The EPA's own Clean Air Scientific

              3   Advisory Committee recently recommended

              4   consideration of an eight-hour average standard in

              5   the range of 55 to 60 parts per billion at the

              6   lower end to 70 parts per billion.  To protect

              7   children, the American Academy of Pediatrics

              8   strongly recommends a tighter eight-hour standard

              9   for ozone and supports adoption of the revised

             10   ozone eight-hour exposure standard at or below 70

             11   parts per billion.

             12              Thank you.

             13        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

             14              Ms. Liane Casten.

             15             STATEMENT OF LIANE CASTEN.

             16        MS. CASTEN:  My name is Liane Casten and I've

             17   lived in Evanston, Illinois for 33 years.  I am an

             18   environmental journalist, have researched and

             19   published the book, Breast Cancer: Poisons, Profits

             20   and Prevention.  I've watched with total dismay and

             21   disgust how our regulatory agencies have operated

             22   for a very long time now.  The operative word is

             23   "Politics."

             24              So my talk will not be about science.

                                                                   129





              1   In fact, I'm certain most of those in the room are

              2   fully aware of the science and the desperate need

              3   to establish high standards now, with enforcement

              4   capabilities that will improve air quality and the

              5   health of all of our citizens.

              6              I'm here to discuss public policy and

              7   the politicization of our regulatory agencies.  I'm

              8   here because over the years I watched EPA knuckle

              9   under to the pressures of industry profit to the

             10   point where there are epidemics of cancer, asthma,

             11   bronchitis, childhood leukemia and limited brain

             12   development, ailments that are absolutely

             13   preventable for the most part.

             14              When Richard Nixon signed on to the

             15   establishment of the EPA in 1971, U.S. citizens

             16   were thrilled.  At last, there was an agency that

             17   protects us from wanton corporate/industrial

             18   toxicity.  Well, that mandate has changed.

             19              I cite three examples.  When the

             20   International Joint Commission came forward in the

             21   early 1990s, after massive independent research and

             22   review, to recommend the phase-out of chlorine in

             23   industrial processes, EPA buckled under to the

             24   pressure of the chlorine industry, it sat on its

                                                                   130





              1   collective hands and did nothing.  As a

              2   consequence, massive amount of POPS, persistent

              3   organic poisons, have been released into the

              4   waters, the air and into the food chain, with

              5   serious consequences to humans.

              6              Another example, when EPA did not one

              7   but two definitive studies on the properties of

              8   dioxin, the contaminant in Agent Orange, not only

              9   has the second and final re-assessment been totally

             10   suppressed, a green light has been given to

             11   industry to keep it up, to allow this very

             12   dangerous known carcinogen to be allowed into our

             13   air, water and food during various manufacturing

             14   processes.  Again, the regulatory agency mandated

             15   to protect public health rather has been perverted

             16   to protect industry profits.

             17              As for the Toxic Release Inventory, that

             18   went out with Bush pretty fast, during his first

             19   administration, under EPA leadership.  It used to

             20   be an effective tool to curb industry's flagrant

             21   indifference to anything but its own profits.  Now

             22   we just don't know what the industry is spewing out

             23   where and how much of it's poison.

             24              Perhaps the EPA will go after some poor

                                                                   131





              1   individual with a little clout whose business sits

              2   on a toxic dumpsite or whose home has radon in his

              3   basement.  But, will the Agency raise the standards

              4   on air pollution when those with big money and

              5   clout pressure and bribe the politicians?  The

              6   administration has already shown its contempt for

              7   public health, on all levels, when profits are

              8   involved.  The fact has been verified many times.

              9              So I write this with the remainder for

             10   all of you working at EPA now.  If it's your job

             11   you're protecting, I can't say much, you do have a

             12   family to feed; but if you're going along because

             13   everyone else is, I urge you all to find your

             14   conscious and independence and work to protect

             15   those who not only pay your salaries but who do not

             16   deserve to be assaulted by chemicals alone or in

             17   synergistic combination with each other can create

             18   the kind of public health crisis we now see across

             19   the country.  Americans deserve better.

             20              Thank you, Miss Casten.  Questions from

             21   the panel?

             22        MR. RICHMOND:  No.

             23        MS. TYSON:  No.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We'll take the written

                                                                   132





              1   testimony if you could please put it on the table.

              2              We do have two more speakers, Ellen

              3   O'Rourke and Brian Urbaszewski.

              4              Ms. O'Rourke, you go first.

              5             STATEMENT OF ELLEN O'ROURKE.

              6        MS. O'ROURKE:  My name is Ellen O'Rourke and

              7   I'm one more citizen from the City of Chicago here

              8   to encourage you to support the encouraged

              9   standards of .06 parts per million.

             10              I am very recently under a doctor's care

             11   for an undiagnosed lung ailment.  I have masses in

             12   my lungs that are being monitored ever six months

             13   with CT scans.  I'm an otherwise healthy,

             14   non-worker runner.  I'm here to ask you to set the

             15   standard to protect our environment.  Change can be

             16   difficult, especially for businesses that feel an

             17   initial impact with their profitability.  We need

             18   the EPA to set the standards recommended by its own

             19   scientists.  I believe that this is the only way to

             20   improve the condition of our environment.  I also

             21   feel that there's nothing more important in life

             22   than good health.  Thank you for allowing me to

             23   speak today.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.

                                                                   133





              1              Mr. Urbaszeweski.

              2             STATEMENT OF BRIAN URBASZEWSKI.

              3        MR. URBASZEWSKI:  My name is Brian, B R I A N,

              4   Urbaszewski, U R B A S Z E W S K I.  I'm the

              5   Director of Environmental Health Programs,

              6   Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan

              7   Chicago.

              8              Thank you for the opportunity to testify

              9   on the Agency's proposal for revising the ozone

             10   NAAQS.

             11              Respiratory Health Association of

             12   Metropolitan Chicago has been a leading lung health

             13   advocate since 1906.  In addition to providing

             14   educational services within Illinois communities on

             15   the topic of lung health and supporting needed

             16   medical research, we also advocate for cleaner air

             17   in order to preserve lung health and improve the

             18   lives of people who live with lung disease every

             19   day.  Likewise, we serve as host to the Chicago

             20   Thoracic Society, the local presence of the

             21   American Thoracic Society in metropolitan Chicago.

             22              While air quality has improved, Chicago

             23   still faces challenges in meeting the current

             24   1997 ozone standard.  Chicago-area monitors in

                                                                   134





              1   Illinois alone have already counted exceedences of

              2   the ozone NAAQS on eight days this year.  But as

              3   the record and the proposal under consideration

              4   today show, the 10 million people in metropolitan

              5   Chicago are not being served by the current ozone

              6   standard.

              7              In the last ten years, research has

              8   convincingly demonstrated that there are

              9   significant negative health outcomes when people

             10   are exposed to ozone levels that are below the

             11   level of the current federal standard.  Those with

             12   lung disease often fare worst when exposed to

             13   ozone.  Over the past decade, published research

             14   has found that children with asthma, newborns, the

             15   elderly and workers breathing ozone at levels well

             16   below the current federal health standards still

             17   suffer adverse health effects.  We have also

             18   learned that ozone is associated with significant

             19   numbers of premature deaths, no matter how many

             20   times the numbers are reanalyzed.  In short, ozone

             21   is more dangerous than previously thought, and at

             22   lower concentrations.

             23              The current ozone standard is not

             24   protecting people and it most certainly is not

                                                                   135





              1   protecting people with asthma and other reactive

              2   airway diseases.  Thankfully, the administrator

              3   agrees with this contention as he made this point

              4   when testifying on the new ozone standard proposal

              5   before Congress.

              6              Today, there are 400,000 people in Cook

              7   County alone with asthma.  Approximately one-third

              8   of these people is children; asthma is the most

              9   chronic disease among children.  In fact, like

             10   New York, Chicago has one of the highest rates of

             11   asthma in the country.  Some population subgroups

             12   in our area such as residents of Puerto Rican

             13   ancestry, have asthma rates that are amazingly

             14   high, as much as a third of all school aged

             15   children in certain Chicago neighborhoods.  While

             16   it is documented that ozone increases asthma

             17   attacks as well as respiratory hospital admissions

             18   and emergency room visits, some research suggests

             19   that ozone may also increase children's risk of

             20   developing asthma in the first place.  Others

             21   testifying will recount specific studies EPA has

             22   considered as well as present new information that

             23   reenforces what the Clean Air Act Advisory

             24   Committee has twice told the Agency.  Specifically,

                                                                   136





              1   retaining the current standard is not supported by

              2   the science, and the standard must be lowered in

              3   order to protect sensitive groups.

              4              We urge the EPA to listen to its own

              5   advisors such as CASAC and the children's Health

              6   Protection Advisory Committee as well as

              7   independent experts who recommend a tighter ozone

              8   health standard than the Agency has proposed.

              9   Public health professionals and organizations such

             10   as the American Thoracic Society, the American

             11   Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health

             12   Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of

             13   America and Respiratory Health Association of

             14   Metropolitan Chicago all endorse a standard of .06

             15   parts per million.

             16              People also have a right to know when

             17   the air they are breathing can put their health at

             18   risk and EPA should not be hiding this information

             19   from them.  People with asthma and parents of

             20   children with asthma are very interested in the

             21   concept of air pollution action days and the

             22   services provided by EPA's AIRNOW system, as it

             23   gives some people some realtime knowledge as to the

             24   risks of high ozone levels that can be used in a

                                                                   137





              1   judgment to modify or avoid outdoor activities that

              2   might trigger an attack.  It also allows parents of

              3   children with asthma to be extra vigilant about

              4   children carrying rescue medication.

              5              While these tools are somewhat useful

              6   today, this is a sad situation that should simply

              7   not exist since the problem is largely preventable.

              8   The EPA staff discusses how children with asthma

              9   may have greater responses to ozone and greater

             10   reductions in lung functions but that such children

             11   may also be spending more time indoors in more

             12   sedentary pursuits and that may counterbalance the

             13   effect of them being more at risk from ozone

             14   pollution.  How sad to assume that.  It does a

             15   disservice to those children and their long-term

             16   health and well-being and sets up a

             17   blame-the-victim scenario whereby children who

             18   experience health problems should simply have known

             19   not to be active when ozone levels are high.  It is

             20   a tired argument used by industry to abdicate

             21   responsibility for setting an appropriate health

             22   standard or move toward meeting such a standard.

             23              Air quality standards should be set at a

             24   level that will protect everyone's health, period.

                                                                   138





              1   Regarding the language covering the reasonable

              2   margin of safety demanded by the Clean Air Act, we

              3   agree with others making comments who contend that

              4   if there is any uncertainty in where the standard

              5   should be set, people at risk deserve the benefit

              6   of the doubt, not polluters.

              7              I have two or three more sentences.

              8              Because the reasonable margin of safety

              9   was explicitly put in statutory language, we

             10   believe this was the original congressional intent

             11   as well.  Since the Staff Paper states, "The

             12   selection of any particular approach to providing

             13   an adequate margin of safety is a policy choice

             14   left specifically to the Administrator's judgment,

             15   we sincerely hope Mr. Johnson takes these comments

             16   to heart when he makes his final decision and

             17   imagines how he would be treated if he were a very

             18   young child living with severe asthma in one of the

             19   largest cities of America.

             20        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you both.  Please

             21   leave copies of your written documents for the

             22   record.

             23             The next speaker is Jennifer James.

             24             STATEMENT OF JENNIFER JAMES

                                                                   139





              1        UNIDENTIFIED PERSON:  Good morning.  My name

              2   is Jennifer James.  I'm a stay-at-home parent in

              3   Chicago.  My husband is a pediatrician who has

              4   practiced in the urban Chicago neighborhoods for

              5   over the last five years.  I'd like to urge the

              6   EPA to substantially threaten their ozone standard

              7   to maintain the standards that is recommended by

              8   all of your advisory groups at all times at this

              9   point.

             10              As a mother of two small children in

             11   Chicago who attend a small urban public school, I

             12   can attest to the fact that more than half of the

             13   Hispanic students at my son's largely Hispanic

             14   school have asthma and they suffer greatly on days

             15   like today, which is an ozone action day.  Several

             16   of those children won't attend recess today and

             17   they will not be let outside.

             18              The day-to-day impact of weekend ozone

             19   standards on the public health and children in

             20   Chicago could be extremely detrimental to many,

             21   many children in many, many communities in our

             22   large urban city.

             23              That's all I have to say.

             24        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you so much, Ms. James.

                                                                   140





              1              It's 12:18, we don't have anymore

              2   registered speakers.  We will remain here until

              3   12:30, our scheduled lunch break, 12:30 until 2:00,

              4   at which time we'll resume again.  Again, I

              5   encourage any of you who may wish to speak to

              6   register at the registration table outside.

              7              I'd like to thank our other EPA

              8   colleagues behind the scenes that have helped so

              9   much running this public hearing smoothly and the

             10   ECR Corporation and our audio person and reporter,

             11   thank you for their help.

             12                  (WHEREUPON, a recess was had from

             13                  12:20 p.m. until 12:27 p.m.)

             14        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  We have one more speaker

             15   before we break for lunch and her name is Elaine

             16   Lemieux.  I would ask that you restate your name

             17   and spell it for the court reporter.

             18             STATEMENT OF ELAINE LEMIEUX

             19        MS. LEMIEUX:  Okay.  My name is Elaine

             20   Lemieux, L E M I U E X.

             21              Almost every day I walk with my daughter

             22   to her elementary school.  Personally I'm grateful

             23   to take this time and walk with her.

             24   Unfortunately, on our way to school we see on the

                                                                   141





              1   streets all kind of cars and trucks idling, for

              2   example, vehicles owned by the City of Chicago.  By

              3   leaving their engines running, the city workers

              4   pollute the air as well as waste fuel and money.

              5   The following was written by Rebecca Stanfield, the

              6   Environment Illinois State Director.

              7              "There is no question that reducing

              8   pollution from cars, now the source of about

              9   one-third of our nation's carbon dioxide emissions,

             10   will have to be a large part of the plan to protect

             11   the planet and our future from the threat of global

             12   warning."  It is clear that this also applies to

             13   cars, SUVs, trucks, buses and other motor vehicles.

             14              After much thought when I see all these

             15   cars and these trucks idling, I decided to do

             16   something.  I now talk directly to the city workers

             17   and every person I encounter on the street whose

             18   vehicles are idling.  One by one I ask them to turn

             19   off their engines.  To be more convincing, I

             20   designed the Pure Air card.  Every time I hand out

             21   the card, I ask them to turn off their engines.  I

             22   also ask them to spread the word.

             23              Recently I wrote a letter to the

             24   alderman, Mrs. Margaret Laurino, about my concerns.

                                                                   142





              1   I was very pleased to receive a letter from the

              2   Department of Fleet Management of the City of

              3   Chicago.  The Commissioner, Mr. Howard Henneman,

              4   informed me that in 2005, the City of Chicago took

              5   a step to implement its Vehicle Idling Management

              6   Policy.  In addition, the City of Chicago sent me

              7   some important information and this is what I put

              8   on the back of my card:  "Unnecessary idling of the

              9   City's fleet wastes approximately one gallon of

             10   fuel per hour for diesel vehicles and roughly .75

             11   gallons of fuel per hour for automobiles or

             12   light-duty vehicles," et cetera, all these facts,

             13   these many, many facts.  But there's a lot of

             14   carbon dioxide.  From a cost perspective, the same

             15   amount of idling would result in 2,900,000 in

             16   unnecessary fuel expenditure, lots of waste.

             17              These facts apply only for the City of

             18   Chicago Department of Fleet Management.  Imagine

             19   the number of the whole city and beyond.  So many

             20   cities and many states all around the U.S. adopt a

             21   new adoption law and regulation for better air

             22   quality.

             23              You know, we could put in the

             24   supermarket, in the Chicago Public Schools and in

                                                                   143





              1   the idling zone.  It's very easy to do, many

              2   parents waiting for their children idling their

              3   cars.  So this action can really make a difference.

              4   Unnecessary idling, it's a habit that costs us

              5   millions of dollars a day in wasted fuel and

              6   energy, produces enormous amount of pollutant and

              7   after all gets us nowhere.  When you have it, an

              8   easy idea has to be put into practice by everyone,

              9   it is simply by turning off our engine when not

             10   driving and when you're waiting.

             11              I really wish that everyone could

             12   receive this Pure Air message so we could

             13   altogether really make a difference.  This country

             14   is capable to be one of the leaders in environment

             15   issues.

             16              Thank you.

             17        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you.  And we will take

             18   your written testimony and your card.  Thank you

             19   very much.  We are going to take two more

             20   presenters before a lunch break, Mr. Vinson Hellwig

             21   and Ms. Andrea Daniels.

             22              I just want to make sure that at our

             23   registration table they informed you of the

             24   logistics here.  You have five minutes to speak,

                                                                   144





              1   green light, yellow light and red light.

              2              Mr. Hellwig.

              3             STATEMENT OF VINSON HELLWIG

              4        MR. HELLWIG:  My name is Vince Hellwig, I'm

              5   Chief of the Air Quality Division at the Michigan

              6   Department of Environmental Quality.  I'm also a

              7   member of the National Association of Clean Air

              8   Agencies, NACAA, on the Board of Directors and

              9   serve as co-chair of the association's Air Toxics

             10   Committee.  I am testifying today not for the state

             11   of Michigan, but rather on behalf of NACAA, which

             12   is an association of air pollution control agencies

             13   in 54 states and territories and over 165

             14   metropolitan areas across the country.  I'm

             15   testifying today on EPA's ozone National Ambient

             16   Air Quality Standards.  I'm testifying here today

             17   on behalf NACAA.

             18              NACAA commends EPA for proposing to set

             19   a more stringent primary ozone NAAQS to protect

             20   public health.  Ozone exposure is linked to a

             21   myriad of diverse health effects including

             22   premature mortality in people with heart and lung

             23   disease and recent evidence shows that the adverse

             24   health effects occur in concentrations lower than

                                                                   145





              1   the current standards.  Although we appreciate

              2   EPA's proposal for tighter standards, we

              3   nevertheless have significant concerns with the

              4   agency's proposal.

              5              The EPA is a congressionally chartered

              6   body of independent scientific advisors, the Clean

              7   Air Scientific Advisory Committee, CASAC,

              8   unanimously concluded based on several significant

              9   ethnological studies and clinical studies that the

             10   primary ozone standard needs to be substantially

             11   reduced and recommended strengthening the primary

             12   ozone facts to a level within the range of .060,

             13   .070 parts per million.

             14              However, EPA's proposed range of level,

             15   .070 to .075 parts per million, falls outside the

             16   range that were recommended unanimously by CASAC.

             17   The proposal coincides only if CASAC's upper bound.

             18   In determining the levels requisite to protect the

             19   public health and welfare, NACAA strongly believes

             20   that EPA should follow the science, the learned,

             21   informed advice of CASAC.

             22              Given CASAC's statutorily defined role

             23   from NACAA review process, EPA needs to

             24   specifically indicate why it should follow the

                                                                   146





              1   advice of its independent scientific advisors.  In

              2   addition, we question why EPA is considering

              3   retaining the current standard at .084 parts per

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

              5   scientific evidence clearly demonstrates adverse

              6   health effects at the current standard.  CASAC said

              7   it best, there's no scientific justification for

              8   retaining the current primary eight-hour NAAQS.

              9              Turning now to the secondary ozone

             10   standards to protect public welfare, NACAA is

             11   pleased that EPA has proposed a distinct,

             12   cumulative seasonal standard.  Ozone inhibits

             13   photosynthesis, inhibits root growth, negatively

             14   affects tree growth and causes visible damage to

             15   leaves and reduces agricultural crop yields.  A

             16   cumulative seasonal standard more directly

             17   correlates with the exposure of plants to ozone,

             18   since plants are exposed to ozone during the entire

             19   ozone season.

             20              As with the primary standard, EPA's

             21   proposal is a step in the right direction but falls

             22   short of what science indicates is needed.  While

             23   EPA did propose promulgating a distinct, cumulative

             24   seasonal standard W126, the Agency's proposed range

                                                                   147





              1   for a level just outside CASAC's range.

              2              In addition, we are troubled that EPA

              3   proposed as an alternative secondary making the

              4   secondary standard identical to the primary

              5   standard, despite agreement among CASAC, the

              6   ecological experts convened in a 1997 workshop and

              7   EPA staff on the need for a distinct, cumulative,

              8   seasonal secondary standard to protect vegetation.

              9              Finally, with respect to both primary

             10   and secondary standards, to the extent that new

             11   peer-reviewed scientific studies have been

             12   published in scientific journals since EPA proposed

             13   this rule, we encourage the Agency, time

             14   permitting, under the court-ordered deadline, to

             15   review these studies during its deliberation of a

             16   final rule.

             17              We are further concerned that EPA in its

             18   proposal, as in the particular matter NAAQS is

             19   mixing in implementation issues in a rule setting a

             20   health-based standard.

             21              EPA needs to erect a strong firewall

             22   between standard setting and health-based issues.

             23   The Supreme Court in Whitman versus American

             24   Trucking Association was very clear that EPA may

                                                                   148





              1   not consider the cost of implementation in setting

              2   the NAAQS.  In addition, for quality reasons, the

              3   EPA should not let considerations of implementation

              4   to bleed into standard-setting.

              5              The benefits of setting strong standard

              6   are part of a measure.  One cannot precisely

              7   identify whose life was saved, whose child had

              8   fewer asthma attacks, which trees grew faster and

              9   stronger because of less ozone pollution.  The

             10   cost, on the other hand, can be more easily

             11   tallied, and once considerations of implementation

             12   bleed into standard-setting, then the human

             13   propensity for avoiding pain makes it likely that

             14   some stakeholders will clamor for a weaker standard

             15   to avoid these talks.

             16              Let me close by staying that while EPA

             17   should not conflate implementation and

             18   standard-setting issues in this rulemaking,

             19   whatever decision EPA makes on the level and form

             20   of the primary and secondary NAAQS will have a

             21   profound impact on the work of state and local

             22   clean air agencies.  EPA must recognize this, not

             23   in setting the NAAQSs, but in timely future

             24   rulemakings and appropriation requests by

                                                                   149





              1   requesting sufficient funds for state and local

              2   clean air agencies to carry out work associated

              3   with meeting the new NAAQS.

              4        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you Mr. Hellwig.  We'll

              5   take down your written comments and put them in the

              6   record.

              7              Thank you.

              8        MR. HELLWIG:  Thank you for allowing me to

              9   testify.

             10        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Ms. Daniels.

             11            STATEMENT OF ANDREA DANIELS.

             12        MS. DANIELS:  Thank you for allowing me to

             13   speak on this issue.  I'm a private citizen and I

             14   just want to say a few simple comments about a

             15   complex issue to me as an no-brainer that the

             16   environmental protection agency should lower the

             17   standard to 0.060.  I am an avid bike rider, I ride

             18   my bike to work every day and I notice the effects

             19   of air pollution.  I also have asthma and it's not

             20   fun to use your inhaler when you get to work

             21   because you are sucking in all of the polluted air.

             22   There has to be something is addressed.  This is

             23   the world in which we live, and as I said, it is a

             24   no-brainer, to me and to everyone who wants to

                                                                   150





              1   breathe clean air.

              2              So thank you for my time to speak here

              3   and I hope that we can reach a consensus.  Thank

              4   you.

              5        MS. RODRIGUEZ:  Thank you, Ms. Dennis.  We

              6   will break now for lunch and we'll resume the

              7   public hearing on at 2:00.

              8                (WHEREUPON, the hearing was

              9                        recessed until 2:00 p.m.,

             10                        this date.)

             11

             12

             13

             14

             15

             16

             17

             18

             19

             20

             21

             22

             23

             24










